This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
main:grb_observing [2014/11/06 01:27] bruce |
main:grb_observing [2021/01/12 00:50] (current) |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====== Observing GRBs ====== | ====== Observing GRBs ====== | ||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | ====== Space Backgrounds & Environment====== | ||
+ | ---- | ||
- | ====== X-ray Observations ====== | ||
+ | ===== Particle & CR Environment and Issues ===== | ||
+ | ^Document Name+Link^Date^Type^Author^Comment^Keywords^ | ||
+ | |" | ||
- | Observing GRB in X-rays: | + | ===== Diffuse |
- | GRB and Background Basics | + | |
+ | ===== Diffuse UV background ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | is given in [[Media:1987AJ_____94__876O.pdf]] | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Diffuse Optical-IR background ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | My favorite plot of space (zodiacal) background opt-NIR is the one by Michael Lampton (though I think aldering' | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{ : | ||
+ | |||
+ | I believe you can take as definitive Greg Aldering' | ||
+ | |||
+ | It is important to understand that the zodi varies depending on angle between sun and pointing. | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ====== X-ray Observations ====== | ||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Spectral Slopes ===== | ||
- | Spectral Slopes | ||
GRBs You should look at GRB General Observing> | GRBs You should look at GRB General Observing> | ||
low-E PL w/Photon index -1.6 for LGRB. For SGRB, sakamoto says low-E Photon index -1.2 for SGRB, very different results from Nava | low-E PL w/Photon index -1.6 for LGRB. For SGRB, sakamoto says low-E Photon index -1.2 for SGRB, very different results from Nava | ||
+ | |||
The DXRB diffuse X-ray Background is complicated and modern papers point out all sorts of curvatures, etc. Me, I'm a lazy bum and use very very old parameterization Zombeck p. 197 , http:// | The DXRB diffuse X-ray Background is complicated and modern papers point out all sorts of curvatures, etc. Me, I'm a lazy bum and use very very old parameterization Zombeck p. 197 , http:// | ||
+ | |||
NA ~ 0.1 keV <E<5 keV (To remind you again: Zombeck parameterization does not cover the soft bump.) | NA ~ 0.1 keV <E<5 keV (To remind you again: Zombeck parameterization does not cover the soft bump.) | ||
- | 8.5*E^(-.4) 5 keV <E<25 keV | + | |
- | 167.*E^(-1.38) 5 keV <E< ~ MeV | + | 8.5*E^(-.4) |
+ | |||
+ | 167.*E^(-1.38) | ||
(Better parameterizations have a low-E exponential cutoff and all kinds of curvatures, e.g. I(E) = 7.9 E-0.29 exp[-E/41.1 keV] keV cm-2 s-1 sr-1 keV-1 from ~ 5-30 keV. http:// | (Better parameterizations have a low-E exponential cutoff and all kinds of curvatures, e.g. I(E) = 7.9 E-0.29 exp[-E/41.1 keV] keV cm-2 s-1 sr-1 keV-1 from ~ 5-30 keV. http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ===== X-ray Energy Band Selection ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
Here are my plots and discussions of how this plays out for choosing energy bands for observations. (It is from my script singu!~/ | Here are my plots and discussions of how this plays out for choosing energy bands for observations. (It is from my script singu!~/ | ||
+ | |||
File: | File: | ||
+ | {{ : | ||
+ | |||
So, the DXRB is almost as hard as SGRB up to ~ 25 keV, then it is very steep. | So, the DXRB is almost as hard as SGRB up to ~ 25 keV, then it is very steep. | ||
Now let's see that in Counts space, which helps visualize results below. | Now let's see that in Counts space, which helps visualize results below. | ||
File: | File: | ||
- | + | {{ : | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | ====== X-ray Energy Band Selection ====== | + | |
How far should I integrate up or down? | How far should I integrate up or down? | ||
- | ======= How Far to Integrate Down in Energy ======+ | + | ==== How Far to Integrate Down in Energy ==== |
- | ======= How far to integrate up in energy | + | |
+ | ==== How far to integrate up in energy | ||
Line 46: | Line 84: | ||
If you integrate spectra in count rate space, you see that LGRB rise briskly to ~ 25 keV, then gradually flatten. File: | If you integrate spectra in count rate space, you see that LGRB rise briskly to ~ 25 keV, then gradually flatten. File: | ||
+ | {{ : | ||
However, if you make a VERY SIMPLE assumption that the background is dominated by the DXRB (it isn' | However, if you make a VERY SIMPLE assumption that the background is dominated by the DXRB (it isn' | ||
+ | {{ : | ||
So, I suspect the particle background spectrum is very hard, and truth is not so optimistic (without active veto). Still, it seems that it should be OK to go all the way up to 100 keV (but recall Chris' caution about being saturated by particle and other events just over your maximum energy threshold; take care with finite resolution and dynamic range). | So, I suspect the particle background spectrum is very hard, and truth is not so optimistic (without active veto). Still, it seems that it should be OK to go all the way up to 100 keV (but recall Chris' caution about being saturated by particle and other events just over your maximum energy threshold; take care with finite resolution and dynamic range). | ||
Line 53: | Line 93: | ||
Note that the SGRB are still rising at the highest energy while the LGRB is flattening. | Note that the SGRB are still rising at the highest energy while the LGRB is flattening. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== What about integrating down? ===== | ||
+ | | ||
+ | |||
+ | How far down should one go in energy before this is not favorable increase in S/N? | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{ : | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{ : | ||
+ | |||
+ | So, its quite clear that you still get photons for BOTH spectra in this idealized picture. | ||
====== Optical Observations ====== | ====== Optical Observations ====== | ||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Lya Forest Spectroscopy ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Of interest because high-z grb may provide very bright light sources for very high-z Lyman Alpha Forests. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Some papers to check out some day: | ||
+ | http:// | ||