Abstract
A considerable fraction of incident high energy photons from astrophysical transients such as Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs) is Compton scattered by the Earth’s atmosphere. These photons, sometimes referred to as the “reflection component”, contribute to the signal detected by space-borne X-ray/γ-ray instruments. The effectiveness and reliability of source parameters such as position, flux, spectra and polarization, inferred by these instruments are therefore highly dependent on the accurate estimation of this scattered component. Current missions use dedicated response matrices to account for these effects. However, these databases are not readily adaptable for other missions, including many upcoming transient search and gravitational wave high-energy electromagnetic counter part detectors. Furthermore, possible systematic effects in these complex simulations have not been thoroughly examined and verified in literature. We are in the process of investigation of the effect with a detailed Monte Carlo simulations in GEANT4 for a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) X-ray detector. Here, we discuss the outcome of our simulation in form of Atmospheric Response Matrix (ARM) and its implications of any systematic errors in the determination of source spectral characteristics. We intend to apply our results in data processing and analysis for AstroSat-CZTI observation of such sources in near future. Our simulation output and source codes will be made publicly available for use by the large number of upcoming high energy transient missions, as well as for scrutiny and systematic comparisons with other missions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Alternately termed as Cosmic Diffused Gamma Ray Background (CDGRB).
References
Agostinelli S. et al. 2003, Nucl. Instrum. Methods. A, 506, 250
Axelsson M., Baldini L., Barbiellini G. et al. 2012, The Astrophys. J., 757, L31
Band D., Matteson J., Ford L. et al. 1993, ApJ, 413, 281
Bhalerao V., Kasliwal M., Bhattacharya D. et al. 2017a, Astrophys. J., 845, http://arxiv.org/abs/1706.00024
Bhalerao V., Bhattacharya D., Vibhute A. et al. 2017b, J. Astrophys. Astr., 38, 31
Bisnovatyi-Kogan G. S., Blinnikov S. I. 1977, A&A, 59, 111
Burgess J. M., Preece R. D., Connaughton V. et al. 2014, The Astrophys. J., 784, 17
Chattopadhyay T., Falcone A. D., Burrows D. N., Fox D. B., Palmer D. 2018, arXiv:1807.03333
Chattopadhyay T., Vadawale S. V., Aarthy E. et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 123
Churazov E., Sazonov S., Sunyaev R., Revnivtsev M. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 719
Connaughton V., Briggs M. S., Goldstein A. et al. 2015, The Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 216, 32
Cordier B., Wei J., Atteia J. L. et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1512.03323
Cullen D. E. 1995, Nuclear Instrum. Methods in Phys. Res. Section B, 101, 499
Fuschino F., Campana R., Labanti C. et al. 2019, Nuclear Instrum. Methods in Phys. Res. A, 936, 199
Goodman J. 1986, ApJ, 308, L47
Guiriec S., Connaughton V., Briggs M. S. et al. 2011, The Astrophys. J., 727, L33
Guiriec S., Daigne F., Hascoët R. et al. 2013, The Astrophys. J., 770, 32
Hedin A. E. 1991, J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys., 96, 1159
Hoover A. S., Kippen R. M., Meegan C. A. et al. 2005, Nuovo Cimento C Geophys. Space Phys. C, 28, 797
Hulsman J. et al. 2020, Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng., 11444, 1
Iyyani S., Ryde F., Axelsson M. et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2739
Iyyani S., Ryde F., Ahlgren B. et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1651
Kippen R. M., Hoover A. S., Wallace M. S. et al. 2007, AIP Conference Proceedings, 921, 590
Klein O., Nishina T. 1929, Zeitschrift fur Physik, 52, 853
Lundman C., Pe’er A., Ryde F. 2012, MNRAS, 428, 2430
Mate S., Chattopadhyay T., Bhalerao V. et al. 2021, J. Astrophys. Astr., 42, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12036-021-09763-x
McConnell M. L., Baring M. G., Bloser P. F. et al. 2017, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol. 16, 103.20
Meegan C., Lichti G., Bhat P. N. et al. 2009, The Astrophys. J., 702, 791
Nappo F., Pescalli A., Oganesyan G. et al. 2017, A&A, 598, A23
Paczynski B. 1986, ApJ, 308, L43
Palit S., Basak T., Mondal S. K., Pal S., Chakrabarti S. K. 2013, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 9159
Palit S., Raulin J., Szpigel S. 2018, J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys., 123, 10, 224
Pendleton G. N., Briggs M. S., Kippen R. M. et al. 1999, ApJ, 512, 362
Racusin J., Perkins J. S., Briggs M. S. et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1708.09292
Rao A., Bhattacharya D., Bhalerao V., Vadawale S., Sreekumar S. 2017, Curr. Sci., 113, https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v113/i04/595-598
Ryde F. 2005, The Astrophys. J., 625, L95
Sazonov S., Churazov E., Sunyaev R., Revnivtsev M. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 1726
Sempau J., Fernändez-Varea J., Acosta E., Salvat F. 2003, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, 207, 107
Sharma Y., Marathe A., Bhalerao V. et al. 2021, J. Astrophys. Astr., 42, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12036-021-09714-6
Singh K. P., Tandon S. N., Agrawal P. C. et al. 2014, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 9144, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, 91441S
Wanderman D., Piran T. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3026
Werner N., Pál A., Ohno M. et al. 2018, in den Herder J.-W. A., Nakazawa K., Nikzad S., eds, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, (SPIE), 96
White T. R., Lightman A. P., Zdziarski A. A. 1988, ApJ, 331, 939
Willis D. R., Barlow E. J., Bird A. J. et al. 2005, A&A, 439, 245
Zhang D., Li X., S. Xiong et al. 2019, Nuclear Instrum. Methods in Phys. Res., Section A, 921, 8
Acknowledgements
CZT–Imager is built by a consortium of Institutes across India. The Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, led the effort with instrument design and development. Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Thiruvananthapuram provided the electronic design, assembly and testing. ISRO Satellite Centre (ISAC), Bengaluru provided the mechanical design, quality consultation and project management. The Inter University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics (IUCAA), Pune did the Coded Mask design, instrument calibration, and Payload Operation Centre. Space Application Centre (SAC) at Ahmedabad provided the analysis software. Physical Research Laboratory (PRL) Ahmedabad, provided the polarisation detection algorithm and ground calibration. A vast number of industries participated in the fabrication and the University sector pitched in by participating in the test and evaluation of the payload. The Indian Space Research Organisation funded, managed and facilitated the project. Sourav Palit wants to thank Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IITB) for providing the scholarship and necessary resources to be able to perform this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This article is part of the Special Issue on “AstroSat: Five Years in Orbit”.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Palit, S., Anumarlapudi, A. & Bhalerao, V. Revisiting the Earth’s atmospheric scattering of X-ray/γ-rays and its effect on space observation: Implication for GRB spectral analysis. J Astrophys Astron 42, 69 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12036-021-09759-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12036-021-09759-7