text:
# Timing Properties of Magnetars

## 1 Introduction

Anomalous X-ray Pulsars (AXPs) and Soft Gamma-ray Repeaters (SGRs) are two classes of intriguing objects that have challenged the standard paradigm of young neutron stars. Particularly in the case of AXPs, two types of models have been proposed to explain their spectral and timing properties: conventional accretion models modified to account for the absence of an observable donor star (van Paradijs, Taam, & van den Heuvel 1995; Chatterjee, Hernquist, & Narayan 2000; Alpar 2001) and magnetar models with several different mechanisms for powering the X-ray emission (Thompson & Duncan 1996; Heyl & Hernquist 1998). In all these magnetar models, a significant fraction of the X-ray emission is thought to originate at the neutron star surface.

Recently, there has been significant progress in the calculation of the surface emission properties of ultramagnetized neutron stars and their application to AXPs (Özel 2001; Özel, Psaltis, & Kaspi 2001; see also Ho & Lai 2001; Zane et al. 2001). Özel (2001) showed that the angle dependence of surface radiation in such strong fields has both a pencil and a fan component, with the latter dominating in the X-ray range. Such a beaming pattern can give rise to a variety of pulse profiles and timing properties that have not been explored to date. Furthermore, the general relativistic bending of photon trajectories in the strong gravitational field of the neutron star significantly affects the observed properties of emission originating at the stellar surface. This is in contrast to rotation-powered pulsars whose radio emission originates at the light cylinder far above the stellar surface, where the self lensing by the neutron star is weak. Therefore, in order to compare in detail the models with the current and future observations of AXPs, it is now necessary to carry out a complete study of the observable properties of magnetars taking all the above effects into account.

The advent of X-ray telescopes with good timing and energy resolution as well as broad spectral coverage has produced high-quality data on AXPs in the recent years, making such a study timely. Indeed, observations with ASCA and BeppoSAX have yielded good broad-band spectra of AXPs as well as a measure of the flux variations during a pulse cycle in multiple energy bands (e.g., White et al. 1996; Oosterbroek et al. 1998). Moreover, the superb timing resolution of the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) made possible the phase connection of pulse cycles over several years and hence produced detailed energy-dependent pulse profiles (Gavriil & Kaspi 2002). Finally, the grating spectrographs onboard the Chandra and XMM-Newton observatories extend the energy range of current observations towards the soft X-rays in addition to allowing for phase-resolved spectroscopy and searches for spectral lines (e.g., Patel et al. 2001; Juett et al. 2002; Tiengo et al. 2002). It has been argued that the combination of the pulse profiles, the amplitude of pulsations, and the pulse-phase resolved spectral features observed with these instruments provide the most stringent constraints on the models of AXPs (Özel et al. 2001).

In this paper we explore the pulse profiles expected from a strongly magnetized neutron star emitting thermally from its hot surface. In detail, we focus on the dependence of the pulse profiles on the emission geometry, the orientation of the observer, the photon energy, and the compactness of the neutron star. We also discuss the implications of our results for magnetar models of AXPs.

## 2 The Model

We consider the emission from a hot ultramagnetized neutron star. In order to determine the properties of its surface emission, we carry out radiative transfer calculations in strong fields and construct model atmospheres in radiative equilibrium. We assume that the stellar atmosphere is a completely ionized electron-proton plasma in plane-parallel geometry, owing to its negligible thickness compared to the stellar radius. We take the magnetic field to be orthogonal to the surface, motivated by the fact that the emission most probably originates at the magnetic poles. We consider fully angle- and energy-dependent emission, absorption, and scattering processes in the two photon polarization modes of a magnetized plasma and include the effects of vacuum as well as of the plasma on photon propagation. We neglect the effects of the neutron star magnetosphere which may affect the photon interactions above the stellar atmosphere. A detailed description of the model as well as the surface emission properties are given in Özel (2001).

There are two modifications in the present calculation regarding the treatment of vacuum polarization, which have a weak effect on the results. First, for magnetic field strengths above the critical value $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}=4.414\times 10^{13}`$ G, we modify the interaction cross sections following Tsai & Erber (1975). Second, we employ an adaptive mesh technique to resolve the sharp features associated with the vacuum polarization resonance instead of the saturation technique presented in Özel (2001). The details of these improvements as well as the effects of the proton cyclotron resonance on the emerging spectra are discussed in Özel (2002).

We consider two emission geometries: (i) a single hot pole that corresponds to, e.g., an isolated region of enhanced magnetic activity, and (ii) two antipodal hot regions corresponding to, e.g., two magnetic poles. In both cases, the temperature is taken to be uniform across the hot region and is specified by an effective temperature $`T_\mathrm{e}`$, while the rest of the neutron star is assumed not to radiate. We allow for variations of the angular size of the emitting region $`\rho `$ as well as of the orientation angles $`\alpha `$, which specifies the location of the magnetic poles with respect to the rotation axis on the neutron star surface, and $`\beta `$, which determines the position of the observer with respect to the same axis. For most of the calculations presented here, we fix the magnetic field strength to $`B=10^{15}`$ G. We also use an effective temperature $`T_\mathrm{e}=0.5`$ keV, which yields spectra with color temperatures at infinity of $`0.50.6`$ keV at this field strength, appropriate for the spectral characteristics of AXPs (see Özel et al. 2001).

In calculating the observables at infinity, we take into account the gravitational lensing of the surface emission by the neutron star. We use the photon trajectories given by the Schwarzschild metric, which provides a good approximation for slowly rotating neutron stars such as AXPs, and follow the method described by Pechenick, Ftaclas, & Cohen (1983) to compute light curves. We vary the neutron star relativity parameter $`p=Rc^2/2GM`$, where $`R`$ and $`M`$ denote the radius and the mass of the neutron star, respectively. We consider the range $`2p4`$, which is allowed by current equations of state for a wide range of neutron star masses (see, e.g., Cardall, Prakash, & Lattimer 2001). Note that the magnetic pressure becomes important in hydrostatic balance for very large ($`B10^{17}`$ G) field strengths and may lead to larger neutron star radii in this regime. However, because the magnetic field does not significantly affect the equation of state at the lower values considered here, we take the often employed value of $`p=2.5`$ corresponding to a $`1.4M_{}`$ and $`10`$ km neutron star as the fiducial value when varying the other model parameters.

### 2.1 The Beaming of Surface Emission

The pulse profiles are determined primarily by the angle dependence (beaming) of the radiation emerging from the neutron star surface and the general relativistic bending of photon trajectories in strong gravitational fields. In the ultrastrong magnetic fields that we consider here, the beaming is qualitatively different than that of weakly-magnetic, non-magnetic, or accreting neutron stars and is predominantly non-radial. A detailed discussion of the beaming of surface radiation from a magnetar is given in Özel (2001). Here, we only summarize the results to facilitate the discussion of the pulse profiles.

Figure 1 shows the beaming of radiation emerging from the surface of a neutron star with $`B=10^{15}`$ G and $`T_\mathrm{e}=0.5`$ keV, at photon energies $`E=1,2,4`$, and 8 keV. The abscissa $`\theta `$ denotes the angle between the direction of the magnetic field and the direction of propagation. In all cases, the radiation pattern can be described by two components: a radial beam confined to $`\theta `$ few degrees and a dominant wide “fan” beam which has a peak at $`\theta _\mathrm{p}40^{}60^{}`$. The radial beam carries little flux and is observationally insignificant because of its confinement to very small angles. Therefore, the pulse profiles, and in particular the number and location of the peaks, carry signatures of the fan beams. Note that when viewed along the magnetic axis on the neutron star surface, this beaming pattern represents a hollow cone of radiation whose opening angle and thickness vary with photon energy.

The beaming of radiation shown in Figure 1 varies weakly with magnetic field in the range $`10^{14}10^{15}`$ G. Therefore, the pulse profiles do not change significantly in this range of field strengths.

## 3 Bolometric Pulse Profiles

In this section, we present energy-integrated pulse profiles of magnetars emitting thermally from their surface. We choose a $`18`$ keV photon energy range, which is accessible with high sensitivity with the current detectors and is thus relevant for comparison with the present data on AXPs. For simplicity, we refer to quantities computed in this energy range as bolometric. We focus on the number and location of the peaks in the pulse profile, as well as on the peak-to-peak changes of the flux through a pulse cycle. We will consider the photon-energy dependence of the profiles and further quantify the modulation (through the use of the pulsed fraction) in §4 and §5, respectively.

Figures 24 show bolometric pulse profiles from a $`B=10^{15}`$ G neutron star with $`T_\mathrm{e}=0.5`$ keV. The ordinate shows the photon flux normalized to the average flux through a pulse cycle, while in the abscissa $`\varphi =0`$ corresponds to the phase when the observer is aligned with the center of one pole. The pulse profiles shown in these figures are determined primarily by the beaming of radiation on the neutron star surface as well as by the strong gravitational lensing by the neutron star. In three dimensions, the non-radial beaming pattern (Fig. 1) corresponds to a bright hollow cone of radiation with angular size $`\theta _p`$ and thickness $`30^{}`$ originating from every surface element on the neutron star. Thus, in the absence of gravitational lensing and for an observer traversing the diameter of a small emitting region, two peaks appear per hot pole, at a phase that corresponds to the location of the peaks in the beaming pattern. Thus, the phase difference between the peaks originating from one pole is approximately $`2\theta _p`$. Figure 2 shows the pulse profiles for this simplest case for the two emission geometries discussed in §2: a single pole gives rise to 2 peaks while an antipodal emission geometry produces 4 peaks.

As the above discussion suggests, in more realistic cases, the properties of the pulse profiles are determined not only by the number of hot regions on the stellar surface but also by (i) general relativistic effects, (ii) the orientation angles that describe the positions of the emitting regions and of the observer with respect to the rotation axis and (iii) the sizes of the emitting regions. We now explore each of these effects in detail, investigating the resulting number and separation of the peaks in the pulse profiles and the peak-to-peak changes of the flux during a pulse phase.

### 3.1 The Effect of the Gravitational Lensing by the Neutron Star

General relativistic effects spread out and smear the beaming patterns, effectively changing the observed opening angles and thicknesses of the hollow radiation cones. In general, self-lensing by the neutron star makes more of the stellar surface visible to the observer at any pulse phase and leads to a suppression of the modulation of the observed lightcurves. In some cases, however, non-radial beams can be focused away from the surface normal by the gravitational lensing in a way that the flux at particular pulse phases can be enhanced. This happens when cones of radiation originating from different parts of one hot region or from two antipodal hot regions are deflected towards each other and smeared so strongly by the stellar gravity that they overlap. This effect can also change the number of peaks in the pulse profile. Thus, the general relativistic effects in conjunction with a predominantly non-radial radiation pattern (fan beaming) give rise to qualitatively different results, affecting the number and separation of the peaks in the pulse profile as well as the overall flux modulation.

Figure 3 shows the effect of varying the relativity parameter $`p`$ on the pulse profiles. The $`p=4`$ case represents a large neutron star where the curvature of photon paths is small, and the result is nearly Newtonian with 4 peaks located roughly at phases $`\varphi =\pm \theta _\mathrm{p}`$ and $`\pi \pm \theta _\mathrm{p}`$. As $`p`$ decreases, i.e., as the neutron star becomes more relativistic, gravitational lensing becomes stronger. The beams detected by an observer at infinity are correspondingly defocused and appear with larger angular sizes. Therefore, the observed peaks in the pulse profile get broader and move to phases $`\varphi >\theta _p`$. Another consequence is that more flux reaches the observer during the interpulses, as in the case of $`p=3`$ shown in Figure 3.

As the neutron star becomes even more relativistic, pulse profiles in the antipodal emission case go through a significant morphological change because the cones of emission from the antipodal hot regions start to overlap and produce an enhanced signal at $`\varphi =\pm \pi /2`$. When the beams combine in this way, the number of peaks in the pulse profile is reduced and the overall modulation is increased (Fig. 3). Note that for small values of $`p`$, the same effect can be seen in the emission from a single pole, when its area is large enough for the beams from two sides of the hot region to combine (also see §3.3 and Fig. 6 below). In that case, the number of peaks in the pulse phase is reduced from two to one. To summarize, the harmonic structure and modulation of the pulse profiles are directly determined by the neutron star compactness, with a sharp transition in the properties of the profiles at small relativity parameters $`p`$. For most values of $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\rho `$, this transition in the pulse profiles occurs at $`p2.5`$.

### 3.2 The Effect of Geometry: Orientation Angles

The orientation angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ determine two aspects of the pulse profiles. First, because they indicate the position of the poles and of the observer with respect to the rotation axis, they control the overall modulation of the lightcurves, ranging from no modulation at $`\alpha =0`$ or $`\beta =0`$ to maximum modulation at $`\alpha =\beta =90^{}`$. Second, their relative values determine the chord that the observer’s path cuts through the cone of emission, and thus the observed number and separation of peaks in the pulse profile.

Figure 4 shows the pulse profiles for different values of the observer’s angle $`\beta `$. Here, we fix the position angle $`\alpha `$ to $`80^{}`$ and vary $`\beta `$ between $`10^{}`$ and $`90^{}`$ for an emitting region of size $`\rho =20^{}`$ and a relativity parameter $`p=2.5`$. The striking result is that the number of peaks can vary between $`12`$ for the single pole and between $`14`$ for the antipodal emission geometry, determined by the number of times the observer intersects the cones of emission. However, unlike the case of neutron star compactness, which also affects the observed number of peaks, the reduction from four peaks to one due to different observer’s angles is usually accompanied by a suppression in the pulsed fraction.

In Figure 5, we identify the regions in the ($`\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,\mathrm{cos}\beta `$) parameter space that produce different number of peaks in the observed pulse profiles, the top panel corresponding to a single pole and the bottom panel to the antipodal emission geometry. For a random distribution of orientation angles, the areas covered by each region is directly proportional to the probability of observing a system with a given number of peaks in its pulse profile.

### 3.3 The Effect of the Size of the Hot Regions

The last parameter that affects significantly both the number of peaks and the modulation of the pulse profiles is the area covered by the hot regions on the stellar surface. Figure 6 shows the dependence of the pulse profiles on the size of the emitting region for both the single and antipodal emission geometries. As discussed earlier, for large emitting regions, the observer receives the most flux at a phase when the line of sight coincides with the center of the pole because the non-radial emission from the outer edges of the pole is directed towards the center. This enhancement reduces the number of peaks to one in the case of the single pole while it shifts the phase of the peaks by $`\pi /4`$ in the antipodal emission case.

## 4 Photon-Energy Dependence of the Pulse Profiles and Phase Lags

In this section, we investigate the dependence of pulse profiles on photon energy in an energy range of interest for observations of AXPs. The pulse profiles of strongly magnetized neutron stars are expected in general to have a dependence on photon energy because of the different beaming of the emerging radiation at different photon energies. However, the properties of the pulse profiles in different energy bands are also affected strongly by the number and sizes of the emitting regions as well as by the orientation angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, as we show below. Following Gavriil & Kaspi (2002), we choose the energy ranges $`12`$, $`24`$, and $`68`$ keV for this study.

Because the photon-energy dependence of the pulse profiles changes with all of the parameters that specify the geometry of the surface temperature distribution and the position of the observer, it is not feasible to illustrate the pulse profiles for the entire space spanned by these parameters. Instead, we show in Figures $`710`$ some representative cases. In particular, the examples include cases where the dependence of the pulse profiles and/or pulse amplitudes on photon energy is either very weak or rather strong. We discuss the range of parameters for which each behavior can be observed.

Figure 7 shows the case of an orthogonal rotator with one and two $`20^{}`$ hot poles (top and bottom panels respectively) on a neutron star with compactness $`p=2.5`$. For this set of parameters, the energy dependence in the single pole case is quite weak and is characterized by a small phase shift in the location of the peak of the pulse profiles between different energies. In addition, there is a more prominent interpulse (at $`\varphi =0`$ in Fig. 7) at low photon energies. The pulse amplitudes are nearly equal in the three bands. This type of weak dependence on photon energy is very common in the single-pole geometry and is obtained for most of the model parameters.

The slight phase shift and broader pulses are a direct consequence of the different beaming of radiation at different photon energies. As shown earlier in Figure 1, the peak of the fan beam appears at smaller angles $`\theta _\mathrm{p}`$ for smaller photon energies, giving rise to narrower emission cones. Furthermore, at these lower energies, the beams are flatter and the minimum separating the fan and pencil beams becomes less prominent. Thus, for the orthogonal rotator geometry, where an observer intersects the emission cones at the diameter, the lower energy peaks appear more closely spaced than the higher energy peaks and the flux between them is higher.

In the antipodal emission geometry, the pulse shapes in the different energy bands are also similar and the small phase shift in the location of the peaks is present. On the other hand, there is a marked difference in the pulse amplitudes in the different energy bands. Note that Figure 7 shows one of the weakest energy dependences in the pulse morphology that can be obtained for any choice of parameters in this emission geometry.

Figure 8 shows energy-dependent pulse profiles for different values of the observer’s angle $`\beta `$ and the angular size of the emitting area $`\rho `$. In these examples, the energy dependence is stronger, both in the pulse shapes and in the pulse amplitudes. In the case of one pole, the cross-correlation of the $`12`$ and $`68`$ keV pulse profiles reveals an apparent phase lag of half a cycle caused primarily by the difference in the phase of the minima in the two profiles. In the antipodal geometry, the number of peaks increases by one in the higher photon-energy band. In both cases, the pulse amplitude is highest in the $`68`$ keV band. Such simultaneous changes in both the pulse morphology and in the pulse amplitude are rare in the case of a single pole but are obtained for most of the parameter space for the antipodal geometry.

The bottom panel of Figure 8 along with that of Figure 7 spans the entire range of energy-dependent pulse profiles that can arise in the antipodal emission geometry. In the case of a single hot pole, on the other hand, the energy dependence of the pulse profiles shows more diversity, as the following examples illustrate.

Figure 10 shows a configuration where the pulse morphology, and in particular the number of peaks, changes with photon energy, while the pulse amplitude remains constant. Finally, Figure 10 shows a pulse profile with a single peak and no energy dependence. This is obtained when the observer grazes the emission cones at all photon energies. Such a case is relevant to the observations of 1E $`1048.15937`$ which is the only AXP with a singly-peaked pulse profile and shows no energy dependence (Kaspi et al. 2001; Tiengo et al. 2002).

## 5 Pulsed Fractions

In this section, we quantify the modulations in the pulse profiles using the pulsed fraction defined by

$$PF=\frac{F_{\mathrm{max}}F_{\mathrm{min}}}{F_{\mathrm{max}}+F_{\mathrm{min}}},$$
(1)
where $`F_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`F_{\mathrm{min}}`$ are the maximum and minimum fluxes received by an observer at infinity during a pulse cycle. Bolometric pulsed fractions have been discussed in DeDeo, Psaltis, & Narayan (2001) for a parametrized form of radially peaked beaming functions, which are not directly applicable to thermally emitting magnetars. Here we present results using the beaming functions calculated for the ultramagnetized neutron stars as well as investigate the dependence of the pulsed fractions on various model parameters. (See also Özel et al. 2001 for an earlier discussion).

Figure 12 shows the dependence of the bolometric pulsed fraction on the relativity parameter $`p`$ of the neutron star for the case of one and two poles. General relativistic effects alter the observable modulation of X-ray emission originating from a neutron star surface and in general lead to a significant suppression of the pulse amplitude when the gravitational lensing by the star is strong. Therefore, the pulsed fraction is expected to decrease monotonically as the neutron star becomes more relativistic. This is indeed the case seen in the single pole geometry.

The antipodal emission case, on the other hand, shows a more complex behavior. As $`p`$ decreases, we first obtain the more commonly observed suppression of the pulse amplitudes. A qualitative change occurs at $`p3`$ when the lensing by the neutron star is strong enough to lead to the previously discussed enhancement of the flux at the intermediate phases $`\varphi =\pm \pi /2`$, at which the emission cones intersect (see Fig. 3). This causes the pulsed fraction to increase towards smaller relativity parameters. As $`p`$ decreases further, nearly the entire surface becomes visible to the observer and thus the behavior is again reversed.

Figure 12 shows the dependence of the pulsed fraction on the size of the emitting region for the two surface temperature distributions. This figure serves as a typical example and summarizes the two important aspects of how the pulsed fraction changes with size: (i) The pulsed fraction falls off much more slowly with increasing angular size of a single pole compared to that of two antipodal hot regions. This results in a much higher pulsed fraction for the same total luminosity (for a fixed effective temperature) in the single pole case since luminosity grows linearly with surface area. As discussed in Özel et al. (2001), this has important implications for the AXPs, which have both high pulsed fractions and high inferred luminosities. (ii) The pulsed fraction varies non-monotonically with increasing size of the hot regions. This follows directly from the discussion in §3.2, where we showed that the pulse profiles go through a sudden change at $`\rho 40^{}`$ when the non-radial beams from the outer edges of a large hot region are seen simultaneously by an observer, resulting in an enhanced flux. The pulsed fraction, therefore, goes through a corresponding increase when the peak of the pulse profile shifts to $`\varphi =0^{}`$.

Finally, Figure 13 shows, for the single pole case, the dependence of the pulsed fraction on photon energy for a range of orientation angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ and for different angular sizes of the hot region $`\rho `$. For $`\rho 20^{}`$ and $`\alpha `$ or $`\beta 50^{}`$, the pulsed fractions are remarkably constant within the energy range of interest. It is interesting to note that these ranges of parameters cover most of the parameter space of orientation angles for a random distribution and correspond at the same time to the brightest sources because of their large emitting areas. For the other values of the parameters, the pulsed fractions show an increase with photon energy that is also characteristic of the antipodal emission geometry for nearly all parameter values (see Özel et al. 2001 for the corresponding figure in the antipodal emission geometry and a discussion of the physical reasons behind this characteristic shape).

## 6 Discussion

We studied the timing properties of ultramagnetized neutron stars emitting thermally from their surfaces. We used the energy and angle dependence of the emerging radiation obtained from the recent detailed calculations of radiative equilibrium atmospheres in ultrastrong magnetic fields (Özel 2001, 2002). We combined them with the general relativistic calculation of photon transport from the neutron star surface to an observer at infinity and calculated the expected pulse profiles for a wide range of model parameters. We found that the combination of the non-radially peaked beams relevant to magnetars with the strong gravitational lensing leads to a number of qualitatively new and interesting results on the pulse morphology and amplitudes, which we summarize below.

1. An emission geometry consisting of one hot pole gives rise to one or two peaks per pulse cycle, whereas an antipodal geometry can produce one to four peaks, depending strongly on the orientation angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ as well as on the relativity parameter $`p`$ and the angular size of the emitting region $`\rho `$.

2. The pulse profiles in different energy bands show a wide range of morphologies in both emission geometries.

3. The non-radial beaming of the thermal radiation emerging from an ultramagnetized neutron-star surface can give rise to high pulsed fractions even for very compact neutron stars.

4. In the case of an antipodal emission geometry, the pulsed fraction may not be a monotonic function of the relativity parameter $`p`$, in contrast to the case of radially peaked beaming patterns.

5. The pulsed fraction does not decrease monotonically with the size of the emitting region but shows a secondary maximum at intermediate ($`6070^{}`$) angular sizes.

6. The pulsed fraction in the antipodal emission geometry shows a characteristic increase with photon energy in the 1–8 keV range. In contrast, the pulsed fraction in the single pole case has, in general, a very weak energy dependence.

Note that a number of simplifying assumptions have been made in the models presented here. We have taken the temperature across a hot region to be uniform, which may not be realistic for all the mechanisms that could power the surface emission. In the case of a cooling neutron star with a dipole magnetic field, the temperature is a function of the magnetic latitude and thus shows variations across the surface of the neutron star (e.g., Page 1995). Also in the case of a single hot pole, similar variations can also be expected. This can affect the pulse profiles, possibly reducing the pulsed fractions and smoothing out the pulse morphologies. Similarly, allowing for some cooler emission from the rest of the neutron star can alter the pulse profiles and may account for the additional complexity observed in the energy-dependent pulse profiles of AXPs.

We also assumed that the emission properties are determined entirely by the stellar atmosphere and have not taken into account the possible effects of the neutron star’s magnetosphere further above (see, e.g., Thompson, Lyutikov, & Kulkarni 2002). At present, the structure of the magnetosphere of a strongly magnetized neutron star is not well understood and can only be treated through parametrizations. Note that the alternative class of models of AXPs that rely on accretion onto a magnetized neutron star also require the study of the processes that take place in the accretion column in the neutron star’s magnetic field. It was shown earlier that such processes can also lead to a variety of pulse profiles (e.g., Mészáros & Nagel 1985) but further study is necessary to determine their relevance for AXPs.

The results presented above have direct implications for the thermally emitting magnetar models of AXPs. To carry out a comparison with observations, we summarize the timing properties of these sources which can be used to constrain such models. First, the observed pulse profiles show two prominent peaks per pulse cycle in four sources and a single peak in the fifth source (e.g., Gavriil & Kaspi 2002). Second, the energy dependence of the pulse morphology can be very weak, as in 1E 1048.1$``$5937, or quite strong, as in 1RXS 1708$``$4009 (Gavriil & Kaspi 2002). Third, AXPs can have pulsed fractions as high as 70%, together with luminosities that are high for their low inferred effective temperatures (Özel et al. 2001). Finally, their pulsed fractions show a weak dependence on photon energy (e.g., Oosterbroek et al. 1998).

All the above properties are hard to account for in a thermally cooling magnetar model (e.g., Heyl & Hernquist 1998) that has a two-fold symmetry and thus has pulse profiles very similar to those of the antipodal emission geometry. In particular, the number of observed peaks in the pulse profiles as well as the strong energy-dependence predicted in the two-pole models do not reproduce the observations. Furthermore, the pulsed fractions in such a model are in general lower than the values observed in AXPs.

The observations, on the other hand, strongly suggest that AXPs are neutron stars with a single, hot region of ultrastrong magnetic field. A single hot pole can be realized in a number of ways. It may be powered by processes such as crustal cracking, magnetic-field reconfiguration, or decay of magnetic multipoles (e.g., Thompson & Duncan 1996). It could also arise from an off-centered magnetic dipole that renders one of the poles either not observable or else very close to the other pole. All of these possibilities need further theoretical investigations in order to determine the geometry of emission, the total energy output and the lifetime of the temperature asymmetries on the surface. In addition, because the first set of processes are expected to occur randomly, they can produce time-variable pulse profiles. Observations of pulse morphology changes similar to the GINGA observation of 1E 2259$`+`$586 (Iwasawa, Koyama, & Halpern 1992) can help constrain the mechanism powering the thermal emission of AXPs. Finally, investigating the energy dependence of the pulsed fractions in the soft X-rays ($`1`$ keV) with Chandra and XMM-Newton as well as in longer wavelengths will extend the baseline over which models can be compared to data and provide the most stringent constraints.

I am grateful to Fotis Gavriil and Vicky Kaspi for sharing with me their AXP data prior to publication and for many stimulating discussions on pulse profiles. I thank Dimitrios Psaltis and Ramesh Narayan for useful suggestions and discussions. I also thank the Institute for Advanced Study, where this work was completed, for their hospitality. This work was supported in part by the NASA Chandra grant GO0-1105B and by the NSF grant AST 9820686.


format: text

text:
# Quantum Chaos, Irreversibility, dissipation and dephasing

## Abstract

The main idea of ”Quantum Chaos” studies is that Quantum Mechanics introduces two energy scales into the study of chaotic systems: One is obviously the mean level spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}^d`$, where $`d`$ is the dimensionality; The other is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b\mathrm{}`$, which is known as the non-universal energy scale, or as the bandwidth, or as the Thouless energy. Associated with these two energy scales are two special quantum-mechanical (QM) regimes in the theory of driven system. These are the QM adiabatic regime, and the QM non-perturbative regime respectively. Otherwise Fermi golden rule applies, and linear response theory can be trusted. Demonstrations of this general idea, that had been published in 1999, have appeared in studies of wavepacket dynamics, survival probability, dissipation, quantum irreversibility, fidelity and dephasing. The following presentation is intended for non-specialists.

Driven quantum systems, described by Hamiltonian $`(Q,P,x(t))`$, where $`x(t)`$ is a time dependent parameter, are of interest in mesoscopic physics (quantum dots), as well as in nuclear, atomic and molecular physics. Due to the time dependence of $`x(t)`$, the energy of the system is not a constant of motion. Rather the system makes ”transitions” between energy levels. Notions such as ”survival probability” and ”dissipation”, just emphasize particular aspects of the energy spreading process.

The name ”Quantum Mechanics” is associated with the idea that the energy is quantized. For generic (chaotic) system the mean level spacing is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}^d`$, where $`d`$ is the dimensionality of the system. However, one should recognize that there is a second energy scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b\mathrm{}`$ which is introduced by Quantum Mechanics. This $`\mathrm{}`$ energy scale is known in the literature as the ”non-universal” energy scale (Berry), or as the ”bandwidth” (Feingold and Peres) or as the Thouless energy.

The main focus of Quantum chaos studies (so far) was on issues of spectral statistics. In this context it turns out that the sub-$`\mathrm{}`$ statistical features of the energy spectrum are ”universal”, and obey the predictions of random matrix theory. Non universal (system specific) features are reflected only in the large scale properties of the spectrum (hence we can ”hear the shape of the drum”). This is the reason why $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$ is know as the ”non-universal” energy scale.

Having two quantal energy scales implies the existence of two special QM regimes in the theory of driven systems. The simplest demonstration of this idea is in the context of linear driving ($`\dot{x}=V`$). The existence of the QM adiabatic regime (very very small $`V`$) is associated with having finite $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The existence of the QM non-perturbative regime (where $`V`$ is quantum mechanically large, but still classically small) is associated with the energy scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$.

Heuristic explanation of having QM adiabatic regime: If the rate $`V`$ is very very small, the system remains all the time in the same level. This is because there are QM recurrences that block the attempt to make a transition to any other level. Obviously this effect is related to having finite (non-zero) level spacing.

Heuristic explanation of having QM non-perturbative regime: If $`V`$ is large enough to induce transitions between levels, then we have to ask what is the maximal size of a single ”step” in energy space. (Here ”step” means first order transition). The answer is that the maximal step is the bandwidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$. The energy spreading process after many ”steps” becomes diffusive. If $`V`$ is too large, then the breakdown of perturbation theory happens before even a single step is taken. In such case perturbation theory cannot be used in order to analyze the energy spreading process.

The identification of the ”non-perturbative” regime is the main observation of \[Cohen PRL 1999\]. An associated observation is that the semiclassical limit is contained in the non-perturbative regime. The idea has been applied and generalized to the analysis of the energy spreading process (the decay of the survival probability, and the growth of the variance) in case of ”wavepacket dynamics” \[main collaborator: Kottos\]. In these studies the control is over the strength/amplitude $`A`$ off the perturbation. The idea also has been generalized to the case of periodically driven systems \[Cohen and Kottos, PRL 2000\], where the control is over both the rate of change $`V`$ and the amplitude $`A`$ of the driving.

Recently the idea of having a non-perturbative/semiclassical regime has been adopted \[Jacquod, Silvestrov and Beenakker PRE 2001\] into the context of quantum-irreversibility studies (also known as ”fidelity” or ”Loschmidt echo” studies). Also here, if the perturbation strength $`A`$ is large enough (”large” in a quantum mechanical sense, but still assumed to be small in a classical sense), one gets into a semiclassical regime. This is the same idea as in our ”survival probability” studies in the context of ”wavepacket dynamics”. But in this particular context one can further argue \[Jalabert and Pastawski, PRL 2001\] that the ”semiclassical decay” is in fact a perturbation independent ”Lyapunov decay”.

Another recent observation \[Cohen PRE 2002\] is in the context of dephasing due to the interaction with chaotic degrees of freedom. The same idea of having non-perturbative/semiclassical regime is applicable. In fact the study of ”dephasing” can be regarded as a generalization of quantum irreversibility studies. The calculation of the dephasing factor reduces to the study of ”fidelity” in a scenario where one has control over both the amplitude $`A`$ and the rate $`V`$ of the driving.

References:

For a pedagogical presentation, including references, see D. Cohen, ”Driven chaotic mesoscopic systems,dissipation and decoherence”, lecture notes of the course to be given in the 2002 Wroclaw school. A preliminary version can be found in http://www.bgu.ac.il/$``$dcohen.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are extremely bright ($`10^{50}10^{53}`$ erg/s) and short ($`10^210^2`$ s) emission events observed from distant parts of the Universe. Their redshifts are now measured in about 20 cases and typical $`z1`$ (up to 4.5) are found . The burst were observed to occur with a rate of $`1`$ per day by the BATSE experiment  and even a higher rate would probably be detected with more sensitive instruments . GRBs are very different from supernovae not only because of their short duration and high luminosity. Their most special feature is that the emission peaks in the gamma-ray band, at $`h\nu `$ of a few hundred keV or perhaps more. In many cases ($`50`$%) the gamma-ray bursts are followed by afterglows — a much longer and softer emission that deacays in time and evolves from X-rays (hours) to radio (months) .

What triggers the bursts is still uncertain. The primary energy release occurs in a very compact region (probably within $`10^7`$ cm — from variability arguments) which is comparable to the size of compact objects — black holes and neutron stars. The energy output (assuming isotropic explosion) approaches a stellar rest-mass energy. This suggests a high efficiency of mass conversion into radiation and points to a relativistic collapse with a gravitational potential $`\varphi c^2`$ which agrees with the potential of compact objects. Yet the configuration of the progenitor system and the reason of the collapse are uncertain (see reviews  and refs. therein). It can be (I) coalescence of a close binary consisting of two compact objects , (II) collapse of a massive star core , and (III) collapse of a white dwarf . Also conversion of neutron stars into strange stars was proposed . Different scenarios can be tested against observations. In particular, massive stars spend their short lifes close to where they were born, and hence in the second scenario GRBs should occur in regions of active star formation. There is a growing evidence that this is indeed the case .

The afterglow is believed to come from a relativistic blast wave driven by the central explosion into an ambient medium. If GRBs are triggered by old stellar remnants they are likely surrounded by an interstellar medium (ISM) of density $`n1`$ cm-3 or even lower if the remnants are kicked out of the disk of the parent galaxy. In contrast, a GRB with a massive progenitor should occur inside a dense and strongly inhomogeneous star-forming cloud. Even more importantly, a massive progenitor emits a powerful wind all the time before it explodes, and this wind is the actual ambient medium of the GRB, with density scaling with radius as $`R^2`$ out to a distance of a few parsecs . The afterglow observations were supposed to reveal the nature of the ambient medium and thereby the progenitor. Yet after having observed many afterglows no definite conclusions are made. Perhaps the most surprising finding is that the afterglows are very diverse.

## 2 Prompt Emission: Observations

The prompt $`\gamma `$-ray emission (called prompt as opposed to the afterglow) displays a rich phenomenology which is poorly understood from a theoretical standpoint. In this section basic observed properties of the prompt GRBs are briefly summarized.

### 2.1 Time profiles: preferred timescales

The duration of GRBs varies by 4 orders of magnitude. The duration distribution is shown in Fig. 1. It has three clear features: (1) a break at short $`T_{50}0.1`$ s, (2) a break at long $`T_{50}10`$ s, and (3) a deficit of GRBs with $`T_{50}1`$ s. The three timescales are not explained yet.

Time profiles $`C(t)`$ of GRBs are very diverse. They show strong variations on all resolved timescales (the resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=64`$ ms in the standard BATSE data). In long bursts the range $`\mathrm{\Delta }t<t<T_{50}`$ spans three decades and Fourier transform $`C(f)`$ of the profile is useful: its power spectrum $`P_f=C_fC_f^{}`$ shows how the variability power is distributed over timescales. It reveals an interesting special feature of GRBs: $`P_f`$ follows a power law with slope $`\alpha 5/3`$ at frequencies $`(2\pi T_{50})^1<f<f_{\mathrm{br}}1`$ Hz and breaks at $`f_{\mathrm{br}}`$ (Fig. 2). This Fourier spectrum is observed in individual GRBs and it becomes especially clear when $`P_f`$ of several GRBs are averaged: then the statistical fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_f/P_f1`$ are averaged out and a perfect power law with a sharp break is found . The break is not an artifact of the 64 ms time binning; it rather indicates a timescale $`\tau _{\mathrm{br}}(1/2\pi )`$ s below which the variability decreases.

Various techniques were used to study the GRB profiles, for example decomposition into separate pulses , construction of the average time profile , and construction of the average auto-correlation function (ACF) . The results of different approaches are related. For example, the pulse decomposition gives a distribution of pulse widths with a break at a fraction of second, in agreement with the break in the power spectrum $`P_f`$. The ACF is just a Fourier transform of $`P_f`$ and it is perfectly fitted as a stretched exponential $`\mathrm{exp}[(\tau /\tau _0)^\beta ]`$ of index $`\beta =\alpha 1`$ . The ACF width $`\tau _0`$ is about the geometrical mean of $`\tau _{\mathrm{br}}`$ and $`T_{50}`$.

### 2.2 Spectra: a preferred photon energy?

The GRB energy spectrum is very difficult to study because it varies rapidly during the burst. The time-averaged spectrum is well fitted by a (smoothly) broken power law with a low-energy slope $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s=1\pm 0.5`$ and a high-energy slope $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h=2.3\pm 0.5`$ . The spectral peak position $`E_{\mathrm{pk}}`$ was found to cluster around $`200`$ keV. This clustering is not understood. Theoretically, there is no convincing model that would reproduce it. Observationally, one may ask whether the results based on the BATSE data are conclusive, since the experiment had the highest sensitivity at $`100`$ keV. Statistical studies point toward reality of the $`E_{\mathrm{pk}}`$ clustering , yet a confirmation by a future mission is desirable. One should also keep in mind that the time-average spectrum is normally far from the instantaneous one and its parameters do not give a direct information on the emission mechanism. Indeed, the instantaneous spectrum was fitted by a similar function yet with different (evolving) $`E_{\mathrm{pk}}`$ and slopes. $`E_{\mathrm{pk}}`$ can change during one burst by more than one order of magnitude. An interesting feature of spectral evolution is a positive correlation between the instantaneous $`E_{\mathrm{pk}}`$ and the energy flux $`F`$. In particular, the dependence $`FE_{\mathrm{pk}}^\gamma `$ was found for the decay phase of GRB where $`\gamma =13`$ varies from pulse to pulse and the average $`\overline{\gamma }2`$ .

The question of preferential energy can be reformulated: do GRB-like bursts occur in different energy bands? Recently, such bursts (X-ray flashes) were found by BeppoSax . These events have durations and time profiles similar to classical GRBs, but they emit most of their energy at softer energies (below 20 keV). The hardness ratio distribution of these soft bursts indicates that they extend continuously the population of the classical GRBs to lower energies.

## 3 Models for Prompt Emission

A basic constraint on GRB models is derived from their fast variability and enormous power: GRBs must be emitted by highly relativistic ejecta directed toward the observer. A lower bound on the ejecta Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be estimated as follows. Baryonic ejecta with kinetic luminosity $`L_k10^{52}`$ erg/s become transparent to electron scattering at a radius $`R_{}=L_k\sigma _\mathrm{T}/(8\pi m_pc^3\mathrm{\Gamma }^3)10^{19}\mathrm{\Gamma }^3`$ cm. The observed emission from the ejecta can vary on timescales $`t_vR_{}/(2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2c)10^8\mathrm{\Gamma }^5`$ s. The actual $`t_v<0.1`$ s then requires $`\mathrm{\Gamma }10^2`$.

A simple phenomenological model of a relativistic outflow envisions a central engine of size $`r_010^7`$ cm which deposits energy at a high rate $`10^{52}`$ erg/s at the base of the outflow; this causes high pressure and free expansion with increasing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }R`$ . The engine operates much longer ($`t_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ s) than its light-crossing time ($`r_0/c<`$ ms). It ejects a long sequence of blobs $`r_0`$ that undergo free expansion (on timescale $`r_0/c`$) one after another and form a continuous outflow.

The high $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the outflow implies that energy is ejected with a very low baryon “pollution”. This energy must be carried by a highly relativistic plasma and frozen magnetic fields. Below we first describe outflows dominated by the plasma energy and then those dominated by magnetic energy.

### 3.1 Baryonic Outflow: Internal Shocks

Suppose the engine emits thermal energy into a solid angle $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with rate $`L(\mathrm{\Omega }/4\pi )`$. The energy density at the outflow base, $`w=L/(4\pi r_0^2c)`$, is so high that the matter must be in complete thermodynamic equilibrium with radiation at a temperature $`kT_0`$ MeV. Here the matter is strongly dominated by $`e^\pm `$ pairs which maintain an equilibrium with radiation through reaction $`\gamma +\gamma e^++e^{}`$, and $`w`$ is dominated by photons and $`e^\pm `$ . The high-pressure material expands freely with acceleration. The expansion is accompanied by adiabatic cooling, eventually the temperature drops, and pairs annihilate.

A crucial parameter of the outflow is its baryonic rest-mass luminosity, $`L_b`$. If there are no baryons ($`L_b=0`$) the outflow becomes transparent after $`e^\pm `$ annihilation and the radiation escapes. This happens when the temperature in the comoving frame drops to $`kT_\pm 10`$ keV, at a radius $`R=r_0(T_0/T_\pm )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(T_0/T_\pm )`$. Essentially all the explosion energy is carried away by the blackbody radiation with temperature $`T=\mathrm{\Gamma }T_\pm =T_0`$. Thus, a strong burst is produced at MeV energies. Only a small energy remains available for an afterglow; it is carried by an optically thin outflow of surviving $`e^\pm `$ with luminosity $`L_\pm =8\pi (r_0m_ec^3/\sigma _\mathrm{T})(T_0/T_\pm )^4L`$. In contrast, the observed afterglows are comparable in energy with the prompt GRB, and this is one reason why the outlined model is unfavorable. Besides, the blackbody exponential cutoff was not found in GRB spectra and a nonthermal emission mechanism is preferred.

A small baryonic pollution, $`L_bL`$, can drastically change the model in that it keeps the outflow optically thick after $`e^\pm `$ annihilation. The radiation remains trapped, continues to accelerate the outflow, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }R`$, and cools down adiabatically. The kinetic luminosity of baryons $`L_k=\mathrm{\Gamma }L_b`$ grows and approaches $`L`$ at $`R_s=(L/L_b)r_0`$. Now the explosion luminosity has been converted into $`L_k`$ and the Lorentz factor saturates at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=L/L_b`$.

The baryonic outflow was suggested to emit GRBs by internal shocks . If $`L_b/L`$ varies during the outflow ejection, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ will fluctuate, which results in internal collisions (caustics). A minimum scale of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-fluctuations is $`\lambda _0r_0`$ — the size of the central engine. First internal collisions will occur at a radius $`R_0=2\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^2\lambda _0/A`$ where $`A=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }/\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is the fluctuation amplitude (rms) and $`A<1`$ is assumed . At $`R>R_0`$ the collisions proceed on scales $`\lambda >\lambda _0`$ in a hierarchical manner. For a given initial spectrum of fluctuations one can compute the history of internal dissipation .

The transparency radius of the baryonic outflow $`R_{}=L\sigma _\mathrm{T}/(8\pi m_pc^3\mathrm{\Gamma }^3)`$ is comparable to $`R_0`$, and hence internal shocks can emit nonthermal spectra. Any time profiles of GRBs can be fitted by the model with properly chosen initial conditions. One would also like to know what fraction $`ϵ`$ of the total bulk kinetic energy $`E`$ is dissipated internally. It is determined by an initial free energy $`U_{\mathrm{free}}`$ of the fluctuating outflow: $`ϵ=U_{\mathrm{free}}/E`$. $`U_{\mathrm{free}}`$ is easily calculated analytically given an initial amplitude of fluctuations $`A<1`$, leading to $`ϵ=A^2/2<0.5`$ . The case of $`A>1`$ is also possible and it is more complicated. At high $`A`$ the Lorentz factors of colliding shells differ by a big factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ up to $`10^210^3`$; then the outflow evolves in a non-linear way and $`ϵ`$ could approach unity. A realistic $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is limited because a radiation-pressure-accelerated ejecta has $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(R/r_0)`$ at any given $`R`$. A slow shell with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is hit by a following fast shell with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ at $`R_0=2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^2\lambda _0`$ (where $`\lambda _0`$ is their initial separation); since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2R_0/r_0`$ one gets a maximum $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\lambda _0/r_0)`$. It may be much higher than $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ if the central engine “waits” before ejecting a very energetic shell ($`\lambda _0r_0`$) and the shell has space ahead to develop a high $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ before colliding. Therefore, in the non-linear regime, $`ϵ`$ is not a simple function of $`A`$ and it is sensitive to details of initial conditions. Additional complications are owing to possible $`e^\pm `$ production  which depends on the unknown spectrum of the produced $`\gamma `$-rays at $`h\nu >100`$ MeV.

A major uncertainty of this scenario is the emission mechanism of internal shocks which remains to be a matter of controversy. The simplest model of synchrotron emission from shock-accelerated electrons predicts a broken power-law radiation spectrum with a low energy slope $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s>2/3`$  and this is inconsistent with the data . Possible modifications were discussed  yet the issue is not yet settled. Also the radiative efficiency $`\eta `$ of an internal shock is unknown and speculations range from $`\eta 1`$ to $`\eta =1`$. The net radiative efficiency of the outflow can be high even when $`\eta 1`$ in each shock . The fraction of the emitted radiation that appears in the BATSE spectral window depends on the model assumptions and may be small .

### 3.2 Magnetic Outflow: Field Dissipation

The central compact engine is likely to have a rotational energy $`E_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ comparable to the gravitational energy. Differential rotation can generate very strong magnetic fields, as high as $`B10^{16}`$ G. For example, neutron stars can be born strongly magnetized . When a compact binary merges or a massive star core collapses, a black hole forms and accretes debris. Then strong magnetic fields can be generated by the differentially rotating accretion disk. A magnetized rotator emits Poynting flux with luminosity $`L_P\mu ^2\omega ^4/c^3`$ where $`\mu `$ is the magnetic moment and $`\omega `$ is the angular velocity of rotation. For expected $`\mu 10^{34}`$ G cm3 and $`\omega 10^4`$ s-1 one gets $`L_P10^{52}`$ erg/s and hence $`E_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ is emitted in a few seconds. The resulting Poynting-flux-dominated outflow was studied as a possible GRB source; we will describe here the scenario proposed in .

A fraction $`\sigma `$ of $`E_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ can be dissipated at the base of the Poynting outflow, loading it with baryon-free $`e^\pm `$ plasma and trapped blackbody radiation. The Poynting flux is “frozen” into the plasma whose early dynamics is similar to the scenario described in Section 3.1. The difference is that now only a fraction $`\sigma `$ of the total energy is thermalized and the initial temperature $`T_0`$ is lower by a modest factor $`\sigma ^{1/4}`$. The magnetized outflow is accelerated by the thermal pressure until the temperature drops to $`kT_\pm 10`$ keV. Here pairs annihilate to transparency, the thermal radiation decouples, and the Lorentz factor of the surviving $`e^\pm `$ plasma saturates at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=T_0/T_\pm 10^2`$.

The coasting $`e^\pm `$ outflow carries the initially frozen magnetic field as long as the particle density $`n`$ is sufficient to ensure the MHD approximation. The toroidal field component $`B_\varphi `$ is least suppressed in the expansion process and $`BB_\varphi R^1`$. The magnetic outflow (like the baryonic one) can be inhomogeneous on scales $`\lambda >r_0`$, so that the field possesses a free energy $`U_{\mathrm{free}}`$ of currents $`j=(c/4\pi )|\times 𝐁|(c/4\pi )(B/r_0)R^1`$. The density of surviving $`e^\pm `$ at $`R>R_\pm `$ is $`n_+\mathrm{\Gamma }R_\pm /(\sigma _\mathrm{T}R^2)R^2`$ and outside $`10^{14}`$ cm it is too small to support the currents. Then the displacement current $`\dot{E}/c=j`$ is generated and $`U_{\mathrm{free}}`$ is converted into large-amplitude electromagnetic waves. The waves have a low frequency, $`c/r_010^4`$ Hz, and they are quickly absorbed by the $`e^\pm `$ plasma, resulting in particle acceleration to a Lorentz factor $`\gamma L_P/L_\pm 10^6`$. The accelerated $`e^\pm `$ move in the residual magnetic field and the field of waves and emit photons of energy $`h\nu \gamma ^2\mathrm{}(c/r_0)`$ MeV. This mechanism may give rise to a GRB. Very strong bursts can naturally be produced since the Poynting outflow carries a large energy $`E_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ and $`U_{\mathrm{free}}<E_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ is possible. Like the internal shock model, GRBs with arbitrary time profiles can be generated, depending on the initially frozen field structure in the outflow. The predicted energy spectrum is uncertain. After the prompt GRB (dissipation of $`U_{\mathrm{free}}`$) the magnetic fields outflows further with energy $`E_{\mathrm{ej}}=E_{\mathrm{rot}}U_{\mathrm{free}}`$ until it passes the energy to an ambient medium. Here it gives rise to an afterglow.

## 4 Afterglow

There are a number of observations of GRB afterglows in X-rays, optical, IR, and radio (see  for a review). In many cases the afterglow spectral flux decays as a simple power law, $`F_\nu (t)\nu ^\alpha t^\beta `$. Clear deviations from this law are also observed, e.g. breaks or humps. The indexes $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ change from burst to burst and can also change during one afterglow. Important early afterglow observations in X-rays were done by BeppoSax , SIGMA , and BATSE . These observations showed that the afterglow starts immediately after or even overlaps with the prompt GRB. Chandra, BeppoSax, and ASCA detected spectral lines of iron in the afterglow, which places strong constraints on the GRB progenitors .

### 4.1 Standard Afterglow Model

The energy source of the afterglows is easily explained. The ejecta with Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ runs into an ambient medium and its energy is dissipated when it sweeps a sufficient ambient mass $`m`$. Namely, half of the ejecta energy $`E_{\mathrm{ej}}`$ is dissipated when the swept inertial mass $`m\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (measured in the ejecta frame) reaches that of the ejecta itself, $`E_{\mathrm{ej}}/(c^2\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. The swept mass at a radius $`R`$ is given by $`m(R)=_0^R4\pi R^2\rho \mathrm{dR}`$ where $`\rho (R)`$ is the medium mass density. The characteristic $`m_{\mathrm{dec}}=E_{\mathrm{ej}}/(c^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)`$ corresponds to a radius $`R_{\mathrm{dec}}`$. For example, $`R_{\mathrm{dec}}=(3E_{\mathrm{ej}}/4\pi \rho c^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)^{1/3}`$ if $`\rho (R)=const`$. In the massive progenitor scenario, $`\rho (R)=\dot{M}/(4\pi R^2w)`$ where $`\dot{M}`$ and $`w`$ are the mass loss and velocity of the progenitor wind. In this case $`R_{\mathrm{dec}}=E_{\mathrm{ej}}w/(\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\dot{M}c^2)`$. For the most likely Wolf-Rayet progenitors with $`\dot{M}10^5M_{}`$ yr-1 and $`w10^8`$ cm/s, one gets $`R_{\mathrm{dec}}10^{15}(E_{\mathrm{ej}}/10^{53})`$ cm. (As we discuss in Section 4.2, this standard estimate neglects the impact of the $`\gamma `$-ray front and turns out invalid.)

The ejecta dynamics at $`R>R_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ depends on what happens faster — the dissipated heat is radiated away or the ejecta expands by a factor of two. If radiative losses dominate, $`E_{\mathrm{ej}}`$ is converted into radiation at $`RR_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ quickly decreases: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}(m/m_{\mathrm{dec}})^1`$ at $`m>m_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ . If expansion is faster, the heat converts back into the bulk kinetic energy via adiabatic cooling; then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}(m/m_{\mathrm{dec}})^{1/2}`$.

The decelerating shell is made of the ejecta material and the swept ambient mass, with a contact discontinuity between them. The shell has a high pressure that drives a forward shock into the medium. (A collisionless shock is expected to form if the Larmor radius of the reflected upstream ions $`r_L=\mathrm{\Gamma }^2m_pc^2/eB_{\mathrm{up}}<R`$; this condition may be not satisfied and then a different model is needed .) The emission from the forward shock gives rise to the observed afterglow. A simple emission model can fit the observations . It assumes that a fraction $`ϵ_e`$ of the shocked ion energy goes to the electrons and accelerates them with a power-law energy spectrum $`\mathrm{dN}/\mathrm{dE}_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{p}`$. The electrons emit a synchrotron spectrum in a magnetic field behind the shock. The field is assumed to be strongly amplified compared to the upstream field and it is parametrized by $`ϵ_B=(B^2/8\pi )w_{\mathrm{th}}^1`$ where $`w_{\mathrm{th}}`$ is the energy density of the shocked medium. The model has six main fitting parameters and they are found to vary strongly from burst to burst . Therefore it is not obvious whether the assumptions are justified by the data and the afterglow physics is well captured by the model. In any case the fits by the model provide a form for data representation; it is used commonly and referred to as a standard afterglow model.

The breaks sometimes observed in the afterglow light curves are thought to be indications of beaming of the GRB ejecta: a break should happen when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ equals the beaming angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{ej}}`$ . The beaming implies that the total GRB energy $`E`$ is reduced by a factor of $`\theta _{\mathrm{ej}}^2/(4\pi )`$ compared to what one deduces assuming isotropy. Intriguingly, when this correction is applied to GRBs with evaluated $`\theta _{\mathrm{ej}}`$, $`E`$ displays a much smaller dispersion and clusters around $`10^{51}`$ erg .

The deceleration radius $`R_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ is especially interesting since here the main afterglow is emitted. The afterglow should peak early, at an observed time $`t_{\mathrm{obs}}=t_{\mathrm{peak}}=R_{\mathrm{dec}}/(2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2c)`$, and at $`t_{\mathrm{obs}}>t_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ the emission gets weaker and softer because it comes from the decelerated shell. Unfortunately, there are no direct observations of $`R_{\mathrm{dec}}`$. In one case the angular size of the afterglow source was inferred from radio observations at $`t_{\mathrm{obs}}1`$ month : the scintillation amplitude died out at that time, giving an angular size that corresponds to the source radius $`R10^{17}`$ cm, in agreement with model expectations. Extrapolating $`R(t)`$ back in time one finds that $`R_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ is likely to be within $`10^{16}`$ cm. The $`t_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ should then be comparable to the prompt GRB duration and this agrees with the reported observations of hard X-ray afterglows already at the end of the prompt GRB . These observations revealed a spectrally distinct and smoothly decaying emission component at the end of the burst and it was interpreted as the beginning of an afterglow. The standard model predicted this early afterglow in hard X-rays.

### 4.2 Revision of the Early Afterglow

Recently the physics of the early afterglow was revised. The new effect discovered is the strong impact of the prompt $`\gamma `$-rays on the afterglow blast wave. The presence of the violent radiation front ahead of the ejecta was neglected by the standard model while in fact it crucially changes the medium faced by the ejecta: the leading $`\gamma `$-rays scatter off the medium, load it with $`e^\pm `$ pairs, and preaccelerate to a large Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$ . These effects introduce three new characteristic radii into the problem: $`R_{\mathrm{gap}}<R_{\mathrm{acc}}<R_{\mathrm{load}}`$ . At $`R<R_{\mathrm{gap}}0.3R_{\mathrm{acc}}`$ the $`\gamma `$-ray front sweeps the ambient medium out with $`\gamma >\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and opens a gap between the ejecta and the surfing medium. When the front passes radii $`R_{\mathrm{gap}}<R<R_{\mathrm{acc}}=0.7\times 10^{16}(E_\gamma /10^{53})^{1/2}`$ cm ($`E_\gamma `$ is the isotropic energy of the prompt GRB emission) $`\gamma `$ is decreasing from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to unity and the ejecta is sweeping the preaccelerated and $`e^\pm `$ loaded medium behind the radiation front. At $`R_{\mathrm{acc}}<R<R_{\mathrm{load}}\sqrt{5}R_{\mathrm{acc}}`$ the ejecta sweeps a static ($`\gamma 1`$) medium dominated by loaded $`e^\pm `$. Not until $`R>R_{\mathrm{load}}=1.6\times 10^{16}(E_\gamma /10^{53})^{1/2}`$ cm the $`e^\pm `$ loading is shut down and the standard afterglow model applies.

The afterglow should start at $`R=R_{\mathrm{gap}}`$ when the gap is closed and a blast wave is formed. Initially, the shock Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sh}}\mathrm{\Gamma }/\gamma `$ is modest and $`e^\pm `$ density of the ambient medium exceeds the ion density by a very large factor $`n_+/n_i10^3`$. The energy per shocked $`e^\pm `$ particle is suppressed $`\gamma ^1(n_i/n_+)`$, resulting in soft emission. In contrast to the standard model, one expects to see the very beginning of the afterglow in optical/UV. As the ejecta approaches $`R_{\mathrm{acc}}`$ the preacceleration $`\gamma `$ falls down steeply, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ rises, the emission hardens fast, and the afterglow appears in the X-ray band. This unusual soft-to-hard evolution of the early afterglow was detected in GRB 910402 . At $`R>R_{\mathrm{load}}`$ the front effects become small and the afterglow gradually fades according to the standard model. The whole afterglow evolution is shown in Figure 3.

The $`\gamma `$-ray front can strongly impact the deceleration radius , especially in the massive progenitor scenario where the standard model predicts $`R_{\mathrm{dec}}R_{\mathrm{acc}}`$. The ejecta cannot decelerate until it approaches $`R_{\mathrm{acc}}`$, and one finds $`R_{\mathrm{dec}}R_{\mathrm{acc}}`$. Then the peak of the afterglow is predicted at $`t_{\mathrm{peak}}=R_{\mathrm{acc}}/(2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2c)=12(E_\gamma /10^{53})^{1/2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }/100)^2`$ s. A measured $`t_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ and $`E_\gamma `$ would allow one to evaluate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The isotropic energy $`E_\gamma `$ is now known for about 20 bursts, however $`t_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ was not determined. The peak can be clearly observed in soft bands where the prompt GRB is not seen. In short GRBs with duration $`t_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ the afterglow should also be separated from the prompt emission in time, and the peak could be noticed even in the BATSE data (at $`h\nu >20`$ keV). A possible detection of such a peak at tens of seconds (an excess in a time-averaged profile of 76 short GRBs) was recently reported .

The early soft afterglow can be studied in optical, UV, and soft X-ray bands on timescales less than one minute. Normally, GRB observations in soft bands start hours or days after the prompt burst when only the decaying emission from $`R>R_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ can be observed. Attempts were made to detect prompt optical emission at $`t_{\mathrm{obs}}>10`$ s and in one case (GRB 990123) such emission was detected . The observed optical flash was expected to come from a reverse shock in a baryonic ejecta . In  an alternative interpretation was suggested: the soft flash is produced by the forward shock at its early stage when it propagates in the preaccelerated and $`e^\pm `$-loaded environment. In contrast to the reverse shock interpretation, the ejecta is not required to be baryonic — it may be a Poynting flux as well.

Prompt observations of GRBs in soft bands can help to understand the main early phase of the ejecta-medium interaction. A major future GRB mission is Swift (to be launched in 2003). It will provide optical/UV and soft X-ray data 20–70 s after the burst detection in hard X-rays. Unfortunately, this time may be too long to catch the early soft phase of afterglows. Quicker observations can be done with the proposed microsatellite ECLAIRs  which is devoted specifically to prompt GRB observations in optical and soft X-rays.

## 5 Concluding Remarks

Owing to the recent observational progress, the state of the GRB field has crucially transformed. In the beginning of 90s, $`10^2`$ theories did not contradict the data and were considered as principally possible; to a large extent the choice of a plausible theory was a matter of taste. The present situation is just opposite. GRBs have shown a mysterious complicated phenomenology with a number of well formulated observational facts. A successful theory is expected to make specific predictions that agree with the data on a quantitative level. The understanding of GRBs is far from such an ideal state, and the existing theories are rather naive and lacking a predictive power. Where models can fit the data (e.g. afterglow light curves) it is partially due to a large number of free parameters which ensure a sufficient flexibility of the model, and it does not make one confident that the simplifying assumptions are correct.

The difficulty of the GRB theory is well compensated by the recent observations which put more and more constraints. The observational progress may become even more impressive with additional channels of information such as neutrino and gravitational radiation. New exciting observations of electromagnetic radiation are expected from future missions — Swift and GLAST. It allows one to hope for a future theory that would clarify the physics of the explosion and answer the basic questions: (1) What is the progenitor and why does it collapse? (2) Where is the released gravitational energy channeled to before it starts to feed the outflow (energy of rotation, magnetic energy, heat?) (3) What is the composition of the ejecta ($`e^\pm `$, $`p`$, $`n`$, magnetic field?) and why are they so highly relativistic?