| | |
| | |
Stat |
Members: 3667 Articles: 2'599'751 Articles rated: 2609
07 February 2025 |
|
| | | |
|
Article overview
| |
|
A collapsar origin for GRB 211211A is (just barely) possible | Jennifer Barnes
; Brian D. Metzger
; | Date: |
4 Jan 2023 | Abstract: | Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) have historically been divided into two classes.
Short-duration GRBs are associated with binary neutron-star mergers (NSMs),
while long-duration bursts are connected to a subset of core-collapse
supernovae (SNe). GRB 211211A recently made headlines as the first
long-duration burst purportedly generated by an NSM. The evidence for an NSM
origin was excess optical and near-infrared emission consistent with the
kilonova observed after the gravitational wave-detected NSM GW170817. Kilonovae
derive their unique electromagnetic signatures from the properties of the heavy
elements synthesized by rapid neutron capture (the r-process) following the
merger. Recent simulations suggest that the "collapsar" SNe that trigger long
GRBs may also produce r-process elements. While observations of GRB 211211A and
its afterglow ruled out an SN typical of those that follow long GRBs, an
unusual collapsar could explain both the duration of GRB 211211A and the
r-process-powered excess in its afterglow. We use semianalytic radiation
transport modeling to evaluate low-mass collapsars as the progenitors of GRB
211211A-like events. We compare a suite of collapsar models to the
afterglow-subtracted emission that followed GRB 211211A, and find the best
agreement for models with high kinetic energies and an unexpected pattern of
Ni-56 enrichment. We discuss how core-collapse explosions could produce such
ejecta, and how distinct our predictions are from those generated by more
straightforward kilonova models. We also show that radio observations can
distinguish between kilonovae and the more massive collapsar ejecta we consider
here. | Source: | arXiv, 2301.01389 | Services: | Forum | Review | PDF | Favorites |
|
|
No review found.
Did you like this article?
Note: answers to reviews or questions about the article must be posted in the forum section.
Authors are not allowed to review their own article. They can use the forum section.
|
| |
|
|
|