format: text

text:
# Entanglement from the vacuum

## 1 Introduction

The Hilbert space of two subsystems contains a subclass of entangled states that manifest unique quantum mechanical properties. As was highlighted by Bell , the correlations between observables measured separately on each subsystem can be “stronger” than the correlations predicted by any local classical models.

Having the causal structure and locality built in, relativistic field theory offers a natural framework for investigating entanglement. Here we will consider the entanglement of the relativistic vacuum state, which as we shall shortly recall, has a role in both the Hawking black-hole radiation  and Unruh acceleration radiation effects . It is known that field observables at space-like separated points in vacuum are correlated. For massless fields in 3+1-D these correlations decay with the distance, $`L`$, between two points as $`1/L^2`$. These correlations by themselves however do not imply the existence of quantum entanglement, because they can in principle arise as classical correlations. However, a number of studies provide evidence that the vacuum is indeed entangled . In the Rindler quantization, one spans the Hilbert space of a free field by direct products of Rindler particle number states $`|n,1`$ and $`|n,2`$ with non-vanishing support confined within the two complementary space-like separated wedges $`x<|t|`$ and $`x>t`$, respectively. It then turns out  that the Minkowski vacuum state can be expressed as an entangled Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) like state $`_n\alpha ^n|n,1|n,2`$ for each mode. However does entanglement persist when the regions are separated by a finite distance? We will examine this question, but also emphasize that in this case of separated regions the relation between entanglement and entropy breaks down.

In a somewhat different framework, of algebraic quantum field theory, it has been argued  that indeed local field observables in arbitrary two space-like separated regions are entangled. However this method as well as that used in Ref.  assumes exact analyticity and cannot be applied in the presence of a cutoff.

In the present work we consider a gedanken-experiment for probing entanglement which is not sensitive to a short scale cutoff. It involves a pair of probes, point-like two-level systems, which couple for a finite duration with the field. The process takes place in two causally disconnected regions. Since the probes are taken to be initially non-entangled, and since entanglement cannot be produced locally, we will regard the presence of entanglement in the final state of the probes as a (lower bound) measure for vacuum entanglement.

## 2 Entropy, Correlations and Entanglement

We begin with a short review of the relation between entropy, correlations and entanglement. Consider a division of a system into two sets of commuting degrees of freedom whose combined Hilbert space can be described by the direct product of Hilbert spaces $`_1\times _2`$. The operators $`𝒪_1`$ and $`𝒪_2`$ that act on $`_1`$ and $`_2`$, respectively and thus commute: $`[𝒪_1,𝒪_2]=0`$. In a relativistic theory, the division of space to two space-like separated regions, implies by causality commutativity of local observables, and the above Hilbert space structure follows.

We can then distinguish between the two different cases: a) The system is in a pure state. and b) the system is in a mixture of pure states, described by a density operator. The latter situation can arise, for instance, if our system constitutes a sub-system of a larger system whose state is pure. This will indeed be the case in our model, as well as that for two separated regions in vacuum which do not cover the full space.

Consider first pure states, and for simplicity take a pair of two level (spin-half) systems. The Hilbert space contains pure states like

$$|\psi =a|_1|_2+b|_1|_2$$
(1)
which we call entangled whenever both $`a`$ and $`b`$ are non-zero. More generally, a state is entangled if no local unitary transformation can convert the state into a single direct product like $`|_1|_2`$. We observe that entanglement exists if and only if there are correlations between local observables: $`\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _1\sigma _2`$.

But are these correlations classical or quantum? This question was answered by Bell and subsequent work. It was shown that for any entangled pure state, one can construct an inequality involving two operator correlations, which are satisfied in a local classical model but are violated by quantum mechanics.

The existence of correlations means that some information is stored in the combined state and cannot be traces by inspecting one half of the system. A subsystem then behaves as a mixture. The von-Neumann (or Shannon) entropy

$$S_1=Tr_1\rho \mathrm{ln}\rho $$
(2)
where $`\rho =Tr_2|\psi \psi |`$, indicates this lack of knowledge when probing a sub-system. For pure states, $`S_1=S_2`$ is non-vanishing if and only if the state is entangled. It therefore comes to us as no surprise that entropy can be viewed as a quantitative measure of entanglement. The surprise is perhaps that for an ensemble of identical states, it is in fact a unique measure of entanglement .

We see that for the case of pure states, entropy, correlations, entanglement (and in a qualitative sense Bell inequalities), are equivalent descriptions of the same physical phenomena.

The situation differs dramatically in the mixed case. First how do we define entanglement of a mixed state? We will define entanglement by saying when a density operator is $`not`$ entangled. A density operator, $`\rho _{12}`$, is not entangled if we can find a basis which entails a separable form

$$\rho _{12}=\underset{i}{}p_i\rho _{1i}\rho _{2i}$$
(3)
with $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ as local density operators, and $`p_i>0p_i=1`$. We note that $`\rho _{12}`$ does exhibit non-trivial correlations since we have $`𝒪_1𝒪_2=p_i𝒪_1_i𝒪_2_i`$, but nevertheless the density operator is not entangled, and describes classical correlations. Likewise, we note that the entropy function, $`S=p_i\mathrm{ln}p_i`$, does not vanish for a non-entangled mixed density operator.

To exemplify this, consider the following class of density operators

$$\rho =\frac{1x}{4}I+x|\psi \psi |$$
(4)
where $`|\psi =1/\sqrt{2}(||||)`$ is the EPR-Bohm state. For any $`x0`$ the above density exhibits correlations. However it can be shown that only for $`x>1/3`$, it is entangled. It is also interesting to note that, the simple relation between non-locality described by Bell inequalities and entanglement breaks down. In the above case for $`x<1/\sqrt{2}`$ there is no violation, though the state is entangled.

We see that for the mixed case entropy and correlations are no longer equivalent to entanglement. Thus, correlations do not necessarily imply entanglement, and the von-Neumann entropy is not an appropriate measure of entanglement. We will further discuss a possible relation of this issue with the entanglement interpretation  of the Bekenstein black-hole entropy  in the last section.

## 3 Probing Vacuum Entanglement

To model the field we shall consider a massless relativistic scalar field $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ in 3 spatial dimensions, driven by the usual massless free Hamiltonian. We assume that initially the field is in its ground state. The probe systems will be modelled by a pair of localized (infinitely massive) two-level systems with energy gap $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The interaction between the systems and the field will be time dependant but otherwise linear

$`H_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`H_A+H_B`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`ϵ_A(\tau )(e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }\tau }\sigma _A^++e^{+i\mathrm{\Omega }\tau }\sigma _A^{})\varphi (x_A(\tau ),t)`$
$`+`$ $`ϵ_B(\tau ^{})(e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }\tau ^{}}\sigma _B^++e^{+i\mathrm{\Omega }\tau ^{}}\sigma _B^{})\varphi (x_B(\tau ^{}),t)`$
where $`\tau `$ and $`\tau ^{}`$ denotes the proper time of the probes. We shall take the coupling functions $`ϵ_A(\tau )`$ and $`ϵ_B(\tau )`$, as non-zero during a finite time $`T`$ to keep the two probes causally disconnected.

entanglement. for a time

The simplest set up which takes care of this causality restriction involves a pair of uniformally accelerated detectors that follow the trajectories

$$x_A=L/2\mathrm{cosh}(2\tau /L)t_A=L/2\mathrm{sinh}(2\tau /l)$$
(6)
$$x_B=L/2\mathrm{cosh}(2\tau ^{}/L)t_B=L/2\mathrm{sinh}(2\tau ^{}/L)$$
(7)
Obviously the probes are confined to two causally disconnected regions; A is confined to the space-time region $`x<|t|`$ and $`B`$ to $`x<|t|`$.

Since the interaction takes place in two causally disconnected disconnected regions, the field operators in $`H_A`$ and $`H_B`$ commute, and $`[H_A,H_B]=0`$ Therefore, the evolution operator for the system factorizes, and may be expressed in the interaction picture as a direct product

$`U`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle (H_A(\tau )+H_B(\tau ^{}))𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}}}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle H_A(\tau )𝑑\tau }}\times e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle H_B(\tau ^{})𝑑\tau ^{}}}`$
We note that this ensures that $`U`$ does not generate entanglement between degrees of freedom at the two causally disconnected regions $`x>|t|`$ and $`x<|t|`$.

Suppose that the probes are initially in their ground states. Hence the initial state with the field and probes is $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i=|_A|_B|0`$. Expanding $`U`$ to second order in the coupling functions $`ϵ_i`$ ($`i=A,B`$) and using the notation

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_i^\pm =𝑑\tau ϵ_i(\tau )e^{\pm i\mathrm{\Omega }\tau }\varphi (x_i(\tau ),t)$$
(9)
we obtain

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_f`$ $`=`$ $`[(\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_A^++\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_B^+)|\mathrm{\Phi }_A^+\mathrm{\Phi }_B^+|`$ (10)
$``$ $`i\mathrm{\Phi }_A^+\mathrm{𝟏}_B|i\mathrm{𝟏}_A\mathrm{\Phi }_B^+|]|0+O(ϵ_i^3)`$
The first term above describes processes where the initial state of the probes is unchanged. The second term describes two types of processes, either an emission of two quanta, or an exchange of a single quanta between the the probes. The final state of the field in this case is $`|X_{AB}\mathrm{\Phi }_A^+\mathrm{\Phi }_B^+|0`$. Finally, the last two terms describe an emission of one quantum either by probe $`A`$ or $`B`$. In this case the final state of the field is $`|E_A\mathrm{\Phi }_A^+|0`$, or $`|E_B\mathrm{\Phi }_B^+|0`$, respectively.

Tracing over the field degree’s of freedom we obtain to the lowest order

$$\rho =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1C& X_{AB}|0& 0& 0\\ 0|X_{AB}& |X_{AB}|^2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& |E_A|^2& E_B|E_A\\ 0& 0& E_A|E_B& |E_B|^2\end{array}\right)$$
(11)
where $`C=2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}0|\mathrm{T}(\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_A^++\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_B^+)|0`$, $`|X_{AB}|^2=X_{AB}|X_{AB}`$, and we used the basis $`\{|i,|j\}=\{,,,\}`$.

We noted two types of off-diagonal matrices elements. The projection of the exchange amplitude on the vacuum, $`0|X_AB`$ acts as to maintain coherence between the $`|_A_B`$ and the $`|_A_B`$ atom states. The product $`|E_A|E_B`$ acts to maintain coherence between the $`|_A_B`$ and $`|_A_B`$ states. It is the magnitude of these off-diagonal terms compared to the magnitude of the diagonal (decoherence) terms which determine if the density operator is entangled.

For our case of a $`2\times 2`$ system, it is known that necessary  and sufficient  condition for the density operator to be non-separable (and therefore entangled) is that the partial transpose of $`\rho `$ is negative. Denoting $`\rho _{ij,kl}`$ as the matrix elements with respect to the basis $`|i|j`$, the partial partial transposition takes $`\rho _{ij,kl}\rho il,kj`$. In our case we obtain the following two conditions for non-separability.

$$|0|X_{AB}|^2>|E_A|^2|E_B|^2$$
(12)
and

$$|E_B|E_A|^2>|X_{AB}|^2$$
(13)
When either of these conditions is satisfied $`\rho `$ is entangled.

The first inequality, (12), amounts to the requirement that the exchange process, (which leaves the field in a vacuum state) is more probable than single quanta emissions which reduces the coherence of the atoms. In this case the main contribution comes from states like $`|_A_B+\alpha |_A_B`$. Considering the second inequality (13), we note that $`E_A|E_B`$ measures the distinguishablity of the quanta emitted by either atom $`A`$ or $`B`$. Hence the second inequality demands that this inner product is larger than the probability $`|X_{AB}|^2`$ of emitting two quanta. When the second condition is met, the main contribution comes from states like $`|_A_B+\beta |_A_B`$.

Let us evaluate explicitly the emission and exchange terms in the first inequality. The emission term reads

$$|E_A|^2=𝑑\tau _A𝑑\tau _A^{}e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _A^{}\tau _A)}D^+(A^{},A)$$
(14)
and the exchange term

$$0|X_{AB}=𝑑\tau _A𝑑\tau _Be^{i\mathrm{\Omega }(\tau _A+\tau _B)}D^+(A,B)$$
(15)
where $`D^+(x^{},x)=0|\varphi (x^{},t^{})\varphi (x,t))|0=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}((t^{}tiϵ)^2(\stackrel{}{x}^{}\stackrel{}{x})^2)`$ is the Wightman function. Substituting $`x(\tau )`$ and $`t(\tau )`$ one gets

$$D^+(A^{},A)=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2L^2\mathrm{sinh}^2[(\tau _A^{}\tau _Aiϵ)/L]}$$
(16)
and when the points are on different trajectories

$$D^+(A,B)=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2L^2\mathrm{cosh}^2[(\tau _B+\tau _Aiϵ)/L]}$$
(17)
The integral (14), for the emission probability, can be performed by complexifying $`\tau _A^{}\tau _A`$ to a plane and closing the contour in the lower complex plane. This picks up the poles $`\tau _A\tau _A^{}=iϵ+i\pi nL`$ with $`n=1,2\mathrm{}`$ On the other hand, the contour for the exchange integral (15) should be closed on the upper half plane. This picks up the contributions at $`(\tau _A+\tau _B)=iϵ+i\pi (n+\frac{1}{2})L`$ with $`n=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$ The ratio between the two terms is then

$$\frac{|0|X_{AB}|}{|E_A|^2}=\frac{e^{\pi \mathrm{\Omega }L/2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{\pi n\mathrm{\Omega }L}}{_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}e^{\pi n\mathrm{\Omega }L}}=e^{\pi \mathrm{\Omega }L/2}$$
(18)
Therefore (12) is always satisfied. Unlike the previous stationary case, this ratio can become arbitrarily large, while $`X_{AB}`$ and $`E_A`$ become exponentially small. The reason for that is that for the hyperbolic trajectories we can have $`\tau \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}`$ while keeping $`\mathrm{\Omega }L`$ finite. By increasing $`L`$, the emission probability decreases like $`|E_A|^2e^{\pi \mathrm{\Omega }L}`$. However $`0|X_{AB}e^{\pi \mathrm{\Omega }L/2}`$ decreases slower, hence the ratio (18) increases exponentially. It can be shown that similar conclusions follow if we switch the interaction only for a finite duration as long as $`\tau 1/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is satisfied.

## 4 Inertial Probes

Does the above result have to do with the special effect of acceleration? To check this we reconsider the problem for the case of a pair of two stationary probes which are switched on and off for a duration $`T<L/c`$ where $`L`$ is the separation.

Specializing to the case $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i=|_A_B|0`$, substituting $`\varphi (x,t)`$, and integrating over time eq. (12) can be re-expressed as

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{L}\mathrm{sin}(\omega L)\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(\omega \mathrm{\Omega })\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })>_0^{\mathrm{}}\omega 𝑑\omega |\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(\mathrm{\Omega }+\omega )|^2$$
(19)
where $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(\omega )`$ is the Fourier transform of $`ϵ(t)=ϵ_i(t)`$.

The right hand side in the above inequality is independent of $`L`$ and tends to zero as $`\mathrm{\Omega }T\mathrm{}`$. The left hand side depends on both $`T`$ and $`L`$ and decays like $`1/L^2`$ for $`L>T`$. However for $`\mathrm{\Omega }L`$ not too big, $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(\omega \mathrm{\Omega })`$ has a sharp peak near $`\omega =\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which enhances the exchange amplitude. This suggests that there may exist a finite window of frequencies around some $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1TL`$, where (12) can be satisfied.

The following plots exhibit the ratio $`X_{AB}/E_A`$, for the window function (with $`T=1`$)

$$ϵ(t)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}^2(\pi t),& \mathrm{for}|t|1/2\\ 0,& \mathrm{for}|t|>1/2\end{array}\right\}$$
(20)
as a function of the energy gap $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the separation $`L`$ between the atoms.

It follows from Fig. 1. that Eq. (12) is satisfied for $`8<\mathrm{\Omega }<11`$. For a different distance $`L`$, one has to employ atoms with appropriate $`\mathrm{\Omega }=O(1/L)`$. It follows from Fig. 2 that the spatial region where entanglement persists, extends up to $`L/T<1.1`$. This implies that the maximal space-like separation between the pair of spacetime regions that affect the probes can be extended up to $`LT0.1L`$. This result suggests that the probed must be ”contained” in the space-like range of a single coherent vacuum fluctuation. Finally we note that the window functions $`ϵ(\omega )`$ act as cutoff functions. Hence our result is not sensitive to a cutoff.

## 5 Discussion

We conclude with several comments. We have shown how quantum correlation, or entanglement, can be extracted to another physical system. To some extent, such quantum correlations are exploited in the process of black hole pair creation, but there we have no access to the quanta emitted into the black hole. Similarly, in the Unruh effect, the event of thermalization of the detector is correlated with a flux emitted into the other Rindler wedge . In the present process we can control the regions which we probe, and demonstrate that entanglement persists even between non-complementary wedges, i.e., when the regions are separated by a finite distance. Nevertheless when the separation becomes too large the extracted entanglement drops to zero while the classical type of correlations do not.

We have stressed that entropy is no longer a good measure of entanglement once the state is not pure, when for instance the two regions are separated. The black-hole naturally divides space to interior and exterior complementary regions, with a combined pure state. The von-Neumann entropy, coincides in this case with the entanglement measure. How do we renormalize this entanglement entropy? A naive cutoff seems unjustified, because this will also truncate the ultra-high modes which are needed in Hawking’s derivation of black-hole radiation. On the other hand if we would slightly separate between the interior and exterior regions (effectively done here by introducing physical probes) entropy becomes indeed finite, but would no longer be a measure of entanglement but rather of the classical correlations.

Finally, we note that by transforming vacuum entanglement to pairs of probes or atom-like system, vacuum entanglement becomes a physical operational quantity. It has been recently shown that by acting locally on an ensemble of such generated pairs, one can ”purify” the amount of entanglement and while reducing the number of pairs, approach gradually to a perfect pure EPR-Bohm pair . The resulting EPR-Bohm pairs are useful for quantum processes such as teleportation  or dense coding  which are not possible with the aid of classical correlation alone.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grant 62/01-1 of the Israel Science Foundation, by the Israel MOD Research and Technology Unit.


text:
# The Dipole Picture and Saturation in Soft Processes

## 1 Introduction

Understanding the high energy behaviour of total hadronic cross-sections within the framework of QCD is one of the intriguing problems of high energy physics. The main difficulty lies in the fact that presently most applications of QCD are based on perturbation theory which is only applicable for ”hard” processes (i.e. it needs a ”hard” scale), while hadronic processes near the forward direction are ”soft” and non-perturbative by definition. On the other hand, the past few years have seen much activity in the successful application of QCD to DIS processes. For values of $`Q^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}GeV^2`$, the use of perturbative QCD seems to be trustworthy. For very small $`Q^2`$ one can rely on Regge theory (e.g.) which provides a reasonable description of the data. The construction of a very promising bridge between these two theoretical frameworks has been pioneered by the concept of high parton densities and saturation. Models based upon this idea have been successful in describing the DIS cross-section for all values of $`Q^2`$ and energies $`x`$ 0.01. .

The goal of this paper is an attempt to apply the dipole picture and the physics of high parton densities to soft hadronic cross-sections. We want to explore to what extent the high energy hadronic asymptotic behaviour can be explained by the saturation hypothesis, which - so far - has been tested in the context of deep inelastic scattering at small $`x`$ and in $`\gamma \gamma `$ scattering. The idea of saturation concerns the interactions between partons from different cascades, which in the linear evolution equations (DGLAP and BFKL) are not included, and which become more important with increasing energy. The parton saturation phenomenon then introduces a characteristic momentum scale $`Q_s(x)`$, which is a measure of the density of the saturated gluons. It grows rapidly with energy, and it is proportional to $`\frac{1}{x^\lambda }`$  with $`\lambda 0.2`$. Parton saturation effects are expected to set in at low values of $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$, where the parton densities are sufficiently large.

At this stage we do not discern how to relate the dipole picture to the additive quark model which has been successful in explaining and relating different hadronic total cross sections. Instead, we consider this study as being exploratory, and we will not attempt to draw any conclusions concerning this rather fundamental issue.

The basis of our endevour is the successful fit  to the $`F_2`$ structure function data for all values of $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ 0.01, within the framework of QCD, achieved by using an approximate solution to the Balitsky-Kovchegov (BK)  nonlinear evolution equation, and adding a correcting function to improve the DGLAP behaviour at large $`Q^2`$. Although soft physics is not explicitly included, agreement with experiment is found for all parameters associated with $`F_2`$, in particular for the logarithmic slope $`\lambda \mathrm{ln}F_2/(\mathrm{ln}1/x)`$, a value of $`\lambda \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.08}`$ was obtained at very low $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ well below $`1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, i.e. in the saturation region. This agrees with the value of the intercept of the ”soft” Pomeron, associated with the Donnachie-Landshoff (DL) model .

In this paper we start from the hypothesis that also in hadron-hadron scattering at high energies color dipoles might be the correct degrees of freedom, even when large transverse distances come into play. We start from the well known expression for DIS cross-sections

$$\sigma _{T,L}^{\gamma ^{}p}(x,Q^2)=d^2r_{}𝑑z|\psi _{T,L}(Q,r_{},z)|^2\sigma _{dipole}(x,r_{})$$
(1.1)
where $`Q^2`$ denotes the virtual photon’s four momentum squared, $`\psi _{T,L}`$ its wave function, $`W^2`$ the energy squared in the photon-proton system and z, (1-z) the momentum fraction taken by the quark (antiquark) respectively. $`r_{}`$ is the transverse distance between the q and $`\overline{q}`$, and $`x=\frac{Q^2}{(W^2+Q^2)}`$. There are two main elements in Eq.(1.1): (a) the wave function of the virtual photon, and (b) the dipole cross-section, which describes the interaction of the $`q\overline{q}`$ with the proton target, through the exchange of a gluon ladder. In the DIS case the wave function for the virtual photon is well known, whereas for the hadron case this is not so. We discuss the question of the hadronic wave functions in Section 3.

It would be naive for us to expect that our treatment is able to yield the complete hadronic cross-section. We have, at least, two reasons for this statement: first, at large impact parameter we have to include the non-perturbative contributions even for the so called ”hard” processes  since this behaviour is defined by the spectrum of hadrons ; second, at present the impact parameter dependence of the interaction is only treated approximately. In , the dipole cross section has a built-in sharp cutoff in $`b`$ at the value of the proton radius; in other cases  the equation is first solved for b = 0, and then an ansatz is made regarding factorization and the assumed b dependence of the dipole cross section. For hadronic interactions the impact parameter dependence is known to be important, and neither a sharp (in particular: energy independent cutoff) nor the method of calculating saturation at b = 0, and assuming that the $`b`$-shape does not change with energy, is, at best, a very rough approximation to the physical situation.

The content of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we discuss the numerical solution of the BK equation , and the changes that must be made to adapt this for the calculation of hadron-hadron cross-sections. In Section 3 we present the details of our calculation. Section 4 is devoted to the overall picture, including comparison of the model predictions with experimental data. Section 5 contains a discussion of our results and our conclusions. In the Appendix we explain why the results for the forward elastic slope are so shallow.

## 2  The Master Equation

In  an approximate solution to the BK non-linear evolution equation  was obtained using numerical techniques. Below we briefly review the method used and the main results obtained. For more details of the method of solution we refer to .

The solution of the BK equation which we denote by $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$, takes into account the collective phenomena of high parton density QCD. Starting from an initial condition which contains free parameters we have numerically solved the nonlinear evolution equation, restricting ourselves to the point $`b=0`$. The parameters have been fitted to the $`F_2`$ data , and the resulting approximate solution is displayed in Fig. 1.

The $`b`$-dependence of the solution is restored using the ansatz:

$$\stackrel{~}{N}(r_{},x;b)=(1e^{\kappa (x,r_{})S(b)}),$$
(2.1)
where $`\kappa `$ is related to the $`b=0`$ solution

$$\kappa (x,r_{})=\mathrm{ln}(1\stackrel{~}{N}(r_{},x,b=0)).$$
(2.2)
The Gaussian form for the profile function in impact parameter space was assumed i.e.

$$S(b_{})=\frac{1}{\pi R_{proton}^2}exp(\frac{b_{}^2}{R_{proton}^2}).$$
(2.3)
where $`R_{proton}^2`$ = 3.1 $`GeV^2`$ refers to the radius of the target proton. The dipole-proton cross-section (from eq.(2.4) of ) is given by:

$$\sigma _{dipole}(r_{},x)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}d^2b_{}\stackrel{~}{N}(r_{},b_{},x).$$
(2.4)
Another popular saturation model was proposed by Golec-Biernat and Wüstoff  which we will denote by GBW. The following dipole cross-section is assumed to be:

$$\widehat{\sigma }(r_{},x)_{dipole}=\sigma _0[1exp(\frac{r_{}^2}{4R_0^2})]$$
(2.5)
with $`R_0^2(x)[GeV^2]=(\frac{x}{x_0})^\lambda `$. The values of the parameters which were determined by fitting to DIS data at HERA for $`x0.01`$, are: $`\sigma _0=`$ 23 mb, $`\lambda =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.29}`$ and $`x_0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}\times 10^4`$. The $`r_{}`$ dependence is taken as Gaussian, which leads to a constant cross-section $`\sigma _0`$ for large $`r_{}`$ (or small $`Q^2`$) i.e. for ”soft” interactions.

The dipole cross-section of the GBW saturation model and $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ are closely related. Both models include the effects of gluon saturation, preserve unitarity, and describe the physics associated with ”long distances”. Whereas $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ has some support from QCD, $`\widehat{\sigma }_{dipole}`$ of the GBW model has more the character of a phenomenological model.

Unlike the GBW $`\widehat{\sigma }_{dipole}`$, the dipole cross section obtained from the solution of the BK equation is not saturated as a function of $`x`$. This emanates from the integration over $`b`$. With the assumed Gaussian profile function it leads to a logarithmic growth with decreasing $`x`$. The Froissart-like behaviour $`\sigma _{dipole}\mathrm{ln}^2(1/x)`$  is crucially dependent on the fact that the large impact parameter behaviour of the dipole cross-section is exponential, rather than Gaussian.

Starting from our dipole cross sections we obtain our master equation for the hadron-proton cross-section

$$\sigma _{Hproton}(x)=d^2r_{}|\psi _H(r_{})|^2\sigma _{dipole}(r_{},x),$$
(2.6)
where $`\psi _H(r_{})`$ represents the wave function of the hadron which scatters off the target proton. The form taken for $`\psi _H(r_{})`$ is discussed in the next section.

For both saturation models ((2.4) and (2.5)) the energy dependence of the hadron-proton cross section enters only through $`x`$-dependence of the dipole cross section, the latter being adjusted or constructed to describe DIS data of the $`F_2`$ structure function. The way in which the the $`x`$-dependence of the dipole cross section determines the energy dependence of the hadron cross sections is strongly influenced by the $`b`$-slope. Note, however, that there is no $`x`$ in hadron-hadron collisions. In order to relate $`x`$ to the energy of the process we will need to introduce an additional nonperturbative scale, denoted below as $`Q_0^2`$.

## 3 Details of Calculation

### 3.1 Hadronic wave function

There is no established method for calculating hadronic wave functions within the framework of QCD. The Heidelberg group Dosch et al. using the stochastic vacuum model, have calculated hadronic cross-sections, after making an ansatz regarding the form of the hadronic wave function $`\psi _H(r)`$. We adopt their ansatz and utilize hadronic wave functions of similar shape to those used in .

Based on experimental evidence of the flavour dependence of hadronic cross-sections, which decrease with increasing number of strange quarks, the authors of  hypothesized that the cross sections depend on the sizes of the hadrons in the process.

For the hadron transverse wave function we take a simple Gaussian form, the square of the wave function is given by

$$|\psi _M(r_{})|^2=\frac{1}{\pi S_M^2}exp(\frac{r_{}^2}{S_M^2})$$
(3.1)
where $`S_M`$ is a parameter related to the meson size. We have used $`S_\pi =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.08}`$ fm and $`S_K=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.95}`$ fm. These $`S_M`$ were found from experimental values for the electromagnetic radii, namely, $`R_\pi =0.66\pm 0.01`$ fm and $`R_K=0.58\pm 0.04`$ fm . For meson wavefunction of the form (3.1) $`S_M=\sqrt{\frac{8}{3}}R_M`$.

The proton’s wave function squared is given by

$$|\psi _p(r_1,r_2)|^2=\frac{1}{(\pi S_p)^2}exp(\frac{r_1^2+r_2^2}{S_p^2})$$
(3.2)
where $`S_p=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.05}`$ fm, which corresponds to $`R_p=0.862\pm 0.012`$ fm . For proton wavefunction of the form (3.2) $`S_p=\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}R_p`$.

For meson-proton scattering, the meson is treated as a quark-antiquark pair (i.e. a colour dipole), and therefore the calculation follows that of DIS, i.e. the interaction of a colour dipole with a proton target, with the meson wave function replacing that of the virtual photon. However, for the scattering of a baryon projectile, we represent the baryon as constituted of two colour dipoles, one dipole formed around two quarks, and the second dipole from the center of mass of these two quarks to the third quark in the baryon. Generally speaking the parameter $`S_p`$ in (3.2) can be different for these two dipoles. For example, in the non relativistic additive quark model (AQM) we expect $`S_p`$ for the first dipole to be larger by the factor 4/3 compared to the second dipole. In (3.2), for simplicity, they are choosen to be identical. It will be shown below that the hadron cross sections are mostly determined by the saturation domain where the sensitivity to the wave function and, in particular, to the choice of $`S_p`$ is quite weak.

In AQM, the $`\frac{2}{3}`$ ratio between $`\pi `$-p and p-p cross-sections is due to quark counting. In our model, at very high energies when the dipole cross section is independent of the dipole size, the predicted ratio is $`\frac{1}{2}`$, given by the number of dipoles in the pion relative to those in the proton. In our approach the high energy interaction is blind with respect to the flavours of the interacting quarks, and the ratio $`\sigma _{tot}^{Mp}/\sigma _{tot}^{pp}=1/2`$, seems to disagree with the data. Experimentally, at an energy of $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 20 GeV, $`\sigma _{tot}^{\pi p}/\sigma _{tot}^{pp}`$ 0.6. We expect the secondary Regge trajectories to give a smaller contribution to $`K^+p`$ interaction, as there are no resonances in the $`s`$ channel of this reaction, the same is also true for proton-proton scattering. The predicted ratio $`\sigma _{tot}^{K^+p}/\sigma _{tot}^{pp}=1/2`$ is in reasonably good agreement with the experiment data.

### 3.2 Method of Calculation

All the parameters in $`N(r_{},b_{},x)`$ were taken from the fit of

$$F_2(Q^2,x)=\frac{Q^2}{4\pi ^2\alpha _{elem}}\sigma ^{\gamma ^{}p}(Q^2,x)$$
(3.3)
made to the experimental DIS data, (see  for details). In the DIS case the variable $`x`$ is well defined in terms of $`Q^2`$ and $`W^2`$, in the hadronic case we redefine $`x`$ to be $`x=\frac{Q_0^2}{s}`$, where s denotes the energy squared in the center of mass system of the hadrons, and $`Q_0^2`$ is a parameter which we adjust to be compatible with the data. The value of $`Q_0^2`$ is determined by the longitudinal part of the wave function, for which at present we do not have a reasonable model. In general we would expect the scale $`Q_0`$ to increase with increasing hadron masses, and thus vary from hadron to hadron. In this study we will fit this parameter separately for each projectile hadron.

In the colour dipole picture (which is equivalent to two gluon exchange), one can hopefully only reproduce the asymptotic energy dependence i.e. the Pomeron contribution. At lower energies where most of the data for meson baryon scattering is available, there are also contributions from secondary trajectories. The evaluation of these contributions is beyond the scope of our model.

## 4 Comparison of Our Model Predictions with Data

Our model contains a parameter $`Q_0^2`$, (which can be considered as a scale factor) from the definition of $`x=\frac{Q_0^2}{W^2}`$, in analogy with the variable in DIS, $`x\frac{Q^2}{W^2}`$. The energy dependence of the hadronic cross-sections can be adjusted by choosing a suitable value for this variable. We found that the value $`Q_0^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3.5}\times 10^3GeV^2`$, gives good agreement with the data for $`\sigma _{tot}(K^+p)`$. See Fig. 2 (a). The $`K^+p`$ channel was chosen as it is exotic, having no resonances in s channel and therefore by duality the secondary Regge trajectory contributions are small. By replacing the wave function of the $`K^+`$ meson in Eq.(3.1) by that of the $`\pi `$ meson, we obtain $`\sigma _{tot}`$ for the $`\pi ^{}p`$. We display our prediction and the data in Fig. 2 (a). We have chosen to show $`\sigma _{tot}(\pi ^{}p)`$ compared to data, as there are more data in this channel than in the $`\pi ^+p`$ channel. The cross-sections $`\sigma _{\pi ^+p}`$ and $`\sigma _{\pi ^{}p}`$ only differ due to the contribution of the secondary trajectories. The parameters used for $`\sigma _{tot}(\pi ^{}p)`$ are $`Q_0^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\times 10^3GeV^2`$, and a Regge contribution of $`27\times (\frac{s}{s_0})^{0.45}`$ mb ($`s_0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}GeV^2`$) which has a smaller residue than that suggested by the DL model.

We note that the predicted energy dependence for $`\sigma _{tot}(\pi ^{}p)`$ is more moderate than the data, and at an energy of $`p_{lab}`$ = 400 GeV, we underestimate the experimental data by approximately 7 %.

We compare our results with those of the GBW model, by replacing $`\sigma _{dipole}`$ in Eq. (2.6), by the GBW dipole $`\widehat{\sigma }(x,r_{})_{dipole}`$ given in Eq. (2.5). We wish to stress that the GBW saturation model was formulated for, and applied to DIS reactions . The responsibility of extending the model to hadronic interactions is ours. The GBW model does not contain any explicit $`b`$-dependence, but one can consider the constant cross-section to be the result after integration over the impact parameter (with a sharp impact parameter cutoff put into the exponent in (2.5)). It is clear that at asymptotic energies (where one can neglect the contribution of secondary trajectories), the GBW cross-section for $`\sigma _{tot}(Mp)`$ 23 mb, and $`\sigma _{tot}(Bp)`$ 46 mb, as we have one (two) dipoles interacting with the proton target for Mp (Bp) scattering. In Fig. 2 (a) we show the result (dotted line) obtained using the GBW form for the dipole Eq. (2.5) for the $`K^+p`$ channel, with $`Q_0^{2(GBW)}`$ = 0.27 $`GeV^2`$, and using the same form of the hadronic wave function as discussed in Section (3.1). For $`\pi ^{}p`$ channel we used the almost maximal possible dipole cross section, put $`Q_0^2=5\times 10^4`$ $`GeV^2`$, and add a secondary trajectory with $`11\times (\frac{s}{s_0})^{0.45}`$ mb. Due to the arguement presented above, the GBW model cannot be adjusted to these data at all.

For $`\sigma _{tot}(\overline{p}p)`$ (see Fig. 2 (b)) the energy dependence predicted by the model is not as steep as the experimental data, yielding a value for $`\sigma _{total}(\overline{p}p)`$ 65 mb (instead of 72 mb) at Tevatron energies. i.e. a deficit of 10 %, however, this is over a much wider energy range than in the $`\pi ^{}p`$ case. For $`\sigma _{total}(pp)`$ (where data is only available over a narrower range of energy) we achieve a very good reproduction of the experimental data, this is displayed in Fig. 2 (b). For the pp and $`p\overline{p}`$ channels we take $`Q_0^2`$ = 0.03 $`GeV^2`$, and following  have a Regge contribution of $`98.4\times (\frac{s}{s_0})^{0.45}`$ mb for $`\sigma _{tot}(\overline{p}p)`$ and $`56\times (\frac{s}{s_0})^{0.45}`$ mb for $`\sigma _{tot}(pp)`$.

To get a handle on the theoretical uncertainties of our treatment we have also calculated $`\sigma _{tot}(\overline{p}p)`$, using a profile function

$$S(b)=\frac{2}{\pi R_{proton}^2}(\frac{\sqrt{8}b}{R_{proton}})K_1(\frac{\sqrt{8}b}{R_{proton}})$$
(4.1)
which corresponds to the Fourier transform of the ”dipole” form factor in the momentum transfer representation:

$$F_{\mathrm{"}dipole\mathrm{"}}(t)=\frac{1}{(1\frac{R_{proton}^2t}{8})^2}.$$
(4.2)
The result of our calculations with the ”dipole” form factor for $`\sigma _{tot}(\overline{p}p)`$ is shown by the dashed line in Fig. 2 (b). For this calculation we took $`Q_0^2`$ = 0.06 $`GeV^2`$. For the comparison with the $`F_2`$ data , a value of $`R_{proton}^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4.46}GeV^2`$ was used.

We repeat the same procedure for the $`\overline{p}p`$ channel for the GBW model as we did for $`\sigma _{tot}(K^+p)`$ explained above, now with parameters $`Q_0^{2(GBW)}`$ = 0.7 $`GeV^2`$, and a Regge contribution of $`20\times (\frac{s}{s_0})^{0.45}`$ mb, (adjusted to the data), and taking the same form for the baryon wave function. The results are shown as a dotted line in Fig. 2 (b).

We also calculate the forward slope of the elastic cross- section i.e. B, which is defined as

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}=\frac{d\sigma }{dt}_{|_{t=0}}e^{Bt}$$

and is related to the sizes of the particles participating in the reaction. $`B=B_0+B^{^{}}`$ where

$$B^{^{}}=\frac{d^2r_{}|\psi _H(r_{})|^2b_{}^2N(r_{},b_{},x)𝑑b_{}^2}{\sigma _{tot}}=\frac{1}{2}<b_{}^2>.$$
(4.3)
In Fig. 3 we display $`B=B_0+B^{^{}}`$ with $`B_0`$ = 7.8 $`GeV^2`$. $`B_0`$ is related to the formfactors of the hadrons. Its value was chosen with an eye on the data, and is close to that used by Schuler and Sjöstrand .

The results we obtain are disappointing, but understandable and demonstrate the weak point of our model viz. the assumption of the oversimplified form for the impact parameter dependence of the amplitude (see Appendix). The elastic slope (unlike $`\sigma _{tot}`$) is sensitive to the $`b_{}`$ distribution, and our assumption that the major contribution comes from small values of $`b_{}`$ is obviously wrong. We will expand on this difficulty in Section 5 and the Appendix.

Using the relation

$$\sigma _{elastic}=\frac{(\sigma _{tot})^2}{16\pi B}$$

we check our model’s predictions for $`\sigma _{elastic}`$ for the $`\overline{p}p`$ channel, where the data extends to high energies. The model produces a very good description of the elastic $`\overline{p}p`$ cross-section (see Fig. 4(a)). In $`\sigma _{elastic}`$, the deficiency in the energy rise of $`\sigma _{tot}`$ is to some extend compensated by the inadequacy of $`B`$.

We find it of interest to investigate how close we are to a black disc picture for dipole-proton scattering, which we do by utilizing the Pumplin bound , which follows from Unitarity considerations and can be written as:

$$R_D=\frac{\sigma _{elastic}+\sigma _{diff}}{\sigma _{tot}}=\frac{d^2r_{}d^2b_{}|\psi _H(r_{})|^2N^2(r_{},b_{},x)}{\sigma _{tot}}\frac{1}{2}.$$

In Fig. 4(b) we display the ratio $`R_D`$ and the experimental data. The model’s predictions agrees with the data, and suggests that even at Tevatron energies we are 20% away from the black disc limit of $`\frac{1}{2}`$.

## 5 Discussion and Conclusions

Our treatment has two parameters:
(a) $`R_h^2`$ which is taken from the electromagnetic radius of the hadron (following the Heidelberg prescription);
(b) the parameter $`Q_0^2`$, (introduced after Eq. (3.3), is adjusted by comparing with the data for the different channels. It is worth mentioning that, as expected, the obtained values for $`Q_0`$ reflect the mass hierarchy of the projectile hadrons.
In addition, we require the contribution of secondary trajectories at lower energies.

We would like to emphasis that our approximate solution to the BK equation  is obtained for impact parameter b = 0, and then an ansatz is made regarding the b dependence of the profile function S(b). In the original fit to the $`F_2`$ data , S(b) was taken to be a Gaussian, (which is equivalent to assuming that the dependence upon t, the momentum transfer squared, is exponential). It is this Gaussian shape of the profile function which produces a cross-section with a $`\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1}{x})`$ dependence. We have shown that taking a ”dipole” behaviour in the $`t`$ representation we would have a profile function $`S(b)\frac{b}{R}K_1(\frac{b}{R})`$, and the resulting cross-sections would asymptotically have a $`\mathrm{ln}^2(\frac{1}{x})`$ dependence. A reflection of this fact is that the energy dependence of the cross section (see dashed line of Fig. 2) is much steeper, which is more in accord with the data. Since the original fit to the DIS $`F_2`$ data was made with a Gaussian profile in b space, for consistency one should redo the fit with a different profile. This is a task for the future. We summarize our main results:

* We obtain a reasonable value of the total cross-sections.
* The predicted energy increase is too moderate. Both the value of the cross section and the energy dependence depend on the assumed $`b`$-dependence of the profile function. For illustration we have compared with the saturation model of : because of the sharp cutoff in $`b`$ built into this model, the energy dependence is even weaker. This emphasizes the need to improve, in all saturation models the $`b`$-shape of the profile function.
* The difference between $`\sigma _{K^+p}`$ and $`\sigma _{\pi p}`$ at high energy needs an explanation, which cannot be answered within the framework of our model.
* The slow increase of the slope B, is the result of having an almost black disc picture for dipole - proton scattering  and not a consequence of a particular form for the $`b`$-profile.
* $`R_D=\frac{\sigma _{elastic}+\sigma _{diff}}{\sigma _{tot}}`$ tends to $`\frac{1}{2}`$, which is the black disc limit. We reproduce the experimental values for this ratio, which we consider as a success of the model.

In general the approach works better than one would expect, even in the region of long distances. The results obtained are not very sensitive to the input parameters of the projectile hadron, namely the wavefunction and the parameter $`Q_0^2`$. Our use of the saturation models has some predictive power, provided we have enough information about projectile wave function.

Nevertheless, there are serious shortcomings in applying the dipole picture with the concept of saturation to hadronic cross sections. The crucial feature seems to be the $`b`$-dependence of the dipole cross section which needs further investigation. On a more fundamental level, it is not clear at all, how to relate the dipole picture to the additive quark model: at present these two approaches look almost orthogonal to each other.

## 6 Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Claude Bourrely and Jacques Soffer for their help in sending us their files of the cross-section data. We thank Eran Naftali for useful remarks. Two of us (E.G. and E.L.) thank the DESY Theory Division for their hospitality. This research was supported in part by the BSF grant # 9800276, and by the GIF grant # I-620-22.14/1999, and by the Israel Science Foundation, founded by the Israeli Academy of Science and Humanities.

## 7 Appendix

Our results can be easily checked in the asymptotic limit where we have (for simplicity of argument the following discussion is presented at some fixed $`r_{}`$, while $`r_{}`$ integrations are implicitly assumed):

$$\sigma _{Mp}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi ^{b_0^2(x)}𝑑b_{}^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi b_0^2(x)$$
(7.1)
where $`b_0^2(x)`$ is a result of our ansatz on the $`b_{}`$ behaviour viz.

$$\sigma _{dipolep}(r_{},x;b_{})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}(1e^{\mathrm{\Omega }/2})$$
(7.2)
with

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{ln}[1N(r_{},x;b_{}=0)]e^{\frac{b_{}^2}{R^2}}.$$

$`b_0^2(x)`$ can be calculated from the equation

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(r_{},x;b_{}=b_0(x))}{2}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}$$

i.e.

$$b_0^2(x)=R^2\mathrm{ln}[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(1N(r_{},x;b_{}=0)]$$

where $`\sigma _{\pi p}^{tot}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi b_0^2(x)`$ and $`\sigma _{pp}^{tot}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\pi b_0^2(x)`$. The factor 2 between the cross-sections is due to the fact that we have two dipoles in the proton and one in the meson.

The elastic slope is given by Eq. (4.3)

$$B^{^{}}=\frac{b_0^4(x)/2}{2b_0^2(x)}=\frac{b_0^2(x)}{4}.$$
(7.3)
The energy dependence of $`B^{^{}}`$ can now be calculated

$$\frac{dB^{^{}}}{d\mathrm{ln}(1/x)}=\frac{1}{4}\frac{db_0^2(x)}{d\mathrm{ln}(1/x)}=\frac{1}{16\pi }\frac{d\sigma _{pp}^{tot}(x)}{d\mathrm{ln}(1/x)}.$$
(7.4)
¿From this formula it is clear that we have an increase of B with $`\frac{1}{x}`$ which is slower than that of $`\sigma _{pp}^{tot}(x)`$, and obviously not in accord with the experimental data. Though the above argument was presented for the Gaussian profile, similar conclusions would be obtained for an alternative profile function.


text:
# Constraining the Structure of GRB Jets Through the Afterglow Light Curves

## 1 Introduction

There are several different lines of evidence in favor of collimated outflows, also referred to as jets, in gamma-ray bursts (GRBs). Perhaps, the best evidence so far is the achromatic break seen in the light curves of many (though not all) GRB afterglows. A collimated outflow also helps to reduce the estimate for the total energy output in gamma-rays that is inferred from the fluence in GRBs with known redshifts, which in some cases approaches and in one case (GRB 990123) even exceeds the rest energy of a solar mass star, for a spherically symmetric emission. Such an energy output in gamma-rays is hard to produce in any model that involves a stellar mass object. Furthermore, a non-spherical flow can also manifest itself through linear polarization (Sari 1999; Ghisellini & Lazzati 1999) as was indeed observed for a few afterglows (Covino et al. 1999; Wijers et al. 1999; Rol et al. 2000).

Most GRB jet models consider an outflow that is uniform within some finite, well defined, opening angle around its symmetry axis, and where the Lorentz factor, energy density etc. drop sharply beyond this opening angle (Rhoads 1997, 1999; Panaitescu & Mészáros 1999; Sari, Piran & Halpern 1999; Kumar & Panaitescu 2000; Moderski, Sikora & Bulik 2000; Granot et al. 2001, 2002). Such a uniform jet with a sharp, well defined, edge shall be referred to as a ‘top hat’ jet. The possibility that GRB jets can display an angular structure, where the kinetic energy per unit solid angle, $`ϵ`$, and the Lorentz factor, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, of the GRB outflow vary smoothly as power laws in the angle, $`\theta `$, from the jet axis, was proposed by Mészáros, Rees & Wijers (1998). We shall refer to such smoothly varying relativistic outflows as ‘structured’ jets (as opposed to a ‘top hat’ jet, that has no inner structure).

Recently, several different groups have analyzed afterglow observations within the frame work of the ‘top hat’ jet model, and have inferred a relatively narrow distribution both for the total energy output in gamma-rays (Frail et al. 2001) and in the initial kinetic energy of the relativistic outflow (Panaitescu & Kumar 2001; Piran et al. 2001). These results may alternatively be interpreted as GRB jets having a universal structure, which is intrinsically the same for all GRBs, and the observed differences between different GRBs are a result of different viewing angle, $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$, w.r.t. the jet symmetry axis (Lipunov, Postnov & Prokhorov 2001; Rossi, Lazzati & Rees 2002; Zhang & Mészáros 2002). Whereas in the ‘top hat’ jet interpretation, the jet break time, $`t_j`$, depends mainly on the initial opening angle of the jet, $`\theta _j`$ (and also has a smaller dependence on its energy per unit solid angle and on the external density, e.g. Sari, Piran & Halpern 1999), in the universal ‘structured’ jet interpretation, $`t_j`$ depends mainly on the viewing angle, $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$, and the light curve is similar to that for a ‘top hat’ jet with an opening angle $`\theta _j=\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ and the same value of the energy per unit solid angle of the ‘structured’ jet at $`\theta =\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$.

While the evolution of ‘top hat’ jets and their light curves have been widely investigated (Rhoads 1999; Panaitescu & Mészáros 1999; Kumar & Panaitescu 2000; Moderski, Sikora & Bulik 2000; Granot et al. 2002), including numerical simulations of the jet dynamics and calculation of the resulting light curves (Granot et al. 2001), much less work has been done on ‘structured’ jets. In an accompanying paper (Kumar & Granot 2002) we calculate the dynamics of ‘structured’ relativistic jets by solving relativistic fluid dynamics equations, and demonstrate that a simple analytic or semi-analytic model can qualitatively reproduce the results for the jet dynamics and for the light curves as long as the Lorentz factor along the jet axis is of order 4 or larger. In this paper we use two simple models for the jet dynamics, which are designed to bracket the true hydrodynamic evolution of the jet, to calculate the afterglow light curves for a wide range of parameters for the structured jet and the external density. A qualitative comparison of the light curves with afterglow observations provides constraints on the jet structure and density profile in its immediate vicinity.

In §2 we present the physical model. We begin with the initial conditions (§2.1), then describe our two simple dynamical models (§2.2) and finally outline the procedure for calculating the light curves (§2.3). Our results are presented in §3, and in §4 we discuss our main conclusions.

## 2 The Physical model

The jet is assumed to posses axial symmetry, so that all the hydrodynamic quantities at a given lab frame time, $`t`$, depend only on the angle, $`\theta `$, from the jet symmetry axis. The radial profile of the outflow is ignored in this simple treatment, and the shocked material is approximated by a thin shell that is located at the same radius, $`R`$, of the shock.

The observed afterglow light curves depend on the angular structure of the GRB jet, its hydrodynamic evolution, and the viewing angle, $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$, w.r.t. the jet symmetry axis. One may therefore use the shape of the afterglow light curves to constrain the angular structure of the jet, as well as to infer the viewing angle, $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$. For a ‘top hat’ jet of opening angle $`\theta _0`$, $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}<\theta _0`$ is required in order to observe the prompt gamma-ray emission. In this case the differences in the light curves between different $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ in the range $`0\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}<\theta _0`$ are rather small (Granot et al. 2001, 2002). However, for structured jets we expect large differences in lightcurves for different $`\theta _{obs}`$.

### 2.1 The Initial Conditions

The initial conditions are chosen at a lab frame time, $`t_0`$, for which on the one hand, the internal shocks have ended, and on the other hand, no significant deceleration due to the sweeping up of the external medium has yet occurred (i.e. $`R_{IS}(\theta )<R(\theta ,t_0)<R_{\mathrm{dec}}(\theta )`$ for all relevant $`\theta `$). For simplicity, the original ejecta is assumed to remain cold, even near the deceleration radius, where it is expected to be heated by the passage of the reverse shock. This approximation might introduce inaccuracies of order unity near the deceleration epoch, corresponding to an observed time $``$ a few minutes for a typical GRB, but it should have no effect on lightcurves at later times. Energy conservation implies

$$ϵ(\theta ,t_0)=\mu _0(\theta ,t_0)\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t_0)1\right]+\mu _s(\theta ,t_0)\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\theta ,t_0)1\right]\mu _0(\theta ,t_0)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t_0),$$
(1)
where $`\mu _0`$ and $`\mu _s`$ are the rest mass per unit solid angle of the original ejecta and of the swept up external medium, respectively, $`ϵ`$ is the energy (not including the energy associated with the rest mass) per unit solid angle in the outflow, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the bulk Lorentz factor of the shocked material, and $`t_0`$ is chosen so that $`\mu _s(\theta ,t_0)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t_0)\mu _0(\theta ,t_0)`$ for all $`\theta `$.

The initial kinetic energy per unit solid angle, and initial Lorentz factor (minus 1) are assumed to be power laws in $`\theta `$, outside of a core of opening angle $`\theta _c`$:

$$ϵ(\theta ,t_0)=ϵ_0\mathrm{\Theta }^a,\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t_0)=1+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_01)\mathrm{\Theta }^b,$$
(2)
where $`ϵ_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ are the initial kinetic energy per unit solid angle and Lorentz factor at the jet axis, and

$$\mathrm{\Theta }\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{\theta }{\theta _c}\right)^2}\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \theta \theta _c\hfill \\ \theta /\theta _c\hfill & \theta \theta _c\hfill \end{array}.$$
(3)
The velocity is assumed to be in the radial direction, so that the initial radius is given by

$$R(\theta ,t_0)=t_0\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\theta ,t_0)},$$
(4)
and the lateral transfer of matter can be neglected111A more rigorous treatment of the jet hydrodynamics (Kumar & Granot 2002) shows that these assumptions are reasonable.. The external mass density profile is assumed to be a power law in the distance $`r`$ from the source, $`\rho _{ext}(r)=Ar^k`$. This implies

$`\mu _s(\theta ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{R(\theta ,t)}}r^2𝑑r\rho _{ext}(r)={\displaystyle \frac{AR(\theta ,t)^{3k}}{(3k)}},`$ (5)
$`\mu _0(\theta ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _0(\theta ,t_0)={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_0\mathrm{\Theta }^{ba}}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_01)}}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t_0)+1\right]\mu _s(\theta ,t_0).`$ (6)
### 2.2 The Jet Dynamics

The main uncertainty in the jet dynamics is the degree of lateral transport of energy, from small to large angles, $`\theta `$, w.r.t. the jet axis. We therefore make two alternative and extreme assumptions regarding this transport: in model 1 we assume that the energy per unit solid angle, $`ϵ`$, does not change with time, $`ϵ(\theta ,t)=ϵ(\theta ,t_0)`$, while in model 2 we assume the maximal averaging of $`ϵ`$ over the angle $`\theta `$ that is consistent with causality. This is done by averaging over the initial distribution of $`ϵ`$,

$$\overline{ϵ}(\theta ,t)\frac{1}{(\mathrm{cos}\theta _{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _+)}_\theta _{}^{\theta _+}𝑑\theta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}ϵ(\theta ^{},t_0),$$
(7)
where $`\theta _{}`$ ($`\theta _+`$) is the angle below (above) $`\theta `$ (i.e. $`\theta _{}<\theta <\theta _+`$), to which a hypothetical sound wave that originated at $`\theta `$ at the initial time $`t_0`$ would have propagated to. Initially, $`\theta _{}(t_0)=\theta _+(t_0)=\theta `$, and these angles subsequently evolve according to

$$\frac{\theta _\pm }{t}=\pm \frac{c_s(\theta _\pm ,t)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta _\pm ,t)R(\theta _\pm ,t)},c_s=\sqrt{\frac{\widehat{\gamma }(\widehat{\gamma }1)[\mathrm{\Gamma }1]}{1+\widehat{\gamma }[\mathrm{\Gamma }1]}},$$
(8)
where $`c_s`$ is the local sound speed, and $`\widehat{\gamma }=(4\mathrm{\Gamma }+1)/3\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the adiabatic index. This simple local scheme does not, in general, conserve the total energy in the outflow. The global energy conservation is imposed by renormalizing $`\overline{ϵ}`$,

$$ϵ(\theta ,t)=\overline{ϵ}(\theta ,t)\frac{_0^{\pi /2}𝑑\theta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}ϵ(\theta ^{},t_0)}{_0^{\pi /2}𝑑\theta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}\overline{ϵ}(\theta ^{},t)}.$$
(9)
For both models 1 and 2, the radius of the thin shell of matter changes as222There is a small difference between the velocity of the shock front and that of the fluid just behind the shock (Blandford & McKee 1976), however we neglect this distinction in the present treatment, for simplicity.

$$\frac{R(\theta ,t)}{t}=\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\theta ,t)},$$
(10)
while $`\mu _s`$ and $`\mu _0`$ are given by equation (5) and (6), respectively, and the Lorentz factor of the shocked material, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, is obtained by solving the equation for energy conservation,

$$ϵ=(\mathrm{\Gamma }1)\mu _0+(\mathrm{\Gamma }^21)\mu _s,\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{\mu _0}{2\mu _s}[\sqrt{1+\frac{4\mu _s(ϵ+\mu _0+\mu _s)}{\mu _0^2}}1].$$
(11)
### 2.3 The Light Curves

The local emissivity is calculated using the conventional assumptions of synchrotron emission from relativistic electrons that are accelerated behind the shock into a power law distribution of energies, $`N(\gamma )\gamma ^p`$ for $`\gamma >\gamma _m`$, where the electrons and the magnetic field hold fractions $`ϵ_e`$ and $`ϵ_B`$, respectively, of the internal energy. The shape of the local spectral emissivity is approximated as a broken power law with breaks at the typical synchrotron frequency $`\nu _m`$ and at the cooling frequency $`\nu _c`$ (Sari, Piran & Narayan 1998). As our main focus in this work is the effect of the jet dynamics on the afterglow emission, we keep the expression for the local emissivity fairly simple, and leave the inclusion of additional features such as the self absorption frequency, inverse Compton emission and its effect on the electron cooling, etc., for later applications, since such complications might make it hard to pinpoint the effects of the jet dynamics on the light curves.

The light curves for observers located at different angles, $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$, w.r.t. the jet axis, are calculated by applying the appropriate relativistic transformation of the radiation field from the local rest frame of the emitting fluid to the observer frames, and integrating over equal photon arrival time surfaces (Granot, Piran & Sari 1999; Kumar & Panaitescu 2000; Granot et al. 2001). The radiation calculation is in this sense rigorous and takes into account all relevant effects, so that the resulting light curves accurately reflect what is expected for a given jet structure and dynamics, where the latter are much less certain.

## 3 Results

In Figures 1-3 we show the evolution of the hydrodynamic quantities according to the two models described in the previous section, for a constant density external medium ($`k=0`$). In Figure 1 we show the evolution of the Lorentz factor for $`(a,b)=(0,2)`$. For $`a=0`$, models 1 and 2 become identical, so that this figure applies to both models. Since $`ϵ(\theta ,t)=ϵ_0=`$const, the evolution after the deceleration time is the same for all $`\theta `$, and different $`\theta `$ differ just by the deceleration time, $`t_{\mathrm{dec}}`$, and the corresponding deceleration radius, $`R_{\mathrm{dec}}`$, that are given by $`\mu _s\mu _0/\mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ/\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$, or

$$R_{\mathrm{dec}}=\left[\frac{(3k)ϵ_0}{Ac^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{(3k)}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\frac{2ba}{(3k)}},t_{\mathrm{dec}}=\frac{R_{\mathrm{dec}}}{2c\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(t_0)}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\frac{2b(4k)a}{(3k)}}.$$
(12)
As can be seen from equation (12), for $`a=0`$, the deceleration occurs first at small $`\theta `$, and gradually proceeds to larger angles. This can be nicely seen in Figure 1.

This situation is similar for $`(a,b)=(2,2)`$, but is reversed for $`(a,b)=(2,0)`$, as can be seen in Figures 2 and 3, where in the latter case the deceleration occurs first at large angles $`\theta `$ and then proceeds to smaller angles. This is in agreement with equation (12). The upper panel of Figures 2 and 3 shows the energy per unit solid angle, $`ϵ`$, which is initially the same for the two models, and remains unchanged for model 1, while for model 2 $`ϵ`$ decreases at small angles $`\theta `$, and increases at large angles. This indicates a lateral transfer of energy from small to large angles. At late times, as the flow becomes sub-relativistic, $`ϵ`$ becomes almost independent of angle $`\theta `$, and the flow approaches spherical symmetry, as is indeed expected to occur physically, since the spherically symmetric Sedov-Taylor self similar solution should be asymptotically approached in the non-relativistic regime. The middle and bottom panels show the Lorentz factor minus one, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$, for models 1 and 2, respectively. For model 1, it can be seen that while the flow is still relativistic, The Lorentz factor soon settles into a profile of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1\theta ^1`$ at $`\theta >\theta _c`$, instead of the initial $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1\theta ^2`$ or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=`$const. This occurs since the fraction of the energy in the original ejecta soon becomes negligible implying $`ϵ\mu _s(\mathrm{\Gamma }^21)`$ so that as long as the flow is relativistic, $`\mu _sR^{3k}`$const, since $`Rct`$ for all $`\theta `$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1ϵ^{1/2}\theta ^1`$. When the flow becomes non-relativistic, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^212(\mathrm{\Gamma }1)\beta ^2`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1\theta ^{4/(5k)}`$, which is still quite close to $`\theta ^1`$ for $`k`$ between 0 and 2. For model 2, a similar effect is seen at early times, when $`ϵ(\theta ,t)ϵ(\theta ,t_0)`$, but it becomes much more homogeneous at later times, as $`ϵ(\theta )`$ becomes more uniform.

The light curves of models 1 and 2 for $`(a,b)=(0,0),(0,2),(2,0),(2,2)`$ and a uniform external medium ($`k=0`$) are shown in Figure 4, while the temporal decay slope, $`\alpha `$ (defined by $`F_\nu t^\alpha `$), for the same light curves, is shown in Figure 5. We have added the spherical case, $`(a,b)=(0,0)`$, for comparison. For $`(a,b)=(0,2)`$, the light curve initially rises, before the deceleration time, $`t_{\mathrm{dec}}`$, which occurs at latter times for larger viewing angles $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$, in accord with equation (12), when keeping in mind that the emission is dominated by $`\theta \theta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ at early times due to the relativistic beaming of the radiation emitted from the jet. After a time $`t`$, deceleration has occurred at $`\theta <\theta _{\mathrm{dec}}(t)`$, where $`\theta _{\mathrm{dec}}`$ is given by $`t_{\mathrm{dec}}[\theta _{\mathrm{dec}}(t)]=t`$, and the light curves for $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}<\theta _{\mathrm{dec}}(t)`$ approach the spherical case, and hence become very close to one other. Keeping $`a=0`$, $`ϵ`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ fixed, and increasing $`b`$ from zero, $`t_{\mathrm{dec}}(\theta _{\mathrm{obs}})`$ begins to shift to larger times, and the ratio of the deceleration times for two given values of $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ grows as $`b`$ increases. But after the time $`t_{\mathrm{dec}}(\theta _{\mathrm{obs}})`$, the light curves still approach the same spherical light curve, for all values of $`b`$. There is no jet break in the light curve for $`a=0`$. Since jet breaks are observed in many afterglows, this type of jet structure can be ruled out as a universal model for GRB jets.

For $`(a,b)=(2,0)`$ and $`(2,2)`$ we find a jet break in the light curve at roughly the same time as predicted in previous works (Rossi, Lazzati & Rees 2002; Zhang & Mészáros 2002), i.e. when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta =\theta _{\mathrm{obs}})\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}^1`$. However, we also find some new and interesting features. For $`(a,b)=(2,2)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_010^3`$, the initial Lorentz factor at large angles, $`\theta `$, is quite modest, resulting in a large deceleration time, $`t_{\mathrm{dec}}`$, which can be as large as $`t_{\mathrm{dec}}1`$day for $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}0.2`$. This would result in a rising light curve at early times, for all frequencies. On the other hand, for $`(a,b)=(2,0)`$, where the initial Lorentz factor is the same for all $`\theta `$, the deceleration time, $`t_{\mathrm{dec}}`$, is very small everywhere, so that the initial rise of the light curve at $`t<t_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ will be very hard to observe. The lack of an observation of a rising light curve for afterglow observations starting from a few hours after the burst can already constrain the jet structure: either $`b<2`$ or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0>10^3`$ are required. Future observations at much earlier times after the burst, as may be achieved with the forthcoming Swift mission, may provide much stronger constraints on the jet structure.

It can also be seen from Figure 4 that for $`(a,b)=(2,2)`$, the value of the temporal decay slope, $`\alpha `$ (defined by $`F_\nu t^\alpha `$), before the jet break, is higher for larger viewing angles $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$. This effect is very large for model 1, but not very significant for model 2 (see Figure 5). The value of $`\alpha `$ before the break in the light curve for model 1 is larger than the observed value for several well studied GRB afterglows, and the light curve power-law steepening, $`|\delta \alpha |`$, is smaller than the observed value for many GRBs. The light curves obtained using model ‘1’ at early times are almost identical to the light curves from hydrodynamical simulations, and this suggests that jet structure described by (a,b)=(2,2) is not consistent with the observations for a number of GRBs.

For $`(a,b)=(2,0)`$ the correlation between $`\alpha `$ before the jet break and $`\theta _{obs}`$ is not seen, but instead there is a flattening of the light curve (i.e. an increase in $`\alpha `$) just before the jet break, for viewing angles sufficiently large compared to the core angle of the jet, $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}3\theta _c`$. This effect is more prominent in model 1, where it can also be seen to a lesser extent for $`(a,b)=(2,2)`$ as well, compared to model 2, where this effect is smaller and can be seen only for $`(a,b)=(2,0)`$ (see Figure 5). Light curves calculated for the same jet profiles but with the jet dynamics given by a hydro-simulation (Kumar & Granot 2002) show that for $`(a,b)=(2,0)`$ a reasonably sharp jet break is obtained only for $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}(23)\theta _c`$, while the flattening in the light curve just before the jet break becomes prominent at $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}(57)\theta _c`$. This leaves only a factor of $`3`$ in $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}/\theta _c`$ for which there is a sharp jet break with no flattening in the light curve just before this break, as is seen in all afterglows with jet breaks. However, the inferred values of $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ range at least one order of magnitude, $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}220^{}`$. Therefore, $`(a,b)=(2,0)`$ is unlikely to be a universal jet profile, for all GRBs, since $`\theta _c`$ is expected to vary between different afterglows. Even without requiring a universal jet profile, i.e. the same $`\theta _c`$ for all GRB jets, it would be highly improbable if all viewing angles would by chance fall within the narrow range that gives a light curve qualitatively similar to observations. This can exclude $`(a,b)=(2,0)`$ for most GRBs, and imply $`b>0`$ (or even $`b1`$). It is interesting to note that this provides a lower limit on $`b`$, while the lack of detection of a rising light curve at early times may provide an upper limit on $`b`$. This may eventually pin down the value of $`b`$, or alternatively, call into question the simple jet structure interpretation discussed in this paper if the data is inconsistent with a reasonable value for $`b`$.

Figure 6 shows the light curves for an external density that drops as $`r^2`$ ($`k=2`$). This corresponds to a stellar wind of a massive star progenitor. In the pulsar wind bubble model of GRBs, the effective external density can have different profile which may be approximated as a power law with an index $`k`$ that ranges between $`0`$ and $`1`$ (Königl & Granot 2002). Therefore $`k=0`$ and $`k=2`$, are the extreme values of $`k`$ that may be expected, and an intermediate value of $`k`$, resulting in an intermediate behavior of the light curves, is possible.

For $`k=2`$ we see a break in the light curve for a spherical flow ($`a=b=0`$), at $`t10`$yr, corresponding to the non-relativistic transition time, $`t_{\mathrm{NR}}`$. This can also be seen in Figure 7, which shows the temporal decay slope, $`\alpha `$, for the same light curves shown in Figure 6. Generally, $`t_{\mathrm{NR}}E^{1/(3k)}`$, so that for $`k=2`$ it is linear in $`E`$, and a more moderate total energy of, say, $`10^{51}`$erg would give $`t_{\mathrm{NR}}1`$yr. We extend the observer time for which we show the light curves in order to illustrate that in the non-relativistic regime, all light curves become similar. One should keep in mind, that physically, one may expect an $`r^2`$ external density profile only up to some finite radius (for a stellar wind, this correspond to the radius of the wind termination shock) while at much larger radii we expect a roughly constant density medium. This would result in modifications to the light curves shown here, however, this is typically expected to effect the light curves only in the non-relativistic regime ($`tt_{\mathrm{NR}}`$).

The deceleration time, $`t_{\mathrm{dec}}`$, is typically very small for $`k=2`$ since the density at small radii is very large, and the total swept up mass is only linear in radius. The jet break is much smoother and less sharp compared to a constant density environment ($`k=0`$), as was found for a ‘top hat’ jet considered by Kumar & Panaitescu (2000). There is a relatively sharp break only for $`(a,b)=(2,0)`$, and even then it is hardly sharp enough to reproduce the jet breaks observed in GRB afterglows. This suggests $`k<2`$, or rather $`k1`$. It is interesting to note that this is consistent with the external density profile expected in the pulsar wind bubble model (Kónigl & Granot 2002; Guetta & Granot 2002), while this is not consistent with the density profile expected in the collapsar model, $`k=2`$.

## 4 Discussion

We have calculated light curves from structured relativistic jets (jets whose Lorentz factor and energy per unit solid angle vary smoothly with angle from the jet axis) using two simple models for the jet dynamics, motivated by the hydrodynamical simulation of Kumar and Granot (2002), and as two limiting cases of energy redistribution in the lateral direction.

The first model considers the energy per unit solid angle, $`ϵ(\theta ,t)`$, to be time independent, so that each segment of the jet evolves independently of the other parts of the jet, as if it was part of a spherical flow. This is roughly consistent with the results from hydrodynamical simulations of structured jets for which $`ϵ`$ varies slowly with $`\theta `$, where we find the transverse velocity in the comoving frame to be small compared to the sound speed throughout much of the jet evolution, as long as the Lorentz factor, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, is of order a few or larger along the jet axis (Kumar & Granot 2002). This model is expected to be a good approximation for calculating the jet dynamics and the resulting afterglow light curves for the first few days after a GRB.

The second model considers the maximum possible re-distribution of energy in the transverse direction so as to reduce the lateral-gradient of $`ϵ`$. The energy per unit solid angle, $`ϵ(\theta ,t)`$, is taken to be proportional to the average over the initial distribution of $`ϵ`$, $`ϵ(\theta ,t_0)`$, within the area out to which a sound wave could have traveled from $`\theta `$ since the initial time, $`t_0`$. This model is likely to be more accurate in describing the late time behavior of the jet and the light curves, when the transverse velocity becomes of order the sound speed.

We have calculated light-curves for a number of different initial jet structures, which are taken to be power-law profiles at angles larger than some core angle, i.e. $`ϵ\theta ^a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\theta ^b`$ for $`\theta >\theta _c`$. We have considered three different jet profiles, namely $`(a,b)`$ = (2,0), (2,2), (0,2) for both a homogeneous external medium as well an ambient density falling off as distance squared from the center of explosion (i.e. $`k=0`$ or $`2`$, where $`\rho _{ext}r^k`$).

The quantitative differences in the light-curves calculated using our two models are typically of order unity for all of the jet structures we have considered. This gives us some confidence that lightcurves can be calculated with a reasonable accuracy even with a crude modeling of jet dynamics. There are, however, interesting qualitative differences in the light-curve properties depending on how we model jet dynamics. For instance, for $`(a,b)=(2,2)`$ and a homogeneous medium ($`k=0`$), the temporal index of the light curve, $`\alpha `$ (defined by $`F_\nu t^\alpha `$), before the jet break is larger for large viewing angles, $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$. This effect is much more prominent for model 1, compared to model 2. For $`(a,b)=(2,0)`$ and $`k=0`$, with model 1 there is a pronounced flattening in the light curve just before the jet break for $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}3\theta _c`$, while for model 2 this effect is much smaller.

There is a significant difference between the two models in the late time light curves, as we expect: model 1 light curves continue a power-law decline at late times, whereas model 2 light curves show a slight flattening at late times resulting from energy redistribution – see Figures 4 and 5 for homogeneous external medium with jet structures $`(a,b)=(2,2)`$ & (2,0), and Figures 6 and 7 for the stratified external medium the particular case of $`(a,b)=(2,0)`$. Figures 6 and 7 also show that the break in the light curves for a stratified external medium is very gentle and the change to the power-law index $`\alpha `$ is small so long as the observer is not too far the axis: $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}/\theta _c10`$. This result is consistent with the work of Kumar & Panaitescu (2000), based on the analysis of a ‘top hat’ jet model, that it is very difficult to see a break in light curves for jets in an $`r^2`$ medium.

We can learn about the jet structure in GRBs from comparing our theoretical light curves to GRB afterglow observations. For instance, the light curves for $`(a,b)=(2,0)`$ and (2,2) behave very differently prior to the jet break. This can be used to discriminate between these possibilities (Figures 4 & 5). For obvious reasons, the light curves for the (0,2) case are very distinct and similar to a spherically symmetric explosion, and do not show a jet break. This jet structure can therefore be ruled out for all GRBs that show a jet break in their afterglow light curves. Clear breaks in the light curves can be seen for a stratified external medium density only when the observer is located far away from the jet axis ($`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}10\theta _c`$), however, in this case the GRB will be faint and is likely to be missed in flux limited triggers for detecting GRBs.

The light curves we obtain for structured jets, in many cases show a different qualitative behavior compared to afterglow observations. For example, $`k=2`$ does not produce a sufficiently sharp jet break, while for $`k=0`$ only $`a2`$ produces jet breaks that resemble afterglow observations, and even then, it is very difficult to produce all current afterglow observations with a universal jet profile, that is, if all GRB jets have the same structure and differ only by our viewing angle, $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$, w.r.t. the jet symmetry axis. Even if GRB jets do not have a universal structure, a comparison between the observed light curve and theoretical calculations can constrain the jet structure of each GRB separately.

Future afterglow observations should enable us to determine the structure of relativistic jets in GRBs as well as the properties of the surrounding medium. This will enable us to determine if the energy release in GRBs is nearly constant or not, and whether the observed afterglow light curves and the jet break time are determined by the observer angle w.r.t. a structured jet, or by the opening angle of a ‘top hat’ jet.

This work was supported by the Institute for Advanced Study, funds for natural sciences (JG).