AG-2025.01-133·astro-ph.HE·cross-listed: astro-ph.COhep-ph
Heavy Axions Can Disrupt $γ$-ray Bursts
Authors
- Oindrila Ghosh
- Sunniva Jacobsen
- Tim Linden
Abstract
Axion-like particles (ALPs) can be produced in the hot dense plasma of fireballs that develop in the initial stage of $γ$-ray burst (GRB) outflows. They can transport an enormous amount of energy away from the jet by propagating out of the fireball. The photons produced by the eventual decay of such ALPs do not reach a sufficient density to re-thermalize through pair production, preventing fireball re-emergence. Thus, the production of heavy ALPs disrupts the fireball and dims GRBs, allowing bright GRB observations to strongly constrain the existence of heavy ALPs. By adding ALP interactions to existing models of GRB fireballs, we set competitive bounds on the ALP-photon coupling down to $g_{a γγ} \sim 4 \times 10^{-12}~{\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}}$ for ALPs in the mass range of 200 MeV - 5 GeV.
Submitted
15 January 20251 year ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2501.08978
Summary
Heavy axion-like particles produced inside gamma-ray burst fireballs can drain so much energy that they suppress the bursts' brightness, allowing observations of bright GRBs to constrain these hypothetical particles more tightly than before.
- Axion-like particles (ALPs)—hypothetical cousins of axions—can form in the superhot plasma of GRB fireballs and carry away vast amounts of energy, dimming the observable burst.
- When ALPs decay into photons, those photons are too sparse to re-heat the fireball through pair production, so the usual brightening mechanism fails and the GRB stays dim.
- Bright GRBs observed in nature imply ALPs cannot couple too strongly to photons; this provides one of the best constraints on ALP-photon coupling for masses between 200 MeV and 5 GeV.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.