text:
# Spectra of Poynting-flux powered GRB outflows

## 1 Introduction

Magnetic fields are an attractive ingredient in central engine models of $`\gamma `$-ray bursts because of their ability to transfer large amounts of energy across (near) vacuum and depositing it into a small amount of matter. The energy flux in such magnetically powered, or ‘Poynting-flux dominated’ outflows (refs Thompson 1994; Lyutikov & Blandford 2003; Drenkhahn 2002) is initially in electromagnetic form. To produce a GRB, this energy flux has to be transferred to the matter in such a way as to produce both bulk flow speed and the right amount of nonthermal radiation.

Poynting-flux dominated outflows come in 2 basic types: the axisymmetric or ‘DC’ models and the nonaxisymmetric or ‘AC’ ones (for discussions of these models see Lyutikov & Blandford 2003; Drenkhahn 2002 \[Paper I\]; Spruit & Drenkhahn 2002 \[Paper II\]). An axisymmetric, rotating magnetic field can accelerate flows by the magnetocentrifugal mechanism. Instabilities in the outflow can dissipate some of the magnetic energy to produce heating, acceleration of fast particles and ultimately nonthermal radiation. In the AC model on the other hand, the rotating magnetic field of the central engine is nonaxisymmetric, producing an outflow in which the field lines change directions rapidly, at the rotation frequency of the central engine or higher. Dissipation of magnetic energy by reconnection in this flow is much faster than in the DC model, and the acceleration of the outflow very efficient, though by a somewhat different mechanism than in the magnetocentrifugal process (Papers I; II, for a summary see Spruit & Drenkhahn 2003).

In both these models, the observed nonthermal radiation is produced by dissipation of magnetic energy by reconnection. Details of the reconnection process matter for the radiation produced, but are rather poorly understood at present. Significant parts of the relevant plasma physics are not known, especially under the relativistic conditions of a GRB. This hampers for the moment the development of models for the prompt radiation to be expected from a magnetically powered GRB outflow. Nevertheless, a few reasonably established facts already help in limiting the possibilities.

In this paper we develop the consequences of assuming magnetic reconnection as the source of gamma-radiation from a GRB. Like the internal shock model, the model has a free parameter representing the fraction of the electrons that takes up the dissipated energy and produces the synchrotron radiation. It has one degree of freedom less, however, since the magnetic field strength in the flow follows within narrow limits from the energetics, once the choice for an AC or DC model is made. In the developments below, an AC model is assumed for quantitative results.

An important diagnostic of the prompt emission is the break in the Gamma-ray spectrum. This break is usually assumed to represent the synchrotron spectrum from a distribution of electrons with a lower energy cutoff, as is produced by the synchrotron cooling of quasi-instantaneously accelerated electrons. This may be appropriate for an internal shock model. The idea has also been carried over to magnetic prompt emission models by Sikora et al. (2003). It turns out, however, that magnetic reconnection is not nearly instantaneous enough to produce such a distribution. In magnetic reconnection, the electron distribution will reflect, instead, the local instantaneous balance between synchrotron cooling and heating by the reconnection-related electric fields.

## 2 Magnetically powered outflows

The outflow carries free energy in the form of wound-up magnetic field lines, which can be extracted through reconnection processes. For reconnection processes to take place, differently oriented field lines must come close to each other. The length scale on which the orientation of magnetic field lines changes controls the speed of field dissipation; the smaller the length scale the faster the field decay. In DC models, the field lines are in the same direction, and dissipation has to wait until global instabilities have caused changes in direction between nearby field lines. As a result the dissipation in such models tends to happen at a rather large distance, of order $`10^{17}`$ cm (Lyutikov & Blandford 2003).

We consider here the outflow from a nonaxisymmetric rotator. This configuration gives rise to a ‘striped’ wind (Coroniti 1990, see also Spruit et al. 2001), where the magnetic field varies with a wavelength of $`\lambda 2\pi c/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (in the source’s frame). A detailed description of the model has been given previously (Papers I and II). In this section we summarize the main ingredients of the model and its assumptions.

### 2.1 Reconnection in a relativistic magnetic field

Both the dynamics of the flow and the radiative energy release are governed by the rate of magnetic reconnection in the flow. The magnetic energy flux is of the same order as the kinetic energy flux $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\dot{m}c^2`$ where $`\dot{m}=\dot{M}/4\pi `$ is the (baryonic) mass flux per steradian and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the bulk Lorentz factor. In a frame comoving with the flow, the magnetic energy density is then of the same order as the rest mass energy density, i.e. the field is relativistic (Alfvén speed of the order of the speed of light) and highly super-equipartition.

The outflow speed of the plasma from a reconnection region is of the order of the Alfvén speed, rather independent of the particular reconnection model. Under relativistic conditions (energy density in the magnetic field larger than the rest mass energy density), Blackman & Field (1994a) (see also Blackman & Field 1994b) find that the inflow speed into the reconnection layer is increased by the relativistic kinematics, and is also subrelativistic. This has also been found by Lyutikov & Uzdensky (2003). Thus we may assume that the velocity $`v_{\mathrm{rec}}`$ at which the magnetic energy density $`B^2/8\pi `$ flows across a reconnection boundary is of the order of the speed of light

$$v_{rec}=ϵv_\mathrm{A},$$
(1)
where $`v_\mathrm{A}c`$ and $`ϵ`$ is of order unity. We keep this parameter in the calculations, but consider it a relatively well determined quantity, conservatively set at $`ϵ=0.1`$ for quantitative estimates.

### 2.2 The dynamics of the flow

Near the source the flow is accelerated magnetocentrifugally up to a distance around the Alfvén radius. Then it becomes asymptotically radial. The poloidal and azimuthal components are similar in magnitude; however, from that point on their magnitude scales as $`B_\varphi /B_rr`$, resulting in a negligible radial component at larger distances. In Poynting-flux dominated outflows the Alfvén radius is almost equal to the light radius $`c/\mathrm{\Omega }`$. So for distances $`r>c/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the flow can be assumed to be purely radial with a dominant azimuthal component of the magnetic field.

From this point on we focus on the dynamics of the flow, as well as on its radiative properties at distances $`r>r_0`$ a few $`c/\mathrm{\Omega }`$. An important parameter of the model is the ratio $`\sigma _0`$ of the Poynting flux to the kinetic flux at the initial radius

$$\sigma _0=\frac{L_{\mathrm{B},0}}{L_{\mathrm{kin},0}}=\frac{\beta _0(B_0r_0)^2}{4\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }_0\dot{M}c},$$
(2)
where $`\beta =v/c`$, $`B_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ are the magnetic field strength and the bulk Lorentz factor at the radius $`r_0`$ and $`\dot{M}`$ is the mass flux per sterad. The flow starts at $`r_0`$ with the Alfvén speed ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\sqrt{\sigma _0+1}`$). In the GRB case the flow must start highly Poynting-flux dominated with $`\sigma _0\mathrm{¿}\mathrm{}100`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$ at all distances. So we can safely set $`\sigma _0+1\sigma _0`$ and $`\beta 1`$.

There is also a simple relation that links the total luminosity of the flow to the mass flux

$$L=\sigma _0\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\dot{M}c^2.$$
(3)
A characteristic value of the asymptotic Lorentz factor of the flow is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}\sigma _0\mathrm{\Gamma }_0.$$
(4)
Its actual value will differ, depending on which fraction of the Poynting flux is converted to kinetic energy. In the AC model, this is about 50% if most of the dissipation takes place outside the photosphere, and larger (up to 100%) when dissipation is near or inside the photosphere.

We will apply the results to cases where magnetic dissipation is well outside the photosphere so that the asymptotic kinetic luminosity is similar to the initial Poynting flux. In the region $`r<r_\mathrm{s}`$ where the Poynting flux has not yet dissipated significantly, this implies the approximate relation

$$\frac{B^2}{8\pi }c\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}\rho c^3,$$
(5)
in the frame of the central engine, or

$$\frac{B^2}{8\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\rho ^{}c^2,(r\mathrm{¡}\mathrm{}r_\mathrm{s})$$
(6)
in a frame comoving with the bulk flow (indicated by primes). Thus, as mentioned above, the magnetic field in the outflow is relativistic, up to the saturation radius $`r_\mathrm{s}`$ where most of the dissipation takes place.

With magnetic dissipation scaling with the Alfvén speed as discussed above, the acceleration of the flow can be computed in detail, including the gas and radiation pressures where relevant. The results of detailed numerical calculations where reported in Paper II. The acceleration of the flow stops when most of the free magnetic energy has been dissipated; this happens at a distance $`r_s`$. In the intermediate range of radii $`r_0rr_s`$ the equations simplify and an analytic solution is possible (Paper I). The analytic solution has been found to be fairly close to the numerical results and will be used in this work so as to make predictions on the radiative properties of the flow.

In the intermediate range of radii the bulk Lorentz factor of the flow scales as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }r^{1/3}`$, while beyond the saturation radius it can be approximated as constant

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}(r/r_\mathrm{s})^{1/3}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{r}<\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{s},$$
(7)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}=\sigma _0^{3/2}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{r}>\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{s},$$
(8)
where

$$r_\mathrm{s}=\pi c\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}^2/(3\mathrm{\Omega }ϵ),$$
(9)
or, in terms of the light cylinder radius $`r_\mathrm{l}`$,

$$r_\mathrm{s}/r_\mathrm{l}=\frac{\pi }{2ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}^2.$$
(10)
For canonical GRB parameters ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=300`$, $`ϵ=0.1`$, $`r_\mathrm{l}=10^7`$ cm, it is at $`r_\mathrm{s}10^{13}`$ cm, a factor 10-100 outside the Thomson photosphere.

We can see how much magnetic energy is dissipated in the flow (in the central engine’s frame) as a function of radius following the Poynting flux in the flow. The latter is given by the expression (Paper I)

$$L_\mathrm{B}=\beta c\frac{(rB)^2}{4\pi }=L(1\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\sigma _0^{3/2}}),$$
(11)
where $`L`$, $`L_\mathrm{B}`$ are the the total flux and the Poynting flux of the flow per steradian. From Eq. (11) and Eq. (7) one can see that the Poynting flux in the flow drops as a function of distance. This reduction corresponds to the magnetic energy that is gradually dissipated in the flow. The energy rate $`d\dot{E}_{\mathrm{rel}}`$ that is released in a shell ($`r,r+\mathrm{d}r`$) of the flow will be

$$\mathrm{d}\dot{E}_{\mathrm{rel}}=\frac{\mathrm{d}L_\mathrm{B}}{\mathrm{d}r}\mathrm{d}r=\frac{0.049L}{r_{11}^{2/3}}\frac{(ϵ\mathrm{\Omega })_3^{1/3}}{\sigma _{0,2}}\mathrm{d}r_{11},$$
(12)
where $`r=10^{11}r_{11}`$ cm. So in the frame of the central engine $`\mathrm{d}\dot{E}_{\mathrm{rel}}\mathrm{d}r/r^{2/3}`$. After integration in a range of radii we find $`\dot{E}r^{1/3}`$. So, most of the energy is actually dissipated in the outer regions of the flow, close to the saturation radius.

Other physical quantities of the flow that will be important are the proper density $`\rho `$, the magnetic field strength $`B`$, and the location of the Thomson photosphere $`r_{\mathrm{ph}}`$. Combining the continuity equation $`\dot{M}=r^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\rho c`$ with Eq. (3) and Eq. (7) we have for the proper density

$$\rho =\frac{\dot{M}}{r^2\mathrm{\Gamma }c}=\frac{L}{\sigma _{0,2}^{3/2}r^2\mathrm{\Gamma }c^3}=\frac{2.510^7}{r_{11}^{7/3}}\frac{L_{52}}{\sigma _{0,2}^2(ϵ\mathrm{\Omega })^{1/3}}\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^3,$$
(13)
where $`\dot{M}`$ is the mass flux per steradian and $`L=10^{52}L_{52}`$ erg/sec/sterad is a typical value for the observed GRB luminosities taking into account the strong evidence for highly collimated outflows (Frail et al. 2001).

Using Eq. (11) and Eq. (7) (for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}`$) the comoving magnetic field strength will be

$$B^{}=B/\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{2510^7}{r_{11}^{4/3}}\frac{L_{52}^{1/2}}{(ϵ\mathrm{\Omega })_3^{1/3}\sigma _{0,2}^{1/2}}\mathrm{Gauss}.$$
(14)
The radius of the photosphere of the flow depends on the baryon loading and the energy flux. For large bulk Lorentz factors it is given by integrating the expression (cf. Abramowicz et al. 1991) $`\mathrm{d}\tau =\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\beta )k_{es}\rho \mathrm{d}r`$ from $`r`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ to find

$$\tau =\frac{20}{r_{11}^{5/3}}\frac{L_{52}}{\sigma _{0,2}^{5/2}(ϵ\mathrm{\Omega })_3^{2/3}}.$$
(15)
Setting $`\tau (r_{\mathrm{ph}})=1`$ and solving for the location of the photosphere, we find its position as a function of the parameters of the flow

$$r_{ph,11}=6\frac{L_{52}^{3/5}}{\sigma _{0,2}^{3/2}(ϵ\mathrm{\Omega })_3^{2/5}}.$$
(16)
## 3 The reconnection layer

### 3.1 Time scales

Let the reconnection layers have a lateral size $`L`$ (given by the wavelength of the field reversals) and an as yet unknown thickness $`\delta `$. Matter and magnetic field lines are advected to the reconnection region with the reconnection velocity $`v_{\mathrm{rec}}`$ through the upper and lower surfaces of the layer. The material is pulled out of the reconnection region through the sides of the layer with speeds comparable to the Alfvén speed by magnetic tension forces. While $`\delta `$ depends strongly on the poorly known reconnection physics, the outflow speed is approximately known, since the Alfvén speed is of the order of the speed of light, as noted above. The width $`L`$ of the reconnection layer is given by the intrinsic length scale in the flow, namely the wavelength of field reversals. Hence, in a frame comoving with the bulk flow $`L\mathrm{\Gamma }\pi c/\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The residence time of matter in the reconnection layer is therefore of the order

$$\tau _\mathrm{r}=L/v_\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\Gamma }\pi /\mathrm{\Omega }=\pi r_\mathrm{l}/c$$
(17)
where $`r_\mathrm{l}`$ is the light cylinder radius of the central engine.

This time scale can be compared with the cooling time of the electrons in the reconnection layer. On account of the very high field strengths, the dominant radiation process is most likely synchrotron emission. Because the details of the particle acceleration processes in the reconnection layer are unknown, we assume that the energy dissipated goes mostly into a fraction $`\xi 1`$ of the electrons, which as a result attain a typical Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$. The parameter $`\xi `$ plays the same role as its counterpart in the internal shock model. Note, however, that there is no additional parameter for the strength of the magnetic field, since this is fixed by the Poynting flux model.

If the characteristic Lorentz factor of the radiating electrons is such that the radiation seen in the observer’s frame has energy $`h\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}/m_\mathrm{e}c^2=x_{\mathrm{obs}}1`$, the cooling time of the electrons (in a comoving frame) can be written as

$$\tau _\mathrm{s}=6\pi \sigma _\mathrm{T}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/2}x_{\mathrm{obs}}^{1/2}(e\mathrm{}/c)^{1/2}B^{3/2}.$$
(18)
The electron cooling time is very short due to the high magnetic field strengths that make the electrons radiate efficiently. The electrons thus stay cold, and if most of the magnetic energy is dissipated to the electrons, the flow as a whole stays cold.

The reconnection time scale $`\tau _\mathrm{r}`$ is of the order of the light travel time over the length scale of the magnetic field in the comoving frame

$$\tau _\mathrm{r}\pi r_\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Gamma }/c.$$
(19)
In terms of the energy flux in the burst, and making use of Eq. (8), the ratio of the two time scales becomes

$$\tau _\mathrm{s}/\tau _\mathrm{r}10^7(r_\mathrm{l}/10^7)^{1/2}x_{\mathrm{obs}}^{1/2}(r/r_\mathrm{s})^{11/6}L_{52}^{3/4}(ϵ/0.1)^{3/2}.$$
(20)
The synchrotron cooling time is thus very short compared with the residence time of the radiating electrons in the acceleration region. This has the consequence that the usual approximation of sudden acceleration followed by cooling of the electron population made in the internal shock model is not a good model for the synchrotron emission from magnetic reconnection. Rather, the electron energy distribution must be close to an equilibrium between synchrotron cooling and heating through reconnection.

### 3.2 Energetics of the reconnection region

In this section we estimate the rate at which magnetic energy is released in a reconnection layer. Matter and magnetic field lines are advected through the upper and lower surfaces of the layer with the reconnection velocity $`v_{rec}`$. The flux of the incoming magnetic energy in the reconnection layer is

$$F_\mathrm{B}=2\frac{B^2}{8\pi }v_{\mathrm{rec}},$$
(21)
where the factor 2 accounts for the two sides of the layer. This magnetic flux is dissipated over the thickness $`\delta `$ of the layer resulting in a rate of magnetic energy density released

$$\dot{E}_{\mathrm{dis}}=\frac{B^2}{4\pi }\frac{v_{\mathrm{rec}}}{\delta }.$$
(22)
The material leaves the reconnection region through the side of the layer with speeds comparable to the Alfvén speed. If the proper density of the flow is $`\rho _{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`\rho _{\mathrm{out}}`$ inside and outside the layer respectively, then mass conservation gives

$$L\rho _{\mathrm{out}}v_{\mathrm{rec}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{rec}}=\delta \rho _{\mathrm{in}}v_{A,co}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A,co},$$
(23)
where $`v_{A,co}`$ is the comoving Alfvén speed, with its corresponding Lorentz factor

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{A},\mathrm{co}}=\sqrt{1+\sigma },\sigma =\frac{B_{\mathrm{co}}^2}{4\pi \rho c^2}=\frac{6.8}{r_{11}^{1/3}}\frac{\sigma _{0,2}}{(ϵ\mathrm{\Omega })_3^{1/3}}.$$
(24)
For typical distances of interest $`r_{11}\mathrm{¿}\mathrm{}0.1`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A,co}`$ a few. Finally, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{rec}}`$ is the Lorentz factor that corresponds to the reconnection velocity. Since $`v_{\mathrm{rec}}=ϵv_{\mathrm{A},\mathrm{co}}`$, and the reconnection speed parameter $`ϵ`$ is not close to unity, we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{rec}}1`$.

Mass conservation (Eq. (23)) provides a constraint on $`\delta `$, but something has to be known about the density ratio $`\rho _{\mathrm{out}}/\rho _{\mathrm{in}}`$ for this to be useful. This in turn depends on the efficiency with which the dissipated energy is radiated away. If the energy stays in the particles, then the particle pressure can compensate the decline of the magnetic energy pressure in the dissipation layer and the flow is essentially incompressible. If, however, the particles radiate very efficiently, they stay relatively cool, resulting in a highly compressible flow (i.e. $`\rho _{\mathrm{in}}\rho _{\mathrm{out}}`$). Thus, the thickness of the reconnection layer remains somewhat uncertain, but it turns out that this has no effect on the spectral estimates made in the next section, since the value of $`\rho _{\mathrm{in}}`$ drops out.

For parameters of the model relevant to GRBs, the protons are inefficient radiators owing to their high mass in contrast to electrons. It is often argued that in reconnection most of the magnetic energy is dissipated into the electrons rather than the ions, on account of their greater mobility in the electric fields generated in the reconnection region. It is not known to what extent this still holds for the relativistic reconnection environment of a GRB. For completeness we keep the fraction dissipated into the electrons, $`f_e`$ as a free parameter. If $`f_e1`$, most of the energy is transfered to the protons and, unless there is a very efficient mechanism of energy coupling between electrons and protons, most of the energy will serve to accelerate the bulk flow through adiabatic cooling of the protons. In this case the radiative efficiency of the flow becomes too low to explain a GRB. As in the internal shock model, we assume that this is not the case, i.e. $`f_\mathrm{e}`$ is taken of order unity.

Another parameter of the model is the fraction $`\xi `$ of the electrons that will be accelerated in the reconnection region. The two parameters $`f_e`$ and $`\xi `$ correspond to the same degrees of freedom as in the internal shock model, where a large fraction of the energy that is dissipated in the shocks accelerates the electrons, and another fraction is assumed to build random magnetic fields.

We can estimate the characteristic Lorentz factor to which the electrons are accelerated in the reconnection layers at different distances from the central engine. The electrons are heated at a rate

$$\dot{E}_{\mathrm{heat}}=f_e\dot{E}_{\mathrm{dis}}.$$
(25)
An electron moving with a Lorentz factor $`\gamma _{\mathrm{ch}}`$ in a magnetic field of strength $`B^{}`$ will radiate at a rate $`\sigma _Tv^2\gamma _{\mathrm{ch}}^2B^2/(6\pi c)`$. If $`\gamma _{\mathrm{ch}}`$ is the characteristic Lorentz factor of the electron distribution then the cooling rate per unit volume due to synchrotron loss in the optical thin regime will be

$$\dot{E}_{\mathrm{cool}}=\frac{\xi \rho _{\mathrm{in}}}{m_p}\frac{\sigma _\mathrm{T}v^2\gamma _{\mathrm{ch}}^2B^2}{6\pi c}.$$
(26)
Inside the reconnection layer electrons are accelerated until $`\dot{E}_{\mathrm{heat}}=\dot{E}_{\mathrm{cool}}`$. Using Eq. (25), Eq. (26) and Eq. (22) we find

$$\beta _{\mathrm{ch}}\gamma _{\mathrm{ch}}=7r_{11}\frac{\sigma _{0,2}^{3/4}\mathrm{\Omega }_4^{1/2}}{\xi _4^{1/2}L_{52}^{1/2}},$$
(27)
where we have also set $`f_e\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A,co}=1`$ (i.e. $`f_e0.5`$) and $`\rho _{\mathrm{out}}=\rho `$ (Eq. 13). We have also normalized $`\xi =10^4\xi _4`$.

Equation (27) shows that the characteristic energy of the electrons actually turns out to be independent of the uncertain thickness $`\delta `$ of the reconnection region (related to the effective compressibility of the reconnection flow). This can be understood by the following consideration: high compressibility means small thickness $`\delta `$ of the reconnection layer and more energy dissipation per unit volume in the reconnection sites. On the other hand, this energy has to be shared among more particles (since the density is higher), resulting in the same heating rate per particle.

## 4 The spectrum

In this section we consider the radiation from reconnection regions in the outflow, under the assumptions that i) the dissipated energy goes into a fraction $`\xi `$ of the electrons, and ii) the electrons thus heated have a narrow or quasi-thermal distribution. The spectrum of the burst is then the synchrotron spectrum of this distribution, folded over the distance from the source and Doppler shifted to the observer using the radial dependences given in Sect. 2.2.

### 4.1  The peak frequency of the spectrum

Equation (27) is simplified in the ultrarelativistic regime, where $`\gamma _{\mathrm{ch}}r`$. The characteristic photon energy at which the electrons emit (in the comoving frame) scales as $`\nu ^{}\gamma _{\mathrm{ch}}^2B^{}r^{2/3}`$ and is Doppler boosted in the central engine’s frame to an energy $`\nu _{\mathrm{ch}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\nu ^{}r`$. So the most energetic photons are expected to be emitted in the outer parts of the flow close to the saturation radius. Since this is also where most of the magnetic energy is dissipated, these photons will give rise to the peak of the $`\nu f_\nu `$ spectrum.

More quantitatively, in the central engine’s frame the characteristic frequency emitted as a function of radius is $`\nu _{ch}=3/2\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma _{\mathrm{ch}}^2\nu _\mathrm{L}`$, where $`\nu _\mathrm{L}=eB^{}/(2\pi mc)`$ is the Larmor frequency. Using Eq. (14), Eq. (7), and Eq. (27) we get in the relativistic limit

$$X_{\mathrm{ch}}=\frac{h\nu _{\mathrm{ch}}}{mc^2}610^3r_{11}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_4(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}/300)}{\xi _4L_{52}^{1/2}}.$$
(28)
$`X_{\mathrm{ch}}`$ becomes maximum at the saturation radius $`r_s`$. Combining Eq. (28) and Eq. (9):

$$X_{\mathrm{ch},\mathrm{max}}=0.3\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}/300)^3}{\xi _4ϵ_1L_{52}^{1/2}}.$$
(29)
The peak in the $`\nu f_\nu `$ spectrum, which corresponds to the break of the Band spectrum (Band et al. 1993), is in the range $`X_{\mathrm{br}}(0.11)`$. In the central engine’s frame (assuming a typical redshift $`1`$) the same peak is in the range $`(0.22)`$. In the case that all the electrons are accelerated in the reconnection region ($`\xi =1`$), if the peak is to be in the observed range, we must either have $`ϵ0.1`$, or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{¿}\mathrm{}1000`$.

If, however, only a small fraction ($`\xi 10^4`$) of the electrons is accelerated, values $`ϵ0.1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}300`$ are compatible with the characteristic of the prompt radiation. When specific values of the parameters have to be chosen for arithmetic examples, these values will be used in what follows.

### 4.2 Spectral energy distribution

For a prediction of the spectrum the actual electron distribution is needed, not only a characteristic Lorentz factor. The electron distribution depends on the acceleration mechanisms that take place in the reconnection layers and on the cooling of the electrons. A thermal distribution is expected when particles can exchange energy efficiently. For the conditions expected in the reconnection layer, the heating and synchrotron cooling time scales can be shown to be orders of magnitude shorter than the energy exchange time scale due to Coulomb collisions. So Coulomb collisions are inefficient at thermalizing the electrons in the reconnection sites.

Another thermalization mechanism is synchrotron absorption. When the bulk of the radiating energy of the particles is reabsorbed, this provides an efficient channel of energy exchange between the particles, and a thermal distribution is expected. The role of the synchrotron absorption will be explored in the next section, where it will be shown that at distances comparable to or larger than the Thomson photosphere, electrons emit mostly in an environment optically thin to synchrotron radiation.

Under these conditions, at radii larger than the photospheric radius non-thermal electron distributions may appear. As an illustrative example we assume that the accelerated electrons have a power law distribution $`N(\gamma )\gamma ^p`$, with a lower cutoff at the characteristic Lorentz factor as defined in Eq. (29) and $`p>2`$. The spectrum is obtained by integration over this distribution and over all contributing radii (those outside the photosphere), taking into account the increase of the Doppler shift with distance (Eq. (7)). An example of this spectrum is shown in Fig. 1.

The figure shows that the peak in the $`\nu f_\nu `$ spectrum is indeed the characteristic emitted frequency at the saturation radius (Eq. (29)). The slope of the spectrum above the peak $`\beta `$ is determined by the power law of the electron distribution through the relation $`\beta =(p1)/2`$. Below the peak the spectrum shows some curvature (it cannot be exactly fitted with a power law) and is a result of the superposition of the contributions from all the radii below the saturation radius.

## 5 X-ray flashes

The origin of X-ray flashes and their connection to GRBs is not clear yet. However, recent analysis (Barraud et al. 2003) has indicated that X-ray flashes actually belong to the same family as GRBs, showing similar spectral characteristics. X-ray flashes appear to be dimmer than GRBs and their peak in the $`\nu f_\nu `$ spectrum is at a photon energy $`E_\mathrm{m}`$ of less than 50 keV (this is actually one way to define X-ray flashes). Barraud et al argue that X-ray flashes may occur at redshifts comparable to those of GRBs since their typical duration does not indicate stronger cosmological time dilation effects (their duration is similar to this of GRBs).

Furthermore, Amati et al. (2002) found indications that $`E_\mathrm{m}`$ correlates with the square root of the equivalent isotropic luminosity released in the GRBs ($`LX_{\mathrm{ch},\mathrm{max}}^{1/2}`$ in our notation). If we assume that this correlation may be extended to the case of X-ray flashes, then a typical X-ray flash, with $`E_\mathrm{m}`$ ten times lower than that of a GRB, would have two orders of magnitude less isotropic luminosity.

So it seems that a more appropriate normalization value of the luminosity per steradian for the typical X-ray flash is $`L=10^{49.5}=L_{49.5}`$ erg/sterad/sec. In terms of this model a peak in the spectrum of $`20`$ keV (which corresponds to $`40`$ keV in the central engine’s frame for $`z1`$) and using Eq. (29), we find that $`\sigma _040`$. Here we have kept $`ϵ=0.1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=10^4`$ rad/sec and $`\xi 10^3`$.

The previous argumentation indicates that a wind which is less Poynting-flux dominated (i.e. with higher baryon loading) can give rise to an X-ray flash. For these parameters the saturation radius (Eq. (9)) is $`r_\mathrm{s}210^{12}`$ cm, while the photosphere is located at $`r_{\mathrm{ph}}10^{11}`$ cm. For $`r_{\mathrm{ph}}<r<r_\mathrm{s}`$ the radiation emitted has a similar spectrum to that of GRBs (see Fig. 1), but with a peak shifted in the X-ray region (at $`20`$ keV). An important fraction of the total energy is, however, dissipated below the photosphere, where scattering plays an important role (see Sect. 7).

## 6 The role of synchrotron absorption in the reconnection layers

The shape of the energy spectrum emitted from the reconnection sites also depends on the synchrotron absorption. The optical depth due to synchrotron absorption is frequency-dependent and at low enough photon energies the medium becomes optically thick and the spectrum hardens. The photon frequency at which the medium makes a transition from the synchrotron thick region to the synchrotron thin region is called the turn-over frequency $`\nu _t`$. In this section we calculate the turn over frequency as a function in the flow and examine its implications for the emitted spectrum.

An electron of Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$ in a magnetic field of strength $`B^{}`$ has a frequency-dependent cross section for synchrotron absorption given by (Ghisellini & Svensson 1992)

$$\sigma _s(\nu ,\gamma )=\frac{3\pi }{10}\frac{\sigma _T}{\alpha _f}\frac{B_{\mathrm{cr}}}{B^{}}\frac{x}{\gamma ^5}\left(K_{4/3}^2(x/2)K_{1/3}^2(x/2)\right),$$
(30)
where $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}4.410^{13}`$ Gauss, $`\alpha _f`$ is the fine structure constant, $`x=2\nu /(3\gamma ^2\nu _L)`$, $`\nu _L=eB^{}/(2\pi mc)`$ and $`K_{4/3}`$, $`K_{1/3}`$ are modified Bessel functions. This expression is valid for $`\gamma 1`$ and for an isotropic distribution of electrons. Integrating this over a power law distribution of electrons $`N(\gamma )\gamma ^p`$, we find the absorption coefficient

$$\alpha _\nu =_{\gamma _{\mathrm{ch}}}^{\gamma _{\mathrm{max}}}\sigma _s(\nu ,\gamma )N(\gamma )𝑑\gamma $$
(31)
where $`\gamma _{\mathrm{ch}}`$ is given by Eq. (27) and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{max}}\gamma _{\mathrm{ch}}`$.

The width of the layers (in the comoving frame) is $`\delta `$ and the turn oner frequency $`\nu _\mathrm{t}`$ for synchrotron absorption can be estimated solving the equation

$$\alpha _{\nu _\mathrm{t}}\delta =1.$$
(32)
The thickness of the reconnection layer $`\delta `$ is related to its typical length $`L`$ through Eq. (23). This estimate is rather rough; fortunately it turns out that the turn-over frequency depends very weakly on the actual dimensions of the layer.

For the estimate we use as typical parameter values $`p3,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}=1000,\mathrm{\Omega }=10^4`$ rad/sec, $`L=3.210^{51}`$ erg/sec/steradian and $`\xi =210^3`$. Most of the radiation is emitted where most of the energy is dissipated, i.e. near the saturation radius $`R_\mathrm{s}`$ (Eq. (9)). At this distance the turn-over frequency lies in the soft X-rays ($`\nu _t300`$ eV). At smaller radii, the turn-over frequency increases and in the location of the Thomson photosphere it is around $`10`$ keV. Thus synchrotron self-absorption can play a significant role in the shape of the electromagnetic spectrum in the soft X-ray region, making the spectra harder than what is plotted at the low ($`E<10`$ keV) energy end of Fig. 1.

## 7 Below the photosphere

Until now, we have explored the radiative properties of the flow in the Thomson-thin region (i.e. $`r>r_{\mathrm{ph}}`$). In this section we briefly discuss the energetics of the quasi-thermal component expected from photons generated below the photosphere. We will call this the photospheric component.

At small radii, or equivalently at large optical depths, radiation and matter are expected to be in thermodynamic equilibrium, sharing the same (comoving) temperature $`T`$. The thermal energy density, which is dominated by radiation, is fed by the dissipated magnetic energy and suffers from adiabatic losses at the same time. The result is that only a fraction of the energy that was initially injected in thermal form will appear as black-body radiation when matter and radiation decouple.

The power dissipated as a function of distance is given by Eq. (12). As shown in paper II, half of this energy accelerates the flow, and the other half is injected into the flow as thermal energy. The scaling of this energy rate with radius is $`d\dot{E}\mathrm{d}r/r^{2/3}`$ (Eq. (12)). Suppose now that energy is released at some rate $`L_{\mathrm{inj}}`$ at a radius $`r`$ and we want to know how much of it will appear as thermal radiation when matter and radiation decouple at the photosphere. For adiabatic expansion of a radiation-dominated flow, the pressure scales as $`\pi \rho ^{4/3}`$ and $`\pi T^4`$. Combining these we have $`T\rho ^{1/3}r^{7/9}`$, where in the last step Eq. (13) has been used.

With the scalings $`\mathrm{\Gamma }r^{1/3}`$ (Eq. (7)) and $`Tr^{7/9}`$, we have for the luminosity: $`L(r)r^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2T^4r^{4/9}`$. So, only a fraction $`(r/r_{\mathrm{ph}})^{4/9}`$ of the initial thermal energy will still be in thermal form at $`r_{\mathrm{ph}}`$. So a shell at distance $`r,r+\mathrm{d}r`$ contributes to the luminosity emitted at $`r_{\mathrm{ph}}`$

$$\mathrm{d}L\frac{\mathrm{d}r}{r^{2/3}}(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{ph}}})^{4/9}.$$
(33)
Integrating the last expression from 0 to $`r_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ we find for the photospheric luminosity

$$L_{\mathrm{ph}}=310^{50}L_{52}r_{\mathrm{ph},11}^{1/3}\frac{(ϵ\mathrm{\Omega })_3^{1/3}}{\sigma _{0,2}}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{sec}/\mathrm{sterad}.$$
(34)
Where $`r_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ is given by Eq. (16).

For the typical GRB parameters, one can check that the photospheric component is about one order of magnitude weaker than the total luminosity in the flow ($`L/L_{\mathrm{ph}}20`$). To find at what frequencies this component is expected to show up, we can use $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ to calculate the comoving temperature of the flow for a black-body spectrum through the equation $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}=16/3\sigma _{SB}r^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2T^4`$. Solving for the temperature we have

$$T(r_{\mathrm{ph}})=\frac{700}{r_{\mathrm{ph},11}^{7/12}}\frac{L_{52}^{1/4}}{(ϵ\mathrm{\Omega })_3^{1/12}\sigma _{0,2}^{1/2}}\mathrm{eV}.$$
(35)
Setting again $`\sigma _0=100,\mathrm{\Omega }=10^4`$ rad/sec, $`L=3.210^{51}`$ erg/sec/steradian, and $`\xi =210^3`$, we find that the photospheric temperature in the central engine’s frame is $`T_{\mathrm{ce}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }T60`$ keV. So, we see that the photospheric emission peaks at similar frequencies to what is typically observed for the non-thermal emission.

At this point it should be emphasized that for a comoving temperature of the order of a few hundred eV at the photosphere, the approximation of a black-body spectrum emitted at that location may well be poor. This is because at that temperature electron scattering greatly dominates over free-free absorption and cannot in principle be neglected. The same concerns may be raised when the photospheric emission is computed in the ‘standard’ fireball model.

## 8 Conclusions

In this paper we have explored the spectra expected from Poynting-flux dominated outflows and their relevance to GRBs. The field strength in such outflows is much higher than in the usual internal shock models (much above ‘equipartition’ with the radiating fast particles).

We have used the ‘AC’ model, with geometrical configuration similar to the striped wind (Coroniti 1990) in which the magnetic field varies with a typical wavelength of $`\lambda 2\pi c/\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The dynamics of this outflow were studied in detail in Papers I, II where it was shown that almost half of the magnetic energy released through magnetic dissipation accelerates the flow to large bulk Lorentz factors. The other half of the magnetic energy accelerates the particles of the flow, mainly above the Thomson photosphere and can serve to power the prompt emission.

An important property of energy dissipation by magnetic reconnection is that the residence time of the accelerated electrons in the reconnection layer is long compared with the synchrotron energy loss time scale. The electrons are thus in approximate balance between heating and cooling, and a sudden acceleration assumption as usually made in (internal) shock acceleration is not valid. In a magnetic model, the break in the Gamma-ray spectrum is therefore unlikely to be associated with the cooling spectrum of suddenly accelerated particles.

We have shown that a GRB-like Gamma-spectrum with a break can be produced by reconnection in a Poynting-flux dominated outflow if the dissipated magnetic energy heats a small fraction ($`10^4`$) of the electron population. A better understanding of relativistic reconnection will be needed to determine if this number is realistic.

In the magnetic model for GRB emission presented here X-ray flashes are interpreted to belong to the same family as GRBs and are the result of an outflow starting with a smaller magnetization parameter $`\sigma `$ (higher baryon loading) than needed to produce a GRB. X-ray flashes can also be interpreted within the fireball model with some modification of the parameters.

Finally we have explored the consequences of the strong synchrotron absorption due to the high magnetic fields strengths in a Poynting-flux dominated outflow. We find that it must be important around the electron scattering photosphere, and will result in harder spectra in the soft X-ray range.

###### Acknowledgements.

Giannios acknowledges partial support from the EC Marie Curie Fellowship HPMTCT 2000-00132 and the Program “Heraklitos” of the Ministry of Education of Greece.


format: text

text:
# Parity-Affected Persistent Currents in Superconducting Nanorings

## Abstract

We argue that at sufficiently low temperatures $`T`$ superconducting parity effect may strongly influence equilibrium persistent currents (PC) in isolated superconducting nanorings containing a weak link with few conducting modes. An odd electron, being added to the ring, occupies the lowest available Andreev state and produces a countercurrent circulating inside the ring. For a single channel quantum point contact at $`T=0`$ this countercurrent exactly compensates the supercurrent $`I_e`$ produced by all other electrons and, hence, yields complete blocking of PC for any value of the external magnetic flux. In superconducting nanorings with embedded normal metal the odd electron countercurrent can “overcompensate” $`I_e`$ and a novel “$`\pi /N`$-junction” state occurs in the system. Changing the electron parity number from even to odd results in spontaneous supercurrent in the ground state of such rings without any externally applied magnetic flux.

Thermodynamic properties of isolated superconducting systems are sensitive to the parity of the total number of electrons AN92 ; Tuo93  even though this number $`𝒩`$ is macroscopically large. This parity effect is a fundamental property of a superconducting ground state described by the condensate of Cooper pairs. The number of electrons in the condensate is necessarily even, hence, for odd $`𝒩`$ at least one electron remains unpaired having an extra energy equal to the superconducting energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This effect makes thermodynamic properties of the ground states with even and odd $`𝒩`$ differ. Clear evidence for such parity effect was demonstrated experimentally in small superconducting islands Tuo93 ; Laf93 .

Can the supercurrent be affected by this parity effect? In many structures the answer to this question is negative because of the fundamental uncertainty relation $`\delta 𝒩\delta \phi 1`$. Should the electron number $`𝒩`$ be fixed, fluctuations of the superconducting phase $`\phi `$ become large disrupting the supercurrent. On the other hand, in transport experiments with fluctuations of $`\phi `$ being suppressed the parity effect cannot be observed because of large fluctuations of $`𝒩`$.

Nonetheless, the parity effect can coexist with non-vanishing supercurrent. The way out is to consider systems supporting circular persistent currents (PC), such as, e.g., isolated superconducting rings pierced by the magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. In accordance with the number-phase uncertainty relation the global superconducting phase of the ring fluctuates strongly in this case, however these fluctuations are decoupled from the supercurrent and therefore cannot influence the latter. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the parity effect may substantially modify PC in superconducting nanorings, in particular if the total number of electrons is odd.

Consider, for instance, a single mode quantum point contact (QPC) embedded in a superconducting ring. Provided the number of electrons in the system is not fixed the Josephson current across this contact is given by the well known expression KO

$$I(\phi )=\frac{2e}{\mathrm{}}\frac{\epsilon (\phi )}{\phi }\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\epsilon (\phi )}{2T},$$
(1)
where $`\phi `$ is the phase difference across QPC, $`\epsilon (\phi )=\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{1𝒯\mathrm{sin}^2(\phi /2)}`$ and $`𝒯`$ is the contact transmission. This result has a very transparent physical interpretation being related Furusaki  to contributions of discrete Andreev energy states $`E_\pm =\pm ϵ(\phi )`$ inside QPC via

$$I(\phi )=\frac{2e}{\mathrm{}}\left[\frac{E_{}}{\phi }f_{}(E_{})+\frac{E_+}{\phi }f_+(E_+)\right].$$
(2)
Using the Fermi filling factors for these states $`f_\pm (E_\pm )=[1+\mathrm{exp}(\pm ϵ(\phi )/T)]^1`$ one arrives at Eq. (1).

Let us now fix the number of electrons inside the ring and consider the limit $`T0`$. For even $`𝒩`$ all electrons are paired occupying available states with energies below the Fermi level (see Fig. 1a). In this case one has $`f_{}(E_{})=1`$, $`f_+(E_+)=0`$, the current is entirely determined by the contribution of the quasiparticle state $`E_{}`$ and Eq. (2) yields the same result as one for the grand canonical ensemble. By contrast, in the case of odd $`𝒩`$ one electron always remains unpaired and occupies the lowest available energy state – in our case $`E_+`$ – above the Fermi level. Hence, for odd $`𝒩`$ one has $`f_\pm (E_\pm )=1`$ (Fig. 1b), the contributions of the two Andreev states in Eq. (2) exactly cancel each other, and the current across QPC remains zero for any $`\phi `$ or the magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Thus, we predict a novel mesoscopic effect – parity-induced blocking of PC in superconducting nanorings with embedded QPC FNJ .

It is important to emphasize that the above physical picture is based on the assumption that the supercurrent is determined only by the contributions of two discrete Andreev levels $`E_\pm (\phi )`$. This is the case provided (a) quasiparticle states of the continuum do not contribute to the supercurrent and (b) there are no more discrete Andreev levels inside the junction. Both these conditions are met only for symmetric and extremely short QPC. In a general case of $`SNS`$ junctions with a non-vanishing thickness of the normal layer $`d0`$ these conditions are violated, and no exact compensation of the supercurrent by the odd electron countercurrent is anymore possible.

Further analysis reveals even richer physics in the latter case. In particular, below we will demonstrate that at low $`T`$ and for odd number of electrons a novel $`\pi /N`$-junction state should occur in such $`SNS`$ rings. This effect in turn leads to spontaneous supercurrent flowing in the ring in its ground state. Under certain conditions the magnitude of this current can be as high as $`I_{sp}e\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{}`$ reaching the values up to $`10÷100`$ nA for generic BCS superconductors. Spontaneous currents of this magnitude can reliably be detected in modern experiments.

Parity projection formalism. In order to systematically investigate an interplay between the parity effect and PC in superconducting nanorings we will employ the parity projection formalism JSA94 ; GZ94 ; AN94 .

The grand canonical partition function $`𝒵(T,\mu )=\mathrm{Tr}e^{\beta (\mu 𝒩)}`$ is linked to the canonical one $`Z(T,𝒩)`$ as

$$𝒵(T,\mu )=\underset{𝒩=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Z(T,𝒩)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mu 𝒩}{T}\right).$$
(3)
Here and below $``$ is the system Hamiltonian and $`\beta 1/T`$. Inverting this relation and defining the canonical partition functions $`Z_e`$ and $`Z_o`$ respectively for even ($`𝒩𝒩_e`$) and odd ($`𝒩𝒩_o`$) ensembles, one gets

$$Z_{e/o}(T)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}𝑑ue^{i𝒩_{e/o}u}𝒵_{e/o}(T,iTu),$$
(4)
where

$$𝒵_{e/o}(T,\mu )=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\left[1\pm (1)^𝒩\right]e^{\beta (\mu 𝒩)}\right\}$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}\left(𝒵(T,\mu )\pm 𝒵(T,\mu +i\pi T)\right)$$
(5)
are the parity projected grand canonical partition functions. For $`𝒩1`$ it is sufficient to evaluate the integral in (4) within the saddle point approximation

$$Z_{e/o}(T)e^{\beta (\mathrm{\Omega }_{e/o}\mu _{e/o}𝒩_{e/o})},$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{e/o}=T\mathrm{ln}𝒵_{e/o}(T,\mu )`$ are the parity projected thermodynamic potentials,

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{e/o}=\mathrm{\Omega }_fT\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\pm e^{\beta (\mathrm{\Omega }_b\mathrm{\Omega }_f)}\right)\right]`$ (7)
and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{f/b}=T\mathrm{ln}\left[\mathrm{Tr}\left\{(\pm 1)^𝒩e^{\beta (\mu 𝒩)}\right\}\right]`$. “Chemical potentials” $`\mu _{e/o}`$ are defined by the saddle point condition $`𝒩_{e/o}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{e/o}(T,\mu _{e/o})/\mu _{e/o}`$.

The main advantage of the above formalism is that it allows to express the canonical partition functions and thermodynamical potentials in terms of the parity projected grand canonical ones thereby enormously simplifying the whole calculation. We further note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_f`$ is just the standard grand canonical thermodynamic potential and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ represents the corresponding potential linked to the partition function $`𝒵(T,\mu +i\pi T)`$. It is easy to see GZ94  that in order to recover this function one can evaluate the true grand canonical partition function $`𝒵(T,\mu )`$, express the result as a sum over the Fermi Matsubara frequencies $`\omega _f=2\pi T(l+1/2)`$ and then substitute the Bose Matsubara frequencies $`\omega _b=2\pi Tl`$ ($`l=0,\pm 1,\mathrm{}`$) instead of $`\omega _f`$. This procedure automatically yields the correct expression for $`𝒵(T,\mu +i\pi T)`$ and, hence, for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$.

Having found the thermodynamic potentials for the even and odd ensembles one can easily determine the equilibrium current $`I_{e/o}`$. Consider, as before, isolated superconducting rings pierced by the magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Making use of the above expressions one finds PC circulating inside the ring:

$$I_{e/o}=I_f\pm \frac{I_bI_f}{e^{\beta (\mathrm{\Omega }_b\mathrm{\Omega }_f)}\pm 1},$$
(8)
where the upper/lower sign corresponds to the even/odd ensemble and we have defined

$$I_{e/o}=c\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{e/o}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)_{\mu (\mathrm{\Phi })},I_{f/b}=c\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{f/b}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)_{\mu (\mathrm{\Phi })}.$$

Homogeneous superconducting rings. Turning to concrete calculations we first treat homogeneous nanorings with cross section $`s`$ and perimeter $`L=2\pi R`$. Throughout this paper rings will be assumed sufficiently thin, $`\sqrt{s}<\lambda _L`$, where $`\lambda _L`$ is the London penetration length. Superconducting properties of such rings will be described within the (parity projected) mean field BCS theory. At low temperatures this description is justified provided quantum fluctuations of the order parameter, quantum phase slips (QPS) QPSth , can be neglected. This requirement can be fulfilled only provided the total number of conducting channels in the ring remains large FN0  $`N_\mathrm{r}p_F^2s1`$. In addition, the perimeter $`L`$ should not be too large in order to disregard the QPS-induced reduction of PC MLG . Finally, we will neglect the difference between the mean field values of the BCS order parameter for the even and odd ensembles JSA94 ; GZ94 . This is legitimate provided the ring volume is large enough, $`𝒱=Ls1/\nu \mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\nu `$ is the density of states at the Fermi level and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the BCS order parameter for a bulk superconductor at $`T=0`$.

The task at hand is now to evaluate the thermodynamic potentials $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{f/b}`$. Within the mean field approach these quantities can be expressed in terms of the excitation energies $`\epsilon _k`$ and the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒓)`$. One finds GZ94

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_f=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ $``$ $`2T{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mathrm{ln}\left(2\mathrm{cosh}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _k}{2T}}\right),`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ $``$ $`2T{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mathrm{ln}\left(2\mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _k}{2T}}\right),`$ (10)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=d^3𝒓|\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒓)|^2/g+\mathrm{Tr}\{\widehat{\xi }\},`$ $`g`$ is the BCS coupling constant and $`\widehat{\xi }`$ is the single-particle energy operator:

$$\widehat{\xi }=\frac{1}{2m}\left(i\mathrm{}\frac{}{𝒓}\frac{e}{c}𝑨(𝒓)\right)^2+U(𝒓)\mu ,$$
(11)
$`𝑨`$($`𝒓`$) is the vector potential and $`U(𝒓)`$ describes the potential profile due to disorder and interfaces.

The excitation spectrum $`\epsilon _k`$ has the form

$$\epsilon _k=\epsilon (𝒑)=𝒑𝒗_S+\sqrt{\xi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2},$$
(12)
where $`𝒑`$ is a quasiparticle momentum, $`\xi =(p^2\stackrel{~}{\mu })/2m`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\mu (\mathrm{\Phi })mv_{S}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/2`$ and

$$v_S=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2mR}\mathrm{min}_n\left(n\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right)$$
(13)
is the superconducting velocity. Both $`\epsilon (𝒑)`$ and $`v_S`$ are periodic functions of the flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with the period equal to the superconducting flux quantum $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=hc/2e`$.

Consider the most interesting case $`T\mathrm{}v_F/L`$ FN6 . Making use of the above expressions one obtains

$$I_e=ev_S\varrho _es,I_o=ev_S\varrho _ose\frac{v_F}{L}\text{sgn}v_S,$$
(14)
where $`\varrho _{e/o}=𝒩_{e/o}/𝒱`$. The first Eq. (14) – together with (13) – coincides with that for the grand canonical ensemble. In contrast, for odd ensembles (second Eq. (14)) there exists an additional flux-dependent term which, however, remains rather small in multichannel rings FN . Estimating the main contribution to $`I_{e/o}`$ as $`Iev_FN_\mathrm{r}/L`$, one gets $`(I_eI_o)/I1/N_\mathrm{r}1`$.

Now we proceed to the situations in which parity effect gains more importance and leads to new physical effects. Namely, we consider superconducting rings with $`N_\mathrm{r}1`$ interrupted by a weak link with only few conducting channels $`N`$. In such systems the mean field BCS description remains applicable and, on the other hand, the parity effect can be large due to the condition $`N1`$. Quantum point contacts (QPC) or, more generally, $`SNS`$ junctions (of length $`d`$) can be used for practical realization of such weak links. The corresponding structure is depicted in Fig. 2.

Superconducting rings with QPC. As a first example we consider a ring interrupted by QPC. The optimal value of the phase difference $`\phi `$ across QPC is fixed by the equation $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{e/o}/\phi =0`$, which yields the current conservation condition $`I^{(c)}=I^{(r)}`$. Here $`I^{(c)}2e𝒯\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{}`$ is the current through the contact and $`I^{(r)}(ev_FN_\mathrm{r}/L)(\phi 2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)`$ is the supercurrent inside the ring. From the current conservation one easily finds FN77

$`\phi `$ $``$ $`2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\text{ if }LL^{},`$ (15)
$`\phi `$ $``$ $`2\pi n,\text{ if }LL^{},`$ (16)
where $`L^{}=\xi _0N_\mathrm{r}/𝒯\xi _0\mathrm{}v_F/\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In a more general case of QPC with $`N`$ conducting channels in the expression for $`L^{}`$ one should set $`𝒯_i^N𝒯_i`$.

In the limit (16) one recovers the results identical to ones for homogeneous rings. Below we will concentrate on the opposite limit $`LL^{}`$ and also assume $`NN_\mathrm{r}`$. Due to Eq. (15) in this case the dependence $`I_{e/o}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is fully determined by the current-phase relation for QPC which can be found by means of Eq. (8). Expressing $`I_{f/b}`$ via $`\phi `$ it is convenient to employ the general formula GZ

$$I_{f/b}=\frac{2e}{\mathrm{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}T\underset{\omega _{f/b}}{}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\phi }{\mathrm{cos}\phi +W_i(\omega _{f/b})}.$$
(17)
For QPC one has $`W_i(\omega )=(2/𝒯_i)(1+\mathrm{}^2\omega ^2/\mathrm{\Delta }^2)1`$. Substituting this function into (17) and summing over $`\omega _f`$ one rederives the standard result KO , while the same summation over $`\omega _b`$ yields

$$I_b=\frac{2e}{\mathrm{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\epsilon _i(\phi )}{\phi }\mathrm{coth}\frac{\epsilon _i(\phi )}{2T},$$
(18)
where $`\epsilon _i(\phi )=\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{1𝒯_i\mathrm{sin}^2(\phi /2)}`$. Finally, the difference $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b\mathrm{\Omega }_f\mathrm{\Omega }_{bf}`$ is evaluated as a sum of the ring ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{bf}^{(r)}`$) and QPC ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{bf}^{(c)}`$) contributions. The latter is found by integrating $`I_{f/b}(\phi )`$ over the phase $`\phi `$ with the result

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{bf}^{(c)}=2T\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{\epsilon _i(\phi )}{2T}\right),$$
(19)
while the former is defined by the standard expression

$$\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_{bf}^{(r)}=2𝒱\frac{d^3𝒑}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{coth}\frac{\epsilon (𝒑)}{2T}\right)\nu 𝒱\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }T}e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{T}}.$$

Combining all these results with Eq. (8) we get

$$I_{e/o}=\frac{2e}{\mathrm{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\epsilon _i(\phi )}{\phi }\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\epsilon _i(\phi )}{2T}$$

$$\times \left[1\pm \frac{(\mathrm{coth}\frac{\epsilon _i(\phi )}{2T})^21}{e^{\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_{bf}^{(r)}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}(\mathrm{coth}\frac{\epsilon _j(\phi )}{2T})^2\pm 1}\right].$$
(20)
The term in the square brackets accounts for the parity effect in our system. For $`N=1`$ and at $`T=0`$ this term reduces to unity for even ensembles and to zero for odd ones, thus confirming our intuitive picture of parity-induced blocking of PC discussed above. For $`T>0`$ Eq. (20) demonstrates that both for even and especially for odd $`𝒩`$ the current-phase relation for QPC may substantially deviate from that derived for the grand canonical ensemble KO , see Fig. 3. For even ensembles the supercurrent increases above its grand canonical value. This effect is mainly pronounced for phases $`\phi `$ not very far from $`\phi =\pi `$ and – at sufficiently low $`T`$ – it becomes progressively more important with increasing temperature. On the contrary, for odd ensembles the supercurrent is always suppressed below its grand canonical value. This suppression is gradually lifted with increasing temperature, though at phases $`\phi `$ in the vicinity of the point $`\phi =\pi `$ blocking of PC may persist up to sufficiently high $`T`$. Eq. (20) also shows that in QPC with several conducting channels and at $`T0`$ the current through the most transparent channel will be blocked by the odd electron. Hence, though blocking of PC remains incomplete in this case, it may nevertheless be important also for QPC with $`N>1`$.

SNS rings. Finally, we turn to superconducting rings containing a piece of a normal metal with non-zero thickness $`d`$. In contrast to the situation of QPC considered above, the Josephson current in $`SNS`$ structures cannot anymore be attributed only to the discrete Andreev states inside a weak link, and an additional contribution from the states in the continuum should also be taken into account. Furthermore, for any non-zero $`d`$ there are always more than two discrete Andreev levels in the system. Accordingly, significant modifications in the physical picture of the parity effect in $`SNS`$ rings can be expected.

The key difference can be understood already by comparing the typical structure of discrete Andreev levels in $`SNS`$ junctions (Fig. 4) with that of QPC (Fig. 1). As before, in the limit $`T0`$ all states below (above) the Fermi level are occupied (empty) provided the total number of electrons in the system is even (Fig. 4a). If, on the other hand, this number is odd the lowest Andreev state above the Fermi energy is occupied as well (Fig. 4b) thus providing an additional contribution to the Josephson current. This contribution, however, cancels only that of a symmetric Andreev level below the Fermi energy, while the contributions of all other occupied Andreev levels and of the continuum states remain uncompensated. Hence, unlike in the QPC limit displayed in Fig. 1, in $`SNS`$ rings one should not anymore expect the effect of PC blocking by the odd electron, but rather some other non-trivial features of the parity effect.

In order to construct a quantitative description of the parity effect in $`SNS`$ rings we will again make use of the parity projection technique formulated above. Here we only restrict our attention to transparent $`SNS`$ junctions where the effects under consideration are most pronounced. In this case the function $`W_i(\omega )W(\omega )`$ is the same for all channels. It reads

$$W(\omega )=\left(\frac{2\mathrm{}^2\omega ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}+1\right)\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{2\omega d}{v_F}\right)$$

$$+\frac{2\mathrm{}\omega }{\mathrm{\Delta }}\sqrt{1+\frac{\mathrm{}^2\omega ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{2\omega d}{v_F}\right).$$
(21)
Substituting this function into (17) and repeating the whole calculation as above, we arrive at the final result which cannot in general be represented in a tractable analytic form. Significant simplifications occur in the most interesting limit FN3  $`T0`$, in which case we obtain

$`I_e={\displaystyle \frac{e\mathrm{\Delta }N}{\mathrm{}}}\left(\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2y\mathrm{sin}\phi }{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}\right),`$ (22)
$`I_o=I_e{\displaystyle \frac{e\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}}}\left(\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{2}}+y\text{sgn}\phi \mathrm{cos}\phi \right)`$ (23)
for short $`SNS`$ junctions $`yd\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{}v_F1`$ and

$$I_e=\frac{ev_FN}{\pi d}\phi ,I_o=\frac{ev_FN}{\pi d}\left(\phi \frac{\pi \text{sgn}\phi }{N}\right)$$
(24)
for long ones $`d\xi _0\mathrm{}v_F/\mathrm{\Delta }`$. These results apply for $`\pi <\phi <\pi `$ and should be $`2\pi `$-periodically continued otherwise. The term containing $`\mathrm{ln}(1/y)`$ in Eq. (23) for $`I_e`$ is written with the logarithmic accuracy and is valid for $`\phi `$ not too close to $`\phi =\pm \pi `$.

Let us concentrate on the results (24) applicable for sufficiently long $`SNS`$ junctions. We observe that at $`T=0`$ the current $`I_e`$ – as in the QPC case – coincides with that for the grand canonical ensembles Kulik , while for odd $`𝒩`$ the current-phase relation is shifted by the value $`\pi /N`$. This shift has a simple interpretation being related to the odd electron contribution $`(2e/\mathrm{})E_1/\phi `$ from the lowest (above the Fermi level) Andreev state $`E_1(\phi )`$ inside the $`SNS`$ junction. As we have expected, this contribution indeed does not compensate for the current from other quasiparticle states. Rather it provides a possibility for a parity-induced $`\pi `$-junction state Leva  in our system: According to Eq. (24) for single mode $`SNS`$ junctions the “saw tooth” current-phase relation will be shifted exactly by $`\pi `$, see Fig. 5. More generally, we can talk about a novel $`\pi /N`$-junction state, because in the odd case the minimum Josephson energy (zero current) state is reached at $`\phi =\pm \pi /N`$, see Fig. 6. For any $`N>1`$ this is a twofold degenerate state within the interval $`\pi <\phi <\pi `$ BGZ . In the particular case $`N=2`$ the current-phase relation $`I_o(\phi )`$ turns $`\pi `$-periodic.

Let us recall that the $`\pi `$-junction state can be realized in $`SNS`$ structures by driving the electron distribution function in the contact area out of equilibrium Volkov ; WSZ ; Yip . Here, in contrast, the situation of a $`\pi `$\- or $`\pi /N`$-junction is achieved in thermodynamic equilibrium. Despite this drastic difference, there also exists a certain physical similarity between the effects discussed here and in Refs. Volkov, ; WSZ, ; Yip, : In both cases the electron distribution function in the weak link deviates substantially from the Fermi function. It is this deviation which is responsible for the appearance of the $`\pi `$-junction state in both physical situations.

It is also important to emphasize that the countercurrent produced by the odd electron causes a jump on the current-phase dependence at $`\phi =0`$, and the direction of $`I_o`$ at sufficiently small $`\phi `$ is always opposite to that of $`I_e`$. This is a generic feature of odd ensembles which persists for all non-zero values of $`y`$. The current-phase relation $`I_o(\phi )`$ for arbitrary values of the parameter $`y`$ can be computed numerically. Examples are presented in Fig. 7. One clearly observes the current jump at $`\phi =0`$. As it is obvious from Eq. (23), this feature disappears only in the QPC limit $`y0`$.

BCS ground state with spontaneous current. Perhaps the most spectacular physical consequence of this current jump is the presence of spontaneous supercurrents in the ground state of $`SNS`$ rings with odd number of electrons. Similarly to the case of standard $`\pi `$-junctions Leva  such spontaneous supercurrents should flow even in the absence of an externally applied magnetic flux. Unlike in Ref. Leva, , however, here the spontaneous current state occurs for any inductance of the ring because of the non-sinusoidal dependence $`I_o(\phi )`$.

Consider, for instance, the limit $`d\xi _0`$. In the case of odd number of electrons the ground state energy of an $`SNS`$ ring can be written in a simple form

$$E=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}{2c}+\frac{\pi \mathrm{}v_FN}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2d}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0\text{sgn}\mathrm{\Phi }}{2N}\right)^2,$$
(25)
where the first term is the magnetic energy of the ring ($``$ is the ring inductance and $`c`$ is the speed of light) while the second term represents the Josephson energy of the $`SNS`$ junction. Minimizing (25) with respect to the flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ one immediately concludes that the ground state of the ring is a twofold degenerate state with a non-vanishing spontaneous current

$$I=\pm \frac{ev_F}{d}\left[1+\frac{2ev_FN}{d}\frac{}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right]^1$$
(26)
flowing either clockwise or counterclockwise. In the limit of small inductances $`0`$ this current does not vanish and its amplitude just reduces to that of the odd electron current at $`\phi 0`$. Hence, at small ring inductances the magnitude $`I_{sp}`$ of this spontaneous current can easily be obtained from Eqs. (23-24):

$`I_{sp}=e\mathrm{\Delta }^2d/\mathrm{}^2v_F,`$ $`\text{if}d\xi _0,`$ (27)
$`I_{sp}=ev_F/\pi d,`$ $`\text{if}d\xi _0.`$ (28)
For intermediate values of the parameter $`y`$ the amplitude of the current $`I_{sp}`$ can be evaluated numerically. The results are displayed in Fig. 8. One observes that – in agreement with Eq. (27) – $`I_{sp}`$ increases linearly with $`d`$ at small $`d`$, reaches its maximum value $`I_{\mathrm{max}}0.4e\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{}`$ at $`d\xi _0`$ and then decreases with further increase of $`d`$ approaching the dependence (28) in the limit of large $`d`$. For generic BCS superconductors the magnitude of this maximum current can be estimated as $`I_{\mathrm{max}}10÷100`$ nA. These values might be considered as surprisingly large ones having in mind that this current is associated with only one Andreev electron state.

In summary, new physical effects emerge from an interplay between the electron parity number and persistent currents in superconducting nanorings. Perhaps the most striking observation is that the BCS ground state of such rings with the odd number of electrons is the state with non-zero spontaneous supercurrent. This and other novel features predicted here can be directly tested in modern experiments.

This work is part of the Kompetenznetz “Funktionelle Nanostructuren” supported by the Landestiftung Baden-Württemberg gGmbH and of the STReP project “Ultra-1D” supported by the EU.


text:
# The Log-normal Distributions of Physical Quantities of Flare associated Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs), and Flare/CME Model of Gamma-ray Bursts

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are the most luminous objects in the universe, and known to be highly time-variable. Solar flares also show highly time variable feature, and are similar to GRBs from the viewpoint of X-ray and gamma-ray light curves. In fact, the power spectra of the light curves of GRBs are power-law distribution (Beloborodov, Stern, & Svensson 2000) and similar to those in solar X-ray emissions (Ueno et al. 1997). Hence, it has often been argued that the physical process of GRBs may be similar to that of solar flares. However, there is one important difference in the statistical distributions of the physical quantities of GRBs and solar flares. That is, some quantities such as total durations, interpulse and interspike time intervals (McBreen et al. 1994), peak fluences and peak intervals (Li & Fenimore 1996), pulse durations (Nakar & Piran 2002), and break energies (Preece et al. 2000) show the log-normal distributions in the case of GRBs, while those of solar flares such as peak count rates (energy), waiting times, and total durations are power-law distributions (Dennis 1985; Hudson 1991; Pearce, Rowe, & Yeung 1993; Crosby, Aschwanden, & Dennis 1993). What is the physical reason of this difference? Does this imply that the underlying physics of GRBs is fundamentally different from that of solar flares ?

The purpose of this paper is to explore the physical meaning of this difference using the actual data of solar flares and associated coronal mass ejections (CMEs). On the basis of this comparative study between solar flares/CMEs and GRBs, we shall further try to understand the nature of the central engine of GRBs. Here, we note that the difference in the statistical distributions of physical quantities between solar flares and GRBs may be due to the difference in photon-emitting regions. GRBs are believed to occur on the relativistic outflow ejected from the central engine of a GRB (e.g., Goodman 1986; Paczyński 1986). Moreover, the outflow from the central engine can be collimated into a jet (Frail et al. 2001; Panaitescu & Kumar 2001); it is likely that the GRBs are due to the relativistic jets ejected from the central engine. On the other hand, the emissions associated with solar flares are produced in the low corona of the Sun. Hence, when we compare the distributions of the physical quantities of GRBs with those of solar flares, we must not take solar flares but the phenomena associated with mass outflow from the Sun, which are CMEs.

Recent solar observations have revealed that magnetic reconnection is a key mechanism for the energy release in solar flares (e.g., Tsuneta et al. 1992, Masuda et al. 1994), and that mass ejections (often called plasmoid or flux rope ejections) are ubiquitous in solar flares, not only in large scale flares, but also in small scale flares (e.g., see Shibata 1999 for a review). On the basis of these new observations, Shibata et al. (1995) have proposed the plasmoid-induced-reconnection model, which is a unified model for solar flares, from largest CME-related flares to small flares, even microflares and nanoflares. The important point in this model is that the reconnection is closely coupled to mass (plasmoid) ejections and hence the mass ejection occurs in all reconnection processes (flares) (Shibata 1999). The difference in apparent morphology in various flares is largely a result of difference in relative size and/or energy of flares compared with those of ambient magnetic structure: that is, if the size of the flare is small and less energetic, it is surrounded by strong magnetic field and so mass ejection is soon stopped or trapped, and cannot be escaped from the corona. In this case, flares look like a simple loop in soft X-rays, and no CME is associated with the flare. However, if the size of the flare is large and energetic, the ejection is escaped from the corona and can become CMEs. In this case, flares look like a cusp-shaped loop in soft X-rays. Hence this scenario predicts that there is a typical value for some quantities (total energy, size, duration, or any quantity reflecting the condition for escape from the corona, i.e., the condition for CME), which lead to statistical distribution similar to log-normal distribution. Thus, in the present paper, in order to test this prediction, we investigated the distributions of the physical quantities of the solar flares associated with CMEs, which we simply call ”CME-related solar flares”.

A log-normal distribution is the Gaussian (or normal) distribution on the plot whose horizontal axis is taken in logarithmic scale and vertical axis is presented in linear scale. A log-normal distribution is defined as follows (Aitchison & Brown 1957; Crow & Shimizu 1988):

$`f(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma }\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(\mathrm{log}x\mu )^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right]\hfill & \hfill (x>0),\\ 0\hfill & \hfill (x0),\end{array}`$ (3)
where $`f(x)`$ is the probability density function for $`x`$, and $`\mu `$ and $`\sigma ^2`$ are the sample mean and variance of $`\mathrm{log}x`$, respectively. In general, the origin of a log-normal distribution has been explained by the statistical effect of the production of the physical quantities, that is, the effect of the central limit theorem. Ioka & Nakamura (2002) have shown that the origin of the log-normal distribution of the physical quantities of GRBs can be explained in the same manner. However, the log-normal distribution of total durations has not been explained yet by them, so that their explanation is not complete one. Therefore, we take attention to the characteristic of a log-normal distribution that there is a typical value in the distribution. If there is no typical value, the distribution becomes a scale-free one like a power-law distribution. We think the existence of a typical value in the distribution of the physical quantities is possibly due to the physical process.

In this Letter, we describe the method of the data analysis in section 2, and presents the results in section 3. On the basis of these data analysis of the CME-related solar flares, we shall discuss comparative study of solar flares/CMEs and GRBs, and propose a ”flare/CME model” for the central engine of GRBs in section 4.

## 2 DATA ANALYSIS

We investigated the distributions of the X-ray peak fluxes, time intervals, and CME speeds of the CME-related solar flares. The X-ray peak flux and time interval of the CME-related solar flares correspond to the peak fluence and peak interval (interpeak and interspike time interval) of GRBs, respectively. The data of the CME-related solar flares are generated by the comparison between solar flares and CMEs as follows. At first, we prepare CME data from the SOHO/LASCO CME CATALOG (http://cdaw.gsfc.nasa.gov/CME\_list/) for the period from 1996 October 19 to 2001 December 26, and solar flare data from the Solar Geophysical Data (SGD) for the same period. Second, we calculate the leaving time of CMEs from the surface of the Sun ($`t_l`$) by interpolating from the detected time of the CMEs, assuming that the speed of the CME remains constant from the solar surface to the detected position. The interpolation is necessary because CMEs cannot be detected at the solar surface but at several solar radii from the Sun by the detection limit of SOHO/LASCO. Then we compare the starting time ($`t_s`$) and peak time ($`t_p`$) of a solar flare with the leaving time of a CME. If the leaving time of the CME is between the starting time and peak time of a solar flare ($`t_st_lt_p`$), we identify the solar flare as a CME-related solar flare. Along with this rule, we select 254 samples of the CME-related solar flares. However, when we investigate the time interval distribution of the CME-related solar flares, we pick up 165 samples whose angular widths are larger than $`60`$ degree from the data of the CME-related solar flares. We take this selection rule, because not all narrow CMEs can be identified by the detection limit.

## 3 RESULTS

We found that the distribution of the X-ray peak fluxes, time intervals, and CME speeds of the CME-related solar flares are in good agreement with log-normal distributions (Fig. 1). In Figure 1, the dashed curves show the best-fitting log-normal distributions. The X-ray peak flux at the peak position of the number of the CME-related solar flares is $`6.81\times 10^6\mathrm{W}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (Fig. 1a). The log-normal distribution has a typical value, so that CMEs are associated with energetic flares. The distribution with X-ray peak fluxes weaker than the peak position is small, so that the distribution of X-ray peak fluxes is deviated from the log-normal distribution. This is due to the threshold of detecting solar flares, which depends on solar activity. If the activity of the Sun is high, the threshold is large and the distribution in weak X-ray peak flux becomes small. However, the maximum threshold is $`10^6\mathrm{W}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$, so that the existence of the peak position is not due to the threshold. The time interval at the peak position of the number of the CME-related solar flares is $`118`$ hours (Fig. 1b). The CME speed at the peak position of the number of the CME-related solar flares is $`605`$ km/s (Fig. 1c).

We note here that not all narrow CMEs are listed in the SOHO/LASCO CME CATALOG, since there is possibility that some faint and narrow CMEs were missed; it is difficult to identify narrow CMEs which occurred just after large CMEs. As for solar flares, weak ones are not included by the detection limit of GOES, neither. In addition, when a solar flare occurs on the hidden side of the Sun, it cannot be detected. Thus, our data are not complete ones. Nevertheless, we believe the distributions would not be different from log-normal distributions even when the quality of the data will be improved in the future.

## 4 DISCUSSION

The distributions of the physical quantities of the CME-related solar flares and those of GRBs are log-normal distributions, whereas those of solar flares are power-law distributions. Cygnus X-1, one of the black hole candidates, also shows a highly time-variable feature (Miyamoto el al. 1992) like GRBs and solar flares. It has been found that the distributions of the X-ray peak intensity and peak interval of Cygnus X-1 show nearly exponential distributions (Negoro 1995; Negoro et al. 1995). An exponential distribution does not have a typical value like a power-law distribution. The X-ray emissions are considered to come from the accretion disk in Cygnus X-1. However, when the shots with large peaks are picked up, which may be related to outflows (or jets) in Cygnus X-1, the distributions of the X-ray peak intensity and peak interval become log-normal distributions (Negoro & Mineshige 2002).

Therefore, the distributions of the physical quantities associated with mass outflows show log-normal distributions, whereas those related to surface emissions show scale-free distributions such as power-law and exponential distributions. Hence, the log-normal distribution of the physical quantities, which has a typical value, is possibly resulted from the filtering effect on mass ejections. On the basis of the similarity of characteristics among GRBs, solar flares, and Cygnus X-1, we suggest that GRBs are due to the mass outflow associated with flare-like process. In fact, a system of a stellar mass black hole and an accretion disk around it can be formed in the central engine of a GRB in the standard models such as the collapsar model (Woosley 1993; Paczyński 1998; Fryer, Woosley, & Hartmann 1999), and the NS-NS (BH) merger model (Paczyński 1986; Goodman 1986; Eichler et al. 1989; Mészáros & Rees 1997). The accretion disk has magnetic field with $`\beta 10100`$, where $`\beta `$ is the ratio of gas pressure to magnetic pressure (e.g., Machida and Matsumoto 2003). This magnetic field is strong enough to generate lots of magnetic activities in the accretion disk corona. There is shear between the inner edge of the disk and the black hole. The shear is also in the disk because of the differential rotation of the disk. Therefore, the magnetic loop formed on the disk is twisted and stretched, and magnetic reconnection occurs. In previous studies, Narayan, Paczyński, & Piran (1992) have suggested that the magnetic flares can be generated by Parker instabilities on the differentially rotating disk in the central engine of a GRB. Recently Kluźniak & Ruderman (1998) have proposed that magnetic field is strengthened in the differentially rotating collapsed object in the central engine of a GRB and is pushed up through the surface of the object by magnetic buoyancy. Hence, there can be many flares similar to solar flares on the disk in the central engine of a GRB.

Altogether we suggest the flare/CME model of the central engine of a GRB by the analogy to solar flares and Cygnus X-1 (Fig. 2). In our model, GRBs and afterglows are produced as follows. There are a lot of flares on an accretion disk in the central engine of a GRB, and many plasmoids are produced and accelerated via magnetic reconnection. If the scale of a magnetic loop is small, a plasmoid cannot gain large energy enough to escape from the magnetosphere of the central engines, and a flare associated with the reconnection is not energetic. Only the plasmoids associated with energetic flares can be escaped. In fact, Hayashi, Shibata, & Matsumoto (1996) have performed MHD simulations of protostellar jets, and found that magnetic reconnection occurs near the central object, where magnetic loops are strengthened and twisted by shear between the inner edge of the accretion disk and the surface of the central object, and then plasmoids are produced and ejected via the reconnection. Various flares with different energy scales occur repeatedly on the disk in the central engine, so that a lot of plasmoids with various speeds are ejected repeatedly from the central engine. If the preceding plasmoid is slower than the following one, they will collide with each other. The structure of the ejected plasmoids would be similar to that of a spheromak, which is unstable to tilting instability (e.g., Hayashi & Sato 1984). Hence, there are various angles between the plasmoid (spheromak) axis and the ejected direction. When the tangent magnetic field of an ejected plasmoid is opposite to that of other one, magnetic reconnections occur. Therefore, all magnetic energy in the ejected plasmoids contained as Poynting flux can be converted to the kinetic and internal energy of plasmas. In addition, a lot of MHD shocks occur in the reconnection process, which is convenient for acceleration of high energy particles. These may correspond to internal shocks in the internal shock model (Rees & Mészáros 1994). In fact, the collisions between two CMEs, and shock formation and electron accelerations due to the collisions were observed by radio observation in actual CMEs (Gopalswamy et al. 2001). Hence, the collisions between the escaped plasmoids from the central engine of a GRB can occur and internal shocks are formed. Moreover, the merged shell is produced via the collision. If it propagates into interstellar matters, the external shocks can be formed, which are observed as afterglows.

The merit of our model to the fireball model (see Piran 1999 and Mészáros 2002 for recent reviews) is that we can avoid baryon contamination. There are a lot of baryonic plasmas near the central engine of a GRB, so that it is difficult to accelerate the plasmas to relativistic speed near the central engine. On the other hand, in our model magnetic energy (Poynting flux) is dominated near the central engine. The magnetic energy is carried by ejected plasmoids and converted to the kinetic and internal energy of plasmas by magnetic reconnection at the distant place from the central engine.

Recently, several authors have proposed the model of the central engine of a GRB via magnetic reconnection (Spruit, Diagne, & Drenkhahn 2001; Drenkhahn & Spruit 2002; Lyutikov & Blandford 2002). In their models, the magnetic energy is carried to the distant place from the central engine as Poynting flux, and reconnection occurs. If the statistical distribution of sub-bursts are determined by the reconnection in the outflow at the distant place from the central engine, they may not show log-normal distributions, since the reconnection itself generally tend to produce power-law (or scale free) distribution. Thus, it would be difficult to explain the log-normal distributions of the physical quantities of GRBs in their models. On the other hand, in our model, magnetic reconnection plays an important role not only in the outflow but also in the accretion disk corona, and log-normal distribution is created by the “filtering effect” in the reconnection associated with mass ejections in the accretion disk corona.

It is also known that soft gamma-ray repeaters (SGRs) are highly time-variable. It has been found that the distributions of the time intervals (waiting times) and total durations of bursts from SGRs show log-normal distributions (Hurley et al. 1994; Göğüş et al. 1999, 2000, 2001). Moreover, the intensity distribution of burst from SGRs shows the truncated log-normal distribution (Hurley et al. 1994), which is not clearly fitted to a log-normal distribution. Therefore, the distributions of burst from SGRs are similar to those of GRBs. We can possibly apply our flare/CME model to SGRs.

This CME catalog is generated and maintained by NASA and The Catholic University of America in cooperation with the Naval Research Laboratory. SOHO is a project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA. This work was supported in part by the JSPS Japan-US Cooperation Science Program (principal investigators: K. Shibata and K. I. Nishikawa), by the Scientific Research Fund of the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture (14540226), and by the JSPS Japan-UK Cooperation Science Program (principal investigators: K. Shibata and N. O. Weiss).