Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Where do we stand. ?. Log(Flux ). Swift. End of the prompt. A few hours. Log(Time ). Kyoto 2010. Log(Flux ). X-Ray Flares. Log(Time ). Kyoto 2010. GRB X- ray Flares. R. Margutti G. Chincarini , G. Bernardini , J. Mao, C. Guidorzi. Early-time flare catalog . - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Where do we stand
Swift
Log(Time)
Log(
Flux
)
?Kyoto 2010
End of the prompt A few hours
Log(Time)
Log(
Flux
)
Kyoto 2010
X-Ray Flares
GRB X-ray FlaresR. Margutti
G. Chincarini, G. Bernardini, J. Mao, C. Guidorzi
Kyoto 2010
As-complete-as-possible observational picture of the X-ray flare phenomenology
Margutti et al., MNRAS accepted, Astro-ph:
1004.1568
Bright flare analysis
9 flaresX-ray + gamma-ray Very good statistics
Spectral evolutionEvolution with energy band
Late-time flare catalog
36 flaresAsymmetric profile
Evolution with time(up to t≈106 s)
Poster: #
t> 103s
AIM:
Astro-ph: 1004.0901
Early-time flare catalog
113 flares4 different energy bandsAsymmetric profile
Evolution with timeEvolution with energy band
t< 103s
051117A
GRB X-ray Flares
Kyoto 2010
OBSERVATIONALLY: What distinguishes a flare from a prompt pulse?Do flares follow the entire set of temporal and spectral relations found from the analysis of prompt emission pulses?
Width(T)Luminosity(T)Ep(t)Ep(t)-Liso(t)Ep-LisoWidth(E)Lag-Lum
The Method:
Kyoto 2010
TriseTdecayWidthTpeak Amplitude
If with redshift:Peak LuminosityEnergy
GRB0
6090
4B
Evolution with ENERGY BAND
In the same flare
Evolution with Tpeak
Among different
flares
Kyoto 2010
Width (t)
Log(tpeak)
€
w ∝ 0.2tpeak
Log(
wid
th)
Width=trise + tdecay
Width=trise+tdecay
€
trise ∝ 0.06tpeak
€
tdecay ∝ 0.14t peak
€
trise < tdecay
€
tdecay ≈ 2trise
TIME
Kyoto 2010
Luminosity (t)
€
Lpeak ∝ t peak−2.7
Early time sample
TIME
Flares get fainter and fainter
Kyoto 2010
Spectral Evolution (t)
€
E peak ∝ Exp − t29s
⎛ ⎝ ⎜
⎞ ⎠ ⎟ 060904B Flare:
Prompt:
BATSE pulse
Peak
Ene
rgy
Within single flare and pulses
(Peng 2009)
TIME
Time
Kyoto 2010
Ep(t)-Liso(t)
Liso (erg/s) Liso (erg/s)
Ep,i
(keV
)
Ep,i
(keV
)
€
E peak ∝ Liso1.0±0.2
€
E peak ∝ Liso1.1±0.2
060418 Flare 060904B Flare
€
E peak ∝ Liso0.5
Liso (erg/s)
Ep,i
(keV
)
Prompt
Ghirl
anda
201
0
Kyoto 2010
Ep-Eiso Ep-Liso
Flares Flares
Prom
pt d
ata
from
Nav
a 20
09
Kyoto 2010
Width(E)
€
w ∝ E−0.5±0.3FLARES
€
wprompt ∝ E−0.4PROMPT
€
trise (E)
€
tdecay (E)
High energy profiles peak before
Flare peak Lag
Kyoto 2010
Lag-Luminosity
€
L(0.3−10keV ) ∝ tlag−0.95±0.23
FLARES
PROMPT
Norris 2000 relation
CCF lag, time integ.50-100 vs 100-200 keV1-10000 keV Lpeak(Ukwatta 2010)
Peak lag, flares0.3-1vs 3-10 keV0.3-10 keV Lpeak
(Margutti 2010)
Summary: Flares paradigm
Kyoto 2010
High energy flare profiles rise faster, decay faster and peak before the low energy emission.
FLARES EVOLVE WITH TIMEAs time proceeds flares become wider, with larger peak lag, lower luminosities and softer emission.
Summary:
Kyot
o 20
10
Width(T)Luminosity(T)Ep(t)Ep(t)-Liso(t)Ep-LisoWidth(E)Lag-Lum
€
w ∝ 0.2tpeak ≈const
≈const
€
Lpeak ∝ tpeak−2.7
€
E peak ∝ Exp(−t) ≈similar
€
E peak ∝ Liso1.0
€
E peak ∝ Lisoy
€
w ∝ E−0.5±0.3
€
w ∝ E−0.4
€
L∝ tlag−0.95±0.23
€
L∝ tlag−1.14 ±0.1
€
E peak ∝ Liso0.5?
FLARES PROMPT
FLARES EVOLVE WITH TIME Margutti 2010
Astro-ph: 1004.1568 Astro-ph: 1004.0901
THANK YOU!!
Kyot
o 20
10
Back-up slides
Lag - HR
HRrise-HRdecay
Ener
gy d
epen
denc
e of
the
para
met
er
Lpeak-Width
Trise-tdecay
Ioka plot
Flare and prompt energy
SED
BAT-XRT spectral index
BAT
XRT
