# Gamma Ray Burst Beaming Constraints from Afterglow Light Curves

## 1 Beamed Gamma Ray Burst Afterglow Models

In the Rome meeting I presented a derivation of the dynamical behavior of a beamed gamma ray burst (GRB) remnant and its consequences for the afterglow light curve. (Cf. Rhoads 1999 \[Paper I\]). Here, I summarize these results and apply them to test the range of beaming angles permitted by the optical light curve of GRB 970508.

Suppose that ejecta from a GRB are emitted with initial Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ into a cone of opening half-angle $`\zeta _\mathrm{m}`$ and expand into an ambient medium of uniform mass density $`\rho `$ with negligible radiative energy losses. Let the initial kinetic energy and rest mass of the ejecta be $`E_0`$ and $`M_0`$, and the swept-up mass and internal energy of the expanding blast wave be $`M_{\mathrm{acc}}`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{int}}`$. Then energy conservation implies $`\mathrm{\Gamma }E_{\mathrm{int}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2M_{\mathrm{acc}}c^2E_0\text{constant}`$ so long as $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0M_{\mathrm{acc}}/M_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$.

The swept-up mass is determined by the working surface area: $`\mathrm{d}M_{\mathrm{acc}}/\mathrm{d}r\pi (\zeta _\mathrm{m}r+c_st_{\mathrm{co}})^2`$, where $`c_s`$ and $`t_{\mathrm{co}}`$ are the sound speed and time since the burst in the frame of the blast wave $`+`$ accreted material. Once $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1/\zeta _\mathrm{m}`$, $`c_st_{\mathrm{co}}\zeta _\mathrm{m}r`$ and the dynamical evolution with radius $`r`$ changes from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }r^{3/2}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{exp}(r/r__\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ (Rhoads 1998, & Paper I). The relation between observer frame time $`t_{}`$ and radius $`r`$ also changes, from $`t_{}r^{1/4}`$ to $`t_{}\mathrm{exp}(r/[2r__\mathrm{\Gamma }])`$. Thus, at early times $`\mathrm{\Gamma }t_{}^{3/8}`$, while at late times $`\mathrm{\Gamma }t_{}^{1/2}`$. The characteristic length scale is $`r__\mathrm{\Gamma }=\left(E_0/\pi c_s^2\rho \right)^{1/3}`$, and the characteristic observed transition time between the two regimes is $`t_{,b}1.125(1+z)\left(E_0c^3/[\rho c_s^8\zeta _\mathrm{m}^2]\right)^{1/3}\zeta _\mathrm{m}^{8/3}`$, where $`z`$ is the burst’s redshift.

We assume that swept-up electrons are injected with a power law energy distribution $`N()^p`$ for $`=\gamma _em_ec^2>_{\mathrm{min}}\xi _em_pc^2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, with $`p>2`$, and contain a fraction $`\xi _e`$ of $`E_{\mathrm{int}}`$. This power law extends up to the cooling break, $`_{\mathrm{cool}}`$, at which energy the cooling time is comparable to the dynamical expansion time of the remnant. Above $`_{\mathrm{cool}}`$, the balance between electron injection (with $`N_{\text{inj}}^p`$) and cooling gives $`N()^{(p+1)}`$.

We also assume a tangled magnetic field containing a fraction $`\xi __B`$ of $`E_{\mathrm{int}}`$. The comoving volume $`V_{\mathrm{co}}`$ and burster-frame volume $`V`$ are related by $`V_{\mathrm{co}}V/\mathrm{\Gamma }M_{\mathrm{acc}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, so that $`B^2=8\pi \xi __BE_{\mathrm{int}}/V_{\mathrm{co}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ and $`B\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The resulting spectrum has peak flux density $`F_{\nu ,,m}\mathrm{\Gamma }BM_{\mathrm{acc}}/\mathrm{max}(\zeta _\mathrm{m}^2,\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)`$ at an observed frequency $`\nu _{,\mathrm{m}}\mathrm{\Gamma }B_{\mathrm{min}}^2/(1+z)\mathrm{\Gamma }^4/(1+z)`$. Additional spectral features occur at the frequencies of optically thick synchrotron self absorption (which we shall neglect) and the cooling frequency $`\nu _{,\mathrm{cool}}`$ (which is important for optical observations of GRB 970508). The cooling break frequency follows from the relations $`\gamma _{\mathrm{cool}}(6\pi m_ec)/(\sigma __T\mathrm{\Gamma }B^2t_{})`$ (Sari, Piran, & Narayan 1998; Wijers & Galama 1998) and $`\nu _{,\mathrm{cool}}\mathrm{\Gamma }B\gamma _{\mathrm{cool}}^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }^4t_{}^2)^1`$. In the power law regime, $`F_{\nu ,,m}t_{}^0`$, $`\nu _{,\mathrm{m}}t_{}^{3/2}`$, and $`\nu _{,\mathrm{cool}}t_{}^{1/2}`$; while in the exponential regime, $`F_{\nu ,,m}t_{}^1`$, $`\nu _{,\mathrm{m}}t_{}^2`$, and $`\nu _{,\mathrm{cool}}t_{}^0`$. The spectrum is approximated by a broken power law, $`F_\nu \nu ^\beta `$, with $`\beta 1/3`$ for $`\nu <\nu _{,\mathrm{m}}`$, $`\beta (p1)/2`$ for $`\nu _{,\mathrm{m}}<\nu <\nu _{,\mathrm{cool}}`$, and $`\beta p/2`$ for $`\nu >\nu _{,\mathrm{cool}}`$.

The afterglow light curve follows from the spectral shape and the time behavior of the break frequencies. Asymptotic slopes are given in table 1. For the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1/\zeta _\mathrm{m}`$ regime, we study the evolution of break frequencies numerically. The results for $`\nu _{,\mathrm{m}}`$ and $`F_{\nu ,,m}`$ are given in Paper I. For $`\nu _{,\mathrm{cool}}`$, a good approximation is

$`\nu _{,\mathrm{cool}}=\left[5.89\times 10^{13}\left(t_{}/t_{,b}\right)^{1/2}+1.34\times 10^{14}\right]\text{Hz}`$   
$`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+z}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_s}{c/\sqrt{3}}}\right)^{17/6}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi __B}{0.1}}\right)^{3/2}`$   
$`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho \text{cm}^3}{10^{24}\text{g}}}\right)^{5/6}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_0/10^{53}\text{erg}}{\zeta _\mathrm{m}^2/4}}\right)^{2/3}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta _\mathrm{m}}{0.1}}\right)^{4/3}.`$   
## 2 Application to GRB 970508

In the best-sampled GRB afterglow light curve yet available (the GRB 970508 R band data), the optical spectrum changed slope at $`t_{}1.4\text{day}`$, suggesting the passage of the cooling break through the optical band (Galama et al 1998). We explore the range of acceptable beaming angles for this burst by fitting the afterglow light curve for $`1.3\text{day}t_{}95\text{day}`$ assuming that $`\nu _{,\mathrm{cool}}<c/0.7\mu m`$.

The range of acceptable energy distribution slopes $`p`$ for swept-up electrons is taken from the optical colors. Precise measurements for $`2\text{day}t_{}5\text{day}`$ give $`F_\nu \nu ^\beta `$ with $`\beta =1.10\pm 0.08`$ (Zharikov, Sokolov, & Baryshev 1998), so that $`p=2.20\pm 0.16`$. We take this value to hold throughout the range $`1.3\text{day}t_{}95\text{day}`$, thus assuming that $`p`$ does not change as the afterglow evolves. We subtract the host galaxy flux ($`R_H=25.55\pm 0.19`$; Zharikov et al 1998) from all data points before fitting.

We fixed values of $`R_H`$ and $`p`$, and then executed a grid search on the break time $`t_{,b}`$ and normalization of the model light curve. Results are summarized in table 2 and figure 1. The final $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom is $`4`$.

These large $`\chi ^2`$ values make meaningful error estimates on parameters difficult. Let us suppose $`\chi ^2`$ is large because details omitted from the models (clumps in the ambient medium or blast wave instabilities) affect the light curve, and so attach an uncertainty of $`0.1\text{mag}`$ to each predicted flux. Adding this in quadrature to observational uncertainties when computing $`\chi ^2`$, we obtain $`\chi ^2/\text{d.o.f.}1`$. Error estimates based on changes in $`\chi ^2`$ then rule out $`\mathrm{lg}(t_{,b}/\text{day})<3.5`$ at about the 90% confidence level even for our “maximum beaming” case ($`p=2.04`$, $`R_H=25.36`$).

To convert a supposed break time $`t_{,b}`$ into a beaming angle $`\zeta _\mathrm{m}`$, we need estimates of the burst energy per steradian and the ambient density. Wijers & Galama (1998) infer $`E_0/\mathrm{\Omega }=3.7\times 10^{52}\text{erg}/(4\pi \text{Sr})`$ and $`\rho =5.8\times 10^{26}\text{g}/\text{cm}^3`$. Combining these values with $`t_{,b}10^{3.5}\text{day}`$ gives $`\zeta _\mathrm{m}0.5\text{rad}30\mathrm{deg}`$. $`E_0/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\rho `$ are substantially uncertain, but because $`\zeta _\mathrm{m}(\rho /E_0)^{1/8}`$, the error budget for $`\zeta _\mathrm{m}`$ is dominated by uncertainties in $`p`$ rather than in $`E_0`$ or $`\rho `$.

This beaming limit implies $`\mathrm{\Omega }0.75\text{Sr}`$, which is $`6\%`$ of the sky. GRB 970508 was at $`z0.835`$ (Metzger et al 1997). We then find gamma ray energy $`E_\gamma =2.8\times 10^{50}\text{erg}\times (\mathrm{\Omega }/0.75\text{Sr})(d__\mathrm{L}/4.82\text{Gpc})^2\left(1.835/[1+z]\right)`$. If the afterglow is primarily powered by different ejecta from the initial GRB, as when a “slow” wind ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_010`$) dominates the ejecta energy, then our beaming limit applies only to the afterglow emission. The optical fluence implies $`E_{\mathrm{opt}}=3.4\times 10^{49}\text{erg}\times (\mathrm{\Omega }/0.75\text{Sr})(d__\mathrm{L}/4.82\text{Gpc})^2\left(1.835/[1+z]\right)`$. The irreducible minimum energy is thus $`3.4\times 10^{49}\text{erg}`$, using the smallest possible redshift and beaming angle. We have reduced the beaming uncertainty, from the factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2300^210^5`$ allowed by $`\gamma `$-ray observations alone to a factor $`(4\pi \text{Sr})/(0.75\text{Sr})20`$, and thus obtain the most rigorous lower limit on GRB energy requirements yet.

###### Acknowledgements.

I thank Re’em Sari for useful comments.