Long Pulse by Short Central Engine: Prompt emission from expanding dissipation rings in the jet front of gamma-ray bursts

Emre Seyit Yorgancioglu; Shu-Xu Yi; S.-L. Xiong; S.-N. Zhang

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Long Pulse by Short Central Engine: Prompt emission from expanding dissipation rings in the jet front of gamma-ray bursts

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a gamma-ray burst's prompt-emission duration need not equal the central engine's active time: a brief, point-like energy injection can grow into a long pulse as turbulence spreads across the jet front.

desk verdict A neat proof-of-concept that a short central engine can produce a long GRB pulse, but the arrival-time mapping in Eqs. (7)–(9) is wrong, so the quantitative match to GRB 230307A is not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16174 v3 pith:PJGTDURI submitted 2024-11-25 astro-ph.HE

Shu-Xu Yi , Emre Seyit Yorgancioglu , S.-L. Xiong , S.-N. Zhang This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords gamma-rayburstspromptemissionrelativisticjetsdissipationringsturbulencepropagationFREDpulsesofter-widersofter-laterGRB230307A

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that the long, broad pulse of a gamma-ray burst can be produced by a short energy injection if the energy release propagates across the jet front as a disturbance. The authors model the jet front as a thin expanding shell; a single point starts radiating, the disturbance moves outward, and each ring it reaches flashes in turn. The observed light curve is then the sum of rings seen at different times and angles, which naturally gives a fast-rise-exponential-decay pulse with softer-wider and softer-later behavior. They argue that this mechanism can reproduce the main spectral and timing features of GRB 230307A, a long-duration burst with a kilonova and therefore a likely short, merger-like engine.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the expanding dissipation ring: in the comoving frame, the illuminated ring obeys $$\$\theta$(t) = \frac{\tilde\$\beta$}{\$\beta$\Gamma}(1-t_0/t)$$ (Eq. 4), so the disturbance asymptotically covers an angular patch of size $\tilde\beta/(\beta\Gamma)$ on the jet front. The emissivity is a delta-function in time and radius (Eq. 5), so each ring radiates once, and the observed flux (Eq. 9) is the product of the Doppler factor $D^3$, a $\sin\theta\cos\theta$ geometric factor, and the sweep rate $d\theta/dt$. The intrinsic spectrum is a piecewise power law (Eq. 10) with turnover and break frequencies that fall as the shell expands, modeling magnetic-field dilution and the observed flattening of the mid-energy spectral index. The competition between the rising $\sin\theta\cos\theta$ term and the falling Doppler and sweep terms produces the fast-rise, slow-decay pulse shape.

What would settle it

Observe a GRB with an independently short engine (for example a kilonova-associated burst) with sub-second time-resolved spectra across a wide energy range; if the onset of the pulse is simultaneous in all energy bands with no energy-dependent lag, or if the rise is not described by the ring-sweep formula $\theta(t) = \frac{\tilde\beta}{\beta\Gamma}(1-t_0/t)$, then the expanding-ring mechanism is not the duration-controlling process.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is stated plainly in the conclusion: 'the propagation of turbulence within the dissipation region can naturally extend the emission process, producing a long pulse from a brief energy injection by the central engine.' In the model, the emission region is a thin spherical shell in a relativistic jet. At some radius a single point begins to radiate; a disturbance travels through the shell at a constant speed in the comoving frame, and every ring it passes emits its energy promptly. Because the shell is moving relativistically, the arrival time of photons from different rings is stretched and the Doppler factor varies across the visible part of the shell. The result is a single broad pulse whose peak time and width shift to later and broader values at lower energies, saturating at high energy, and whose spectrum softens with time. Under a range of parameters the model reproduces the broad FRED pulse, the softer-wider/softer-later scaling, its high-energy saturation, and the time-softening spectra of GRB 230307A, although the strict self-similarity of the observed light curves is not naturally guaranteed.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the disturbance starts at exactly one point on the jet front, spreads at a constant speed, and makes each ring emit all of its light in an instant; if the start is off-axis, the ignition is multi-point, or the propagation speed is not constant, the predicted FRED shape and monotonic softening can be distorted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The duration dichotomy between short and long GRBs need not map one-to-one to engine activity; the observed duration should be set by the maximum of the dissipation timescale and the central engine's multi-epoch activity time.
A merger origin can produce a long-duration burst without a long-lived engine, directly addressing kilonova-associated long bursts like GRB 230307A and GRB 211211A.
The softer-wider and softer-later behavior, including its saturation at high energies, follows from the geometric ring propagation and Doppler weighting rather than from spectral evolution alone.
The dissipation timescale $\tau' \sim \theta_J R/c$ translates into observed durations of order $10^2$ seconds for typical jet opening angles and radii, connecting pulse duration to jet geometry.
If the uniform emissivity is replaced by localized patches, the model can also produce the overlapping short pulses observed within the broad pulse of GRB 230307A.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A testable extension is to check whether kilonova-associated bursts show pulse width and energy-dependent lag scaling with $\theta_J R/(\Gamma c)$; if a long pulse arrives simultaneously across all energy bands, the expanding-ring mechanism is not the duration-controlling process.
The model implies a causal horizon on the jet front set by the asymptotic angle $\tilde\beta/(\beta\Gamma)$; bursts with complex, multi-peaked light curves may be ones where ignition happens at several points, shortening the overall dissipation timescale.
The authors' warning about off-axis ignition suggests that the observed pulse shape encodes the location of the first dissipation site on the jet, so high-time-resolution light curves might be inverted to reconstruct the ignition geometry.
If this mechanism operates, the traditional T90-based classification of GRBs becomes a statement about dissipation propagation, not engine lifetime, which would require reinterpreting population statistics of short and long bursts.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The headline: the paper has a genuinely new idea that a short engine can make a long pulse if dissipation propagates across the jet front, and it spells out the geometry. But the arrival-time calculation in Eqs. (7)–(9) is wrong, so the light curves and timing comparisons in Figures 2, 4, and 5 are off by an O(1) factor at late times. The qualitative point survives; the quantitative match to GRB 230307A does not.

What's actually new is the explicit observer-frame light-curve formula for expanding dissipation rings and the time-resolved spectral simulation. The model is transparent, the code is linked via the figure captions, and the authors are candid that it is a toy model. The connection to GRB 230307A is timely, and the possibility that observed duration reflects dissipation rather than engine activity is worth taking seriously.

The soft spots are real. The stress-test note checks out: Eq. (7) should subtract a fixed (1−β)t0, not the angle-dependent (1−β cosθ)t0, and the integration in Eq. (8) omits the |dT/dt| Jacobian when converting emission-time delta functions to observer-time flux. That changes both the time axes and the relative weighting of different rings, so the t_p(E), t_w(E) curves and the 'softer-wider/softer-later' saturation in Fig. 5 are not quantitatively reliable until the calculation is redone. The spectral side is also tuned: Eq. (12) is explicitly introduced to reproduce the observed flattening, and the comparison to data is visual, without error bars or a fit statistic. The authors honestly acknowledge the self-similarity difficulty and other discrepancies, but those same discrepancies mean the stronger claim of reproducing the main characteristics of GRB 230307A is only a proof of concept.

For a GRB theorist, the mechanism is plausible and the paper deserves a serious referee. The time-mapping error is fixable, and with a corrected derivation and a real fit it could become a useful reference. I would not cite it for numbers until that is done.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a toy model for GRB prompt emission in which a brief energy injection initially illuminates a single point on an expanding relativistic shell; a disturbance then propagates outward across the shell, causing concentric rings to radiate sequentially. The authors derive the geometry of the illuminated ring (Eqs. 2--4), compute the resulting observer-frame flux (Eqs. 5--9), assume a phenomenological three-segment power-law spectrum with frequency breaks that evolve with radius (Eqs. 10--12), and simulate time-resolved spectra and energy-resolved light curves. They compare these with GRB 230307A, claiming reproduction of a FRED pulse, softer-wider/softer-later behavior, and saturation at high energies. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the model is idealized and lists several limitations, including the instantaneous delta-function emissivity and the single-point onset, in Section 5.

Significance. If the central calculation were correct, the paper would provide a useful physical mechanism for decoupling prompt-emission duration from central-engine activity, with a concrete, testable prediction that the duration is set by the propagation of a disturbance across the jet front. The paper is also commendably transparent about its toy-model status, and it makes its figure-generation code available. However, the quantitative comparison with GRB 230307A is currently compromised by an error in the observer-time transformation and by the partly ad hoc, observationally tuned spectral evolution. The qualitative idea is attractive, but the quantitative claims in Figures 4 and 5 need to be re-established.

major comments (3)

[§2, Eq. (7)] The observer-time mapping is incorrect. For a photon emitted at lab time t from angle θ on a shell with R=βct, the arrival time relative to the initial flash at θ=0, t=t0 is T=(1+z)[(1−β cosθ)t − (1−β)t0], not (1+z)(1−β cosθ)(t−t0). The omitted term (1+z)βt0(1−cosθ) is of order t0/(2Γ²) at the causal horizon θ∼1/Γ, i.e., the same order as the entire pulse duration. Consequently, the time axes in Figures 2, 4, and 5, and all derived quantities t_p(E) and t_w(E), are shifted by an O(1) factor at late times. The quantitative reproduction of GRB 230307A in Figure 5 is therefore not established until the calculation is redone with the corrected arrival-time relation.
[§3, Eq. (12) and §4] The phenomenological evolution α̃(R)=R0/(2R)−1 and the parameters νturn0, νbreak0, a, b, p are explicitly chosen so that the simulated spectra and light curves mimic the observed flattening of the middle spectral segment and other features of GRB 230307A. The agreement in Figures 3--5 is therefore partly by construction rather than a model prediction. To make the claimed reproduction meaningful, the authors should either derive α̃(R) from a physical cooling/particle-injection model, or explicitly separate fitted quantities from predicted ones and assess how much freedom the parameters have. As written, the spectral softening and flattening are imposed, not explained.
[§4, Fig. 5] The comparison with GRB 230307A data is visual only: the observed light curves are shown without error bars, and no goodness-of-fit statistic, likelihood, or uncertainty range for the model parameters is provided. Given the large number of free parameters, a claim that the model 'can reproduce' the main characteristics requires a more quantitative assessment, at minimum showing the statistical uncertainties of the observed light curves and reporting the deviation between model and data in each energy band.

minor comments (5)

[§2, Eq. (7)] The symbol t_emt0 is used without an explicit definition; if it denotes the lab time t0 of the initial illumination, then the missing term noted in the major comment follows. Please define the reference time and state clearly which quantity is set to zero on the observer time axis.
[§4, Eq. (14)] Equation (14) as printed, F(t_obs)=∫ dν, is incomplete; it should read F(t_obs)=∫_{νstart}^{νend} F_νobs(t_obs) dν.
[§4, parameter list] The text uses νcut,0 in Section 4 but νbreak,0 in Eqs. (10)--(11); please unify the notation.
[§2, frames of reference] The distinction between the 'source co-moving frame' and the 'rest frame' is confusing in Eqs. (2)--(3), where R is a rest-frame quantity but its time derivative is taken with respect to co-moving time. A brief explicit definition of the frames and of the Lorentz transformation between them would improve clarity.
[General] The code links are indicated by the symbol '</>' in the captions, but the text does not explain how to access them; please provide explicit URLs or a repository address. Also, 'symble' in the caption description should be 'symbol'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The spectral-flattening 'reproduction' is an input: Eq. (12) is explicitly chosen to mimic the observed flattening of GRB 230307A, then Eq. (12) is credited with reproducing it; the geometric pulse-elongation result is not circular.

fitted input called prediction [Section 3, Eq. (12); Section 4, the paragraph after Fig. 4.]
"In observations of GRB 230307A, the middle segment of the νfν spectrum was found to flatten with time (Sun et al. 2023). We therefore introduce a phenomenological evolution of ᾱ(R) to mimic this behavior: ᾱ(R)= R0/(2R) −1."

The observed spectral flattening is put into the model as the functional form of ᾱ(R): Eq. (12) is constructed so that ᾱ decreases from −1/2 to −1 as R grows, which is precisely the flattening that the paper later claims to reproduce. Section 4 then states that 'The flattening of the middle segment of the spectrum over time is phenomenologically reproduced by Equation 12.' This is not an independent prediction or confirmation; the target feature is an input of the calculation, so the spectral agreement in Figs. 4 and 5 is a consistency check of an inserted fit. The geometric pulse elongation and softer-wider/later trends derived from Eqs. (4)-(9) are nevertheless not circular, which is why the circularity is only partial.

full rationale

The paper's central mechanism—a disturbance propagating across the jet front converting a brief central-engine injection into an extended, FRED-like, softer-wider/later pulse—is derived from the geometric model in Eqs. (2)-(9) and does not assume the target light-curve shape. The FRED-like profile and the energy-dependent timing trends follow from the θ(t) mapping and the Doppler factor, so that part of the derivation is self-contained. The circularity is localized to the spectral reproduction. Eq. (12) sets ᾱ(R)=R0/(2R)−1 expressly 'to mimic' the observed time-flattening of the νfν middle segment, and Section 4 then credits Eq. (12) with reproducing that flattening. The observed feature is therefore an input, and the later agreement is tautological rather than predictive. The paper is transparent about tuning ('under some parameters', 'small ranges ν_turn,0, ν_break,0, a, b') and explicitly lists its delta-function and on-axis presumptions as 'crucial presumptions'; these are limitations, not hidden circular steps. Its reliance on Yi et al. (2023) is self-citation for the interpretive premise and for the GRB 230307A data, but the geometric derivation has independent content and does not reduce to that citation. Overall, one load-bearing spectral feature is fitted by construction, giving partial circularity and a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model does not introduce new physical entities; it relies on a geometric propagation process. However, the central claim depends on about nine hand-picked parameters, several of which are tuned to reproduce GRB 230307A. The most ad hoc element is Eq. 12, the spectral index evolution, which is explicitly fitted to the observed spectral flattening. The remaining axioms are either standard radiative transfer or reasonable domain assumptions for a toy model.

free parameters (9)

Bulk Lorentz factor Gamma = 100
Chosen in Sec. 4 to match the duration and peak timescale of GRB 230307A.
Initial shell radius R0 = 5e15 cm
Chosen in Sec. 4; combined with Gamma and beta-tilde it sets the pulse width.
Illuminating wave speed beta-tilde = 0.99
Chosen in Sec. 4; sets the angular horizon theta -> beta-tilde/(beta Gamma) and the spreading timescale.
Electron power-law index p = 2.8
Set to the magnetic reconnection motivated value in Sec. 3; affects the high-energy photon index.
Initial turnover frequency nu_turn,0 = 1 keV
Chosen in Sec. 4 to match the low-energy spectral rollover of GRB 230307A.
Initial break frequency nu_break,0 = 15 keV
Chosen in Sec. 4 to position the peak energy E_p in the observed range.
Cooling index a for nu_turn = 2
Chosen in Sec. 4; controls how fast the turnover frequency decays with radius.
Cooling index b for nu_break = 1
Chosen in Sec. 4; controls the softening rate of the peak energy.
Middle-segment index function alpha-tilde(R) = R0/(2R)-1
Ad hoc formula in Eq. 12 introduced specifically to mimic the flattening of the middle spectral segment observed in GRB 230307A; this is the clearest fitted element.

assumptions (7)

standard math Lorentz transformation of the specific emission coefficient to observed flux (Eqs. A4-A7)
Standard special-relativistic radiative transfer; assumed without independent derivation in the Appendix.
domain assumption The emitting region is a geometrically thin spherical shell expanding at beta c in the jet
The shell geometry is introduced in Sec. 2 and is the basis of the delta-function delta(r-R) in Eq. 5; it is a model idealization, not derived.
ad hoc to paper A disturbance propagates across the shell at constant speed beta-tilde c in the comoving frame
Eqs. (2)-(4) define theta(t) from this assumption; the propagation mechanism (Alfven waves) is referenced from Yi et al. 2023 but not derived here.
ad hoc to paper Each ring emits all its energy at the instant the disturbance arrives, via delta(t-t_theta)
Eq. 5; the paper states in Sec. 5 that a realistic cooling timescale should replace this instantaneous emission.
domain assumption Emissivity epsilon is proportional to the local energy density U proportional to R^{-2}
Used to simplify Eq. (9); assumes adiabatic dilution with no re-energization.
domain assumption The comoving spectrum is a three-segment power law of fast-cooling synchrotron with weak self-absorption (Eq. 10)
Taken from Zhang 2018 as the radiation mechanism; the paper adds flexibility in the middle index.
ad hoc to paper The middle index evolves as alpha-tilde(R)=R0/(2R)-1 (Eq. 12)
Introduced solely to reproduce the observed flattening of the nu f_nu spectrum of GRB 230307A with time; no physical derivation is given.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Long Pulse by Short Central Engine: Prompt emission from expanding dissipation rings in the jet front of gamma-ray bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PJGTDURI

@misc{pith2026241116174,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Long Pulse by Short Central Engine: Prompt emission from expanding dissipation rings in the jet front of gamma-ray bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PJGTDURI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16174}
}

read the original abstract

Recent observations have challenged the long-held opinion that the duration of gamma-ray burst (GRB) prompt emission is determined by the activity epochs of the central engine. Specifically, the observations of GRB 230307A have revealed a different scenario in which the duration of the prompt emission is predominantly governed by the energy dissipation process following a brief initial energy injection from the central engine. In this paper, we explore a mechanism where the energy injection from the central engine initially causes turbulence in a small region and radiates locally. This turbulence then propagates to more distant regions and radiates. Consequently, the emission regions form concentric rings that extend outward. Using an idealized toy model, we show that such a mechanism, initiated by a pulsed energy injection, can produce a prompt emission light curve resembling a single broad pulse exhibiting the typical softer-wider/softer-later feature. Under some parameters, the main characteristics of the GRB 230307A spectra and light curves can be reproduced by the toy model.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

On the Duration of Gamma-Ray Bursts
astro-ph.HE 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

GRB duration is shaped by the progenitor, the central engine, the emitter, and geometry, so short versus long duration is not a reliable direct indicator of what exploded or merged.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

2006, ApJ, 648, 1110

Belczynski, K., Perna, R., Bulik, T., et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, 1110

work page 2006
[2]

2014, ARA&A, 52, 43

Berger, E. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 43

2014
[3]

S., Butler, N

Bloom, J. S., Butler, N. R., & Perley, D. A. 2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1000, Gamma-ray Bursts 2007, ed. M. Galassi, D. Palmer, & E. Fenimore (AIP), 11–15

work page 2008
[4]

2013, ApJ, 764, 179

Bromberg, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 2013, ApJ, 764, 179

work page 2013
[5]

1943, Reviews of modern physics, 15, 1

Chandrasekhar, S. 1943, Reviews of modern physics, 15, 1

work page 1943
[6]

2009, A&A, 496, 585

Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., Ghisellini, G., Celotti, A., & Firmani, C. 2009, A&A, 496, 585

2009
[7]

2006, Nature Physics, 2, 116

Grindlay, J., Portegies Zwart, S., & McMillan, S. 2006, Nature Physics, 2, 116

work page 2006
[8]

2014, Physical Review Letters, 113, 155005 8

Guo, F., Li, H., Daughton, W., & Liu, Y.-H. 2014, Physical Review Letters, 113, 155005 8

work page 2014

Show all 26 references

[9]

Hjorth, J., & Bloom, J. S. 2012, in Chapter 9 in ”Gamma-Ray Bursts, ed. C. Kouveliotou, R. A. M. J. Wĳers, & S. Woosley, 169–190

2012
[10]

2003, Nature, 423, 847 Janka,H.T.,Eberl,T.,Ruffert,M.,&Fryer,C.L.1999,ApJL,527, L39

Hjorth, J., Sollerman, J., Møller, P., et al. 2003, Nature, 423, 847 Janka,H.T.,Eberl,T.,Ruffert,M.,&Fryer,C.L.1999,ApJL,527, L39

2003
[11]

L., & Kirshner, R

Kelly, P. L., & Kirshner, R. P. 2012, ApJ, 759, 107

2012
[12]

L., Kirshner, R

Kelly, P. L., Kirshner, R. P., & Pahre, M. 2008, ApJ, 687, 1201

2008
[13]

M., & Schramm, D

Lattimer, J. M., & Schramm, D. N. 1974, ApJL, 192, L145

1974
[14]

J., Gompertz, B

Levan, A. J., Gompertz, B. P., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 737

2024
[15]

2012, Space science reviews, 173, 535

Petrosian, V. 2012, Space science reviews, 173, 535

2012
[16]

C., Gompertz, B

Rastinejad, J. C., Gompertz, B. P., Levan, A. J., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 223

2022
[17]

2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 783, L21

Sironi, L., & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 783, L21

2014
[18]

2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05689

Sun, H., Wang, C.-W., Yang, J., et al. 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05689

2023 arXiv
[19]

L., & Zhang, B

Uhm, Z. L., & Zhang, B. 2014, Nature Physics, 10, 351

2014
[20]

2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.02376

Wang, C.-W., Tan, W.-J., Xiong, S.-L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.02376

2024 arXiv
[21]

2022, Nature, 612, 232

Yang, J., Ai, S., Zhang, B.-B., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 232

2022
[22]

2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07205

Yi, S.-X., Wang, C.-W., Shao, X.-Y., et al. 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07205

2023
[23]

2006, Nature, 444, 1010 —

Zhang, B. 2006, Nature, 444, 1010 —. 2018, The physics of gamma-ray bursts (Cambridge University Press)

2006
[24]

2025, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 45, 325

Zhang, B. 2025, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 45, 325

2025
[25]

2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 726, 90

Zhang, B., & Yan, H. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 726, 90

2010
[26]

2022, ApJL, 939, L25

Zhang, Z., Yi, S.-X., Zhang, S.-N., Xiong, S.-L., & Xiao, S. 2022, ApJL, 939, L25

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

2006, ApJ, 648, 1110

Belczynski, K., Perna, R., Bulik, T., et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, 1110

work page 2006

[2] [2]

2014, ARA&A, 52, 43

Berger, E. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 43

2014

[3] [3]

S., Butler, N

Bloom, J. S., Butler, N. R., & Perley, D. A. 2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1000, Gamma-ray Bursts 2007, ed. M. Galassi, D. Palmer, & E. Fenimore (AIP), 11–15

work page 2008

[4] [4]

2013, ApJ, 764, 179

Bromberg, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 2013, ApJ, 764, 179

work page 2013

[5] [5]

1943, Reviews of modern physics, 15, 1

Chandrasekhar, S. 1943, Reviews of modern physics, 15, 1

work page 1943

[6] [6]

2009, A&A, 496, 585

Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., Ghisellini, G., Celotti, A., & Firmani, C. 2009, A&A, 496, 585

2009

[7] [7]

2006, Nature Physics, 2, 116

Grindlay, J., Portegies Zwart, S., & McMillan, S. 2006, Nature Physics, 2, 116

work page 2006

[8] [8]

2014, Physical Review Letters, 113, 155005 8

Guo, F., Li, H., Daughton, W., & Liu, Y.-H. 2014, Physical Review Letters, 113, 155005 8

work page 2014