text:
# Collective processes in relativistic plasma and their implications for gamma-ray burst afterglows

## 1 Introduction

According to the model now prevailing (see Piran 2000; Mészáros 2002 for recent reviews), Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRB’s) originate from the dissipation of the kinetic energy of a relativistically expanding fireball, caused by a cataclysmic collapse of a massive star or by a neutron star-neutron star or neutron star-black hole merger event, leading to the acceleration of a plasma of electrons and protons to highly relativistic speed. Part of the kinetic energy of the this expanding “fireball” is dissipated in “internal” collisions between different parts of the inhomogeneous ejecta, resulting in shocks which accelerate particles via the Fermi process to ultra-relativistic energies. The non thermal radiation from accelerated electrons reproduces well the observed MeV $`\gamma `$-ray spectra. At a later stage of the expansion, the fireball decelerates due to interaction with its surrounding medium. The relativistic shock wave driven into the ambient medium continuously accelerates new electrons of the surrounding gas, producing a long-term synchrotron “afterglow” emission.

Although observations are in general agreement with model predictions (see Kulkarni et al. 2000 for a recent review), the model is incomplete, and there are several open issues, which are not properly understood. One is that of the burst progenitor. Several alternative models for the “inner engine” were suggested, such as NS-NS or NS-BH merger Paczyński (1986); Goodman (1986), and the gravitational collapse of massive stars Woosley (1993); Paczyński (1998); MacFadyen & Woosley (1999). Unfortunately, at present neither GRB nor afterglow observations provide decisive evidence in support of a particular model. Nevertheless, the environment may be a clue to the progenitor. Thus, expansion into a relatively uniform inter-stellar medium (ISM) with a number density $`n1`$ cm-3 would be a natural consequence of a “merger” scenario, whereas if the progenitor is a collapsing star, it is natural to expect a much higher ambient density due to a wind ejected by the star at earlier stages of its evolution. The “onset” of fireball interaction with surrounding medium, i.e. at the radius where fireball deceleration becomes significant, typically takes place on minute time scale (in the observer frame) following the burst, at which stage the density of wind plasma is $`n10^4`$ cm-3. At present, afterglow observations typically begin several hours following the burst and do not allow to directly probe the onset of deceleration. Since on a day time scale the fireball expands to a point where the wind density drops to values close to that typical for the ISM, present observations do not provide clear discriminants between the wind and ISM scenarios Livio & Waxman (2000).

A second issue where basic understanding is still lacking is the physics of acceleration of electrons to high energies, and the build up of strong magnetic fields by the GRB collisionless shock waves Gruzinov & Waxman, (1999). The presence of high-energy electrons and strong magnetic fields is implied by observations, yet there is presently no theory based on first principles that satisfactorily explains electron coupling and magnetic field generation. The ignorance is usually parameterized by two dimensionless parameters, $`\xi _e`$ and $`\xi _B`$, which stand for the fractions of shock internal energy density which are carried by the relativistic electrons and by the magnetic field, respectively. Efforts to constrain these parameters using afterglow observations are numerous, and $`\xi _e`$ is typically estimated to be close to its equipartition value, i.e. $`\xi _e1/3`$. However, $`\xi _B`$ is not well constrained by observations, and its estimated values range from $`\xi _B10^1`$ (e.g. Waxman 1997a; Wijers & Galama 1998) to $`\xi _B10^6`$ (e.g. Wijers & Galama 1998; Chevalier & Li 1999; Galama et al. 1999; Waxman & Loeb 1999).

Observations strongly suggest that the radiation emitted during the afterglow is synchrotron radiation. We show here that the modification of the refractive index, by the relativistic electrons and protons, may strongly affect the emission at radio wavelengths during the onset of fireball deceleration, if $`\xi _B1`$. Moreover, we find that, under plausible assumptions on the electron distribution function, the synchrotron reabsorption coefficient may become negative, thus leading to coherent emission from the fireball on minute time scale following the GRB. These collective plasma processes strongly affect the synchrotron spectrum at frequencies $`\nu _R^{}=\nu _p\sqrt{\nu _p/\nu _B}`$, where $`\nu _p/\nu _B\sqrt{\xi _e/\xi _B}`$ is the ratio of plasma frequency and electron gyration frequency.

As mentioned above, currently there is a few hours gap between GRB and afterglow observations. However, the (operating) HETE-II satellite and the SWIFT satellite (planned to be launched at 2003) may allow observations of early stages of fireball expansion, shortly after the GRB, thus providing data on the onset of deceleration. We show below that observations of collective plasma effects in the emission from GRB afterglows will serve to constrain the value of $`\xi _B`$, as well as the parameters of the environment into which the fireball expands, thus providing a handle on both progenitor type and shock physics.

Collective plasma effects on synchrotron emission and reabsorption have been considered by many authors (e.g. Ginzburg & Syrovatskii 1965; Zheleznyakov 1967; Yokun 1968; Crusius & Schlickeiser 1988). Analyses of effects due to a non-vacuum index of refraction are typically limited to the case where the index of refraction is determined by the presence of a non-relativistic plasma. These analyses do not apply to the GRB plasma in which we are interested, where no “cold” non-relativistic plasma component is present. Sazonov (1969, 1970, 1973) has studied the case of interest for us, where “cold” plasma is absent, and the effects are entirely due to the presence of the relativistic plasma. As we shall show, his results are too restrictive, as he infers negative reabsorption only in cases where $`\nu _p/\nu _B\gamma _e^2`$, or in cases when the electron distribution function is very anisotropic. We find that these constraints might be eased, and that negative reabsorption is possible for isotropic distribution functions provided that $`\nu _p\nu _B`$, thus allowing coherent emission for GRB plasma parameters.

In §2 we derive the dispersion relation and the polarizations and refractive indices of normal modes in a highly relativistic, weakly magnetized ($`\nu _p/\nu _B1`$) plasma with isotropic electron and proton distribution functions. The frequency range discussed is $`\nu _p<\nu \gamma _e\nu _p\nu _R`$, where the relativistic plasma may have a strong effect on synchrotron emission. In §3 we show that the plasma strongly affects synchrotron radiation at frequencies $`\nu \nu _R^{}=\nu _p\sqrt{\nu _p/\nu _B}`$, which generalizes the Razin-Tsytovich frequency $`\nu _R`$ to a regime where $`\sqrt{\nu _p/\nu _B}\gamma _e`$ – the regime relevant for us. We note, that although $`\nu _R`$ is commonly quoted as the frequency below which plasma effects are strong, it is typically found in numerical analyses of non-relativistic plasmas that, for $`\nu _p/\nu _B1`$, synchrotron emission is strongly modified only at $`\nu \nu _R^{}`$ (e.g. Crusius & Schlickeiser 1988). We show in §3 that a more careful statement of the qualitative criterion, that leads to the conclusion that plasma effects are strong below $`\nu _R`$ (e.g Rybicki & Lightman 1979 section 8.3), leads directly to the result that (for both relativistic and non-relativistic plasma) such effects are important only below $`\nu _R^{}`$.

Our results are applied to GRB plasmas in §4. In §4.1 we briefly describe GRB and afterglow phenomenology, give a short review of the fireball model, and derive the plasma parameters during the onset of fireball deceleration, considering both expansion into a uniform-density ISM (§4.1.1), and expansion into a wind (§4.1.2). Plasma effects are discussed in §4.2. The implications of our results are discussed in §5.

We note, that coherent radio emission from GRB’s has recently been discussed by Usov & Katz Usov & Katz (2000). The scenario considered by these authors for GRB production, the scattering of ambient medium electrons and protons by a magnetically dominated wind Smolsky & Usov (2000), is different, however, than the scenario we are considering, where observed radiation is produced (both in GRB and afterglow phases) by the dissipation through collisionless shocks of fireball kinetic energy, leading to magnetic field amplification and to particle acceleration. The processes we consider are, thus, different than those considered by Usov & Katz (2000), and the predicted radio emission is very different. For example, while Usov & Katz find power-law spectrum with strong emission at $`<1`$ MHz for strong magnetic field, we find strong emission only for weak magnetic fields and over a narrow range of frequencies around $`0.1`$ GHz (which is more readily observable).

Finally , we note that the analysis presented here is restricted to isotropic electron and proton distributions, and we show that strong plasma effects on synchrotron radiation occur if $`\nu _p\nu _B`$. We note however, that anisotropy may lead to further interesting effects, the discussion of which is beyond the scope of this work.

## 2 Waves in a weakly-magnetized relativistic plasma with isotropic electron and proton distribution functions

As explained in the next chapter, it is the deviation of the speed at which light propagates in plasma from $`c`$ which is responsible for the plasma effects we consider. This implies that we must first obtain expressions for the refractive indices $`n_{1,2}(\omega )`$ of the transversal electromagnetic modes in the plasma. In our derivation of the dispersion relation we restrict the discussion to plasmas under the following conditions : (i) Electrons are highly relativistic; (ii) Rough energy equipartition between protons and electrons; (iii) Isotropic particle distribution functions; (iv) Weak magnetization, $`\nu _p/\nu _B1`$. Afterglow observations imply that (i) and (ii) hold for GRB plasmas. (iii) restricts the discussion to plasma effects originating from the deviation of the refracting indices from their vacuum values. Our discussion is restricted to the weak magnetization case since, as shown in the next chapter, strong effects of the plasma on synchrotron emission are obtained for this case only. Finally, we restrict the discussion to the frequency range affected by collective effects, $`\nu _B\nu _p<\nu \gamma _e\nu _p`$.

The assumption $`\nu _p/\nu _B1`$ allows a perturbative derivation (in $`\nu _B/\nu _p`$) of the dispersion relation. Moreover, in the frequency range $`\nu _B\nu _p<\nu \gamma _e\nu _p`$, the deviation of the refractive index $`n=kc/\omega `$, from 1 is much larger than $`1/\gamma _e^2`$. This simplifies the dispersion relations obtained below, thus allowing analytic estimates. Below we give order of magnitude estimates of the plasma frequency and the difference between the refractive indices of the transversal electromagnetic waves in a relativistic plasma. Exact calculations are given in the appendix, and are used to verify the simple estimates.

As we show in §A.1, the refractive indices of the transversal electromagnetic waves in a field-free plasma are degenerate, and satisfy approximately the relation

$`n^2(\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`1\nu _p^2/\nu ^2,`$
$`\nu _p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi n_ee^2}{\gamma _{e0}m_e}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi n_pe^2}{\gamma _{p0}m_p}}\right]^{1/2},`$ (1)
where $`\nu _p`$ is the plasma frequency of a relativistic plasma. This result is exact for monoenergetic electron and proton distributions, where $`\gamma _{e0}`$ and $`\gamma _{p0}`$ are the associated Lorentz factors of the two species, respectively. Detailed calculations show, however, that the above result is a good approximation to the plasma frequency also for more general energy distributions. For a power-law energy distribution implied by afterglow observations, $`n(\gamma )\gamma ^2`$ for $`\gamma >\gamma _{min}`$, replacing $`\gamma _0`$ with $`\gamma _{min}`$ in equation (2) gives the plasma frequency with accuracy of 1%. Note, that equation (2) is a natural generalization to the relativistic regime of the familiar expression for the plasma frequency, obtained by replacing the particle mass $`m`$ with $`\gamma m`$. Since we assume that the energy of the electrons and protons is approximately equipartitioned, the contributions of the two species to $`\nu _p`$ are comparable.

Once an external magnetic field $`𝐁_0`$ is introduced, the plasma cannot be regarded as isotropic any longer, and the degeneracy of the two refractive indices is removed. For frequencies $`\nu \nu _B`$ the effect of the magnetized plasma on the propagating radiation is small, and the electric field can be assumed to be approximately transversal to the direction of propagation, i.e. $`𝐄𝐤`$. In the appendix (§A.2) we derive the dispersion relation for the waves of transversal electric field. In order to obtain estimates of the refractive indices of the transversal EM modes, we solve the Vlasov equation of a relativistic plasma with isotropic electron and proton distribution functions. The assumption of weak magnetization allows a perturbative expansion of the equation, where the perturbations in the particle distribution functions are assumed to be linear in the external magnetic field, (i.e., the expansion parameter is $`\nu _B/\nu _p`$). This leads to a significant simplification of the formalism. The dispersion relation for the components of the transversal electric fields is given by :

$$\frac{k^2c^2}{\omega ^2}E_i=ϵ_{ij}E_j\text{with}i,j=1,2,$$

where $`\omega =2\pi \nu `$ is the radian frequency of the wave, $`k`$ is the wave-number, and $`ϵ_{ij}`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ dielectric tensor. The refractive indices $`n_{1,2}(\omega )=ck_{1,2}/\omega `$ of the plasma are the square roots of the eigenvalues of this equation. Detailed numerical calculations showed that the values obtained for the components of the dielectric tensor and the resultant refractive indices are not sensitive to the exact shape of the electron and proton energy distribution functions. Specifically, we showed that simple expressions obtained for monoenergetic distribution functions (which are the estimates used below) are good approximations of the more cumbersome expressions obtained for power law distributions.

The deviation from degeneracy of the two refractive indices is the consequence of the non-diagonal terms of the dielectric tensor, which are proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$, where $`\varphi `$ is the angle between the wave-vector $`𝐤`$ and the external magnetic field $`𝐁_0`$ \[eqs. (A5a) and (A9) \]. Hence the deviation is largest for radiation propagating along the magnetic field ($`\varphi =0`$), and vanishes when the direction of propagation is perpendicular to the magnetic field ($`\varphi =\pi /2`$). Equations (A6) and (A10), describing the diagonal and off-diagonal elements of the dielectric tensor, can be used to estimate the difference between the two refractive indices. For the frequencies in which we are interested $`1n`$ is larger, or at least comparable to $`1/\gamma _{e,p}^2`$. This simplifies the algebra immensely. Since we assume that the widths of the electron and proton distribution functions are close, and that energy density in the protons and electrons is approximately equipartitioned, the contributions of the two species to $`\mathrm{\Delta }n=n_1n_2`$ are comparable. Hence, an order of magnitude estimate of $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$ is :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }n\frac{\nu _p^2\nu _B}{\nu ^3}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\nu _p^2}{4\nu ^2}\right)$$
(2)
up to a factor of order 1.

The result $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_{\varphi =\pi /2}=0`$ is a consequence of the fact that our derivation keeps only terms which are linear in the magnetic field, i.e. $`1^{\mathrm{st}}`$ order terms in $`\nu _B/\nu _p`$. If this assumption is eased, and the refractive indices of the ordinary and extra-ordinary modes are used to estimate $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_{\varphi =\pi /2}`$, we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_{\varphi =\pi /2}=\frac{1}{2}(\nu _B/\nu )^2\left[1\nu _p^2/2\nu ^2\right]`$. As will be shown in the next chapter, the frequency at which the plasma has a significant effect on the synchrotron emission is $`\nu _R^{}=\nu _p\sqrt{\nu _p/\nu _B}`$. This implies that for plasma parameters of interest to us ($`\nu _p/\nu _B10^3`$) the logarithmic factor in equation (2) is of order 10. Hence we replace equation (2) with an expression which takes into account the finite $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$ at perpendicular propagation :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }n(\varphi )\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\nu _p^2\nu _B}{\nu ^3}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\nu _p^2}{4\nu ^2}\right),\hfill & \text{if }\left|\frac{\pi }{2}\varphi \right|>\frac{1}{10}\frac{\nu _B\nu }{\nu _p^2}\text{ ;}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}\frac{\nu _B^2}{\nu ^2}\left[1\frac{\nu _p^2}{2\nu ^2}\right],\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
We solved the dispersion relation \[eqs. (A6) and (A10)\] numerically, for two values of $`\gamma _e`$ (920 and $`4.6\times 10^4`$), and for three values of $`\nu _B/\nu _p`$ ($`10^1,10^2`$ and $`10^3`$). These values of $`\gamma _e`$ and $`\nu _B/\nu _p`$ are representative of typical values for GRB afterglow plasmas (see §4). In these calculations we assumed a propagation angle $`\varphi =\pi /4`$. The results agree with the estimate (3) up to a factor of $`2`$. The numerical calculation also confirmed that for parameters in the ranges relevant for GRB afterglows, the discrepancy between the refractive indices of the transversal modes is small in comparison to the deviation of either of them from unity, i.e., $`|n_1n_2|(1n_{1,2})`$.

When the radiation propagates parallel to the magnetic field, the squared refractive indices of the two normal modes may be described by the well-known expressions

$`ϵ_R=1{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _{pe}^2}{\nu (\nu \nu _{Be})}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _{pp}^2}{\nu (\nu +\nu _{Bp})}}`$
$`ϵ_L=1{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _{pe}^2}{\nu (\nu +\nu _{Be})}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _{pp}^2}{\nu (\nu \nu _{Bp})}},`$ (4)
where $`\nu _{Be},\nu _{Bp}`$ are the gyration frequencies of electrons and protons in the magnetic field, and $`\nu _{pe},\nu _{pp}`$ are the relativistic plasma frequencies of the two species, respectively. It is instructive to compare our estimate in equation (3) to the difference $`n_Rn_L`$ obtained from equation (2). When exact equipartition is assumed, and both the protons and the electrons are mono-energetically distributed, $`\nu _{pe}=\nu _{pp}=\nu _p`$ and $`\nu _{Be}=\nu _{Bp}=\nu _B`$, whence $`ϵ_R=ϵ_L=12\nu _p^2/(\nu ^2\nu _B^2)`$. This degeneracy is removed if equipartition is not exactly satisfied, or if the widths of the distribution functions of the two species are different. Since both effects are expected to be important in the case of our interest, we will use equation (3) as an estimate for $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$.

Our calculations imply that non-diagonal elements of the dielectric tensor are smaller than its diagonal elements by a factor of the order of $`\nu _B/\nu 1`$. The latter, however, are independent of the magnetic field, and thus are identical to the values we obtained for a field-free plasma \[see eq. (A5a)\]. As will be discussed in §3, the difference between the refractive indices of the transversal modes is important for determining the polarization of the modes and thus for the calculation of synchrotron self-absorption. However, our estimate of the frequency at which plasma effects on synchrotron emission become significant is not sensitive to $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$. Therefore, as far as estimating the frequency $`\nu _R^{}=\nu _p\sqrt{\nu _p/\nu _B}`$ is concerned, we will use the approximation given in equation (2).

The detailed expressions we obtained (in the appendix) for the elements of the $`2\times 2`$ dielectric tensor $`ϵ_{ij}`$, show that $`ϵ_{11}=ϵ_{22}`$ and $`ϵ_{12}=ϵ_{21}`$ \[see eqs. (A6) and (A10)\]. The assumption of transversality thus implies that the normal modes are always circularly polarized (clockwise and anti-clockwise). To check the consistency of our assumption of quasi-transversality, and to obtain the (elliptical) polarization of the two quasi-transversal modes, we calculated the eigenmodes of the full $`3\times 3`$ dielectric tensor. Following the method outlined in §A.1 \[and described in the paragraph preceding eq. (2)\], it is straightforward (yet lengthy) to obtain expressions for the other elements of $`ϵ_{ij}`$ with $`i,j=1,2,3`$, and *without* assuming transversality. It is possible to show that these extra elements contribute an additional term to $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$, which is smaller than the value obtained from the transversal calculation by a factor of $`0.1(\mathrm{ln}|\nu _B/4\nu _p|)^4\nu _p/\nu _B10^2`$ at small and mildly oblique propagation angles, and becomes comparable to $`\frac{1}{2}(\nu _B^2/\nu ^2)\left[1(\nu _p^2/2\nu ^2)\right]`$, as $`|\pi /2\varphi |`$ approaches $`0.1\nu _B\nu /\nu _p^2`$. Numerical calculation of the plasma normal modes confirmed that for plasma parameters of interest to us ($`\gamma _e=10^310^4,\nu _p/\nu _B=10^210^3`$) the normal modes are indeed transverse to the direction of propagation, and are left- and right- circularly polarized.

## 3 Effects on synchrotron emission

The spectral characteristics of synchrotron emission by a single relativistic electron are determined by the beaming of the radiation emitted by the electron into a narrow cone about the instantaneous direction of the electron’s motion. When the electron is in a vacuum, the opening angle of this cone depends on the electron’s Lorentz factor and the frequency of the radiation. Three regimes should be considered: when the frequency of interest is higher than the characteristic synchrotron frequency $`\nu _c`$ the cone’s opening angle is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta (\nu _c/\nu )^{1/2}/\gamma `$, and when $`\nu \nu _c`$, one obtains the familiar result $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta 1/\gamma `$; If, however, the frequency of interest is much smaller than $`\nu _c`$, one obtains $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta (\nu _c/\nu )^{1/3}/\gamma `$. Next we consider an electron which is embedded in a dielectric medium with a refractive index $`n1`$. Since the speed of light is now $`c/n`$, the opening angle of the cone is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \left[(\nu _c/\nu )(1/\gamma ^2)+1n^2(\nu )\right]^{1/2}`$ for $`\nu >\nu _c`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \left[1/\gamma ^2+1n^2(\nu )\right]^{1/2}`$ for frequencies $`\nu \nu _c`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \left[(\nu _c/\nu )^{2/3}(1/\gamma ^2)+1n^2(\nu )\right]^{1/2}`$ for frequencies much smaller than $`\nu _c`$. When the dielectric medium is a plasma, we use $`1n^2=\nu _p^2/\nu ^2`$. A strong deviation from the vacuum behavior occurs when the second term $`(\nu _p/\nu )^2`$ is comparable to the first term in the square brackets. Using $`\nu _c=\gamma ^3\nu _B`$, where $`\nu _B`$ is the gyration frequency of the electron, we obtain an expression for the frequency at which the plasma collective effects greatly influence the synchrotron emission :

$$\nu _R^{}\nu _p\mathrm{min}\{\gamma ,\sqrt{\frac{\nu _p}{\nu _B}}\}.$$
(5)
The *Razin-Tsytovich* frequency $`\nu _R=\nu _p\gamma `$ is usually given as an estimate to the frequency below which the plasma strongly affects synchrotron radiation. Equation (5) shows that this estimate is not generally valid. We are interested in the regime $`\sqrt{\nu _p/\nu _B}\gamma _e`$, hence for plasma parameters prevailing in GRB afterglows the frequency at which the plasma greatly affects the synchrotron radiation is $`\nu _R^{}=\nu _p\sqrt{\nu _p/\nu _B}`$. It is simple to show that the definition of the plasma frequency \[eq. (2)\] implies that $`\nu _p^2/\nu _B^2=\xi _e/2\mathrm{}\xi _B`$, where $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{ln}(\gamma _{emax}/\gamma _{emin})`$. Typically $`\mathrm{}4`$. Thus

$$\nu _R^{}=\nu _p\sqrt{\frac{\nu _p}{\nu _B}}=\nu _p\left(\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}\frac{\xi _e}{\xi _B}\right)^{1/4}.$$
(6)
An immediate consequence of equation (6) is that for the effect to be apparent we must have $`\nu _p\nu _B`$ (or, equivalently, $`\xi _e2\mathrm{}\xi _B`$). Sazonov (1970) also considered the effects of a relativistic plasma on synchrotron emission. However, he considered only a situation in which $`\nu \nu _c\gamma \nu _p`$, which led him to infer that negative synchrotron reabsorption is possible only for $`\nu _p/\nu _B\gamma _e^2`$, or equivalently, if $`\xi _e/\xi _B\gamma _e^4`$. The result (6) shows that this condition is far too restrictive. However, as will be discussed in §4.2, for the effects to be within the detection range of current radio telescopes, we must have $`\xi _e/\xi _B10^5`$.

### 3.1 The Razin suppression

All the information regarding the response of the plasma to electromagnetic waves (e.g. modes propagating through the plasma, loss and gain, etc.) is contained in the dielectric tensor. Specifically, the strong effect of plasma on synchrotron radiation is a manifestation of the deviation of the refractive index from 1, that is the non-trivial (i.e. “non-vacuum”) structure of the dielectric tensor. The expression derived in the appendix for the dielectric tensor is not complete, i.e. it does not include self-absorption, since we treat the magnetic field perturbatively. Unfortunately, obtaining a complete expression for the dielectric tensor requires solving a kinetic equation for the plasma, a process which may be avoided by introducing the method of *Einstein coefficients*. The application of this method requires that over the length-scale of the wave phenomenon (i.e. the wavelength), the absorption does not change the wave characteristics considerably. Indeed, since we do not obtain the dielectric tensor explicitly, we do not know *a priori* the EM modes which can propagate through the plasma. We must assume, however, that whatever these modes are, the modifications introduced to the dielectric tensor due to the presence of the plasma are dominated by the deviation of the refractive indices from unity, and not by the absorption, that is :

$$\left|1n^{(l)}(\nu )\right|\left|\alpha ^{(l)}(\nu )\lambda \right|,$$
(7)
where $`\lambda =c/\nu `$ is the wavelength, and $`l`$ denotes the mode. When condition (7) is not satisfied one must use a kinetic-equation approach, to self-consistently derive a dispersion relation which incorporates the self-absorption.

Since the refractive index depends on the radiation mode under consideration, we now have to determine the modes relevant to the frequency range we are interested in. Motivated by the insight that in “vacuum” absorption is present, and the two transversal modes share the same refractive index (i.e., 1), whereas, on the other hand, the result obtained above (see §2), shows that when absorption is neglected one obtains a finite $`\mathrm{\Delta }n^{(l)}`$ \[see eq. (3)\], we conclude that the question of determining the relevant modes is resolved by considering whether the following inequality holds :

$$\left|n_1(\nu )n_2(\nu )\right|\left|\alpha _\nu ^{(\mathit{1},\mathit{2})}\lambda \right|,$$
(8)
where $`\alpha _\nu `$ is the synchrotron self-absorption coefficient, and $`\lambda `$ the wavelength of radiation. When condition (8) is satisfied, the normal waves are linearly polarized along and perpendicular to the projection of the magnetic field on the plane of observation Ginzburg (1989). We denote these polarizations by $``$ and $``$, respectively. The power emitted by a single electron is then given by

$`P_,(\nu ,\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}e^3B\mathrm{sin}\chi }{2m_ec^2}}\left[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma \nu _p}{\nu }}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_c}}`$ (9a)
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle _{\nu /\stackrel{~}{\nu }_c}^{\mathrm{}}}K_{5/3}(z)𝑑z\pm K_{2/3}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_c}}\right)\right],`$
$$\stackrel{~}{\nu }_c=\frac{3eB\mathrm{sin}\chi }{4\pi m_ec}\gamma ^2\left[1+\left(\frac{\gamma \nu _p}{\nu }\right)^2\right]^{3/2},$$
(9b)
where $`B`$ is the strength of the magnetic field, and $`\chi `$ the pitch angle.

If, however, condition (8) is not satisfied, one cannot neglect the difference between the refractive indices of the normal modes. We are thus required to consider the two normal modes of the plasma, discussed previously in §2. The normal modes are (quasi-) transversal, and are left- and right- circularly polarized. It can be shown Ginzburg (1989) that half the total power is “converted” into each circularly-polarized normal wave (if we take into account terms up to order $`1/\gamma `$). In this case, the power emitted by a single electron is

$$P^{(1,2)}(\nu ,\gamma )=\frac{\sqrt{3}e^3B\mathrm{sin}\chi }{m_ec^2}\left[1+\gamma ^2(1n_{1,2}^2)\right]^{1/2}\frac{\nu }{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_c}_{\nu /\stackrel{~}{\nu }_c}^{\mathrm{}}K_{5/3}(z)𝑑z,$$
(10a)
$$\stackrel{~}{\nu }_c=\frac{3eB\mathrm{sin}\chi }{4\pi m_ec}\gamma ^2\left[1+\gamma ^2(1n_{1,2}^2)\right]^{3/2}.$$
(10b)
The polarization of synchrotron emission in plasma will be further discussed in §3.3.

If the frequencies of interest are higher than $`\nu _R^{}`$, the emission does not differ greatly from the emission in vacuum. However, for frequencies $`\nu \nu _R^{}`$ the emitted power is dramatically suppressed for both polarization regimes. This suppression is usually called the *Razin* effect.

### 3.2 Synchrotron self-absorption and the possibility of negative reabsorption

Our calculation of the synchrotron self-absorption coefficient $`\alpha _\nu `$ implements the Einstein relations between emission and absorption coefficients. These relations relate the emission and absorption coefficients of photons having a specific polarization state, or, to put it in terms of the previous chapter – a specific mode propagating through the plasma, which we shall denote by $`l`$. Hence also the expression for the self-absorption coefficient is for a specific mode Ginzburg (1989) :

$$\alpha _\nu ^{(l)}=\frac{c^2}{4\pi \nu ^2}E^2\frac{d}{dE}\left(\frac{n_e(E)}{E^2}\right)P^{(l)}(\nu ,E)𝑑E,$$
(11)
where $`P^{(l)}(\nu ,E)`$ is the power of $`l`$polarized photons emitted by an electron with energy $`E`$.

Negative contributions to reabsorption come only from regions where the electron distribution function grows faster than $`E^2`$. Indeed, if the distribution function has regions which are “steep” enough, the self-absorption coefficient becomes negative at low frequencies ($`\nu \nu _R^{}`$). This corresponds to stimulated emission from the plasma, and radiation is coherently amplified as it propagates. For this reason the effect is sometimes known as a *maser* effect.

In order to estimate the “amplitude” of the negative self-absorption, we take the electron distribution to be mono-energetic. Substituting $`n_e(E)=n_e\delta (EE_0)`$ in equation (11), and using the fact that we are interested in frequencies $`\nu \gamma _e\nu _p`$, it can be shown that

$$\alpha _\nu 2\times 10^2(\nu _p\nu _B/c\sqrt{\gamma _e}\nu )\mathrm{\Phi }(Z(\nu )),$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(Z)=2Z_Z^{\mathrm{}}K_{5/3}(y)𝑑y2ZK_{5/3}(Z)`$, and $`Z(\nu )=\frac{2}{3}\nu _p^3/\nu _B\nu ^2`$. The function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(Z(\nu ))`$ has a global minimum at approximately $`\nu _R^{}=\nu _p\sqrt{\nu _p/\nu _B}`$, and its minimal value is $`0.24`$. Substituting $`\nu \nu _R^{}`$, we obtain an estimate of the minimal value of the synchrotron self-absorption :

$$\mathrm{min}\alpha _\nu \frac{10^2}{c\sqrt{\gamma _e}}\nu _B\sqrt{\frac{\nu _B}{\nu _p}},$$
(13)
up to a factor of order unity.

### 3.3 Polarization of synchrotron radiation in plasma

We can now use the estimate of the absorption coefficient obtained above to check the self-consistency of our calculation. Namely, we shall show that in the frequency range of interest, the deviation from unity of the refractive indices dominates the absorption, thus facilitating the validity of implementation of the Einstein coefficient method, as required by the consistency condition (7). In §A.1 we showed that the refractive indices may be approximated by $`n1\frac{1}{2}(\nu _p/\nu )^2`$. Hence, for $`\delta `$function distributions, equation (7) may be re-written as $`10^2\sqrt{\gamma _e}\nu _p^{5/3}/\nu _B^{3/2}\nu `$. Since we are interested in frequencies of order of $`\nu _R^{}\nu _p\sqrt{\nu _p/\nu _B}`$, this condition is casted to $`10^2\sqrt{\gamma _e}\nu _p/\nu _B1`$, which is always satisfied for typical afterglow parameters ($`\gamma _e10^3,\nu _p/\nu _B10^3`$).

Next we determine the polarization of the synchrotron modes in the frequency range of interest for us. We use the estimate (3) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$, and substitute equation (13) for the *rhs* of the inequality (8) with negative reabsorption. After some algebra we find that condition (8) is satisfied only for radiation propagating almost perpendicular to the magnetic field, $`|\pi /2\varphi |<0.1(\nu _B/\nu _p)^{1/2}`$, given that $`\nu _B/\nu _p0.02\gamma _e^{1/2}`$. For typical plasma parameters ($`\gamma _e10^310^4,\nu _p/\nu _B10^3`$) this inequality is not satisfied, and we conclude that the plasma is not isotropic, hence the normal waves at frequencies $`\nu \nu _R^{}`$ are circularly polarized.

## 4 Application to GRBs

This section is dedicated to the study of the application of the results obtained above to the plasma conditions prevailing in GRB afterglows. We briefly review the fireball model, and obtain the physical parameters of the plasma during the onset of fireball deceleration, considering both expansion into a uniform density ISM (§4.1.1), and into a wind (§4.1.2). These parameters enable order of magnitude estimates of relevant frequencies (§4.2.1 and §4.2.2). We then make a short excursion, referring to the issue of the origin of negative reabsorption in relation to the shape of the electron distribution function at low energies (§4.2.3), and conclude the section with a numerical calculation of the resultant spectrum, for various electron distribution functions (§4.2.4).

### 4.1 Fireball plasma parameters during the onset of deceleration

According to the fireball paradigm Paczyński (1986); Goodman (1986), an energetic explosion ($`E10^{51}10^{53}`$ ergs) drives a relativistic blast wave into an ambient gas (the “forward shock”). The expanding shell of accelerated ambient gas approaches gradually a self-similar behavior Blandford & McKee (1976). During the short transition period before self-similarity is established, the interaction between the ejecta and the surrounding medium drives a relativistic shock into the ejecta (the “reverse shock”) Mészáros & Rees (1997), and heats it. The transition to self-similarity occurs on a time scale comparable to the time it takes the reverse shock to cross the ejecta (e.g. Waxman & Draine 2000). The observed radiation is the consequence of synchrotron emission by relativistic shock-accelerated electrons, which gyrate in the magnetic fields generated by the shocks.

Recent data support GRB models where the outflow is a jet (rather than a sphere), with an opening angle $`\theta _{jet}0.1`$ (Waxman, Kulkarni & Frail 1998; Fruchter et al. 1999; Stanek et al. 1999; Harrison et al. 1999; see Frail et al. 2001 for update analysis). The dynamics and resulting light curves of such models differ from those of isotropic expansion models after the jet Lorentz factor decreases below $`1/\theta _{jet}`$. Typically this happens several hours after the main GRB. We, however, are interested in very early stages of the expansion (typically $`10`$ s after the main GRB), and so the analysis we present below, although formulated in terms of an isotropic model, is valid also for a jetted scenario.

#### 4.1.1 Expansion into a uniform-density ISM

Self similarity is established once the reverse shock crosses the ejecta. It has been shown Waxman & Draine (2000) that at this time both the shocked ISM and the heated ejecta propagate with a Lorentz factor which is close to that given by the Blandford-Mckee self-similar solution :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(R)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(F)}\left(\frac{17E}{1024\pi nm_pc^5T^3}\right)^{1/8}=184E_{52}^{1/8}n_0^{1/8}T_1^{3/8},$$
(14)
where $`T=10T_1`$ s is the observed burst duration, which is typically of the order of $`10`$ seconds, $`E=10^{52}E_{52}`$ ergs is the explosion energy, and $`n=1n_0`$ cm-3 is the density of the ambient gas. Accordingly, the electron number density behind the forward shock is

$$n_e^{(F)}=4\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(F)}n=735E_{52}^{1/8}T_1^{3/8}n_0^{7/8}\text{ cm}^3,$$
(15)
(where the prime denotes that this is a quantity measured in the frame comoving with the plasma).

Let $`\gamma _p^{(F)}`$ and $`\gamma _p^{(R)}`$ be the Lorentz factors associated with the thermal motion of the protons accelerated by the forward and reverse shocks, respectively. Then it can be shown Waxman & Draine (2000) that $`\gamma _p^{(F)}\gamma _p^{(R)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i300`$ is the Lorentz factor of the ejecta prior to its deceleration by the ambient gas (and after the production of the main GRB). This result holds for both relativistic and non-relativistic reverse shocks. Since the plasmas behind the forward and reverse shocks are separated by a contact discontinuity, the energy densities in the two plasmas are similar. Consequently we obtain

$$n_e^{(R)}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)n_e^{(F)}=8.27\times 10^4E_{52}^{3/8}T_1^{9/8}n_0^{5/8}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.5}}^1\text{ cm}^3.$$
(16)
Lacking a fundamental theory of Fermi acceleration and formation of magnetic fields by shocks, it is customary to parameterize the fractions of the energy carried by the magnetic field and the electrons by two dimensionless parameters, $`\xi _B`$ and $`\xi _e`$, respectively. We assume that the values of these parameters are similar in the plasmas accelerated by the forward and reverse shocks, as we expect them to be associated with “micro - physics” processes in the plasma. Since energy densities behind both shocks are similar, we then have

$$B^{(R)}B^{(F)}=0.07\left(\frac{\xi _B}{10^6}\right)^{1/2}E_{52}^{1/8}T_1^{3/8}n_0^{3/8}\text{ G},$$
(17)
where we use the normalization $`(\xi _B/10^6)`$ since we expect strong collective plasma effects for small values of $`\xi _B`$ (see §1).

Relativistic shock waves are assumed to accelerate protons and electrons to high energies, giving power-law distribution functions :

$$n_e^{}(\gamma )=K\gamma ^p,\text{for}\gamma _{emin}<\gamma <\gamma _{emax}.$$
(18)
Spectral indices $`p2`$ were observed in cosmic-rays spectrum and supernovae radio emission, observations which were later explained by theoretical work Blandford & Eichler (1987). Numeric and analytic calculations of particle acceleration via the first-order Fermi mechanism in relativistic shocks yield spectral indices $`p2.2`$ for highly relativistic shocks Bednarz & Ostrowski (1998). This result is in agreement with the value of $`p`$ inferred from GRB afterglow observations (Waxman 1997a, 1997b). The maximum Lorentz factor $`\gamma _{emax}`$ is determined by requiring that the most energetic electrons lose energy through synchrotron emission slower than they gain energy due to acceleration by the shock. Normalization then implies

$$\gamma _{emin}^{(F)}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\xi _e\frac{m_p}{m_e}\mathrm{\Gamma }=4.22\times 10^4\mathrm{}_4^1\left(\frac{\xi _e}{0.5}\right)E_{52}^{1/8}T_1^{3/8}n_0^{1/8},$$
(19)
where $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{ln}(\gamma _{emax}/\gamma _{emin})`$. Typically $`\mathrm{}4`$. Following the discussion leading to equation (15), we have $`\gamma _{emin}^{(R)}\gamma _{emin}^{(F)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i/\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$.

#### 4.1.2 Expansion into a wind

We examine here the simplest model of a “wind”, in which the star loses mass at a constant rate $`\dot{M}`$ during an epoch prior to the explosion. Material is ejected radially at a constant speed $`v`$, hence producing a non-homogeneous ambient gas with $`nr^2`$. Using typical estimates for the mass-loss rate $`\dot{M}=10^5\text{M}_{}/\text{year}`$ and for the wind velocity $`v=10^3`$ km s-1 Chevalier & Li (1999), one obtains $`n=\dot{M}/4\pi m_pvr^23\times 10^{35}\left(\dot{M}_5/v_3\right)r^2`$ cm-3; here we used the notations $`\dot{M}_5=\dot{M}/(10^5\text{M}_{}/\text{year})`$, and $`v_3=v/(10^3`$ km s$`{}_{}{}^{1})`$. Once the dynamics reaches the self-similar regime, the Lorentz factor and the radius are related through $`E=(16\pi /9)m_pc^2r^3n(r)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BM}^2=(4\dot{M}c^2/9v)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BM}^2r`$. The physical parameters of the plasmas heated by the forward and reverse shocks are obtained following the reasoning employed in §4.1.1, and so, without further ado:

$`n_e^{(F)}`$ $``$ $`1.09\times 10^7E_{52}^{3/4}(\dot{M}_5/v_3)^{7/4}T_1^{5/4}\text{ cm}^3,`$ (20)
$`n_e^{(R)}`$ $``$ $`6.56\times 10^7E_{52}^{1/4}(\dot{M}_5/v_3)^{5/4}T_1^{7/4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.5}}^1\text{ cm}^3,`$ (21)
$`B^{(R)}`$ $``$ $`B^{(F)}4.18\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _B}{10^6}}\right)^{1/2}E_{52}^{1/4}(\dot{M}_5/v_3)^{3/4}T_1^{3/4}\text{ G},`$ (22)
$`\gamma _{emin}^{(F)}`$ $``$ $`9.78\times 10^3\mathrm{}_4^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _e}{0.5}}\right)E_{52}^{1/4}(\dot{M}_5/v_3)^{1/4}T_1^{1/4},`$ (23)
$`\gamma _{emin}^{(R)}`$ $``$ $`1.61\times 10^3\mathrm{}_4^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _e}{0.5}}\right)E_{52}^{1/4}(\dot{M}_5/v_3)^{1/4}T_1^{1/4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.5}}.`$ (24)
### 4.2 Razin cutoff and synchrotron maser

We shall now use the lessons of the previous three chapters to estimate $`\nu _p,\nu _B,\nu _c`$ (the synchrotron characteristic frequency) and $`\nu _R^{}`$ for the four cases under study, i.e. the ejecta heated by the reverse shock, and the ambient medium heated by the forward shock, in the two fireball expansion scenarios.

#### 4.2.1 Expansion into a uniform-density ISM

The typical Lorentz factor of the ISM accelerated by the forward shock is very high, $`\gamma _{emin}^{(F)}4.2\times 10^4`$, and the number density is $`n_e^{(F)}735`$ cm-3. Under the assumption of a small $`\xi _B`$, the magnetic field is $`B0.07`$ G. The values just stated correspond to the epoch of transition to self-similar behavior. Using the results of the last section, and boosting to the observer frame (multiplying by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$), we obtain :

$`\nu _p^{(F)}`$ $``$ $`2.2\times 10^5\mathrm{}_4^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _e}{0.5}}\right)^{1/2}E_{52}^{1/8}T_1^{3/8}n_0^{3/8}\text{ Hz}`$
$`\nu _B`$ $``$ $`870\mathrm{}_4\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _e}{0.5}}\right)^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _B}{10^6}}\right)^{1/2}E_{52}^{1/8}T_1^{3/8}n_0^{1/8}\text{ Hz}`$
$`\nu _c^{(F)}`$ $``$ $`9.8\times 10^{16}\mathrm{}_4^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _e}{0.5}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _B}{10^6}}\right)^{1/2}E_{52}^{1/2}T_1^{3/2}\text{ Hz}`$
$`\nu _R^{}^{(F)}`$ $``$ $`3.5\times 10^6\mathrm{}_4^{1/4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _e}{0.5}}\right)^{1/4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _B}{10^6}}\right)^{1/4}E_{52}^{1/8}T_1^{3/8}n_0^{3/8}\text{ Hz}.`$ (25)
Since $`\gamma _{emin}^{(F)},B`$ and $`n_e^{(F)}`$ are proportional to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }r^{3/2}`$, we find that (in the observer’s frame) $`\nu _p,\nu _B`$ and $`\nu _R^{}r^{3/2}`$, whereas $`\nu _cr^6`$.

The ejecta heated by the reverse shock is characterized by a lower Lorentz factor $`\gamma _{emin}^{(R)}375`$, but the number density is much higher than behind the forward shock, $`n_e^{(R)}8.3\times 10^4`$ cm-3. In the observer’s frame :

$`\nu _p^{(R)}`$ $``$ $`2.5\times 10^7\mathrm{}_4^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _e}{0.5}}\right)^{1/2}E_{52}^{3/8}T_1^{9/8}n_0^{1/8}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.5}}^1\text{ Hz}`$
$`\nu _B^{(R)}`$ $``$ $`9.8\times 10^4\mathrm{}_4\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _e}{0.5}}\right)^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _B}{10^6}}\right)^{1/2}E_{52}^{3/8}T_1^{9/8}n_0^{1/8}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.5}}^1\text{ Hz}`$
$`\nu _c^{(R)}`$ $``$ $`7.7\times 10^{12}\mathrm{}_4^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _e}{0.5}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _B}{10^6}}\right)^{1/2}n_0^{1/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.5}}^2\text{ Hz}`$
$`\nu _R^{}^{(R)}`$ $``$ $`3.9\times 10^8\mathrm{}_4^{1/4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _e}{0.5}}\right)^{1/4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _B}{10^6}}\right)^{1/4}E_{52}^{3/8}T_1^{9/8}n_0^{1/8}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.5}}^1\text{ Hz}.`$ (26)
#### 4.2.2 Expansion into a wind

While the reverse shock crosses the ejecta, the heated wind particles are accelerated by the forward shock to a typical Lorentz factor $`\gamma _{emin}^{(F)}9.8\times 10^3`$. At that time the number density is $`n_e^{(F)}1.1\times 10^7`$ cm-3, and the magnetic field is $`B4.2`$ G. Then :

$`\nu _p^{(F)}`$ $``$ $`1.3\times 10^7\mathrm{}_4^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _e}{0.5}}\right)^{1/2}(\dot{M}_5/v_3)^{3/4}E_{52}^{1/4}T_1^{3/4}\text{ Hz}`$
$`\nu _B^{(F)}`$ $``$ $`5.1\times 10^4\mathrm{}_4\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _e}{0.5}}\right)^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _B}{10^6}}\right)^{1/2}(\dot{M}_5/v_3)^{3/4}E_{52}^{1/4}T_1^{3/4}\text{ Hz}`$
$`\nu _c^{(F)}`$ $``$ $`7.1\times 10^{16}\mathrm{}_4^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _e}{0.5}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _B}{10^6}}\right)^{1/2}E_{52}^{1/2}T_1^{3/2}\text{ Hz}`$
$`\nu _R^{}^{(F)}`$ $``$ $`2.0\times 10^8\mathrm{}_4^{1/4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _e}{0.5}}\right)^{1/4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _B}{10^6}}\right)^{1/4}(\dot{M}_5/v_3)^{3/4}E_{52}^{1/4}T_1^{3/4}\text{ Hz}.`$ (27)
Since during the self-similar stage $`n_e^{}`$ scales as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^5`$, $`B\mathrm{\Gamma }^3`$ and $`\gamma _{emin}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }r^{1/2}`$, we obtain the following scaling relations for later times : $`\nu _p,\nu _B`$ and $`\nu _R^{}r^{3/2}`$, $`\nu _cr^3`$. However, for earlier times the forward shock expands at a uniform Lorentz factor, and so $`\gamma _{emin}\mathrm{\Gamma }=`$ const., $`n_e^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }nr^2`$, and $`B\sqrt{u^{}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2n}r^1`$. Hence we find that $`\nu _p,\nu _B,\nu _c`$ and $`\nu _R^{}`$ all scale as $`r^1`$.

And finally, the electrons in the ejecta heated by the reverse shock when the fireball expands into a wind have a Lorentz factor of $`\gamma _{emin}^{(R)}1.6\times 10^3`$, and number density $`n_e^{(R)}6.6\times 10^7`$ cm-3. Hence :

$`\nu _p^{(R)}`$ $``$ $`7.7\times 10^7\mathrm{}_4^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _e}{0.5}}\right)^{1/2}(\dot{M}_5/v_3)^{1/4}E_{52}^{1/4}T_1^{5/4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.5}}^1\text{ Hz}`$
$`\nu _B^{(R)}`$ $``$ $`3.1\times 10^5\mathrm{}_4\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _e}{0.5}}\right)^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _B}{10^6}}\right)^{1/2}(\dot{M}_5/v_3)^{1/4}E_{52}^{1/4}T_1^{5/4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.5}}^1\text{ Hz}`$
$`\nu _c^{(R)}`$ $``$ $`2.0\times 10^{15}\mathrm{}_4^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _e}{0.5}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _B}{10^6}}\right)^{1/2}(\dot{M}_5/v_3)E_{52}^{1/2}T_1^{1/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.5}}^2\text{ Hz}`$
$`\nu _R^{}^{(R)}`$ $``$ $`1.2\times 10^9\mathrm{}_4^{1/4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _e}{0.5}}\right)^{1/4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _B}{10^6}}\right)^{1/4}(\dot{M}_5/v_3)^{1/4}E_{52}^{1/4}T_1^{5/4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.5}}^1\text{ Hz}.`$ (28)
#### 4.2.3 The electron distribution function at low energies

As stated in §3.2, a necessary condition for negative reabsorption is a region which grows faster than $`E^2`$ in the electron distribution function. We give here a plausible mechanism which may be responsible for the existence of such a region. Relativistic shock waves are thought to accelerate electrons in such a way that the electron distribution function has a power-law tail extending to high energies. However, there is no satisfactory theory which predicts the shape of the distribution function at low energies. We thus assume that at low energies the distribution function has the simplest possible behavior, and electrons distribute according to the volume they occupy in phase-space, i.e. $`n_e(E)E^2`$. By emitting synchrotron radiation, the electrons gradually lose their energy, and accumulate at lower energies, thus leading to a distribution function which grows faster than $`E^2`$ at low energies. The excess of electrons above the $`E^2`$ power law is sensitively dependent on the details of the distribution function injected by the shock. Consider, for example, an injected distribution function composed of two *pure* power laws \[i.e., $`n_e(E)E^2`$ if $`EE_0`$, $`n_e(E)E^p`$ if $`E>E_0`$\]. This distribution function has a discontinuous derivative at its peak. Synchrotron cooling thus results in an excess of “cooled” electrons just below $`E_0`$, leading to a strong maser effect. This issue will be treated further in §4.2.4.

It must be borne in mind, though, that electrons which are “injected” to the hot plasma by the shock at later times have less time to cool. This leads, in principal, to a significant complication in the distribution function of the shock-accelerated electrons, since the further away from the shock front we look, the “colder” the distribution is, and in general, we cannot consider the distribution function of the shocked plasma to be homogeneous. In particular, in regions closest to the shock front, where the electrons had very little time to cool, compared to the dynamical time, the reabsorption is positive, and thus may obscure coherent emission from regions further away from the shock front. Nevertheless, we have shown numerically that these regions contribute an optical depth of order of few, at most, for typical afterglow parameters; hence the effect of inhomogeneity does not change qualitatively the phenomenon of coherent emission by the relativistic plasma. Furthermore, if one assumes some turbulent mechanism which acts on the dynamical time scale of the system, and “mixes” electron populations which were injected by the shock at different times, one may disregard that complication, and treat the “averaged distribution” function.

It is interesting to notice that a major effect exists even when the low-energy electrons are distributed as $`n_e(E)E^2`$ ! Indeed, there is no negative reabsorption in this case, since $`\alpha _\nu <0`$ requires a region steeper than $`E^2`$ in the distribution function. Nevertheless, the emissivity at $`\nu \nu _R^{}`$ is dominated by the low-energy electrons (since $`j_\nu `$ of electrons with $`\gamma _e\gamma _{emin}`$ is Razin-suppressed at higher frequencies). On the other hand, the absorption coefficient, albeit always positive, is dominated by the high energy electrons, and so starts decreasing at frequencies higher than $`\nu _R^{}`$. Altogether, we obtain a high peak in the intensity for $`\tau _{\nu _R^{}}1`$, and a strong suppression when $`\tau _{\nu _R^{}}1`$, where $`\tau _{\nu _R^{}}`$ is the optical depth at $`\nu _R^{}`$.

#### 4.2.4 Results of detailed calculations

We calculated the emitted intensity for a plasma with $`\gamma _{emin}=10^310^4,\nu _p/\nu _B=10^210^3`$. Following the discussion in §3.3, the normal waves propagating in the plasma are circularly polarized. The intensity of the emitted radiation is given by

$$I_{\nu (1,2)}=j_{\nu (1,2)}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\frac{1e^{\tau _{\nu (1,2)}}}{\tau _{\nu (1,2)}},$$
(29)
where $`j_\nu `$ is the specific emissivity, and $`\tau _\nu `$ the optical depth. The width (as measured in the comoving frame) of the emitting medium along the line of sight $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is typically $`10^{13}`$ cm in both expansion scenarios.

Using a shock injected electron distribution function consisting of two pure power laws with typical afterglow parameters, we verified that the cooling scheme suggested in §4.2.3 results in a maser effect at frequencies $`\nu \nu _R^{}`$. More realistic distribution functions are expected to have a smooth transition region between the two power laws. As an example, we considered the following shock injected electron distribution function (following Gruzinov & Waxman 1999):

$$n_e^{}(z)z^2(1+az^{(p+2)})^1,$$
(30)
where $`z=\gamma /\gamma _{emin}`$. The constant $`a`$ and the overall proportionality factor are chosen such that the distribution is adequately normalized. This distribution function, behaves asymptotically as $`\gamma ^2`$ at low energies and as $`\gamma ^p`$ at high energies, with $`p=2.4`$. We applied the cooling scheme described in §4.2.3 to two sets of plasma parameters : the one, with $`\nu _p/\nu _B=250,\gamma _{emin}=4\times 10^4,n_e^{}=10^3`$ cm-3 and $`\gamma _{cool}/\gamma _{emin}2\times 10^3`$, and the other, with $`\nu _p/\nu _B=250,\gamma _{emin}=10^4,n_e^{}=10^7`$ cm-3 and $`\gamma _{cool}10\gamma _{emin}`$. Here $`\gamma _{cool}=6\pi m_ec/\sigma _TB^2t_{dyn}^{}`$ is the maximal electron Lorentz factor allowing significant synchrotron losses within the dynamic time scale of the system, $`t_{dyn}^{}`$. The first parameter set corresponds approximately to the conditions prevailing in the ISM heated by the forward shock, when the fireball expands into a uniform-density ISM, while the other corresponds approximately to the physical conditions in the plasma accelerated by the forward shock, when the fireball expands into a wind. The results of the numerical calculations are displayed in Figure 1. When the first parameter set is used (Figure 1 *Left*), there is no negative reabsorption, since the cooling is not efficient enough. An increase of $`1.5`$ orders of magnitude in the emitted intensity, compared to the emission in “vacuum”, is apparent, as explained in §4.2.3. On the other hand, the second parameter set, which corresponds to a much lower value of $`\gamma _{cool}/\gamma _{emin}`$, (Figure 1 *Right*) clearly shows the maser effect at frequencies $`\nu \nu _R^{}`$, reflecting the negative self absorption coefficient due to the efficient synchrotron cooling.

## 5 Discussion

We have derived a dispersion relation for transversal electromagnetic waves in a weakly magnetized relativistic plasma, assuming the electron and proton distribution functions are isotropic. The frequency range at which we were interested was $`\nu _p<\nu \gamma _e\nu _p`$. Treating the external weak magnetic field as a perturbation, we have shown that at this frequency range the normal modes are circularly polarized, having refractive indices which can be approximated by the familiar expression $`n_{1,2}^21(\nu /\nu _p)^2`$, where $`\nu _p=\left[(\nu _{pe}^{NR})^2/\gamma _e+(\nu _{pp}^{NR})^2/\gamma _p\right]^{1/2}`$. We have shown that this result is valid whether the electron distribution is assumed to be a $`\delta `$function or a power-law. We have also calculated the difference between the two refractive indices \[see eq. (3)\], obtaining $`|\mathrm{\Delta }n|(\nu _p^2\nu _B/\nu ^3)\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{ln}\left(\nu _p^2/4\nu ^2\right)`$, for radiation propagating at angle $`\varphi <|\pi /20.1\nu _B\nu /\nu _p^2|`$ with respect to the external magnetic field, and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }n|\nu _B^2/2\nu ^2`$ for radiation propagating at larger angles (i.e., almost perpendicular to the field direction).

We next came to consider the effects of the relativistic plasma on synchrotron emission. We have derived an estimate of the frequency at which the plasma effect on the emission becomes significant :

$$\nu _R^{}\nu _p\mathrm{min}\{\gamma ,\sqrt{\frac{\nu _p}{\nu _B}}\}.$$
(31)
This result generalizes the familiar *Razin* frequency $`\nu _R=\gamma _e\nu _p`$ to a regime where $`\nu _p/\nu _B\gamma _e^2`$, which is the relevant regime for typical plasma parameters at GRB afterglows; hence we expect strong effect of the plasma on the synchrotron emission at $`\nu _R^{}=\nu _p\sqrt{\nu _p/\nu _B}`$. Consequently we found that a necessary condition for the collective plasma effects to be observable is $`\nu _p/\nu _B1`$. This ratio was shown to depend only on the ratio of $`\xi _e`$ to $`\xi _B`$, and on the width of the distribution function \[eq. (6)\]. Hence $`\xi _e/\xi _B1`$ is a necessary condition for the effects to be observable.

We applied the above results to plasma parameters ($`\gamma _e10^310^4,\nu _p/\nu _B10^210^3`$) typical to GRB afterglows, and found that for $`\xi _B10^6`$ and $`\xi _e`$ close to equipartition, the plasma had a decisive effect on the synchrotron emission at radio frequencies, during the transition of the fireball dynamics to self-similarity. Two expansion scenarios were considered : (i) a blast wave into a uniform-density ISM with $`n_e1`$ cm-3, where we expect a plasma collective effect on synchrotron emission from the gas heated by the forward shock at $`3.5`$ MHz; (ii) expansion into a wind, where the number density decreases as $`r^2`$, and at the radius at which the dynamics becomes self-similar is $`10^4`$ cm-3. In this case we predict a plasma effect on synchrotron emission from the wind accelerated by the forward shock at $`0.2`$ GHz \[see eqs. (4.2.1)-(4.2.2)\].

Note that plasma collective effects on synchrotron emission below $`\nu _R^{}`$ are expected irrespective of the details of the electron distribution function. This is in contrast to negative reabsorption and the maser effect, which require a region in the electron distribution function which rises faster than $`E^2`$. The energy distribution of electrons produced by collisionless shock acceleration is not well known, in particular at low energy. However, we have shown that for plausible assumptions on the electron distribution function at low energy, synchrotron cooling of the electrons may lead to negative reabsorption. This, however, depends on the details of the distribution function near its peak. We have demonstrated negative reabsorption for a distribution which transforms smoothly (at $`\gamma _{emin}`$) from a $`E^2`$ power-law at low energies to a $`E^p(p=2.4)`$ power-law at high energies, for a certain range of parameters (Figure 1 *Right*).

One should notice, however, that even if the distribution function permits negative reabsorption, coherent emission from plasma accelerated by a reverse shock may be completely obscured by the high optical depth of the ambient medium heated by the forward shock. Thus, for example, when the fireball expands into a wind, certain electron distribution functions may lead to coherent emission from the reverse shock at 1.2 GHz \[eq. (4.2.2)\]. Nevertheless, the maser due to the reverse shock is completely suppressed by the $`10^3`$ optical depth of the forward shock at the GHz frequency range. A similar situation occurs also when the fireball expands into a uniform-density ISM. Note, however, that if turbulent processes disrupt the shock fronts, so that “bulges” of accelerated ejecta lie in front of the forward shell along the line of sight, the plasma effects occurring in the reverse shock may become observable.

Our calculations of coherent emission assumed a homogeneous distribution function in the emitting shell. However, we have numerically shown that even if inhomogeneity due to different cooling times is taken into account, coherent emission would still be observable : the regions close to the shock front, where the electrons have little time to cool, contribute only a positive optical depth of order of few, hence do not obscure completely the maser emission from regions further away from the shock front.

We have shown that for typical plasma parameters the normal waves propagating in the plasma are circularly polarized at frequencies of order of $`\nu _R^{}`$ \[see the discussion following eq. (8) and §3.3\]. Since the difference between the refractive indices of the transversal normal modes is smaller by a factor of $`\nu _B/\nu 1`$ than $`1n_{1,2}(\nu )`$, and it is the latter which enter the equations of reabsorption and determine the amplification of radiation in both polarizations, the resulting optical depths corresponding to radiation in the two polarizations differ by a factor of a few, at most, if the magnetic field is assumed to be constant throughout the emitting shell. This factor is expected to reduce, due to saturation of emitted radiation. If, however, the direction of the magnetic field is assumed to fluctuate randomly on length-scales smaller than the shell’s width, the difference between the two refractive indices also changes signs randomly, and the difference in the amplifications of the two polarization is averaged out. Consequently, we do not expect the observed radiation to have a high degree of circular polarization at relevant frequencies.

A detection of a strong effect in the radio-band at early stages of the afterglow will place a new independent constraint on the value of $`\xi _B`$, as it will prove that it must be much smaller than 1. Since there is a two orders of magnitude difference between our estimates of $`\nu _R^{}`$ in the forward shock in the two expansion scenarios, a flash in radio wave-band during early afterglow stages seems more probable when the fireball expands into a wind. In this respect, plasma collective effects may serve as an important clue to the GRB environment and progenitor type.

EW is the incumbent of the Beracha foundation career development chair.

## Appendix A Dispersion relations of transversal electromagnetic waves in a relativistic plasma

Since the rate of binary collisions is much smaller than the frequencies of interest for us, the plasma may be adequately described by a collisionless Vlasov equation :

$$\frac{f_\alpha }{t}+\frac{𝐩}{\gamma m_\alpha }f_\alpha +q_\alpha \left(𝐄+\frac{𝐩\times B}{\gamma m_\alpha c}\right)\frac{f_\alpha }{𝐩}=0,$$
(A1)
where the one-particle distribution function $`f_\alpha (𝐱_\alpha ,𝐩_\alpha ,t)`$ is defined as the fractional density of particles of a single type in phase space, and $`\alpha `$ denotes a single species of particles, i.e. electrons or protons.

### A.1 Transversal EM waves in a field-free plasma

Let $`f_{\alpha 0}`$ be an equilibrium distribution function, and let $`f_{\alpha 1}(𝐱,𝐩,t)`$ be a small perturbation to it, so that $`f_\alpha =f_{\alpha 0}+f_{\alpha 1}`$. It is assumed that the equilibrium distribution function carries no net charge or current distributions. Since we assume that $`|f_{\alpha 1}|f_{\alpha 0}`$, equation (A1) can be linearized, and we obtain the (Fourier-transformed) perturbation to the equilibrium distribution function

$$f_{\alpha 1}=q_\alpha \frac{𝐄(f_{\alpha 0}/𝐩)}{i\left(\omega 𝐤p/\gamma m_\alpha \right)},$$
(A2)
where we have used the assumption that $`f_{\alpha 0}`$ is isotropic. Here $`\omega =2\pi \nu `$. The transversal electromagnetic fields satisfy Maxwell’s equations

$`\times E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐁}{t}}`$
$`\times B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐄}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{c}}𝐣,`$ (A3)
where the net current is given by $`𝐣=_\alpha \overline{n}_\alpha q_\alpha (𝐩/\gamma m_\alpha )f_{\alpha 1}d^3p`$, the average number density of the particles of the species $`\alpha `$ is $`\overline{n}_\alpha `$, and $`\gamma =\sqrt{p^2+m_\alpha ^2c^2}/m_\alpha c`$ is the particle’s Lorentz factor. We choose a system of axes such that the radiation propagates with a wave vector $`𝐤=(0,0,k)`$ along the $`z`$ axis, whence the transversal electric field is confined to the $`xy`$ plane : $`𝐄=(E_1,E_2,0)`$, and the particle momentum vector is $`𝐩=(p_1,p_2,p_{})`$. Equation (A.1) leads to a dispersion relation for the transversal waves :

$$k^2c^2/\omega ^2E_i=ϵ_{ij}E_j\text{with}i,j=1,2$$
(A4)
where $`ϵ_{ij}`$ is the dielectric tensor :

$`ϵ_{11}=ϵ_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega _{p\alpha }^{NR})^2}{\omega }}{\displaystyle d^3p\frac{1}{(\omega kv_{})}\frac{df_{\alpha 0}}{dp}\frac{p_1^2}{p}\frac{m_\alpha c}{\sqrt{p^2+m_\alpha ^2c^2}}}`$ (A5a)
$`ϵ_{12}=ϵ_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (A5b)
Here $`\omega _{p\alpha }^{NR}=(4\pi \overline{n}_\alpha q_\alpha ^2/m_\alpha )^{1/2}`$ is the non-relativistic plasma frequency of the species $`\alpha `$. The refractive index $`n(\omega )=kc/\omega `$ for the transversal waves is the square root of the doubly-degenerate eigenvalue of equation (A4).

If the electron and proton distribution functions can be approximated by $`\delta `$functions $`f_{\alpha 0}=(1/4\pi p_{\alpha 0}^2)\delta (pp_{\alpha 0})`$, equation (A5a) becomes

$`ϵ_{11}=ϵ_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega _{p\alpha }^{NR})^2}{2\gamma _{\alpha 0}\omega ^2}}x_\alpha `$ (A6)
$`\times `$ $`\left\{\left(x_\alpha ^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma _{\alpha 0}^2}}\right)1\right)\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{x_\alpha 1}{x_\alpha +1}}\right|+2x_\alpha \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma _{\alpha 0}^2}}\right)\right\},`$
with $`x_\alpha =\omega /kv_{\alpha 0}`$, and $`v_{\alpha 0}=p_{\alpha 0}/\gamma _{\alpha 0}m_\alpha `$. It can be shown that in the frequency range of interest, and for relevant values of $`\gamma _{e,p}`$, the second term in the curly brackets of equation (A6) dominates the first term for both the electrons and the protons. This may be used to approximate the refractive index by :

$`n_{app}^2(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _p}{\omega }}\right)^2,`$ (A7a)
$`\omega _p`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \overline{n}_ee^2}{\gamma _{e\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}m_e}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \overline{n}_ee^2}{\gamma _{p\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}m_p}}\right]^{1/2}=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega _{pe}^{NR})^2}{\gamma _{e\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega _{pp}^{NR})^2}{\gamma _{p\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}}}\right]^{1/2}.`$ (A7b)
Both observations and theory imply that in afterglow plasmas the electrons are not distributed mono-energetically, but rather have a distribution function which extends to high energies as a power-law, with a spectral index $`p2`$. However, we have shown numerically that in the frequency range of interest for us, where $`|1(kc/\omega )|1/\gamma _e^2`$, and for relevant values of electron and proton Lorentz factors, $`|1n_{PL}|`$ differs from $`|1n_\delta |`$ by less than one part in $`10^4`$, where $`n_\delta `$ and $`n_{PL}`$ are the refractive indices for the mono-energetic and power-law distribution functions, respectively. Consequently, result (A7a) still holds approximately for a power-law distribution. Hereafter we shall use $`\delta `$function distributions to evaluate the deviation of the refractive index from 1.

### A.2 Transversal EM waves in a weakly magnetized plasma

Let $`f_{\alpha 0}`$ be an isotropic equilibrium distribution function, which describes a plasma in an external uniform magnetic field $`𝐁_0`$. We introduce a small perturbation to $`f_{\alpha 0}`$. Since we are interested in frequencies $`\omega \omega _B`$, we assume that the external magnetic field is small, so that the perturbation is made up of two contributions, one (which we denote by $`f_{\alpha 1}`$) which is independent of the magnetic field, and the other (denoted by $`f_{\alpha 2}`$) which is linear in the magnetic field; thus $`f_{\alpha 0}|f_{\alpha 1}||f_{\alpha 2}|`$. We now linearize the Vlasov equation \[see eq. (A1)\], and neglect $`(f_{\alpha 2}/𝐩)`$ with respect to $`(f_{\alpha 1}/𝐩)`$. Substituting equation (A2) for $`f_{\alpha 1}`$, we obtain (after some algebra)

$$f_{\alpha 2}=\frac{q_\alpha ^2}{\gamma m_\alpha c}\frac{(df_{\alpha 0}/dp)}{p}(𝐩\times B_0)\left[\frac{𝐄}{\left(\omega 𝐤p/\gamma m_\alpha \right)^2}+\frac{(𝐄p)𝐤}{\gamma m_\alpha \left(\omega 𝐤p/\gamma m_\alpha \right)^3}\right].$$
(A8)
Hence $`f_{\alpha 2}`$ is indeed linear in the external magnetic field, consistent with our assumption.

As already mentioned, we are interested in frequencies $`\omega \omega _B`$. For these frequencies the effect of the magnetized plasma on the propagating radiation is small, and the electric field can be assumed to be approximately transverse, i.e. $`𝐄𝐤`$. Our previous choice of axes is convenient for the analysis; without any loss of generality, we choose $`𝐁_0=(0,B_0\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,B_0\mathrm{cos}\varphi )`$. Following the steps outlined in equations (A.1) - (A5a), we obtain the dielectric tensor for quasi-transversal EM waves in a weakly magnetized plasma :

$$ϵ_{12}=ϵ_{21}=i\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{(\omega _{p\alpha }^{NR})^2}{\omega }\omega _{B\alpha }^{NR}\mathrm{cos}\varphi d^3p\frac{1}{(\omega kv_{})^2}\frac{df_{\alpha 0}}{dp}\frac{p_1^2}{p}\frac{m_\alpha ^2c^2}{p^2+m_\alpha ^2c^2},$$
(A9)
with $`\omega _{B\alpha }^{NR}|q_\alpha |B_0/m_\alpha c`$ the non-relativistic gyration frequency. The expression for $`ϵ_{11}=ϵ_{22}`$ are given in equation (A5a). For mono-energetic electron and proton distributions, equation (A9) becomes

$`ϵ_{12}=ϵ_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega _{p\alpha }^{NR})^2\omega _{B\alpha }^{NR}}{\omega ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{2\gamma _{\alpha 0}^2}}x_\alpha ^2\left\{(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma _{\alpha 0}^2}})x_\alpha \mathrm{ln}\right|{\displaystyle \frac{x_\alpha 1}{x_\alpha +1}}|`$ (A10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\gamma _{\alpha 0}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_\alpha ^21}}2{\displaystyle \frac{10}{\gamma _{\alpha 0}^2}}\},`$
where $`x_\alpha `$ has the same definition as in equation (A6).