deletions | additions       diff --git a/untitled.tex b/untitled.tex  index baa6701..328e3d2 100644  --- a/untitled.tex  +++ b/untitled.tex 
...
\begin{equation} \nonumber  E_{\rm rot} = I \omega^2 /2 = \dfrac{1}{5}MR^2 \left(\dfrac{2\pi}{P}\right)^2 \simeq 4 \times 10^{51} \ \rm erg  \end{equation}  assuming the solid sphere moment of inertia as an approximation. The strong magnetic stresses and torques damped the rotation and release a large fraction of $E_{\rm rot}$ on the time scale of $\tau \begin{equation} \label{timescale}  \tau  \simeq 0.6 B_{15}^{-2} (P/1 \ {\rm ms})^2 \ \rm hr$ hr  \end{equation}  \cite{Duncan_1992}. This amount of energy is similar to that released in $\gamma$-ray bursts and superluminous supernovae (SLSNe), thus making magnetar an attractive candidate for the central engine that power these explosions. In the past two decades, a connection has been made between supernovae and at least some subclass of long-duration $\gamma$-ray bursts (GRBs), supporting the case that they are powered by the same mechanism. \  
...
\   Recent works have shown that while magnetars formed via AIC might be responsible for some GRBs, magnetars formed in the core collapse of massive stars like the one proposed by \citet{Duncan_1992} are probably more prevalent \cite{Metzger_2011}. The modern view of the GRB explosion mechanism as laid out by \citet{Metzger_2011} is as following. Shortly after the core bounce, a non-relativistic wind heated by neutrino blows through the cavity carved out by the supernova (SN) shock into a bipolar jet. \textit{bipolar jet}.  The relativistic jet from the newly formed magnetar follows, and emerge as GRB prompt emission. After $30-100 \ \rm s$, the maximum Lorantz factor increases to $\sigma_{0} \gg 1$ rendering magnetic dissipation and jet acceleration ineffective. This ended the prompt GRB within the observed timescale of $\sim 20 \ \rm s$. After the prompt emission ended, the spin-down of the central magnetar continues to power the GRB into its X-ray plateau phase with a correlation between the plateau luminosity and duration (LT correlation). The observed correlation is given by $ \log L_{\rm X} = a + b \log T_a$ where $L_{\rm X}$ is the plateau luminosity and $T_a$ is the rest frame plateau end time. The magnetar model can predict predicts  this correlation with $b = 1$ and $ a = \log(10^{52} I_{45}^{-1] P_{0,-3}^{-2}$ \log (10^{52} I^{-1}_{45} P_{0,-3}^{-2})$  which matches observations. observations \cite{Rowlinson_2014}.  \citet{Metzger_2011} also showed that the magnetar model is able to produce the evolution of $\sigma_{0}$ that matches observations with no need of fine-tuning, unlike models in which GRBs are powered by rapidly accreting BHs \footnote{A lot can be said about the rivalry between these two competing models for the central engine of GRBs. \citet{Metzger_2011} and references therein provide some introduction to both.}.  \   The requirement of collimated relativistic flows leading to bi-polar jets in GRBs limit the central engines to only magnetars having mimimal periods of $1 \ \rm ms$ and magnetic fields of $\sim 10^{15} \ \rm G$. However, their less extreme population can still power quite fantastic cosmic fireworks. \cite{Duncan_1992} noted that the spin down timescale given in \eqref{timescale} is shorter than the SN shock breakout time, making SNe that create magnetars brighter than usual. These subclasses of brighter Type II SNe are indeed observed (e.g. \citealp{Richardson_2002}