Physical Implications of the Sub-threshold GRB GBM-190816 and Its Associated Sub-threshold Gravitational Wave Event

Yi-Si Yang,Shu-Qing Zhong,Bin-Bin Zhang,Shichao Wu,Bing Zhang,Yu-Han Yang,Zhoujian Cao,He Gao,Jin-Hang Zou,Jie-Shuang Wang,Hou-Jun Lu,Ji-Rong Cang,Zi-Gao Dai
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ff5
2020-01-01
Abstract:The LIGO/Virgo and Fermi collaborations recently reported a possible joint detection of a subthreshold gravitational-wave (GW) event and a subthreshold gamma-ray burst (GRB), GBM-190816, that occurred 1.57 s after the merger. We perform an independent analysis of the publicly available data and investigate the physical implications of this potential association. By carefully studying the following properties of GBM-190816 using Fermi/GBM data, including signal-to-noise ratio, duration, f-parameter, spectral properties, energetic properties, and its compliance with some GRB statistical correlations, we confirm that this event is likely a typical short GRB. Assuming its association with the subthreshold GW event, the inferred luminosity is 1.47(-1.04)(+3.40) x 10(49) erg s(-1). Based on the available information of the subthreshold GW event, we infer the mass ratio q of the compact binary as = q2.26(-1.43)(+2.75) (90% confidence interval) according to the reported range of luminosity distance. If the heavier compact object has a mass >3 solar masses, q can be further constrained to = q2.26(-0.12)(+2.75). The leading physical scenario invokes an NS-BH merger system with the NS tidally disrupted. Within this scenario, we constrain the physical properties of such a system (including mass ratio q, the spin parameters, and the observer's viewing angle) to produce a GRB. The GW data may also allow an NS-BH system with no tidal disruption of the NS (the plunge events) or a BH-BH merger. We apply the charged compact binary coalescence theory (for both a constant charge and an increasing charge for the merging members) to derive the model parameters to account for GBM-190816 and found that the required parameters are extreme. Finally, we argue that the fact that the observed GW-GRB delay timescale is comparable to that of GW170817/GRB 170817A suggests that the GW-GRB time delay of these two cases is mainly defined by the timescale for the jet to propagate to the energy dissipation/GRB emission site.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?