Physics Today
Jump to Content
Increase text size Decrease text size
  • Sign In
  • View Items in Cart View Cart
  • Advanced
  • Keyword
 
  • Home
  • Print Edition
  • Daily Edition
    • News Picks
    • The Dayside
    • Physics Update
    • Singularities
    • Points of View
    • Politics and Policy
    • Science and the Media
    • Obituaries
    • We Hear That
    • Events Calendar
  • Advertising
  • Buyer's Guide
  • About us
    • Our mission
    • Our people
    • American Institute of Physics
    • Member societies
    • Register
    • Subscribe
    • Submit content
    • Marketing reprints
    • Rights and permissions
    • Help/FAQ
    • Change mailing address
    • Contact us
  • Jobs
    • Job Seeker Login
    • Search Jobs
    • Post Resumes
    • Career Resources
    • For Employers
    • Success Stories
    • Resume Templates
    • About Us
    • Advertising
    • Display Advertising
    • Employer Resources
    • Banner Advertising
    • Security Tips
Follow us: Facebook    Twitter    rss    E-mail alert
  • Table of contents
  • Past issues

yellow star Featured Jobs

  • Search jobs
  • Post jobs
letters

Models for Gamma-Ray Bursts

March 2003 page 12

The discussion of one-step versus two-step models for gamma-ray bursts has been going on for much longer than was indicated in the July 2002 issue of Physics Today (page 18). Observations of delayed GeV gamma rays following GRB940217 led to the hypothesis that it was surrounded by gas from stripping of a progenitor star1 (or one component of a progenitor binary). The inferred cloud dimensions and density are consistent with those estimated by James Reeves and colleagues2 from the x-ray line emission they observed. It was also predicted that some or all gamma-ray bursts would be accompanied by visible emission resembling that of a supernova as the gas is heated by collision with the relativistic debris that makes the burst itself. That prediction is now supported by evidence for supernova-like contributions to afterglows.3

References

  • 1. J. I. Katz, Astrophys. J. Lett. 432, L27 (1994).
  • 2. J. N. Reeves et al., Nature 416, 512 (2002).
  • 3. J. S. Bloom et al., http://arxiv.org/abs/ astro-ph/0203391; P. M. Garnavich et al., http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/ 0204234.

Jonathan Katz
(katz@wuphys.wustl.edu)
Washington University in St. Louis
St. Louis, Missouri
  • Article Tools
  • Enlarge text   Enlarge text
  • Shrink text   Shrink text
  • Comment on this articleWrite a letter to the editor
  • Free this month
  • Rosalind Franklin and the Double Helix
  • L'Oréal and UNESCO Award Women Physicists $500 000
  • Integrity in Industrial Research
  • Will Tenure Survive as Money Shrinks and Adjunct Faculty Ranks Swell?
  • Hydrogen: The Essential Element
  • New Books
  • Letters
  • Most popular articles
  • Gedanken experiment: Levitate a physics sitcom?
    Points of View
  • Nanoplasmonics: The physics behind the applications
    February 2011
  • Half-quantum vortices
    Physics Update
  • Quantum criticality
    February 2011

 



SERVICES
Physics Today Jobs
Physics Today Buyers Guide
Event Calendar
Obituaries
DAILY EDITION
The Dayside
News Picks
Science in the Media
Politics & Policy
Singularities
Physics Update
Points of View
THE MAGAZINE
This month in print
Institutional subscriptions
Information for advertisers
READER SERVICE
Register
Sign in
Subscribe
Email alert
MORE INFO
FAQ
Contact us
About Physics Today
Privacy Policy
Marketing reprints
Rights and Permissions

Copyright © by the American Institute of Physics - All rights reserved

Find articles by AUTHORNAME

This PublicationThis Publication
ScitationScitation
SPINSPIN
ScitopiaScitopia
Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
PubMedPubMed