# A Compact Fireball Model of Gamma Ray Bursts

## 1 Introduction

Gamma ray burst spectra typically peak at several hundred KeV, and frequently (though not always) have an extended non-thermal tail that contains a significant fraction of the total energy. Although the high energy side of the peak is hard to characterize with reliable generalizations, classical GRB’s seem to typically peak above 100 KeV; a significantly softer peak is a sign that the GRB is in a separate class of ”soft repeaters”. Though this has been suggested to be a selection effect, we believe it to be real. The total luminosity in soft X-rays is typically below the luminosity above 100 KeV by an order of magnitude or more. When one considers that, realistically, an emitting surface will have some dispersion in its local temperature (e.g. a hot spot is likely to have cool edges, relativistic beaming from material moving directly at the observer is likely to be mixed with contributions from fluid with a sideways component to its motion etc.) the X-ray paucity seems all the more clean and significant.

We believe that the characteristic peak energy of about 200 KeV is not merely a chance value or selection effect, but is rather telling us something important about GRB’s. In this paper we construct a model that, by design, yields this characteristic peak energy naturally. The basic assertion is that the gamma rays near the peak are emitted from a compact region of radius R not much greater than about $`10^9\mathrm{\Gamma }`$cm, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the bulk Lorentz factor of the expanding fireball. Earlier discussions and variations of this basic idea include those by Eichler (1994) and Thompson (1997). Energization of the pair plasma at this radius could come from internal shocks (e.g., Eichler 1994; Rees & Meszaros 1994; Sari & Piran 1997) but could also come from, say, collimation by surrounding baryonic material. The possibility of collimation may be motivated by the huge fluence from recently discovered GRB’s such as GRB 990123. Interaction with the collimating material could produce strong internal shock, or could proceed via radiative viscosity with the wall of the collimating material.

In the latter process, dissipation (i.e. creation of additional quanta) would proceed very efficiently when the average photon energy in the observer frame approached $`m_ec^2`$, for then large angle scattering by the walls of the collimating material of photons back into the jet, where they could appear in the local frame to be blueshifted to even higher energy, would allow creation of additional pairs. Once the average energy per quantum in the observer frame goes far enough below $`m_ec^2`$, this dissipation mechanism would taper off. This is true of any dissipation mechanism that proceeds by pair creation. The point is that, if the clustering of GRB peaks near or just below $`m_ec^2`$ is to be regarded as a signature of dissipation by pair production, then such dissipation would probably occur at modest $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, or else the product of large $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with a small fireball frame energy per quantum consistently yielding a given value for the observer’s frame would seem a puzzling coincidence. If the dissipation is to take place at modest $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we argue that this probably indicates compact scales, before the fireball accelerates to its asymptotic value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which according to several considerations is quite large ($`300`$).

At compact scales, thermalization is a strong possibility, and sets a convenient reference point for the analysis, but there is no implication that non-thermal effects are absent, or that the photon spectrum need look thermal on either side of the peak. Our view is that the non-thermal component in GRB’s is not, insofar as can be currently established by observations, as remarkably consistent from burst to burst as is the spectral peak. Thus, non-thermal acceleration might proceed downstream of the photosphere, as in optically thin synchrotron models of bursts with only the constraint that the non-thermal component never dwarf the thermal component (in total photons produced). The rationale for why both components might be of the same order of magnitude is given in section 3, where it is shown that the energy budget of the burst released in the internal shocks of an unsteady flow might be distributed logarithmically over a broad range of radii.

It is also possible that direct shock energization of photons (Blandford and Payne, 1982) can create a non-thermal photon spectrum up to 100 KeV in the frame of the fluid just below the photosphere by a shock that passes through the photosphere of a GRB (Eichler 1994). The photons would escape before they are thermalized or saturatedly Comptonized. We will argue in this paper that the material at the photosphere could be moving with a bulk Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ that exceeds 300, depending on the extent to which non-thermal processes maintain a pair population well above the Boltzmann equilibrium value. Thus the high energy cutoff of the non-thermal spectrum could be above 30 MeV in the frame of the observer. The total photon number would have been established to within a factor of order unity well within the photosphere (at an optical depth of order $`1/\alpha `$ if by bremsstrahlung). On the other hand, the photon number density could change by a factor of order unity over the hydrodynamical timescale if the expansion, assumed to be unsteady, deviates from adiabaticity by a substantial margin. In this case, self absorption, which would keep the photon number steady in a static environment, fails to do so in the course of the expansion. As the Comptonization timescale just below the photosphere is at least as long as the hydrodynamical timescale, the spectrum of soft photons is not fully saturated by Comptonization.

Since the photospheric radius in our model is considerably smaller than in some other models, which by design recognize the restrictions on R and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ implied by the escape of energetic, non-thermal gamma rays, we redo the calculation of this restriction in a transparent manner and show that it is consistent with the other restrictions that we invoke here. These calculations show that prompt very energetic gamma rays are possible, even prompt TeV ones, depending on the strength of the magnetic field. Conceivably, detection and time resolution of very energetic gamma rays in future experiments could set a useful diagnostic of the field strength and bulk Lorentz factor.

While the constraint of X-ray paucity might not be rigorous, and reconcilable with a ”just-so” selection of parameters, we note that, historically, it was taken seriously (Imamura & Epstein 1987) before the cosmological GRB picture was made popular by the all sky isotropy established by BATSE observations.

To avoid confusion, we define several distinct time intervals: The elapsed time in the frame of the fireball as the fireball evolves through radius R is called $`\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}`$ and is equal to $`R/c\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The characteristic timescale of variation of the emission as seen by the external observer is called $`\delta t`$ and is generally taken to be of order (in any case, at least) $`R/c\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$.

Henceforth, primed quantities denote quantities measured in the comoving frame, whereas unprimed quantities refer to quantities measured in the frame of the central engine. Subscripted quantities refer to that quantity expressed as the power of ten in cgs units denoted by the subscript. $`R_{12}`$ for example means the radius R expressed in units of $`10^{12}`$ cm.

## 2 X-Ray Paucity

A noteworthy feature of gamma ray burst spectra is the so-called paucity of X-rays. Although some BATSE spectra (though apparently not all, Preece $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑡}`$ $`\mathrm{𝑎𝑙}.`$ 1999) may be consistent with the instantaneous synchrotron radiation spectrum of a mono-energetic electron population, which would go as $`\nu I(\nu )d\nu \nu ^{4/3}d\nu `$, they are often too hard to be the time integrated spectrum of such a population, $`\nu I(\nu )\nu ^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, often too hard to be the optically thin instantaneous (i.e. thin target) emission of a shock accelerated spectrum, $`\nu I\nu ^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, and usually too hard to be the thick target emission spectrum of shock accelerated electrons $`\nu I(\nu )`$ constant. For reviews of spectral distribution see Pendleton et al. (1994) and Band et al. (1993). Popular fireball models often assume that the primary peak of the burst radiation comes from thermal electrons that have been accelerated to large enough energies to synchrotron radiate at several hundred KeV, but this, in our opinion, requires much fine tuning. It requires that the magnetic field value, the electron energy and the bulk Lorentz factor always conspire to put the peak at several hundred KeV; it is seldom below that for most GRB’s. (It has been debated that the narrow range of $`\nu I_\nu `$ peaks seen in GRB’s can be attributed to instrumental effects \[Dermer, et al. 1998\]. Here we are motivated to find a physical explanation.) Another problem with optically thin synchrotron emission is that invoking a thin target spectrum means low radiation efficiency, unless there is additional fine tuning. On the other hand allowing the electrons to radiate most of their energy in the magnetic field (”thick target emission”) would make too much softer X-radiation.

Invoking optically thin inverse Compton emission (IC) for the peak gamma rays would seemingly exacerbate the problem, because the energy of the seed photons is less likely to be monoenergetic than the virtual photons in the magnetic field, and even more fine tuning would be required to ensure that the upscattered photons always peak at $`300`$ KeV. \[A saturated IC spectrum has far fewer free parameters (Liang 1998) and is indeed considered below, but the location of the peak still depends on the total number of quanta produced per unit energy. So we will consider such production first.\]

Here we interpret the X-ray paucity as being due to self absorption. The simplest version of this interpretation is to identify the typical GRB peak at $`300KeV`$ as being the Wien peak of a thermal spectrum with a temperature of $`10^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ KeV, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the bulk Lorentz factor. If we interpret the paucity of X-rays from GRB’s as being due to a black-body limit, then we can infer that the temperature of the radiation as seen by the observer must typically be $`10^2KeV`$ or more. If the brightness temperature at the frequency of maximum brightness temperature $`\omega _m`$ is indeed at the black body limit $`T_mh\omega _m`$, then the energy density in the frame of the fireball, $`aT_m^4`$ is limited by the condition that

$$4\pi R^2c\mathrm{\Gamma }^2aT^410^{51}L_{51}ergs^1.$$
(1)   
The condition that the spectra typically peak at $`ϵ_\gamma 300ϵ_{300}`$ KeV implies that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }T_m10^9Kϵ_{300}.$$
(2)   
This implies that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }10^{4.25}L_{51}^{\frac{1}{2}}R_{13}ϵ_{300}^2.$$
(3)   
Although this admits unlimited values for both $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and R, we note the following simple argument that could guide a choice of both: Liberating $`10^{51}`$ ergs within neutron star dimensions creates fewer photons, with larger average energy, than dictated by GRB observations, so some additional photon production must have taken place. If the (photon creating) dissipation takes place at modest $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (say $`\mathrm{\Gamma }10`$), then equation (3) implies that $`R10^{10}`$ cm for $`L_{51}`$ and $`ϵ_{300}`$ of unity. If the dissipation were to take place at large $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and perhaps larger R, the question would arise as to why the combination of the two always conspired to yield average photon energies of order several hundred KeV. On the other hand, assuming that the dissipation takes place at modest $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ provides a natural reason why the photon production should stop once the average photon energy is comfortably below (but not much further below) the pair production threshold: the cycle of pair production by photons and photon production by pairs naturally terminates at this point (e.g. Cavallo & Rees, 1978; Blandford & Levinson, 1995). For example, we might associate the additional photon production with the sharp, large angle deflections the flow might experience while being collimated into jets by a surrounding baryonic outflow. If thermalized at modest $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, say at a dissipation radius $`R_{dis}`$, and the flow expands more or less adiabatically beyond that point, then the temperature would from there on scale as 1/R, while $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ would scale as R as long as the fireball remained baryon pure (to avoid a minimum rest mass per unit energy release) and sufficiently optically thick (so that pairs were in thermal equilibrium with radiation). Thus equation (3) would continue to be satisfied as long as there were no further processing of the thermal photons. Neglecting, tentatively, non-thermal pair production, the thermal pair density would become negligible at a temperature well below $`3\times 10^8`$K (Paczynski 1986; Goodman 1986), and would thus establish a photosphere at a radius of about $`10R_{dis}`$, with a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of order 10 or less. The value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ could increase to $`10^3`$ within a radius of $`10^{12}`$ cm as long as there were no baryon loading.

The possibility of non-thermal or grey body (rather than black body) pair production would allow for somewhat larger dissipation radius than given by equation (3). This possiblity should not alter many of the conclusions of the paper much (though see immediately below). The basic point is that the modest $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ that we invoke for the production site of the GRB photons seems much smaller than the asymptotic values ($`300`$) that are deduced from other considerations, and the implication is that much of the photon production in GRB’s comes prior to the acceleration of the flow from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=10`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=300`$

Given equation (3), with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of order 10, the characteristic timescale of variation of photons from such a photosphere, if of order $`R_{dis}/c\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$, comes out naturally to be of order 3 milliseconds.

As has been noted many times, gamma rays observed by COMPTEL at about 20 MeV would pair produce at these radii unless the bulk Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ exceeded about 20. On the other hand, beyond the photosphere, the bulk Lorentz factor of a baryon poor wind can grow in proportion to R, so that the condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }20`$ is attained not much beyond the photosphere. We contend that any COMPTEL gamma ray emitted at $`R3\times 10^{10}`$ cm at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }30`$ would not be subject to pair production and could in principle reproduce time variations as short as 10 ms.

In the particularly well studied burst GRB 930131, COMPTEL detected gamma rays out to 20 MeV or so with a time profile very similar to that of the BATSE profile, and we suggest that this be interpreted as both energy ranges reflecting the intrinsic time profile of the energy release. On the other hand, the EGRET gamma rays at 30 MeV, of which there were several, typically arrived several seconds after the BATSE and COMPTEL peaks, and this is consistent with the hypothesis that the shortest time profile for the EGRET gamma rays was of order seconds.

## 3 High Energy Gamma Rays: Production

Although it is tempting if only for simplicity to model GRB as coming from a particular characteristic radius, the following argument suggests that a broad range of emission radii is no less natural. As long as the fireball is not baryon loaded and not complicated by non-spherical expansion, the bulk Lorentz factor increases linearly with R. The proper time in the frame of the fireball is then described by

$$dt^{}=dt/\mathrm{\Gamma }dR/R.$$
(4)   
It follows that the proper time evolves only logarithmically with R. The duration of shock activity (e.g. due to very clumpy baryon contamination, fluctuations in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at launch, etc.) in the proper frame $`\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}`$, which is likely to be of order the mean time $`t^{}`$ around which such activity is centered, thus persists over a large range of radii R. That is, the range of radii over which there is shock activity, $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$, is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }lnRln(\frac{R}{R_0})`$, where $`R_0`$ denotes the beginning of the acceleration zone and might be close to $`R_{dis}`$. If $`\frac{R}{R_0}1`$, then shocks could persist over many decades of R, particularly shocks associated with the launch of the fireball, which can be delayed or ”dragged out” to $`RR_o`$ by the time dilation. Previous discussions of internal shocks occuring at some characteristic radius (Levinson & Eichler 1993, Eichler 1994, Rees & Meszaros 1994) have perhaps not emphasized this point. (We agree, however, that shocks resulting purely from fluctuations in the saturation radius, at which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ approaches its asymptotic value, are likely to form near the mean value of that radius if the launch conditions are otherwise identical and if the baryonic contamination is not too clumpy.) We contend that there is no reason to expect all of the gamma rays from GRB’s to come from the same radius. We therefore consider the evaluation of gammaspheric radii as a function of gamma ray energy.

In order to emit gamma rays at energy E, the fireball must be able to accelerate the particles to at least energy E, and the gamma rays must then be able to escape.

The first condition is expressed as

$$\gamma _m\sigma _TU^{}/m_ec=\eta eB^{}/\gamma _mm_ec$$
(5)   
where $`\gamma _m`$ is the maximum Lorentz factor in the frame of the fluid that is achievable by the acceleration, $`U^{}`$ is the energy density of the radiation field in the frame of the fireball fluid element, $`B^{}`$ is the field strength in the fluid frame in cgs units and $`\eta `$ is the acceleration rate in units of the electron gyrofrequency. For any reasonable acceleration mechanism, $`\eta `$ should be less than unity and for shock acceleration a value of order 1 to 10 percent seems like a reasonable guess. Writing $`U^{}`$ as $`10^{51}L_{51}ergs^1/4\pi R^2c\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ equation (5) implies that

$$\gamma _m/\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.5\eta ^{\frac{1}{2}}R_{12}B^{\frac{1}{2}}L_{51}^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(6)   
For $`L_{51}=1`$, and assuming that the Poynting flux is limited by $`10^{51}L_{51}`$ ergs per $`4\pi `$ steradians, the last equation reduces to

$$\gamma _m\mathrm{\Gamma }=6\times 10^3\eta ^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\frac{3}{2}}R_{12}^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(7)   
Note that if $`B=\mathrm{\Gamma }B^{}`$ scales as $`1/R`$, then the maximum energy in the frame of the fireball to which electrons can be accelerated increases as $`R^{1/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/2}`$, as seen from eq. (6). This implies that the ability of the fireball to accelerate electrons to extremely high energies increases sharply with radius. At small radii,

$$R_{12}2\eta ^{\frac{1}{2}}B^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(8)   
a shock cannot accelerate electrons to a high enough energy to pair produce via inverse Compton scattering of thermal photons,. (i.e. to a Lorentz factor of $`\gamma _m\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which would be needed given that the photons near the spectral peak have energies less than $`m_ec^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the fluid frame).

At a radius of order $`10^{12}`$ cm, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }40`$, equation (7) admits TeV gamma rays which could arrive within a fraction of a second if they escape freely.

If non-thermal pairs are made at larger radii than given in equation (8), they could conceivably Compton scatter the thermal photons that were made at smaller radii. If the thermal photons constitute most of the burst’s photons and most (or much of) its energy, further scattering by pairs downstream cannot greatly alter the parameters of the thermal component.

## 4 High Energy Gamma Rays: Escape

In order to compute the pair production opacity contributed by the beamed photons and the associated gammaspheric radii, we consider a conical beam of emission with an opening semiangle $`\theta _b`$, and a power law spectrum which is taken to be constant with radius: $`n(ϵ_s)=n_oϵ_s^\alpha `$; $`ϵ_{min}<ϵ<ϵ_{max}`$ where $`n_o`$ is expressed in terms of the apparent luminosity, $`L`$, as

$$n_o=\frac{L}{4\pi ^2m_ec^3r^2}(1\mu _b^2)^1G(ϵ_{max},ϵ_{min})\frac{L\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4\pi ^2m_ec^3r^2}G(ϵ_{max},ϵ_{min}),$$
(9)   
where $`\mu _b=\mathrm{cos}\theta _b`$, $`G(ϵ_{max},ϵ_{min})=[\mathrm{ln}(ϵ_{max}/ϵ_{min})]^1`$ for $`\alpha =2`$, and $`G(ϵ_{max},ϵ_{min})=(2\alpha )/(ϵ_{max}^{2\alpha }ϵ_{min}^{2\alpha })`$ for $`\alpha 2`$. The pair production opacity at energy $`ϵ_\gamma `$ (measured in units of $`mc^2`$) can then be expressed as

$$\kappa _p(ϵ_\gamma )=2\pi _{ϵ_{min}}^{ϵ_{max}}𝑑ϵ_s_{\mu _b}^{\mu _{max}}𝑑\mu \{(1\mu )n(ϵ_s)\sigma _p(\beta )\}.$$
(10)   
Here $`\mu _{max}=`$ max$`\{\mu _b;12/ϵ_sϵ_\gamma \}`$, and $`\sigma _P(\beta )`$ is the pair-production cross section, where $`\beta `$ is the speed of the electron and the positron in the center of momentum frame, and is given by

$$(1\beta ^2)=\frac{2}{(1\mu )ϵ_\gamma ϵ_s}.$$
(11)   
The threshold energy, obtained for $`\beta =0`$ and $`\mu =\mu _b`$, now reads: $`ϵ_{thrs}=2/(1\mu _b)ϵ_\gamma 4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2/ϵ_\gamma `$. Substituting eq. (9) into eq. (10) yields

$$\kappa _p=\frac{3\sigma _TL}{16\pi m_ec^3r^2}\frac{1}{2^{2\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{2\alpha }}G(ϵ_{max},ϵ_{min})A(\alpha ,\beta _{max})ϵ_\gamma ^{\alpha 1},$$
(12)   
where

$$A(\alpha ,\beta _{max})=\frac{1}{\alpha +1}_0^{\beta _{max}}𝑑\beta \beta (1\beta ^2)^{\alpha 1}\left[(3\beta ^4)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }\right)2\beta (2\beta ^2)\right].$$
(13)   
The function $`A`$ can be evaluated numerically. It vanishes for energies below the threshold energy at which $`\beta _{max}=0`$. A plot of $`A`$ versus $`\alpha `$ for $`\beta _{max}=1`$ (which is a good approximation well above the threshold energy) is given in Blandford & Levinson (1995). Numerically we find $`A=0.2`$ for a photon index $`\alpha =2`$.

Now, the gamma-spheric radius, $`r_\gamma (ϵ_\gamma )`$, is defined implicitly by the equation

$$_{r_\gamma }^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\kappa _p(r,ϵ_\gamma )=1.$$
(14)   
Using the above expression for the opacity, one obtains

$$r_\gamma (ϵ_\gamma )=1.6\times 10^{21}L_{51}(2\mathrm{\Gamma })^{2\alpha }G(ϵ_{max},ϵ_{min})A(\alpha ,\beta _{max})ϵ_\gamma ^{(\alpha 1)}\mathrm{cm},$$
(15)   
up to a numerical factor that depends on the radial profile of the Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Adopting, for illustration, $`\alpha =2`$, $`ϵ_{min}=2`$, $`ϵ_{max}=2\times 10^3`$, yields a threshold energy of 10$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^2`$ MeV, a gammaspheric radius

$$r_\gamma (ϵ_\gamma )=2.8\times 10^{10}\frac{L_{51}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^4}ϵ_\gamma \mathrm{cm}$$
(16)   
above the threshold energy, and a corresponding variability time

$$\delta t=\frac{r_\gamma }{2c\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}=5\times 10^5\frac{L_{51}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^6}ϵ_\gamma s.$$
(17)   
These last equations admit rather high energy gamma rays emerging from rather compact regions. Even the GeV gamma rays observed by EGRET can in principle emerge from within $`10^{12}`$ cm if the bulk Lorentz factor is 300 or more.

The above results may be considerably altered in the presence of additional radiation component. For instance, large angle scattering of the beamed photons by ambient gas surrounding the fireball, e.g., a confining, baryon-rich outflow (Nakamura 1998; MacFadyen & Woosley 1998; Eichler & Levinson 1999), can produce an unbeamed component that will dominate the pair production opacity within the baryon-poor jet even if its luminosity is only a small fraction of the total. It may then be that high energy gamma rays can escape only from parts of the baryon-poor jet that have run ahead of surrounding baryons. 

## 5 Comparison of Constraints on Baryon Contamination

The cooling of the plasma to $`2\times 10^8`$ K, so that the Boltzman factor for pairs becomes miniscule, is a necessary condition for small photospheres, but it is not a sufficient one. Electrons may be entrained from the sides (e.g. via neutron seepage) and non-thermal pairs may be produced under some conditions. Let us then consider the limits on the net baryon number within a jet that features a compact photosphere.

Writing

$$\dot{M}=4\pi m_pnR^2\beta c$$
(18)   
and using $`\sigma _TnR=\tau \mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$, where $`\tau `$ is optical depth, and letting $`\tau `$ be unity at the photospheric radius $`R_{ph}`$, we easily obtain

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ph}^22.5\times 10^5L_{51}R_{ph13}^1$$
(19)   
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ is defined as $`L/\dot{M}c^2`$.

If the photosphere were to occur at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ph}10`$, and $`R_{ph}`$ of order $`10^{10}`$ cm, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ would have to be enormous, of order $`10^6`$, and might be convincing evidence that an event horizon enforces baryon purity on field lines that thread it. On theother hand, the compactness constraint that motivates our model does not imply that the photons that have been produced within $`10^{10}`$ cm necessarily make their last scattering there, it merely implies that they are not swamped by a much larger number of photons made at larger radii, nor drained of their energy by mass loading (which would terminate the linear increase of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with R). They may be scattered by material that is both dynamically and thermodynamically passive; the timescale and spectrum could remain the same.

We may combine equations (3), (19) and the obvious condition that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ph}`$, to obtain that at $`R_{ph}10^{11}`$cm, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ must exceed $`200`$. If the photosphere were constrained by some other consideration to be larger than this, then equations (3) and (19) similarly constrain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ph}`$ to be greater as well.

## 6 Conclusions

We have suggested that a significant fraction of the photons from gamma ray bursts are emitted at a radius of about $`10^{10}`$ cm or less , where the bulk Lorentz factor is modest. This allows the burst entropy to be established at modest $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, so that the peak energy in the observer’s frame can be tied directly to $`m_ec^2`$ as oppsed to a small fraction of $`m_ec^2`$ to be multiplied by a large $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. It also provides a natural account of why GRBs have time substructure of milliseconds.

The photosphere (surface of last scattering) may be larger than the radius of emission, but whether inequality (3) is satisfied is independent of R as long as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ remains proportional to R. Thus, the fulfillment of (3) is unaffected by passive scattering material.

Higher energy, non-thermal gamma rays may be produced even beyond the photosphere of lower energy ones, but we found in section IV that even GeV gamma rays could escape from within $`10^{12}`$ cm for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of order 300.

TeV gamma rays could, in principle, escape if produced within $`10^{12}`$ to $`10^{13}`$ cm for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of order $`10^3`$ and would be prompt. Thus, it seems worthwhile to run experiments that could detect prompt, ultrahigh, non-thermal gamma rays from an unannounced direction. The MILAGRO project is such a detector, though the universe may be opaque to the photons ($`ϵ_\gamma 1`$ TeV) to which it is sensitive. A similar experiment with a lower energy threshold - say $`10^2`$ GeV - might detect prompt UHE emission from a sizeable fraction of GRB’s. Detection of prompt gamma rays above 100 GeV might be the best diagnostic of the bulk Lorentz factors of GRB fireballs.

To conclude, the radius of emission and radius of last scattering of thermal gamma rays in GRB’s may be different, but both may occur well within $`10^{12}`$ cm. Non-thermal, high energy gamma rays may be produced at and escape from somewhat larger radii than the thermal ones, but they too can emerge from compact regions provided that the bulk Lorentz factor is sufficiently high. Soft echos of primary gamma radiation scattered off baryonic matter might provide (via their time scales) limits on the photospheric radius for the bulk of the gamma rays.

We acknowledge support from the Israel Science Foundation. We thank Dr. E. Waxman for useful discussions.