• Türkçe
    • English
  • English 
    • Türkçe
    • English
  • Login
View Item 
  •   Home
  • Avesis
  • Dokümanı Olmayanlar
  • Makale
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • Avesis
  • Dokümanı Olmayanlar
  • Makale
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Very early optical afterglows of gamma-ray bursts: Evidence for relative paucity of detection

Date
2006
Author
Landsman, Wayne B.
Burrows, David N.
Blustin, Alex J.
Boyd, Patricia T.
Brown, Peter
Holland, Stephen T.
McGowan, Katherine
Page, Kim L.
Rhoads, James E.
Rosen, Simon R.
Vanden Berk, Daniel
Barthelmy, Scott D.
Breeveld, Alice A.
Cucchiara, Antonino
DE PASQUALE, Massımılıano
Fenimore, Edward E.
Gehrels, Neil
Gronwall, Caryl
Grupe, Dirk
Goad, Michael R.
Ivanushkina, Mariya
James, Cynthia
Kennea, Jamie A.
Kobayashi, Shiho
Mangano, Vanessa
Meszaros, Peter
Morgan, Adam N.
Nousek, John A.
Osborne, Julian P.
Palmer, David M.
Poole, Tracey
Still, Martin D.
Tagliaferri, Gianpiero
Zane, Silvia
Roming, Peter W. A.
Schady, Patricia
Fox, Derek B.
Zhang, Bing
Liang, Enwei
Mason, Keith O.
Rol, Evert
Metadata
Show full item record
Abstract
Very early observations with the Swift satellite of gamma-ray burst (GRB) afterglows reveal that the optical component is not detected in a large number of cases. This is in contrast to the bright optical flashes previously discovered in some GRBs (e. g., GRB 990123 and GRB 021211). Comparisons of the X-ray afterglow flux to the optical afterglow flux and prompt gamma-ray fluence is used to quantify the seemingly deficient optical, and in some cases X-ray, light at these early epochs. This comparison reveals that some of these bursts appear to have higher than normal gamma-ray efficiencies. We discuss possible mechanisms and their feasibility for explaining the apparent lack of early optical emission. The mechanisms considered include, foreground extinction, circumburst absorption, Ly alpha blanketing and absorption due to high-redshift, low-density environments, rapid temporal decay, and intrinsic weakness of the reverse shock. Of these, foreground extinction, circumburst absorption, and high redshift provide the best explanations for most of the nondetections in our sample. There is tentative evidence of suppression of the strong reverse shock emission. This could be because of a Poynting flux-dominated flow or a pure nonrelativistic hydrodynamic reverse shock.
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12627/179820
https://doi.org/10.1086/508481
Collections
  • Makale [92796]

Creative Commons Lisansı

İstanbul Üniversitesi Akademik Arşiv Sistemi (ilgili içerikte aksi belirtilmediği sürece) Creative Commons Alıntı-GayriTicari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
Contact Us | Send Feedback
Theme by 
Atmire NV
 

 


Hakkımızda
Açık Erişim PolitikasıVeri Giriş Rehberleriİletişim
sherpa/romeo
Dergi Adı/ISSN || Yayıncı

Exact phrase only All keywords Any

BaşlıkbaşlayaniçerenISSN

Browse

All of DSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsTypesThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsTypes

My Account

LoginRegister

Creative Commons Lisansı

İstanbul Üniversitesi Akademik Arşiv Sistemi (ilgili içerikte aksi belirtilmediği sürece) Creative Commons Alıntı-GayriTicari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
Contact Us | Send Feedback
Theme by 
Atmire NV