# A Possible Lateral Gamma-Ray Burst Jet from Supernova 1987A

## 1 Introduction

The SN1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud was a rare and unique event thanks to its nearness to us. It has been observed with all available modern instruments since its explosion (e.g., Chevalier 1992) and is expected to have another magnificent display in a few years when the expanding ejecta hits the circumstellar ring (e.g., Borkowski, Blondin, & McCray 1997). Perhaps one of the greatest mysteries about SN1987A is the mysterious bright companion spot that was observed by optical speckle interferometry (Nisenson et al. 1987, N87 hereafter; Meikle, Matcher, & Morgan 1987, M87 hereafter) about one month after the SN1987A explosion, with a projected displacement from SN1987A of about 17 light days. Its close proximity to SN1987A, the fact that it was seen for only a few weeks, and its high brightness (about one-tenth of the brightness of SN1987A itself) make it certain that the spot was related to SN1987A itself. Several models were proposed soon after its discovery (Burrow & Subramanian 1987; Rees 1987; Piran & Nakamura 1987; Goldman 1987; Felten, Dwek, & Viegas-Aldrovandi 1989) but close examination showed that there are formidable difficulties with all these models (Phinney 1988).

Recently, there was an interesting development in the observations of gamma-ray bursts: the supernova 1998bw was observed (Kulkarni et al. 1998b) to coincide spatially and temporally with the gamma-ray burst GRB980425. This has led to suggestions that gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) and supernovae (SNe) may be related (Wang & Wheeler 1998; Cen 1998). Energetics dictate that if SNe are responsible for producing GRBs, GRBs have to be beamed, that is, GRBs are jets from SNe. Independently but consistently, it is also required that the jets have a beaming angle of a few degrees in order to reconcile the high rate of SN events with the low rate of GRB events. The pressing question that arises then is how to test this scenario, where the vast majority of SN jets would travel laterally and would not be seen as GRBs due to the small beaming angle. It is the goal of this Letter to examine the properties of such lateral jets, suggesting that the observed bright companion spot of SN1987A may be caused by such a jet from SN1987A.

## 2 A Possible GRB Jet from SN1987A

The bright SN1987A companion spot was observed independently by two groups (N87; M87). It was observed at H<sub>α</sub> and several other optical wavelengths using speckle interferometry by the CfA group (N87) on days 30 and 38 after the SN1987A explosion at a separation of $`0^{^{\prime \prime }}.059\pm 0^{^{\prime \prime }}.008`$ from SN1987A. Adopting a fiducial value of $`50`$kpc for the distance to SN1987A (Panagia et al. 1991; Gould 1995; Sonneborn et al. 1997; Lundqvist 1999), one obtains a perpendicular separation of $`r_{}=17`$light-days. Assuming that the spot was due to an ultra-relativistic jet leaving SN1987A at the time of the explosion, it gives a travel time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=34`$days and yields an apparent perpendicular velocity of $`v_{}=0.5c`$ ($`c`$ is the speed of light). Because $`v_{}=c\mathrm{sin}\theta /(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the jet direction and the observer-SN1987A vector, one finds $`\theta =53^{}`$. Thus, if the spot was due to the working surface of a relativistic jet, the jet was a receding one! The spot detected by M87 on day 50 at a separation $`0^{^{\prime \prime }}.074\pm 0^{^{\prime \prime }}.008`$ is fully consistent with the observations of N87 for a jet traveling at near the speed of light. Interestingly, new image reconstructions from the CfA speckle data show possible indications of a second, weaker jet, with a larger separation, on the opposite side of the SN1987A (Nisenson & Papaliolios 1999). Although working surface models were disfavored earlier (Phinney 1988), in light of this new observation of a counter jet and possible association of supernovae with GRBs (see §1), it seems worthwhile to re-examine this type of models in the context of GRB jets.

Let us now examine the spectral properties of an ultra-relativistic GRB jet (Cen 1998). The jet can be characterized by its initial equivalent isotropic energy $`E_{iso}`$, initial coasting Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ and opening solid angle $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. For the current analysis only an external shock model (Rees & Mészáros 1992) is considered for the jet. The reverse shock is not considered). It is assumed that the external shocked electrons have a power-law distribution function: 

$$N(\mathrm{\Gamma }_e)d\mathrm{\Gamma }_e=A(t)\mathrm{\Gamma }_e^pd\mathrm{\Gamma }_e,$$
(1)   
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e`$ is the Lorentz factor of electrons in the jet comoving frame, and $`A(t)`$ is a coefficient (to be determined) that is assumed to be a function of time only. Time $`t`$ measured in the burster frame is used as the time variable to express various quantities in the derivations, but the final results are converted to be shown using observer’s time. We will only consider synchrotron radiation from the shock heated electrons. For the analysis below we will assume that $`p>1`$ (Tavani 1996) so the integral of equation (1) is convergent at the high end. We set

$$_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_e}^{\mathrm{}}N(\mathrm{\Gamma }_e^{})𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }_e^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }r^2cnt_{cool}\mathrm{\Gamma }(r),$$
(2)   
where $`n`$ the number density of the external medium into which the shock is propagating, $`r`$ is the distance of the shock from SN1987A ($`r`$ and $`t`$ are used interchangeably throughout the paper assuming $`r=ct`$) and $`t_{cool}`$ is the electron cooling time (see equation ). Equation (2) is equivalent to stating that the number of electrons with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>\mathrm{\Gamma }_e`$ at time $`t`$ is the number of electrons that have been shocked within the last $`t_{cool}`$ time interval, and earlier shocked electrons have cooled to lower energies. The last factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(r)`$ on the right hand side of equation (2) accounts for the time boost of a moving object. Integrating equation (2) yields

$$A(t)=(p1)\mathrm{\Omega }r^2cnt_{cool}\mathrm{\Gamma }_e^{p1}(r)\mathrm{\Gamma }(r).$$
(3)   
The synchrotron cooling time measured in the comoving frame for an electron with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e`$ is

$$t_{cool}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_em_ec^2}{P_e},$$
(4)   
The majority of the freshly shocked electrons (as we will adopt $`p6`$) have a Lorentz factor

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_e(r)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(r)\frac{m_p}{m_e}\xi _e,$$
(5)   
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(r)`$ is the shock Lorentz factor, $`m_p`$ and $`m_e`$ are proton and electron mass and $`\xi _e`$ is an equipartition parameter (Waxman 1997). The synchrotron radiation power, $`P_e`$, for an average electron with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e`$ in a randomly directed magnetic field $`B`$ is (Blumenthal & Gould 1970):

$$P_e=\frac{4}{3}\sigma _Tc\mathrm{\Gamma }_e^2\frac{B^2}{8\pi },$$
(6)   
where $`\sigma _T=6.6\times 10^{25}`$cm<sup>2</sup> is the Thomson cross section. $`B`$ (Waxman 1997) is linked to the energy density of the postshock external nucleons, $`4\mathrm{\Gamma }(r)^2nm_pc^2`$, by

$$\frac{B^2}{8\pi }=4\mathrm{\Gamma }(r)^2nm_pc^2\xi _B,$$
(7)   
where $`\xi _B`$ is the equipartition parameter for the magnetic field.

Now we may proceed to obtain the total emission. For the present purpose it is adequate to assume that the spectral emissivity of each electron is a delta function $`P_\nu =P_e\delta (\nu \nu _e)`$, where $`P_e`$ can be expressed by equation (6), and the characteristic synchrotron radiation frequency $`\nu _e`$ for electrons with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e`$ is (Rybicki & Lightman 1979)

$$\nu _e=\mathrm{\Gamma }_e^2\frac{eB}{2\pi m_ec}.$$
(8)   
Multiplying equation (1) by $`P_\nu `$ and integrating over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e`$, and using equations (3,4,6,7,8) give the total emission in the comoving frame

$$j(\nu ,t)=\frac{1}{2}(p1)\mathrm{\Omega }r^2n(r)m_ec^3\mathrm{\Gamma }_e(r)\mathrm{\Gamma }(r)\nu _e^1(r)\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _e}\right)^{\frac{p1}{2}}.$$
(9)   
It is noted that the above expression for $`j(\nu ,t)`$ is valid only above a lower cutoff frequency, $`\nu _l`$, since the total energy has to be finite. We observe the following simple ansatz to obtain $`\nu _l`$: the total radiation emitted during the time interval $`t_{cool}`$ (in the comoving frame) should not exceed the total energy input to the thermalized electrons during the same time interval, which translates to the following relation:

$$_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_e}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_e^{}m_ec^2N(\mathrm{\Gamma }_e^{})𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }_e^{}=t_{cool}_{\nu _l}^{\mathrm{}}j(\nu ,t)𝑑\nu .$$
(10)   
Integrating both sides of equation (10) and using equations (3,4,6,7,8) yield

$$\nu _l(t)=\left(\frac{p2}{p3}\right)^{\frac{2}{p3}}\nu _e(t),$$
(11)   
where $`\nu _e`$ is given by equation (8). Note that the derived $`\nu _l(t)`$ is slightly larger than $`\nu _e(t)`$. Below $`\nu _l`$, $`j(\nu ,t)`$ scales as

$$j(\nu ,t)=j(\nu _l,t)(\frac{\nu }{\nu _l})^{1/3}.$$
(12)   
Synchrotron self-absorption becomes important only at lower frequencies than those of interest here and is thus ignored in the present analysis.

In order to compute $`j(\nu ,t)`$ as a function of time, one needs to specify the circumstellar medium density distribution and the evolution of the bulk Lorentz factor of the shock. The standard steady wind model for the distribution of the circumstellar medium of a red supergiant is adopted: 

$$\rho (r)=\frac{\dot{M}}{4\pi v_wr^2},$$
(13)   
where $`\dot{M}`$ is the mass loss rate of the star and $`v_w`$ is the wind velocity. Using $`\dot{M}=4\times 10^5\mathrm{M}_{}`$yr<sup>-1</sup> and $`v_w=10`$km/s, as inferred from analysis of SN 1993J (Fransson, Lundqvist, & Chevalier 1996) yields

$$n(r)=\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)^2\text{atoms/cm}\text{3}$$
(14)   
with $`r_0=1.1\times 10^{19}\text{cm}`$. This adopted density distribution is in fact quite consistent with the measured circumstellar density of SN1987A (e.g., Sonneborn et al. 1998). It is assumed that radiative losses are small, which is appropriate at the later times of the fireball evolution of interest here. Then, for our adopted $`\rho (r)`$, we find the following scaling solution for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ (Blandford & McKee 1976)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(t/t_{dec})^{1/2}$$
(15)   
for $`t>t_{dec}`$. For $`tt_{dec}`$ we simply set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$. The transition time $`t_{dec}`$, measured in the burster frame, is set to be that when the mass of the swept-up circumstellar medium is equal to $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ of the initial fireball rest mass, yielding

$$t_{dec}=\frac{E_{iso}}{4\pi m_p\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^2c^3r_0^2}.$$
(16)   
The flux density (in units of erg cm<sup>-2</sup> s<sup>-1</sup> Hz<sup>-1</sup>) of the jet at the observer at observed frequency $`\nu _{obs}`$ at observer’s time $`t_{obs}`$ is (Blandford & Konigl 1979)

$$S_\nu (\nu _{obs},t_{obs})=\frac{1}{4\pi d_{SN}^2}j(\frac{\nu _{obs}}{D},\frac{t_{obs}}{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta })D^3\left(\frac{t_{obs}}{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta }\right),$$
(17)   
where $`D(t)(1+\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^1(t)`$ is the Doppler factor of the moving surface. Flux density is then converted to magnitude to compare with observations. Figure 1 shows the magnitudes of the jet at $`6560\AA `$ (solid curve) and $`4500\AA `$ (dashed curve), as a function of time measured in the observer’s frame, $`t_{obs}`$ \[note $`t_{obs}=t(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$\]. Note that the open circle at day 98 is from a recent re-analysis of the observational data (Nisenson 1999). The observed points have been dereddened for extinction using the observed color excess $`E(BV)=0.19`$ for SN1987A (Fitzpatrick & Walborn 1990) and the extinction curve given by Seaton (1979). The following parameter values are used for the results shown in Figure 1: $`\xi _e=1/3`$, $`\xi _B=1/4`$, $`p=6.0`$, $`E_{iso}=2\times 10^{54}`$erg, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i=300`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1.5\times 10^3`$sr, $`\theta =53^{}`$ and $`d_{SN}=50`$kpc. All the parameters used are characteristic of a supernova GRB jet proposed (Cen 1998) and are consistent with known GRB observations. Note that $`E_{iso}=10^{54}`$erg is capable of accounting for the most luminous GRBs observed (e.g., GRB971214, Kulkarni et al. 1998a). A detailed analysis of the jet in the context of a GRB and its afterglows will be given elsewhere. 

The GRB jet model fits the speckle observations of the spot at $`6560\AA `$ reasonably well over the entire period where observational data are available. However, the model appears to be too “blue” in the sense, i.e., it appears to be too bright at shorter wavelengths. For example, the computed spot at $`4500\AA `$ appears to be too bright by about two magnitudes compared to the observed spot. While the model is consistent (not shown in the figure) with infared observations of SN 1987A (e.g., at $`4.6\mu `$m, Bouchet et al. 1987), it also appears to be too bright in the UV compared to the total flux of SN 1987A (e.g., $`3100\AA `$, Kirshner 1987) by about a factor of ten, consistent with Phinney (1988). Clearly, more work is needed to improve upon this simple model. One way to avoid excess flux at short wavelengths is to introduce a large, intrinsic color excess, say, $`E(BV)1.5`$.

The sharp turn near days 30-40 is due to the sharp turn in the spectrum at $`\nu _l(t)`$. The peak of the evolution of the jet brightness at a given wavelength corresponds to the epoch when $`\nu (t)=\nu _l(t)`$ and the sharp turn (to faint) of brightness of the jet at earlier times is primarily due to the fact that the $`D^3`$ term in equation (17) goes roughly as $`t^{3/2}`$ and $`\nu _l`$ increases rapidly with decreasing time (roughly $`t^{5/2}`$) combined with the spectral form of $`\nu ^{1/3}`$ below $`\nu _l`$. The evolution of the brightness of the jet past the peak is primarily determined by the combined effect of the evolution of $`\nu _l`$ and $`p`$. The quantity $`p`$ is well constrained by the observed evolution of the optical spot. We find that $`p6`$ is required in order to provide an acceptable fit to the observed optical spot. A larger $`p`$ ($`>7`$) would produce too steep a decline around $`t_{obs}30`$days. A smaller $`p`$ ($`<5`$) would produce a flat to rising temporal evolution and is inconsistent with the observation, i.e., the spot should have been visible longer.

This “counterspot” on the opposite side (Nisenson & Papaliolios 1999) has an apparent separation of $`0^{^{\prime \prime }}.16`$ at the same time when the first spot was seen, giving an apparent superluminal perpendicular velocity of $`v_{,second}=1.36c`$. If one assumes that this weaker jet was in the exact opposite direction from the first (i.e., $`\theta _{second}=180\theta =127^{}`$), it is required that $`v_{second}=0.84c`$. However, due to the uncertainties in $`d_{SN}`$, it is possible that $`vc`$ may be allowed for both jets. It is interesting and should be emphasized that the two jets have unequal strengths, a prediction of the model proposed by Cen (1998) to account for the asymmetrical natal kick of neutron stars (pulsars). The asymmetrical pair of jets would induce star-recoil with the induced bulk velocity of the star being $`650(m_{star}/10M_{})^1`$km/s (Cen 1998), which moves about $`0^\mathrm{"}.03(m_{star}/10M_{})^1`$ in ten years (using $`d_{SN}=50`$kpc). This effect might be observable by detecting a shift of the position of the neutron star/pulsar or the centroid of the debris (Garnavich 1999). Based on available debris data (Haas et al. 1990; Spyromilio, Meikle, & Allen 1990; Jennings et al. 1993; Utrobin, Chugai, & Andronova 1995; Wang et al. 1996), if seems that the debris does not share the recoil movement of the star but shares the movement of the jet.

## 3 Conclusion

It is shown here that the bright companion spot of SN1987A may be due to a receding ultra-relativistic jet traveling at $`53^{}`$ to the observer-to-SN1987A vector, through a circumstellar medium with a stellar wind like density $`\rho (r)r^2`$. The model provides an adequate explanation for the evolution of the observed optical companion spot, at least energetically, although more modeling is required to produce a satisfactory color of the spot. The parameters for the jet are characteristic of or required by the observed GRBs (with $`E_{iso}=2\times 10^{54}`$erg, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i=300`$) with an openning angle of a few degrees. If the jet traveled towards us along the line of sight, a very bright GRB would be seen with an inferred isotropic energy of $`10^{54}`$erg. If this model is correct, it implies that at least some GRBs would be seen as going through a medium with density $`\rho (r)r^2`$, rather than a uniform density medium. It is urgent to systematically search for GRB-supernova associations or supernova-jet associations in order to test this hypothesis. 

I thank Arlin Crotts, Dick McCray and Pete Nisenson for stimulating discussions, Jeremy Goodman for suggesting looking for evidence of lateral GRB jets and Micheal Strauss for carefully reading the manuscript. I want to thank the second referee, Jim Felten, for working tirelessly to help improve the paper. The work is supported in part by grants NAG5-2759 and AST93-18185, ASC97-40300.