A burst and its afterglow probe different physical stages
Use compactness, pair transparency and blast-wave scalings without identifying one prompt-emission model as an observation.
On this page
The question for today
What you’ll understand
- Distinguish fireball dynamics and prompt-emission hypotheses from an external-shock afterglow.
- Apply a gamma–gamma threshold without equating it with large opacity.
- Derive adiabatic afterglow exponents with a stated density profile and observer time.
A gamma-ray burst light curve and a later broadband afterglow do not directly photograph the same emission mechanism. A relativistic outflow can first convert internal or magnetic energy into bulk motion, produce prompt radiation, and then transfer energy to surrounding gas. Different physical models can connect those stages. We will use compactness and external-shock scaling as conditional consistency tests, keeping comoving energies, host-frame radii and observer arrival times distinct.
A compact outflow must satisfy an escape calculation
In a baryonic fireball model, expansion converts initial internal energy into bulk motion; the energy per baryonic rest mass limits the achievable Lorentz factor. Magnetically dominated outflows accelerate and dissipate through a different energy reservoir. Internal shocks, magnetic dissipation and photospheric emission are possible prompt-radiation mechanisms. A measured prompt spectrum does not by itself select one of them. Its observed variability constrains the dimensions of a varying patch only after specifying Doppler factors, geometry and whether variability is intrinsic.
A high comoving photon density permits gamma–gamma pair production. With photon energies E′ and ε′ and angle ψ between their directions, the threshold follows from the two-photon invariant mass. For head-on photons the energy product must exceed the electron rest-energy squared. This is a kinematic permission, not an optical depth. Absorption requires integrating the energy-dependent cross section over the target spectrum, angles and path. A target field concentrated away from the necessary energies or directions can remain transparent despite a large total radiation energy density.
The external blast wave has a separate energy budget
After substantial deceleration, a relativistic outflow can drive an external forward shock. In a spherical or locally spherical adiabatic stage, the approximately conserved isotropic-equivalent kinetic energy scales as ambient rest-mass density times c², bulk Lorentz factor squared, and swept volume. Here Γ denotes the fluid Lorentz factor immediately behind the shock; exact coefficients differ if one uses the shock-front Lorentz factor. Radiation from a growing shock radius reaches the observer over compressed arrival intervals, rather than the full host-frame expansion time.
For a uniform external density, combining the energy and arrival-time relations gives radius proportional to observer time to the one-quarter power and Γ proportional to time to the minus three-eighths power at fixed redshift. A wind density proportional to radius to the minus second power instead gives Γ proportional to time to the minus one-quarter power. These are regime-dependent dynamics before jet-edge effects, major energy injection or nonrelativistic transition. The isotropic-equivalent energy is a spherical inference; a collimated outflow’s true angle-integrated energy requires an angular model.
Radiation adds assumptions beyond blast-wave motion
A common afterglow model assigns fractions of post-shock internal energy to accelerated electrons and magnetic fields, with an electron power-law index. Synchrotron break frequencies then distinguish injection, cooling and absorption regimes. A light-curve slope depends on which spectral segment a fixed observing band occupies, not just the bulk deceleration exponent. Compton cooling must satisfy its Thomson or Klein–Nishina regime. Pair-created electrons can radiate and feed a cascade, transferring absorbed gamma-ray energy to lower bands instead of simply erasing it from the energy budget.
The function lab checks the squared Lorentz-factor dependence of the energy relation while holding radius and density fixed. Identify x with Γ divided by a reference Γ₀. Reset and set both controls to a=1,x=0.5, predicting y=0.25. Reset and set a=1,x=1, predicting y=1. This comparison is an algebraic sensitivity at one radius. It is not the time evolution of an energy-conserving blast wave, which must increase radius while Γ declines, and it computes no prompt spectrum or afterglow emission.
Work it through
Compare two observer times in one afterglow regime
A hypothetical uniform-medium adiabatic afterglow has fluid Γ=80 at observer time 100 s. Assume the same ultrarelativistic stage persists until 25,600 s, with fixed redshift and no jet break or energy injection. Find the later Γ and shock-radius ratio.
The observer-time ratio is 25,600/100=256=2⁸. Fixed redshift cancels in ratios within this same source and regime.
The Lorentz-factor ratio is 256⁻³ᐟ⁸=2⁻³=1/8. Therefore the later fluid Lorentz factor is 80/8=10, still relativistic.
The radius ratio is 256¹ᐟ⁴=4. The energy factor Γ²R³ changes by (1/8)²×4³=1, checking the assumed adiabatic energy conservation.
The conditional model gives Γ=10 and a fourfold radius increase; it does not predict an observed photon light-curve slope without radiation assumptions.
The living notebook
Explore the model
Interactive lab · function
Check an energy scaling at fixed shock radius
Set x=Γ/Γ₀ at fixed host-frame radius and density. Reset and set BOTH controls a=1,x=0.5: predict y=0.25. Reset and set a=1,x=1: predict y=1. This is a quadratic sensitivity check, not an evolving blast wave or a gamma-ray emission model.
- y at chosen x
- 0.608
- Tangent slope · 2ax
- 1.35
- Signed area · ax³/3
- 0.182
This lab uses only y = ax². Playback traces the curve within the fixed integration interval from 0 to x; it does not estimate numerical error or change the chosen point. Parameter changes pause playback and recompute the model at the current elapsed time. Reset restores both parameters and returns time to zero. Playback starts paused. Adjust either parameter, then choose Play or Step.
Look forConserved blast-wave energy couples changing Lorentz factor to changing swept volume.
Pause & reason
Check your understanding
Your turn
Try it yourself
In one comoving frame a 100 GeV gamma ray encounters 3 eV photons head-on. Use mₑc²=0.511 MeV. Find the threshold target energy and test whether this interaction is allowed. If a separate transfer calculation gives τγγ=0.1, find the unabsorbed fraction.
Take a moment to make a prediction or work it out on paper. Open a hint when you need one.
Give me a hint
Convert the electron rest energy to eV before squaring. For head-on collisions the required product is (mₑc²)².
Compare with the solution
The threshold target energy is (5.11×10⁵ eV)²/(10¹¹ eV)=2.611 eV. A 3 eV head-on target is above threshold. Nevertheless, the specified optical depth gives survival exp(−0.1)≈0.905, so about 90.5 percent remain unabsorbed along that path. Kinematic allowance alone does not establish an opaque source.
Keep the idea
Take it with you
- Prompt-radiation mechanisms and external-shock dynamics are separate model ingredients.
- Pair thresholds and pair opacity answer different questions.
- Afterglow exponents depend on density profile, dynamical stage and observer-time convention.
Read further
Original sources and deeper explanations to follow at your own pace.
- Tsvi Piran — The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts, sections IV–V: compactness and radiation; section VII.A–E, especially equations 74–87: blast-wave dynamics and afterglow scalings
- Gabriele Ghisellini — Radiative Processes in High Energy Astrophysics, section 7.2, pp. 113–119: photon–photon threshold, opacity and nonthermal pairs
Optional progress, saved in this browser when available. Revisit any lesson at any time.
Lesson not marked complete.