text:
# A Planet Candidate in the Stellar Triple System HD 178911 Based on observations made at the Observatoire de Haute-Provence (French CNRS) and at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among the Californian Institute of Technology, the University of California and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support from the W.M. Keck Foundation.

## 1 Introduction

We report on radial-velocity measurements of HD 178911B, the fainter component of the visual binary HD 178911 (HR 7272, BD +34° 3439, ADS 12101, HIP 94075/6), which reveal the presence of a 6.3 Jovian-mass companion (minimum mass). As the brighter star of the system — HD 178911A, is actually a close binary (McAlister et al. 1987; Tokovinin et al. 2000, hereafter T00), the discovery reported here is of a planet candidate in a stellar triple system.

The variable velocity of HD 178911B was first noticed by the G–Dwarf Planet Search (Latham 2000). This was a reconnaissance monitoring of nearly 1000 nearby G dwarfs with the HIRES high-resolution spectrograph (Vogt et al. 1994) mounted on the 10–m Keck 1 telescope at the W.M. Keck Observatory (Hawaii, USA) to identify extrasolar planet candidates. The star was then followed up by the ELODIE Planet Search Survey team (Mayor & Queloz 1996, Udry, Mayor & Queloz 2001) using the ELODIE fiber-fed echelle spectrograph (Baranne et al. 1996) mounted on the Cassegrain focus of the 1.93–m telescope at the Observatoire de Haute-Provence (CNRS, France).

The ELODIE velocities were obtained by cross-correlating the observed spectra with a numerical template. The instrumental drifts were monitored and corrected using the “simultaneous Thorium-Argon technique” with dual fibers (Baranne et al. 1996). The precision achieved with this instrument for HD 178911B is of the order of 10 m s-1. The HIRES instrumental drifts were monitored using an Iodine gas absorption cell (Marcy & Butler 1992). The radial velocities were derived from the spectra using the TODCOR code (Zucker & Mazeh 1994), a two-dimensional correlation algorithm.

The first discovery resulting from the collaboration between our teams was the determination of the orbital solution for HD 209458 (Mazeh et al. 2000) that led to the detection of the first photometric (Charbonneau et al. 2000111The ingress of a transit was also independently observed by Henry et al. 2000.) and spectroscopic (Queloz et al. 2000) transits of an extrasolar planet. Recently we also detected the companion to HD 80606 and determined its orbital solution. With e=0.93, it is the most eccentric planetary orbit currently known (Naef et al. 2001).

Our observations of HD 178911B started in July 1998 with HIRES. With a velocity difference of 63 m s-1 in about one month between the first two measurements, it was tagged as a definite variable. This was confirmed by the next four observations in April and May 1999. In July 1999, we started an ELODIE radial-velocity follow up of 6 non-active slowly-rotating radial-velocity variable stars detected with HIRES, including HD 178911B. The combination of the two sets of radial velocities enabled us to derive the orbital solution we describe in Section 2.

In Section 3 we consider the stellar characteristics of the triple system. In particular we study the lithium abundances of the system, specially because another wide binary known to harbor a planet — 16 Cyg — exhibits a peculiar lithium abundance pattern. There the lithium seems to be depleted in the fainter stellar companion hosting the planet compared with the brighter stellar component. We find a similar phenomenon in HD 178911B. Section 4 discusses our finding by reviewing the three models proposed to explain the lithium abundance in 16 Cyg, and examines them in the context of HD 178911B. Section 5 summarizes our findings.

## 2 Radial-velocity analysis and orbital solution

As of September 2001, we had in hand a total of 51 radial-velocity measurements for analysis: 7 from HIRES and 44 from ELODIE. The velocities are all listed in Table 1. The mean uncertainty on the velocities is of the order of 10 m s-1 (systematic error + photon noise) for both instruments. The HIRES velocities have an arbitrary zero point, and therefore the orbital solution presented in Table 2 includes the velocity offset $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{RV}_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{E}}`$ between HIRES and ELODIE as an additional free parameter.

The mass given in the table — $`6.29\pm 0.06`$ Jupiter masses (=$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{Jup}}`$), was derived by assuming a primary mass of $`m_1=0.87\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ for HD 178911B (T00). The uncertainty of the planet mass is much larger than the value quoted above, and it depends on the uncertainty of the primary mass, which was not given in T00. Assuming, for example, an uncertainty for $`m_1`$ of 5 per cent, the error on $`m_{2,\mathrm{min}}`$ would be $`0.21\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{Jup}}`$. Adopting these values for the total mass of HD 178911B and its planet we get a semimajor axis of about $`0.32`$ AU. The Hipparcos measurements of HD 178911B are of a very poor quality, and therefore we have not attempted to use Hipparcos to constrain the companion mass, in the way done by Zucker & Mazeh (2001).

Figure 1 shows the velocities as a function of time after shifting the HIRES data, and Figure 2 shows the residuals obtained after subtracting the fitted orbit. The phase-folded velocities are displayed in Figure 3.

## 3 Stellar properties of the wide binary

In this section we first consider previous work on the wide binary HD 178911, whose present separation is $`16\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}10\pm 0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}01`$ (ESA 1997). McAlister et al. (1987) resolved the brighter component A by speckle interferometry into a 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$1 binary, which was subsequently followed with radial-velocity measurements by T00. The combined spectroscopic-interferometric orbit of the close pair (T00) yielded a period of 3.55 years, an eccentricity of 0.59 and a dynamical parallax of $`25\pm 8`$ milli-arc-seconds (mas). Hipparcos (ESA 1997) reported a somewhat different parallax for HD 178911A — $`20.4\pm 1.6`$ mas, which implies a projected separation of $`790\pm 60`$ AU. Note, however, that T00 cautioned against the use of the Hipparcos parallax which was computed without considering the binary nature of A.

The radial velocity of HD 178911B was measured by T00 to be $`40.65\pm 0.16`$ km s-1, while their orbit yielded a center-of-mass velocity for the close pair A of $`41.01\pm 0.03`$ km s-1. This similarity, together with the high common proper motion of A and B, established the physical association of A and B. Adopting the dynamical parallax we derived a projected separation of the wide pair of $`640\pm 210`$ AU.

Using the photometry by Schoeller et al. (1998), T00 concluded that A comprises a G1-K1 pair, with masses of 1.1 and 0.79 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$. Their model suggested that the B component, around which the planet was discovered, is of spectral type G8V and a mass of 0.87 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$. T00 extracted from spectra of HD 178911 some equivalent width measurements, out of which they derived a solar metallicity for the system. The metallicity, together with the Galactic velocity of HD 178911 led them to suggest that the system belongs to a disk population of intermediate age.

We repeated the procedure used for HD 80606 (Naef et al. 2001) and used a high signal–to–noise HIRES spectrum of HD 178911B to derive its atmospheric parameters (LTE analysis) in the same way as in Santos et al. (2000). Our final iron line list consisted of 16 Fe I lines and 2 Fe II lines. We estimated the uncertainties on the derived atmospheric parameters in the same way as in Gonzalez & Vanture (1998). The resulting atmospheric parameters are listed in Table 3.

Table 3 also includes an upper limit for the lithium abundance of HD 178911B. To derive this upper limit we summed all our 44 ELODIE spectra of HD 178911B in the $`\lambda `$ 6707.8 Å Li I line region. No trace of lithium was detected, and therefore a 3$`\sigma `$ confidence level upper limit on the equivalent width was derived. The abundance upper limit was then calculated with the curves of growth by Soderblom et al. (1993). The lithium abundance was scaled with $`\mathrm{log}`$$`n(\mathrm{H})`$ = 12.

Interestingly, lithium was definitely detected in ELODIE spectra of HD 178911Aab. To show that feature, we plot in Figure 4 the relevant region of two spectra of HD 178911Aab, the co-added spectra of HD 178911B, and a spectrum of a G5 comparison star with lithium. The two spectra of HD 178911Aab were shifted according to the calculated velocity of the massive component, to align the relevant lines with those in the other spectra. One can note the absence of the Li I line in HD 178911B, and the clear presence of this line in HD 178911A. The asymmetry of the Ca I line demonstrates the binary nature of HD 178911A, as the fainter component is shifted relative to the brighter one by 0.29 Å and 0.2 Å in the two spectra. This blending of the lines of the two components of the close binary A did not allow us to perform a quantitative analysis of the lithium abundance of A. However, we adopted the value 50 mÅ as a very rough estimate for the equivalent width of the lithium line, with a probable uncertainty of 10 mÅ. This value, together with a $`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ estimate of 5910 K (Feltzing & Gustafsson 1998), implies $`\mathrm{log}`$$`n(\mathrm{Li})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.4}`$ for the Aa component, with a probable error of 0.1.

## 4 The Lithium Abundance Difference of HD 178911— a Comparison with 16 Cyg

In this section we discuss the difference between the lithium abundance of HD 178911A and B. This difference is intriguing, as it reminds us of a similar difference between 16 Cyg A and B — a wide binary in which a planet was found to orbit around the B component (Cochran et al. 1997). Another intriguing similarity between the case of 16 Cyg and HD 178911 is hinted by the detection of a faint M-star companion to 16 Cyg A by Hauser & Marcy (1999), at a separation of 3$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$2. Turner et al. (2001) suggested the companion — 16 Cyg Ab — is not physically associated with 16 Cyg Aa, but Lloyd et al. (2001) recently claimed that its measured proper motion indicates that the Aa and Ab components are bound. Assuming this is the case, the A component of 16 Cyg, like the A component of HD 178911, is a binary, with a projected separation of about 80 AU. We summarize below the explanations suggested for the lithium abundance pattern in the case of 16 Cyg and then apply them to HD 178911.

The two components of the 16 Cyg wide binary are known to be almost identical stars, with a temperature difference smaller than 50 K (Friel et al. 1993). Naively, one would expect them to have similar lithium abundances. However, it was found (Friel et al. 1993; King et al. 1997) that the lithium abundance of 16 Cyg A is larger by at least a factor of 5 than that of B.

In general, photospheric lithium abundance in cool stars is a useful stellar evolution model diagnostic because this element is destroyed at temperatures of a few million degrees at the base of the convective zone. Although our understanding of lithium abundance evolution is far from complete, present models include burning of lithium during the early pre-main-sequence (PMS) phase of evolution, probably together with mixing material slowly over the lifetime of the star in the radiative layers below the convection zone (e.g., Ryan & Deliyannis 1995; Deliyannis et al. 2000). Therefore, the difference in the lithium abundance between the A and B components of the 16 Cyg wide binary attracted attention even before the discovery of the planet (Friel et al. 1993). Since the discovery of the planet around 16 Cyg B in 1997 quite a few studies suggested posssible explanations for this difference.

King et al. (1997) commented that “it may in principle be possible for planets or associated circumstellar disks to affect a parent star’s initial angular momentum and/or its subsequent evolution and thus induce or inhibit internal mixing resulting in lithium depletion.” Cochran et al. (1997), in their planet discovery paper, were more definite in their effort to explain the low lithium abundance of 16 Cyg B. They pointed out that the angular momentum history of young solar-type stars is governed strongly by torques exerted on the star by the inner accretion disk. The general wisdom is that PMS stars with massive disks exhibit slow rotation rates resulting from the magnetic coupling to the inner disk (e.g. Choi & Herbst 1996; but see Stassun et al. 1999 for a dissenting view). Slow rotators are known to have low lithium abundance (e.g., Soderblom et al. 1993). The fact that only 16 Cyg B was found to have a planet and not the A component suggested, according to Cochran et al., that B had a more massive disk, out of which the planet was formed. The same massive disk induced slowing down of the stellar rotation at the PMS stage and therefore led to lithium depletion in its atmosphere.

Some support for this scenario has been presented by Gonzalez & Laws (2000). They pointed out that when corrected for differences in temperature, metallicity and chromospheric activity, the lithium abundances of planet-hosting stars are in general lower than normal stars. The evidence for this general trend was disputed by Ryan (2000), who claimed that the lithium abundances of planet-harboring stars are indistinguishable from those of non-planet-harboring stars of the same age, temperature and composition. He further argued that the small difference in temperature between 16 Cyg A and B (Deliyannis et al. 2000; Laws & Gonzalez 2001) could explain the lithium abundance difference, although the Li-$`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ slope might be somewhat steeper in the 16 Cyg system than observed elsewhere. From this point of view the planet around B has nothing to do with the lithium abundance difference.

A completely different explanation for the lithium abundance difference between 16 Cyg A and B was suggested by Gonzalez (1998). In a paper where he invoked a pollution scenario for the high metallicity of the stars hosting planets, he suggested that 16 Cyg A ingested a planet that was pushed into its atmosphere by tidal interaction with the existing planet of the B component. The swallowed planet raised the lithium abundance of 16 Cyg A dramatically. Laws & Gonzalez (2001) found some support for this scenario by their finding that the iron abundance of 16 Cyg A is slightly higher than B. They argued that both the slightly higher metallicity and the large difference in the lithium abundance could be attributed to a scenario in which A swallowed a giant planet into its atmosphere. Evidence for such a process where a planet was swallowed by its host star was also found in the case of HD 82943 (Israelian et al. 2001).

To summarize, three explanations have been put forward to explain the lithium abundance difference between 16 Cyg A and B, two of which had to do with the fact that B has a planet around it, while A does not. One of the two attributed the depletion of lithium in B to the massive disk that eventually formed the planet, while the other attributed the relatively high lithium abundance of A to the ingestion of a planet by A. The third explanation was based on the temperature difference between A and B.

We can now examine the relevance of the three explanations to the HD 178911 system. Here also the lithium depletion was found in the planet-hosting star which is also the cooler star. The low lithium abundance of B could be the result of its massive disk, as the first explanation suggests. The lithium abundance difference might also be the result of the different temperatures of A and B. The value we got for the lithium abundance of B, together with the rough estimate for A, suggest a difference of at least 1.6 in $`\mathrm{log}`$$`n(\mathrm{Li})`$. The calibration of Gonzalez & Laws (2000) predicts a much smaller difference of 0.44 for the same $`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ difference. However, the explanation suggested by Ryan (2000) for 16 Cyg might apply here also. If we extrapolate his suggestion of a 0.33 dex decline in $`\mathrm{log}`$$`n(\mathrm{Li})`$ per 50 K, we get a difference of 1.72 dex for the HD 178911 system, consistent with our estimate. Then again, it is not clear whether the slope suggested by Ryan is applicable to the whole range of temperatures covered by the two components of HD 178911.

When we try to invoke the planet-ingestion scenario to produce a lithium enhancement in HD 178911A, we face some difficulties, because of the relative proximity, 3 AU, of the Aa and Ab components. The tidal forces of Ab would have disrupted any planetary orbit around Aa in a very early stage, especially under the migration hypothesis which requires the planet to form in a distance of a few AU from its parent star. However, to still hold to this scenario for HD 178911 we might try to invoke the formation of a circumbinary planet. Such a scenario is possible, although no circumbinary planet has been discovered yet (e.g. Holman & Wiegert 1999). This hypothetical planet could have migrated inwards through the standard migration mechanism, or interact with the planet of HD 178911B in the way suggested for 16 Cyg by Gonzalez (1998). At close enough distance to the binary, the resulting instability might lead to ingestion of the planet by one of the binary components. We will not face the same difficulties in 16 Cyg A, even if we accept the triple nature of 16 Cyg, since the 16 Cyg A pair is wide enough (80 AU) to allow the formation and evolution of a planet around Aa. Thus, in principle, we cannot completely rule out any of the three explanations, although the planet-ingestion seems less likely for HD 178911 as it requires some non-standard formation processes.

Interestingly, Ryan & Deliyannis (1995) suggested that binaries with sufficiently short periods might have preserved more lithium than normal, single stars. They relied on the theory of Zahn and Bouchet (1989; but see the different approach by Mathieu and Mazeh 1988 and Goldman and Mazeh 1991) that short-period binaries, with periods shorter than 8–9 days, reached synchronization during the early stages of the PMS phase. At this early fully convective stage, the stellar interiors were not hot enough to destroy lithium. The depletion of lithium occured in a later stage at the stellar interior by “angular momentum transport mixing”. Short-period tidally-locked binaries did not go through this mixing stage because of their different angular momentum evolution and therefore display high lithium abundance. Whatever the mechanism would be, it seems that the long period of the HD 178911A binary renders this argument inapplicable to our system.

## 5 Conclusion

We have shown evidence for a planet orbiting HD 178911B, at a separation of about 0.3 AU. HD 178911B and 16 Cyg B are currently the only triple systems known to harbor planets. In both cases the planet was discovered around the distant component, while the other two stars comprise a close binary.

Can there be another planet around one of the components of HD 178911A? According to the presently accepted paradigm, the short period planets have migrated from where they had formed, at a few AU (but see, e.g., Boss 1998 for an alternative). At such large distances, no planet could have survived the tidal interaction of the other star in the close pair HD 178911A. It seems that under the present paradigm the only possible planets in the close pair are circumbinary planets.

Assuming that at present there is no planet around HD 178911A, it is interesting to consider the formation of the whole HD 178911 system. Suppose that the visual binary was formed by a fragmentation event during the collapse of a molecular cloud core (e.g., Burkert & Bodenheimer 1993). The cloud core collapsed until it was of the order of a thousand AU in diameter, at which time it fragmented into two parts. One part ended up as the close stellar pair A, while the other one formed (at least) one planet which we have discovered. It would be interesting to figure out what were the differences in the two cores that caused them to evolve on such different formation tracks, and whether the lithium abundance of A and B can shed some light on our understanding of their evolution.

We acknowledge support from the Swiss National Research Found (FNRS), the Geneva University and the French CNRS, the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation through grant 97-00460 and the Israeli Science Foundation (grant no. 40/00). We are grateful to the Observatoire de Haute-Provence for the generous time allocation. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.


format: text

text:
# Overall Temporal Synchrotron Emissions from Relativistic Jets: Adiabatic and Radiative Breaks

## 1 Introduction

It is widely believed that gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) and their afterglows are caused by the dissipation of kinetic energy of an ultrarelativistic ejecta, with Lorentz factor $`\gamma >100`$, releasing from the central engine (so-called “fireball” model, see Piran 1999 and van Paradijs, Kouveliotou & Wijers 2000 for detailed reviews). GRBs are the most energetic explosive phenomena in astronomy. In the fireball model, the collisions among different shells within the ejecta might be expected to produce a prompt burst (Paczyński & Xu 1994; Rees & Mészáros 1994), and subsequently the ejecta interacts with its surrounding medium, producing a long-term and broad-band afterglow (Paczyński & Rhoads 1993; Mészáros & Rees 1997). In the standard afterglow picture, the ejecta drives a relativistic blast wave expanding into the surrounding medium, which approaches a self-similar solution (Blandford & McKee 1976) after a short time once the swept-up medium attains an energy comparable to the initial energy of the burst. Electrons in the cold medium are heated in the shock front to highly relativistic energy and produce a broad-band afterglow via synchrotron/inverse-Compton emission. The predicted emission spectrum and light curve (Mészáros & Rees 1997; Sari et al. 1998) have met essential successes in describing the behavior of afterglows (e.g., Vietri 1997; Waxman 1997ab; Wijers et al. 1997). The recent observations on GRB afterglows have lead to numerous numerical calculations to model the observed afterglows (e.g., Huang et al. 2000a, b; Gou et al. 2001; Panaitescu & Kumar 2001; Panaitescu 2001).

We re-investigate the dynamical evolution and temporal emission of afterglows by considering three aspects. (i) The electrons heated by the shock are always fast cooling when the cooling timescale for these electrons is shorter than the dynamical timescale (see, e.g., Waxman 1997a; Mészáros et al. 1997; Sari et al. 1998), and the afterglow evolution should be in the radiative regime rather than the adiabatic one as long as a significant fraction ($`ϵ_e`$) of the fireball energy is transferred to newly heated electrons, $`ϵ_e1`$. This shock decelerates faster than an adiabatic shock, as pointed out by Böttcher & Dermer (2000). The newly launched HETE-2 satellite, due to its rapid and accurate location of GRBs, should lead to much more follow-up observations on early X-ray and optical emission, allowing a detailed analysis of the afterglow feature. (ii) The inverse-Compton emission is important in afterglows (Panaitescu & Mészáros 1998; Wei & Lu 1998; Totani 1998; Chiang & Dermer 1999; Dermer, Böttcher & Chiang 2000; Panaitescu & Kumar 2000; Sari & Esin 2001; Zhang & Mészáros 2001). When the inverse-Compton cooling of electrons dominates the synchrotron cooling, the temporal synchrotron emission is influenced by changing the scaling law of the cooling frequency $`\nu _c`$ (defined later) with time. (iii) Jets are especially important in GRBs since they are relevant to almost all aspects of GRB phenomenon, e.g. the total energy released in a GRB, the burst rate, the ejection mechanism of the central engine and the dynamical evolution of the ejecta. It is of particular interest that the light curves of afterglows might be changed when the jet enters a spreading phase, as pointed out by Rhoads (1999), Sari et al. (1999) and Dai, Huang & Lu (2001). The discovery of polarization in the afterglow of GRB 990510 has shown evidence for a jet-like outflow (Covino et al. 1999; Wijers et al. 1999).

We consider GRBs as jets. The jet evolves as spherical-like expansion before entering the spreading phase (Rhoads 1999; Sari et al. 1999), and the heated electrons are always fast cooling at first. This radiative and spherical-like phase ends once either (1) the electrons become slow cooling or (2) the relativistic jet transits to the spreading phase. So a “radiative break” in the light curve may appear for the case where the jet transits to the spreading phase when the electrons are still fast cooling and the jet is in the radiative regime. This break is different from the widely discussed “adiabatic break” for the case where the transition occurs in the adiabatic regime in which the electrons have been slow cooling. In this work we derive the overall analytical evolution of synchrotron emission from a relativistic jet. We first introduce the dynamical evolution of a relativistic jet in section 2. Then the temporal evolution of synchrotron emission from the jet is calculated in section 3. In section 3.1 we analyze the radiative regime when the jet evolution is spherical-like. Section 3.2 discusses the adiabatic break in which the electrons become slow cooling before the jet evolves into the spreading phase while section 3.3 explores the radiative break in which the transition to the spreading phase occurs in the radiative regime. We give some discussions and conclusions in section 4.

## 2 Dynamical evolution of relativistic jets

Let’s consider a relativistic jet expanding into its surrounding medium with an initial half opening angle of $`\theta _0`$, a laterally-spreading velocity of $`c_s`$ and a bulk Lorentz factor of $`\gamma `$. Though the shock is beamed, the jet evolution is spherical-like as long as $`\gamma >\theta _0^1(c_s/c)`$. Because the electrons accelerated by a shock are always fast cooling at first, the jet should be radiative if the energy density of the electrons is a significant fraction $`ϵ_e`$ of the total energy density of the shocked medium. The jet hydrodynamics in this radiative regime will be different from the well known self-similar solution for adiabatic blast waves derived by Blandford & McKee (1976), $`\gamma r^{3/2}`$, where $`r`$ is the shock radius. Thus, the jet behaves as a radiative and spherical-like expansion at the initial stage. The jet evolution later is divided into two cases. (a) In the case of an adiabatic break, the accelerated electrons become slow cooling before the jet evolves into a spreading phase, so the jet exhibits an adiabatic and spherical-like evolution as $`\gamma r^{3/2}`$ sequentially and finally a spreading phase of $`\gamma `$ dropping exponentially with increasing $`r`$. (b) In the case of a radiative break, the jet transition into the spreading phase occurs in the radiative regime where the shocked electrons are still fast cooling, and therefore the jet evolves from the initial radiative spherical-like phase to the spreading phase directly, without the second phase of adiabatic and spherical-like evolution of case (a). Fig. 1 depicts these two cases of the dynamical evolutions of relativistic jets.

Since the evolution of an adiabatic spherical blast wave is well known, we introduce here only the dynamics of so-called “semiradiative” blast waves for the initial stage of radiative and spherical-like evolution and of the radiative jet for the final stage in the case of a radiative break.

Recently, for semiradiative blast waves, in which the energy radiated is considerable to affect the evolution of the blast waves, Cohen et al. (1998) have also derived a self-similar solution under the assumption that a fixed fraction of the energy generated by the shock is radiated away. This assumption is applicable at early times, since the heated electrons are in the fast-cooling regime and a fixed fraction of the total energy that has been transferred to electrons is radiated away while the protons do not radiate their energy and remain hot. Following Cohen et al. (1998), the radius $`r`$ and the Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$ of a semiradiative blast wave are in relation of $`\gamma ^2r^m`$, and they evolve with the observer time as

$$r=r_0\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{\frac{1}{m+1}},$$
(1)
$$\gamma =\gamma _0\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{\frac{m}{2(m+1)}},$$
(2)
$$m=\frac{(1+ϵ)^2+3(1+ϵ)(4k)4}{3ϵ}.$$
(3)
Here $`\gamma _0`$ is the initial coasting Lorentz factor of the jet, $`r_0`$ is the deceleration radius where the energy in the shocked medium equals that in the original explosion, $`t_0`$ is the observer time at which the deceleration radius is reached, $`ϵ`$ is a fraction of energy that is radiated away and should be understood as $`ϵ=ϵ_e`$ in the fast cooling regime, and $`k`$ parameterizes the proton number density $`n`$ of the surrounding medium with $`n=Ar^k`$. For $`k=0`$ and $`ϵ`$=(0—1), $`m`$ varies from 3 to 12 and the Lorentz factor of the blast wave evolves based on $`\gamma t^{3/8}`$ to $`\gamma t^{6/13}`$. It is the adiabatic solution case with $`ϵ=0`$. Denoting the energy in the original explosion as $`E_0`$, and the redshift of this explosion as $`z`$, we have

$$r_0=\left(\frac{3k}{4\pi A}\frac{E_0}{\gamma _0^2m_pc^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{3k}},$$
(4)
$$t_0=\frac{r_0(1+z)}{2\gamma _0^2c}.$$
(5)
In the fully radiative ($`ϵ=1`$) case, the scaling $`\gamma r^6`$ differs from the widely used Blandford-McKee solution, $`\gamma r^3`$ (see, e.g., Sari, Piran & Narayan 1998, Böttcher & Dermer 2000), which assumes a thin shell with a cooled interior and the kinetic energy of the shell can be written as $`E_k=(\gamma 1)M`$, where $`M`$ is the shell mass. In fact, the quantities, such as velocity, density and energy density, should be a function of distance from the shock front. Thus, we prefer to use the self-similar solution of Cohen et al. (1998) which assumes a shell with finite width within which the interior exerting a pressure onto the outer. Here after we use the equations above to describe the evolution of blast waves in the following calculations.

For the dynamics of a relativistic jet, Rhoads (1999) has derived an adiabatic solution, in which the jet evolution in the spreading phase is an exponential slowing down of $`\gamma `$ with increasing $`r`$. We can expect the jet slows down even faster if it is in the radiative regime and loses energy more quickly than an adiabatic jet does. Thus, for a radiative jet, $`r`$ is practically a constant during the spreading phase. Therefore, from $`r\gamma ^2ct`$, we have the same scaling relation of $`\gamma t^{1/2}`$ as that of an adiabatic jet.

## 3 Temporal evolution of synchrotron emission spectra

As shown later, the previous studies on jetted afterglows are only suitable for the adiabatic break case with weak Compton-cooling effect. At first, we concentrate on deriving the spectra and light curves in the initial radiative and spherical-like stage, and then we discuss the light-curve change around the break time in both the adiabatic and radiative break cases with strong or weak Compton-cooling effect.

### 3.1 Radiative and spherical-like phases

We only consider the emission from the accelerated electrons, neglecting the emission from the hot protons. The electron distribution is assumed to be a power-law of Lorentz factor, $`N(\gamma _e)\gamma _e^p`$, with the minimum random Lorentz factor,

$$\gamma _m=\frac{2}{(1+X)}\frac{(p2)}{(p1)}\frac{m_p}{m_e}ϵ_e\gamma ,$$
(6)
where $`X`$ is the usual hydrogen mass fraction of the surrounding medium. We assume that $`p>2`$ here after so that the total electron energy is dominated by electrons with $`\gamma _m`$ \[Recently Dai & Cheng (2001) have studied the case of $`1<p<2`$\]. The strength of the magnetic field in the co-moving frame is given by

$$B^{}=\gamma c\sqrt{32\pi nm_pϵ_B},$$
(7)
where $`ϵ_B`$ is a fraction of the total internal energy densty that is carried by the magnetic field.

We concentrate here on the radiative regime when the cooling timescale for electron with $`\gamma _m`$ is shorter than the dynamical timescale, $`t=\frac{1+z}{c}\frac{dr}{\gamma }=\frac{2(1+z)}{2+m}\frac{r}{c\gamma }`$ for $`\gamma r^{m/2}`$. In this case, the distribution of electrons extends to a lower Lorentz factor $`\gamma _c`$ as a power-law $`\gamma _e^2`$ for $`\gamma _c<\gamma _e<\gamma _m`$ and $`\gamma ^{(p+1)}`$ for $`\gamma _e>\gamma _m`$, where $`\gamma _c`$ is the Lorentz factor of electrons that cool on the dynamical timescale $`t`$,

$$\gamma _c=\frac{3\pi m_ec^2}{\sigma _T}\frac{(2+m)}{(1+Y)}\frac{\gamma }{B^2r}.$$
(8)
Here we have considered the inverse-Compton cooling of electrons by the Compton parameter (Sari & Esin 2000)

$$Y=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1+4\frac{\eta ϵ_e}{ϵ_B}}\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\eta ϵ_e}{ϵ_B},\hfill & \mathrm{if}\frac{\eta ϵ_e}{ϵ_B}1,\hfill \\ \sqrt{\frac{\eta ϵ_e}{ϵ_B}},\hfill & \mathrm{if}\frac{\eta ϵ_e}{ϵ_B}1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
where $`\eta `$ is a fraction of the electron energy that is radiated away. We should note that $`\eta =1`$ for fast cooling and $`\eta =(\gamma _c/\gamma _m)^{2p}`$ for slow cooling.

The simple model of synchrotron spectra of afterglows is a broken power-law with three break frequencies. One is the absorption frequency $`\nu _a`$ below which the synchrotron photons are self-absorbed by electrons. The other two are the characteristic synchrotron frequencies according to electrons with Lorentz factor $`\gamma _m`$ and $`\gamma _c`$, denoted $`\nu _m`$ and $`\nu _c`$, respectively. Following the improved treatment of synchrotron emission by Wijers & Galama (1999), we have

$$\nu _m=\frac{x_pe}{\pi m_ec(1+z)}B^{}\gamma _m^2\gamma ,$$
(10)
$$\nu _c=\frac{0.286e}{\pi m_ec(1+z)}B^{}\gamma _c^2\gamma ,$$
(11)
where the dimensionless factor $`x_p0.64`$, for $`p=2`$.

The absorption frequency is defined to be the point where $`\tau _\nu =1`$. Note that in the co-moving frame of the shocked shell (denoted with a prime), the absorption coefficient $`\alpha _\nu ^{}^{}`$ scales as $`\alpha _\nu ^{}^{}\nu ^{(p^{}+4)/2}`$ for $`\nu ^{}>\nu _p^{}\mathrm{min}(\nu _m^{},\nu _c^{})`$ and $`\alpha _\nu ^{}^{}\nu ^{5/3}`$ for $`\nu ^{}<\nu _p^{}`$ (Waxman 1997b), where $`p^{}`$ is the index of the distribution of those electrons relevant to synchrotron self-absorption around $`\nu ^{}`$. For the absorption coefficient at co-moving cooling frequency $`\nu _c^{}=3(1+z)\nu _c/(4\gamma )`$ we should take $`p^{}=2`$ and then (Rybicki & Lightman 1979)

$$\alpha _{\nu _c^{}}^{}=\frac{\sqrt{3}e^3}{8\pi m_e}\left(\frac{3e}{2\pi m_e^2c^3}\right)C\lambda B^2\nu _c^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(4)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2),$$
(12)
where $`C=2(1+X)n\gamma \gamma _c`$ (coming from $`_{\gamma _c}^{\gamma _m}C\gamma _e^2𝑑\gamma _e=\frac{1+X}{2}4\gamma n`$ for $`\gamma _m\gamma _c`$), $`\lambda =_0^{\pi /2}(\mathrm{sin}\alpha )^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{d}\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(y)`$ is the Gamma function. The optical depth at $`\nu _c^{}`$ is then $`\tau _c\alpha _{\nu _c^{}}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }r^{}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }r^{}=r/4\gamma `$ is the co-moving width of the shocked shell, thus we can get the absorption frequency

$$\nu _a=\nu _c\tau _c^{3/5}=\nu _c\left(\frac{\alpha _{\nu _c^{}}^{}r}{4\gamma }\right)^{3/5}$$
(13)
for $`\nu _a<\nu _c`$ in the radiative regime. We have neglected the case of $`\nu _a>\nu _c`$ since $`\tau _c>1`$ lasts for only few seconds in general parameter space.

The peak flux in the synchrotron spectrum is

$$F_m=\frac{\sqrt{3}\varphi _pe^3}{4\pi d_l^2(1+z)m_ec^2}\gamma B^{}N_e,$$
(14)
where $`\varphi _p`$ is a factor defined by Wijers & Galama (1999), which is $`\varphi _p=0.64`$ for $`p=2`$ here, $`d_l`$ is the luminosity distance, and $`N_e`$ is the number of electrons in the shocked shell and given by

$$N_e=\frac{2\pi (1+X)}{3k}Ar^{3k}.$$
(15)
Substituting $`\gamma `$ and $`r`$ with aid of equations (1)-(3), one obtains expressions of $`\nu _m`$, $`\nu _c`$, $`\nu _a`$ and $`F_m`$ (shown in Appendix), and their scaling relations with the observer’s time are

$$\nu _mt^{\frac{k+4m}{2(1+m)}},$$
(16)
$$\nu _ct^{\frac{43k}{2(1+m)}},$$
(17)
$$\nu _at^{\frac{9k+6m8}{5(1+m)}},$$
(18)
$$F_mt^{\frac{3k+2m6}{2(1+m)}}.$$
(19)
Given these three break frequency and peak flux, we can calculate the synchrotron spectrum and light curve. Note that $`\nu _a<\nu _c<\nu _m`$ in the radiative regime. For a homogeneous medium, $`k=0`$ (Note that hereafter in this paper the discussions are all concerned about this homogeneous medium case), the fluxes in the four frequency ranges divided by three break frequencies evolve as

$$\begin{array}{c}F_{\nu <\nu _a}=F_m\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _a}\right)^2\left(\frac{\nu _a}{\nu _c}\right)^{1/3}\nu ^2t,\hfill \\ F_{\nu _a<\nu <\nu _c}=F_m\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _c}\right)^{1/3}\nu ^{1/3}t^{\frac{3m11}{3(1+m)}},\hfill \\ F_{\nu _c<\nu <\nu _m}=F_m\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _c}\right)^{1/2}\nu ^{1/2}t^{\frac{m2}{1+m}},\hfill \\ F_{\nu >\nu _m}=F_m\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _m}\right)^{p/2}\left(\frac{\nu _m}{\nu _c}\right)^{1/2}\nu ^{p/2}t^{\frac{mp2}{1+m}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
The light curve decay indexes are relevant to $`ϵ(=ϵ_e)`$, and shown in Fig. 2. Therefore, observations of early-time afterglows following a prompt burst can help to determine the parameter $`ϵ_e`$.

We have neglected the effect of inverse-Compton process on the shape of synchrotron spectrum, because the Thomson optical depth of synchrotron photons is generally very small and only a negligibly small fraction of synchrotron photons is scattered. Besides, the typical energy of inverse-Compton emission, $`\nu _m^{IC}\gamma _m^2\nu _m`$, usually far exceeds that of the synchrotron component which we are concerned about, since the accelerated electrons are always relativistic because $`\gamma _m\gamma 1`$ for relativistic blast waves.

The end of this radiative and spherical-like stage is determined by the minimum of two time scales. One is the time $`t_{cm}`$ when $`\nu _m=\nu _c`$. After this time, the accelerated electrons around $`\gamma _m`$ become slow cooling so that the shock is practically not radiative any more and transits from the radiative to the adiabatic phase (The transition is gradual due to the gradual change of $`ϵ`$ from $`ϵ_e`$ to 0, since $`ϵ=ϵ_e\eta `$. Thus, in this transition phase, the blast wave evolution will not be self-similar). Another is the break time $`t_{jet}`$ when $`\gamma \theta _0^1(c_s/c)`$ and the jet enters the spreading phase. Having the expressions of $`\nu _m`$ and $`\nu _c`$ we can derive $`t_{cm}`$ (a detailed expression given in Appendix). With the aid of the evolution of $`\gamma `$, we have the break time

$$t_{jet}=t_0(\gamma _0\theta _0)^{\frac{2(m+1)}{m}}$$
(21)
(see a detail in Appendix). Here we have taken $`c_sc`$. Fig. 3 shows two times, $`t_{cm}`$ and $`t_{jet}`$, varying with $`ϵ_e`$. It is the adiabatic break case in the small $`ϵ_e`$ end since $`t_{cm}<t_{jet}`$, while the radiative break case tends to appear in the right end where $`t_{cm}>t_{jet}`$.

### 3.2 Adiabatic jet break

#### 3.2.1 Adiabatic and spherical-like phase

We first discuss the case of $`t_{cm}<t_{jet}`$, which corresponds to Fig. 1a. When the time $`t_{cm}`$ is reached, the jet enters an adiabatic and spherical-like stage which have been studied by many authors. The blast wave evolves as $`\gamma r^{3/2}t^{3/8}`$. We have the well-known scaling relations

$$\nu _mt^{3/2},\nu _ct^{1/2}(Y<1),\nu _at^0,F_mt^0.$$
(22)
In some $`ϵ_Bϵ1`$ cases, i.e. a magnetic field extremely far below equipartition like the cases of GRB 971214 (Wijers & Galama 1999) and 990123 (Galama et al. 1999), the adiabatic blast wave will be strong Compton cooling with $`Y1`$. The evolution of the cooling frequency $`\nu _c`$ becomes somewhat complicated if the $`Y>1`$ case is considered. We combine $`Y\sqrt{\eta }(\gamma _c/\gamma _m)^{(2p)/2}`$ and $`\gamma _c\gamma /(YB^2r)`$ for $`Y>1`$ with $`\nu _cB^{}\gamma \gamma _c^2`$ to obtain the general scaling

$$\nu _c\gamma ^{22p/(4p)}r^{4/(4p)}.$$
(23)
For an adiabatic and spherical-like jet, this becomes

$$\nu _ct^{3/2+2/(4p)}(Y>1).$$
(24)
We can see that $`\nu _c`$ might increase or decrease with time, depending on whether $`p>8/3`$ or $`p<8/3`$, respectively. Note that $`Y`$ is also a function of time due to decreasing $`\eta `$. So if $`ϵ_eϵ_B`$, then $`Y>1`$ in the beginning fast cooling phase, and $`Y(\gamma ^2r)^{\frac{p2}{4p}}`$ generally in the slow cooling phase. The slowing-down leads to $`Yt^{\frac{1}{2}(\frac{p2}{4p})}`$ for $`\gamma t^{3/8}`$, or $`Yt^{\frac{p2}{4p}}`$ for $`\gamma t^{1/2}`$ until $`Y1`$ (We assume $`p<4`$ here after, which is consistent with the observations which show that all afterglows appear to have the electron energy distribution of $`p<4`$). Thus there might be a transition from the strong Compton cooling ($`Y>1`$) to the weak Compton cooling ($`Y<1`$) phase, as pointed out by Sari et al. (2000). However, if $`ϵ_eϵ_B`$, then $`Y<1`$ throughout.

It is now easy to derive the light curves in four frequency ranges

$$\begin{array}{c}F_{\nu <\nu _a}=F_m\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _a}\right)^2\left(\frac{\nu _a}{\nu _m}\right)^{1/3}\nu ^2t^{1/2},\hfill \\ F_{\nu _a<\nu <\nu _m}=F_m\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _m}\right)^{1/3}\nu ^{1/3}t^{1/2},\hfill \\ F_{\nu _m<\nu <\nu _c}=F_m\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _m}\right)^{(p1)/2}\nu ^{(p1)/2}t^{3(p1)/4},\hfill \\ F_{\nu >\nu _c}=F_m\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _c}\right)^{p/2}\left(\frac{\nu _c}{\nu _m}\right)^{(p1)/2}\{\begin{array}{cc}\nu ^{p/2}t^{3p/4+1/(4p)}\hfill & (Y>1),\hfill \\ \nu ^{p/2}t^{3p/4+1/2}\hfill & (Y<1).\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
Note that the transition of a jet from the radiative phase to the adiabatic phase at $`t_{cm}`$ results in a flattening of the light curve in the energy range of $`\nu >\nu _c`$, and even the light curve is more flattening in the case of $`Y>1`$ than in the case of $`Y<1`$.

#### 3.2.2 Spreading phase

A break time is reached when $`\gamma \theta _0^1(c_s/c)`$. In this adiabatic break case, Eq. (21) is invalid to calculate this break time since an adiabatic and spherical-like phase has appeared before the final spreading phase. We need to derive the break time again as follows. From the integral $`t_{jet}^at_{cm}=_{r_{cm}}^{r_{jet}}\frac{dr}{2\gamma ^2c}`$ where $`r_{jet}=(\gamma _{cm}\theta _0)^{2/3}r_{cm}`$, the break time is given by

$$t_{jet}^a\frac{1+m}{4}(\gamma _{cm}\theta _0)^{8/3}t_{cm}$$
(26)
(see a detail in Appendix) for $`t_{jet}^at_{cm}`$ or $`\gamma _{cm}\theta _01`$. This value is larger than that of Eq. (21).

Having entered the spreading phase, the jet evolves as $`\gamma t^{1/2}`$ and the shock radius $`r`$ can be regarded as a constant. We rewrite the scalings of the break frequencies and the peak flux as

$$\nu _mt^2,\nu _c\{\begin{array}{cc}t^{2+4/(4p)}\hfill & (Y>1)\hfill \\ t^0\hfill & (Y<1)\hfill \end{array},\nu _at^{1/5},F_mt^1.$$
(27)
It is a rather remarkable result that $`\nu _c`$ is actually increasing with time in the $`Y>1`$ case. Therefore the flux turns to evolve as

$$\begin{array}{c}F_{\nu <\nu _a}\nu ^2t^0,\hfill \\ F_{\nu _a<\nu <\nu _m}\nu ^{1/3}t^{1/3},\hfill \\ F_{\nu _m<\nu <\nu _c}\nu ^{(p1)/2}t^p,\hfill \\ F_{\nu >\nu _c}\{\begin{array}{cc}\nu ^{p/2}t^{p+2/(4p)}\hfill & (Y>1),\hfill \\ \nu ^{p/2}t^p\hfill & (Y<1).\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
Note that if $`Y<1`$, the transition of a relativistic jet into the spreading phase results in a steepening of the light curve in $`\nu >\nu _m`$, with decay index $`p`$ independent of whether $`\nu >\nu _c`$ or $`\nu <\nu _c`$. But in the case of strong Compton cooling, $`Y>1`$, something different happens: the transition yields the same steepening of the light curve into $`t^p`$ in $`\nu _m<\nu <\nu _c`$, but due to the cooling frequency $`\nu _c`$ increasing in time, a flattening from $`t^{3p/4+1/(4p)}`$ to $`t^{p+2/(4p)}`$ appears in $`\nu >\nu _c`$ . Define the light curve index $`\alpha `$ and the spectral index $`\beta `$ as $`F_\nu (t)t^\alpha \nu ^\beta `$. Table 1 summarizes the relations between $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ above $`\nu _m`$ for different cases. Fig. 4 presents the effect of strong Compton cooling on the $`\alpha \beta `$ relation above $`\nu _c`$.

### 3.3 Radiative jet break

If $`t_{jet}<t_{cm}`$, corresponding to Fig. 1b, the break time is first reached to end the spherical-like evolution even when the electrons are still fast cooling and the jet might be in the radiative regime with $`ϵ_e1`$. In the spreading phase the effect of sideways expansion dominates the jet evolution, then the dynamics is $`\gamma t^{1/2}`$. And the electrons turns from fast cooling into slow cooling in the spreading phase.

#### 3.3.1 Fast cooling

With the same jet evolution as that in the spreading phase of an adiabatic jet, $`\gamma t^{1/2}`$, we have the same scalings of $`\nu _m`$, $`\nu _c`$ and $`F_m`$,

$$\nu _mt^2,\nu _ct^0,F_mt^1.$$
(29)
Since $`\eta =1`$ for fast cooling, the Compton parameter $`Y`$ is then a constant and the scaling relation of $`\nu _c`$ with observer’s time is the same as in the case of $`Y1`$. Next we derive the remaining absorption frequency $`\nu _a`$. In this case of fast cooling, the electrons responsible for low energy emission are those with $`\nu _c`$, and therefore $`\nu _a=\nu _c\tau _c^{3/5}`$. In the co-moving frame of the shocked medium, the absorption coefficient at cooling frequency is given by Eq. (12), $`\alpha _{\nu _c^{}}^{}CB^2\nu _c^3r^5\gamma ^5`$, and the optical depth at cooling frequency is $`\tau _c\alpha _{\nu _c^{}}^{}r/\gamma r^6\gamma ^4`$. Thus, we have

$$\nu _ar^{8/5}\gamma ^{12/5}t^{6/5}.$$
(30)
With the scalings above, the spectra in fast cooling phase, where $`\nu _a<\nu _c<\nu _m`$, evolve as

$$\begin{array}{c}F_{\nu <\nu _a}\nu ^2t,\hfill \\ F_{\nu _a<\nu <\nu _c}\nu ^{1/3}t^1,\hfill \\ F_{\nu _c<\nu <\nu _m}\nu ^{1/2}t^1,\hfill \\ F_{\nu >\nu _m}\nu ^{p/2}t^p.\hfill \end{array}$$
(31)
When the energy of accelerated electrons are nearly in equipartition with protons, we have $`ϵ_e1`$, where the jet evolution in the fully-radiative and spherical-like phase, $`\gamma t^{6/13}`$, is closer to that of the spreading phase, $`\gamma t^{1/2}`$. So we can expect that the light-curve break due to sideways expansion is less obvious. In fact, if $`ϵ_e=0.6`$, which is the estimated value for GRB 970508 by Granot et al. (1999), and $`p=2.4`$, the steepening around the break time from $`t^{1.9}`$ to $`t^{2.4}`$ is really weak. Furthermore, the numerical calculations of jetted afterglows by some authors (e.g., Moderski et al. 1999; Wei & Lu 2000; Huang et al. 2000a,b) showed a smooth change in light curves, and thus we expect that there may be no light curve breaks observed in the case discussed here. That is to say, no break dosen’t mean a burst without beaming. Table 2 summarizes the $`\alpha \beta `$ relation above $`\nu _m`$ before and after the break time $`t_{jet}`$. Fig. 5 depicts further the relation above $`\nu _c`$.

#### 3.3.2 Slow cooling

Finally, when $`\nu _m=\nu _c`$, the electrons become slow cooling, the temporal scalings of the break frequencies and the fluxes are the same as those in the later spreading phase of an adiabatic jet in section 3.2.2. So Eq. (28) are valid here. But the $`t_{cm}`$ calculated in section 3.2.2 is not valid here because the jet has been in the spreading phase rather than the spherical-like phase. This time becomes

$$t_{cm}^r=t_{jet}\left(\frac{\nu _{m,jet}}{\nu _{c,jet}}\right)^{1/2}$$
(32)
(see a detail in Appendix), where the subscript “jet” denotes the quantities in time $`t_{jet}`$.

## 4 Summary and Discussion

We have analyzed the whole process of a relativistic jet expanding into a homogeneous environment, from the radiative to adiabatic regime and from the spherical-like to spreading phase. Then we have found two different kinds of light-curve break for the jet effect. One is an adiabatic jet break which appears if the transition of the jet into the spreading phase happens in the adiabatic regime when the accelerated electrons are already slow cooling. This case is widely discussed already. Another is a radiative jet break which corresponds to the jet spreading obviously in the radiative regime when the accelerated electrons are still fast cooling. This case leads to a weaker break in the light curve if $`ϵ_e1`$.

Based on the dynamics, we have derived the light curves of synchrotron emission from jetted afterglows, and summarized our main results as follows. First, in the earliest radiative and spherical-like phase, the light curve decay index is steep and relevant to $`ϵ_e`$ shown in Eq. (20), e.g., the flux at high energy $`\nu >\nu _m`$ decays as fast as $`t^2`$ for $`ϵ_e1`$ and $`p2.4`$. Thus, as pointed out by Böttcher & Dermer (2000), the rapid detections of afterglows at early times will provide a way to determine the electron energy fraction $`ϵ_e`$ of total energy density.

Second, if the Compton cooling of electrons dominates the synchrotron cooling, the afterglows will exhibit quite different behaviors from the previous predictions. In the case of an adiabatic jet break, the sharp steepening of light curve in both $`\nu <\nu _c`$ and $`\nu >\nu _c`$ is only expected for the case of $`ϵ_e/ϵ_B1`$, i.e. $`Y<1`$ in the beginning. While for the case of $`ϵ_e/ϵ_B1`$, the jet begins with strong Compton scattering ($`Y>1`$), and it might dominate total cooling over the whole relativistic stage (Sari & Esin 2000). In this case, the light curve steepening in $`\nu <\nu _c`$ is accompanied with a flattening (or even a climb) in $`\nu >\nu _c`$, due to the increasing cooling frequency $`\nu _c`$ for $`Y>1`$.

Finally, in the case of a radiative jet break, the late-time change of the dynamical evolution due to jet effect is weaker than in the case of an adiabatic jet break, which results in a weaker light curve break. If $`ϵ_e1`$, the change is practically smooth, yielding a smooth “break”. Thus, this kind of jet will show a singly steep light curve without obvious steepening break in $`\nu >\nu _c`$, even though the jet is highly collimated with a small $`\theta _0`$.

A few GRB afterglows are observed to have an achromatic light curve break, e.g., GRB 990123 (Kulkarni et al. 1999; Castro-Tirado et al. 1999; Fruchter et al. 1999), GRB 990510 (Harrison et al. 1999; Stanek et al. 1999), GRB 991216 (Halpern et al. 2000), GRB 000301C (Rhoads & Fruchter 2001; Masetti et al. 2000; Jensen et al. 2001; Berger et al. 2000; Sagar et al. 2000), GRB 000418 (Berger et al. 2001), and GRB 000926 (Price et al. 2001; Harrison et al. 2001; Sagar et al. 2001a; Piro et al. 2001), GRB 010222 (Masetti et al. 2001; Stanek et al. 2001; Sagar et al. 2001b; Cowsik et al. 2001; In ’t Zand et al. 2001). Jets in GRBs are usually proposed to account for these breaks. However, in view of our work, two cases of relativistic jets are ruled out to explain these breaks: (i) an adiabatic jet ($`t_{cm}<t_{jet}`$) with strong Compton cooling ($`Y>1`$) and the cooling frequency $`\nu _c`$ locating in the observed energy range; (ii) a radiative jet ($`t_{cm}>t_{jet}`$) with a significant fraction of the total energy occupied by electrons ($`ϵ_e1`$).

It should be noted that all the discussions here are concerned about the relativistic stage. If a relativistic jet expands into a medium as dense as $`10^310^6\mathrm{cm}^3`$, such as a circumstellar cloud (Galama & Wijers 2001), the blast wave must enter the non-relativistic stage within a few days, leading to a steepening of the afterglow light curve (Dai & Lu 1999, 2000). This transition from the relativistic to non-relativistic stage produces another promising explanation for the broken afterglow light curves.

## Acknowledgments

Z. Li would like to thank D. M. Wei, X. Y. Wang and Y. F. Huang for valuable discussions. The authors thank the anonymous referee for valuable and detailed comments. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grants 19973003 and 19825109, and the National 973 project (NKBRSF G19990754).

## Appendix

The time-evolution of the three break frequencies and peak flux in the earliest radiative and spherical-like phase are given below:

$`\nu _m`$ $`=`$ $`f(k,m)\left({\displaystyle \frac{p2}{p1}}\right)^2(1+X)^2(1+z)^{1+\frac{k4}{2(1+m)}}x_pA^{\frac{k+m3}{2(k3)(1+m)}}E_0^{\frac{(k4)m}{2(k3)(1+m)}}\gamma _0^{\frac{(k4)(k+m3)}{(k3)(1+m)}}`$ (33)
$`\times `$ $`ϵ_B^{1/2}ϵ_e^2t^{\frac{k+4m}{2(1+m)}}\mathrm{Hz},`$
where

$$f_m(k,m)=2.88\times 10^{13}\times 53.32^{\frac{(k4)m}{2(k3)(1+m)}}(6.00\times 10^{10})^{\frac{k+4m}{2(1+m)}}(3k)^{\frac{(k4)m}{2(k3)(1+m)}};$$
(34)
$$\nu _c=f(k,m)(1+Y)^2(1+z)^{\frac{23k2m}{2(1+m)}}A^{\frac{93k+5m}{2(k3)(1+m)}}E_0^{\frac{(43k)m}{2(k3)(1+m)}}\gamma _0^{\frac{(3k4)(k+m3)}{(k3)(1+m)}}ϵ_B^{3/2}t^{\frac{43k}{2(1+m)}}\mathrm{Hz},$$
(35)
where

$$f_c(k,m)=3.71\times 10^{45}(3k)^{\frac{(43k)m}{2(k3)(1+m)}}(2+m)^210^{\frac{64.67+k(16.17k2.59m70.06)+3.45m}{(k3)(1+m)}};$$
(36)
$`\nu _a`$ $`=`$ $`f_a(k,m)(1+X)^{3/5}(1+Y)(1+z)^{\frac{9k+m13}{5(1+m)}}A^{\frac{9k13m27}{5(k3)(1+m)}}E_0^{\frac{(9k14)m}{5(k3)(1+m)}}\gamma _0^{\frac{2(9k14)(k+m3)}{5(k3)(1+m)}}`$ (37)
$`\times `$ $`ϵ_B^{6/5}t^{\frac{9k+6m8}{5(1+m)}}\mathrm{Hz},`$
where

$$f_a(k,m)=4.05\times 10^{19}(3k)^{\frac{(9k14)m}{5(k3)(1+m)}}(2+m)^110^{\frac{k(75.4419.40k9.83m)+33.96m51.73}{(k3)(1+m)}};$$
(38)
$`F_m`$ $`=`$ $`f_F(k,m)\varphi _pA^{\frac{3km9}{2(k3)(1+m)}}(1+X)(1+z)^{\frac{3k+4m4}{2(1+m)}}E_0^{\frac{(3k8)m}{2(k3)(1+m)}}\gamma _0^{\frac{(3k8)(k+m3)}{(k3)(1+m)}}ϵ_B^{1/2}`$ (39)
$`\times `$ $`d_l^2t^{\frac{3k+2m6}{2(1+m)}}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2,`$
where

$$f_F(k,m)=2.42\times 10^{21}[53.32(3k)]^{\frac{6+k(m2)2m}{2(k3)(1+m)}}10^{\frac{32.3316.17k10.78m}{1+m}}.$$
(40)
The time when $`\nu _m=\nu _c`$ is given by

$`t_{cm}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{cm}(k,m)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(1+Y)(p2)}{(1+X)(p1)}}\right]^{\frac{1+m}{k+m1}}(1+z)x_p^{\frac{1+m}{2(k+m1)}}A^{\frac{km3}{(k3)(k+m1)}}`$ (41)
$`\times `$ $`E_0^{\frac{(k2)m}{(k3)(k+m1)}}\gamma _0^{\frac{2(k2)(k+m3)}{(k3)(k+m1)}}(ϵ_Bϵ_e)^{\frac{1+m}{k+m1}},`$
where

$$f_{cm}(k,m)=1.67\times 10^{11}\left(\frac{8.82\times 10^{17}}{2+m}\right)^{\frac{1+m}{k+m1}}[53.32(3k)]^{\frac{(k2)m}{(k3)(k+m1)}}.$$
(42)
for the case of an adiabatic break $`(t_{cm}<t_{jet})`$, and by

$$t_{cm}^r=f_{cm}^r(m)\frac{(1+Y)(p2)}{(1+X)(p1)}(1+z)x_p^{1/2}A^{1/3}E_0^{2/3}\gamma _0^{\frac{4}{3}+\frac{4}{m}}ϵ_Bϵ_e\theta _0^{4/m}\mathrm{s},$$
(43)
where

$$f_{cm}^r(m)=1.47\times 10^{27}\frac{(4.91\times 10^{10})^{\frac{1}{1+m}}}{2+m}10^{\frac{10.78+1.47m}{1+m}}.$$
(44)
for the case of a radiative break $`(t_{jet}^a<t_{cm})`$. The break time when a relativistic jet begins to spread exponentially is given by

$$t_{jet}=f_{jet}(k,m)(1+z)A^{\frac{1}{k3}}E_0^{\frac{1}{k3}}\gamma _0^{2(\frac{1}{k3}+\frac{1}{m})}\theta _0^{2+\frac{2}{m}}\mathrm{s},$$
(45)
where

$$f_{jet}(k,m)=(5.22\times 10^{24})^{\frac{1}{k3}}(6.00\times 10^{10})^{\frac{5k}{k3}}(3k)^{\frac{1}{3k}}.$$
(46)
for the case of a radiative break, and by

$`t_{jet}^a`$ $`=`$ $`f_{jet}^a(k,m)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(1+Y)(p2)}{(1+X)(p1)}}\right]^{\frac{m3}{3(m1)}}(1+z)^{\frac{3m}{3(1+m)}}x_p^{\frac{m3}{6(m1)}}`$ (47)
$`\times `$ $`A^{\frac{5m9}{9(m1)}}E_0^{\frac{2m}{9(m1)}}\gamma _0^{\frac{4(m3)}{9(m1)}}(ϵ_Bϵ_e)^{\frac{m3}{3(m1)}}\theta _0^{8/3}\mathrm{s},`$
where

$$f_{jet}^a(k,m)=4.17\times 10^{12}159.96^{\frac{2m}{9(m1)}}\left(\frac{8.82\times 10^{17}}{2+m}\right)^{\frac{m3}{3(m1)}}(1+m).$$
(48)
for the case of an adiabatic break.


text:
# On the definition of temperature in dense granular media

## Abstract

In this Letter we report the measurement of a pseudo-temperature for compacting granular media on the basis of the Fluctuation-Dissipation relations in the aging dynamics of a model system. From the violation of the Fluctuation-Dissipation Theorem an effective temperature emerges (a dynamical temperature $`T_{dyn}`$) whose ratio with the equilibrium temperature $`T_d^{eq}`$ depends on the particle density. We compare the results for the Fluctuation-Dissipation Ratio (FDR) $`T_{dyn}/T_d^{eq}`$ at several densities with the outcomes of Edwards’ approach at the corresponding densities. It turns out that the FDR and the so-called Edwards’ ratio coincide at several densities (very different ages of the system), opening in this way the door to experimental checks as well as theoretical constructions.(PACS: 05.70.Ln, 05.20.-y, 45.70.Cc)

The study of compact granular matter through statistical physics tools is the subject of a sustained interest exp . Granular media enter only partially in the framework of equilibrium statistical mechanics and their dynamics constitutes a very complex problem of non-equilibrium, which poses novel questions and challenges to theorists and experimentalists. The very possibility to construct a coherent statistical mechanics for these systems is still matter of debate, although everybody agrees that such an approach, if possible, would allow for a much deeper and global understanding of the problem.

One of the main obstacles in this direction is the non-thermal character of these systems: thermal energy is so negligibly small with respect to other energy contributions (e.g. potential energy) that for all the practical purposes these systems live virtually at zero temperature. One of the most important consequences is that, unless perturbed in some way (e.g. driving energy into the system), a granular system cannot explore spontaneously its phase space but it remains trapped in one of the numerous metastable configurations. Understanding the structure of the phase space which is left invariant by the dynamics is then crucial for the construction of a thermodynamical description of these non-thermal systems.

A very ambitious approach, in this direction, has been put forward by S. Edwards and co-workers edwards ; anita , by proposing an equivalent of the microcanonical ensemble: macroscopic quantities in a jammed situation should be obtained by a flat average over all blocked configurations (i.e. in which every grain is unable to move) of given volume, energy, etc… The strong assumption here is that all blocked configurations are treated as equivalent and have the same weight in the measure. This approach, based on the idea of describing granular material with a small number of parameters, leads to the introduction of an entropy $`S_{edw}`$, given by the logarithm of the number of blocked configurations of given volume, energy, etc., and its corresponding density $`s_{edw}S_{edw}/N`$. Associated with this entropy are the state variables such as ‘compactivity’ $`𝒳^1=\frac{}{V}S_{edw}(V)`$ and ‘temperature’ $`T^1=\frac{}{E}S_{edw}(E)`$.

Very recently, important progresses in this direction have been reported in various contexts: a tool to systematically construct Edwards’ measure, defined as the set of blocked configurations of a given model, was proposed in bakulose1 ; bakulose2 ; it was used to show that the outcome of the aging dynamics of the Kob-Andersen model (a kinetically constrained lattice gas model) was correctly predicted by Edwards’ measure. Moreover, the validity and relevance of Edwards’ measure have been demonstrated for one-dimensional phenomenological models brey , for spin models with “tapping” dynamics Dean , and for sheared hard spheres Makse .

In this Letter we focus on the definition of a pseudo-temperature for granular media on the basis of the Fluctuation-Dissipation relations in the out-of-equilibrium, aging, dynamics of a model system prl , and on its relation to Edwards’ measure. From the violation of the Fluctuation-Dissipation Theorem an effective temperature emerges (from now onward indicated as dynamical temperature $`T_{dyn}`$) whose ratio with the equilibrium temperature $`T_d^{eq}`$ depends on the particle density. We compare the results for the Fluctuation-Dissipation Ratio (FDR) $`T_{dyn}/T_d^{eq}`$ at several densities with the outcomes of Edwards’ approach at the corresponding densities. It turns out that the FDR and the so-called Edwards’ ratio coincide at several densities (very different ages of the system), opening in this way the door to experimental checks as well as theoretical constructions.

It is interesting to mention recent approaches that are complementary to ours. On the one hand, in the context of aging supercooled liquids, the inherent structure strategy does not address the question of a determination of a static distribution, but promising results show that this measure, if it exists, is insensitive to the details of the thermal history kst . The link between this strategy and Edwards’ measure has been discussed in bakulose2 ; fierro . On the other hand, recent works on the possibility of a dynamical definition of temperature have focused on sheared, stationary systems ludo2 ; liu . These studies are clearly complementary to the present one, which addresses the problem of the relation between the value of $`T_{dyn}`$ and a static measure, in aging (non-stationary) systems.

The model we consider is a version of the “Tetris” model prl , which has been shown to reproduce several features of granular media like aging nico ; bl , memory bl2 , self-structuring self-stru  etc. In the framework of this model, some of us have already provided one of the first evidences of the validity of Edwards’ measure bakulose2 .

We focus in particular on an homogeneous system with no preferential direction in order to avoid any kind of instability or large-scale structure formation self-stru . The case with gravity which imposes a preferential direction will be discussed elsewhere inprep . In the version of the model we use, “T”-shaped particles diffuse on a square lattice, with the only constraint that no superposition is allowed: for two nearest-neighbor particles, the sum of the arms oriented along the bond connecting the two particles has to be smaller than the bond length (for each particle, the three arms of the ‘T” have length $`\frac{3}{4}d`$, where $`d`$ sets the bond size on the square lattice). The maximum density allowed is then $`\rho _{max}=2/3`$. This model represents a clear example of a non-thermal system. The Hamiltonian is zero and the temperature itself is therefore irrelevant at equilibrium, only its ratio with an imposed chemical potential being important.

The out-of-equilibrium compaction dynamics without gravity is implemented as follows: starting from an empty lattice, particles are randomly deposited, without diffusion and without violation of the geometrical constraints. This random sequential absorption process yields a reproducible initial density of $`\rho 0.547`$. Alternating diffusions and additions of particles are then attempted, allowing to increase the density of the system, which remains homogeneous in the process. In order to overcome the problem related to the simulation of slow processes and obtain a reasonable number of different realizations to produce clean data, we have devised a fast algorithm (in the spirit of Bortz-Kalos-Lebowitz algorithm bkl ) where the essential ingredient is the updating of a list of mobile particles (whose number is $`n_{mob}`$). At each time step one selects a mobile particle and move it in the direction chosen only if no violation of the constraints occurs. The time is incremented of an amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=1/n_{mob}`$. We refer to inprep  for the details of the fast algorithm.

We have simulated lattices of linear size $`L=50,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}100},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}200}`$, in order to ensure that finite-size effects were irrelevant. We have chosen periodic boundary conditions on the lattice, having verified that other types of boundary conditions (e.g closed ones) gave the same results.

During the compaction, we monitor the following quantities: the density of particles $`\rho (t)`$, the density of mobile particles $`\rho _{mob}(t)`$. Moreover in order to establish the Fluctuation-Dissipation relations we measure the mean square displacement $`B(t+t_w,t_w)`$ and the integrated response function $`\chi (t+t_w,t_w)`$. The mean square displacement is defined as

$$B(t+t_w,t_w)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{r=x,y}{}\left[r_i(t+t_w,t_w)r_i(t_w)\right]^2$$

where $`N`$ is the number particles present in the system at time $`t_w`$, $`r_i`$ is the coordinate ($`x`$ or $`y`$) of the $`i`$-th particle and the brackets $``$ indicate the average over several realizations.

In order to measure the integrated response function $`\chi (t+t_w,t_w)`$, we make a copy of the system at time $`t_w`$ and apply to it a small random perturbation, varying the diffusion probability of each particle from $`p=\frac{1}{4}`$ to $`p^ϵ=\frac{1}{4}+f_i^rϵ`$, where $`f_i^r=\pm 1`$ is a random variable associated to each grain independently for each possible direction ($`r=x,y`$), and $`ϵ`$ represents the perturbation strength. For a constant field we obtain (see also bakulose1 ; bakulose2 ; inprep ):

$$\chi (t+t_w,t_w)=\frac{1}{2ϵN}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{r=x,y}{}f_i^r\mathrm{\Delta }r_i(t+t_w)$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_i(t+t_w)=r_i^{repl}(t+t_w)r_i(t+t_w)`$ is the difference between the displacements taking place in the two systems evolving with the same succession of random numbers. In this letter we present the results obtained with a perturbation strength $`ϵ=0.005`$, having checked that for $`0.002<ϵ<0.01`$ non-linear effects are absent.

If the system was in equilibrium we would expect $`B`$ and $`\chi `$ to be linearly related by

$$\chi (t+t_w,t_w)=\frac{X_{dyn}}{T_d^{eq}}B(t+t_w,t_w),$$
(1)
where $`X_{dyn}`$ is the so-called Fluctuation-Dissipation Ratio (FDR) which is unitary in equilibrium. Any deviations from this linear law signals a violation of the Fluctuation-Dissipation Theorem (FDT). Nevertheless it has been shown, first in mean-field models CuKu , then in various simulations parisi ; barratkob  how in several aging systems violations from (1) reduce to the occurrence of two regimes: a quasi-equilibrium regime with $`X_{dyn}=1`$ (and time-translation invariance) for “short” time separations ($`tt_w`$), and the aging regime with $`X_{dyn}1`$ for large time separations. This second slope is typically referred to as a dynamical temperature $`T_{dyn}T_d^{eq}`$ such that $`X_{dyn}=T_d^{eq}/T_{dyn}`$ CuKuPe .

In our case, as the density increases, an aging behaviour is obtained: the system falls out of equilibrium and $`\rho _{mob}(t)`$ gets smaller than the corresponding value at equilibrium bakulose2 . Accordingly, violations of (1) are expected.

If the compaction process is stopped at a certain time $`t_w`$, the system relaxes toward equilibrium and one obtains a time-translation invariant behaviour for $`\chi `$ and $`B`$; this is the so-called regime of interrupted aging which features an increase of $`\rho _{mob}`$ to its equilibrium value and a single linear relation for the $`\chi `$ vs. $`B`$ parametric plot. These measures therefore give us the value of the equilibrium fluctuation-dissipation ratio, $`T_d^{eq}`$, which does actually not depend on the density reached at $`t_w`$.

If, on the other hand, the compaction process is not stopped, the system features an aging behaviour and the $`\chi `$ vs. $`B`$ parametric plots, displayed in figure 1, show two different linear behaviours: after a first quasi-equilibrium regime in which the plot has slope $`T_d^{eq}`$, a violation of FDT is observed, with the existence of a dynamical temperature $`T_{dyn}`$ which depends on $`t_w`$ and therefore on the density. We obtain in particular $`X_{dyn}^1=0.646\pm 0.002`$, $`X_{dyn}^2=0.767\pm 0.005`$, $`X_{dyn}^3=0.784\pm 0.005`$ at $`t_w^1=10^4`$, $`t_w^2=310^4`$, and $`t_w^3=510^4`$.

We are now able to compare the values of the dynamical measures with the outcome of Edwards’ measure. The construction of the equilibrium and Edwards’ measures has been described in bakulose2 . In particular, an efficient sampling of the blocked configurations, and therefore Edwards’ measure, is obtained by the use of an auxiliary model whose energy is defined to be the number of mobile particles: the introduction of an auxiliary temperature and an annealing procedure then yields configurations with no mobile particles. Having computed equilibrium and Edwards’ entropies as a function of density, as in bakulose1 ; bakulose2 , we measure the ratio of the slopes (that we denote as Edwards’ ratio)

$$X_{Edw}=\frac{ds_{Edw}(\rho )}{d\rho }/\frac{ds_{equil}(\rho )}{d\rho },$$
(2)
which is plotted in figure (2). This ratio approaches $`1`$ as $`\rho 2/3`$, since at the maximum density all configurations become blocked and therefore equilibrium and Edwards’ measures become equivalent.

The values of the dynamical Fluctuation-Dissipation ratio are also reported in the same figure (with no error bars since they are too small) and yield the following densities: $`\rho _10.596`$ for $`t_w^1=10^4`$, $`\rho _20.603`$ for $`t_w^2=3.10^4`$, $`\rho _30.605`$ for $`t_w^3=10^5`$. On the other hand, the evolution of the density of the system during the measurements is reported in figure (3).

Since the measurements are performed during the compaction, the density is evolving, going from $`\rho (t_w)`$ to $`\rho (t_w+t_{max})`$. In each case, we obtain that indeed $`\rho _i[\rho (t_w^i),\rho (t_w^i+t_{max})]`$ where we have denoted with $`\rho _i`$ the densities obtained from figure (2) for different values of $`t_w`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$). More precisely, $`\rho _i`$ is very close to $`\rho (t_w^i+t_{max})`$. This is to be expected since the measure of the FDT violation is made for times much larger than $`t_w^i`$ and, since the compaction is logarithmic, the system spends actually more time at densities close to $`\rho (t_w^i+t_{max})`$ than to $`\rho (t_w^i)`$.

The validation of Edwards’ hypothesis in various model systems has made important steps forwards recently; here we have focused, for a model with only geometrical constraints, on the definition of a dynamical temperature and on its link with Edwards’ measure. While the density increases, the measured dynamical temperature decreases, following closely the ratio between the equilibrium and the Edwards’ entropies, the latter being obtained through a flat sampling of blocked configurations. While Edwards’ proposal is supposed to be only valid asymptotically, i.e. when one-time quantities are almost stationary, our study clearly shows that it actually yields good results even in a pre-asymptotic regime, when the density is still evolving a lot.

Two remarks are in order. It is interesting to investigate the limits of validity of Edwards’ approach. Though in this letter we have shown that Edwards’ measure works nicely in the idealized case of an homogeneously compacting system, it is important to consider the case of a compacting system under gravity, i.e. with a preferential direction. We shall report about this in inprep . Another crucial point concerns the fact that the dynamically defined effective temperature could a priori depend on the observables used for the measure of Fluctuation-Dissipation relations. Its interpretation as a temperature in a thermodynamical sense would then be questioned. While the effective temperature is known to be observable independent for mean-field models, this question has been addressed only recently in realistic models: two recent studies on sheared (stationary) thermal ludo2  or athermal liu  systems show the consistency of various definitions remark\_shear . Our results complement these studies by allowing to relate the value of $`T_{dyn}`$ to a static measure. Moreover, the observable-independence character of $`T_{dyn}`$ in our case will be checked in inprep , by considering systems consisting of 2 types of particles. In this respect, the presence of a preferential direction could imply limitations; for sheared, stationary systems, a preferential direction exists, but only measures along orthogonal directions have been performed Makse ; Ludo ; ludo2 ; liu . Acknowledgments This work has been partially supported by the European Network-Fractals under contract No. FMRXCT980183.