Revisiting the Amati and Yonetoku Correlations with Swift GRBs

Revisiting the Amati and Yonetoku Correlations with Swift GRBs

Abstract

We use a sample of Swift gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) to analyze the Amati and Yonetoku correlations. The first relation is between , the intrinsic peak energy of the prompt GRB emission, and , the equivalent isotropic energy. The second relation is between and , the isotropic peak luminosity. We select a sample of 71 Swift GRBs that have a measured redshift and whose observed is within the interval of energy 15-150 keV with a relative uncertainty of less than 70%. We seek to find correlation relations for long-duration GRBs (LGRBs) with a peak photon flux . Uncertainties (error bars) on the values of the calculated energy flux P, the energy , and the peak isotropic luminosity are estimated using a Monte Carlo approach. We find 27 Swift LGRBs that satisfy all our constraints. Results of our analyses of the sample of 71 GRBs and the selected subsample (27 GRBs) are in good agreement with published results. The plots of the two relations for all bursts show a large dispersion around the best straight lines in the sample of 71 LGRBs but not so much in the subsample of 27 GRBs.

gamma-rays: bursts; methods:statistical

1 Introduction

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are sudden, and very brief, outbursts of high-energy gamma photons that appear randomly in time and space. They were serendipitously discovered in 1967, and are of great importance because they are currently the most luminous and distant sources in the universe. They hold great promise as cosmological probes of the early universe, since their flux is unencumbered by extinction due to dust (Ghirlanda et al., 2006; Azzam and Alothman, 2006a, b; Capozziello and Izzo, 2008; Demianski and Piedipalumbo, 2011). One of the most important elements in the detection of GRBs is the redshift, z, since its determination is necessary in order to investigate all the intrinsic characteristics of GRBs. It is generally determined by the identification of absorption lines in the optical afterglow spectra, when they are bright enough. Large terrestrial telescopes equipped with spectrographs working in the infrared or the optical domains are the best places to perform this task.

Over the past decade, several GRB energy and luminosity relations have been discovered, in which an observed parameter correlates with an intrinsic parameter. Some of these relations are obtained from the light curves, like the lag-luminosity relation (Norris et al., 2000) and the variability relation (Fenimore and Ramirez-Ruiz, 2000), while others are extracted from the spectra and include the Amati relation (Amati et al., 2002; Amati, 2006; Amati et al., 2008, 2009), the Ghirlanda relation (Ghirlanda et al., 2004), the Yonetoku relation (Yonetoku et al., 2004; Ghirlanda et al., 2010), and the Liang-Zhang relation (Liang and Zhang, 2005).
In this work, we use a sample of Swift GRBs that we selected according to a specific criterion (described in Section 2) in order to investigate two of these correlations: the Amati relation, which is a correlation between the intrinsic (i.e., rest-frame) peak energy, , in a burst’s spectrum and its equivalent isotropic energy, ; and the Yonetoku relation which is a correlation between and a burst’s isotropic peak luminosity, .

A detailed description of our sample selection is provided in Section 2, which is followed by a presentation of our spectral analysis and results in Sections 3 and 4, respectively. A discussion of our results including a comparison with what has been done by others is given in Section 5, and our conclusions are provided in Section 6.

2 Sample Selection

We use the Swift GRBs data that is published on the official websites 12. The first one presents the observational results characterizing the overall GRB: peak flux, fluence, duration, redshift, host galaxy, as well as data on afterglows. The second website provides more details on the energy spectrum and the time profile in different energy bands, for different time resolutions. The data are all provided with their uncertainties (error bars). We simply use that data to check for the validity of the Amati and Yonetoku correlations. Bursts that interest us are therefore long-duration GRBs (LGRBs) with measured redshifts.

As of 25/09/2013, Swift observed 809 GRBs, of which 703 are long-duration GRBs. Among these 703 LGRBs, only 236 have measured redshifts, of which 17 are “ approximate” redshifts (060708, 071020, 050904, 110726A, 100704A, 090814A, 070721B, 060912A,
070306, 050803, 120521C, 060116, 100728B, 081222, 060502A, 080430, and 050802), which leaves 219 LGRBs with well determined redshifts. We note that in cases where several methods for the determination of a redshift were possible, we have adopted the values given by the absorption method, which is generally the most precise (with four significant figures).

In Figure 1 we plot the distribution of 219 LGRBs detected by Swift up to 25/09/2013. Of these, we select the bursts that have an energy in the Swift range [15-150] keV, with a relative accuracy of at least 70%. This selection filter leaves us with 71 GRBs. Among these, 57 have both and values and thus can be used for testing the Amati relation, while 56 have and values and thus can be used for testing the Yonetoku relation. 42 GRBs are common to both relations. The last constraint that we apply in selecting Swift bursts is the photon flux which must be more than the threshold . The sample we obtain is one of 27 “good” GRBs for our analysis. We note that these 27 bursts have been very strictly selected. The percentage of bursts that obey the observational constraints is of the order of 4% of the total number of LGRBs, and it is 13% of LGRBs with well-determined redshift.

Figure 1: GRB’s distribution with redshift z, with a bin of 0.2

3 Spectral Analysis

The 1-sec photon flux at the peak can be found in the Swift data. This flux gives the total number of photons per unit area and per unit time, regardless of their individual energies. The Swift energy spectrum is divided into four bands: 15-25 keV, 25-50 keV, 50-100 keV, 100-350 keV. The spectrum (photons per unit area, time, and energy) can be fitted by one of three well known functions: the Band function (Band et al., 1992), the cut-off power law (CPL), and the power law (PL). The first two are known to give very similar chi-square () values when fitting the spectra. In the aforementioned Swift data web sites, only the PL and the CPL functions are given for each burst; thus, in this work, we have chosen to use the cut-off power law, which is characterized by two spectral parameters: the observed peak energy, , and the spectral index alpha ().

(1)

where keV, a mid-range value in the interval 15-150 keV which is only used for normalization purposes and . The spectral parameters and in the CPL function are not necessarily the same as those of the Band law for a given burst. This observation has a direct effect on the two correlation relations since both of them depend on .

To calculate the peak energy flux, expressed in , we use the spectral parameters that characterize the peak photons. This is given under the heading “1-s peak spectral analysis” of the Swift data page. We only take what relates to the CPL spectrum. Using the CPL law, the observed peak fluxes that are given in Table (4), are calculated theoretically using the following expression:

(2)

where = 15 keV, = 150 keV. , and being given in Table (4). In Eq.2, the only unknown is the normalization constant , which we determine by numerically integrating the previous function, i.e.

(3)

The peak energy flux, denoted by and calculated in , is calculated numerically through the following equations:

(4)
(5)
(6)

A factor is introduced to make the keV-erg conversion and .

The bolometric luminosity of the 1-second isotropic peak, denoted , is the maximum energy radiated per unit time in all space. It is calculated by integrating the function in the energy band corresponding to the observed gamma radiation band in the source’s frame, i.e. = 1 keV to = keV. And because of cosmological effects, the corresponding observed energy band is: to .
Thus, the k-corrected is calculated via:

(7)
(8)

Here is k-corrected with the method developed by (Bloom et al., 2001). Indeed, in Eq.\eqrefeq:LZ we replace by Eq.\eqrefeq1n0 and using Eq.\eqrefeq31bb to express , we obtain:

(9)

where being the proper k-correction factor (Yonetoku et al., 2004; Rossi et al., 2008; Elliott et al., 2012).

These integrals are performed numerically using the time-resolved spectral parameters given by Swift. The cosmological distance is expressed by the following equation:

(10)

We adopt the following cosmological parameters:
= 0.27, = 0.73, and = 70 (Komatsu et al., 2009).

The total isotropic energy, denoted , which is emitted by a gamma-ray burst in all space, is calculated using the fluences () given by the detectors in the Swift energy band [15- 150] keV. To calculate this, we use a cut-off power law spectrum with time-averaged spectral parameters () obtained from the Swift data. Using the CPL function, the fluence , given in the fourth column in table (4), can be theoretically calculated using the following equation:

(11)

with = 15 keV, = 150 keV and = 50 keV. and are given in Table (4), for the time-averaged spectrum. is the time-integrated spectrum calculated via the product of the time-averaged spectrum by , the observed duration of the GRB:

(12)

In equation 11 the only unknown is the normalization constant N’; it is determined by numerical integration, i.e.:

(13)

Thus, N’ is used to deduce k-corrected :

(14)

The (1 + z) factor is a cosmological correction that is needed because one must use (the GRB’s duration in the source’s frame) instead of : ; [ = 1 keV ; = keV] is the energy band in the source’s frame. is the k-correction factor calculated with the parameters of the time-averaged spectrum:

(15)

4 Results

4.1 Distribution of and

Figure 2: Histogram of LGRBs in terms of the peak energy flux . We split the interval from log() = 8 to log() = 5 into 8 bins. 57 Swift LGRBs were used in this histogram. Here, we did not consider the constraint on the threshold on the flux :

In the previous sections we numerically evaluated the energy flux denoted by , the peak isotropic bolometric luminosity, , and the isotropic energy . Uncertainties over these quantities are estimated using the Monte Carlo method. We have plotted the distributions , , in Figures 2, 3, and 4 respectively. We also obtained the distributions of the two physical quantities and in the sources’ reference frames. In Figure 4, we note that , which represents the total energy released by the burst during its entire activity, follows a lognormal distribution, previously known (Preece et al., 2000), with a mean equal to . Most gamma-ray bursts that are detected by other satellites are characterized by this average value.

Figure 3: Histogram of LGRBs in terms of the peak isotropic luminosity. We split the interval from log(Liso) = 49 to 55 into 8 bins. 57 Swift LGRBs were used. Here, we did not consider the constraint:

This luminosity is different from the time-resolved peak luminosity that was calculated above.

Figure 4: Histogram of LGRBs in terms of the isotropic energy. We split the interval from = 49 to 55 into 7 bins. 56 Swift LGRBs were used. Here, we did not consider the constraint:

In Figure(5) we present the correlation between and : a burst that releases a large amount of energy is characterized by high luminosity. We note that these two quantities are correlated with a wide dispersion of the observational data.

Figure 5: Plot of  vs.   : 42 Swift LGRBs have been used in this plot(Tab.3). Here, we did not consider the constraint: . The error bars over are much larger than those over because of the size of the error bars over the peak flux.

4.2 Correlation Relations

One of the most debated issues regarding gamma-ray bursts (GRB ) is the existence of a correlation relation between the spectral parameters of the prompt emission and either the total energy or the luminosity. Three robust correlations have been identified but not yet confirmed. Each involves the peak energy of the spectrum , estimated in the source’s frame. This quantity is strongly correlated with: (a) the total isotropic energy (Amati et al., 2002; Amati, 2006), (b) the isotropic luminosity (Yonetoku et al., 2004), and (c) the total energy collimated with the opening angle which is denoted by (Ghirlanda et al., 2004). The opening angle is inferred from the observed break in the temporal profile of the afterglows. In the BATSE observations, did not exceed ten degrees, while Swift observations of afterglows do not show, in most cases, such a break. Such correlations apply only in long GRBs. The spectral energy correlations have important implications for both the theoretical understanding of GRBs and for cosmological applications (Ghirlanda et al., 2004, 2005).

The Relation

The relation between the energies and , discovered by Amati et al. (2002) has been the subject of several publications, even though it has not yet been fully confirmed. This topic has had several controversies. In 2002, Amati et al. (2002) came up with this relationship from a sample of 12 Beppo-SAX GRBs with well-determined redshifts. These researchers showed that there is a purely empirical relation between , the peak energy of the photon spectrum of the prompt emission, as measured in the source’s frame and the total equivalent isotropic energy that is emitted in the energy band [1- keV], that is the energy radiated by the source in this energy range, assuming an isotropic emission. This relation requires a redshift measurement. The redshift is necessary to know the intrinsic properties of the source, as the intrinsic peak energy is given by the relation:

(16)

where is the peak energy observed by the
Swift/BAT detectors. The Amati relation is given by:

(17)

where K and m are constants.

For the original Amati relation, and . This relation can be used to constrain cosmological parameters as well as different models aiming to explain the prompt emission. It can also provide information on the nature of the various subclasses of gamma-ray bursts (e.g., LGRB, SGRB, etc.)

We plot our results for the Amati relation in Figure (6). These plots are for 27 bursts detected by Swift/BAT with well determined redshifts. We plot as a function of . We represented two extreme lines, in fitting the 27-point distribution. From these two lines we have deduced the mean values for the line’s slope and intercept. In Table (1) we give the constants K and m of Eq.17, as obtained from the following expressions:

(18)
(19)

We also give the original results of Amati et al. (2002).

This work Amati
high average low et al (2002)
K 126 141 159 95
m 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.5
Table 1: correlation
Figure 6: The correlation using 27 Swift LGRBs that satisfy all the constraints that we set.

The Relation

Figure 7: The correlation using 27 Swift LGRBs that satisfy all the constraints that we set

The relation between the energy and the isotropic luminosity at peak time, with well-determined redshifts, was found by Yonetoku et al. (2004). It was expressed as:

(20)

In Figure(7) we plot vs. in log-log scale for 27 Swift bursts with well determined redshifts. We have drawn two extreme straight lines which represent ”brackets”. From these two lines we deduced the mean values for the slope and the intercept (a and b). In Table (2) we give the constants A and p of Eq.20, which are obtained from the following relations:

(21)
(22)

For comparison, we also show the original results of Yonetoku et al. (2004).

This work Yonetoku
high average low et al (2004)
A
p 2.44 2.04 1.75
Table 2: correlation.

Evolution of    and with Redshift

Figure 8: Evolution of with the redshift z using 27 Swift LGRBs that satisfy all the constraints that we set.

In the sample of 27 Swift LGRBs, we find an interesting evolution of the isotropic energy in terms of the redshift z. We plot the data in Figure (8), showing a trend between and z, a trend which can be expressed by the following equation:

(23)

This result is in good agreement with the recently published paper (Salvaterra et al., 2013). We also find a similar trend between and z, (Figure 9), a trend which can be expressed by the following equation:

(24)

It is indeed logical to find a (1+z) dependence in the ratio of and due to the cosmological effect on the duration , which affects only the luminosity.

Figure 9: Evolution of with the redshift z using 27 Swift LGRBs that satisfy all the constraints that we set.

5 Discussion

In this section we present a brief review of recent studies that have dealt with the Amati and Yonetoku relations in order to put our study into proper perspective. Some studies (Zhang et al., 2012; Tsutsui et al., 2013) have lately considered whether these correlations apply to both short and long bursts. It had previously been thought that the Amati relation applies only to LGRBs, whereas the Yonetoku relation applies to both. In the study by (Zhang and Mészàros, 2004) the authors used a sample of 148 LGRBs and 17 SGRBs to investigate this issue for the Yonetoku relation. The results obtained indicate that both the LGRB and SGRB groups seem to adhere to the correlation with the same best-fit: . This implies that the radiation mechanism is similar for short and long bursts, and probably has a quasi-thermal origin in which most of the energy is dissipated close to the central engine. On the other hand, the study by Tsutsui et al. (2013) considered both the Amati and Yonetoku relations but for short bursts only. The authors first clarified the sometimes ambiguous issue of when a burst is to be considered short. They then distinguished between ”secure” and ”misguided” SGRBs. Out of an initial sample of 13 bursts, 8 were found to be ”secure”. With these 8 bursts they were able to obtain good fits and to show that both the Amati and Yonetoku relations apply; however, for a given , is dimmer by a factor of about 100, and is dimmer by a factor of about 5 than that known for LGRBs.

Other studies have looked at the possible redshift evolution of these correlations. The study by Geng and Huang (2013) used a sample of 65 bursts to investigate the possible redshift dependence of the low-energy index, , in the Band function. Their results indicate that such a dependence does exist. Although we did not utilize the Band function in our study, since we used a CPL, our results for the redshift dependence of and are in qualitative agreement with what was found by Geng and Huang (2013).

The study by Nava et al. (2012) used a sample of 47 GRBs to investigate the robustness of the Amati and Yonetoku relations, and also to look into their possible redshift evolution. Although the authors found some outliers, their conclusion was that these relations are genuine and are not due to selection effects. However, they also found no evolution of these correlations with redshift. This final result is in agreement with a recent study (Azzam and Alothman, 2013) in which the authors investigate the possible redshift evolution of a sample of 65 bursts by binning the data and carrying out the proper z-correction and k-correction. The authors obtained good fits for the binned data, but found no evidence for redshift evolution.

Our current study is in agreement with the above investigations in that it confirms the existence of the Amati and Yonetoku correlations. However, we have taken a step further by demonstrating that applying a stricter criterion for choosing the GRB sample in the first place, actually improves the quality of these fits, since it reduces the dispersion that is commonly seen in these correlations. Therefore, the proper selection of the data sample is crucial in such studies.

6 Conclusion

We have conducted a statistical study of a sample of Swift bursts. Among the 229 LGRBs with well-determined redshifts, we selected the 71 GRBs whose observed energy is within the energy interval 15-150 keV. Among those, 57 GRBs had and values and could thus be used to test the Yonetoku relation, while 56 GRBs had and values and could thus be used for the study of the Amati relation. These bursts satisfy constraints on the energy . The uncertainties (error bars) on the bursts’ physical quantities were estimated using a Monte Carlo method. We present the data for the bursts, along with the error bars, in a summary table (3). For these bursts, we plotted against and against , testing the Amati and Yonetoku relations on that sample. We found the data to be tainted with significant dispersions around the linear trends. But by adding a condition on the peak flux, we obtained a sample of 27 LGRBs for which we got good linearities on those two relations.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the use of the online Swift/BAT table compiled by Taka Sakamoto and Scott D. Barthelmy. We thank the referee for constructive comments, which led us to clarify some aspects of the paper.
GRB z Log() Log() Log(
130610A 2.092 -6.85 0.08 52.40 0.20
130514A 3.6 -6.67 0.05 52.87 0.12 53.70 0.10
130427B 2.78 52.61 0.06
130420A 1.297 -6.39 0.03 51.73 0.22 52.65 0.05
130215A 0.597 -6.73 0.01 51.12 0.72 51.90 0.06
121128A 2.2 -5.97 0.02 52.90 0.09 53.05 0.03
120815A 2.358 -6.87 0.04 51.57 0.72 51.83 0.11
120811C 2.671 -6.58 0.02 52.58 0.21 52.83 0.06
120724A 1.48 -7.56 0.10 52.49 0.8 51.55 0.10
120712A 4.15 -6.69 0.06 53.13 0.58
120422A 0.28 -7.26 0.14 49.38 1.20 49.79 0.08
120404A 2.876 -7.12 0.05 52.18 0.08
120326A 1.798 -6.55 0.017 52.17 0.23 52.45 0.07
120118B 2.943 -6.86 0.037 52.35 0.44 52.72 0.10
111229A 1.381 -7.15 0.08 51.30 0.30 51.48 0.09
111228A 0.7141 -6.1 0.02 51.66 0.16
111107A 2.893 53.48 0.67
111008A 5 53.69 0.07
110808A 1.348 -7.53 0.12 51.41 0.33 51.50 0.06
110801A 1.858 -7.16 0.05 51.60 0.30 52.85 0.06
110715A 0.82 52.55 0.02
110503A 1.613 -6.91 0.03 51.77 0.14 53.08 0.07
110205A 1.98 -6.57 0.03 52.22 0.12
110128A 2.339 -7.17 0.1 51.59 0.54 52.12 0.06
100906A 1.727 -6.57 0.07 52.22 0.12
100621A 0.542 -6.02 0.01 51.76 0.06 52.55 0.03
100615A 1.398 -6.41 0.03 52.15 0.12 52.67 0.05
100513A 4.772 53.00 0.03
100425A 1.755 -7.17 0.05 52.00 1.24 51.55 0.10
100418A 0.624 50.83 0.05
100316B 1.18 -7.12 0.04 51.17 0.47 51.11 0.05
091208B 1.063 52.26 0.04
091127 0.49 -5.51 0.03 51.95 0.20 51.98 0.07
091029 2.752 -6.94 0.03 52.44 0.25 52.80 0.05
091018 0.971 -6.23 0.17 52.06 0.23 51.78 0.05
090927 1.37 -6.88 0.06 51.71 0.40 51.12 0.08
090926B 1.24 52.56 0.02
090726 2.71 -7.41 0.20 53.40 0.53 52.25 0.10
090618 0.54 53.16 0.02
090424 0.544 52.48 0.05
090423 8.0 -6.93 0.04 52.76 0.22 52.76 0.04
081221 2.26 -5.83 0.02 52.95 0.06 53.84 0.02
081121 2.512 -6.49 0.16 54.26 0.30
081118 2.58 -7.40 0.10 51.57 0.56
080916A 0.689 -6.61 0.04 51.12 0.13 51.87 0.03
080520 1.545 -7.60 0.12 51.27 1.43
080413B 1.1 -5.85 0.03 52.15 0.13 52.15 0.03
80330 1.51 51.64 0.06
080310 2.427 -7.11 0.14 52.49 0.70
071122 1.14 -7.64 0.18 50.33 0.44 51.46 0.08
071117 1.331 -5.99 0.02 52.47 0.15
071010A 0.98 -7.47 0.13 49.90 0.59 50.70 0.05
070611 2.04 -7.30 0.08 52.61 0.18 51.62 0.04
070506 2.31 -7.23 0.12 52.18 0.54
070419A 0.97 -8.04 0.18 49.51 0.55 51.21 0.04
070129 2.338 -7.48 0.06 51.36 0.08 52.72 0.03
061222B 3.355 -7.08 0.11 52.86 1.10 52.84 0.07
060927 5.6 -6.62 0.04 53.00 0.17 52.89 0.04
060926 3.208 -7.26 0.11 52.64 0.70
060908 1.884 -6.56 0.05 52.35 0.23
060604 2.136 51.82 0.07
060526 3.21 -6.88 0.08 53.70 0.71 53.00 0.16
060512 0.443 -7.42 0.09 50.44 1.50 50.10 0.14
060510B 4.9 53.48 0.04
060218 0.033 -7.90 0.14 46.53 1.42 48.52 0.08
060206 4.045 -6.70 0.03 52.89 0.17 52.58 0.05
060115 3.53 52.75 0.06
050525A 0.606 -5.46 0.12 51.89 0.04 52.30 0.01
050416A 0.653 -6.65 0.10 51.92 1.10
050406 2.44 -7.77 0.12 50.93 1.60 50.90 0.09
050318 1.44 -6.66 0.03 51.68 0.23 51.86 0.05
Table 3: Flux isotropic energy and luminosity calculated from the Swift data for a sample of 71 GRBs that satisfy our constraints, except for the threshold on the photon flux.
GRB z Fluence          
sec keV keV
1s Pic spec 1s Pic Spec Aver.Spec Aver.Spec
130610A 2.092 46.4 25 1 1.7 0.2 0.202 0.798 93.7 65.3 1.026 0.284 217.1 62.8
130514A 3.6 204 91 2 2.8 0.3 1.173 0.506 146.9 1.0 1.646 0.193 122.9 40.2
130427B 2.78 27 15 1 3 0.4 1.182 0.646 176.3 1.0 1.229 0.594 93.8 29.6
130420A 1.297 123.5 71 3 3.4 0.2 1.030 0.486 58.0 15.6 1.518 0.251 33.4 6.6
130215A 0.597 65.7 54 5 2.5 0.7 0.162 2.978 69.9 1.0 1.126 0.545 100.5 34.8
121128A 2.2 23.3 69 4 12.9 0.4 0.494 0.225 107.7 16.2 1.320 0.183 64.6 6.8
120815A 2.358 9.7 4.9 0.7 2.2 0.3 1.222 1.091 45.7 1.0 1.033 1.259 28.6 1.0
120811C 2.671 26.8 30 3 4.1 0.2 1.015 0.458 53.9 9.8 1.401 0.303 42.9 5.7
120724A 1.48 72.8 6.8 1.1 0.6 0.2 -2.910 0.100 41.1 10.0 0.534 1.529 27.6 7.5
120712A 4.15 14.7 18 1 2.4 0.2 0.133 0.742 99.7 55.8 0.984 0.306 143.2 158.6
120422A 0.28 5.35 2.3 0.4 0.6 0.2 -0.558 2.948 103.6 34.1 0.398 1.099 91.5 30.7
120404A 2.876 38.7 16 1 1.2 0.2 2.052 0.100 21.5 1.0 1.821 0.100 269.3 1.0
120326A 1.798 69.6 26 3 4.6 0.2 1.127 0.410 48.4 6.9 1.409 0.338 41.1 6.9
120118B 2.943 23.26 18 1 2.2 0.3 1.434 1.085 50.7 1.0 1.599 0.506 39.0 1.0
111229A 1.3805 25.4 3.4 0.7 1 0.2 1.379 1.046 108.1 1.0 1.764 0.904 102.7 1.0
111228A 0.7141 101.2 85 2 12.4 0.5 1.650 0.272 88.7 29.7 1.989 0.100 1.9 7.2
111107A 2.893 26.6 8.8 0.8 1.2 0.2 1.034 0.630 782.8 1.0 2.285 0.198 102.1 1.0
111008A 5 63.46 53 3 6.4 0.7 1.011 0.539 212.3 1.0 1.725 0.338 98.7 1.0
110808A 1.348 48 3.3 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.168 1.113 65.8 1.0 1.854 0.100 11.5 1.0
110801A 1.858 385 47 3 1.1 0.2 1.646 0.939 62.5 1.0 1.615 0.296 78.6 26.2
110715A 0.82 13 118 2 53.9 1.1 0.985 0.131 152.0 32.6 1.254 0.116 119.8 20.8
110503A 1.613 10 100 4 1.35 0.06 0.100 0.356 111.8 21.9 0.881 0.254 133.1 54.5
110205A 1.98 257 170 3.6 0.2 1.219 0.344 144.6 -46.0 1.527 0.185 94.2 61.5
110128A 2.339 30.7 7.2 1.4 0.8 0.2 0.052 2.242 92.5 0.0 0.265 2.001 88.4 0.0
100906A 1.727 114.4 120 0.1 10.1 0.4 0.876 0.294 97.9 26.9 1.655 0.149 108.6 109.4
100621A 0.542 63.6 210 0.1 12.8 0.3 0.918 0.143 89.0 11.6 1.814 0.114 128.3 42.2
100615A 1.398 39 50 1 5.4 0.2 1.157 0.245 94.8 43.5 1.647 0.176 84.0 57.4
100513A 4.772 84 14 1 0.6 0.1 1.253 0.100 939.1 1.0 1.364 0.437 115.6 1.0
100425A 1.755 37 4.7 0.9 1.4 0.2 -0.351 2.407 30.2 5.9 0.847 1.670 26.6 1.0
100418A 0.6235 7 3.4 0.5 1 0.2 1.982 0.100 1.1 1.0 1.920 0.100 18.5 1.0
100316B 1.18 3.8 2 0.2 1.3 0.1 1.530 0.730 30.2 21.7 1.858 0.496 14.4 1.0
091208B 1.063 14.9 33 2 15.2 1.0 1.315 0.351 255.5 1.0 1.595 0.338 116.9 1.0
091127 0.49 7.1 90 3 46.5 2.7 1.329 0.399 69.5 34.2 1.797 0.280 46.3 1.0
091029 2.752 39.2 24 1 1.8 0.1 0.923 0.652 52.8 17.7 1.465 0.275 61.3 17.6
091018 0.971 4.4 14 1 10.3 0.4 1.296 0.306 35.2 5.0 1.765 0.242 19.2 1.0
090927 1.37 2.2 2 0.3 2 0.2 0.682 0.977 56.0 36.4 1.303 0.649 61.8 1.0
090926B 1.24 109.7 73 2 3.2 0.3 0.819 0.594 177.2 1.0 0.517 0.236 78.2 7.0
090726 2.71 67 8.6 1 0.7 0.2 -1.928 0.278 40.3 9.0 1.345 0.858 27.3 1.0
090618 0.54 113.2 1050 10 38.9 0.8 1.153 0.144 170.4 68.7 1.414 0.081 134.7 19.1
090424 0.544 48 210 1 71 2 0.915 0.137 166.0 52.6 1.244 0.140 147.8 51.3
090423 8.0 10.3 5.9 0.4 1.7 0.2 1.199 0.515 84.5 28.6 0.765 0.470 53.2 7.0
081221 2.26 34 181 3 18.2 0.5 0.749 0.190 112.9 19.3 1.211 0.128 69.9 3.9
081121 2.512 14 41 3 4.4 1 -2.441 0.100 56.8 8.0 0.563 0.500 140.3 126.8
081118 2.58 67 12 1 0.6 0.2 1.246 1.723 72.3 1.0 1.569 0.619 34.3 24.9
080916A 0.689 60 40 1 2.7 0.2 0.031 0.468 108.7 30.3 1.167 0.206 94.7 23.2
080520 1.545 2.8 0.55 0.17 0.5 0.1 0.418 2.495 28.7 21.0 1.742 1.450 7.1 13.1
080413B 1.1 8 32 1 18.7 0.8 1.005 0.291 102.0 35.5 1.222 0.276 72.2 13.9
080330 1.51 61 3.4 0.8 0.9 0.2 1.984 0.372 1.4 1.0 1.863 0.100 7.5 1.0
080310 2.4266 365 23 2 1.3 0.2 0.669 1.454 41.9 17.5 1.945 0.522 5.5 14.5
071122 1.14 68.7 5.8 1.1 0.4 0.2 1.985 0.100 3.2 1.0 1.423 0.937 79.4 1.0
071117 1.331 6.6 24 1 11.3 0.4 0.339 0.256 133.0 28.4 1.232 0.244 127.2 94.0
071010A 0.98 6 2 0.4 0.8 0.3 1.992 0.100 1.0 1.0 0.687 0.100 35.6 1.0
070611 2.04 12.2 3.91 0.57 0.82 0.21 -1.819 0.100 46.2 8.9 0.374 0.100 57.7 1.0
070506 2.31 4.3 2.1 0.23 0.96 0.13 -0.045 1.227 47.3 12.0 0.924 0.770 57.8 50.6
070419A 0.97 115.6 5.58 0.83 0.2 0.1 1.975 0.100 1.4 1.0 1.101 0.100 24.3 1.0
070129 2.338 460.6 29.8 2.67 0.55 0.12 1.445 0.100 43.5 1.0 1.390 0.100 40.9 1.0
061222B 3.355 40 22.4 1.83 1.59 0.36 0.635 2.486 29.1 21.1 1.296 0.565 46.7 15.7
060927 5.6 22.5 11.3 0.68 2.7 0.17 0.339 0.462 125.4 60.5 0.919 0.378 72.0 17.6
060926 3.208 8 2.19 0.25 1.09 0.14 1.689 1.029 15.5 16.0 1.984 0.100 1.0 10.3
060908 1.884 19.3 28 1.11 3.03 0.25 0.134 0.614 115.2 57.1 0.967 0.269 150.7 112.4
060604 2.1357 95 4.02 1.06 0.34 0.13 1.650 0.100 177.4 1.0 1.533 0.100 34.0 1.0
060526 3.21 298.2 12.6 1.65 1.67 0.18 0.247 0.916 84.8 59.6 2.058 0.100 27.9 1.0
060512 0.4428 8.5 2.32 0.4 0.88 0.2 -0.163 2.503 22.9 11.1 1.011 1.752 23.0 16.0
060510B 4.9 275.2 40.7 1.76 0.57 0.11 1.381 1.419 944.0 1.0 1.494 0.289 96.1 1.0
060218 0.033 2100 15.7 1.52 0.25 0.11 0.201 2.175 29.1 18.5 0.201 2.175 29.1 18.5
060206 4.045 7.6 8.31 0.42 2.79 0.17 0.746 0.427 74.0 17.0 1.165 0.325 78.1 25.6
060115 3.53 139.6 17.1 1.5 0.87 0.12 1.279 1.178 669.6 1.0 1.026 0.524 62.4 23.1
050525A 0.606 8.8 153 2.21 41.7 0.94 0.584 0.144 109.0 9.0 0.981 0.118 82.3 3.7
050416A 0.653 2.5 3.67 0.37 4.88 0.48 -0.513 1.710 24.1 4.1 1.233 1.201 13.0 10.3
050406 2.44 5.4 0.68 0.14 0.36 0.1 0.054 2.505 26.2 18.6 -0.102 2.331 27.9 10.7
050318 1.44 32 10.8 0.77 3.16 0.2 0.882 0.459 70.3 20.9 1.219 0.434 51.3 11.2
Table 4: Data for 71 Swift GRBs.

Footnotes

  1. http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/grbtable/
  2. http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/swiftgnd_ana.html

References

  1. Amati, L.: MNRAS 372, 233 (2006). doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10840.x
  2. Amati, L., Frontera, F., Guidorzi, C.: A&A 508, 173 (2009). 0907.0384. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912788
  3. Amati, L., Frontera, F., Tavani, M., in’t Zand, J.J.M., Antonelli, A., Costa, E., Feroci, M., Guidorzi, C., Heise, J., Masetti, N., Montanari, E., Nicastro, L., Palazzi, E., Pian, E., Piro, L., Soffitta, P.: A&A 390, 81 (2002). doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020722
  4. Amati, L., Guidorzi, C., Frontera, F., Della Valle, M., Finelli, F., Landi, R., Montanari, E.: MNRAS 391, 577 (2008). 0805.0377. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13943.x
  5. Azzam, W.J., Alothman, M.J.: Advances in Space Research 38, 1303 (2006a). doi:10.1016/j.asr.2004.12.019
  6. Azzam, W.J., Alothman, M.J.: Nuovo Cimento B Serie 121, 1431 (2006b). doi:10.1393/ncb/i2007-10270-5
  7. Azzam, W.J., Alothman, M.J.: International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics 3, 372 (2013). 1303.6530. doi:10.4236/ijaa.2012.21001
  8. Band, D., Matteson, J., Ford, L., Schaefer, B., Teegarden, B., Cline, T., Paciesas, W., Pendleton, G., Fishman, G., Meegan, C.: In: Paciesas, W.S., Fishman, G.J. (eds.) American Institute of Physics Conference Series. American Institute of Physics Conference Series, vol. 265, p. 169 (1992)
  9. Bloom, J.S., Frail, D.A., Sari, R.: AJ 121, 2879 (2001). astro-ph/0102371. doi:10.1086/321093
  10. Capozziello, S., Izzo, L.: A&A 490, 31 (2008). 0806.1120. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810337
  11. Demianski, M., Piedipalumbo, E.: MNRAS 415, 3580 (2011). 1104.5614. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18975.x
  12. Elliott, J., Greiner, J., Khochfar, S., Schady, P., Johnson, J.L., Rau, A.: A&A 539, 113 (2012). 1202.1225. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118561
  13. Fenimore, E.E., Ramirez-Ruiz, E.: ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints (2000). astro-ph/0004176
  14. Geng, J.J., Huang, Y.F.: ApJ 764, 75 (2013). 1212.4340. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/75
  15. Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., Lazzati, D.: ApJ 616, 331 (2004). doi:10.1086/424913
  16. Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., Ghisellini, G.: A&A 511, 43 (2010). 0908.2807. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913134
  17. Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., Firmani, C., Celotti, A., Bosnjak, Z.: MNRAS 360, 45 (2005). doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00043.x
  18. Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., Firmani, C., Nava, L., Tavecchio, F., Lazzati, D.: A&A 452, 839 (2006). astro-ph/0511559. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054544
  19. Komatsu, E., Dunkley, J., Nolta, M.R., Bennett, C.L., Gold, B., Hinshaw, G., Jarosik, N., Larson, D., Limon, M., Page, L., Spergel, D.N., Halpern, M., Hill, R.S., Kogut, A., Meyer, S.S., Tucker, G.S., Weiland, J.L., Wollack, E., Wright, E.L.: ApJS 180, 330 (2009). 0803.0547. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/180/2/330
  20. Liang, E., Zhang, B.: ApJ 633, 611 (2005). astro-ph/0504404. doi:10.1086/491594
  21. Nava, L., Salvaterra, R., Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., Campana, S., Covino, S., Cusumano, G., D’Avanzo, P., D’Elia, V., Fugazza, D., Melandri, A., Sbarufatti, B., Vergani, S.D., Tagliaferri, G.: MNRAS 421, 1256 (2012). 1112.4470. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20394.x
  22. Norris, J.P., Marani, G.F., Bonnell, J.T.: ApJ 534, 248 (2000). astro-ph/9903233. doi:10.1086/308725
  23. Preece, R.D., Briggs, M.S., Mallozzi, R.S., Pendleton, G.N., Paciesas, W.S., Band, D.L.: ApJS 126, 19 (2000). astro-ph/9908119. doi:10.1086/313289
  24. Rossi, F., Guidorzi, C., Amati, L., Frontera, F., Romano, P., Campana, S., Chincarini, G., Montanari, E., Moretti, A., Tagliaferri, G.: MNRAS 388, 1284 (2008). 0802.0471. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13476.x
  25. Salvaterra, R., Campana, S., Covino, S., D’Avanzo, P., Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., Melandi, A., Tagliaferri, G., Nava, L., Vergani, S.: ArXiv e-prints (2013). 1309.2298
  26. Tsutsui, R., Yonetoku, D., Nakamura, T., Takahashi, K., Morihara, Y.: MNRAS 431, 1398 (2013). 1208.0429. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt262
  27. Yonetoku, D., Murakami, T., Nakamura, T., Yamazaki, R., Inoue, A.K., Ioka, K.: ApJ 609, 935 (2004). arXiv:astro-ph/0309217. doi:10.1086/421285
  28. Zhang, B., Mészàros, P.: International Journal of Modern Physics A 19, 2385 (2004). arXiv:astro-ph/0311321. doi:10.1142/S0217751X0401746X
  29. Zhang, Z.B., Chen, D.Y., Huang, Y.F.: ApJ 755, 55 (2012). 1205.2411. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/55
190684
This is a comment super asjknd jkasnjk adsnkj
Upvote
Downvote
Edit
-  
Unpublish
""
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
Submit
Cancel
Comments 0
Request comment
""
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
Add comment
Cancel
Loading ...

You are asking your first question!
How to quickly get a good answer:
  • Keep your question short and to the point
  • Check for grammar or spelling errors.
  • Phrase it like a question
Test
Test description