1. Testing the blast wave model with Swift GRBs Peter A. Curran Mullard Space Science Laboratory, UCL with RLC Starling, AJ van der Horst, A Kamble, RAMJ Wijers, M de Pasquale & M Page

2. pre-Swift versus Swift GRBs

3. pre-Swift (GRB 990510) (Kuulkers et al. 2000) X-ray Optical

4. pre-Swift (GRB 990510) Swift era(GRB 070107) (Evans et al. 2007) (Kuulkers et al. 2000) X-ray Optical X-ray only pre-Swift versus Swift GRBs

5. pre-Swift (GRB 990510) Swift era(GRB 070107) (Evans et al. 2007) (Kuulkers et al. 2000) X-ray Optical pre-Swift versus Swift GRBs Does pre-Swift theory work? X-ray only

6. The blast wave model (CXC/M. Weiss)

7. The blast wave model (CXC/M. Weiss) k – circumburst density profile (ρ ~ r -k )

8. The blast wave model (CXC/M. Weiss) k – circumburst density profile (ρ ~ r -k ) q – continued energy injection index (E ~ t q )

9. The blast wave model (CXC/M. Weiss) p – electron energy distribution (Fermi; dN/dE ~ E -p ) k – circumburst density profile (ρ ~ r -k ) q – continued energy injection index (E ~ t q )

10. Synchrotron spectra (Sari et al. 1998)

11. Synchrotron spectra Optical / X-ray (Sari et al. 1998)

12. Derivation of p

13. α ➝ p( α, k,q) & accuracy of temporal fit ⇒ multiple options Derivation of p

14. α ➝ p( α, k,q) & accuracy of temporal fit ⇒ multiple options β opt ➝ p( β opt,E B-V ) ⇒ multiple options Derivation of p

15. α ➝ p( α, k,q) & accuracy of temporal fit ⇒ multiple options β opt ➝ p( β opt,E B-V ) ⇒ multiple options β X ➝ p( β X,N H ) ⇒ multiple options Derivation of p

16. α ➝ p( α, k,q) & accuracy of temporal fit ⇒ multiple options β opt ➝ p( β opt,E B-V ) ⇒ multiple options β X ➝ p( β X,N H ) ⇒ multiple options ⇒ above/below synchrotron cooling frequency Derivation of p

17. Sample of 10 Swift GRB afterglows

18. (GRB 060729) X-ray Optical

19. Consistent with the blast wave model? (GRB 060729) X-ray Optical Sample of 10 Swift GRB afterglows

20. Blast wave interpretations Compare possible multi-wavelength interpretations with blast wave †... ( † Nousek et al. 2006; Starling et al. 2008)

21. Blast wave interpretations Compare possible multi-wavelength interpretations with blast wave †... 8/10 consistent with blast wave 4/10 unambiguous jet breaks 6/10 calculated k 3/10 require q ; 3/10 don’t 6/10 unambiguous p 4 above cooling break 2 below cooling break ( † Nousek et al. 2006; Starling et al. 2008) (Curran et al. 2009)

22. k

23. Circumburst density profile, k (Curran et al. 2009)

24. Circumburst density profile, k Wind

25. (Curran et al. 2009) Wind ISM Circumburst density profile, k

26. (Curran et al. 2009) Wind ISM Circumburst density profile, k Not consistent with only one of ISM or Wind

27. q

28. Energy injection index, q (Curran et al. 2009) E ~ t q

29. Energy injection index, q (Curran et al. 2009) E ~ t q

30. Energy injection index, q (Curran et al. 2009) E ~ t q

31. Energy injection index, q (Curran et al. 2009) E ~ t q Required but inconclusive... so far

32. p

33. Distribution of p (Curran et al. 2009)

34. Distribution of p Not consistent with a single, universal value

35. Distribution of p

36. βXβX

38. Distribution of spectral index, β below cooling break above cooling break

39. Distribution of spectral index, β (Curran et al. in prep; data from Evans et al. 2009)

40. Distribution of spectral index, β (Curran et al. in prep; data from Evans et al. 2009)

41. Distribution of spectral index, β (Curran et al. in prep; data from Evans et al. 2009) Most X-rays above cooling break?

42. Conclusions 8 out of 10 GRBs favour the blast wave model* (*or at least don't disfavour it) k is not consistent with only one of ISM or Wind q is required in some bursts, inconclusive so far p is not consistent with a single, universal value Most X-rays above the cooling break?