# Supernovae, Pulsars and Gamma-Ray Bursts: A Unified Picture

## 1. Introduction

There is by now strong evidence (Metzger et al. 1997; Kulkarni et al. 1998a) that at least some gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are extragalactic in origin. While GRBs and subsequent “afterglows” in lower energy bands are well explained by the fireball model (e.g., Rees & Mézsáros 1992, RM92 henceforth; Paczynski & Rhodes 1993; Waxman 1997), the underlying energy source remains a mystery. In this Letter I propose a GRB model which is directly related to what we know exist and has direct consequences that can be tested by current and future observations.

## 2. Ultra-relativistic Jet from SN as GRB

Most SNe are thought to produce strongly magnetized, rapidly rotating neutron stars, which later often emit radio pulses (“pulsar”; Manchester & Taylor 1997). Gunn & Ostriker (1970) were the first to recognize that Galactic pulsars have a much larger random velocity than their progenitor massive stars. Modern observations of proper motion of pulsars indicate even larger velocities with an average of about $`450\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}`$ (Taylor & Cordes 1993; Lyne & Lorimer 1994). Additional supportive evidence comes from observations of pulsar bow shocks (Cordes, Romani, & Lundgren 1993; Predehl & Kulkarni 1995; Kaper et al. 1997). Since not only pulsars in binaries but solitary pulsars have large velocities, it appears necessary to invoke “natal kicks” imparted to newborn neutron stars due to asymmetrical processes during SNe. 

Several mechanisms have been suggested for asymmetrical SN explosions, including local hydrodynamic instabilities (e.g., Herant & Woosley 1994; Burrows, Hayes, & Frywell 1995; Janka & Mueller 1996), global high order gravity modes instabilities (Goldreich, Lai, & Sahrling 1996) and strong magnetic field induced asymmetries (Chugai 1984; Benesh & Horowitz 1997; Lai & Qian 1998; Elmfors 1998; Janka 1998). While the actual physical cause for the natal kick is yet unclear, it is clear that some asymmetries must have also occurred in the remainder of the SN progenitor besides the neutron star, in the opposite momentum direction. It is also clear that the process that produce the asymmetries should be very swift in the presence of rapid rotation of proto-neutron stars, unless the asymmetry aligns with the rotation axis. Here a concrete picture is conjectured, merely to illuminate the picture but not to limit possibilities.

It seems natural to hypothesize that such an asymmetry aligns with the magnetic axis or the rotation axis (or both) of the core. These two axes often make an angle so as to enable pulsars. Let us now imagine that the material above (and perhaps some region below) the neutrinosphere in a small cone (solid angle $`\mathrm{\Omega }10^2`$sr) around that special axis is preferentially first blown out of the deep gravitational potential of the star perhaps due to a stronger shockwave in that direction, which in turn may be caused by a combination of various physical processes including magnetohydrodynamics, neutrino dynamics in the presence of strong magnetic field (for example, parity violation in weak interactions), thermonuclear and gravitational processes. Subsequently, when the trapped neutrinos start to escape from the core, this narrow cone becomes a preferred exit — a “volcano” phenomenon. A fraction of the neutrinos annihilate and convert into an electron-positron pair plasma, which rushes through the cone carrying with it a small fraction of residual baryonic matter in the cone. An ultra-relativistic “jet” is born. Whether or not this jet collides with the material in the cone that was expelled out earlier has dramatically different consequences, which will be discussed later. The subsequent evolution of the jet is similar to a spherical fireball model, at least at early stages when transverse diffusion of the material in the jet can be neglected.

The above depicted mechanism for the formation of an ultra-relativistic jet is based neither on observational evidence nor on firm theoretical evidence. The key element here is to couple a significant fraction of the total gravitational collapse energy of the core (mostly in neutrinos) to a very small amount of baryonic matter (see below). But, regardless what the detailed picture of the jet formation may turn out to be, the following analyses of the energetics and rates of such events as well as the subsequent discussions of the observational consequences of the resultant GRBs are, for the most part, independent of such details. 

First, let us check the rates of such events. According to Mao & Paczyński (1992), the GRB rate is $`2\times 10^6`$yr<sup>-1</sup> per $`L^{}`$ galaxy, and according to Woosley & Weaver (1986) the SN rate (for all types of SNe combined) is $`0.02`$yr<sup>-1</sup> per $`L^{}`$ galaxy. There are, of course, differences between different types of SNe. For instance, in Type Ia SNe core collapse is expected not to occur, so GRBs (of the sort described here) should not be associated with them. For simplicity, our analysis below will use Type II SNe to consider energetics and assume that every SN produces a GRB. It will be simple to rescale energetics, beaming solid angles and other quantities if only a subset of SNe are responsible for GRBs. Hence, the beaming solid angle is $`\mathrm{\Omega }4\pi (2\times 10^6/0.02)\times X4\pi 10^3`$sr, merely relating the two rates. Note that the factor $`X`$ ($`=10`$) is inserted somewhat arbitrarily to reflect that a large number of faint GRBs may have been missed by current observations.

Second, the energy budget. We assume that a fraction, $`(\eta +1)\mathrm{\Omega }/4\pi `$, of the total neutrinos go through the putative cone, where $`\eta `$ is an enhancement factor ($`>1`$) since the cone is a preferred direction for neutrinos to escape. We further assume that a fraction $`0.003`$ (Goodman et al. 1987) of the neutrinos turns to a pair plasma. Then, $`3\times 10^3(\eta +1)(\mathrm{\Omega }/4\pi )E_\nu `$ will be carried away by the pair plasma in the cone. The total neutrino energy in the core is $`E_\nu 6\times 10^{53}`$erg (e.g., Wilson et al. 1986 for SN modeling, consistent with observations of SN1987A, e.g., Bahcall, Spergel, & Press 1988). The GRB energy per event is $`(\mathrm{\Omega }/4\pi )E_{iso}`$ (where $`E_{iso}=10^{5153}`$erg; Mao & Paczyński 1992). Equating the above two energy terms indicates that the enhancement factor $`\eta `$ is of order ten, a seemingly plausible number.

Third, consider the momentum balance. For simplicity, assuming that the remainder of the neutrinos escape uniformly in the remaining solid angle, one has the momentum conservation equation: $`\frac{E_\nu }{c}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\eta =m_Nv_N`$, where $`m_N`$ is the neutron star mass, $`v_N`$ is the neutron star velocity at birth relative to restframe of the pre-SN star and $`c`$ is the speed of light. We can readily compute $`\eta `$. Denoting $`m_N=1.4m_{1.4}\mathrm{M}_{}`$, $`v_N=450v_{450}`$km/s and $`E_\nu =6\times 10^{53}`$erg, one gets $`\eta =6.3m_{1.4}v_{450}(\mathrm{\Omega }/10^34\pi )^1`$, consistent with that obtained from energetics requirement.

Fourth, we need to meet the requirement that the baryon contaminated jet have a Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }300`$, as needed to yield appropriate time scales of GRBs, as observed (see below). If the total energy in a GRB is converted from bulk kinetic expansion energy, the energy requirement gives $`m_B=1.8\times 10^5\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\right)\left(\frac{E_{iso}}{10^{52}\mathrm{erg}}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{300}\right)^1\mathrm{M}_{}`$, the initial baryonic mass of the jet. This beamed “fireball” is thus slightly loaded with baryons (RM92). It is worth emphasizing that the pre-expel of the baryons in the cone and the maintenance of its emptiness are necessary to enable an ultra-relativistic jet, by noting that the average mass in the cone is roughly $`1.0\mathrm{M}_{}\times \mathrm{\Omega }/4\pi `$. If the small cone does align up or nearly aligns up with the magnetic axis, in the presence of very strong magnetic field magnetic tension may prevent neighboring material from rapidly diffusing into the emptied cone. If the cone also aligns up with the rotation axis, centrifugal force may also help keep the cone relatively clean. 

Last, the relevant time scales. As in the case of a homogeneous fireball (RM92), the ultra-relativistic jet cruises until it has swept up about $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the original baryon mass $`m_B`$ (Blandford & McKee 1976) at (in comoving frame)

$$t_d=16\left(\frac{E_{iso}}{10^{52}\mathrm{erg}}\right)^{1/3}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{300}\right)^{2/3}\left(\frac{n}{1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^3}\right)^{1/3}\mathrm{days},$$
(1)   
corresponding to a radius of

$$r_d=2.8\times 10^{16}\left(\frac{E_{iso}}{10^{52}\mathrm{erg}}\right)^{1/3}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{300}\right)^{2/3}\left(\frac{n}{1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^3}\right)^{1/3}\mathrm{cm},$$
(2)   
where $`n`$ is the number density of the circumburst medium. Thereafter, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ decreases rapidly as $`r^3`$ (radiative expansion) or $`r^{3/2}`$ (adiabatic expansion). Hence, most of the bulk energy in the jet is thermalized and radiated away in $`\gamma `$ray at $`r_d`$ (in local comoving frame) within a distance of $`r_d`$ (in local comoving frame) in a time duration in observer’s frame (RM92):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t_{GRB}\frac{r_d}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2c}=4.8\left(\frac{E_{iso}}{10^{52}\mathrm{erg}}\right)^{1/3}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{300}\right)^{8/3}\left(\frac{n}{1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^3}\right)^{1/3}$$
(3)   
seconds, in accord with the durations of observed GRBs of $`1100`$sec (Norris et al. 1995). For a GRB at redshift $`z`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{GRB}`$ will be boosted by a factor of $`(1+z)`$.

## 3. Testable Features of Proposed GRBs

This model has some unique observable properties. The most direct test is that a SN sets off (i.e., the moment of the onset of SN neutrino burst) about the same time as the GRB. There are several possible outcomes.

1) In the event that the jet is unblocked by the pre-expelled material in the cone and is in the line of sight, a “normal” energetic GRB is seen with energy release in $`\gamma `$-ray of the isotropic equivalent of $`E_{iso}10^{5153}`$erg. The fast rotation of the neutron star makes possible for the pre-expelled meterial not to block the jet, if the cone is not aligned with the rotation axis. GRB970508 and GRB971214 belong to this category. The companion SN, if observed, may be somewhat “atypical” because of the incoming SN ejecta comes from a somewhat special direction in the vicinity of the jet. The spatial location of the SN should coincide with that of the GRB. 

2) If the jet is partially blocked by the pre-expelled material when it is aligned with or close to the rotation axis, several things could happen. Some of the pre-expelled material will be accelerated to a velocity much higher than usual SN ejecta velocity. But due to the smallness of the baryonic mass in the jet compared to the mass in the ejecta, the ejecta is still accelerated only to a sub-relativistic speed. The collision takes place near the surface of the star and the portion of the jet that involves in the collision will be immediately decelerated to a sub-relativistic speed, producing super-MeV $`\gamma `$-rays at the same time. However, no significant amount of $`\gamma `$-rays can escape due to high pair opacity in the small involved region (Goodman 1986). Therefore, almost all of the energy of the collided portion of the jet turns into expansion energy of the massive “ejecta”. We can, however, still see the remaining portion of the jet that is unblocked, with its energy scaled downed by a factor proportional to the fraction of the solid angle occupied by the unblocked part of the jet, if it happens to be in the line of sight. GRB980425 may be such an event where only a small fraction ($`10^310^2`$) of the jet escapes. The associated SN, SN1998bw, should be unusually bright, just as observed (Kulkarni et al. 1998b; K98 henceforth), which led K98 to conclude that SN1998bw is expanding at a relativistic speed. We argue that the radio observations of SN1998bw might be explained if the radio signal is a blend of a SN and the afterglow from a weak GRB, which is still very bright in SN standard. Intriguingly, the “new” radio component of SN1998bw as observed by K98 (their Figure 2) may be due to the radio afterglow of GRB980425. This removes the enormously demanding energy requirement that SN1998bw is expanding at a relativistic speed ($`E_{ejecta}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ejecta}m_{ejecta}c^210^{54}`$erg). The high $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the GRB jet is also consistent with the radio scintillation observations (K98), which show small temporal fluctuations thus a large apparent size. The spatial location of the SN should also coincide with that of the GRB in this case. 

3) When only a small portion near the edge of the jet enters the line of sight, a weak GRB would result, accompanied by a SN. The properties of such a GRB/SN event should be similar to 2) and could also account for the observed GRB980425/SN1998bw event. The SN should be coincidental with the GRB spatially.

4) When the GRB beam is completely off line of sight, one should still expect some consequences. We should still see a Compton scattered GRB event with a comparable duration but with a much lower luminosity and significant polarization, whose energy spectrum should be softer than direct GRBs (cases 1,2,3). However, an unique feature occurs here. The GRB event will be delayed by weeks compared to the SN event (eq. 1) and the GRB should be spatially displaced in the sky by light-weeks (eq. 2). The subsequent afterglows will be further delayed and spatially displaced from the SN. Combining the time delay and the angular separation between the SN and GRB (probably only for nearby ones in practice) should allow a determination of the angle of the jet relative the line of sight, which, when combined the observed (scattered) spectrum, should further allow a recovery of the original spectrum. The vast majority of GRB/SN events belong to this class and it is urgent to look for them. It is intriguing to note that the “mystery spot” or bright “companion” to Supernova 1987A may well be such an event. Interestingly, the time delay of the IR “echo” in SN1987A of $`30`$days is remarkably close to the projected separation between SN1987A and its “companion” of $`19`$light-days (Felten, Dwek, & Viegas-Aldrovandi 1989). This is completely consistent with an ultra-relativistic jet which leaves the base (neutron star) about the same time as the SN explodes and whose back is seen obliquely at the indicated time.

Some other observable features of this model may also be predicted. Here we list several of them.

First, assuming the total energy output from each jet is roughly constant, longer GRBs due to blastwaves propagating into lower density interstellar medium should be fainter, in good agreement with observations (Kouveliotou et al. 1993). A broad anti-correlation between peak luminosity and duration should result, with a significant scatter due to the expected broad redshift distribution. There may be some correlation between peak energy and luminosity (Mallozzi et al. 1995) or duration (Fenimore et al. 1995): longer and fainter bursts should be softer spectrally due to a combined effect of lower $`n`$, perhaps lower magnetic field and cooler electrons. It is also expected that longer duration GRBs outnumber shorter duration GRBs, since the filling factor of lower density regions in the interstellar medium is normally larger than that of high density regions, in agreement with observations (Hakkila et al. 1996). Also, it is expected that there should be a variety of temporal profiles in both GRBs and their afterglows, due to complex circumstellar and interstellar medium distributions. Finally, if more than one types of SNe are responsible for the observed GRBs, the above correlations may still hold but with substantially larger scatters.

Second, GRB repeaters might be possible if very empty voids exist in the interstellar medium. The pause between two successive bursts would correspond to the time for the jet to travel through an empty void between two dense regions (along the line of sight), during which the jet suffers no slowdown thus no significant loss of energy. The time interval between successive bursts provides a measure of void size. The October 27-29, 1996 four consecutive bursts in the same sky location (Connaughton et al. 1997) are interesting in this respect. They consist of two pairs, 18 minutes and 11.2 minutes apart, respectively, separated by 1.8 days. In the framework of the model proposed here, the distances that the jet travels and times elaped in the jet comoving frame (using $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=300`$) in the three respective time intervals are ($`4\times 10^{18}`$cm, $`6\times 10^{18}`$cm, $`8\times 10^{20}`$cm) and ($`4`$yrs, $`6`$yrs, $`900`$yrs), compared to the typical size of a star formation region (a giant molecular cloud) of $`50`$pc. Thus it seems that this model is capable of producing the two pairs of bursts with smaller time intervals as repeaters from a single jet but difficult to accommodate repeaters separated by $`1.8`$days. For the same reason, a diversity of GRB afterglows may be expected. Many GRBs may lack afterglows (not just in optical) (e.g., Feroci et al. 1998 for GRB970111). This may result, for instance, in a situation where the jet does not encounter a significant amount of matter for a prolonged period of time subsequent to the GRB. Thereafter, even if the jet encounters some significant amount of matter, a weaker magnetic field and/or lower density (among other factors) may render the afterglows faint and/or at much lower energy frequencies.

Third, since massive stars do not move significantly from their birth places before exploding, the GRBs are predicted to occur only in star-forming regions. The latest observations might have provided some evidence for this as summarized by Paczyński (1998 and references therein) and newer evidence from GRB971214 optical afterglow reddening (Halpern et al. 1998). There might be exceptions when one massive star in a binary explodes first and kicks the neutron star-massive star binary out of a star-forming region. But the maximum distance that the binary travels away from the star-formation region before the second massive star explodes as a SN is roughly $`10^6`$yrs$`\times 450v_{450}`$km/s$`0.46v_{450}`$kpc. So, it is unlikely to see any GRB in halos of large, luminous galaxies (sighting GRBs in outskirts of small galaxies is not impossible). This feature and the two that follow are shared by some other models with GRB hosts in star-forming regions (e.g., the hypernova model of Paczyński 1998).

Fourth, since GRBs occur in star-forming regions, many GRBs may exhibit weak or lack optical afterglows due to large dust extinction in star-forming regions (e.g., van den Bergh 1992; Hanson, Howarth, & Conti 1997; Whitney, Kenyon, & Gomez 1997). While self-cleaning due to the UV flux from the massive stars themselves would remove most of dust obscuration in the immediate vicinity of the massive stars (hence GRBs), most of the dust obscuration probably lies along the line of sight. A search for afterglows in infared might turn out to be fruitful. 

Fifth, the redshift distribution of GRBs should follow the star-formation history (Madau 1997). Eventually, the distribution of GRBs in the sky should correlate strongly with galaxies, once observations will be sensitive enough to encompass most galaxies, i.e., reach beyond the redshift peak of galaxies ($`z1`$). There should virtually be no correlation between luminous GRBs any local extragalactic or galactic sources. The probability of seeing association of SNe in Local Group galaxies with bright GRBs (as described here) is small, $`<10^4(t_{obs}/\mathrm{yrs})`$, where $`t_{obs}`$ is the total amount of time used to monitor GRBs. However, faint, scattered GRB events (case 4 above) should be strongly correlated with the Galaxy and nearby galaxies and it is urgent to search for these.

## 4. Conclusions

A unified model that explains both high pulsar velocities and cosmological gamma-ray bursts is proposed. The model involves an ultra-relativistic jet from a SN. The model has several directly testable observational consequences, as detailed in the previous section. In particular, detection of an associated SN that sets off (onset of SN neutrino burst) about the same time as the GRB in the event that both the GRB and SN are seen presents a direct test of the model. It is noted that the evolution of the jet may be dramatically modified in the presence of strong magnetic field in near equipartition due to magnetic confinement compared to otherwise (e.g., Rhoads 1997). Off line of sight GRBs, which constitute a vast majority, also have interesting and dramatic observable consequences which could provide additional tests of the model.

The theoretical basis for this scenario is uncertain and the model is at best suggestive. Nevertheless, it is based on one set of known energetic events (supernovae) and also accounts for the motion of another set of known objects (pulsars). 

After this paper was submitted, a paper by Wang & Wheeler (1998) appeared at the LANL preprint site, which presents a similar scenario for GRBs. The major difference between their scenario and the scenario presented here is that they associate the low brightness GRBs such as GRB980425 with the isotropic component of the SN ejecta and high brightness GRBs such as GRB971214 with the jet, whereas we claim that both types of GRBs are due to the jet, occuring or being viewed under different conditions.

The work is supported in part by grants AST9318185 and ASC9740300. Discussions with Jeremy Goodman and Russell Kulsrud are gratefully acknowledged.