text:
# The polarisation of afterglow emission reveals GRBs jet structure

## 1 Introduction

After the discovery of a significant, albeit small, degree of linear polarisation of the afterglow optical flux of GRB 990510 (Covino et al. 1999; Wijers et al. 1999), there have been several other detections of linear polarisation in a number of afterglows (see Covino et al. 2002 for review). Typically, the polarisation is observed to be at the 1-3 percent level (but see Bersier et al. 2003 for GRB 020405), with constant or smoothly variable level and position angle when associated with a relatively smooth lightcurve (e.g. GRB 020813, Gorosabel et al. 2004). When deviations from a smooth power-law decay in the lightcurve are instead present, polarisation curves show a certain degree of complexity (e.g. GRB 021004 Lazzati et al. 2003; Rol et al. 2003; GRB 030329 Greiner et al. 2003).

In order to observe polarisation, some kind of asymmetry is needed: this can be provided by patches of coherent magnetic field, as suggested by Gruzinov & Waxman (1999) and Gruzinov (1999). In addition, small regions in which the magnetic field has some degree of order could be amplified by scintillation (Medvedev & Loeb 1999), or by gravitational mini-lensing (Loeb & Perna 1998; Ioka & Nakamura 2001). In these cases the required degree of asymmetry is in the structure of the magnetic field, and not in the overall geometry of the fireball, which could even be spherically symmetric.

Recently Granot & Königl (2003) proposed that the required asymmetry might be provided by an ordered magnetic field embedded in the circum-burst material, possibly amplified when the shock propagates in it, to reach values close to equipartition with the energy density of the shocked material in the “pulsar wind bubble” scenario (Königl & Granot 2002).

A different class of models postulates that the fireball is jetted (i.e. the ejecta are collimated into a cone with half opening angle $`\theta _{jet}`$). In this case the observer likely sees the fireball off-axis, since the probability to be exactly on-axis is vanishingly small (Ghisellini & Lazzati 1999; Sari 1999, hereafter GL99 and S99, respectively). When the fireball bulk Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is $`1/(\theta _{jet}\theta _o)`$ (where $`\theta _o`$ is the viewing angle) the emitting surface starts to be asymmetrical with respect to the line of sight. Moreover it is assumed that a magnetic field is compressed in the plane normal to the motion, analogous to what has been proposed for the jets of radio-loud active galactic nuclei (Laing 1980). Face-on observers would see a completely tangled magnetic field, but edge-on observers (in the comoving frame) would see an aligned field, and therefore would detect synchrotron polarised radiation. Since the fireball is moving with a high bulk Lorentz factor, the edge-on comoving observer corresponds to an observer in the lab located at an angle $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. According to this idea, there is a tight link between the behaviour of the total and the polarised flux as a function of time. The light curve of the polarised flux has two maxima (corresponding to the presence of the two edges of the jet) with a position angle switched by $`90^{}`$. The maxima occur just before and after the achromatic “jet” break in the light curve of the total flux. A main assumption of this model is that, at any given angle from the apex of the jet, the luminosity emitted per unit solid angle along the jet axis and along the jet borders is the same. Let us call jets with this energy structure “homogeneous” jets (HJs) (see Fig.1).

It is possible, instead, that the radiated power (per unit solid angle) along the jet axis is larger than what is emitted along the “wings”. If the wing energy distribution is a power-law, we refer to these configurations as “structured” jets (SJs) (see Fig.1). As Rossi, Lazzati & Rees (2002) (thereafter RLR02) and Zhang & Mészáros (2002) have demonstrated, if the luminosity per unit solid angle is $`L(\theta )\theta ^a`$ with $`a`$ close to 2, then observers with a viewing angle $`\theta _\mathrm{o}`$ would see an achromatic jet break when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1/\theta _o`$. It is therefore possible that all GRB jets are intrinsically alike, having the same total intrinsic power and the same jet aperture angle: they appear different only because they are viewed along different orientations. If the jet were uniform, instead, they should have a large variety of aperture angles, to account for the different observed jet-break times (Frail et al. 2001).

As demonstrated analytically in RLR02 and more recently numerically by Salmonson (2003) (thereafter S03), it is difficult, on the basis of the observed light curve, to discriminate between homogeneous and structured jets (see also Granot & Kumar 2003). However, as described in this paper, the two models are markedly different in the polarisation properties of the produced afterglow flux. In both models the polarisation is produced because different parts of the emitting jet surfaces do not contribute equally to the observed flux. In the homogeneous jet model this starts to occur when $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ becomes of the order of $`\theta _{\mathrm{jet}}\theta _\mathrm{o}`$ (i.e. when the emitting surface available to the observer “touches” the near border of the jet). In the structured jet model, instead, the required asymmetry is built-in in the assumption that the emission is a function of $`\theta `$, so that the relevant emitting surface is never completely symmetric for off-axis observers.

Finally we consider a jet with a Gaussian luminosity distribution (Zhang & Meszaros 2002). This can be regarded as a more realistic version of the sharp edged standard jet: the emission drops exponentially outside the typical angular size ($`\theta _c`$), within which it is roughly constant (see Fig.1). Let us call it the “Gaussian jet” (GJ). It has been argued that this configuration can accomodate a unified picture of GRBs and X-ray flashes. The underlying assumptions is the presence of an emission mechanism for which the peak energy $`E_p`$ in the prompt emission is a decreasing function of the angular distance from the jet axis. In this way X-ray flashes would be the result of observing a GRBs jet at large angles. According to Zhang et al. (2003) the GJ would reproduce the observed correlation $`E_pE_{iso}^{1/2}`$ (Amati et al., 2002), while under the same assumption the universal SJ and the “top hat” jet would face severe problems. We notice here, however, that the above correlation is still based on a very small database in the X-ray flashes regime (only two X-ray flashes are included) and should be confirmed by future observations. As regards afterglow properties, a GJ seen within the core produces lightcurves that are similar (but with smoother breaks) to the HJ’s ones (Granot & Kumar 2003). The luminosity variation with angle gives, as in the case of a SJ, a net polarisation without the need of edges and we show here that its temporal behaviour is indeed different from both the SJ’s and the HJ’s one.

The detailed analysis of the polarisation characteristics and their connection with lightcurves in the homogeneous jet, universal structured jet and in the Gaussian jet models is the main goal of this paper. In Section 2 we described the numerical code we have implemented to study these models. Some analytical and semi-analytical results have been derived by GL99 and S99, for a non-spreading jet and for a sideway expanding jet respectively. The simplified prescription assumed by S99 for the lateral expansion led to prediction of a third peak in the light curve of the polarised flux for an observer close to the border of the jet. In addition, GL99 did not consider, for simplicity, the effects of the different travel times of photons produced in different regions of the fireball, while S99 considered this effect by representing the viewable region as a thin ring centred around the line of sight: the ring has an angular size of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ and a constant width with respect to the ring radius. Our numerical approach allows us to include the effects of the different photon travel time and to analyze and compare different prescriptions for the side expansion of the fireball.

This paper is organised as follows. In §2 we present the model for the jet and for the magnetic field. In §3 we show the results for a homogeneous jet, in §4 those for a structured jet and in §5 those for a Gaussian jet. The comparison and discussion can be found in §6. Finally in §7 we derive and discuss our conclusions, adding possible complications to the models.

Throughout this paper the adopted cosmological parameters are $`H_0=65`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda =0.7`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$.

## 2 The Code

### 2.1 The Jet structure and dynamics

In this paper we show results obtained with two different codes. The first one is fully described in S03 while the second one is discussed in this section. The main difference between the two codes is in the treatment of the sideway expansion and dynamics in the non-relativistic phase. In the following we only remind the reader of the different assumptions adopted by S03 and refer the reader to the paper for more details.

We assume that the energy released from the engine is in the form of two opposite jets. They are described by the following distributions of initial Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and energy per unit solid angle $`ϵ`$ with respect to the jet axis ($`\theta =0`$):

$$\begin{array}{cc}ϵ(\theta )=\frac{ϵ_c}{\left(1+\left(\frac{\theta }{\theta _c}\right)^{(\alpha _ϵ\beta _ϵ)}\right)^{\frac{1}{\beta _ϵ}}}\hfill & \theta \theta _{jet},\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(\theta )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_c}{\left(1+\left(\frac{\theta }{\theta _c}\right)^{(\alpha _\mathrm{\Gamma }\beta _\mathrm{\Gamma })}\right)^{\frac{1}{\beta _\mathrm{\Gamma }}}}\hfill & \theta \theta _{jet},\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where $`\theta _{jet}`$ is the jet opening angle, $`\theta _c`$ is the core angular size, $`ϵ_c=ϵ(0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c=\mathrm{\Gamma }(0)`$. In the following, in order to make the comparison with the homogeneous jet easier, we will use preferentially the local isotropic equivalent energy, defined as $`E_{iso}(\theta )=4\pi ϵ(\theta )`$. In Eqs. 1 and 2 $`\alpha _ϵ,\alpha _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ controls the shape of the energy and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ distributions in the wings, while $`\beta _ϵ,\beta _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ controls the smoothness of the joint between the jet core and its wings.

If $`\alpha _ϵ,\alpha _\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$, equations 1 and 2 describe the standard top hat model with sharp edges (homogeneous jet). If the observer line of sight is located within the jet, the observer detects the GRB prompt phase and its GRB afterglow (GA); if the viewing angle $`\theta _o`$ is larger then $`\theta _{jet}`$, he observes what it is called an orphan afterglow, an afterglow not preceded by the prompt $`\gamma `$-ray emission.

When $`\alpha _ϵ>0`$, the code describes a structured jet; in this case $`\theta _{jet}`$ is assumed to be always much larger then the observer angle. In fact we consider here a boundless jet (the end of the wings are so dim that are undetectable), in contrast to the sharp edged homogeneous jet. If $`\alpha _ϵ=2`$ and $`\beta _ϵ\mathrm{}`$, the structured jet is that described in RLR02, while S03 adopts $`\alpha _ϵ=2`$ and $`\beta _ϵ=1`$.

For the Gaussian jet we use instead

$$ϵ(\theta )=ϵ_0e^{\frac{\theta ^2}{2\theta _c^2}}.$$
(3)
For simplicity we assume axial symmetry. Our initial Lorentz factor distribution satisfies $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }\theta `$, therefore regions on the shock front with different $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and energy are causally disconnected and they evolve independently until $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }=\theta `$. In the numerical simulations we assume for all models a costant initial Lorentz factor across the jet, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=10^4`$. With this choice the lightcurves shown in this paper (for observed times $`\stackrel{>}{}15`$ min) are insensitive to the initial $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ distribution. As a matter of fact, for any $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(\theta )\stackrel{>}{}50`$, the fireball deceleration starts earlier ($`t_d245s(E_{53}/n_0/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0,2}^8)^{1/3}`$) than the smallest time of the figures and afterwards the evolution follows the BM self similar solution and consequently the shown afterglow properties are independent from the initial Lorentz factor. If relativistic kinematic effects freeze out the lateral expansion or the pressure gradient prevents mixing, the different parts of the flow are virtually independent along their entire evolution. We allow each point of spherical coordinates ($`r,\theta ,\varphi `$) to evolve adiabatically and independently, as if it were part of a uniform jet with $`ϵ=ϵ(\theta )`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(\theta )`$ and semi-aperture angle $`\theta `$. Therefore, if the mixing of matter is unimportant this treatment is correct at any time, otherwise it gives an approximate solution for $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$. Actually numerical hydrodynamical simulations seem to suggest that $`ϵ(\theta )`$ does not vary appreciably with time until the non-relativistic phase sets in (Kumar & Granot 2003) thus supporting our numerical approach.

The full set of equations that determine the dynamics of each patch of the jet is:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{\sqrt{1+4\mathrm{\Gamma }_0f+4f^2}1}{2f},$$
(4)
(e.g. Panaitescu & Kumar 2000, thereafter PK00) where the parameter $`f`$ (the ratio of the swept-up mass to the initial fireball rest mass) is given by:

$$f=\frac{1}{M_0(\theta )}_0^rr^2\mathrm{\Omega }(r)\rho (r)𝑑r,$$
(5)
where $`M_0`$ is the rest mass of the two (symmetric) jets, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(r)=4\pi (1\mathrm{cos}\theta (r))`$ is their solid angle and $`\rho (r)`$ is the ambient medium matter density. The evolution of the solid angle is described by:

$$\frac{d\theta }{dr}=\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \frac{c_s(\theta ,r)}{c\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }r}.$$
(6)
For the comoving lateral velocity $`c_s`$ we tested three different recipes. First, we analyze a non-sideways expanding (NSE) jet with

$$c_s=0.$$
(7)
then a sideways expanding (SE) one, either with a constant comoving sound speed (Rhoads 1999)

$$c_sc/\sqrt{3}$$
(8)
or with a more accurate treatment, which takes into account the behaviour of the sound speed as a function of the shock Lorentz factor:

$$c_s=c\sqrt{\frac{\widehat{\gamma }(\widehat{\gamma }1)(\mathrm{\Gamma }1)}{1+\widehat{\gamma }(\mathrm{\Gamma }1)}}$$
(9)
(Huang et al. 2000), where $`\widehat{\gamma }=\frac{4\mathrm{\Gamma }+1}{3\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$.

In the code developed by S03 (see in particular S03 §2), it is assumed that both momentum and energy are conserved (Rhoads 1999):

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+f}{\sqrt{1+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_0f+f^2}}.$$
(10)
This affects mainly the temporal slope of the lightcurve in the non-relativistic regime, since the jet does not follow the Sedov-Taylor solution. For the sideways expansion prescription S03 assumes that the lateral kinetic energy of the shock, in its radially comoving frame, is a constant proportion of the radial kinetic energy:

$$R_k=(\gamma _{}^{}1)/(\gamma 1),$$
(11)
where $`R_k`$ (using S03’s notation) describes the shock efficiency to convert radial kinetic energy $`(\gamma 1)`$ in lateral kinetic energy ($`\gamma _{}^{}1`$) and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma \gamma _{}^{},$$
(12)
The jet dynamics in the trans- and non-relativistic phase is uncertain. If the two opposite jets do not merge ($`\theta _{jet}`$ is always $`<90\mathrm{°}`$) when the dynamics becomes non-relativistic, the radial momentum should be conserved through all the evolution of the jet. This possibility depends strongly on the initial opening angle and on the assumed type of lateral expansion. For example, using the lateral velocity assumed by S03, initially narrow jets will not merge, because the sideways expansion, deriving its energy from the forward expansion, is soon exhausted. On the other hand, if, at late times, lateral spreading causes the jets to homogenize and become effectively spherically symmetric, then Eq. 4 is correct. For these reasons and the presence in literature of both treatments we compare and show in this paper results from both Eq. 4 and Eq. 10.

In Fig. 2 we show the opening angle of the jet vs. the shock radius for all sideways velocity prescriptions. The jet spreads more efficiently when the simpler prescription $`c_s=c/\sqrt{3}`$ is adopted while with Eq. 11 the expansion stalls out at fairly small angles ($`\theta _j(0)+\mathrm{arctan}\sqrt{R_k}`$), since the jet is radially decelerating. Eq. 11 gives another interesting behaviour: the jet begins to laterally expand earlier than $`\theta _{jet}(r)1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$; this is because $`R_k`$ = 0.01,0.1 correspond to very large and supersonic initial lateral expansions. A direct comparison between the two sonic expansions (dotted and dashed lines) shows that a variable sound velocity (Eq. 9) gives a final $`\theta _{jet}`$ smaller than Eq. 8. Note however that this seems not to affect appreciably the resulting lightcurve (Fig. 4).

### 2.2 Spectrum and Luminosity

In order to isolate the effects of the jet structure on the emission and polarisation curves, we assume throughout this paper a constant density environment $`\rho (r)=m_pn`$ ($`m_p`$ being the proton mass and $`n`$ the number density). Polarisation curves derived here should be therefore compared only to data from afterglow with smooth lightcurves (Lazzati et al. 2003). Polarisation curves in a windy environment are similar to ISM ones, but characterised by a slower evolution (Lazzati et al. 2004).

The comoving intensity $`I^{}`$ is assumed to be given by the synchrotron process only (Granot & Sari 2002); we do not include inverse Compton emission, because (for the adopted fiducial parameters) it can modify the observed afterglow lightcurve and polarisation curves only in the X-ray band after $`10`$ days (depending on the density, see e.g. Sari & Esin 2001). Therefore our results are accurate up to the X-ray band. We will comment on how the polarisation curves would be modified, should IC emission be included (§3.3.4).

In the shocked matter the injected electron Lorentz factor is

$$\gamma _m=\frac{m_p}{m_e}ϵ_e\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }1\right),$$
(13)
where $`m_e`$ is the electron mass and $`ϵ_e`$ is the fraction of kinetic energy given to electrons; the Lorentz factor of the electrons that cool radiatively on a timescale comparable to dynamical timescale (i.e. time since the explosion) is

$$\gamma _c=15\pi \frac{m_ec^2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }^21}}{\sigma _TB^2r},$$
(14)
where $`\sigma _T`$ is the Thomson cross section and the comoving magnetic field $`B`$ is given by:

$$B=\sqrt{32\pi ϵ_Bm_pc^2n}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }^21}.$$
(15)
where $`ϵ_B`$ is the fraction of internal energy that goes to the magnetic field. Note that Eq. 14 and Eq. 15 are different from those given by PK00 that are not accurate in the trans and sub-relativistic regimes. The corresponding synchrotron frequencies are:

$$\nu _i=0.25\frac{e\gamma _i^2B}{m_ec},$$
(16)
where the constant (0.25) is calculated for an electron energy distribution index $`p=2.5`$ (PK00), $`e`$ is the electron charge, $`i=m`$ for the peak frequency and $`i=c`$ for the cooling frequency. The synchrotron self absorption frequency is given by:

$$\nu _a=\nu _i\tau _i^{3/5},$$
(17)
where $`i=m`$ in the slow cooling regime and $`i=c`$ in the fast cooling regime; $`\tau _i=\frac{5e}{3}\frac{nr}{B\gamma _i^5}`$ is the optical thickness at $`\nu _i`$. The comoving peak intensity $`I_p^{}`$ is

$$I_p^{}=\frac{P^{}nr}{\nu _m},$$
(18)
where $`P^{}=\frac{4}{3}\sigma _Tc\frac{B^2}{8\pi }\left(\gamma _m^21\right)`$ is the total power emitted by relativistic electrons with Lorentz factor $`\gamma _m`$ and isotropic distribution of pitch angles. The local observed luminosity is then computed through:

$$dL(t,\theta ,\varphi )=I^{}\delta ^3r^2\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi $$
(19)
where $`\delta =\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta })}`$ is the relativistic Doppler factor and $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ is the angular distance from the line of sight. The observed arrival time $`t`$ of photons can be computed as follows:

$$t=t_{lab}\frac{r}{c\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }},$$
(20)
where the time in the laboratory frame $`t_{lab}`$ at which the photons were emitted is

$$t_{lab}=\frac{dr}{\beta _{sh}c},$$
(21)
where $`\beta _{sh}c`$ is the shock front speed. The Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sh}`$ of this front is related to the Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the shocked matter behind it (Eq. 4) by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sh}=1+\sqrt{2}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }1\right)`$ (e.g. Sari 1997).

### 2.3 The emitting volume

For a given time, Eq. 20 describes the locus of points from which photons arrive simultaneously at the detector (equal arrival time surfaces EATS). The EATS for a structured jet are shown in Fig. 3, where the observer is located to the right. Unlike the homogeneous case (e.g. Panaitescu & Mészáros 1998; Granot, Piran & Sari 1999), the EATS shape in the SJ depends on the viewing angle. This is because, for relativistic effects, each line of sight mimics a homogeneous jet with different parameters: $`\theta _{jet}2\theta _o`$, $`E_{iso}E_{iso}(\theta _o)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(\theta _o)`$ (RLR02).

The emission that the observer detects at time $`t`$ does not come only from a thin layer near the EATS; in fact it comes from a sizable fraction of the volume behind it whose width is $`\frac{r}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sh}}`$. Therefore, for each $`t`$, $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$, we integrate equation 19 also over this emitting volume, using the Blandford & Mckee (1976, hereafter BM) solution for the Lorentz factor of the shocked gas behind the shock front (Granot, Piran & Sari 1999). This calculation for the observed flux is strictly valid for $`\nu >\nu _a`$, since we do not take into account self absorbing effects.

### 2.4 Magnetic field configuration and linear polarisation

The magnetic field configuration we adopt is obtained by compressing, in one direction, a volume containing a random magnetic field: it has some degree of alignment seen edge-on while it is still completely tangled on small scales in the uncompressed plane. This could be the geometry of a magnetic field produced by the blastwave that, sweeping up the external medium, could confine the field in the sky plane. It may also be the natural configuration of shock generated magnetic fields (Medvedev & Loeb 1999).

Since the fireball is relativistic, the circle centered around the line of sight, with angular aperture $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, is the region contributing the most to the observed emission and the photons that reach the observer from the borders of that circle are emitted at $`\theta ^{}=90^{}`$ in the comoving frame. Therefore the light coming from an angle $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has the maximum degree of polarisation $`P_0`$ while the light travelling along the line of sight is unpolarised (see Fig. 1 in GL99). We assume $`P_0=60\%`$. In the comoving frame this value decreases with the angular distance ($`\theta ^{}`$) to the line of sight as

$$P(\theta )=P_o\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta ^{})}{1+\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta ^{})},$$
(22)
(Laing 1980). The Lorentz transformations of angles give us the relation between $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ and $`\theta ^{}`$:

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\beta }{1\beta \mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }}$$
(23)
$$\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\left(1+\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}\right).$$
(24)
In terms of the Stokes parameters, $`Q`$, $`U`$, $`V`$, and local luminosity $`dL`$ (equivalent to the Stokes parameter $`I`$) $`P(\theta )`$ can be described as a vector with components:

$$dQ(t,\theta ,\varphi )=P(\theta )dL(t,\theta ,\varphi )\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi ),$$
(25)
$$dU(t,\theta ,\varphi )=P(\theta )dL(t,\theta ,\varphi )\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi ).$$
(26)
and

$$V=0$$
(27)
Integrating Eq. 26 and Eq. 25 over the EATS we obtain the intensity of the observed total polarisation vector at a time $`t`$:

$$𝒫(t)=\frac{\sqrt{Q(t)^2+U(t)^2}}{L(t)},$$
(28)
which is actually the fraction of flux linearly polarised. The direction of the total polarisation vector is then

$$\varphi (t)=0.5\mathrm{arctan}\frac{U(t)}{Q(t)}.$$
(29)
## 3 Homogeneous jet: results

In Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 we compare the light and polarisation curves resulting from different recipes for the lateral expansion (§2.1). The expansions given by Eq. 8 and Eq. 9 produce very similar temporal behaviors; therefore in the following we show results which are strictly valid for a variable sound speed but the same discussion holds for $`c_s=c/\sqrt{3}`$. The lightcurves shown in Fig. 4 are all consistent with the same pre and post-break temporal slopes for a relativistic jet. However the curves corresponding to a jet that obeys the conservation of momentum (Eq. 10, the dash-dotted and dash-3 dotted lines) does not follow a Sedov-Taylor model ($`\beta r^{3/5}`$ and flux $`F(t)t^{\frac{(3p4)}{2}}`$, for $`\nu >\nu _c`$) in the non-relativistic regime but $`\beta r^3`$ and $`F(t)t^{43/16}`$. Then in this latter case the flux falls off more rapidly while in the former case the lightcurve tends to flatten. We anticipate that in both cases the non-relativistic slopes do not depend on the viewing angle but only on the spectrum, contrary to the temporal slopes in the relativistic regime (see also Fig. 67).

Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 also show that a SE jet has

* a smoother break in the lightcurve,
* a later time break,
* smaller polarisation peaks,

compared to a NSE jet and these characteristics are even more evident for jets with a supersonic sideways expansion.

All these features (among others) are discussed in more details in the following, comparing a NSE jet with a jet undergoing a sideways expansion given by Eq. 9. For a jet evolution following Eq. 11 we refer the reader to S03, where a more complete discussion is given.

### 3.1 Lightcurve: the shape of the break

The R band lightcurve for a NSE and for a SE homogeneous jet are shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 respectively. They show interesting features, some of which have never been discussed before. In the lower panels the temporal index $`\alpha `$ (defined as $`F(t)t^\alpha `$) is plotted versus time. We call $`\alpha _1`$,$`\alpha _2`$ and $`\alpha _3`$ the pre-break, the post-break and the non-relativistic slope respectively. The horizontal dot-dashed lines show the expected slopes from on-axis standard calculations.

#### 3.1.1 $`\alpha _2`$

The “standard” post-break slopes (central dot-dashed lines in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, lower panels) are calculated considering the loss of the emitting area from a spherical blast wave $`(1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1)`$ to a conical one $`(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _{jet})`$. For the SE jet we also consider the more rapid deceleration due to the increase of the shock front surface (Rhoads 1999; Sari, Piran & Halpern 1999). In both cases the surface brightness is supposed to be the same across the surface of the jet at all times. For $`\nu >\nu _c`$ the expected breaks are $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{nse}=\frac{3}{4}`$ for a NSE jet and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{se}=\frac{(p+2)}{4}=1.125`$ for a SE one.

In fact we find that the flux after the break falls off more rapidly than expected, and this effect is more evident as the electron energy distribution $`N(\gamma )\gamma ^p`$ becomes steeper. This can be understood by taking into account the effect of EATS. When $`r/\mathrm{\Gamma }<r\theta _{jet}`$ the visible area can be schematized as a bright ring with radius $`r/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ($`20\%40\%`$ of the whole area) that surrounds a dimmer uniformly emitting surface (e.g. Granot et al. 1999). When $`r/\mathrm{\Gamma }>r\theta _{jet}+\mathrm{\Delta }`$ only the dimmer emitting surface is visible. As a consequence after the break the deficit in the observed flux is bigger and $`\alpha _2`$ is steeper than considering, at any time, a uniform emitting surface. The effect is more pronounced for higher values of $`p`$ since the surface brightness contrast between the centre and the ring increases. When $`r/\mathrm{\Gamma }r\theta _{jet}+\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the lightcurve decay index should tend to the standard slope, because the jet surface emits almost homogeneously; in fact only in the case of a very narrow jet ($`\theta _{jet}<1^{}`$) this asymptotic slope is reached: wider jets lightcurves break later and they enter the trans-relativistic phase soon after the break, tending towards $`\alpha _3`$.

#### 3.1.2 $`\alpha _1`$

Similarly the pre-break slope presents deviations from the standard calculations for a spherical symmetrical blastwave ($`\alpha _1=\frac{(3p2)}{4}`$: Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, lower panels, horizontal line on the left). If the jet is very narrow (less than few degrees) the lightcurve will not exhibit (depending on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$) this first branch. For wider jets (as in our examples) the value $`\frac{(3p2)}{4}`$ is strictly followed only in the case of a NSE jet for observers around the line of sight.

#### 3.1.3 $`\alpha _3`$

On the other hand the non-relativistic regime offers a lightcurve branch slope independent of the spreading and the viewing angle. This holds for any frequency band. However, uncertainties in the dynamics during the trans-relativistic phase (see §2.1) hamper the possibility to derive the electron distribution power-law index even at late stages.

### 3.2  Lightcurve: the time of the break

The lower panels of Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 show, in addition, how the jet-break and the temporal behaviour around it change with the off-axis angle. As the viewing angle increases the transition between $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ is smoother (GL99) and the break time (when $`\alpha \frac{(\alpha _1+\alpha _2)}{2}`$) is retarded.

To obtain more quantitative results we fit the lightcurves $`F(t)`$ with a smoothly joined broken power law (SBP),

$$F(t)=\frac{2F_b}{\left[\left(\frac{t}{t_b}\right)^{\alpha _1s}+\left(\frac{t}{t_b}\right)^{\alpha _2s}\right]^{1/s}},$$
(30)
(Beuermann et al. 1999), where $`s`$ is the smoothness parameters and $`F_b`$ the normalisation ($`F_b=F(t_b)`$ for $`s=1`$). The smoothness parameters is a measure of the shape of the lightcurve around the break: the lower its value the smoother the two asymptotic slopes are joined together over the break. The fit is performed over the range<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1The break time $`t_b`$ is found iteratively by adjusting the fitting interval to the one specified and re-performing the fit until convergence. $`0.01t_bt100t_b`$ and assigning an uncertainty of $`10\%`$ to each point.

The results are summarised in Tab. 1 where $`t_b`$ and $`s`$ are given as a function of $`\theta _o/\theta _{jet}`$. For NSE jet lightcurves, the fit gives break times that range from $`1.86`$ days for a on-axis observer to $`5.7`$ days for $`\theta _o/\theta _{jet}=0.8`$, while for a SE jet $`t_b=3.57`$ days for $`\theta _o=0`$ and $`t_b=7.44`$ days for $`\theta _o/\theta _{jet}=0.8`$. However changing the time interval of the fitting can result in a variation of the estimated $`t_b`$ of a factor of 2, while the positive correlation between $`t_b`$ and $`\theta _o`$ generally holds. Tab. 1 shows also that $`s`$ decreases for larger $`\theta _o`$ and the effect is greater when lateral expansion is not dynamically important (see also Fig. 4 in GL99). The bottom line of this discussion is that the break time is an ill-defined quantity, since the function generally used for data fits is only a rough approximation to the real shape of the afterglow lightcurve. Systematic uncertainties on the measure should be considered, especially when the break time is used to infer the opening angle of the jet to derive the beam-corrected energy output of GRBs (e.g. Berger et al. 2003).

### 3.3 Polarisation curves

The polarisation curves we obtain are given in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9.

#### 3.3.1 GRB afterglows

Homogeneous GRB afterglow polarisation curves ($`\theta _o/\theta _{jet}1`$) always show two peaks, with the second higher then the first one, with pitch angles rotated by $`90^{}`$. For $`\theta _o/\theta _{jet}\stackrel{>}{}0.6`$ this change in the direction of the polarisation vector ($`P=0`$) happens before the break-time measured by an on-axis observer, while for smaller angles it happens slightly after.

#### 3.3.2 Orphan afterglows

The polarisation curve of orphan afterglows ($`\theta _o/\theta _{jet}1`$) has two peaks, with the same position angle, that eventually merge in a single maximum. For a NSE jet the polarisation at the peak grows with $`\theta _o`$, tending towards $`P_0`$ (Fig. 8), while with sideways expansion the peak value reaches a maximum around $`\theta _o7\theta _{jet}`$ and then it slowly decreases; in both cases the polarisation peak for an orphan afterglow can be a factor $`2.52.6`$ larger than what it is expected at $`\theta _o=\theta _{jet}`$.

#### 3.3.3 Comparison with previous results

The polarisation curves for a NSE jet with $`\theta _o<\theta _{jet}`$ have been previously published by GL99, which did not consider EATS. Their curves have our very same temporal behaviour, but their polarisation peaks are lower than ours by a factor from 2 to 4, depending on the viewing angle. This is the result of adding EATS to the computation. In this case the received intensity, at any given time, peaks at an angular distance $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from the line of sight, just where the linear polarisation is maximised (see Eq. 22, Eq. 26 and Eq. 25). As a result, the total expected polarisation is higher than for a homogeneously emitting surface. S99 and Granot & Königl (2003) have instead explored the polarisation for a spreading jet. The first author uses a simplified model in which the opening angle does not change until $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}<\theta _{jet}`$ and then $`\theta _{jet}`$ increases as $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$; as a consequence he expects a third polarisation peak to appear at later times for large off-axis angles, while for small viewing angles only one peak should be visible. With our complete calculation of the evolution of the opening angle of the jet we do not obtain either of these effects (see Fig. 9). The reason is that the visible area ($`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) crosses both the nearest and the farthest edge of the jet for any off-axis angle and then $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ remains always greater than $`\theta _{jet}`$. Therefore for a HJ, afterglow polarisation curves  *always have only two peaks with orthogonal polarisation angles*, for all the sideways expansion models considered in this paper. Granot et al. (2002) have extended the computation also to orphan afterglows. They obtain

* higher value of polarisation for $`GRB`$ afterglows compared to ours with the first peak always greater then the second one (unlike what our curves show);
* for $`\theta _o/\theta _{jet}=0.25`$ only one peak is visible;
* an orphan afterglow peak can have a polarisation degree which is larger than what observed by an on-axis observer, but only by a factor 2.

These effects are due to an error in their program, pointed out recently by the authors themselves (see Granot & Königl 2003). The results of their corrected code are in general agreement with ours (Granot private communication).

#### 3.3.4 Multiwaveband polarisation

Polarisation due to synchrotron emission is in principle present at any wavelength. In Fig. 10 we show the light and polarisation curves for the same GRB afterglow observed at a frequency $`\nu _o`$ in three different spectral branches: $`\nu _a<\nu _o<\nu _m`$, $`\nu _m<\nu _o<\nu _c`$ and $`\nu _c<\nu _o`$, for an observer at $`\frac{\theta _o}{\theta _{jet}}=0.6`$. In the following we refer to them as the “radio” branch, the “optical” branch and the $`X`$-ray branch respectively, since each waveband usually stays on that particular branch for most of the afterglow evolution (depending on fireball and shock parameters).

Fig. 10 shows that while the polarisation curves in the $`R`$ and X-ray bands are very similar, the radio curve has a significantly lower degree of polarisation. Disticnt from the other lightcurves, the radio flux increases with time before the break ($`F_\nu t^{1/2}`$). It should fall asymptotically as $`F_\nu t^{1/3}`$ afterwards but the trans-relativistic phase sets in and eventually the flux rises again ($`F_\nu t^{8/5}`$) following the non-relativistic temporal slope (Frail, Waxman & Kulkarni 2000).

We note that generally a spectral transition occurs in the radio band (8.5 GHz) at late times, when the peak frequency becomes smaller than the observed radio band ($`\nu _a<\nu _m<\nu _o`$). This causes a third peak to appear in the radio polarisation curve, since in the radio curve joins the optical one; on the other hand the radio lightcurve undertakes a spectral break and eventually follows the optical lightcurve temporal decay ($`F_\nu t^{3(p1)/4}`$ before the jet break and $`F_\nu t^{3p/4}`$ after). In our calculations for the radio polarisation we do not take into account the effects of Faraday rotation: as long as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>2`$ this effect should be negligible, since the electrons are all highly relativistic, with $`\gamma _m>100`$. In the trans-relativistic phase its effect can be sizable and it could even wash out the intrinsic small degree of radio polarisation.

The $`X`$-ray polarisation curve can be affected by the contribution of the inverse Compton flux; in particular after $`1015`$ days it may depolarise the synchrotron flux, depending on the external density. However faint fluxes are usually observed at this epoch, too faint for detection by any X-ray polarimeter conceivable in the near future. In fact, detection of polarisation in the $`X`$-ray band will probably be possible only within few hours from the trigger, when the synchrotron flux positively dominates the inverse Compton emission.

### 3.4 Summary

In this section we have described separately lightcurves and polarisation curves for homogeneous jets. The variation of viewing angle however affects both quantities. As the off-axis angle increases the break time increases and since the minimum in the polarisation curves occurs around $`t_b(\theta _o)`$, it is delayed as well. Moreover the degree of polarisation increases at the peaks while the break shape becomes smoother. These joint characteristics should, in principle, be observable and be helpful for testing the model.

## 4 Structured jet: results

As a general result, our more sophisticated simulations confirm all the features we described in RLR02 for the lightcurve of a SJ: it is very similar to the lightcurve of an HJ seen on-axis with same energy per solid angle and $`\theta _{jet}=2\theta _o`$. On the other hand, we show that the polarisation curves for a SJ present key-features that allow us to spot the underlying jet structure.

### 4.1 Lightcurves

The temporal index $`\alpha `$ of a SJ lightcurve is shown in the lower panels of Fig. 11 and Fig. 12 for $`\alpha _ϵ`$=2, $`\beta _ϵ`$=1 and $`\beta _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=0. Similar to the HJ, a SJ’s lightcurve for $`\theta _o>`$ few degrees can be approximated as a broken power-law; moreover the same asymptotic slopes ($`\alpha _1`$, $`\alpha _2`$, $`\alpha _3`$) for an homogeneous jet (see §3.1) describe as well the temporal behaviour of a SJ’s lightcurve.

It can be noticed that for viewing angles within the core ($`\theta _o\theta _c`$) the observed lightcurves are similar to those expected from very narrow HJs: the break happens so soon that the first power-law branch is missing while after the break there is enough time to reach $`\alpha _2`$ and follow that slope until the non-relativistic transition sets in. For larger viewing angles the situation is quite the reverse: as the $`\theta _o`$ increases the lightcurves have time to follow more strictly the standard value for $`\alpha _1`$ but there is less and less time to reach $`\alpha _2`$ before entering the sub-relativistic phase. This is the same behaviour observed in HJs lightcurve as the jet opening angle increases. Another point of similarity with HJ’s lightcurves is that (as discussed in §3.1.1 for HJs) the flux falls off more rapidly after the break than expected by standard calculations: this effects increases with the off-axis angle. Distinct from the HJ, the SJ lightcurves also present a flattening before the break that increases with the off-axis viewing angle. The deviations from the standard slopes before and after the break are of the same order.

We can conclude that HJ’s and SJ’s lightcurves can be described only roughly by broken power-laws and certainly only for a specific range of viewing angles.

#### 4.1.1 The shape of the break

To quantify the sharpness of the break we again fit the simulated lightcurves with Eq. 30 and the results are summarised in Table 2. The smoothness parameter $`s`$ increases and then saturates around $`\theta _o/\theta _c=8`$, where the fit yields an extremely sharp break (the best fit is actually with a simple broken power-law rather than a SBP). A $`NSE`$ jet has sharper jet breaks compared to a $`SE`$ jet, but the relation between $`s`$ and the off-axis angle is similar. This relation is actually different from that discussed for the HJ (§3.2), where the break becomes smoother and smoother as $`\theta _o`$ increases.

#### 4.1.2 The time of the break

The similarity between HJ and SJ lightcurves becomes more quantitative if we measure the break-time as a function of the viewing angle. The break time $`t_b`$ increases with the viewing angle and the general trend can be fitted by a power law:

$$t_b(\theta _o/\theta _c)^2$$

(see Tab.2). We underline that $`t_b\theta _o^2`$ is predicted by the structured model with $`\alpha _ϵ`$=2 and by the HJ model with constant total energy (once $`\theta _o`$ is replaced by $`\theta _{jet}`$).

One difference between the HJ and the SJ is that, for the same set of parameters, the SJ break time equals that of the HJ if $`\theta _{jet}2\theta _o`$ (RLR02) (see also Fig. 18). This factor comes from the two different origins of the break in the lightcurve: the HJ simply breaks when the edge of the jet comes into view ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }\theta _{jet}^1`$), while the structured jet breaks when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c\theta _o^1`$. The following simplified calculation aims to show that a HJ (with the same parameters as a SJ and $`E_{iso}=E_{iso}(\theta _o)`$) tends to have an earlier break time if $`\theta _{jet}=\theta _o`$ and thus a larger opening angle (of the order of $`2\theta _o`$) is needed to have a reasonable agreement between the two break times. The break times ratio for a non spreading jet is

$$\frac{t_{jet,s}}{t_{jet,h}}=\left(\frac{\theta _o}{\theta _{jet}}\right)^{8/3}\left(\frac{\theta _o}{\theta _c}\right)^{2/3},$$
(31)
where $`t_{jet,s}=\frac{R_{jet,c}}{c}(1\beta \mathrm{cos}(\theta _o))`$ is the observed break time for SJ ($`R_{jet,c}`$ being the radius at which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c=1/\theta _o`$) and $`t_{jet,h}=\frac{R_{jet}}{2c}\theta _{jet}^2`$ is the break time for an HJ seen on-axis ($`R_{jet}`$ being the radius at which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1/\theta _{jet}`$). In Eq. 31 and below in Eq. 32 we assume the same isotropic equivalent energy along the line-of-sight and that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ does not depend on $`\theta `$; for a spreading jet we get instead

$$\frac{t_{jet,s}}{t_{jet,h}}=\left(\frac{\theta _o}{\theta _{jet}}\right)^{8/3}\left(1+\mathrm{ln}\frac{\theta _o}{\theta _c}\right),$$
(32)
where the logarithmic term takes into account the exponential behaviour of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c<\theta _c^1`$. If we impose then that the structured and homogeneous jets lightcurves break at the same time Eq. 31 gives $`1.3\stackrel{<}{}\frac{\theta _{jet}}{\theta _o}\stackrel{<}{}2.5`$ and Eq. 32 give s $`1.3\stackrel{<}{}\frac{\theta _{jet}}{\theta _o}\stackrel{<}{}1.8`$ for $`2\stackrel{<}{}\frac{\theta _o}{\theta _c}\stackrel{<}{}40`$.

### 4.2 Polarisation curves

The polarisation curves of a structured jet with $`\alpha _ϵ`$=2 and $`\beta _\mathrm{\Gamma }=`$0 present all the same main features, regardless the adopted comoving lateral speed. As examples, we show a $`NSE`$ jet (Fig. 13) and a jet expanding with a supersonic lateral velocity (Eq. 11; Fig. 14). The $`SE`$ jets exhibit a lower degree of polarisation and wider peaks than $`NSE`$ jets; in particular for a supersonic lateral velocity, the lateral expansion starts earlier than $`\theta _{jet}(r)1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (see Fig. 2) and a higher degree of polarisation is present at very early times. Three major features characterize all the polarisation curves resulting from such SJs:

* There is only one maximum in the polarisation curve. Since the jet is intrinsically inhomogeneous the degree of polarisation is greater than zero, albeit small, even at early times. As the visible area ($`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) increases, the brighter inner part weights more in the computation of the total polarisation (Eqs. 2526 and 28) that increases until $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }\theta _o`$. This is the configuration with the largest degree of asymmetry within the visible area and therefore it coincides with a maximum in the polarisation curve. As $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ becomes larger than $`\theta _o`$ the degree of asymmetry decreases along with the polarised flux.
* The polarisation angle does not change throughout the afterglow phase. Since the brightest spot is always at the same angle from the line of sight, the polarisation angle does not change through the evolution of the jet.
* The maximum of polarisation decreases with $`E_{iso}`$. The larger $`\theta _o`$, the larger is the visible area when $`\theta _o=1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the observer sees simultaneously the bright spine and the very dim wings so that the asymmetry is bigger.

#### 4.2.1 Multiwaveband polarisation

In Fig. 15 we compare polarisation curves (lower panel) for the same jet configuration (the lightcurves are shown in the upper panel) observed at $`\theta _o=3\theta _c`$ in different spectral ranges: $`\nu _a<\nu _o<\nu _m`$, $`\nu _m<\nu _o<\nu _c`$ and $`\nu _c<\nu _o`$. In the following we refer to them as defined in §3.3.4. The polarisation in the radio branch is significantly smaller than in the optical and $`X`$-ray bands for most of the time. As for the HJ (see discussion in §3.3.4), the peak frequency will eventually cross the radio band and the polarisation will increase and shift on top of the curve corresponding to $`\nu _m<\nu _o<\nu _c`$, while the lightcurve will decrease following the optical lightcurve slope. Different from the HJ, the optical flux has an higher degree of polarisation than the $`X`$-ray flux for most of the jet evolution. We conclude that polarisation curves depend on the spectrum and in particular in the radio band where two peaks are generally present and the degree of polarisation is significantly smaller than in higher frequencies bands.

## 5 Gaussian jet

We end our investigation of GRB jet luminosity structures with a brief discussion of the Gaussian jet curves, which present features of both the HJ and the SJ (see also Salmonson et al. 2003).

### 5.1 Presentation and Dynamics

Perhaps a more realistic version of the standard “top hat” model is a jet whose emission does not drop sharply to zero outside the characteristic angular size ($`\theta _c`$). Such a configuration can be described with a Gaussian distribution of the energy per unit solid angle (Eq. 3). In this jet the luminosity varies slowly within $`\theta _c`$ ($`\frac{ϵ(0)}{ϵ(\theta _c)}1.65`$) and it decreases exponentially for $`\theta >\theta _c`$. In principle, the dynamics of a Gaussian jet could be non-trivial due to the fact that, unlike the universal SJ ($`\alpha _ϵ=2`$) and, of course, the HJ matter at different angles does not start spreading at the same radius (in particularly for $`\theta >\theta _c`$); this can develop lateral velocity gradients and transversal shock waves. For this reason we restrict ourselves to the case of a non-spreading jet. This assumption is supported by recent numerical hydrodynamical simulation for a Gaussian jet evolution; they suggest that the transverse velocity remains below the sound speed as long as the evolution is relativistic (Granot & Kumar 2003).

### 5.2 Lightcurves

The resulting lightcurves are shown in Fig. 16. It shows that for $`\theta \theta _c`$ the lightcurves are very similar to a HJ’s ones: the slopes, the values and the behaviour of the break time as a function of angle (see Tab. 3) are consistent with what expected for a NSE HJ seen within the cone (see Tab. 1). On the contrary the break does not become smoother (3rd column of Tab. 3) as the line of sight approaches the edge, like in the HJ but its shape remains rather unaltered. Finally, on average the Gaussian jet has a less sharp break in the lightcurve. This is in agreement with previous calculations (Granot & Kumar 2003). For $`\theta >2\theta _c`$ instead the pre-break slope becomes flatter and flatter and for $`\theta 8\theta _c`$ it becomes positive; in this latter case the lightcurve is actually dominated by the emission coming from the core.

### 5.3 Polarisation curves

The polarisation curves present intermediate characteristics between the HJ and the SJ ones (Fig 17). The absence of edges and the presence of a symmetric luminosity gradient with respect to the jet axis, produce (as in the case of a SJ) a one-peak curve with a constant polarisation angle. On the other hand, the exponential decrease of luminosity outside the core makes the relation between polarisation curve and lightcurve more close to the HJ’s one: the peak is located after the break time in the total flux. As the viewing angle increases, especially for $`\theta _o>\theta _c`$ the maximum in the lightcurve moves torwards $`t=t_b`$, but eventually the core starts to dominate the lightcurve since early times because of the exponential luminosity distribution and the polarisation curves resembles that of an orphan afterglow.

## 6 Comparison and Discussion

The previous sections confirm what first claimed in RLR02: the lightcurves of a HJ and of SJ with $`\alpha _ϵ=2`$ are very similar but their intrinsic features depend on the viewing angle for the SJ and on the opening angle for the HJ. On the other hand the polarisation curves are completely different. These characteristics are the direct consequences of an energy distribution $`ϵ\theta ^2`$: the lightcurve is dominated by the line of sight emission while (for any $`\alpha _ϵ`$) the polarisation curve is dominated by the emission coming from an angle $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with the line of sight. This means that the total flux we receive does not bear footprints of the jet structure while the observed polarisation does. In Fig. 18 we directly compare the lightcurves and the polarisation curves from HJ and SJ with $`E_{iso}(\theta _o)=E_{iso}`$ and $`\theta _{jet}=2\theta _o`$. These are the parameters for which their lightcurves are more similar. We also show the lightcurve and polarisation curve for a Gaussian jet with $`E_{iso}(\theta _o)=E_{iso}`$ and $`\theta _c0.6\theta _{jet}`$.

### 6.1 Lightcurves

Fig. 18 (upper panel) summarises the comparison discussed §4.1 and §5.2 among the characteristics of the lightcurves of the three jet structures. In particular it should be noticed the flattening before the break, present in the SJ lightcurve and the almost perfect match between the HJ and GJ lightcurves (the GJ lightcurve has been divided by a factor 2 or it would be overlaid don the HJ one). The pre-break bump is actually the only sign of the underlying jet structure: when $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }\theta _o`$ and the lightcurve breaks, the jet core is also visible and its contribution gives that flux excess that we perceive as a flattening. The larger is the viewing angle the smaller is $`E_{iso}`$ and more prominently the core out-shines the line of sight flux at the break. Some authors claimed (e.g. Granot & Kumar 2003) that this feature can used to discriminate between the HJ and the SJ. However the shape and the intensity of the flattening depends on how the wings and the core join together and this is a free parameter ($`\beta _ϵ`$). Consequently comparing the model with observations provides a way to fix the shape of the energy distribution but not a way to test the model itself. Besides the pre-break flattening the temporal behaviour of the lightcurves plotted in Fig. 18 is identical and for this reason the same data can be fitted with any of the three models (e.g Panaitescu & Kumar 2003, for SJs and HJs).

### 6.2 Polarisation curves

The comparison in Fig. 18 (lower panel) clearly shows the main differences between the polarisation curves of a SJ, of a GJ and of a HJ:

* Different behaviour from the beginning.

The HJ and GJ do not display polarisation at early times but only when the visible area intersects the edge of the jet and an asymmetry is present. However, the SJ shows, from the beginning, regions with different luminosity within $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from the line of sight and therefore we observe a non zero, albeit small, degree of polarisation even at very early times.
* Different evolution of the polarisation angle: $`90^{}`$ rotation vs constant

The polarisation angle for an HJ rotates by $`90^{}`$ at $`t_b`$; this is because opposite parts of the jet dominate the total polarisation when $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ overtakes the nearer edge and when it reaches the furtherest one. For a jet seen off-axis the break in the lightcurve is not sharp (§3.1.1) and the time break $`t_b`$ occurs roughly when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta _o+\theta _{jet})/2`$, midway between the two edges. That is why the change in the polarisation angle corresponds to the jet break. This behaviour is observed for any off-axis angle, for all sideways expansions considered in this paper. On the other hand in the SJ and GJ the same spot (towards the core) always dominates the total polarisation and consequently the angle remains constant.
* Different number of peaks: 2 vs 1

The HJ has two peaks in the polarisation lightcurve, with the second always higher than the first. This is of course related to the presence of the two edges of the jet that are the source of the asymmetry within the visible area (Fig. 1 and 2 GL99). The SJ has only one maximum when the observer sees light coming from the core at $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from the line of sight. This is when a break occurs in the lightcurve and the polarised flux is almost completely dominated by the flux coming from the more powerful region of the jet. The behaviour of the GJ is in between: the polarisation angle is constant as for a SJ, but the polarisation peak is delayed with respect to the break time, as in a HJ.

## 7 Conclusions

We have presented a thorough analysis of light and polarisation curves from GRB jets. Our study is based on codes that numerically integrate the jet equations taking into account the equal arrival time surfaces and the finite width of the radiating shell. We initially concentrate on homogeneous jets, pointing out some features of the jet evolution which had been overlooked in previous works. In particular we underline the difficulty of measuring the break time and the electron energy distribution index $`p`$ modelling the lightcurve with a SBP; we also point out that in the non-relativistic regime the usually assumed Sedov-Taylor solution could be not correct when applied to narrow jets. Concerning polarisation, we find the presence of only two peaks in the polarisation curve, for any off-axis angle and for any sideway expansion velocity considered so far in literature.

The main result of this paper is that the polarisation temporal behaviour is found to be very sensitive to the luminosity distribution of the outflow unlike the total flux curve. We have achieved the goal of calculating, for the first time, the polarisation from a universal structure jet and from a Gaussian jet and performing a comparison (of both lightcurves and polarisation curves) with what is predicted by the standard jet model.

In particular the derivation of the light and polarisation curves for structured jets has been performed under several assumption for the dynamics. For simplicity we study only a non-spreading GJ. Our numerical lightcurves confirm the previous conclusion (RLR02; Granot & Kumar 2003; Kumar & Granot 2003; Salmonson 2003) that, based on the lightcurve properties, it is extremely hard to infer the structure of the jet. Polarisation curves, on the other hand, are extremely different. Since the brightest part of the jet is always on the same side for structured (SJ and GJ) outflows, the position angle of polarisation remains constant throughout the whole evolution. In addition, for a SJ the polarisation peaks coincident in time with the jet break in the light curve, which instead corresponds to the time of minimum polarisation in homogeneous jets. The exponential wings in a GJ, however, shift the position of the peak after the break in the lightcurve, a feature that marks the difference between the GJ and the SJ predicted polarisation. We should however stress that due to the many uncertainties inherent in the derivation of polarisation curves, it is hardly possible to use them to measure in a fine way the energy distribution of the jet (e.g. tell a $`ϵ\theta ^2`$ structured jet from a $`ϵ\theta ^{2.5}`$ one). What polarisation can robustly determine is whether the energy distribution in the jet is uniform or centrally concentrated. Alternative approaches, such as the observed luminosity function (RLR02) are also important to further constrain the jet profile, even though the data seem not to be accurate enough at this stage (Perna et al. 2003; Nakar et al. 2004).

Finally we present unprecedented polarisation curves corresponding to different spectral branches, both for a HJ and for a SJ: we find a spectral dependence of the degree of polarisation and we expect changes in the temporal behaviour of the polarised fluxes (in all bands but in particular in the radio band) associated with spectral breaks in the lightcurve.

It should be emphasised that these results hold in the absence of inhomogeneities in the external medium and/or in the luminosity distribution within the jet (other than $`ϵ\theta ^{\alpha _ϵ}`$). Any breaking in the fireball symmetry causes random fluctuations of both the value and the angle of the polarisation vector (Granot & Königl 2003; Lazzati et al. 2003; Nakar & Oren 2004). In the lightcurve the main consequence is the presence of bumps and wiggles on top of the regular power-law decay (e.g. Lazzati et al. 2002; Nakar, Piran & Granot 2003). Actually a complex behaviour for the lightcurve has always been observed so far together with a peculiar polarisation curve, such as in GRB 021004 (Rol et al. 2003, Lazzati et al. 2003) and in GRB 030329 (Greiner et al. 2003). On the other hand GRB 020813 presents an extremely smooth lightcurve (Gorosabel et al. 2004; Laursen & Stanek 2003) associated with a very well sampled polarisation curve (Gorosabel et al. 2004) that is characterised by a constant position angle and a smoothly decreasing degree of polarisation. This burst is thus particularly suited for a proper comparison with data of the models described in this paper. Lazzati et al. (2004) has performed the modelling of the polarisation curve according to several models (including all the models considered here) and they find that the structured model can successfully reproduce the data and it can predict the jet-break time in agreement with what measured in the lightcurve.

Further complication can arise from the presence of a second non negligible coherent component of the magnetic field in the ISM. Our results have been obtained assuming that the magnetic field responsible for the observed synchrotron emission is the one generated at the shock (thus tangled at small scales). This is a reasonable assumption since the compression of a standard interstellar field is far too low to produce the observed radiation. However if the burst explodes in a pre-magnetised environment or if the jet is magnetic dominated and the field advected from the source survives till the afterglow phase, then the polarisation curve will be the result of the relative strength of the two components of the magnetic field. Granot & Königl (2003) have discussed the polarisation curve in the former case for an homogeneous jet propagating through a magnetic wind bubble.

Finally the intrinsic polarisation curve of the afterglow can be affected by the dust present both in the Milky Way and in the host galaxy. Lazzati et al. 2003 discuss the modification of the transmitted polarised vector and they show that in GRB 021004 a sizable fraction of the observed polarised flux is likely due to Galactic selective extinction.

Despite the difficulties inherent to polarisation observations and modelling (Lazzati et al. 2004), we believe that polarimetric studies are of great importance in determining the structure of GRB outflows.

## Acknowledgements

We thank Martin J. Rees for useful and stimulating discussions and Jonatan Granot for numerous interaction and comparisons between our results. ER thanks the Isaac Newton and PPARC studentships for financial support. DL acknowledges support from the PPARC postdoctoral fellowship PPA/P/S/2001/00268.


format: text

text:
# Acceleration of particles in pulsar magnetosphere and the X-ray radiation

## 1 Introduction

The number of single X-ray pulsars and the radio pulsars which have been detected in X-ray with characteristic time ($`\tau `$) up to 106 yr located at distances less than 7 kpc from the Sun together with 2 pulsars in Magellanic Clouds is 33. These pulsars have been observed in 0.1-2.4 keV band (Becker & Trumper 1997; Becker & Aschenbach 2002) and in 2-10 keV band (Possenti et al. 2002) and all the available data have been collected, revised and put together in Table 1. All of these pulsars have rate of rotational energy loss Ė$`>`$3$`\times `$1034 erg/s. Nine of these 33 pulsars are connected to F-type supernova remnants (SNRs) and 8 of them are connected to C-type SNRs. Therefore, there exist pulsar wind nebulae (PWNe) near these 17 pulsars which are located at d$`<`$7 kpc. Three pulsars are connected to S-type SNRs and 3 other pulsars are connected to SNRs for which the morphological type is not known. Ten pulsars with detected X-ray radiation are not connected to SNRs and 6 of them have characteristic ages 2$`\times `$105$`<`$$`\tau `$$`<`$106 yr. Among the 33 pulsars, 2 of them are X-ray pulsars from which radio radiation has not been observed and they are connected to SNRs (pulsar J1846-0258 to SNR G29.7-0.3 and pulsar J1811-1925 to SNR G11.2-0.3). Radio pulsar J1646-4346 (d=4.51 kpc) which is connected to C-type SNR G341.2+0.9 but not observed in X-ray is also included in the list. Apart from these sources, we have also included 14 radio pulsars with Ė$`>`$4$`\times `$1035 erg/s, Ṗ$`>`$10-15 s/s and d$``$7 kpc in Table 1. Also, 6 single millisecond pulsars from which X-ray radiation have been observed are displayed in Table 1.

The main aim in this work is to analyse the conditions which are necessary for the acceleration of relativistic particles, the X-ray radiation produced in the magnetospheres of pulsars and their PWNe.

## 2 Dependence of the ejection of relativistic particles on different parameters of pulsars

As known, very young pulsars have the capability to eject relativistic particles. Power and spectra of particles must be related to different parameters of pulsars, particulary to the induced electric field intensity of which it is practically impossible to find the exact expression, because there are large uncertainties in the magnetic field structures of neutron stars in plasma. Therefore, we use the simplified relation

$$E_{el}=\frac{B_rR}{P}$$
(1)
(Lipunov 1992). Here, R is the radius, Br is the real value of the magnetic field intensity on the pole, P is the spin period of the neutron star and c is the speed of light. Naturally, number and energy spectra of relativistic particles also depend on the conditions in the atmospheres of neutron stars (density and temperature). Independent of the mechanism, the rate of rotational energy loss (Ė) depends only on the moment of inertia (I), the spin period and the time derivative of the spin period (Ṗ)

$$\dot{E}=\frac{4\pi ^2I\dot{P}}{P^3}.$$
(2)
If we assume that practically the rate of rotational energy loss is connected only to magnetodipole radiation (Lipunov 1992; Lyne & Graham-Smith 1998), then the value of the effective magnetic field B=Br and

$$\dot{E}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{\mu ^2\omega ^4}{c^3}=\frac{32\pi ^4}{3c^3}\frac{B^2R^6}{P^4}$$
(3)
where $`\mu `$ is the magnetic moment of neutron star. From expressions (1) and (3) we get

$$\dot{E}=\frac{2\pi ^2}{3c}\frac{R^4}{P^2}E_{el}^2.$$
(4)
As seen from this equation, Ė is directly proportional to Eel2 and inversely proportional to P2.

From expressions (1)-(3), we can get

$$E_{el}I^{1/2}R^2\tau ^{1/2}$$
(5)
from which it follows that the lines of Eel=constant roughly pass parallel to the lines of $`\tau `$=constant on the P-Ṗ diagram (where I and R are assumed to be constant). Dependences of $`\tau `$, Eel, B, and Ė on the values of I, R, and the braking index (n) and also the evolutions of pulsars with very different parameters are examined in detail by Guseinov et al. (2003a).

The existing theories do not give us the possibility to estimate the value of the voltage better than the order of magnitude. But it is exactly known that charged particles can be pulled out from the hot atmosphere of pulsar because of the large value of Eel and they can be accelerated. Further acceleration can take place in the field of the magnetodipole wave (Lipunov 1992). Which of these mechanisms is mainly responsible for the acceleration must be determined from the observational data. It may be the case that the voltage creates only basis for further acceleration of particles similar to the case of the Maxwell tail of hot particles (or particles which have already been accelerated with some other mechanism) in the shock fronts of SNRs. In the regular acceleration models (Bell 1978a, 1978b, Krymsky 1977), the further acceleration of particles with high energy takes place under the crossing through the shock fronts of SNRs (Allakhverdiev et al. 1986). Therefore, it is necessary to analyse the observational data.

## 3 How are the observational data related to the theoretical idea?

From the observations of the radio and X-ray radiation of neutron stars with power-law spectra (excluding the cooling radiation of neutron stars), there is direct evidence for continuing particle acceleration. Such X-ray radiation have been observed, for example, from pulsars J1856+0113 and J1801-2451 which have PWNe and have values of Ė$``$(4-5)$`\times `$1035 erg/s and 2.5$`\times `$1036 erg/s, respectively. On the other hand, millisecond pulsars J1939+2134 and J1824-2452 with Ė$``$(1-2)$`\times `$1036 erg/s also have similar X-ray radiation as the previous pulsars. As seen in Table 1, these pulsars, beginning from J1856+0113, have values of X-ray radiation 1033, 1.5$`\times `$1033, 5$`\times `$1032, and 3.6$`\times `$1033 erg/s, respectively, in the 2-10 keV band (Possenti et al. 2002; Becker & Aschenbach 2002). We have estimated the ratio ($`\frac{\dot{P}}{P}`$)1/2$``$$`\tau `$-1/2 from the dependence of Eel (see expression (5)) for pulsars J1856+0113, J1801-2451, J1939+2134, and J1824-2452 and we have found the values 9$`\times `$10-7, 10-6, 7$`\times `$10-9, and 3$`\times `$10-8 s-1/2, respectively. If in all these four cases the values of radius and moment of inertia of the pulsars are approximately the same, then the values of the electric field intensity may also have approximately the same ratios.

In Figure 1, dependence of the X-ray luminosity in 2-10 keV band (L2-10keV) on the value of Ė for the single pulsars with distances up to 5 kpc from the Sun together with 2 pulsars in the Magellanic Clouds (see Table 1) is represented. As seen in Figure 1, pulsars J1856+0113 and J1801-2451 have Ė values similar to single millisecond pulsars J1824-2452 and J1939+2134, and their Ė values are more than 300 times greater than their X-ray luminosities in 2-10 keV band. Therefore, the luminosity of the power-law X-ray radiation (which includes the radiation of the relativistic particles in the Coulomb and magnetic fields) mainly depends on the value of Ė. How can this approach be confirmed also for other pulsars based on the observational data?

Since we are interested in the acceleration of particles, we have chosen the pulsars for which L2-10keV/L0.1-2.4keV$`>`$1, so that, we avoid the errors connected to the interstellar absorption and the radiation related with the cooling of neutron stars. As seen from Table 1, these conditions are not satisfied for the last 4 pulsars with log $`\tau `$=9.58-9.86 which are also displayed in Figure 1. But they are very close to the Sun and very old, therefore they do not create any difficulties. All the young pulsars shown in Figure 1 have not only hard spectra but also have PWNe. As seen from the equation of the best fit

$$L_{210keV}=10^{19.46\pm 3.32}\dot{E}^{1.45\pm 0.09}$$
(6)
there exists well a dependence between L2-10keV and Ė for which the radiation is related with the accelerated particles.

In Figure 2, the relation between L2-10keV and the characteristic time of the same pulsars shown in Figure 1 is represented. As seen from the figure, a single dependence for both the young and the old pulsar populations does not exist (see also Possenti et al. 2002). Pulsars with similar values of L2-10keV and Ė may have very different values of characteristic time and this leads to different dependences for each population. As their ages increase, the young pulsars continue to move practically along the same direction on the Lx-$`\tau `$ diagram. Therefore, the electric field intensity does not determine the intensity and maybe also the spectra of the relativistic particles. These mainly depend on the value of Ė, whereas, large values of Eel mainly trigger the acceleration of particles.

As seen from Figure 1 and expression (6), as Ė decreases the X-ray luminosity of pulsars also decreases. So, in order to have the probability to observe X-ray radiation from a pulsar to be high for a fixed value of Eel, the P value of the pulsar must be small (see expression (4)). On the other hand, as seen from Figure 1 and Table 1, the Lx values of the young pulsars which are connected to SNRs are $``$5 orders of magnitude larger than the Lx values of old ms pulsars and this is also seen from expression (6). This must be the result of small number of relativistic and non-relativistic charged particles in the magnetospheres of ms pulsars.

As seen from Figure 2, the difference in the $`\tau `$ values of very old ms pulsars ($`\tau `$$`>`$109 yr) and young pulsars is about 5.5 orders of magnitude (and from expression (5) the difference in the Eel2 values is also about 5.5 orders of magnitude). The differences in the Ė values is about 3-3.5 orders and in the P values is on average 2.5 orders of magnitude. Considering that the expression for Eel can only roughly be determined as mentioned above, these data show that the relation between Ė, Eel and P in expression (4) is valid.

In order to tear off particles from the surface of neutron star it is necessary to have large values of Eel. The occurence of this process must be easier under the existence of hot and extended atmosphere. Therefore, the values of mass and age of pulsars must also have important roles in the formation of the X-ray emission.

If the braking index n is constant along all the evolutionary tracks, then the age of the pulsar is

$$t=\frac{P}{(n1)\dot{P}}(1(\frac{P_0}{P})^{n1})=\tau \times (1(\frac{P_0}{P})^{n1}).$$
(7)
For the young pulsars P0 (the initial spin period of pulsar) can be assumed to be much less than P, so that, $`\tau `$ can approximately be equal to the age. For recycled ms pulsars, the P value can be comparable to the P0 value (the period which the radio pulsar is born with), so that $`\tau `$ can be several times larger than the age. For our purposes such a difference is not significant since it is enough to know the order of magnitude of the age which is much longer than the cooling time.

As the last 4 pulsars displayed in Table 1 with Ė values close to 3$`\times `$1033 erg/s can emit X-ray, all of the single old ms pulsars with Ė$`>`$3$`\times `$1033 erg/s must also have X-ray radiation. On the other hand, all the 5 old ms pulsars with P$``$6 ms which are located up to $``$0.5 kpc (ATNF 2003; Guseinov et al. 2002) have been detected in X-ray (Possenti et al. 2002; Becker & Aschenbach 2002). Since the number density of old ms pulsars is very large compared to the number density of low mass X-ray binaries, the ages of these pulsars must not be much less than $`\tau `$ in general. As we see, although the recycled millisecond pulsars are very old, they still emit X-ray because they have large Ė values.

The X-ray luminosities of pulsars together with their PWNe are represented in Table 1. Often, such X-ray luminosity values include both the X-ray radiation coming from the pulsar and the PWN together, because it is difficult to separate the emission of the pulsar from the emission of the PWN. Therefore, the radiation of single ms pulsars must be smaller compared to single young pulsars for equal values of Ė. This must be true also because of young pulsars having large values of electric field intensity and possibly sometimes having smaller masses. Therefore, it is strange that ms pulsar J1824-2452 has larger luminosity compared to young pulsar J1801-2451 (see Figure 1). Actually, the uncertainties in the luminosity values of these ms pulsars may be large.

In Figure 3, P-Ṗ diagram of all the pulsars in Table 1, which have connections with SNRs and/or from which X-ray radiation has been observed, is displayed. As seen from this figure and Table 1, pulsars Geminga and J0538+2817 which is connected to SNR G180.0-1.7 (Romani & Ng 2003) have about one order of magnitude larger values of Ė compared to old ms pulsars, but their luminosity in 2-10 keV band is similar to the luminosity of these ms pulsars. The X-ray spectra of the mentioned young pulsars are steeper compared to the spectra of ms pulsars as seen from the comparison of the luminosities in 0.1-2.4 keV and 2-10 keV bands. The luminosities of J0826+2637 and J0953+0755 in 2-10 keV band are smaller than the luminosities of old ms pulsars, but their Ė values are also smaller (see Figure 3). How can we explain such a situation?

Young pulsars have values of electric field intensity about 50 times larger than the values of old ms pulsars, they are hotter and they may also have smaller masses. These facts create conditions for tearing off charged particles more easily from neutron stars. On the other hand, the magnetic field values of young pulsars are more than 3 orders of magnitude larger (the high magnetic field does not let the particles to escape from the magnetosphere). These and the possible existence of large number of charged particles in the magnetospheres and the surroundings of young pulsars must create the best conditions for magneto-braking and Coulomb radiation. The small values of X-ray radiation of J0538+2817 and Geminga in 2-10 keV band seem to contradict this natural discussion. We can attempt to get rid of this contradiction if we take into consideration the considerably large values of radiation of the mentioned young pulsars in 0.1-2.4 keV band. The large magnetic field and density of charged particles may create conditions under which the energy loss of particles in 0.1-2.4 keV band surpasses the energy which is received from magnetodipole radiation wave for the further acceleration.

The existence of large number of accelerated particles and high values of magnetic field is well a basis for strong radio radiation. The radio luminosities at 1400 MHz of 4 old ms pulsars are about 1-2 order of magnitude smaller than the radiation of young pulsars as mentioned above. The synchrotron radiation of electrons in unit time is proportional to the value of B. As magnetic field of ms pulsars is $``$3 orders of magnitude smaller than the considered young pulsars, the magnetosphere of ms pulsars must contain more than 1 order of magnitude more ultrarelativistic particles compared to the magnetosphere of young pulsars. This comes from the comparison of the intensity of the radio radiation. On the other hand, the maximum radiation at the given frequency is $``$BE2, where E is the electron energy. Therefore, the energy of electrons which is responsible for the radiation at 1400 MHz in the case of ms pulsars is also large. This shows that the acceleration of charged particles takes place in the field of magnetodipole radiation wave and number density of the charged particles, which interact with the accelerated particles, in the atmosphere of ms pulsars is small. So, the cause of the hard X-ray spectra of ms pulsars is understandable.

## 4 Pulsar wind nebulae and pulsars in supernova remnants

Let us now examine the presence or absence of PWN around pulsars and the X-ray radiation. All the pulsars with $`\tau `$$`<`$107 yr represented in Table 1 are shown in the P-Ṗ diagram in Figure 4 denoting also the types of the SNRs which some of the pulsars are connected to. If the type of the SNR is C (composite) or F (filled-centre), then it means that there is PWN created by the neutron star. In S (shell) type SNRs there is no observed PWN possibly because it is very faint. Other pulsars in Table 1 which are not connected to SNRs and which have $`\tau `$$`<`$107 yr are also displayed in Figure 4. All the pulsars with PWN around them have Lx (2-10 keV) $`>`$ 1033 erg/s (see Table 1). The cooling radiation of these pulsars do not have a considerable role.

Pulsars J1952+3252, J2337+6151, and J0659+1414, which are connected to S-type (in radio band) SNRs, have been observed to radiate in X-ray band. Pulsar J1952+3252 has the highest value of Lx (2-10 keV) among these pulsars and one can expect to observe PWN around this pulsar considering also the small distance and the position of it in the Galaxy (see Table 1). On the other hand, the SNR which this pulsar is connected to (CTB 80) is a well known very old SNR. Pulsars J2337+6151 and J0659+1414 have also suitable distance values and positions to observe possible PWNe around them, but Ė and Lx (2-10 keV) values of these pulsars are so small that it is not so likely that PWNe with observable brightness are present around them.

From the analysis of these data, we see that lifetime of the X-ray radiation produced by the relativistic particles in the magnetospheres of neutron stars is longer than lifetime of PWNe (see Table 1). But there may be one exception, namely pulsar J0538+2817, which is connected to SNR G180.0-1.7 (S147). This SNR is S-type in radio band (Green 2001). Romani & Ng (2003) claim evidence for a faint nebula around the pulsar, but in a more recent work (McGowan et al. 2003) no evidence has been found of a PWN and the pulsar has been observed to radiate only thermally. Also, the positions and ages of the pulsar and the SNR show that a physical connection between these two sources is dubious and there are no data directly showing evidence for the connection.

There is another interesting problem: it is known that more energetic particles have shorter lifetime compared to less energetic particles in a PWN. So, one may expect to see the diminishing of the X-ray radiation of PWN long before the diminishing of its radio radiation, i.e. one may expect to observe the PWN in radio band for a much longer time compared to observing the X-ray PWN. We have examined the PWNe both in the radio and the X-ray bands and we have seen that the lifetime of radio PWN is comparable to the lifetime of X-ray PWN based on the up-to-date observational data. So, maybe the ultrarelativistic particles escape from the PWN or the PWN disrupts shortly after the high-energy partisles in the PWN which produce the X-ray radiation come to the end of their lifetime. Also, the X-ray luminosity of pulsars in 2-10 keV band drops down to $``$1033 erg/s at about the same time when the PWN becomes unobservable both in radio and X-ray bands.

From Figure 4 and Table 1 we see that PWN may exist around pulsars with Ė$`>`$1035 erg/s and $`\tau `$$`<`$5$`\times `$104 yr. Pulsar J1646-4346 in C-type SNR G341.2+0.9 satisfies these criteria, but X-ray radiation has not been observed from it because it is located at a distance of 6.9 kpc (Guseinov et al. 2003b). X-ray radiation has not been observed also from 9 far away pulsars with d$``$3 kpc which are located close to the Galactic plane in the Galactic central directions (see Table 1 and Figure 4) and which satisfy the conditions of large value of Ė and small value of $`\tau `$. As seen from the position of pulsar J1617-5055 in Figure 4, it must have a connection with SNR and must have PWN. This follows also from the large values of X-ray luminosity in both considered bands. Lack of observed SNR and PWN must be related with the large distance and the position in the Galaxy. Ages of the relatively nearby pulsars which are displayed in Figure 4 may be smaller than the values of $`\tau `$. Three of these pulsars are connected to S-type SNRs and all of them have small X-ray luminosity.

## 5 Conclusions

From the analysis of all the available data of single X-ray pulsars, their wind nebulae and the SNRs which are connected to some of these sources and also from theoretical considerations we have found the conclusions below:
1. The electric field intensity (voltage) of neutron stars is not the main physical quantity for the spectra, energy, and intensity of the relativistic particles which produce the X-ray radiation of single pulsars and their wind nebulae. The voltage mainly triggers the acceleration of particles. In order to tear off charged particles from the surface of neutron star Eel must be large. This process occurs more easily in hot and extended atmospheres. Therefore, the values of mass and age of pulsars also have important roles in the formation of the X-ray radiation.
2. The acceleration of relativistic particles mainly takes place in the field of the magnetodipole radiation wave. Because of this, the X-ray radiation of pulsars and their wind nebulae strongly depend on the value of rate of rotational energy loss which is reflected by the spectra of the magnetodipole radiation.
3. The high magnetic field and particularly the number density of the charged particles create conditions under which the energy loss of the particles in 0.1-2.4 keV band may surpass the energy received from the magnetodipole radiation wave for further acceleration. This must be responsible for the steeper X-ray spectra of young pulsars as compared to ms pulsars.
4. PWN exists only around pulsars with Ė$`>`$1035 erg/s and $`\tau `$$`<`$5$`\times `$104 yr. Also, the X-ray luminosity of pulsars in 2-10 keV band drops down to $``$1033 erg/s at about the same time when the PWN becomes unobservable in both radio and X-ray bands. The lifetime of S-type SNRs may exceed the lifetime of F and C-type SNRs. So, it may be possible that C-type SNRs can show themselves as S-type after some time in their evolution. PWN must be observed around pulsar J1617-5055.

Figure Captions
Figure 1: Dependence of the 2-10 keV luminosity on the rate of rotational energy loss for pulsars located up to 5 kpc from the Sun including also 2 pulsars in Magellanic Clouds which are denotes with ’+’ sign. The single strong X-ray pulsar from which no radio radiation has been detected is represented with sign ’star’. Pulsars with $`\tau `$$`<`$105 yr are shown with ’X’ sign. The old millisecond pulsars are displayed with ’square’.
Figure 2: Dependence of the 2-10 keV luminosity on characteristic time for pulsars located up to 5 kpc from the Sun including also 2 pulsars in Magellanic Clouds. The pulsars are denoted with the same symbols as in Figure 1. Figure 3: Period versus period derivative diagram for the pulsars which have been detected in X-ray and/or which are connected to SNRs (see Table 1). The sign ’star’ represents the pulsars which have genetic connections with SNRs and the ’cross’ sign denotes the pulsars which are not connected to SNRs.
Figure 4: Period versus period derivative diagram for all 48 pulsars represented in Table 1 with $`\tau `$ $`<`$ 106 yr and distance $``$ 7 kpc including the 2 pulsars in Magellanic Clouds. ’Circles’ represent the 11 pulsars connected to C-type SNRs, ’triangles’ show the 9 pulsars connected to F-type SNRs, and ’squares’ denote the 3 pulsars connected to S-type SNRs. ’Plus’ signs represent the 14 pulsars which are not connected to SNRs and not observed in X-ray. The 11 pulsars which are denoted with ’stars’ have been observed in X-ray but they are not connected to SNRs.


text:
# Radio Emission from the Milky Way

## 1. Historical Overview

In the 1930s and 1940s, the pioneering efforts of Jansky and Reber demonstrated that the disk of the Milky Way was a strong source of radio emission. In the 1950s, a theoretical framework was developed which argued that this emission was due to the synchrotron process — this was soon confirmed when it was demonstrated that this emission was linearly polarized. Over the next few decades, various groups in both hemispheres proceeded to survey the radio emission from the Milky Way using both single-dish and pencil beam surveys, an example of which is shown in Figure 1. These surveys demonstrated that the radio emission from the Milky Way was comprised of three main components: thermal emission from individual H ii regions, synchrotron emission from discrete supernova remnants (SNRs), all superimposed on diffuse synchrotron emission from the relativistic interstellar medium (ISM).

While these surveys provided a very useful basis for identifying and classifying many Galactic sources, the lack of sensitivity and resolution in these data leaves serious deficiencies in our understanding of the populations of radio sources in our Galaxy. Specifically, since SNRs and H ii both trace massive star formation, these sources tend to be clustered in the same parts of the sky. This makes it difficult to identify both small-diameter (i.e. young) and faint (i.e. old) SNRs, important for understanding SNR birthrates and SNR lifetimes, respectively. Many sources are too compact to be identified as SNRs, H ii regions or background sources on a morphological basis alone, and there are too many of these sources to study each object individually at higher resolution and at other wavelengths. Many interesting objects have thus been overlooked, and only later identified serendipitously (e.g. Duncan & Green 2000; Crawford et al. 2001); no doubt many more such objects are still to be found. The net result is that studies based on the Galactic plane surveys of the 1970s and 1980s have resulted in incomplete catalogues, biased demographics and many overlooked objects (e.g. Helfand et al. 1989; Green 1991).

In the rest of this paper, I will discuss the ways in which new surveys are overcoming the limitations of these earlier efforts.

## 2. Synthesis Imaging Arrays

The most important advance in studying Galactic radio emission is that there are now high-fidelity synthesis imaging telescopes in both hemispheres. Most of these instruments have now carried out sensitive surveys of the Galactic plane. The immediate advantage of these observations is that one can image the full field of view of a single antenna element, but can obtain the spatial resolution of the longest baseline and the sensitivity corresponding to the total collecting area. Many interferometric surveys map large regions of the sky simply by imaging individual fields, and then “pasting” these fields together.

One of the most extensive such surveys was the Molonglo Galactic Plane Survey (MGPS) (Figure 2; Green et al. 1999), consisting of an 843 MHz image at a spatial resolution of $`43^{\prime \prime }`$, covering 330 deg2 of the southern Galaxy. While morphology alone does not always distinguish H ii regions from SNRs in such data, a simple comparison with IRAS images allows one to clearly differentiate between H ii regions (which are generally prominent infrared sources) and SNRs (which are usually not detected in IRAS data). In the MGPS, this process enabled the identification of 75 SNRs, 25% of which were newly discovered (Whiteoak & Green 1996). The VLA continuum survey of Becker et al. (these proceedings) is employing a similar approach at higher spatial resolution.

## 3. Single Dish Combination

While the longest baseline of an interferometric array sets the smallest scale detectable in the image, it is often not appreciated that the shortest baseline of the array sets the largest scale to which the image is sensitive. An image made from interferometer data alone will therefore miss large-scale structure, and the resulting flux densities and spectral index determinations will be incorrect. The only way to correct this problem is to map the same region with a single dish. As shown in Figure 3, the single-dish and interferometric data can then be combined to provide a complete picture of the distribution of radio emission on the sky.

The most important demonstration of this process has been the Canadian Galactic Plane Survey (CGPS; Taylor et al. 2003). The CGPS team have gone to great efforts to ensure that at both 408 and 1420 MHz their synthesis data are properly combined with single-dish maps. With such data, SNRs and H ii regions can be clearly distinguished on the basis of their spectral indices alone, while with the proper imaging of structure on all scales, the relationship between individual objects and diffuse emission becomes clearly apparent.

## 4. Wide Field Imaging

A key limitation in surveys carried out with synthesis telescopes is the efficiency with which such surveys can cover large parts of the sky — both the MGPS and SGPS took many years to complete. However, several recent developments have greatly enhanced the efficiency and feasibility of such efforts.

First, some interferometers (most notably the ATCA) employ very rapid source switching, which minimises overheads and enables large mosaics. For example, the test region of the SGPS (McClure-Griffiths et al. 2001) consisted of 190 pointings, 40 snapshots per pointing and 30 seconds per snapshot, resulting in arcmin resolution images of the Galactic plane at a mapping speed of 0.5 deg2 per hour. Second, many arrays now offer very compact array configurations. This allows the $`uv`$ plane to be quickly filled, minimising the number of snapshots needed per pointing. Finally, rather than covering large areas of the sky just by pasting together individual fields, new algorithms utilise the extra information contained in adjacent pointings, which greatly improves the $`uv`$ coverage of the observation (Ekers & Rots 1979). As demonstrated by Cornwell (1988), this technique can be realised through joint deconvolution techniques, resulting in mosasiced images of far greater fidelity than maps generated by the “individual” approach.

Since the linear diameter of the field of view is proportional to the observing wavelength, another way to map very large areas of the sky is to carry out synthesis imaging at low frequencies. For example, the 74-MHz system at the VLA provides a field of view of $`70`$ deg2 per pointing! Despite this obvious advantage, radio frequency interference, ionospheric distortion of the wavefront and the non-coplanarity of the VLA all make low-frequency imaging extremely challenging. A variety of concerted efforts have now addressed these issues, allowing spectacular wide-field images to be produced of the Galactic Centre and other complicated regions (e.g. LaRosa et al. 2000). This has given us the confidence to embark on a more ambitious 74/327 MHz Galactic plane survey with the VLA, which will ultimately cover the range $`15^{}<l<55^{}`$ (e.g. Brogan et al. 2001). Such a project should yield the identification of many new low surface brightness and steep spectrum sources, such as SNRs, pulsars, and high-redshift radio galaxies.

## 5. Polarimetry

The advent of high polarization purity, flexible correlators, and new algorithms have made it feasible to produce wide-field images of Stokes Q, U and V (e.g. Gaensler et al. 2001; Uyanıker et al. 2003). As shown in Figure 4, these images can appear completely different from the distribution of emission seen in Stokes I.

Not surprisingly, these images detect linear polarization from individual SNRs and from background point sources, the Faraday rotation towards which can be measured and can be used to map out the structure of the Galactic magnetic field (e.g. Brown & Taylor 2001). However, in addition to these features, we also see copious diffuse polarization with no counterpart in total intensity, produced by foreground Faraday rotation of the diffuse synchrotron background by warm ionized gas (Figure 4; Uyanıker et al. 2003). Many regions also show significant depolarization, resulting from small-scale changes in polarization position angle produced by turbulent foreground regions (Gaensler et al. 2001). Finally, several groups now see polarimetric structures corresponding to as yet unidentified magnetoionic structures (Gray et al. 1998). These polarimetric studies are thus enabling an entirely new way of viewing the ISM.

## 6. Conclusions

A variety of new techniques are now being employed in surveys of the radio emission from the Milky Way. These include:

* Synthesis imaging surveys, which greatly improve on the resolution and sensitivity of earlier efforts.
* Single-dish combination, which improves the spatial dynamic range and provides sensitivity to diffuse structure.
* Mosaicing and low frequency imaging, which generate higher fidelity images and wider fields of view.
* Polarimetric imaging, which is providing a whole new view of the magnetic Milky Way.

Only with the surveys which are consequently emerging are we finally now obtaining a complete picture of Galactic radio emission and its constituent components.

### Acknowledgments.

The Australia Telescope is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as a National Facility managed by CSIRO. I acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation through grant AST-0307358.

## References

Brogan, C. L., Kassim, N., Lacey, C., Nord, M., & Lazio, J. 2001, BAAS, 199, #126.13

Brown, J. C., & Taylor, A. R. 2001, ApJ, 563, L31

Cornwell, T. J. 1988, A&A, 202, 316

Crawford, F., Gaensler, B. M., Kaspi, V. M., Manchester, R. N., Camilo, F., Lyne, A. G., & Pivovaroff, M. J. 2001, ApJ, 554, 152

Duncan, A. R., & Green. D. A. 2000, A&A, 364, 732

Ekers, R. D., & Rots, A. H. 1979, in Image Formation from Coherence Functions in Astronomy, ed. C. van Schooneveld (Dordrecht: Reidel), 61

Gaensler, B. M., Dickey, J. M., McClure-Griffiths, N. M., Green, A. J., Wieringa, M. H., & Haynes, R. F. 2001, ApJ, 549, 959

Gray, A. D., Landecker, T. L., Dewdney, P. E., & Taylor, A. R. 1998, Nature, 393, 660

Green, A. J. 1974, A&AS, 18, 267

Green, A. J., Cram, L. E., Large, M. I., & Ye, T. 1999, ApJS, 122, 207

Green, D. A. 1991, PASP, 103, 209

Helfand, D. J., Velusamy, T., Becker, R. H., & Lockman, F. J. 1989, ApJ, 341, 151

LaRosa, T. N., Kassim, N. E., Lazio, T. J. W., & Hyman, S. D. 2000, AJ, 119, 207

McClure-Griffiths, N. M. 2001, PhD thesis, University of Minnesota

McClure-Griffiths, N. M., Green, A. J., Dickey, J. M., Gaensler, B. M., Haynes, R. F., & Wieringa, M. H. 2001, ApJ, 551, 394

Taylor, A. R. et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 3145

Uyanıker, B., Landecker, T. L., Gray, A. D., & Kothes, R. 2003, ApJ, 585, 785

Whiteoak, J. B. Z., & Green, A. J. 1996, A&AS, 118, 329