# The origin of the relativistic wind in gamma-ray bursts: MHD flow from a disk orbiting a stellar mass black hole?

## 1 Introduction

Among the sources which have been proposed to explain cosmic gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) the most popular are mergers of compact objects (neutron star binaries or neutron star – black hole systems) or massive stars which collapse to a black hole (hypernovae) . In all cases, the resulting configuration is a stellar mass black hole surrounded by a thick torus made of stellar debris or of infalling stellar material partially supported by centrifugal forces.

If black hole + thick disk configurations are indeed at the origin of GRBs the released energy will ultimately come from the accretion of disk material by the black hole or from the rotational energy of the hole itself extracted by the Blandford-Znajek mechanism. In a first step the energy must be injected into a relativistic wind. The second step consists in the conversion of a fraction of the wind kinetic energy into gamma-rays via the formation of shocks, probably inside the wind itself . In the last step the wind is decelerated when it interacts with the interstellar medium and the resulting (external) shock is responsible for the afterglow observed in the X-ray, optical and radio bands .

The origin of the relativistic wind is certainly the more complex of the three steps. A few possible ideas have been proposed but none is presently fully conclusive. If the burst energy comes from matter accretion by the black hole, the annihilation of neutrino-antineutrino pairs emitted by the hot disk could be a way to inject energy along the system axis, in a region which can be expected to be essentially baryon free due to the effect of centrifugal forces. The low efficiency of this process however requires high neutrino luminosities and therefore short accretion time scales . Another possibility is to suppose that disk energy is extracted by a magnetic field amplified by differential rotation to very large values ($`B10^{15}`$ G). A magnetically driven wind could then be emitted from the disk with a fraction of the Poynting flux being eventually transferred to matter. An alternative to accretion energy could be to directly tap into the rotational energy of the black hole via the Blandford-Znajek mechanism. The available power then depends on the rotation parameter $`a`$ of the black hole and on the intensity of the magnetic field pervading the horizon . The purpose of this paper is to present an exploratory study of the case where a magnetically driven wind is emitted by the disk. Our approach will be extremely simplified in comparison to the complexity of the real problem so that our conclusions will have to be considered as indicative only. We nevertheless expect that we can identify the key parameters which control the baryonic load of such a wind and put constraints on the final values of the Lorentz factor which can be obtained.

## 2 Dynamics of the wind from the disk to the sonic point

To compute the mass loss rate and therefore estimate the amount of baryonic pollution we only need to follow the wind dynamics from the disk up to the sonic point. We write the wind equations with a number of simplifying assumptions: i) we assume that the disk is thin and that the field is poloidal with the most simple geometry, i.e. straight lines making an angle $`\theta (r)`$ with the plane of the disk, $`r`$ being the distance from the foot of the line to the disk axis (Fig. 1). The flow of matter is then guided along the magnetic field lines; ii) we use non relativistic equations since even at the sonic point $`v_s/c<0.1`$ but we adopt the Paczynski-Wiita potential for the black hole; iii) we consider that a stationary regime has been reached in the wind.

We then write the three flow equations in a frame corotating with the foot of the line:

* Conservation of mass

$$\rho vs(y)=\dot{m}$$
(1)
* Euler equation

$$v\frac{dv}{dy}=\gamma (y)r\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{dP}{dy}$$
(2)
* Energy equation

$$v\frac{de}{dy}=\dot{q}(y)r+v\frac{P}{\rho ^2}\frac{d\rho }{dy}$$
(3)

where $`y=\mathrm{}/r`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ is the distance along the field line; $`e`$ is the specific internal energy, $`\gamma (y)`$ the total acceleration (gravitational + centrifugal) and $`\dot{q}(y)`$ the power deposited in the wind per unit mass. Different sources of heating can be present such as neutrino captures on nucleons (if the disk is optically thick to neutrinos), neutrino-antineutrino annihilation and dissipation of kinetic or magnetic energy. Because the field and stream lines are coincident the function $`s(y)`$ is easily related to the field geometry through the conservation of magnetic flux. Finally, $`\dot{m}`$ is the mass loss rate from the disk per unit surface. Our equation of state which includes nucleons, relativistic electrons and positrons and photons is computed from the expressions given by .

As long as the inclination angle $`\theta `$ remains larger than $`\theta _160^{}`$ ($`\theta _1`$ is exactly $`60^{}`$ if a newtonian instead of a Paczynski-Wiita potential is used for the black hole) the acceleration $`\gamma (y)`$ is negative up to $`y=y_1`$ after which the centrifugal force dominates. The sonic point of the flow is located just below $`y_1`$ (the relative difference $`(y_1y_s)/y_1`$ never exceeds 1%). To solve the wind equations we first fix trial values of the temperature and density $`T_s`$ and $`\rho _s`$ at the sonic point from which we get $`v=v_s`$. The position of the sonic point is obtained from the condition that the solution remains regular at $`y=y_s`$. The mass loss rate $`\dot{m}`$ is then fixed and the inward integration along a field line can be started. We observe that at some position $`y=y_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ the velocity begins to fall off rapidly while the temperature reaches a maximum $`T_{\mathrm{max}}T_\mathrm{D}(r)`$, where $`T_\mathrm{D}(r)`$ is the disk temperature. We adjust the values of $`T_s`$ and $`\rho _s`$ with the requirement that $`y_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ should be as close as possible to 0 and $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ to $`T_\mathrm{D}(r)`$.

The results presented below assume that the disk is optically thick to neutrinos between $`R_{\mathrm{in}}=3r_g`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{max}}=10r_g`$. No term for kinetic or magnetic energy dissipation have been included so that $`\dot{q}(y)`$ is limited to neutrino processes: capture on free nucleons, scattering on electrons and positrons, neutrino-antineutrino annihilation (heating) and neutrino emission by nucleons, annihilation of electron-positron pairs (cooling). The assumption that the disk is optically thick to neutrinos is probably justified for NS + NS or NS + BH mergers. It is much more questionable in the hypernova scenario, except for very high accretion rate or low values of the viscosity parameter ($`\alpha <0.01`$) as shown from the disk models computed by . Our detailed results therefore only concern a specific case but we also obtain below a simple and general rough estimate of the mass loss rate for any kind of heating mechanism.

The adopted temperature distribution $`T_\mathrm{D}(r)`$ corresponds to a geometrically thin, optically thick disk

$$T_\mathrm{D}(r)=T_{}\left(\frac{r_{}}{r}\right)^{3/4}\left(\frac{1\sqrt{\frac{r_{\mathrm{in}}}{r}}}{1\sqrt{\frac{r_{\mathrm{in}}}{r_{}}}}\right)^{1/4}$$
(4)   
where $`T_{}`$ is the temperature at $`r=r_{}`$. The mass of the black hole is $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}=2.5`$ M.

## 3 The mass loss rate

The solution for mass loss rate as a function of $`r`$, $`T_\mathrm{D}(r)`$ and $`\theta (r)`$ takes the form

| $`\dot{m}_{13}(x)3.8\mu _{\mathrm{BH}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{T_\mathrm{D}(x)}{2\mathrm{MeV}}}\right]^{10}f[x,\theta (x)]`$ |
| --- |
| $`3.8\mu _{\mathrm{BH}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{T_{}}{2\mathrm{MeV}}}\right]^{10}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_{}}{r}}\right)^{15/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\sqrt{\frac{r_{\mathrm{in}}}{r}}}{1\sqrt{\frac{r_{\mathrm{in}}}{r_{}}}}}\right)^{5/2}f[x,\theta (x)]`$ |

(5)   
where $`\dot{m}_{13}`$ is the mass loss rate in units of $`10^{13}`$ g.cm<sup>-2</sup>.s<sup>-1</sup>, $`x=r/r_g`$ and $`\mu _{\mathrm{BH}}=M_{\mathrm{BH}}/2.5M_{}`$. The geometrical function $`f[x,\theta (x)]`$ is normalized in such a way that it is equal to unity for $`x=4`$ and $`\theta =85^{}`$. The mass loss rate is extremely sensitive to the value of the disk temperature. The tenth power dependence is in agreement with what is found for neutrino driven winds in spherical geometry . The dependence of $`\dot{m}`$ on inclination angle is also very strong as shown in Fig. 2 where $`\dot{m}`$ is represented (with $`T_{}=2`$ MeV and $`r_{}=4r_g`$) for two geometries of the field lines: constant $`\theta =85^{}`$ and $`\theta `$ decreasing from $`90^{}`$ to $`80^{}`$ between $`r=3r_g`$ and $`r=10r_g`$.

Since additional sources of heating can be present in the wind (viscous dissipation, reconnection of field lines, etc) we have also obtained a very simple and general analytical expression for the mass loss rate 

$$\dot{m}\frac{\dot{e}}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }}g$$
(6)   
where $`\dot{e}`$ is the rate of thermal energy deposition (in erg.cm<sup>-2</sup>.s<sup>-1</sup>) between the plane of the disk ($`y=0`$) and the sonic point at $`y_sy_1`$; $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the difference of potential (gravitational + centrifugal) between $`y=0`$ and $`y=y_1`$. The $`g`$ factor, which is of the order of unity, depends on the distribution of energy injection between $`y=0`$ and $`y=y_1`$.

## 4 Average Lorentz factor of the wind

To estimate the Lorentz factor which can be reached by the wind one must be able to relate the injected energy to the mass loss rate. This can be done in the following way: we suppose that we observe a burst power in gamma-rays

$$\dot{}_\gamma =\frac{10^{51}}{4\pi }ϵ_{51}\mathrm{erg}.\mathrm{s}^1.\mathrm{sr}^1$$
(7)   
Then, the power injected into the wind was

$$\dot{E}=210^{51}\frac{f_\mathrm{\Omega }^{0.1}}{f_\gamma ^{0.05}}ϵ_{51}\mathrm{erg}.\mathrm{s}^1$$
(8)   
where $`f_\mathrm{\Omega }^{0.1}`$ and $`f_\gamma ^{0.05}`$ are respectively the fraction $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }`$ of solid angle covered by the wind (in unit of 0.1) and the efficiency for the conversion of kinetic energy into gamma-rays (in unit of 0.05). Accretion by the black hole powers the wind but at the same time viscous dissipation heats the disk which cools by the emission of neutrinos. If neutrino losses represent a fraction $`\alpha `$ of the energy $`\dot{E}`$ injected into the wind we have (for an optically thick disk)

$$\dot{E}_\nu =\alpha \dot{E}=210^{51}\frac{f_\mathrm{\Omega }^{0.1}}{f_\gamma ^{0.05}}\alpha ϵ_{51}=2_{r_{\mathrm{in}}}^{r_{\mathrm{out}}}\frac{7}{8}\sigma T_\mathrm{D}^4(r)2\pi r𝑑r$$
(9)   
Substituting in (9) Eq. (4) for $`T_\mathrm{D}(r)`$ we obtain for the temperature at $`r_{}=4r_g`$

$$T_{}=1.72\mu _{\mathrm{BH}}^{1/2}\left(\frac{f_\mathrm{\Omega }^{0.1}}{f_\gamma ^{0.05}}\alpha ϵ_{51}\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{MeV}$$
(10)   
The value of $`T_{}`$ being known $`\dot{m}`$ can be computed as a function of of $`r`$ for a given field geometry. The total mass loss rate from the disk is then

| $`\dot{M}`$ | $`=2{\displaystyle _{r_{\mathrm{in}}}^{r_{\mathrm{out}}}}\dot{m}(r)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi r𝑑r`$ |
| --- | --- |
|  | $`=2.610^{26}\mu _{\mathrm{BH}}^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_{}}{2\mathrm{MeV}}}\right)^{10}`$ |

(11)   
where

$$=_{r_{\mathrm{in}}/r_g}^{r_{\mathrm{out}}/r_g}f[x,\theta (x)]x𝑑x$$
(12)   
is a function of the field geometry. The average Lorentz factor is finally given by

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\frac{\dot{E}}{\dot{M}c^2}=\frac{8500}{}\mu _{\mathrm{BH}}^2ϵ_{51}^{3/2}\alpha ^{5/2}\left(\frac{f_\gamma ^{0.05}}{f_\mathrm{\Omega }^{0.1}}\right)^{3/2}$$
(13)   
The value of $``$ is 56 for a constant inclination angle $`\theta =85^{}`$ and 250 if $`\theta `$ decreases from $`90^{}`$ to $`80^{}`$ between $`r=3`$ and $`10r_g`$. These numbers shows that large Lorentz factors can be reached but only under quite restrictive conditions: quasi vertical field lines, low $`\alpha `$ values, i.e. good efficiency for energy injection into the wind with little dissipation and necessity of beaming.

More generally, Eq. (6) can also provide a simple and useful constraint on the terminal Lorentz factor. If the power $`\dot{e}`$ deposited below the sonic point represents a fraction $`x`$ of the total power $`\dot{e}_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ which is finally injected into the wind we get

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\dot{e}_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\dot{m}c^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }/c^2}{gx}$$
(14)   
Considering a line anchored at $`r=4r_g`$ with an inclination angle $`\theta =85^{}`$ we obtain $`y_1=2.182`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }/c^2=0.18`$ which implies that $`x`$ should not exceed $`10^3`$ to have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>100`$! This is clearly a very strong constraint on any mechanism of energy injection. The wind however remains relativistic for $`x\mathrm{}<0.1`$ but its Lorentz factor is then much too low to produce a cosmic GRB.

## 5 Discussion

We have computed the mass loss rate in a magnetically driven wind emitted by a disk orbiting a stellar mass black hole. Detailed results are given for the case where the disk is optically thick to neutrinos but we have also obtained an approximate analytical expression, valid for any heating mechanism. From the mass loss rate the terminal Lorentz factor of the wind can be estimated. Large values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ require that severe constraints on the field geometry and the amount of heating below the sonic point should be satisfied. Another potential problem which was not addressed in the present paper is that relativistic MHD winds, at least in their simplest version , can be quite inefficient in transferring magnetic into kinetic energy.

An optimistic view of the situation would be to consider that the difficulty to obtain high Lorentz factors could just be a way to explain the apparent discrepancy between the birthrate of the sources in the hypernova scenario $`10^3`$ yr<sup>-1</sup>/galaxy (for very massive stars) and the observed GRB rate $`\mathrm{}<10^6`$ yr<sup>-1</sup>/galaxy. Beaming alone cannot account for the difference which implies that the collapse of a massive star most generally fails to give a GRB.

The pessimistic view naturally consists to conclude that the baryonic load of the wind emitted by the disk is so large that the Lorentz factor can never reach values of $`10^2`$ and more. The next step is then to rely on the Blandford-Znajek mechanism to produce the relativistic wind . One should be careful however that magnetic field lines coming from the disk and trapped by the black hole will also carry frozen in wind material leading to a “contamination” of the Blandford-Znajek process by the disk. A possible loophole could be that the accretion time scale to the black hole is so short that the stationary wind solutions we have obtained are not valid. The amount of material extracted from the disk could therefore be much smaller still allowing a highly relativistic outflow to develop.

## References