format: text

text:
# KL-TH/ 02-07 The Jordanian Bicovariant Differential CalculusTo appear in the proceedings of the XXIV International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics, Paris 15-20 July 2002.

## 1 Introduction

It is by now well known that our naive conception of the space-time as a collection of points equipped with suitable topological and metric structures at the energies much below the Planck scale should be modified. One possible approach to the description of physical phenomena at small distance is based on non-commutative geometry of the space-time . In the quantum groups picture  the symmetry is described by noncommutative non-cocommutative $``$ Hopf algebra. The connection with noncommutative differential geometry has been made by Woronowicz  who introduced the theory of bicovariant diferential calculus. This turns out to be the appropriate way to describe quantum gauge theories. In this letter we show that this method leads to a trivial calculus in the case of the Jordanian group $`U_h\left(2\right)`$.

## 2 The Jordanian Quantum Group $`U_h\left(2\right)`$

We recall that there are only two quantum group structures which admit a central determinant on space of $`2\times 2`$ matrices: $`GL_q\left(2\right)`$  and $`GL_h\left(2\right)`$  (the deformation of $`M\left(2\right)`$ was considered and named ´‘Jordanian” by Manin ). The continuous parameter $`h`$ was introduced by Zakrzewski .

Let $`𝒜`$ be the associative unital $`C`$-algebra generated by the linear transformations $`M_m^n`$ $`\left(n,m=1,2\right)`$

.

$$M_m^n=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
the elements $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, $`d`$ satisfying the relations

$`[a,c]`$ $`=`$ $`hc^2,[b,a]=h\left(a^2D_h\right),`$
$`[d,c]`$ $`=`$ $`hc^2,[d,b]=h\left(D_hd^2\right),`$
$`[a,d]`$ $`=`$ $`h\left(da\right)c,[b,c]=h\left(ac+cd\right),`$ (2)
where $`D_h=adcbhcd.=adbc+hac`$ is the Jordanian central determinant. The classical case is obtained by setting h equal to zero. The relations (2) are obtained by applying either the method of Faddeev et al.  namely by solving the monodromy equation $`RM_1M_2=M_2M_1R`$ where $`M_1=MI,M_2=IM`$ and $`R`$ is given in Eq. (6) or the method of Manin  using $`M`$ as transformation matrix of the appropriate quantum planes.

The $`U_h\left(2\right)`$ is obtained by requiring that the unitary condition hold for this $`2\times 2`$ matrix:

$$M_m^n=M_m^{n1}.$$
(3)
The $`2\times 2`$ matrix belonging to $`U_h\left(2\right)`$ preserves the nondegenerate bilinear form $`B_{nm}`$

$$B_{nm}M_k^nM_l^m=D_hB_{kl},B^{nm}M_n^kM_m^l=D_hB^{kl},B_{kn}B^{nl}=\delta _k^l,$$
(4)
$$B_{nm}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& h\end{array}\right),B^{nm}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}h& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),B^{nm}B_{nm}=2.$$
(5)
## 3 $`U_h\left(2\right)`$ Woronowicz Bicovariant Differential Calculus

Zakrzewski  has applied the general construction of the Leningrad School  to the following $`R`$ matrix which controls the noncommutativity of the elements $`M_m^n`$

$$R=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& h& h& h^2\\ 0& 0& 1& h\\ 0& 1& 0& h\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(6)
The $`R`$ matrix becomes the permutation operator $`R_{kl}^{nm}=\delta _l^n\delta _k^m`$ in the classical limit $`h=0.`$

The braiding $`R`$ matrix satisfy the Yang-Baxter equation

$$R_{pq}^{ij}R_{lr}^{pk}R_{mn}^{qr}=R_{pq}^{jk}R_{rm}^{ip}R_{lm}^{rq}.$$
(7)
The noncommutativity of the elements $`M_m^n`$ is expressed as

$$R_{nm}^{pq}M_k^nM_l^m=M_n^pM_m^qR_{kl}^{nm}.$$
(8)
The algebra $`Fun\left(U_h\left(2\right)\right)`$ is a Hopf algebra with comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, counit $`ϵ`$ and antipode $`S`$ which are given by:

\- comultiplication (also called coproduct )

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left(M_m^n\right)=M_k^nM_m^k.$$
(9)
This coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on $`Fun\left(U_h\left(2\right)\right)`$ is directly related, for $`h=0`$ (the non deformed case), to the pullback induced by left multiplication of the group on itself.

\- co-unit $`ϵ`$

$$\epsilon \left(M_m^n\right)=\delta _m^n,$$
(10)
\- antipode $`S`$ (coinverse)

$$S\left(M_k^n\right)M_m^k=M_k^nS\left(M_m^k\right)=\delta _m^n,$$
(11)
$$S\left(M_m^n\right)=\frac{1}{D_h}B^{nk}M_k^lB_{lm}.$$
(12)
With the nondegenerate bilinear form $`B`$, the $`R`$ matrix has the form

$`R_{kl}^{+nm}`$ $`=`$ $`R_{kl}^{nm}=\delta _k^n\delta _l^m+B^{nm}B_{kl},`$
$`R_{kl}^{nm}`$ $`=`$ $`R_{kl}^{1nm}=R_{kl}^{nm}.`$ (13)
The $`R`$ matrix satisfies the Hecke relations $`R^{\pm 2}=1`$ and the relation

$$B_{nm}R_{kc}^{an}R_{lb}^{cm}=\delta _b^aB_{kl}.$$
(14)
Now, we are going to consider the bicovariant bimodule $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ over $`U_h\left(2\right)`$. Let $`\theta ^a`$ be a right invariant basis of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{inv},`$ the linear subspace of all right -invariant elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R\left(\theta ^a\right)=\theta ^aI.`$ In the $`h=0`$ the right coaction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ coincides with the pullback for 1-forms. The left action is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_L\left(\theta ^a\right)=M_b^a\theta ^b.$$
(15)
In the Jordanian quantum case we have $`\theta ^aM_m^nM_m^n\theta ^a`$ in general, the bimodule structure of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ being non-trivial for $`h0.`$ There exist linear functionals $`f_b^a:Fun\left(U_h\left(2\right)\right)𝒞`$ for these left invariant basis such that

$$\theta ^aM_m^n=\left(M_m^nf_b^a\right)\theta ^b=\left(f_b^aid\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\left(M_m^n\right)\theta ^b=f_b^a\left(M_k^n\right)M_m^k\theta ^b.$$
(16)
Once we have the functionals $`f_b^a`$, we know how to commute elements of $`𝒜`$ through elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. These functionals satisfy the consistent conditions:

$`f_b^a\left(M_m^nM_l^k\right)`$ $`=`$ $`f_c^a\left(M_m^n\right)f_b^c\left(M_l^k\right)`$
$`f_b^a\left(I\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _b^a`$
$`\left(f_c^aS\right)f_b^c`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _b^aϵ;f_c^a\left(f_b^cS\right)=\delta _b^aϵ.`$ (17)
Using these conditions, we find from Eq. (4) and Eq. (14) $`f_b^a\left(M_k^n\right)=\left(D_h\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}R_{kb}^{an}.`$

We can also define the conjugate basis $`\theta ^a=\left(\theta ^a\right)^{}\overline{\theta }_a.`$

The left coaction acts on these basis as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_L\left(\overline{\theta }_a\right)=S\left(M_a^b\right)\overline{\theta }_b.$$
(18)
This equation is easily obtained from Eq. (15) by the antilinear $``$ involution using the relations $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_R\left(\theta ^a\right)\right)^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_R\left(\theta ^a\right)^{},\left(M_m^n\right)^{}=M_m^nM_n^m=S\left(M_n^m\right).`$ Then the linear functionals $`\overline{f}_b^a`$ are given by

$$\overline{\theta }_bM_m^n=\left(M_m^n\overline{f}_b^a\right)\overline{\theta }_a,$$
(19)
where the functionals for the conjugated basis $`\overline{\theta }_a`$ is given by:

$$\overline{f}_b^a\left(S\left(M_m^n\right)\right)=\left(D_h\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}R_{mb}^{an}.$$
(20)
The representation with the upper index of $`\overline{\theta }^a`$ is defined by using the nondegenerate bilinear form B:

$$\overline{\theta }^b=\overline{\theta }_aB^{ab}.$$
(21)
This gives

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_L\left(\overline{\theta }^a\right)=M_b^a\overline{\theta }^b,$$
(22)
which defines the new functionals $`\stackrel{~}{f}_b^a`$ corresponding to the basis $`\overline{\theta }^a`$

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_b^a=B_{bc}\overline{f}_d^cB^{da}.$$
(23)
We can easily find the transformation of the adjoint representation for the Jordanian quantum group which acts on the generators $`M_m^n`$ as the left coaction $`Ad_L`$:

$$Ad_L\left(M_m^n\right)=M_l^nS\left(M_m^k\right)M_k^l.$$
(24)
As usual, in order to define the bicovariant differential calculus with the $``$structure we have to require that the $``$operation is a bimodule antiautomorphism $`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Ad}\right)^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Ad}`$. We find the right invariant bases containing the adjoint representation. They are obtained by taking the tensor product $`\theta ^a\overline{\theta }_b\theta _b^a`$ of two fundamental modules. The bimodule generated by these bases is closed under the $``$operation. Using the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L\left(\theta ^a\overline{\theta }_b\right)=\mathrm{\Delta }_L\left(\theta ^a\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_L\left(\overline{\theta }_b\right)`$ we find the left coaction on the basis $`\theta _b^a`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_L\left(\theta _b^a\right)=S\left(M_c^a\right)M_b^d\theta _d^c.$$
(25)
In this basis the left coaction is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_L\left(\theta ^{ab}\right)=\frac{1}{D_h}M_c^aM_d^b\theta ^{cd}.$$
(26)
We can deduce the relation between the left and the right multiplication for this basis

$$\theta ^{ab}M_m^n=\left(M_m^nf_{Adcd}^{ab}\right)\theta ^{cd}=f_{Adcd}^{ab}\left(M_k^n\right)M_m^k\theta ^{cd},$$
(27)
where

$$f_{Adcd}^{ab}=\stackrel{~}{f}_d^bf_c^a.$$
(28)
The exterior derivative d is defined as

$`dM_m^n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒩}}[X,M_m^n]_{}=\theta ^{ab}\left(M_m^n\chi _{ab}\right)`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`\chi _{ab}\left(M_k^n\right)\theta ^{ab}M_m^k,`$
where $`X=B_{ab}\theta ^{ab}=\theta ^{12}+\theta ^{21}+h\theta ^{22}`$ is the singlet representation of $`\theta ^{ab}`$ and is both left and right co-invariant, $`𝒩𝒞`$ is the normalization constant which we take purely imaginary $`N^{}=N`$ and $`\chi _{ab}`$ are the quantum analogue of right- invariant vector fields.

Using (20),(23), (28)

$`dM_m^n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒩}}\left(B_{ab}\delta _m^kM_k^n\theta ^{ab}B_{cd}f_{Adab}^{cd}\left(S\left(M_m^k\right)\right)M_k^n\theta ^{ab}\right)`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒩}}\left(B_{ab}\delta _m^kB_{cd}R_{ma}^{ct}R_{tb}^{dk}\right)M_k^n\theta ^{ab}=0.`$
From (29) and (30) we deduce

$$\chi _{ab}\left(M_m^k\right)=0.$$
(31)
We see that it is a trivial calculus $`dM_m^n=0`$. To obtain a nontrivial calculi we have followed, in a recent paper , the Karimipour  method for our $`4D`$ calculus and constructed a Jordanian trace. This trace has permitted us to define an invariant $`U_h\left(2\right)`$ Yang-Mills Lagrangian. The Jordanian BRST and anti-BRST transformations  can also be carried out and will be reported in a future work.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the D.A.A.D. for its financial support and Prof. Dr. W. Ruhl for reading the manuscript and encouragement.


text:
# The “Supercritical Pile” Model for GRB: Getting the 𝜈𝐹_𝜈 peak at 1 MeV

## 1 Introduction

The longstanding issue of the distance and absolute luminosity of GRBs has been settled in the past decade through the observational evidence collected by $`BATSE`$ (Meegan et al. 1992) and $`BeppoSAX`$ (Costa et al. 1997), while the theoretical work of Mészáros & Rees (1992) and Rees & Mészáros (1992) provided the broader physical framework into which these events seem to generally fit. This framework associates GRBs with radiation emitted by relativistic blast waves (hereafter RBWs), produced by an unspecified todate agent, presumably associated with the formation of a neutron star or black hole. While the source of the energy associated with GRBs has remained uncertain, there remains little doubt about the presence of the RBWs, which power also the later time emissions at X-ray, optical and radio frequencies, known collectively as GRB afterglows (see review of Piran 1999).

With the discovery of GRB afterglows, much of the theoretical activity has since shifted to the study of the physics of these later time emissions. Nonetheless, a number of issues associated with the prompt $`\gamma `$-ray emission, besides the nature of their energy source, still remain open. Chief among them are the conversion of the RBW kinetic energy into radiation and the fact that the frequency at which the GRB luminosity peaks, $`E_\mathrm{p}`$, is narrowly distributed around a value intriguingly close to the electron rest mass energy. The purpose of the present note is to describe a process that provides a “natural” account of these generic, puzzling GRB features.

Following the work of Shemi & Piran (1990) it has been generally accepted that a certain amount of baryons must be carried off with the blast waves responsible for the GRBs. This baryon contamination has even been deemed necessary, else the entire blast wave internal energy would be converted into radiation on very short time scales, leading to events of very different temporal and spectral appearance (e.g. Paczyński 1986) than observed in GRBs . While the low radiative efficiency of baryons is essential for the GRB energy transport to the requisite distances ($`\stackrel{>}{}10^{16}`$ cm), it becomes problematic when demanded that their internal energy be radiated away on the short time scales associated with the GRB prompt $`\gamma `$-ray emission. Generally, this issue is sidestepped by appealing to an unknown process which transfers the proton energy into electrons (Dermer, Böttcher & Chiang 1999), whose radiative evolution could then be accurately computed.

The narrow range of the GRB $`\nu F_\nu `$ spectral peak energy, $`E_\mathrm{p}`$, is another well documented systematic feature of these events, a result of the extensive data base accumulated by $`BATSE`$. The compilation of Malozzi et al. (1995) shows clearly a preference for an energy $`E_\mathrm{p}200`$ keV at which the $`\nu F_\nu `$ GRB spectra exhibit a maximum. In fact, it is precisely this maximum in the spectral energy distribution that qualifies GRBs as such. Furthermore, when corrected for the redshift ($`z_{\mathrm{GRB}}1`$), $`E_\mathrm{p}`$ shifts close to the electron rest mass. While a compelling explanation of this fact is presently lacking, several accounts have occasionally been proposed. For example, Brainerd (1994) argues that this is the result of down-Comptonization of a power law photon distribution that extends to $`E1`$ MeV by cold matter with Thompson depth $`\tau _T10`$, an explanation possibly in conflict with the timing properties of GRBs (see e.g. Kazanas, Titarchuk and Hua 1997). The association of the GRB emission with relativistically boosted synchrotron radiation from RBWs has made this particular issue far more acute, as the energy of the latter should scale like $`E_\mathrm{p}\mathrm{\Gamma }^4`$. Therefore, even very small variations in the values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ would lead to a very broad range in the values of $`E_\mathrm{p}`$. Dermer et al. (1999) proposed that the observed distribution is the result of the time evolution of a blast wave with a specific baryon loading, which when convolved with the triggering criteria of existing detectors favors the detection of fireballs with $`E_\mathrm{p}`$ in the observed range. On the other hand, on the basis of analysis of SMM data, Harris & Share (1999) have argued that there is no apparent excess of GRBs with $`E_\mathrm{p}1`$ MeV, thus leaving this issue open.

The present paper is structured as follows: In §2 we outline the fundamental notion behind our proposal for converting the RBW proton energy into radiation, we derive the associated necessary conditions and discuss its relation to GRB phenomenology. In §3 we produce model spectra based on this proposal and indicate their relation to the particular value of $`E_\mathrm{p}`$ observed. Finally, in §4 the results are discussed and certain conclusions are drawn.

## 2 The “Supercritical Pile”

The process described herein has been discussed in the past by Kazanas & Mastichiadis (1999; hereafter KM99) in the context of AGN, where arguments have been put forward in favor of a hadronic origin of the relativistic electrons in blazars. This process is effectively the relativistic plasma instability proposed by Kirk & Mastichiadis (1992; hereafter KM92) coupled to the increase in the photon energy associated with relativistically moving “mirrors” (Ghisellini & Madau 1997). While the mathematical formulation of the instability is given in detail in the above references, we provide below a qualitative re-derivation which focuses on and elucidates the underlying physics.

### 2.1 A Static Plasma

Consider a spherical volume of size $`R`$, containing a relativistic proton plasma of differential spectrum $`n_p(\gamma )=n_0\gamma ^\beta `$ ($`\gamma `$ being the proton Lorentz factor), along with an (infinitesimal) number of photons of energy $`ϵ`$ (in units of $`m_ec^2`$); these photons can produce pairs via the $`p\gamma e^{}e^+`$ reaction, provided that the proton population extends to Lorentz factors $`\gamma >\gamma _\mathrm{c}`$ such that $`\gamma _\mathrm{c}ϵ2`$. In the presence of a magnetic field $`B`$, the pairs (of Lorentz factor also equal to $`\gamma _\mathrm{c}`$) produce synchrotron photons of energy $`ϵ_s=b\gamma _\mathrm{c}^2`$ where $`b=B/B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ is the magnetic field in units of the critical one $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}=m_e^2c^3/(e\mathrm{})\mathrm{4.4\hspace{0.17em}10}^{13}`$ G.

For the reaction network to be self-contained the energies of the seed and synchrotron photons should be equal, yielding the kinematic threshold of the process i.e. $`\gamma _\mathrm{c}ϵ_s=\gamma _\mathrm{c}^3b2`$. For the process to be also self-sustained, at least one of the synchrotron photons must produce a pair before exiting the volume of the source. Hence, the optical depth of the source to the $`p\gamma e^{}e^+`$ reaction should be greater than $`1/𝒩`$, where $`𝒩\gamma _\mathrm{c}/b\gamma _\mathrm{c}^2=1/b\gamma _\mathrm{c}`$ is the total number of synchrotron photons produced by an electron of energy $`\gamma _\mathrm{c}`$. This condition then reads $`\tau _{p\gamma }\sigma _{p\gamma }Rn_p(\gamma )\gamma =\sigma _{p\gamma }Rn_0\gamma _\mathrm{c}^{\beta +1}\stackrel{>}{}b\gamma _\mathrm{c}`$. Eliminating $`\gamma _\mathrm{c}`$ using the kinematic threshold condition $`\gamma _\mathrm{c}^3b2`$, the critical column density expression reduces to

$$\sigma _{p\gamma }Rn_0\stackrel{>}{}b^{1\beta /3},$$
(1)
which (within factors of order unity) is the condition derived in KM92. This condition is similar to that of the criticality of a nuclear pile, except that there one deals with neutrons rather than photons (this similarity carries also over in the case in the Comptonization of photons by hot electrons (Katz 1976)). It becomes apparent, hence, that the critical quantity here (as also in a nuclear pile) is the column density (rather than the mass, the term “critical mass” being simply a figure of speech). The pair - synchrotron photon - proton - pair network will be self-sustained if the column density is equal to the critical one. For larger values the number of pairs increases exponentially, eventually leading to a depletion of the available energy source on time scales $`R/c`$ (a bomb!).

### 2.2 Plasma in Relativistic Motion

KM99 extended the above analysis to the case that the relativistic proton containing plasma moves itself relativistically with Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The criticality conditions change quantitatively if the radiation emitted by the plasma can be “reflected” by matter located along its direction of motion. Due to relativistic beaming, essentially all the photons produced internally in the plasma will be focused in the forward direction, reflected and boosted in energy, upon their re-interception by the moving plasma, by a factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$. If $`b`$ is the (normalized) value of the comoving magnetic field, the synchrotron photons of energy $`ϵ_s=b\gamma ^2`$ will, upon their re-interception, have energy $`ϵ_s=b\gamma ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$, modifying the kinematic threshold condition to $`b\gamma _\mathrm{c}^3\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\stackrel{>}{}2`$.

The change in the kinematic threshold affects also the dynamic one: The photons necessary for the production of pairs in the comoving frame are now emitted by electrons of Lorentz factor only $`\gamma _\mathrm{c}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The number of such photons is now $`𝒩(\gamma /\mathrm{\Gamma })/b(\gamma /\mathrm{\Gamma })^2=1/b(\gamma /\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Demanding again that the column of the plasma be greater than $`1/𝒩`$, along with the new threshold relation, leads to the condition

$$\sigma _{p\gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{com}}n_{0\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{m}}\stackrel{>}{}b^{1\beta /3}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1+2\beta /3)}$$
(2)
namely the condition derived in KM99 ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{com}},n_{0\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{m}}`$ are the co-moving source size and density). Relativistic motion therefore, eases significantly the “criticality” condition in the case of a relativistically moving plasma.

The situation in the RBW of a GRB is somewhat different than that discussed just above. Though diffusive acceleration is very likely present in their associated shocks, the mere postshock isotropization of the flow creates, in the RBW frame, a relativistic population of protons with mean energy $`E\mathrm{\Gamma }m_pc^2`$. Therefore, to be most conservative, one could dispense with the requirement of an accelerated proton population and demand that only the protons of energy $`\mathrm{\Gamma }m_pc^2`$ be present (these are certainly the most numerous). Therefore, upon setting $`\gamma _\mathrm{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the kinematic threshold condition reduces to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^5b\stackrel{>}{}2`$. The number of photons emitted by electrons at threshold then becomes $`𝒩1/b`$ and the “criticality” threshold reads

$$\sigma _{p\gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{com}}n_{\mathrm{com}}=\sigma _{p\gamma }Rn\stackrel{>}{}b\mathrm{or}\sigma _{p\gamma }Rn\mathrm{\Gamma }^5\stackrel{>}{}2$$
(3)
with the last relation incorporating both the kinematic and dynamic threshold ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{com}}n_{\mathrm{com}}=Rn`$ due to the Lorentz invariance of the column density. In this case, the quantity $`nR`$ simply denotes the amount of ambient matter per unit area swept by the RBW). For the typical values of $`n`$ and $`R`$ used in association with GRBs, i.e. $`n=1n_0`$ cm-3 and $`R=10^{16}R_{16}`$ cm and considering that $`\sigma _{p\gamma }\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}10}^{27}`$ cm2, the criticality condition yields $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{>}{}180(n_0R_{16})^{1/5}`$, values well within the accepted parameter range.

Following the above analysis, the correlation between quiescence and activity periods in GRBs found by Ramirez-Ruiz & Merloni (2000), finds a direct, qualitative interpretation: A RBW sweeps and ‘piles-up’ the ambient medium behind its forward shock, whose column density increases from below to above its critical value. Provided that the proper “mirror” is located upstream, the internal energy, or part of it depending on conditions, will be explosively converted into radiation. The energy released then would be proportional to the amount of matter accumulated during quiescence, with the process repeating as the blast wave progresses and more matter is accumulated.

## 3 The Spectra

Generally, the light curves as well as the GRB spectra are highly variable. In the present model, the issue of variability becomes even more complex than in more conventional models, given that the injection rate of relativistic pairs depends on proton collisions with photons emitted at prior times, following their reflection by the “mirror”.

While the computation of the spectra within this model is an inherently time dependent problem, we present herein a simplified, steady-state treatment whose salient features, we believe, will be preserved in a more detailed calculation.

We consider a RBW of energy $`E=10^{51}E_{51}`$ erg in a uniform medium of density $`n=1n_0`$ cm-3 and of a (normalized) opening half angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }=(\theta /\pi )`$. Because of the relativistic focusing of radiation, we need only consider a section of the blast wave of opening half angle $`\theta =1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The shocked electrons of the ambient medium (and pairs from the $`p\gamma e^+e^{}`$ process) produce synchrotron photons of energy $`ϵ_sb\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$. These, upon their scattering by the “mirror” and re-interception by the RBW, are boosted to energy $`ϵ=ϵ_s\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=b\mathrm{\Gamma }^4`$ (in the RBW frame). These photons will then be scattered by (a) electrons of $`\gamma 1`$, originally contained in the RBW and/or cooled since the explosion, and (b) by the hot ($`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$), recently shocked ones to produce inverse Compton (IC) radiation at energies correspondingly $`ϵ_1b\mathrm{\Gamma }^4`$ and $`ϵ_2b\mathrm{\Gamma }^6`$ at the RBW frame. At the lab frame, the energies of these three components, i.e. $`ϵ_s,ϵ_1,ϵ_2`$ will be higher by roughly a factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, i.e. they will be respectively at energies $`b\mathrm{\Gamma }^3,b\mathrm{\Gamma }^5`$ and $`b\mathrm{\Gamma }^7`$. Assuming that the process operates near its kinematic threshold, $`b\mathrm{\Gamma }^52`$, at the lab frame these components will be at energies $`ϵ_s\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$, $`ϵ_121`$ MeV and $`ϵ_2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ 10 GeV $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }/100)^2`$. This model therefore, produces “naturally” a component in the $`\nu F_\nu `$ spectral distribution which peaks in the correct energy range. It also predicts the existence of another component at an energy $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ higher; such high energy emission has been observed from several GRBs (Dingus 1995).

The relative importance of these components depends on the specifics of a given source. For the two IC components this depends on the ratio of the scattering depths of the cool $`\tau _T(\gamma 1)`$ and hot $`\tau _T(\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma })`$ electrons. At a minimum, this ratio is equal to the ratio of their escape to cooling rates $`_{\mathrm{cool}}/_{\mathrm{esc}}t_{\mathrm{esc}}/t_{\mathrm{cool}}`$. If $`U_B=f_B(E/4\pi R^3\mathrm{\Theta }^2`$) is the magnetic energy density ($`f_B`$ denotes departures from equipartition; $`f_B1`$ in GRBs), then $`t_{\mathrm{esc}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{com}}/cR/\mathrm{\Gamma }c`$ and $`t_{\mathrm{cool}}m_ec^2/(U_B\sigma _Tc\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ so that

$$\frac{\tau _T(\gamma 1)}{\tau _T(\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma })}=\frac{f_Bf_c}{\mathrm{\Theta }^2}\frac{E_{51}}{R_{16}^2}$$
(4)
where $`f_c(>1)`$ is a multiplicative factor indicating the contribution of cold electrons inherent in the RBW to the scattering depth. For $`\mathrm{\Theta }1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ one obtains for the rate of photon scattering into the two IC components

$$\dot{𝒩}(E_\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }^2)\frac{1}{f_Bf_c\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}\frac{R_{16}^2}{E_{51}}\dot{𝒩}(E_\gamma 1),$$
(5)
indicating that their luminosities would be roughly equal for the fiducial values of the parameters involved.

The relative luminosity between the direct synchrotron and the cold-electron scattered synchrotron photons can be estimated as follows: The number of electrons swept-up to radius $`R`$ by a section of transverse dimension $`d_tR/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the RBW is $`𝒩_enR^3f_m/\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$, where $`f_m(<m_p/m_e)`$ is a multiplicative factor denoting the number of pairs produced in the RBW. Given that each electron of energy $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ produces $`1/b\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ photons, the total number of photons produced to radius $`R`$ is

$$𝒩_\gamma \frac{nf_m}{b}\frac{R^3}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^3}$$
(6)
These photons will be received in the lab frame at energy $`ϵ_sb\mathrm{\Gamma }^3`$ over a time interval $`R/\mathrm{\Gamma }^2c`$ to yield a photon flux

$$\dot{𝒩}_\gamma \frac{nf_m}{b}\frac{R^2c}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}nR\sigma _\mathrm{T}\mathrm{\Gamma }^4\left(\frac{Rc}{\sigma _\mathrm{T}}\right)f_m$$
(7)
It is assumed that a fraction $`\alpha `$ of these photons will scatter at the “mirror” and randomize producing a “layer” of photons of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ (in the lab frame; it is assumed that the “mirror” is thinner than $`R/\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$), density $`n_\gamma 𝒩_\gamma \alpha /V=𝒩_\gamma \alpha /(R/\mathrm{\Gamma })^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and Thompson depth $`\tau _{T,\gamma }(n\sigma _\mathrm{T}R/b\mathrm{\Gamma })\alpha f_m`$ ($`\tau _{T,\gamma }n\sigma _\mathrm{T}R\mathrm{\Gamma }^4\alpha f_m`$ if near threshold i.e. for $`b\mathrm{\Gamma }1/\mathrm{\Gamma }^4`$).

The number of electrons to radius $`R`$ swept by the section of the RBW considered here is then $`𝒩_e(nR^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)(f_c+f_m)`$; hence the total number of photons scattered by the electrons upon traversing the “photon layer” of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ will be $`𝒩_{sc,\gamma }𝒩_e\tau _{T,\gamma }`$. These will be received at the lab frame over a time $`\mathrm{\Delta }/c\mathrm{\Gamma }^2R/c\mathrm{\Gamma }^4`$ to yield a photon flux (at energy $`b\mathrm{\Gamma }^52`$)

$$\dot{𝒩}_{sc,\gamma }(nR\sigma _\mathrm{T})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^6\left(\frac{Rc}{\sigma _\mathrm{T}}\right)\alpha f_m(f_c+f_m)$$
(8)
suggesting that the ratio of the photon fluxes given by Eqs. (7), (8) will be proportional to $`nR\sigma _\mathrm{T}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\alpha (f_c+f_m)`$. For reasonable values of the source parameters one does obtain similar photon fluxes at these two energy bands ($`b\mathrm{\Gamma }^3,b\mathrm{\Gamma }^5`$) indicating that the luminosity at $`1`$ MeV is roughly $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ times that at the optical band.

In figure 1 we present a sample of a spectrum obtained using the arguments discussed above. Assuming the process to operate near threshold (with no accelerated proton component), leads to $`\delta `$ function like injection of pairs; this results in the $`\nu F_\nu \nu ^{1/2}`$ spectrum of figure 1 (which at low energies reverts to the $`\nu F_\nu \nu ^{4/3}`$ spectrum of thin synchrotron). Clearly more involved spectra will result if particle acceleration is also incorporated in these models; however, this will be the subject of future work.

## 4 Discussion

We have presented above a novel model for the prompt emission of GRBs. We believe that this model provides some of the missing physics between the RBW proposal, which describes successfully the GRB energetics and time scales and the prompt emission of radiation ($`\gamma `$-ray as well as optical-UV), by a well defined mechanism for tapping the kinetic energy stored in the RBW baryonic component. Furthermore, the same physics employed in effecting the conversion of baryon kinetic energy into radiation is instrumental in producing a peak in the spectral energy distribution at $`E_\mathrm{p}1`$ MeV, thus providing a “natural” account of this GRB feature, an issue that has actually gotten even more puzzling with the advent of the RBW model for GRB. In addition to this emission, the model implies the presence of $`\gamma `$-ray emission at higher energies, namely $`E\mathrm{\Gamma }^2m_ec^2`$, a fact supported by some observations already, but which will be explored in greater depth by SWIFT and GLAST, missions which will be able to test and put meaningful constraints on this specific model.

One of the fundamental features of this model is the presence of the combination of kinematic and dynamic thresholds; this combination, along with the presence or absence of the necessary “mirror”, make the model inherently time dependent. At the same time, the kinematic threshold provides (for the first time to our knowledge) a regulating mechanism that puts one of the peaks in the $`\nu F_\nu `$ distribution very close to the observed value, despite the motion of the emitting plasma with Lorentz factors of several hundreds. Concerning the nature of the “mirror” we are willing to speculate here that, because the main “reflected” component consists of the prompt synchrotron photons which are emitted at optical frequencies, one could use atomic cross-sections ($`10^{16}\mathrm{cm}^2`$) to estimate their reflected fraction $`\alpha `$; values of $`n`$, $`R`$ typical to those associated with GRBs yield $`\alpha 0.011`$. This is a very rough estimate, because it ignores the ionization of the reflecting medium. A more detailed treatment including these effects is beyond the scope of the present work.

We would like to thank Jay Norris, Rob Preece and Brad Shaffer for stimulating discussions and much information on GRB phenomenology.