text:
# Gamma-Ray Bursts: Afterglows and Central Engines

## 1 Introduction

The nature of gamma-ray burst is still a mystery since its discovery about thirty years ago (Klebesadel, Strong & Olsen 1973). It has been thought that Galactic magnetized neutron stars are promising candidates to the gamma-ray burst sources because of the spectral features that had been observed in several different early instruments (Mazet et al. 1981; Hunter 1984; Fenimore et al. 1988; Murakami et al. 1988). However, the launch of Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory (CGRO) on April 5, 1991 has led to a new insight to these gamma-ray sources. From the spatial distribution of the gamma-ray bursts observed by the Burst and Transient Source Experiment (BATSE) on board CGRO, it was found that they are more consistent to isotropic distribution, which is difficult to be understood by the galactic neutron star models. In addition, the smaller number of weak sources observed in comparing to that of strong sources can be interpreted as we are observing the boundary of the sources. Many models then have been suggested that these high energy gamma-ray sources may originate from extragalactic region. The isotropy of the sources can then be explained and the deficit of weak sources can be understood. However, most of these cosmological models fail to give a quantitative explanation to the spectral features (lines and continuum) observed in the gamma-ray bursts.

In early 1997, the Italian-Dutch Satellite, BeppoSAX, brought the great break-through by rapid and accurate GRB localization and thus provided a few arcmins (or even smaller) error box. With so small an error box, it identified an X-ray counter-part (now known as X-ray afterglow) of GRB 970228 just 8 hours after the $`\gamma `$-ray trigger (Costa et al. 1997). Several hours later, its optical afterglow was also observed (Groot et al. 1997; van Paradijs et al. 1997). Since then, BeppoSAX has observed more than 20 GRBs, of which almost all exhibited X-ray afterglows. Based on the precise localization, many telescopes observed about a dozen optical afterglows and about ten radio afterglows. Up to now, people have observed host galaxies of more than ten GRBs with large red-shifts, showing them definitely at cosmological distances. These great discoveries lead to rapid developments in GRB studies(van Paradijs et al. 2000). A lot of questions have now been clarified. However, compared with GRB itself, afterglow appears to be simpler and has been known much better. In contrast, the GRB itself, especially its energy source and origin, still keeps to be mysterious.

The main observational facts of GRBs are as follows:

(i)Burst Rate:

BATSE has detected about one GRB per day from an unpredictable direction in the sky. It is believed that the burst rate could be up to $`10^3`$ bursts per year if the actual solid angle and the sky exposure time are corrected.

(ii)Temporal Properties:

The majority of GBRs has a very complex temporal structures. Their variability $`\delta T`$ is significantly shorter than the duration $`T`$. Typically, $`\delta T10^2T`$. $`T`$ is very short, usually only a few seconds to tens of seconds, but occasionally it could be as long as a few tens of minutes or as short as a few milli-seconds. There seems to be a roughly bimodal distribution of long bursts of $`T2`$ s and short bursts of $`T2`$ s (Kouveliotou et al. 1993). The time scales of variability ($`\delta T`$), especially their rising time, may be as short as only milli-seconds or even sub-milli-seconds. There are various time dilations in temporal profiles of GRBs. If the GBRs are cosmological origin then the temporal profiles and spectra of more distant sources will be time dilated compared to those relatively nearby sources (e.g. Norris et al. 1994; Wei & Lu 1997). Time dilations in different energy channels were also discovered (e.g. Cheng et al. 1995; 1996b).

(iii)Spatial distribution:

The angular distribution of GRBs’ position on the sky is perfectly isotropic (Greiner 1999). For the first 1005 BATSE bursts the observed dipole and quadrupole (corrected to BATSE sky exposure) relative to the galaxy are 0.017 $`\pm `$ 0.018 and $`0.003\pm `$ 0.009 respectively. These values are 0.9$`\sigma `$ and 0.3$`\sigma `$ deviated from complete isotropy (Meegan et al. 1992; Briggs 1995) respectively. This distribution favors GRBs at cosmological distances at least statistically. However, GRBs at extended dark halo of our Galaxy could also explain this feature. This led to a great debate between galactic origin and cosmological origin. There are a few strong bursts and many more weak bursts. A sample of the first 601 bursts is used to analyze the distribution of sources in space and shows a 14$`\sigma `$ deviated from the homogeneous flat space distribution (Pendleton et al.1995) but compatible with a cosmological distribution. However, the distribution of short bursts is not inconsistent with homogeneous Euclidian distribution (Katz & Canel 1996).

(iv)Total Energy of the Burst: The $`\gamma `$-ray fluences are typically in the range of $`(0.110)\times 10^6`$ ergs/cm2. If the possible beaming is ignored, these fluences imply that the total burst energies are $`10^{45}10^{46}`$ergs for galactic halo distance and $`10^{52}10^{53}`$ergs for cosmological distance. However, the energy release of GRB 990123 in $`\gamma `$-rays is already as large as about $`3.4\times 10^{54}`$ ergs, if considering the low efficiency of $`\gamma `$-rays radiation, the total energy release could be a few times of $`10^{55}`$ ergs or even much larger, this imposes strong challenge for all GRB models(Kulkarni et al. 1999a; Andersen et al. 1999).

(v)Spectral properties:

Most of GRB power is radiated in the 100 - 1000 keV range, but photons up to 18 GeV or down to a few keV have also been registered. The non-thermal spectra of GRBs are best fitted by a broken power-law with two spectral indices. If a simple power-law fit is used, namely F($`E_\gamma `$) $``$ $`E_\gamma ^\alpha `$, where $`\alpha `$ is about 1.8 — 2 (Piran 1999). The low energy part of the spectrum behaves in many cases like a simple power-law: F $`E_\gamma ^\beta `$ with $`1/2<\beta <1/3`$ (Katz 1994; Cohen et al. 1997). This can be easily explained in terms of the non-uniform magnetic distribution inside the fireball shock front (Cheng & Wei 1996). Observations by earlier detectors as well as by BATSE have shown that the spectrum varies during the bursts. Most bursts evolve from hard to soft, but different trends were found (Norris et al. 1986; Ford et al. 1995). Both absorption and emission features had been reported by various experiments prior to BATSE. Absorption lines in the 20 - 40 keV range had been observed by several experiments (Murakami et al. 1988; Fenimore et al.1988), but never simultaneously. Emission features near 400 keV had been claimed in other bursts (Mazets et al. 1980). However BATSE has not found any of the spectral features (Palmer et al. 1994; Band et al. 1996).

(vi)Afterglows:

Afterglows are counterparts of GRBs at wave bands other than $`\gamma `$-rays, may be in X-ray, optical, or even radio bands (Costa et al. 1997; van Paradijs et al. 1997; Galama et al. 1997; Frail et al. 1997; Taylor et al. 1997; Piran 1999). They are variable, typically decaying according to power laws: $`F_\nu t^\alpha `$ ($`\nu =`$ X, optical, ……) with $`\alpha =1.11.6`$ for X-ray, $`\alpha =1.12.1`$ for optical band. X-ray afterglows can last days or even weeks; optical afterglows and radio afterglows months. The most important discovery is that many afterglows show their host galaxies being definitely at cosmological distances (with large red-shifts up to $`Z=3.4`$ or even 5). Thus, the debate is settled down, GRBs are at cosmological distances, they should be the most energetic events ever known since the Big Bang.

## 2 The Standard Fireball Shock Model

(i)Stellar Level Event:

The variability time scale is usually very short. Let $`\delta T\mathrm{ms}`$, then, the space scale of the initial source, $`R_\mathrm{i}<c\delta T3\times 10^2`$ km. Hence, even for black hole, considering $`R=2\mathrm{G}M/c^2`$, we have $`Mc^3\delta T/(2\mathrm{G})10^2`$ M. If the burster is not a black hole, its mass should be much smaller. Thus, we can conclude that the GRB should be a stellar phenomenon and the burster should be a compact stellar object which may be related with neutron star (or strange star) or stellar black hole.

(ii)Fireball:

¿From the measured fluence $`F`$ and the measured distance $`D`$, if emission is isotropic, we can calculate the total radiated energy to be $`E_0=F(4\pi D^2)10^{51}(F/(10^6\mathrm{ergs}/\mathrm{cm}^2))(D/(3\mathrm{G}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}))^2`$. Thus, very large energy ($`10^{51}`$ ergs) is initially contained in a small volume of $`(4/3)\pi R_i^31\times 10^{23}`$ cm3. This should be inevitably a fireball, of which the optical depth for $`\gamma \gamma \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$, $`\tau _{\gamma \gamma }`$, is very large. Consider a typical burst its average optical depth can be written as:

$$\tau _{\gamma \gamma }=\frac{f_\mathrm{p}\sigma _\mathrm{T}FD^2}{R_\mathrm{i}^2m_\mathrm{e}c^2}10^{17}f_\mathrm{p}\left(\frac{F}{10^6\mathrm{ergs}/\mathrm{cm}^2}\right)\left(\frac{D}{3\mathrm{Gpc}}\right)^2\left(\frac{\delta T}{1\mathrm{ms}}\right)^2,$$
(1)
where $`f_\mathrm{p}`$ denotes the fraction of photon pairs satisfying $`\sqrt{E_1E_2}>m_\mathrm{e}c^2`$.

For so large an optical depth, there seem to appear two serious difficulties. First, the radiation in an optically thick case should be thermal, while the observed radiation is definitely non-thermal. Second, high energy photons should be easily converted into $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ pairs, while the observed high energy tail indicates that this convertion has not happened. However, it is very interesting to note that just such a large optical depth paves the way to solve both of them.

(iii)Compactness Problem:

In fact, the luminosity of the thermal radiation, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, should be proportional to the surface of the fireball which is initially so small that the thermal radiation can not be observed. However, just due to the large optical depth, the radiation pressure should be very high and could accelerate the fireball expansion to become ultra-relativistic with a large Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$. After expanding to a large enough distance, it may be getting optically thin. At this time, the non-thermal $`\gamma `$-ray bursts can be observed. Does such a large distance contradict the compactness relation $`R_\mathrm{i}\mathrm{c}\delta T`$ compared with the milli-second variabilities? To answer this question, let us first note that this relation holds only for non-relativistic (rest) object with $`R_\mathrm{i}`$ denoting its space scale. For an ultra-relativistically expanding fireball, the compactness relation should be relaxed to

$$R_\mathrm{e}\gamma ^2\mathrm{c}\delta T,$$
(2)
here $`R_\mathrm{e}`$ is the space scale of the expanding fireball with Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$. Considering two photons we observed at two different times apart by $`\delta T`$, as the emitting region is moving towards the observer with a Lorentz factor $`\gamma 1`$, the second photon should be emitted at a far nearer place than the first one. This gives effectively short time variabilities and leads to the additional factor $`\gamma ^2`$ appearing in the above compactness relation.

The factor $`f_\mathrm{p}`$ in the optical depth $`\tau _{\gamma \gamma }`$ also sensitively depends on the ultra-relativistic expansion of the fireball. As for this case, the observed photons are blue-shifted, in the comoving frame, their energy should be lower by a factor of $`\gamma `$, and fewer photons will have sufficient energy to produce pairs. This gives a factor depending on spectral index $`\alpha `$, namely a factor of $`\gamma ^{2\alpha }`$ in $`\tau _{\gamma \gamma }`$.

(iv)Ultra-relativistic expansion:

Therefore, the optical depth $`\tau _{\gamma \gamma }`$ will decrease by a factor of $`\gamma ^{4+2\alpha }`$ for the ultra-relativistically expanding fireball (Goodman 1986; Paczyński 1986; Piran 1999; Krolik & Pier 1991):

$$\tau _{\gamma \gamma }=\frac{f_\mathrm{p}}{\gamma ^{2\alpha }}\frac{\sigma _\mathrm{T}FD^2}{R_\mathrm{e}^2\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}^2}\frac{10^{17}}{\gamma ^{(4+2\alpha )}}f_\mathrm{p}\left(\frac{F}{10^6\mathrm{ergs}/\mathrm{cm}^2}\right)\left(\frac{D}{3\mathrm{Gpc}}\right)^2\left(\frac{\delta T}{1\mathrm{ms}}\right)^2.$$
(3)
Note, the spectral index $`\alpha `$ is approximately 2, we will have $`\tau _{\gamma \gamma }<1`$ for $`\gamma >10^{17/(4+2\alpha )}10^2`$. Thus, in order for the fireball to become optically thin, as required by the observed non-thermal spectra of $`\gamma `$-ray bursts, its expanding speed should be ultra-relativistic with Lorentz factor

$$\gamma >10^2.$$

This is a very important character for GRBs, which limits the baryonic mass contained in the fireball seriously. If the initial energy is $`E_0`$, then the baryonic mass $`M`$ should be less than

$$E_0/(\mathrm{c}^2\gamma )10^5\mathrm{M}_{}(E_0/(2\times 10^{51}\mathrm{ergs})),$$
(4)
otherwise, the initial energy can not be converted to the kinetic energy of the bulk motion of baryons with such a high Lorentz factor. Most models related with neutron stars contain baryonic mass much higher than this limit. This is the famous problem named as “baryon contamination”.

It is worthwhile to note that this very condition $`\gamma >10^2`$ can also explain the existence of the high energy tail in the GRB spectra, as the observed high energy photons should be only low energy photons in the frame of emitting region, they are not energetic enough to be converted into $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ pairs.

(v)Internal-external shock:

What is the radiation mechanism in the fireball model? The fireball expansion has successfully made a conversion of the initial internal energy into the bulk kinetic energy of the expanding ejecta. However, this is the kinetic energy of the associated protons, not the photons. We should have another mechanism to produce radiation, otherwise, even after the fireball becoming optically thin, the $`\gamma `$-ray bursts can not be observed. Fortunately, the shocks described below can do such a job.

The fireball can be regarded as roughly homogeneous in its local rest frame, but due to the Lorentz contraction, it looks like a shell (ejecta) with width of the initial size of the fireball. As the shell collides with inter-stellar medium (ISM), shocks will be produced (Rees & Mészáros 1992; Katz, J., 1994; Sari & Piran 1995; Mitra 1998). These are usually called as external shocks. Relativistic electrons that have been accelerated in the relativistic shocks will usually emit synchrotron radiation. As the amount of swept-up interstellar matter getting larger and larger, the shell will be decelerated and radiation of longer wave length will be emitted. Thus, an external shock can produce only smoothly varying time-dependent emission, not the spiky multi-peaked structure found in many GRBs. If the central energy source is not completely impulsive, but works intermittently, it can produce many shells (or many fireballs) with different Lorentz factors. Late but faster shells can catch up and collide with early slower ones, and then, shocks (internal shocks) thus produced will lead to the observed bursting $`\gamma `$-ray emission (Rees & Mészáros 1994; Paczyński & Xu 1994). This is the so called internal-external shock model, internal shocks give rise to $`\gamma `$-ray bursts and external shocks to afterglows. The internal shocks can only convert a part of their energies to the $`\gamma `$-ray bursts, other part remains later to interact with the interstellar medium and lead to afterglows. Typically, the GRB is produced at a large distance of about 1013 cm to the center, such a large distance is allowed according to the relaxed compactness relation $`R_\mathrm{e}\gamma ^2\mathrm{c}\delta T`$, while its afterglows are produced at about 1016 cm or even much farther. This internal-external shock scenario, under the simplified assumptions of uniform environment with typical ISM number density of $`n1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^3`$, isotropic emission of synchrotron radiation and only impulsive energy injection, is known as the standard model.

(vi)Spectra of afterglows:

The instantaneous spectra of afterglows, according to this model, can be written as $`F_\nu \nu ^\beta `$, with different $`\beta `$ for different range of frequency $`\nu `$ (Sari et al. 1998; Piran 2000). Let $`\nu _{sa}`$ be the self absorption frequency, for which the optical depth $`\tau (\nu _{sa})=1`$. For $`\nu <\nu _{sa}`$, we have the Wien’s law: $`\beta =2`$. For $`\nu _{sa}<\nu <\mathrm{min}(\nu _\mathrm{m},\nu _\mathrm{c})`$, we can use the low energy synchrotron tail, $`\beta =1/3`$. Here $`\nu _\mathrm{m}`$ is the synchrotron frequency of an electron with characteristic energy, $`\nu _\mathrm{c}`$ is the cooling frequency, namely the synchrotron frequency of an electron that cools during the local hydrodynamic time scale. For frequency within $`\nu _\mathrm{m}`$ and $`\nu _\mathrm{c}`$, we have $`\beta =1/2`$ for fast cooling ($`\nu _\mathrm{c}<\nu _\mathrm{m}`$) and $`\beta =(p1)/2`$ for slow cooling ($`\nu _\mathrm{m}<\nu _\mathrm{c}`$). For $`\nu >\mathrm{max}(\nu _\mathrm{m},\nu _\mathrm{c})`$, we have $`p/2`$. Here, $`p`$ is the spectral index of the emitting electrons: $`N(E)E^p`$.

## 3 Dynamical Evolution of the Fireball

During the $`\gamma `$-ray bursting phase and the early stage of afterglows, the fireball expansion is initially ultra-relativistic and highly radiative, but finally it would be getting into non-relativistic and adiabatic, a unified dynamical evolution should match all these phases. In fact, the initial ultra-relativistic phase has been well described by some simple scaling laws (Mészáros & Rees 1997a; Vietri 1997; Waxman 1997a; Wijers et al. 1997), while the final non-relativistic and adiabatic phase should obey the Sedov (1969) rule, which has well been studied in Newtonian approximation. The key equation (Blandford & McKee 1976; Chiang & Dermer 1999) is

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma }{\mathrm{d}m}=\frac{\gamma ^21}{M},$$
(5)
here $`m`$ denotes the rest mass of the swept-up medium, $`\gamma `$ the bulk Lorentz factor, and $`M`$ the total mass in the co-moving frame including internal energy $`U`$. This equation was originally derived under the ultra-relativistic condition. The widely accepted results derived under this equation are correct for ultra-relativistic expansion. Accidentally, these results are also suitable for the non-relativistic and radiative case. However, for the non-relativistic and adiabatic case, they will lead to wrong result “$`vR^3`$” ($`v`$ is the velocity), while the correct Sedov result should be “$`vR^{3/2}`$”, as first pointed out by Huang, Dai & Lu (1999a,b).

It has been proved (Huang, Dai & Lu 1999a,b) that in the general case, the above equation should be replaced by

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma }{\mathrm{d}m}=\frac{\gamma ^21}{M_{ej}+ϵm+2(1ϵ)\gamma m},$$
(6)
here $`M_{ej}`$ is the mass ejected from GRB central engine, $`ϵ`$ is the radiated fraction of the shock generated thermal energy in the co-moving frame. The above equation will lead to correct results for all cases including the Sedov limit. This generic model is suitable for both ultra-relativistic and non-relativistic, and both radiative and adiabatic fireballs. As proved by Huang et al. (1998a,b), Wei & Lu (1998a) and Dai et al. (1999a), only several days after the burst, a fireball will usually become non-relativistic and adiabatic, while the afterglows can last observable for some months, the above generic model is really useful and important.

## 4 Comparison and Association of GRB with SN

Supernova was known as the most energetic phenomenon at the stellar level. SN explosion is the final violent event in the stellar evolution. Dynamically, it can also be described as a fireball, which however expands non-relativistically. After the SN explosion, there is usually a remnant which can shine for more than thousands of years and be well described dynamically by Sedov model (Sedov 1969).

GRB is also a phenomenon at the stellar level. However, it is much more energetic and much more violent than SN explosion! It has been proved to be described as a fireball, which expands ultra-relativistically. The GRB may also leave a remnant which shines for months now known as afterglow.

Their comparison is given in Table I:

| Table I | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | GRBs | SNe |
| Burst | Bursting $`\gamma `$-rays | SN explosion |
| Energy up to | 1054 ergs | $`10^{51}`$ ergs |
| Time Scale | 10 sec | Months |
| Profile | irregular | smooth |
| Wave Band | $`\gamma `$-ray | Optical |
| Relic | Afterglow | Remnant |
| Time Scale | Months | 103 Years |
| Wave Band | Multi-band | Multi-band |
| Understanding |  |  |
| Fireball Expansion | Ultra-relativistic | Non-relativistic |
| Mechanism | ??? | Stellar Core Collapse |
| Key Process | ??? | Neutrino process |

In April 1998, a SN 1998bw was found to be in the 8’ error circle of the X-ray afterglow of GRB 980425 (Galama et al. 1998; Kulkarni et al. 1998). However, its host galaxy is at a red-shift z=0.0085 (Tinney et al. 1998), indicating a distance of 38 Mpc (for $`H_0=65`$ km s-1 Mpc-1), which leads the energy of the GRB to be too low, only about $`5\times 10^{47}`$ ergs, 4 orders of magnitude lower than normal GRB.

Later, in the light curves of GRB 980326 (Bloom et al. 1999; Castro-Tirado & Gorosabel 1999b) and GRB 970228 (Reichart 1999; Galama et al. 2000), some evidence related with SN was found. This is a very important question worth while to study further (see e.g. Wheeler 1999). These two violent phenomena, GRB and SN, might be closely related. They might be just two steps of one single event (Woosley et al. 1999; Cheng & Dai 1999; Wang et al. 2000b; Dai 1999d). It is interesting to note that the first step might provide a low baryon environment for the second step to produce GRB. Such a kind of models can give a way to avoid the baryon contamination.

## 5 Post-Standard Effects

The standard model described above is based on the following simple assumptions: (1) the fireball expanding relativistically and isotropically; (2) impulsive injection of energy from inner engine to the fireball(s); (3) synchrotron radiation as the main radiation mechanism; (4) uniform environment with typical particle number density of $`n=1`$ cm-3. This model is rather successful in that its physical picture is clear, results obtained are simple, and observations on GRB afterglows support it at least qualitatively but generally. However, various quantitative deviations have been found. Thus, the simplifications made in the standard model should be improved. These deviations may reveal important new information. In the following, we will discuss some of the effects due to these deviations (the post-standard effects) (Lu 1999, 2000; Dai 2000e).

(i)Environment effects:

In the early days after the discovery of afterglows, Dai and Lu(1998c) studied the possible non-uniformity of the surrounding medium. They used the general form of $`nR^k`$ to describe the non-uniform environment number density. By fitting the X-ray afterglow of GRB 970616, they found $`k=2`$ which is just the form of a wind environment. This indicates that the surrounding medium of GRB 970616 was just a stellar wind. After the detailed studies by Chevalier and Li (1999, 2000), the stellar wind model for the environment of GRBs has now become widely interested. As the properties of GRBs’ environment contain important information related with their pregenitors, this stellar wind model provides strong support to the view of massive star origin of GRBs.

Another environment effect is due to the deviation from the standard number density of $`n=1`$ cm-3. Some afterglows of GRBs show that their lightcurves obey a broken power law. For example, according to Fruchter et al.(1999), the optical lightcurve of GRB 990123 shows a break after about two days, its slope being steepened from $``$1.09 to $``$1.8. Dai and Lu (1999b) pointed out that a shock undergoing the transition from a relativistic phase to a non-relativistic phase may show such a break in the light curve. If there are dense media and/or clouds in the way, this break may happen earlier to fit the observed steepening. Recently, Wang, Dai & Lu (2000a) proved that the dense environment model can also explain well the radio afterglow of GRB 980519 (Frail et al. 2000).

(ii)Additional energy injection:

Lightcurves of some optical afterglows even show the down-up-down variation such as GRB 970228 and 970508. These features can be explained by additional long time scale energy injection from their central engines (Dai & Lu 1998a, b; Rees & Mészáros 1998; Panaitescu et al. 1998). In some models, a millisecond pulsar with strong magnetic field can be produced at birth of a GRB. As the fireball expands, the central pulsar can continuously supply energy through magnetic dipole radiation. Initially, the energy supply is rather small, the afterglow shows declining. As it becomes important, the afterglow shows rising. However, the magnetic dipole radiation should itself attenuate later. Thus, the down-up-down shape would appear naturally. Dai & Lu (2000a) further analysed GRB 980519, 990510 and 980326, with dense environment also being taken into account, and found results agreeing well with observations. Wang & Dai (2000e) further considered both homogeneous and wind external media, the R-band light curve of GRB 000301c was also well fitted.

Recently, the GRB 000301c afterglow shows three break appearance in the R-band light curve, and extremely steep decay slope $`3.0`$ at late time. This unusual afterglow can be explained by assuming more complicated additional energy injections and dense medium (Dai & Lu 2000b).

(iii)Additional radiations:

Though synchrotron radiation is usually thought to be the main radiation mechanism, however, under some circumstances, the inverse Compton scattering may play an important role in the emission spectrum, and this may influence the temporal properties of GRB afterglows (Wei & Lu 1998a, b, 2000a). Wang, Dai & Lu (2000c) even consider the inverse Compton scattering of the synchrotron photons from relativistic electrons in the reverse shock. Under appropriate physical parameters of the GRBs and the interstellar medium, this mechanism can excellently account for the prompt high energy gamma-rays detected by EGRET, such as from GRB 930131. It is interesting to note that during the GRB phase, not only electromagnetic radiations, but also neutrinos, will be emitted (Waxman & Bahcall 1997, 2000; Halzen 1998; Dai & Lu 2000c). The prompt neutrino emission from reverse shocks as a result of the interaction of relativistic fireballs with their surrounding wind pointed out by Dai & Lu (2000c) may be very important.

Later data in the afterglows of GRB 970228 (Reichart 1999; Galama et al. 2000) and 980326 (Bloom et al. 1999; Castro-Tirado & Gorosabel 1999b) may show the deviations as additional contributions from supernovae.

(iv)Beaming effects:

GRB 990123 has been found very strong in its $`\gamma `$-ray emission, and the red shift of its host galaxy is very large (z=1.6) (Kulkarni et al. 1999a; Galama et al. 1999; Akerlof et al. 1999; Castro-Tirado, et al. 1999a; Hjorth, et al. 1999; Andersen, et al. 1999). If its radiation is isotropic, the radiation energy only in $`\gamma `$-rays is already as high as $`E_\gamma 3.4\times 10^{54}`$ ergs, closely equals two solar rest energy ($`E_\gamma 2\mathrm{M}_{}`$c2)! As the typical mass of the stellar object is in the order of $`1\mathrm{M}_{}`$, while the radiation efficiency for the total energy converting into the $`\gamma `$-ray emission is usually very low, such a high emission energy is very difficult to understand (Wang, Dai & Lu 2000d).

As some GRBs showed their isotropic radiation energy to be as high as $``$Mc2, this has been regarded as an energy crisis. A natural way to relax this crisis is to assume that the radiation of GRB is jet-like, rather than isotropic. Denote the jet angle as $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then the radiation energy $`E`$ will be reduced to $`E\mathrm{\Omega }/4\pi `$. At the same time, the estimated burst rate should increase by a factor of $`4\pi /\mathrm{\Omega }`$. However, we should find out its observational evidences. Rhoads (1997, 1999) analysed this question, and predicted that the sideways expansion in jet-like case will produce a sharp break in the GRB afterglow light curves (see also Pugliese et al. (2000), Sari et al. (1999) and Wei & Lu (2000b, c) ). Kulkarni et al. (1999c) regarded the break in the light curve of GRB 990123 as the evidence for jet. However, Panaitescu & Mészáros (1999), Moderski, Sikora & Bulik (2000) performed numerical calculation and denied the appearence of such a sharp break. Wei & Lu (2000b) re-analysed the dynamical evolution of the jet blast wave and found that a sharp break can only exist in the case of extremely small beaming angle. Huang et al. (2000a, b) made a detailed calculation and proved that the breaks in the lightcurves are mainly due to the relativistic to non-relativistic transition, not due to edge effect and lateral expansion effect of the jet, and may appear only for small electron energy fraction and small magnetic energy fraction. However, they stressed that the afterglows of jetted ejecta can be clearly characterized by rapid fading in the non-relativistic phase with index $`\alpha 2.1`$ (Huang et al 2000c). Recently, Dai, Huang and Lu (2000f) pointed out that the effect of dust extinction on jetted GRB afterglows may obviously enhance the breaak in their light curves.

Gou et al. (2000) used a set of refined dynamical equations and a realistic lateral speed of the jet, calculated the evolution of a highly collimated jet that expands in a stellar wind environment and the expected afterglow from such a jet. They found that in the wind environment, no obvious break will appear even at the time when the blast wave transits from the relativistic phase to the non-relativistic phase, and there will be no flattening tendency even up to $`10^9`$ s. Further calculations on the anisotropic jets expanding in different kinds of wind have also been made (Dai & Gou 2000d). GRB 991208 was argued to arise from a highly anisotropic jet expanding in the wind of a red supergiant.

## 6 Central Engines and Energy Sources

It is commonly agreed that the nature of the central engine, which powers the fireball into space, creates shocks where burst of gamma-ray emission and the associated afterglow are emitted, is the most difficult part of GRB-modelling. In fact there is no consensus on the GRB central engine even after the discovery of the afterglow. The main reason is that most observed properties of GRBs are emitted from regions far away from the central engine. Since there are less constraints in the central engine models, it is not surprised to find that there are over hundred proposed central engine models in the literatures. Here we can only introduce popular models and some selected possible models.

### 6.1 Popular Cosmological Central Engine Models

Although there are no compelling direct observed facts to pin-point what are the central engine, there are number of evidence including energy budget, beaming, host galaxies, association with the star formation region (Hogg & Fruchter 1999) and association with the type Ic supernova (Galama et al. 1998) to constraint the possible central engine models. The following models are widely quoted in the GRB papers:

(i)Merger of Two Compact Objects.

These two compact object systems could be neutron star-neutron star, neutron star-black hole, neutron star-white dwarf. Binary neutron star mergers are believed to be the most possible merger model for GRB (e.g. Paczyński 1986; Eichler et al 1989; Dermer 1992; Narayan, Piran and Shemi 1991; Mao and Paczyński 1992; Davies et al. 1994; Ruffert & Janka 1999). There are three such binary systems observed in our galaxy (Manchester 1999) and there should be at least 30 because of the beaming effect. Their orbital periods are decreasing and should merge in the time scale of $`10^8`$ years (e.g. Taylor & Weisberg 1989). This gives the merger rate about $`10^610^7`$ years per galaxy and consistent with the observed GRB rate (Narayan, Piran & Shemi 1991). It has been suggested that neutron star-black hole is the more common binary system than neutron star-neutron star system, therefore GRBs result from the merger of these systems (Bethe & Brown 1998). However, none of such system has been found in our galaxy. After merger, a 2 — 4 $`M_{}`$ black hole surrounded by a 0.1 — 0.2 $`M_{}`$ thick accretion disk is formed. The black hole can accrete 0.1 $`M_{}`$ from the disk in a time scale of 10 — 100 seconds and the gravitational energy of the accreted matter can provide the energy of GRB process. However, GRB 990123 (Kulkarni et al. 1999a; Andersen et al. 1999) requires $`E_{\mathrm{iso}}`$ must be up to a few times $`10^{55}`$ergs for isotropic emission. This causes problem for the merger models. If anisotropic emission with a beaming factor of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }/4\pi 0.01`$ is assumed, this energy can be reduced to $`E_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ a few times $`10^{53}`$ergs.

(ii)Failed Supernova or Collapsar of Hypernova

These models propose that massive stars can collapse to form a rapidly spinning black hole surrounded by a thick torus (Woosley 1993; Paczyński 1998). Instead of using the gravitational energy of the accreted matter, these model suggest that the main energy reservoir is the rotation energy of the black hole, which can be extracted via the Blandford-Znajek mechanism (Blandford & Znajek 1977). In these models, the accretion rate is at least over million time of Eddington rate and the disk magnetic field must be over 1015 Gauss. These models are naturally related to supernova, star formation regions, where massive stars are commonly found, and have enough energy budget for the GRB. On the other hand, these central engines are located in the environment filled with baryonic matter. How can a relativistic fireball be developed? It appears to be a problem. Perhaps, a two-step mechanism can resolve this problem. Cheng and Dai (2000) have proposed a two-step model for GRBs associated with supernovae. In the first step, the core collapse of a star with mass $`19M_{}`$ leads to a massive neutron star and a normal supernova, and subsequently hypercritical accretion of the neutron star from the supernova ejecta may give rise to a jet through neutrino annihilation and Poynting flux along the stellar rotation axis. However, because of too much surrounding matter, this jet rapidly enters a non-relativistic phase and evolves to a large bubble. In the second step, the neutron star promptly implodes to a rapidly rotating black hole surrounded by a torus once the mass of the star increases to the maximum mass, and meanwhile its rotation frequency increases to the upper limit due to the accreted angular momentum. The gravitational binding energy of the torus may be dissipated by a magnetized relativistic wind, which may then be absorbed by the supernova ejecta, thus producing an energetic hypernova. The rotational energy of the black hole may be extracted by the Blandford-Znajek mechanism, leading to another jet. This jet is relatively free of baryons and thus may be accelerated to an ultrarelativistic phase because the first jet has pushed out of its front matter and left a baryon-free exit. Therefore the second jet generates a long/hard GRB and its afterglow. This is because the energy release timescale in the second step is about $`E_{\mathrm{rot}}/P_{\mathrm{BZ}}10^2`$ s, which corresponds to the GRB duration, if the involved magnetic field has a strength of the order of $`10^{16}`$ G, and also because the Lorentz factor of the second jet in this model may be larger than 100 so that photons radiated from this jet can be blue-shifted to hard ones. Recently, some authors (Cen 1998; Wang & Wheeler 1998) envisioned, in a small cone around some special axis of a newborn neutron star, the matter is assumed to be preferentially first blown out in order to avoid too many baryons contaminating a subsequently resulting jet. Our model may provide a plausible way of how such an empty cone is produced: neutrinos from the hypercritical accretion disk annihilate to electron/positron pairs which form the first jet to push its front baryons and leave an exit for the second jet. Therefore, this model can avoid the baryon contamination problem.

### 6.2 Possible Cosmological Central Engine Models

(i)Rapidly Spinning and Strongly Magnetized Compact Objects

The required energy budget of a typical GRB is $`10^{53}`$ ergs, which is about the rotational energy of a neutron star rotating in its maximum Keplerian speed. The main problem is how to release this amount of rotation energy in a time scale of 10 — 100 seconds, which can be achieved if the star has a super-strong magnetic field ($`10^{15}`$ Gauss). High potential drop ($`10^{20}`$ Volts) can easily produce a relativistic pulsar wind and subsequent radiation can produce the observed GRB spectral properties (Usov 1992; Duncan & Thompson 1992). The recent discovery of Anomaly X-ray Pulsars and Soft Gamma-ray Repeaters, which are found to be neutron stars with magnetic field strength from $`10^{13}10^{15}`$ Gauss, provide support for these models. However, these models exist number of disadvantages because the gamma-rays are expected to be emitted in the internal shocks, which requires that the energy release cannot be continuous and some baryons ($`10^5M_{}`$) must be there. In fact, these requirements are also important to explain the time variability observed in GRBs. It has been suggested that the super-strong magnetic field is produced after the neutron star is formed. The possible magnetic field production dynamo results from the differential rotation of different parts of the star. If this is the case, an even stronger toroidal field $`10^{17}`$ G can be produced by differential rotation. When the toroidal field generated inside the star becomes strong enough to break the crust, the emerging field together with the broken platelets can be reconnected on the surface of neutron stars and transfer the magnetic energy to baryonic matter in the broken platelets. This process can continue until all rotation energy is converted into magnetic energy, which eventually goes to the fireball( Kluźniak & Ruderman 1998; Ruderman, Tao & Kluźniak 2000). It was immediately realized that such process could also work for rotating strange stars (Dai & Lu 1998), who pointed out that the rise of the afterglow in GRB 970508 could result from the continuous energy supply of the central pulsar via pulsar wind.

(ii)Phase Transition of Compact Objects

Pion condensation in the core of neutron star has been proposed to be the possible mechanism as the energy source of GRBs (e.g. Ramaty et al. 1980). However, it has been shown that such process cannot be a sudden process due to the conservation of charge and baryon number (Glendenning 1992). On the other hand, when a neutron star in Low Mass X-ray Binary accretes over about half a solar mass from its companion, it can undergo a phase transition from neutron star to strange star and release even larger amount of energy to account for GRB. 20 — 30 MeV is released per baryon during the phase transition. Total energy released this way can be up to about (4 — 6)$`\times 10^{52}`$ ergs. Strange star is the stellar object in the quark level. Whether it exists or not is a fundamental physical/astrophysical problem. Its main part is a quark core with large strangeness (known as strange core). There could be a thin crust with mass of only about $`(10^610^5)`$M (Alcock et al. 1986; Huang & Lu 1997a,b; Lu 1997; Cheng et al. 1998), all baryons are contained in the crust. The resulting strange star has a thin crust with mass $`2\times 10^5M_{}`$ and thickness $`150`$m, but because the internal temperature is so high ($`10^{11}`$K), the nuclei in this crust may decompose into nucleons. Approximating strange matter by a free Fermi gas, the total thermal energy of the star is given by $`E_{\mathrm{th}}5\times 10^{51}\mathrm{ergs}(\rho /\rho _0)^{2/3}R_6^3T_{11}^2`$, where $`\rho `$ is the average mass density, $`R_6`$ the stellar radius in units of $`10^6`$cm, and $`T_{11}`$ the temperature in units of $`10^{11}`$K. Adopting $`\rho =8\rho _0`$, $`R_6=1`$, and $`T_{11}=1.5`$, we have $`E_{\mathrm{th}}5\times 10^{52}\mathrm{ergs}`$. The star will cool by the emission of neutrinos and antineutrinos, and because of the huge neutrino number density, the neutrino pair annihilation process $`\nu \overline{\nu }e^+e^{}`$ operates in the region close to the strange star surface. The total energy (Haensel, Paczyński & Amsterdamski 1992) deposited due to this process is $`E_12\times 10^{48}\mathrm{ergs}(T_0/10^{11}\mathrm{K})^410^{49}\mathrm{ergs}`$ (where $`T_0`$ is the initial temperature) and the timescale for deposition is of the order of 1s. On the other hand, the processes for $`n+\nu _ep+e^{}`$ and $`p+\overline{\nu _e}n+e^+`$ play an important role in the energy deposition and the integrated neutrino optical depth (Mészáros & Rees 1992) due to these processes is $`\tau 4.5\times 10^2\rho _{11}^{4/3}T_{11}^2`$ (where $`\rho _{11}`$ is the crust density in units of $`10^{11}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$). So the deposition energy is estimated by $`E_2E_{\mathrm{th}}(1e^\tau )2\times 10^{52}\mathrm{ergs}`$. Here the neutron-drip density ($`\rho _{11}4.3`$) is used. The process, $`\gamma \gamma e^+e^{}`$, inevitably leads to creation of a fireball. However the fireball must be contaminated by the baryons in the thin crust of the strange star. If we define $`\eta =E_0/M_0c^2`$, where $`E_0=E_1+E_2`$ is the initial radiation energy produced ($`e^+e^{}`$, $`\gamma `$) and $`M_0`$ is the conserved rest mass of baryons with which the fireball is loaded, then, since the amount of the baryons contaminating the fireball cannot exceed the mass of the thin crust, we have $`\eta 5\times 10^3`$ and the fireball will expand outward. The expanding shell (having a relativistic factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta `$) interacts with the surrounding interstellar medium and its kinetic energy is finally radiated through non-thermal processes in shocks.

Another possible phase transition model is an accreting strange star collapsing into a naked singularity (Harko & Cheng 2000).

(iii)Accretion Onto Massive Black Holes

There are central engine models based on massive black holes associated with Quasars or AGNs in galactic centers (e.g. Carter 1992). These models are ruled out as all GRBs with optical afterglow are not associated with such objects (Piran 1999). Perhaps this conclusion should be revised as all long duration GRBs are not associated with either Quasars or AGNs because all GRBs with afterglow are long duration bursts. Statistical analysis of GRBs in the BASTE catalog does show some correlation with certain type of Quasars. For example, Schartel, Andernach & Greiner (1997) found a surprising evidence of a positional correlation between GRBs and radio-quiet quasars, but for most classes of AGNs, BL Lac objects and radio-loud quasars, no excess coincidences above random expectation; Marani et al (1997) reported a suggestive correlation between GRBs and ACO clusters though some of the significance of correlation can be rather high; Kolatt & Piran (1996), Hurley et al (1997), and Gorosabel & Castro-Tirado (1997) studied the angular correlation between GRBs and Abell clusters but obtained different results. There are also many works focused on the studies of GRBs repetition (e.g., Quashnock & Lamb 1993; Brainerd et al 1995; Meegan et al 1995; Bennett & Sun 1996) with various statistical methods. But the sound of negative results seems loud.

Recently metal rich Quasars are found to correlate with GRBs in 99% significant level (Cheng et al. 1997). It can be understood why metal rich Quasars could be the host galaxies of GRBs in the following reasons (Cheng & Wang 1999). The production rate of compact objects, i.e. neutron stars (NS) and black holes (BH), in active galactic nuclei(AGN) and quasars(QSO), where the frequent supernova explosion is used to explain the high metallicity (Artymowicz, Lin & Wampler 1993; Zurek et al 1994), is very high due to the interaction between the accretion disk and main sequence stars in the nucleus of the quasar. The compact object-red giant star(RG) binaries can be easily formed due to the large captured cross-section of the red giant stars. The (NS/BH, NS/BH) binary can be formed after the supernova explosion of the (NS/BH, RG) binary. Intense transient gamma-ray emission (gamma-ray burst) and gravitational radiation can result from the merger of these two compact objects. Collision between helium core (Hc) of RG and black hole may also take place and may also result in long duration gamma-ray bursts but no gravitational waves (Popham, Woosley & Fryer 1999). The estimated merger rate of (NS/BH, NS/BH) binaries and (Hc, BH) is proportional to the metal abundance ($`\frac{NV}{CIV}`$) and can be as high as 10$`{}_{}{}^{3}(\frac{NV}{CIV}/0.01)`$ per year per AGN/QSO.

Massive black hole is not favorable central engine because of the short time variability, which suggests that the central engine should be a stellar mass compact object. However, this is misleading because the relativistic motion of the fireball can reduce the time scale in the GRBs (Lu, Cheng, Zhao & Yang 2000). Cheng and Lu (2001) also suggest that an extreme Kerr black hole with a mass $`10^6M_{}`$, a dimensionless angular momentum $`A1`$ and a marginally stable orbital radius $`r_{\mathrm{ms}}3r_\mathrm{s}10^{12}M_6`$cm located in a normal galaxy, may produce a Gamma-ray Burst by capturing and disrupting a star. During the capture period, a transient accretion disk is formed and a strong transient magnetic field $`2.4\times 10^9M_6^{1/2}`$ G (Haswell et al. 1992), lasting for $`r_{\mathrm{ms}}/c30M_6`$s, may be produced at the inner boundary of the accretion disk. A large amount of rotational energy of the black hole is extracted and released in an ultra relativistic jet with a bulk Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ larger than $`10^3`$ via the Blandford-Znajek process. The relativistic jet energy can be converted into $`\gamma `$-ray radiation via an internal shock mechanism. The GRB duration should be the same as the life time of the strong transient magnetic field. The maximum number of sub-bursts is estimated to be $`r_{\mathrm{ms}}/h(1010^2)`$ because the disk material is likely to break into pieces with a size about the thickness of the disk $`h`$ at the cusp ($`2r_\mathrm{s}r3r_\mathrm{s}`$). The shortest rise time of the burst estimated from this model is $`h/\mathrm{\Gamma }c3\times 10^4\mathrm{\Gamma }_3^1(h/r)_2M_6`$ s. The model gamma-ray burst density rate is also estimated to be consistent with the observed GRB burst rate. Furthermore, the optical afterglow can also be understood in this model. Because in the early stage of forming transient accretion disk, the material supplied by the tidally disrupted star is clumped in the relatively cool disk. This eventually leads to a thermal instability, which results in an increase of the viscosity of the disk. As the instability propagates across the disk, the stability of a time-dependent disk and variability of the mass-deposition rate provide a possible explanation for the behavior of GRB optical afterglow (Lu, Cheng & Zhao 2000).

### 6.3 Galactic Central Engine Models

Although the cosmological origin of GRBs are strongly supported by the observation, at least a fraction of GRBs originating from the Galactic neutron stars is also suggested by the observation of absorption lines and soft X-ray emission from some bursts (but BATSE has not seen such line features yet). About $`20\%`$ of GRBs in the KONUS catalog show single absorption features at energies between about 20 and 60 keV (Mazets et al. 1981) and three bursts seen by Ginga detector show double absorption features in the same energy range (Murakami et al. 1988). These features are usually attributed to the cyclotron resonant scattering of photons in strong magnetic fields of the order of $`10^{12}G`$ near the neutron star surface. Therefore it is reasonable to think that at least a subclass of GRBs may be originated in our Galaxy. The Galactic models also result in an isotropic distribution because the bursts are produced by high velocity neutron stars born in the vicinity of the disk flowing out into the halo (e.g. Li & Dermer 1992; Podsiadlowski, Rees & Ruderman 1995; Wei & Lu 1996). Observations show that the mean pulsar birth velocity is about 450 km s-1 (Lyne & Lorimer 1994), which provides some support to such models. The energy sources basically are accretion energy, thermonuclear flash, rotation energy and internal energy of neutron stars (for a general review of galactic GRB models cf. Harding 1991). But the most promising models are starquake models. As a neutron star quakes, the oscillation of the magnetic field lines anchored in the crustal platelet produces Alfven wave. Blaes et al. (1989) have argued that such Alfven wave can accelerate charged particles and produce GRBs. However, the question is can these high velocity neutron stars constitute a subclass of observed GRBs? Hartmann & Narayan (1996) considered the global energy requirements of such models and argued that the rotational energy of neutron stars is insufficient by, at least, orders of magnitude to provide the observed burst rate because the origin of the starquake energy comes from the crustal superfluid, which is only 1% of the stellar rotation energy. Wei and Cheng (1997) also carried a statistical analysis by using the observed period distribution of pulsars and concluded the same result. On the other hand it is possible to make use of full rotational energy, if pulsar activities can be re-ignited in these old neutron stars (Ruderman & Cheng 1988; Cheng & Ding 1993; Ding & Cheng 1997). It is suggested that the detail study of GRB spectral features at lower and higher energy components can be a possible way to distinguish between cosmological and Galactic origin of GRBs (Wei & Cheng 1997).

## 7 Outlook

Indeed the discovery of the red-shifts of the host galaxies of GRBs in afterglows is a major breakthrough in understanding the nature of GRBs (van Paradijs et al. 2000). The subsequent study of spectral evolution of afterglows in terms of fireball models reveals many important features of the environment of GRBs. The standard internal-external shock model, which is built under many simplifications, has been proved to be well fitted by observations qualitatively but generally. Based on the success of this model, it should be very important to study the deviations from the standard model, which indicate that the simplifications should be relaxed in some aspects. Hence, the deviations contain important new information and have been a fruitful research area.

In contrast to the rapid progress in understanding the nature of afterglows, GRB itself has not yet been clear, i.e. the central engine. This is a very important problem. In fact, a viable model for the GRB central engine must address to the following problems:

(i)Energy Budget

The central engine must be able to release more than $`10^{53}`$ ergs or even $`10^{54}`$ ergs to radiation. The beaming factor can reduce the energy budget by a factor of 10-100, however, the conversion efficiency from particle kinetic energy to radiation energy likely increases the energy budget by a factor of 10. In fact, most merger models cannot release that much energy (Suen 2000, private communication).

(ii)Baryon Contamination

Another problem for existing central engine models is the baryon contamination. In order to explain the short time scales of the GRBs, the fireball must be relativistic. This requires the baryonic mass in the fireball must be less than $`10^5(E/2\times 10^{51}\mathrm{ergs})M_{}`$. The failed supernova (e.g. Woosley 1993), collapsar of hypernova (e.g. Paczynski 1998), newly formed rapidly spinning and superstrong magnetic field neutron stars (e.g. Usov 1992; Kluzniak & Ruderman 1998; Ruderman, Tao & Kluzniak 2000) suffer from this problem. Models without baryon contamination problem, e.g. conversion of neutron star to strange star by accretion (Cheng & Dai 1996; Dai & Lu 1998), cannot explain GRB-SN association (Galama et al. 1998; Kulkarni et al. 1998). In fact, this is a dilemma of GRB-SN association unless some mechanisms, which can reduce the baryon contamination in supernova indeed exist (e.g. a two-step model proposed by Cheng & Dai 2000).

(iii)Birth Rate

It must be larger than $`10^6`$ per galaxy per year. The actual rate should be much larger than this if beaming exists.

(iv)Various Time Scales

The sub-structure of the light curves of GRBs can be as short as 10-3s but the duration of GRBs can be as long as 103s. The former suggests that the emission must be from very small volume and is normally interpreted as that the central engine must be a solar mass compact object, but the latter indicates that the energy release cannot take place in the gravitational time scale. In fact, there are a great variety of light curves in GRBs, which suggest that the energy release process cannot be a simple one.

(v)Acceleration and Microphysics

The central engine must efficiently accelerate the ejecta to extremely relativistic. How do the collisionless shocks arise within the emitting region? How do these shocks accelerate the particles and enhance the magnetic fields?

Perhaps it is misleading to use the current observations to limit GRB models, i.e. GRB-SN association, host galaxies etc. because they are all long duration GRBs. It is known that GRB durations scatter over six orders of magnitudes (from 1 ms to 1 ks), but a “typical” GRB lasts about 10 s. The distribution of burst durations is bimodal, i.e., GRBs can be divided into two sub-groups: long bursts with $`T_{90}>2`$ s and short bursts with $`T_{90}<2`$ s (Piran 1999). The ratio of observed long bursts to short bursts is three to one. For example, HETE-II, which was successfully launched recently and should be able to detect short duration bursts, may provide new information to constraint GRB models. In our opinion, we are far from understanding the nature of these mysterious GRB events. More information from future GRB missions in electromagnetic wave bands (for a review cf. Hurley 1999), in gravitational wave bands (e.g. LIGO, VIRGO, TAMMA300 and GEO600, for a review of various gravitational detectors cf. Abramovichi et al. 1992; Bardachia et al. 1990; Throne 1997) and low energy neutrino detection, which can differentiate various merger models (Clark & Eardley 1977), should help us to solve the puzzle of these important astrophysical phenomena.

We are happy to thank L.X. Cheng, S. Colgate, Z.G. Dai, K.Y. Ding, T. Harko, Y.F. Huang, Y. Lu, M. Ruderman, W.M. Suen, J.M. Wang, D.M. Wei for their useful conversations in various topics in GRBs. This work is partially supported by a RGC grant of the Hong Kong Government and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.  Figure Caption


format: text

text:
# The inner nebula and central binary of the symbiotic star HM Sge

## 1 Introduction

Symbiotic stars are an extreme case of interacting binaries, with separations of a few to a few 10s of au. They comprise a cool component (CC), typically a red giant or Mira–type variable, and a hot component (HC), usually a white dwarf associated with an ionized component of the CC wind. An infrared sub–classification has been made, dividing the class into D(usty)–types, and S(tellar)–types, based on the dominant contribution to the IR. Early modeling of the radio emission has shown that D–types typically have separations of 10 or more times that of S–types. Some of these objects show very slow optical outbursts, similar to those of novae, but lasting decades (see e.g. Kenyon 1986 and Mikołajewska 1997 for further discussion.)

HM Sge is a D–type symbiotic star which underwent such an optical outburst in 1975. Since then, there has been evidence of dust obscuration events, as in 1985 (Munari & Whitelock, 1989) when A$`{}_{V}{}^{}`$ 13.5 (Whitelock, 1988; Munari & Whitelock, 1989), and in 1979–1980 when A$`{}_{V}{}^{}`$ 12 (Thronson & Harvey, 1981). The different values of AV have led to a suggestion of clumping in the dust (e.g. Thronson & Harvey, 1981), which was also suggested by Richards et al. (1999) to explain the nebula structural changes seen in the radio. Various distance estimates to HM Sge are summarized by Ivison et al. (1991). Those authors’ own estimate of 1300 pc was based on a reddening estimate of E(B–V) = 0.53. Kenyon, Fernandez–Castro & Stencel (1988) used far–infrared IRAS colors to derive the extinction and a distance of 1800 pc. These estimates clearly depend on the effects of variable circumstellar extinction. Recently the Mira–type cool component has been clearly seen in spectro–polarimetry (Schmid et al., 2000), indicating that dust obscuration has subsided somewhat. The spectra of Schmid et al. (2000) are dominated by the line emission, with a rising continuum beyond $``$8000 Å. They also suggested that the binary axis had a position angle of 123 in 1998. This contradicts tentative conclusions by Richards et al. (1999) placing the Mira–type due north of the hot component (i.e. position angle $`0^{}`$). Many of the observations of the outburst and subsequent development of HM Sge are described in Nussbaumer & Vogel (1990) and Mürset & Nussbaumer (1994).

Corradi et al. (1999) have conducted ground–based imaging of the extended nebula of HM Sge. They find a number of filaments and discrete features embedded in a nebula extending to $`13`$ arcsec. This emission is extremely faint, and if the nebula is due to activity in the central binary, suggests a much longer history to such activity than observed since 1975.

HM Sge was detected in the radio shortly after the optical outburst (Feldman, 1977). Radio surveys showed HM Sge to be one of the brightest radio emitters in the class (Seaquist, Taylor & Button, 1984; Seaquist, Krogulec & Taylor, 1993). Kwok, Bignell & Purton (1984) found a diffuse halo $``$0.5 arcsec in diameter, surrounding a central nebula $``$0.15 arcsec in size. More recently, Eyres et al. (1995) demonstrated that the structure seen in the radio could be correlated with HST images at the same spatial resolution, suggesting that at least the HC was centrally located in the inner nebula. Richards et al. (1999) traced the development of the radio structure over 5 years, and related it to the binary motion. They derived a period of 80 years and a binary separation of 50 au111The references in Richards et al. (1999) to a binary separation of 25 au are made in error – the binary orbital semi–major axis is 25 au, giving the binary separation as 50 au.. Non–thermal emission associated with an E–W outflow has also been found (Eyres et al., 1995), and Richards et al. (1999) showed that this is rare in symbiotic stars due to the relatively short timescale on which the emission dissipates.

Here, we discuss our observations of the nebula associated with this star using WFPC2 on the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). We also present contemporaneous radio images of the inner nebula made with the Very Large Array (VLA). These observations allow us to determine the physical parameters in the nebula, and to attempt to relate the conditions with the binary interaction and the outburst history of the system.

## 2 Observations

The HST observations were made on 1999 October 22, as part of a GO program 8330 on symbiotic stars, as shown in Table 1. Three orbits were allocated to HM Sge, and observations were made in seven filters, including F218W, F437N, F469N, F487N, F502N, F547M and F656N. The exposure times and dominant lines for images presented here are given in Table 1. Further details of these filters are available from Biretta et al. (1996).

The calibrated data were retrieved from the HST archive. Each exposure was executed in two sub–exposures to allow cosmic ray subtraction. The F656N image presented here was also dithered to allow recovery of the full spatial resolution (Biretta et al., 1996). In addition, the stellar positions (section 3.3) were determined from dithered images taken through the F218W and F547M filters. The pixel size was 0.0455 arcsec for the undithered images and 0.02275 arcsec for the dithered ones.

The VLA observations were made on 1999 September 26 at 8.56 GHz and 23 GHz. Comparison with the primary calibrator 1331+305 (3C286) gave the flux of secondary calibrator 1935+205 as 0.385$`\pm `$0.001 Jy at 8.56 GHz and 0.41$`\pm `$0.01 Jy at 23 GHz. The complex gain solutions for this calibrator were applied to HM Sge. MERLIN observations by Richards et al. (1999) show that the structures in the inner nebula move by $``$4 milli–arcsec per year and the flux density remained roughly constant at 22 GHz between 1994 and 1996. Thus the VLA and HST images can be directly compared.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 HST WFPC2 images

The HST WFPC2 images are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Some extended emission is apparent out to 2 arcsec, but the brightest parts are within 0.5 arcsec of the central star, which is readily identified from the diffraction spikes in Fig. 1(c). Feature 1 visible in Fig. 1(a) is almost a ring of emission at the south–west edge of the inner nebula. There are three compact knots to the east of the central emission (features 2, 3 & 4), and a fourth one to the south–west (feature 5), which are most obvious in the F502N filter \[Fig. 1(a)\]. Weak filaments are also present to the north (feature 6 & 7), and may be associated with northern prominences seen at larger scales from the ground by Corradi et al. (1999). The inner parts of the nebula shows three structures: a ridge to the north (N), a peak at the center (C) and a more irregular feature to the south (S), which may be the brightest part of a loop of emission. In the case of the F656N image Fig. 2(a), dominated by H$`\alpha `$, the central star position has been fitted and the point spread function (PSF) subtracted, using a PSF modeled using the TinyTIM software (Krist, 1995). This image shows that features C, N and S are distinct in hydrogen, and they are also present in the weaker H$`\beta `$ emission in the F487N image Fig. 1(c). The features C, N and S are present in the F218W image Fig. 2(d), but the latter two features are extremely weak.

### 3.2 VLA images

The VLA images are presented in Figs. 3(a) & (b). At 23 GHz there is a northern ridge running E–W, a central, almost circular peak, and a more irregular southern feature. These features coincide with features N, C and S in Fig. 1(a), and we adopt the same labels for the radio structure. From comparison of Fig. 3(a) and e.g. Fig. 1(a) we suggest that at least one of the binary components is coincident with radio feature C. We discuss this further in section 3.3. The 8.56 GHz image \[Fig. 3(b)\] has significantly lower resolution, but is sensitive to more extended emission. Two features are apparent: a central N–S elongated structure, encompassing features N, C and S, and an extension to the S–W coincident with feature 1.

### 3.3 Stellar positions

A simple estimate of the relative contributions of the HC and CC in HM Sge at a given wavelength can be made assuming blackbodies with T$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{HC}}{}_{\mathrm{eff}}{}^{}`$ = 200 000 K (Mürset, Wolff & Jordan, 1997), T$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{CC}}{}_{\mathrm{eff}}{}^{}`$ = 3 000 K, and taking approximate radii of 0.01 and 100 R respectively. This shows that the HC dominates the CC by a factor $`80`$ at 220 nm \[F218W, Fig 2(d)\] and the CC dominates the HC by a factor $`18000`$ at 550 nm \[F547M, Fig 2(b)\]. Note that UV spectra show negligible line contribution to the F218W filter (see e.g. Kenyon, 1986). A number of lines contribute to the F547M filter (see e.g. Schmid et al., 2000, their Fig. 2). The CC is clearly badly modeled by this estimate, as it does not account for the absorption bands characteristic of Mira–types. In addition, a simple estimate of the luminosity of the HC Mürset et al. (1991) and the contribution at $`\lambda `$2200Å shows that the central pixel will be entirely dominated by stellar emission, rather than nebular emission. These estimates show that if the two stars were displaced by more than a few pixels on the sky, the peak of the emission should clearly move between the F218W image and the F547M image. That this is not the case means that both stars must be within feature C.

As the PSF of the star in each image extends to a large angular distance from the peak, we have attempted to fit a Gaussian component to the peak positions in the F218W and F547M images. The best resolution was available in our dithered images, where the pixel size is 0.02275 arcsec. The position of the peak relative to 19 41 57 +16 44 39 in the F218W image \[Fig. 2(d)\] is $`\alpha `$ = 0.08067$`\pm `$0.00004, $`\delta `$ = 0.6195$`\pm `$0.0005 while in the F547M image \[Fig. 2(b)\] it is $`\alpha `$ = 0.08258$`\pm `$0.000005 $`\delta `$ = 0.5920$`\pm `$0.00002. The errors quoted are the formal uncertainties of the fits. When dithering, the measured shifts (from the positions of bright stars in each frame) can be up to 0.2 undithered pixels or $``$ 9 milli–arcsec (mas) different from the requested value of 5.5 pixels. This is probably the best estimate we have of the true uncertainty of the measured peak shift from F218W to F547M. Thus, the peaks in the two filters are displaced from each other by 40$`\pm `$9 mas at a position angle of 130$`{}_{}{}^{}\pm `$10 measured north through east. The position angle agrees well with that suggested by Schmid et al. (2000). We suggest that the peak position in the F218W image is that of the HC while the peak position in the F547M image is that of the CC. Thus, the line connecting the two stars on the sky, the “binary axis”, is at a position angle of 130$`{}_{}{}^{}\pm `$10. The schematic in Fig. 4 illustrates the relationship between the binary components and the features apparent in the inner nebula.

To test further these measurements, we also looked at other observations of symbiotic stars made under our GO programme. In the case of CH Cyg (paper in preparation), the star was known to be in eclipse during the observation, so that only one star could possibly be seen. The shift in that case was $`10`$ mas, comparable to the estimate from the dithering uncertainties, and hence consistent with the star being in eclipse.

The peak positions in the other filters are not necessarily coincident with the stars as they are dominated by nebular lines. These positions are illustrated in Fig. 4. By definition these filters are sensitive to more extended emission. This means that fitting a gaussian is invalid, as the nebulosity may be asymmetrical but strongly emitting near the stars. Thus a lack of coincidence between the peaks of the narrow filters and the peaks of the F218W and F547M filters is to be expected. The H$`\alpha `$ and H$`\beta `$ images have peaks very close to that of the F547M image. The He II image, which traces the highest ionisation regions, has a peak between the two stars and slightly south of the binary axis, consistent with the model of Nussbaumer & Vogel (1990). Finally, the F437N and F502N images, dominated by \[O III\] lines which are sensitive to temperatures and densities, have peaks which differ from those of all the other images and from one another. The results for these latter three filters are most readily explained in the context of the suggested wind interaction which might be expected to have the strongest effects between the two stars.

### 3.4 Nebular diagnostics

A number of diagnostics of the physical conditions in the nebula can be derived from the images presented here. The ratio $`R_{OIII}`$ of the F502N image (including both \[O III\] $`\lambda \lambda `$4959 & 5007) to the F437N image (including \[O III\] $`\lambda `$4363) depends on both electron temperature $`T_e`$ and density $`n_e`$ according to the equation

$$\begin{array}{cc}R_{OIII}\hfill & \frac{j_{\lambda 4959}+j_{\lambda 5007}}{j_{\lambda 4363}}\hfill \\ & =\frac{7.73exp[3.29\times 10^4T_e^1]}{1+4.5\times 10^4(n_eT_e^{0.5})}\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
(see Osterbrock, 1989). Examination of ground–based optical spectra indicate that these two WFPC2 filters are dominated by the three lines which contribute to the ratio, and the nebular continuum is very weak (see e.g. Schmid et al., 2000, their Fig. 2). Thus, Figs. 1(a) and (b) can be used to derive the ratio map Fig. 1(d) which traces $`T_e`$ and $`n_e`$, and in principle depends on both of these quantities. This diagnostic has been applied effectively to HM Sge by Schmid & Schild (1990), using spatially–unresolved spectra for the entire nebula.

The WFPC2 Charge Transfer Efficiency (CTE) effect on the WFPC2 chips (Whitmore & Heyer, 1998; Whitmore, 1998) has a bearing on this analysis. For aperture photometry, this causes stars at the top of the chip (row number 800) to appear systematically fainter than those at the bottom (row number 0). The effect is also stronger for brighter stars. The consequences of this effect for extended emission is not well understood. In our case the observed emission falls on the same region of the chip for all observations, and brightness variations are not severe across the nebula. This means that we can draw firm qualitative conclusions from Fig. 1(d).

Radio brightness, expressed as a brightness temperature $`T_b`$, is given by

$$T_b=T_e(1e^{\tau _\nu })\mathrm{K},$$
(2)
where the optical depth at frequency $`\nu `$ is

$$\tau _\nu 8.24\times 10^2T_e^{1.35}\nu ^{2.1}n_e^2l$$
(3)
assuming $`n_e`$ is constant, where $`l`$ is the path length through the nebula (again see Osterbrock, 1989). Thus, the radio brightness temperature also depends on both $`T_e`$ and $`n_e`$. Relationships (1), (2) and (3) provide loci in a $`T_e`$$`n_e`$ plot, which intersect at the conditions appropriate to the various features. Comparing Figs. 1(d) and 3(b), we can determine the conditions as a function of position.

Loci for typical values of $`R_{OIII}`$, $`T_b`$ and $`l`$ are illustrated in Fig. 3(d). Also shown here is the locus for the Schmid & Schild (1990) value of $`R_{OIII}=5.9`$. It is clear that the main source of uncertainty in this analysis is the value adopted for $`l`$. A reasonable estimate would be to place it at somewhere between the largest and the smallest angular size seen on the sky. When estimated in this fashion, it also depends linearly on the distance, which is not well known. However, we should still be able to draw qualitative conclusions about the relative temperatures and densities of the different regions despite this distance uncertainty. Most importantly, it is apparent from Fig. 3(d) that along contours of constant $`T_b`$, Fig. 1(d) primarily traces variations in $`T_e`$. At the same time, variations in $`T_b`$ trace variations in $`n_e`$. We must be careful not to use this analysis to draw conclusions about those regions of the nebula where no radio emission is detected. An interferometer such as the VLA will resolve–out smooth extended structure, meaning that the true extended radio brightness will generally be greater than that present in the radio map. We note that the value of $`R_{OIII}`$ from Schmid & Schild (1990) is effectively an average, dominated by the brightest nebular feature. We have plotted a locus in Fig 3(d) for the peak emission in the 23 GHz image (the peak of feature C) as the most relevant one for comparison with the Schmid & Schild (1990) locus. Given the variable nature of the inner nebula (Richards et al., 1999), the values which might be derived for that central region are similar to those derived by Schmid & Schild (1990), which were effectively a weighted average for the entire nebula.

The F469N image \[Fig. 2(c)\] is dominated by He II $`\lambda `$4686 emission. This is a discriminator of strongly ionized regions (see Osterbrock, 1989). It can be seen from the image that features C, N and S are visible in He II. This suggests that these features are strongly ionized, and is consistent with these features being well defined in the F437N and F502N images \[Figs. 1(a) & (b)\], as \[O III\] shows roughly the same ionization structure. In addition, the He II emission does not extend far beyond a radius of $``$1 arcsec, suggesting that the intermediate scale nebulosity is more weakly ionized than the smallest scale features. This is more difficult to reconcile with the extended structure seen particularly in Fig. 1(a). However, as noted above the \[O III\] lines seen in these filters are sensitive to temperature and density, so we may well be seeing the effects of density inhomogeneities in the nebula. Such inhomogeneities are in turn consistent with the very clumpy nature of much of the emission at sub–arcsec scales.

### 3.5 Extinction mapping

A third diagnostic comes from the fact that the dereddenned H$`\beta `$ flux, $`F(\mathrm{H}\beta )`$, can be derived from the radio flux $`S_\nu `$ via the equation

$$S_\nu =2.51\times 10^8T_e^{0.53}\nu ^{0.1}F(\mathrm{H}\beta )\mathrm{Jy},$$
(4)
where $`F(\mathrm{H}\beta )`$ is in erg cm-2s-1. This assumes the radio flux is due to optically thin thermal emission. Thus, with a measured H$`\beta `$ flux we can derive the reddening E(B–V). In the past this has been used to derive the interstellar reddening using the total radio and H$`\beta `$ fluxes. However, in dusty environments such as that seen in HM Sge, there may be a contribution to the reddening from circumstellar matter. Such variations in circumstellar reddening have been suggested to explain the different estimates of E(B–V) and AV towards HM Sge in the past (e.g. Munari & Whitelock, 1989). In our case, the images of both H$`\beta `$ emission \[Fig. 1(c)\] and radio emission \[e.g. Fig. 3(a)\] allow us to derive an extinction map, as is shown in Fig. 3(c) for $`T_e`$ = 10 000 K. We note that Ivison, Hughes & Bode (1992) present a spatially–unresolved radio–infrared spectrum for HM Sge, indicating that the turn–over from optically thick to thin radio emission occurs at 8.5 GHz. However, it is clear from their Fig. 1 that the turn–over is gradual, consistent with partially optically thin emission up to $``$30 GHz. In addition, the inner nebula of HM Sge is variable in both brightness and structure (e.g. Richards et al., 1999), making the spectrum of Ivison, Hughes & Bode (1992) out of date. This means that it remains difficult to assess the optical depth conditions within the inner nebula as a function of position.

The consequences of the CTE effect for Fig. 3(c) are to provide an overestimate of the extinction, with the largest over estimates being at the brightest parts of Fig. 1(c). This extinction map is also affected by our assumptions about the radio emission. Equation 4 relies on the assumption that the radio emission is optically thin thermal. While the brightness temperatures are consistent with thermal emission, the optical depth is not well constrained. However, where emission is optically thick, we would underestimate the extinction. As the brightest radio emission most likely comes from the regions of greatest optical depth, this effect works in the opposite sense to the CTE effect. Finally, E(B–V) depends on electron temperature. If $`T_e`$ = 40 000 K, instead of the 10 000 K assumed above, E(B–V) would decrease by $``$ 0.2. Fig. 3(d) demonstrates that $`T_e`$ can vary considerably over the nebula. However, for the larger values of $`T_b`$ in the inner regions relationships (2) and (3) lead to loci at higher electron densities, while the curves derived from equation (1) converge towards lower $`T_e`$, and extend over a narrower range of temperatures. Thus in the inner regions shown in Fig. 3(c) the variations in $`T_e`$ are relatively small. As the hotter regions are closest to the white dwarf, it seems likely that the intermediate values of E(B–V) = 0.7 may be somewhat reduced by the expected higher $`T_e`$ in that region. Bearing in mind these considerations, we are confident that we can draw qualitative conclusions from Fig. 3(c).

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 Dust distribution and interstellar extinction

The extinction map in Fig. 3(c) can be taken to trace the circumstellar variation in the dust distribution, assuming the interstellar extinction is reasonably uniform over the relatively small angular size of the inner nebula. In this case, the best estimate of the true interstellar extinction comes from the minimum values in the extinction map. Three distinct regions are apparent: (i) to the south E(B–V) $``$ 1, coincident with feature S; (ii) to the north around feature N, E(B–V) $``$ 0.6, consistent with previous reddening estimates; and (iii) a low–ratio band running from east to west across the position of feature C. Note that the peak itself does not give a reliable E(B–V) estimate, as the emission in the optical is not entirely nebular. This band is also weakly contaminated by the diffraction spikes, which have a position angle of $`80^{}`$. The eastern part of this low–ratio band has E(B–V) = 0.35, the lowest value on the map, and presumably the best estimate of the true interstellar extinction. As high E(B–V) correlates with a greater quantity of dust, we can see that the dust is concentrated at feature S. In addition, there is a deficit of dust closer to feature C in Fig. 1(a), especially immediately to the east. This clumping of the dust at small scales was suggested by Thronson & Harvey (1981), based on discrepancies in reddening estimates. Our maximum value of E(B–V) $``$ 1 gives A$`{}_{V}{}^{}`$ 3.1 for interstellar dust (Evans, 1994), which is much lower than the value of A$`{}_{V}{}^{}`$ 12 of Thronson & Harvey (1981) but similar to other estimates both before and after that time. Much more recently, spectro–polarimetry by Schmid et al. (2000) demonstrated that the Mira was clearly visible, in agreement with the significant reduction in AV since 1980 we see here. Results from the Infrared Space Observatory (Schild et al., submitted) are consistent with a two–component dust model, with optical depths comparable to those derivable from our E(B–V) values. Such a model is also consistent with the extinction map in Fig 3(c), particularly as the Schild et al. modeling suggests that at least one of the components is clumpy.

We suggest that the highest concentration of dust, at feature S, is associated with the CC wind. Note that Fig. 3(c) is blanked beyond the 1$`\sigma `$ level of the VLA image, as no useful information can be derived beyond this limit. Hence, we have no knowledge about the dust distribution beyond that region.

### 4.2 The distance and the binary parameters

The minimum in the extinction map Fig. 3(c) places the interstellar extinction at no more than E(B–V) = 0.35. This is an upper limit because there may be a circumstellar contribution to the minimum. This gives an interstellar total extinction $`A_V`$1.1 magnitudes. Neckel & Klare (1980) provide maps of the galactic extinction versus distance. HM Sge lies at the edge of their field 265 (see Figs. 5 and 6m of Neckel & Klare 1980). For $`A_V`$ = 1.1, the minimum distance to HM Sge is approximately 700 pc, although measurements of similar $`A_V`$ are shown in field 265 for distances as low as 400 pc and as high as 2 kpc. Comparison with the extinction maps of Lucke (1978) suggest a distance of $``$800 pc for this value of E(B–V). However, such large–scale extinction maps are based on a small number of lines of sight in each field, so that the distance–dependent extinction values are not readily applicable to individual objects for the purposes of distance estimates.

Our measured binary angular separation (section 3.3) suggests a projected binary separation of (40$`\pm `$9)D au at a distance of D kpc. This can be reconciled with the results of Richards et al. (1999) if the distance to HM Sge is $``$ 1250$`\pm `$280 pc, which is consistent with our estimates above.

### 4.3 Nebular temperatures

The map of $`R_{OIII}`$ \[Fig. 1(d)\] shows two distinct regions in the extended nebula visible with the HST. Most of the nebula has 4 $`<R_{OIII}<`$ 15, while a wedge region to the south–west has $`R_{OIII}>`$ 15 \[coincident with feature 1 in Fig. 1(a)\]. At the center, where the stars contribute significantly, $`R_{OIII}`$ is as low as 2, but clearly this is not purely nebular emission, and so cannot be relied upon for nebular diagnostics. From Fig. 3(d) it is clear that higher $`R_{OIII}`$ regions are consistent with lower electron temperatures along a given $`T_b`$ contour. This wedge extends from roughly the location of the highest extinction in Fig. 3(c) to the edge of the nebula, and is suggestive of the “bow wave” structures seen in interacting–wind simulations. More importantly, there is a cooler region in the nebula associated with the southern dust feature, further supporting our suggestion that we are seeing the CC wind directly. Alternatively, this region of the nebula could be shielded from the HC radiation field by feature S.

## 5 Conclusion

Using contemporaneous HST WFPC2 and VLA observations of the symbiotic nova HM Sge, we have investigated the nebular conditions and the relationship of the star positions to the nebular structure. We identify a number of discreet features at spatial scales smaller than $``$ 0.1 arcsec embedded in the extended nebula, including at least four discreet knots, and two linear features to the north–east. A ring–like feature (labeled 1) is evident on the south–west edge of the inner nebula.

The radio and optical emission is well correlated in the inner 1 arcsec, with a northern ridge (N), a central peak (C), and a more irregular southern feature (S) clearly evident at both 23 GHz and $``$5000Å. Temperature diagnostics show a “wedge” to the south–west, encompassing feature 1, consistent with lower temperatures than the rest of the nebula. The knots 1–3 and the western tip of ridge N also appear to have cooler, denser conditions than the rest of the nebula, but these are less well defined in the diagnostic map.

Both stars must be encompassed by feature C. The peak shifts by 40$`\pm `$9 mas between the F218W image ($``$ 220 nm) and the F547M image ($``$ 550 nm), with a position angle of 130$`{}_{}{}^{}\pm `$10. We place the HC at the continuum UV peak and the CC at the red continuum peak. The position angle of the line between the two stars on the sky, the “binary axis”, is 130$`{}_{}{}^{}\pm `$10. This is consistent with a suggested binary axis from spectro–polarimetry (Schmid et al., 2000). It is also consistent with a suggested binary separation of 50 au (Richards et al., 1999) if the distance is $``$ 1250$`\pm `$280 pc.

The circumstellar extinction map suggests a patchy dust distribution, with the greatest extinction to the south–west, coincident with feature S, and the “wedge” around feature 1. The minimum in the extinction map indicates the true interstellar extinction to be no more than E(B–V) = 0.35. This is consistent with a minimum distance of $``$700 pc, but this would be reduced if there is a circumstellar contribution to the minimum. We suggest feature S and the south–west wedge (feature 1) are associated with the CC wind. Alternatively, the south–west wedge is shielded from the HC radiation field by feature S.

Thanks are due to Dr S. J. Smartt of the UK HST Support Unit for his essential assistance with the details of the imaging. SPSE is supported by a Research Assistantship Award from the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC). MMC is supported by a PhD Studentship Award from PPARC. The VLA is operated by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.


text:
# Fractional Fokker-Planck Equation in Time Variable and Oscillation of Cumulant Moments

## 1 Introduction

The negative binomial distribution (NBD) is often used for the analysis of observed multiplicity distributions in high energy hadron-hadron ($`hh`$), and $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions. The $`H_j`$ moment derived from the generating function of the NBD does not show oscillatory behavior as the rank of cumulant moment increases. On the othe hand, $`H_j`$ moments obtained from observed multiplicity distributions in $`hh`$ and $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions show oscillatory behaviors . If the truncated NBD is used to calculate the $`H_j`$ moments in $`hh`$ collisions, calculated results can describe those obtained from the data well . However, in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions, calculated $`H_j`$ moments by the use of the truncated NBD oscillate much weaker than those obtained from the data, and cannot explain the oscillatory behavior of the $`H_j`$ moments obtained from the data .

The NBD is derived from a branching process, birth and death process with immigration. The probability distribution (the multiplicity distribution) and the branching equation are transformed respectively into the probability density (the KNO scaling function) and the Fokker-Planck equation by the Poisson transform.

The fractional calculus has a long history . Recently, the fractional Fokker-Planck equation have been introduced to describe anomalous diffusion phenomena ; the fractional space or time derivative replaces the ordinary space or time variable. If fractional derivative in time variable is introduced to the Fokker-Planck equation, it means that a sort of time lag or a memory effect is introduced into the Fokker-Planck equation, or the branching equation. We would like to investigate this type of fractional Fokker-Planck equation, the solution of which reduces to the gamma distribution when the fractional derivative is replaced to the ordinary one, and an effect of fractional derivative on the behavior of cumulant moments.

## 2 The Fractional Fokker-Planck Equation

In the following we investigate the fractional Fokker-Planck equation (FFPE),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi (z,t)}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{0}{}^{}\mathrm{D}_{t}^{1\alpha }L_{FP}\psi (z,t),0<\alpha <1,`$
$`L_{FP}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\left[a(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}b(z)\right],a(z)=\beta \gamma z,b(z)=\sigma ^2z,`$ (1)
with the initial condition,

$`\psi (z,t=0)=\delta (zz_0).`$ (2)
In Eq.(1), $`\beta >0`$, $`\sigma >0`$ and $`\gamma `$ is real. Symbol $`{}_{0}{}^{}𝐃_{t}^{\delta }`$ denotes the Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative  defined by

$`{}_{0}{}^{}𝐃_{t}^{\delta }f(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n\delta )}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^n}{dt^n}}{\displaystyle _0^t}(t\tau )^{n\delta 1}f(\tau )𝑑\tau ,n1\delta <n,`$ (3)
where $`n`$ is a natural number. If $`\alpha =1`$, $`{}_{0}{}^{}𝐃_{t}^{0}f(t)=f(t)`$ ( $`{}_{0}{}^{}𝐃_{t}^{0}=1`$ ), and Eq.(1) reduces to the ordinary Fokker-Planck equation.

According to the method proposed by Barkai and Silbey , we assume that

$`\psi (z,t)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}R_s(t)G_s(z)𝑑s,`$ (4)
and that function $`G_s(z)`$ satisfies the following equations,

$`L_{FP}G_s(z)={\displaystyle \frac{}{s}}G_s(z),G_0(z)=\delta (zz_0).`$ (5)
Then function $`G_s(z)`$ becomes the KNO scaling function for the Peřina-McGill formula,

$`G_s(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{kp}}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{z+z_0(1p)}{kp}}]\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{z_0(1p)}}\right)^{(\lambda 1)/2}I_{\lambda 1}({\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{zz_0(1p)}}{kp}}),`$
$`k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2}{2\gamma }},\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{2\beta }{\sigma ^2}},p=1e^{\gamma s}.`$ (6)
Applying the Laplace transform to Eq.(1), we find

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\left[u\stackrel{~}{R}_s(u)+u^{1\alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{R}_s(u)}{s}}\right]G_s(z)𝑑s=\left[1u^{1\alpha }\stackrel{~}{R}_0(u)\right]\delta (zz_0),`$ (7)
where $`\stackrel{~}{R}_s(u)`$ is the Laplace transform of $`R_s(t)`$,

$`\stackrel{~}{R}_s(u)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}R_s(t)e^{ut}𝑑t.`$ (8)
Furthermore, we assume that each side of Eq.(7) is equal to zero;

$`u^{1\alpha }\stackrel{~}{R}_0(u)=1,u^{1\alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{R}_s(u)}{u}}=u\stackrel{~}{R}_s(u).`$ (9)
The solution of Eq.(9) is given by $`\stackrel{~}{R}_s(u)=u^{\alpha 1}\mathrm{exp}[su^\alpha ].`$ Then $`R_s(t)`$ is written as

$`R_s(t)={\displaystyle \frac{t^\alpha }{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{c_0i\mathrm{}}^{c_0+i\mathrm{}}}\sigma ^{\alpha 1}\mathrm{exp}[\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{s}{t^\alpha }}\sigma ^\alpha ]𝑑\sigma ,(c_0>0).`$ (10)
In the following, we assume that $`\gamma >0`$. Equation (6) can be expanded as

$`G_s(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}({\displaystyle \frac{z}{k}})^{\lambda 1}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{z}{k}}]{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m!}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+\lambda )}}L_m^{(\lambda 1)}({\displaystyle \frac{z}{k}})L_m^{(\lambda 1)}({\displaystyle \frac{z_0}{k}})e^{m\gamma s},`$ (11)
where $`L_m^{(\lambda 1)}(z)`$ denotes the Laguerre polynomial. Then the solution for the FFPE (1) with $`z_0=+0`$ is given by

$`\psi (z,t)={\displaystyle \frac{z^{\lambda 1}}{k^\lambda }}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{z}{k}}]{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m!}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+\lambda )}}L_m^{(\lambda 1)}({\displaystyle \frac{z}{k}})E_\alpha (m\gamma t^\alpha ),`$ (12)
where $`E_\alpha (t)`$ for $`t>0`$ denotes the Mittag-Leffler function ,

$`E_\alpha (t)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\alpha \pi )}{\alpha \pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{exp}[(xt)^{1/\alpha }]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2+2x\mathrm{cos}(\alpha \pi )+1}}𝑑x.`$ (13)
It is written in the infinite series as

$`E_\alpha (z)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^n}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha n+1)}}.`$ (14)
if $`\alpha =1`$, Eq.(12) reduces to the gamma distribution, the KNO scaling function of the NBD.

## 3 Factorial Moment and Cumulant Moment

The generating function for the multiplicity distribution $`P(n,t)`$ is defined as

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(u)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}P(n,t)u^n.`$ (15)
The multiplicity distribution $`P(n,t)`$ is connected to it’s KNO scaling function $`\psi (z,t)`$ by the Poisson transform,

$`P(n,t)={\displaystyle \frac{n_0^n}{n!}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}z^n\mathrm{exp}[n_0z]\psi (z,t)𝑑z.`$ (16)
Then the generating function (GF) is written as

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(1u/n_0)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\psi (z,t)e^{uz}𝑑z.`$ (17)
The GF corresponding to Eq.(12) is given by

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(u)={\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+\lambda )}{m!\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(kn_0(u1)\right)^m}{\left(1kn_0(u1)\right)^{m+\lambda }}}E_\alpha (m\gamma t^\alpha ).`$ (18)
The factorial moment are defined as

$`f_j={\displaystyle \frac{^j\mathrm{\Pi }(u)}{u^j}}|_{u=1}=n(n1)\mathrm{}(nj+1).`$ (19)
The normalized factorial moment is given from Eqs.(18) and (19) as

$`F_j={\displaystyle \frac{f_j}{n^j}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda +j)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )\lambda ^j}}{\displaystyle \frac{_{m=0}^j(1)^m{}_{j}{}^{}C_{m}^{}E_\alpha (m\gamma t^\alpha )}{[1E_\alpha (\gamma t^\alpha )]^j}}.`$ (20)
The $`k`$th rank cumulant moment is defined by the following equation,

$`\kappa _j=^j\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Pi }(u)/u^j|_{u=1}.`$ (21)
Then we obtain the recurrence equation for the $`H_j`$ moment,

$`H_1=1,H_j=1{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{j1}{}}}{}_{j1}{}^{}C_{m1}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{F_{jm}F_m}{F_j}}H_m,`$ (22)
where $`H_j=\kappa _j/f_j`$.

If $`\alpha =1`$, Eq.(17) reduces to the GF for the NBD, with mean multiplicity $`n=k\lambda n_0(1e^{\gamma t})`$,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{NB}}(u)=[1(n/\lambda )(u1)]^\lambda .`$ (23)
The normalized factorial moment and the $`H_j`$ moment for the NBD are given from Eq.(23) respectively as,

$`F_{\mathrm{NB}},_j={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda +j)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )\lambda ^j}},H_{\mathrm{NB}},_j={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda +1)(j1)!}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda +j)}}.`$ (24)
As can be seen from Eqs.(20) and (24), difference between the normalized factorial moment derived from the FFPE ($`0<\alpha <1`$) and that of the NBD ($`\alpha =1`$) is given by Mittag-Leffler functions.

## 4 Calculated Results and Discussions

In order to calculate $`H_j`$ moments, we use observed values of $`n`$ and $`C^2(=n^2/n^2)`$ for the charged particles. Then, if $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma t^\alpha `$ are given, $`\lambda `$ in Eq.(20) is determined by the following equation,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}=\left(C^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{[1E_\alpha (\gamma t^\alpha )]^2}{12E_\alpha (\gamma t^\alpha )+E_\alpha (2\gamma t^\alpha )}}1.`$
In the following, calculated results with $`\alpha =0.5`$ are shown. In Fig.1a, our results with $`\gamma t^\alpha =1.0`$ ($`\lambda =`$66.82) and 2.0 (10.24) are compared with the $`H_j`$ moment obtained from the data in $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=546`$GeV . We can see that calculated values with $`\alpha =0.5`$ and $`\gamma t^\alpha =1.0`$ oscillate as strong as those from the data. If parameter $`\gamma t^\alpha `$ is adjusted with a step of 0.01 so that the first relative minimum of the calculated $`H_j`$ moment should be located at $`j5`$, the calculated first relative minimum value is $`H_7=3.323\times 10^5`$, and the absolute value of it is much smaller than that obtained from the data.

In Fig.1b, the calculated $`H_j`$ moment is compared with that obtained from the data in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=91`$ GeV . Parameter $`\gamma t^\alpha `$ is adjusted so that the first relative minimum should be located at $`j5`$. As can be seen from the figure, the strength of the oscillation of calculated $`H_j`$ moment is comparable with the data. Even if the truncated NBD is used to calculate the $`H_j`$ moments, the oscillation of calculated moments is much weaker than that of the data . Therefore, we can improve the results much better by introducing fractional derivative into time variable of the Fokker-Planck equation.

Calculated results from the GF with $`\alpha =`$0.5 show that the oscillation of $`H_j`$ moments are comparable with the data in amplitude both in $`p\overline{p}`$ and $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions. However, the first relative minimum points, or periods of oscillations are not necessarily the same as the data.

The fractional moments have been also investigated by Hegyi . However, the formula derived from Eq.(1) is different from those in ref. .