Multimessenger Research before GW170817

Giuseppina Modestino∗ INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, I-00044, Frascati (Roma) Italy

(Dated: March 4, 2019) Linking the previous research that occurred over the last decades, I will try to provide some objective elements to evaluate the innovation of the joint observation of GW170817 and GRB 170817A and their occurrence detection, in light of preceding experiences regarding the experimental research of association between γ-ray bursts (GRBs) and gravitational waves (GWs). Without debating about the phenomenological properties of astrophysical events, I propose a comparison between that result and the previous experimental research by the interferometer GW community, using a fundamental energy emission law, and including about fifteen years of accredited results regarding coincident detection. From the present review, an intense and old pre-existing activity in the field of multimessenger observations emerges giving a first interesting fact. The widespread opinion that joint detection of GW170817 and GRB 170817A has opened a new method in astrophysics does not find a robust reason. Moreover, some critical points highlight. In the past, applying the same multimessenger method, numerous measures have been taken towards much brighter and much closer sources. Then, it would have been plausible to see joint signals even taking into account a worse sensitivity of the instruments of the time. At current time, there is only one event associated to a subthreshold GRB, compared to a long list of candidate events that would have been much more revealing. If these inconsistencies are admissible enough to lead to a claim, then the question arises about the interpretation of the long previous measurements carried out applying the same multimessenger observation method but without positive responses.

PACS numbers: 04.80.Nn, 95.55.Ym, 98.70.Rz

I. INTRODUCTION by all telescopes, as noticed by Tarnopolski [2015], this dis- tinction is one of the main topics for the attribution of the GW170817 event to the merger of an NS-NS binary system. Regarding GW170817 by LIGO Scientific Collaboration Even if any different progenitors may be in the case of black and Virgo Collaboration, and GRB 170817A by Fermi GRB hole engine or millisecond-magnetar models for the produc- Monitor, the joint detection (Abbott et al. [2017a, 2017b, tion of GRBs, central engines may provide an unique theme 2017c, 2017d, 2017e]; Arcavi et al. [2017]; Goldstein et al. between many classes of extremely luminous transient, from [2017]; Savchenko et al.,[2017]; Kilpatrick et al.,[2017]; luminous supernovae to long and short GRBs (Levan [2016], Tanvir et al.,[2017]; Pan et al. [2017]; Lipunov, et al.,[2017]) Mereghetti [2008], van Putten [2004]). In that sense, dated has been greeted as the opening of a new scientific era, the back to the year 1968, the article ”Prompt gamma rays and multimessenger astronomy, meaning the search for GW sig- X rays from supernovae” (Colgate [1968]) can be reported as nals and associated strong EM emissions as GRBs are. The an historical example of interpretation as multifaceted phe- claim was accompanied by a particular emphasis underlying nomenon. GRBs were discovered between 1969 July and novelty of the GW170817, such as to think that it is the result 1972 July using four widely separated Vela spacecraft (Klebe- of a completely innovative observational method in the scien- sadel [1973]). At first, the search was aimed to detect EM tific panorama of GW research. Really, supernovae, magne- fluxes near the times of appearance of supernovae. Subse- tars and merger of binary compact systems like quently, numerous mainly satellite telescopes were put into (NS) or black hole (BH) are always been considered sources operation, with the precise scientific objective of detecting for GW as well as for electromagnetic (EM) emission in a GRBs and interpreting their nature, and the experiments for very wide frequency spectrum from highest γ burst to X-ray, the research of GWs have always referred to them, based on arXiv:1902.03905v2 [astro-ph.HE] 1 Mar 2019 optical, infrared and soon on, so much that it is impossible to the fundamental hypothesis that GRBs and GWs have com- fully cite scientific references to justify this paradigm. (Any- mon origins (Fuller & Shi [1998], Fryer et al. [2001], van way, from the ideological and historical point of view, in the Putten [2001]). The aim of this review is to examine the ob- introduction in Abbott et al. [2017b], a very large list of quotes servations of GW170817 and GRB 170817A, taking into the can be found). It is widely believed that two time categories account the preexisting GW research investigating about the identify two types of progenitors, being long bursts (> 2s) multiwavelength signals, trying to highlight as much as pos- attributed to explosions, while short GRBs to the sible the well documented experimental activity related to the fusion of two compact objects such as NS-NS or NS-BH. Al- detection of EM transients understood as signatures extreme though the bimodal time distribution has not been confirmed cosmological phenomena. In the sectionII, the initial GW experimental activity aimed at GRB correlation research will be reported. That activity began at the end of the nineties of the past century, by the resonant bars (Coccia [1998]) as de- ∗Electronic address: [email protected] 2 tectors of GWs, able to monitor the Milky Way with the ap- A. Resonant GW detectors propriate sensitivity according to the most accredited models (Misner et al. [1973]). Then, in Sect.III, the activity of GW Basically, resonant detectors are metallic bars - typically interferometer detectors will be reported. The joint GRB and aluminium - of mass M and length L, that are lengthened by a GW observations carried out both using statistical technique quantity ∆L for a GW signal carrying an energy Es. Compu- analyzing until up thousand events (Sect.III A), both dedi- tation of the GW strain amplitude h from the energy signal Es cating special investigation to some special event or source requires a model for the signal shape. Conventionally, a short (Sect.III B). In Sect.III C, taking into consideration three fun- pulse is considered with a flat spectrum on the resonance re- damental aspects of multimessenger astronomy, the distance gion and on equivalent bandwidth ∆ν. Based on the so called to the source, GW detectors sensitivity, and EM luminosity, thermo-acoustic effect, the bar excitation mechanism is essen- a model-independent term of comparison between the various tially described by the following formula (Pizzella [1997], As- observations will be defined. In the Sect.IV, the comparison tone [2006]) will be shown between the previous measurements and the r GW170817 current evaluation, relatively applying isotropic ∆L L Es h ≈ = 2 (1) energy emission law (Abbott et al. [2017e]) and the term just L τgv M defined. where v is the sound velocity in the specific metallic medium, and h is the minimum discernible amplitude (SNR=1) for a GW signal with time duration τg ∼ 1/∆ν. Assuming Tn (in kelvin units) as the temperature innovation for burst detection II. MULTIMESSENGER ASTRONOMY AND INITIAL after optimum filtering for short signals, the signal energy is EXPERIMENTS normally expressed as follows E = kT (2) The GW experiments started with Weber ([2017]). His con- s n troversial but ingenious activity has inspired many groups to where k is the Boltzmann constant. Belonging to IGEC (In- undertake experimentation, especially using resonant detec- ternational Gravitational Event Collaboration, Allen [2000], tors (Amaldi et al. [1977, 1989]; Astone et al. [1993, 1997]; Astone et al. [2007, 2010]), an international network of GW Mauceli et al. [1996]; Heng et al. [1996]; Allen et al. detectors, EXPLORER and NAUTILUS were long-lived de- [2000]). These kind of GW antennas produced an intense vices as resonant bars suitable for GW experimental research, experimental activity (Pizzella [2016]) of which a significant since for more than twenty, they represented reliable exper- part was dedicated to the search for correlations between imental apparata able to observe galactic GW signal gener- astrophysical EM transients and pulses from GW detectors. ated by the conversion of about 0.001 M . Having been First of all there was a correlation study (Weber & Radak made by Roma group ROG (Ricerca Onde Gravitazionali), [1996]) between pulses recorded by an aluminium cylindrical EXPLORER operated at CERN (Conseil Europ´een pour la bar between 1991 and 1992, and 80 GRB triggers from cat- Recherche Nucl´eaire) since 1990, and NAUTILUS operated alog of BATSE (Burst and Transient Source Experiment on in LNF (Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati) of INFN (Istituto NASA’s Compton Gamma Ray Observatory-CGRO), a very Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Italy) from 1995 until 2016, revolutionary detector that was launched on 1991 (Paciesas both using an aluminum bar of 2300 kg, a capacitive trans- et al. [1999]). Aware that the hypotheses on the GRB were ducer and a SQUID (Superconductive Quantum Interference consistent with the collision models BH-NS and NS-NS, they Device) amplifier. Very similar to described devices there presented the measurements performed with a bar of 3600 kg, was also AURIGA (Antenna Ultracriogenica Risonante per showing compatibility with the gravitational radiation emitted l’indagine Gravitazionale Astronomica) (Prodi et al. [1998]), by 1M at a distance of 1.5 Mpc. These measures have not built by another Italian research group of INFN, and operat- been overly quoted by the scientific community, probably as ing for a very long period at Legnaro (Padua, Italy). That result of the controversial issues raised by Weber that put into were cryogenic detectors, so (as Eq.2 can explain), the most crisis the current model of GW detection at the end of the sensitive GW detectors among resonant bars. In particular, sixties, declaring a gravitational radiation evidence (Weber NAUTILUS an AURIGA were the first ultra cryogenic de- [1969]). In my opinion, beyond the specific merit, Weber’s tector being at ∼ 100mK for long time periods, reaching a analysis of GRBs follows an irreproachable scientific method, typical noise temperature of a few thousandths of kelvin, with −19 mainly capturing the systematic nature of the astrophysical a sensitivity of hmin ∼ 10 , representing the minimum GW phenomenon, hence the reproducibility of observations and amplitude detectable at SNR equal to 1 to GW signals over 1 with increasing in statistics also the possibility of improving Hz bandwidth around each one of the two resonant frequen- the GW detector sensitivity. So much so that the procedure cies typically included in the interval 900 − 940 Hz. Both was taken up by several experimental groups later, operating EXPLORER and NAUTILUS were equipped with veto sys- both with resonant antennas (Sect.II A) and laser interferome- tems for cosmic-rays detection and amplitude calibration (As- ters (Sect.III). Following, a summary of the best results from tone et al. [2000, 2008]) of the signal impinging the cryogenic analyses aimed to establish statistical or especial associations bars. They have always represented the only GW detectors with GRBs. calibrated by a physical signal and not just by instrumental procedures. 3

−18 1. Cumulative analyses hlong = 2.0 × 10 were obtained (Astone et al. [2002]). At that time, the result assumed a particular significance because The cumulative technique is very useful in multimessen- BeppoSAX was the only GRB satellite in operation, as well ger astronomy, allowing statistical tests and being particu- as EXPLORER and NAUTILUS were the only GW detectors. larly indicated for the search for correlations in the case of • At beginning of 2000s, using a single resonant GW detector, phenomena that present themselves in a systematic and re- AURIGA performed a search (Tricarico et al. [2001]) for curring manner. Data analysis techniques for measuring the an excess in coincidences with the arrival time of 120 GRB effects of cosmic rays are very similar to those needed to triggers collected in the BATSE catalogue between 1997 and search for correlations with any GRB signals. Precisely by 1998. developing algorithms for the maximization of the SNR in • Further, the data analysis group of AURIGA extended the the detection of cosmic signals, and in the best adaptation previous upper limit on the averaged GW energy released in −18 to the real noise, analysis procedures have been implemented ±300s around the GRB triggers, obtaining h = 1.8 × 10 at for the research of multiwavelength correlations (Modestino 95% confidence level (Tricarico et al. [2003]). et al. [1997, 1998, 2000, 2002]). Generally, Nγ data stretches from GW detectors are temporally aligned at Nγ astrophys- ical events, then the eventual amplitude excess on the back- ground fluctuations is exctracted. In principle, without taking 2. Especial triggers and Soft Gamma Repeaters into account the distribution of source distances, or aiming for p fixed distance, the sensitivity should improve by Nγ factor, Since very consolidated models foresee the GW emission in consequence of the central limit theorem. For GW resonant from them, among the most interesting and most focused detectors, thermal noise is reduced taking into account Tn role sources are magnetars (de Freitas Pacheco [1998], Stella et al. as in the eq.1, the minimum amplitude improves in this way [2005]). Detected as persistent X-ray source at ∼ 1035ergs s−1, they are also called soft γ-ray repeaters (SGRs) because h2(T ) 42 h2 = n . (3) they occasionally emit energetic soft GRBs, up to ∼ 10 ergs Nγ p −1 Nγ s , or even much more energetic events (Thompson & Dun- can [1992, 1996]). The large number of observed character- Several correlation analyses have been performed using that istics of SGRs including the bursting activity during the three techniques: giant flares detected to date (Mazets et al. [1979], Helfand • A study of the time correlation between GRB from BATSE & Long [1979], Cline et al. [1998], Ioka [2001], Mereghetti and EXPLORER data was performed from April 1991 to et al. [2005], Hurley et al. [2005]) confirm their NS nature, December 1996 (Astone et al. [1999]). Examining five and offer an effective evidence of the presence of very high minutes around the time triggers, 1ms signals were excluded magnetic field (B ∼ 1015G). Such magnetars are typically with amplitude h ≥ 2.5 10−18. found at galactic distances which makes these objects particu- • Selecting 20-minute output data intervals belonging to larly interesting for the experimental studies between various both EXPLORER and NAUTILUS data collected between astrophysical phenomenologies (Coccia et al. [2004]). Fol- 1991 and 1999 with individual stationary noise background lowing, performed by resonant bars, regarding SGR and other of Tn=12mk, 226 GRB triggers belonging that intervals was special triggers, several experimental results are reported. selected from the BATSE catalog. Applying the cumulative • The GRB 980425 was the first one to be associated to procedure, and reducing the minimum detectable amplitude a supernova occurring approximately the same time as SN to h = 2×10−19, no time signature has been seen in a window 1998bw (Soffitta et al. [1998], Tinney et al. [1998], Woosley of 20 minutes around the GRB trigger times in the GW data [1999]). Concerning that time, ROG group presented the data background, with a confident level of 80% (Astone et al. analysis (Amati et al. [1999]) of the detector EXPLORER [1998]). (with sensitivity for a 1 ms pulse), using the trigger time from • By the same detectors, the analysis excluded the presence BeppoSAX. The EXPLORER data exhibited no significant of a signal of amplitude h ≥ 5.4 × 10−19, allowing a time time signature around the GRB 980425. In spite of the low delay between GW burst and GRB within 10s (Astone et al. sensitivity, the measurements was important regarding active [2006]). astrophysical observatories in coincidence at the time of the • The previous result has been further improved to first evidence that GRBs and supernovae were related. h ≥ 2.5 × 10−19 (Astone et al. [2005]), including 387 GRBs • During a particularly active phase of the SGR 1900+14 from BATSE 4B Catalog Paciesas et al. [1999, updating]) (Hurley et al. [1999]) which took place on 28th August 1998, and observations of BeppoSax Boella et al. [1997], Frontera an analysis of coincidences between EXPLORER and NAU- et al. [2009], Hurley et al. [2010]), the Italian/Dutch satellite TILUS pulses was performed by Modena & Pizzella ([2006]) that estimate the first afterglow for a GRB (Costa et al. founding that a coincidence excess was concentrated dur- [1997a, 1997b]). ing the period 7-17 September 1998 (21 on background of • During the year 2001, a data analysis was performed using 8.60 ± 0.09), several days before the giant flare. again EXPLORER and NAUTILUS. Regarding to BeppoSax • The same previous data were correlated to the outburst of triggers and classifying them as short (< 5s) and long (≥ 5s) black-hole X-ray binary XTE J1550-564, an astrophysical −18 GRBs, corresponding measurements hshort = 2.1 × 10 and object particularly suitable for multiwavelength observations 4

(Wu et al. [2002]). The correlation between the ROG data background. Thus, many choices are possible among mod- and the onset of the X-ray emissions in the energy range 20- els to be adopted and the results of analyses can differen- 100 keV was impressive but for explaining the experimental tiate themselves very much even aiming at the same physi- results, it should have been necessary to assume that the GW cal event. These include astrophysical waveforms, such as emitted power was significantly larger investigating the pos- the phenomenological simulations of emission from typical sible origin of the inferred signal (Drago et al. [2006]). Even source like supernovae, as well as ad hoc waveforms such as if they refer to experimental data from another period, Coccia Gaussians, damped sinusoid and sine Gaussians (Abbott et al. et al. ([2004]) were optimistic about the ability of the resonant [2004]). The comparison between different measurements is bars to detect signals coming from the local galaxy or from the also complex no less than they have been performed with the Virgo cluster, thinking of the SGRs as one of the most reliable same instrumentation. But trying to synthesize the previous sources. multimessenger activity in a unique experimental framework, • In the special framework of detectable sources, the SGR it is useful to refer to the formula that generally expresses the 1806-20 (Palmer et al. [2005]) represents a very important sci- GW energy emitted isotropically (Abbott et al. [2017e], Sut- entific case being the most energetic explosion ever recorded ton [2013]), limiting in a narrowband with central frequency for an astrophysical event. Studying the giant flare occurring f : on December 27th 2004, the AURIGA group (Baggio et al. [2005]) explored the frequency range 930-935 Hz, under the π2c3 E ' D2 f 2h2 , (4) hypothesis of oscillating emission with a damping time of 100 gw G rss ms. Expressing the result in terms of the dimensionless am- plitude h, they found an upper limit of 2.7 · 10−20, at the time where D is the distance between the emitting source and the of the hyperflare. observer, and hrss is defined as the root sum-squared strain • The activity of the same SGR 1806-20 was studied (Mod- amplitude of GW signals impinging the detector estino & Pizzella [2011]) in correlation with the EXPLORER Z ∞ 2 2 2 and NAUTILUS data, widening the observation to the bright hrss = [h+(t) + h×(t)]dt, (5) outburst on October 5th 2004 as well as giant flare on De- −∞ cember 27th (Gotz¨ et al. [2006]). Two types of measurements with the two quadrupolar components h+ and h×. were carried out. Averaging pulse amplitudes of GW detec- Following, a list of works performed by LIGO, Virgo and tors at time of outburst sequence and giant flare time, the pres- 49 GEO600, since 2003 up to GW170817, including the scien- ence of short pulses with energy Egw ≥ 1.8 · 10 erg was tific runs S2-S6, O1-O2 for LIGO and Advanced LIGO, VS1, excluded with 90% probability. Cross-correlating GW con- VS2, VS3 for Virgo. A synthesis can be found also in the temporary segments on 72 time flares occurring on October TableI andII. plus the giant burst on December, the corresponding proba- bility distribution shows agreement with respect to a signal onset, with probability of chance result of about 1%. A. Cumulative analyses by interferometers

By GW interferometer detectors, several experimental stud- III. MULTIMESSENGER OBSERVATION BY GW ies have performed by statistical approach that could be sen- INTERFEROMETERS BEFORE GW170817 sitive to the cumulative effects of any weak GW signal. GRB triggers are mainly from satellites belonging to the Inter- Search for correlation between GW bursts and GRBs has Planetary Network (IPN)[[82]], a coordination running tele- always characterised the activity of interferometers since the scopes detecting GRBs and optimising their reception. Typ- beginning of their scientific runs, using the motivation accord- ically, the method consists in combining (Finn & Mohanty ing to which GRB progenitors are thought to be associated to [2000], Kalmus et al. [2009]) output of two or more GW de- hypernova explosions (Fruchter1 et al. [2006], Hjorth et al. tectors, then evaluating the statistical difference between out- [2012]) or to coalescences of compact binary system (Eich- put at times of GRB (on − source) and output at other times ler et al. [1989]). To this aim, specific methods (Finn et al. (o f f − source) not associated with GRB would reveal clearly [2000], Finn & Mohanty [2000], Kalmus et al. [2009]) have a signature if a GW-GRB association exists. been implemented, and several measurements have been per- • Starting from 2003, LIGO collaboration set upper limits formed above all targeting short-duration signals near the time (Abbott et al. [2008a]) on the strain amplitude hrss of sine- of the EM triggers relating upper limits on the GW energy ra- gaussian waveforms at the times of 39 GRB triggers pro- diated Egw. In general, for the expected amplitude, an upper vided by the IPN including Konus-W (Pal’shin et al. [2013]), limit can hardly relate to the energy radiated by the source, HETE-2 (Hurley et al. [2011]), INTEGRAL (Winkler et al. without assuming a model that requires a priori waveform [2003]), and Swift (Lien et al. [2016]), and distributed via the definition for data analysis. But treating emissions at high fre- GRB Coordinates Network (GCN)[[66]]. The GRB triggers quencies (∼1kHz), as the explosive stage of supernovae and were during LIGO science runs√ S2, S3 and S4, with the best flares emitted by magnetars, it is not always possible to adopt sensitivity of the order ∼ 10−22 1/Hz, between 100-1000 Hz. this procedure because the emissive dynamics are not clear • LIGO & Virgo collaborations presented the result (Abbott unlike inspiral binary system, continuous waves or stochastic et al. [2010]) of a search for GW bursts associated with 137 5

TABLE I: The table shows eight studies (see Sect.III A) performed by statistical approach that could be sensitive to the cumulative effects of any weak GW signal. The GRBs were supplied by telescopes belonging to the list of Table??. In the 1st column there is the number of the GRB triggers used in the analyses. Then, the relative years and GW detectors with specific runs are shown. In the last column, there is the median value of the distances between the source and the detector GW. Most of them represent the limit value calculated assuming an emission 2 of energy equal to 0.01 M c , in the best range of frequency sensitivity spectrum, typically 150-500 Hz.

# GRB Triggers Observation Years GW Detector Run Distance (Measurement) [Mpc]

39 2003-2005 LIGO S2 S3 S4 (Abbott et al. [2008a])

137 2005-2007 LIGO &Virgo S5 VSR1 12 (Abbott et al. [2010])

22 2005-2007 LIGO S5 VSR1 6.7 (Abadie et al. [2010])

50 2006-2007 LIGO S5 33 (Aasi et al. [2013])

223 2005-2010 LIGO & Virgo S5 S6 VSR1 VSR2 VSR3 13 (Aasi et al. [2014a])

154 2009-2010 LIGO & Virgo S6 VSR2 VSR3 17 (Abadie et al. [2012a])

129 2006-2011 LIGO Virgo & GEO600 S5 S6 VSR1 VSR2 VSR3 0.3 (Aasi et al. [2014b])

41 2015-2016 Advanced LIGO O1 71 (Abbott et al. [2017f])

GRBs collected during the 5th LIGO science run and 1st Virgo 13 Mpc, assuming a gravitational-wave emission energy of −2 science run, between 2005-2007. Assuming isotropic emis- 10 M at 150 Hz. For the 27 short-hard GRBs, 90% con- sion at median distance of 12 Mpc, they placed lower bounds fidence exclusion was fixed for the distances to two source 2 on 0.01 M c for GW energy at 150 Hz. models: a binary NS coalescence, with a median distance of • During the same science runs, LIGO and Virgo collabora- 12 Mpc, or the coalescence of NS-BH, with a median distance tions presented a search (Abadie et al. [2010]) for coincident of 22 Mpc. signature for 22 GRBs provided by GCN. Examining a few • Searching for coalescence of compact binary system during seconds around the trigger time of the GRBs, they excluded the same science runs S3-S4, although LIGO detectors could the merger of NS-NS and NS-BH at median distance 3.3 Mpc probe to distances as far as tens of Mpc, no GW signals were and 6.7 Mpc correspondingly. The analysis was interesting identified in the 1364 hours of data (Abbott et al. [2008b]). including special bursts as GRB 070201 (Golenetskii et al. • Referring to S6 run and VS2-VS3 runs, the same LIGO and [2009]), spatially localised into M31, a galaxy less the 1 Mpc Virgo presented the results of a search for association with 154 from Earth. GRB that were detected in 2009-2010 (Abadie et al. [2012a]). • Then the same collaborations investigated (Aasi et al. The GW energy emission was excluded for sources at 17 Mpc [2013]) models of long-lived (∼ 10-1000s) GRBs typically and at frequency 150 Hz. From the whole sample, short-hard associated to the extreme core collapse of massive star and GRBs were extracted in order to evaluate eventually the pres- its protoneutron remnant, and so to the GW emission. They ence of NS-NS or BH-NS mergers. That were excluded taking used data from LIGO’s fifth science run and 50 GRB triggers in the account distances lower than 16 and 28 Mpc respec- from the Swift experiment, finding no evidence of long-lived tively. GW transients and setting 90%C.L. upper limits on the GW • Using data between 2006-2011, the analysis(Aasi et al. emission ranging three orders of magnitude for the GW flu- [2014b]) was performed by LIGO, Virgo and GEO600, cor- ence, depending on the three waveform adopted models. relating to 129 GRB triggers. The result was no evident sig- • A search for GWs was performed (Aasi et al. [2014a]) in- nature either with any individual GRB or with the whole sam- cluding 223 GRBs detected by the IPN during 2005-2010. ple, placing lower bounds on the distance of 0.3 Mpc for GW 2 The interferometer collaborations LIGO & Virgo placed lower emission energy of 0.01M c , at 1kHz. bounds on the distance to the source, finding a median of • The sensitivities during LIGO and Virgo joint science runs 6

TABLE II: Multimessenger observations (see Sect.III B) conducted by GW interferometers towards candidate sources for NS binary merger, and towards SGRs located in the local galaxy. The strain sensitivity of the GW interferometer is referred to run best value at 1kHz, in the frequency spectrum, and it is used for the calculation of the comparative parameter RER described by Eq.6. The joint observation GW170817 and GRB 170817 is included and is taken as reference value GRB0 in the same Eq.6.

Triggers Observation Year Distance Fluence Strain sensitivity√ (∼ 1kHz) RER (∼ 1kHz) (Measurement) [Mpc] [ergs/cm2] [ 1/Hz]

GRB 030329 2003 800 ∼ 10−4 2 × 10−21 1.2 × 10−2 (Abbott et al. [2005])

QPO from SGR1806-20 2004 0.01 5 × 10−3 4 × 10−22 2.6 × 104 (Abbott et al. [2007])

SGR1806-20 (Giant Flare) 2004 0.01 2 4 × 10−22 5.2 × 105 SGR 1900+14 (190 GRBs) 2005-2006 3 × 10−22 3.7 × 103

(Abbott et al. [2008d])

GRB 051103 2005 3.6 2.3 × 10−5 3 × 10−22 6.5 (Abadie et al. [2012b])

SGR 1900+14 (storm) 2006 0.01 10−4 3×10−22 3.7 × 103 (Abbott et al.[2009])

1279 GRBs from 2006-2009 SGR 0418+5729 0.002 1.1×104 SGR 0501+4516 0.001 2.2×104 AXP 1E 1547.0-5408 0.004 ∼ 2 × 10−5 3 × 10−22 5.4 × 103 SGR 1627-41 0.01 2.2×103 SGR 1806-20 0.01 2.2×103 SGR 1999+14 0.01 2.2×103

(Abbott et al. [2011])

GRB 070201 2007 0.77 1.6 × 10−5 5 × 10−22 15.2 (Abbott et al. [2008c])

GRB 150906b 2015 54 2.8 × 10−5 2 × 10−23 7.4 (Abbott et al. [2017f])

GW170817 2017 40 1 ÷ 3 × 10−7 2 × 10−23 1

(Abbott et al. [2017a]) in 2009-2010 were also compared (Aasi et al. [2017]) to sev- with GRB 150906B in detail, excluding a binary system as the eral model light curves from possible sources of interest, and progenitor of the event with confidence > 99%, in NGC 3313, imminent prospects were discussed for joint GW-optical ob- a local galaxy at a luminosity distance of 54 Mpc from Earth. servations of this type. • LIGO, Virgo and IPN collaborations found no evidence (Ab- bott et al. [2017f]) of a GW signal for any of the 41 GRBs de- B. Especial triggers and SGR observation by GW tected during the first observing run of the Advanced LIGO. interferometers They used the assumption that GWs were emitted with an en- ergy of 10−2 M c2, within the 16-500 Hz band. In the same Despite their unpredictable behaviour, the observational study, they put several upper limits for the whole data set and properties of SGRs and their interpretation principally in the also for selected subsets for different coalescence system con- magnetar model (Mereghetti [2008]) give the perspective that figurations at various distances of the order of 100 Mpc. They these objects were among the most promising sources of GWs also discussed the results of the search for GWs associated (Owen [2005], Horvath [2005], Horowitz & Kadau [2009]). 7

In this direction, well-established studies exist (Ioka [2001], 2006 and June 2009. The magnetars were thought very close Corsi & Owen [2011]) where it has been demonstrated that from Earth, SGR 0501+4516 and SGR 0418+5729 at about changes in the hydromagnetic deformation of a magnetar can 1 kpc; AXP 1E 1547.0-5408 also known as SGR 1550-5418 provide an energy reservoir comparable to LIGO and Virgo is at 4 kpc, and SGR 1627-41 from which 54 peaks had sensitivity for some time, considering also that the proximity been analysed selecting from Swift light curves. In the same (∼ 10 kpc) makes these objects intriguing for GW searches, analysis, the two most famous magnetars SGR 1806-20 and enhancing chances of detectability. To follow, several experi- SGR 1900+14 can be found. No evidence was found for GW mental studies carried out by interferometers coinciding with emission. SGR emissions and other special γ-triggers. • Looking for signals associated with GRB 070201, no • In one of its first experimental studies on the associa- plausible GW signals were identified cross-correlating on tion between GW and EM emission, LIGO collaboration re- time data from the LIGO H1 and H2 detectors (Abbott et al. ports frequency-dependent upper limit (Abbott et al. [2005]) [2008c]). on the strength of the gravitational waves associated with GRB 030329 (Stanek et al. [2003]), the burst that has defini- tively demonstrated the connection between gamma emission and supernova. The strain sensitivity√ for optimally polarised C. Relative Expectation Rate −21 bursts was less then hrss = 6 × 10 1/Hz around 250 Hz, the most sensitive region. To give a synthetic and comparative idea in a multimes- senger experimental framework, the relative expectation rate • In relation to the special outburst on December 27th from (RER) is defined in terms of the ratio between the amplitude SGR 1806-20, the LIGO collaboration (Abbott et al. [2007]) of the GW wave expected for the isotropic emission of energy examined the pulsating tail of the burst which revealed the associated with the n-th GRBn, and the expected amplitude presence of quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) in the X-ray for the reference GRB0. It involves three parameters, distance light curve, as RXTE (Israel et al. [2005]) and RHESSI between the source and observer, EM fluence of GRB and satellite (Watts & Strohmayer [2006]) had detected. LIGO GW detector sensitivity expressed in terms of strain amplitude found no excess and they set several upper limit levels on the hn( f ) and h0( f ) revealed in the frequency domain. Taking into GW emitted energy, racing from ∼ 1047 ergs, depending on the account the proportionality between total isotropic energy time and frequency radiation. Eiso describing the energy emitted by GRBs, and the relative • Further, the same LIGO collaboration presented the results measured EM fluence (Eiso ∼ Fl), practically: of short-duration GW events associated with SGR 1806-20 r D Fl h ( f ) and SGR 1900+14 storms occurred during the year starting RER( f ) ≡ 0 n 0 , (6) from November 2005 (Abbott et al. [2009, 2008d]). In- Dn Fl0 hn( f ) cluding the giant flare, they analysed almost two hundred events finding no evidence of any association. Depending on where Dn, Fln and D0, Fl0 are the corresponding distances simulation types frequency ranges, several upper limit were and the measured fluence from the sources of GRBn and estimated, referring to many orders of magnitude (from 1045 GRB0. For the cases reported in the previous paragraph, that erg to almost 1053 erg) for hypothetical isotropic GW energy parameter is calculated considering the n-th single GRB as emission. from the TableII, and the event GRB0 as GRB 170817A. The • Virgo carried out the first coincident analysis (Acernese results are reported in the last column of the TableII, and in et al. [2007]) between its data and a GRB at time of GRB the Fig.2. 050915a (Grupe et al. [2005]), during C7, one of its science runs. • A coincidence examination has been carried out by IV. MEASUREMENT COMPARISON AND DISCUSSION LIGO (Abadie et al. [2012b]) with respect to event GRB 051103 (Golenetskii et al. [2005]) which energy release In Fig.1, the expected amplitude hexp is shown as a function was ≈ 4.5 × 1046 erg, assuming an isotropic emission from of emission frequency, calculating it from the Eq.4, extracting a source in M81 (D = 3.6 Mpc). Expecting astrophysical the physical parameters from the most significant EM triggers, correlations from binary coalescence, a few seconds on and from accredited models which see the systems constituted source window (-5,+1) was chosen around the EM prompt, by some solar mass as the most widespread. Referring to a but no GW signature emerged with the respect to the results very common assumptions, the range 0.01 ≤ Egw ≤ 0.1 can from the off-source evaluation. Then, they concluded that it be adopted, as done in the six grey bands of the Fig.1, each for was highly unlikely that the progenitor for GRB 051103 was the most representative γ-triggers at relative distances. The a compact binary merger in M81, but it would be indeed one upper three bands concern the expected hexp values for the of the most distant SGR giant flares observed to date. six galactic magnetars detected at distance 1 ≤ D ≤ 10 kpc, • In a subsequent study (Abadie et al. [2011]), LIGO then we find GRB 070201 at D = 770 kpc, GRB 051103 at extended the collaboration for analyzing data also from D = 3.6 Mpc and GRB 170817A identified as GW170817 at Virgo, and GEO600 detectors relatively a sample of 1279 EM 40 Mpc. In the same figure, five curves are plotted indicating triggers from six SGR emitters occurring between November the best sensitivity of the GW interferometer detectors during 8

FIG. 1: Strain sensitivity of the GW interferometer detectors since 2003 up to 2017. From top, dotted line, dashed line, larger dashed line and continuous line are respectively the sensitivities during LIGO scientific runs S2, S3-4, S6, and O2 observing run of Advanced LIGO. The dashed-dotted line is Virgo strain sensitivity at the time of the GW170817. The grey bands represent the expected region of amplitude hexp, for a narrowband GW signal with fixed energy content Egw, at different source distances. The Eq.4 is used under the very credible assumption that only a little fraction of the total energy is emitted in the form of GWs (Abbott et al. [2017e]). Considering a system of a few solar mass, a range of values between 0.01 and 0.1 is evaluated. The distances are fixed at the known γ burst sources used by GW interferometers for several correlation experimental measurements (see TableII).

several years, proceeding from 2003 until 2017. Essentially, they correspond to LIGO best sensitivity during the scientific runs from S2 to S6, during the second observing run (O2) of Advanced LIGO, and during Virgo science run on 2017. As shown, excluding the recent GRB 170817A, most of the observed sources would have been within reach of the instru- ments being higher than the relative sensitivity curves, at least in the best frequency range around 150 Hz. A summary eval- uation and comparison of the measures are provided also by the RER parameter defined in Eq.6 and plotted in Fig.2. It can be easily noted that for each GRBn, the corresponding ex- pectation value is much higher then 1, even more than several magnitude orders, so indicating in any case that a GW sig- nal detection would be much more probable in the past than for the recent GW170817. Being GRB 170817A two to six orders of magnitude less energetic than other short GRB (Ab- bott et al. [2017b]), in light of theoretical NS merger mod- els and existing GRB classification, it can hardly fit into a simple phenomenological scheme, as noted also by (Horvath´ FIG. 2: Relative expectation rate (RER) on several multimessenger et al. [2018]). From a single event, even sub-threshold, it is measurements performed by the GW interformeters since 2003. Is has been evaluated using the definition6, extracting the physical pa- difficult to deduce a systematic effect in order to objectively rameters from the observations reported in the Sect.III B and in the identify a theoretical model and so assign an undeniable pro- TableII, and fixing GRB 170817A as reference trigger. As it can genitor. About fifty years ago, the scientific GW community easily noted, excepting for the first GRB 030329, any other value is debated about such a case where divergences between the the- considerably higher, even by several orders of magnitude. oretical model and experimental results were found, and the 9 opinion of the most eminent scientific personalities was to well-documented experimental experience makes rather wait for further validation before claiming the discovery. In inappropriate the term unprecedented if it is related to the order to frame the episodes in a scientifically correct man- multiwavelength typology of GW170817 and GRB 170817A ner, the words of Press & Thorne ([1972]) are useful: ”...It is joint detection. At the same time, several scientific questions characteristic of important scientific puzzle that before the so- arise concerning both the measures in the past and the recent lution is known all possibilities look equally implausible...”. joint survey. But, if the GW community is so confident In this way they commented Weber’s experimental observa- that there is unambiguous correlation despite being with a tions (Weber [1969]), noting the absence of theoretical mod- sub-luminal GRB, and if a new era has really opened up, then els to suitably fit the related results. But feeling that the exper- the same expertise group should also explain how to close the imental developments were close in order to confirm or con- previous era, when the numerous measurements performed fute certain results in terms of gravitational waves, the authors and compared to much closer and energetic sources have not considered it appropriate to wait a few more years (at the lat- given expected results. est fifteen) to improve the right detection technology and thus perform reliable measurements. Unfortunately they were very optimistic and the years were not so few, but in the meantime considerable progress has been made so that the interferomet- ric community has recently declared several BH merger de- tections (Abbott et al. [2016a, 2016b, 2017g, 2017h]). This ability should make the GW community confident of its com- petence to systematically detect mergers of compact binary systems, and associate them with GRBs. So, having more available statistics would be easier to interpret the correla- Acknowledgments tions, setting constraints on known models or reformulating ones. I thank Giovanni Mazzitelli for his encouragement and suggestions. I gratefully acknowledge the friendliness V. CONCLUSIONS of collaborating of Francesco Ronga and researchers of former ROG group. I also acknowledge fruitful dis- As reported, in the past there has been an intense ex- cussions with colleagues of the Research Division of perimental activity aimed to multimessenger . The Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati o f INFN.

[2013] Aasi, J., Abadie, J., Abbott, B. P. et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration) 2008a Phys. Rev. D 77 062004 Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) 2013 Phys. Rev. D 88 [2008b] Abbott, B., Abbott, R., Adhikiri, R. et al. (LIGO Collabo- 122004 ration) 2008b Phys. Rev. D 77, 062002 [2017] Aasi, J., Abadie, J., Abbott, B. P. et al. (LIGO Scientific Col- [2008c] Abbott, B., Abbott, R., Adhikiri, R. et al. (LIGO Scientific laboration & Virgo Collaboration) 2017 ApJ Suppl. Ser. 211, Collaboration) 2008c ApJ 681 1419 7 [2008d] Abbott, B., Abbott, R., Adhikiri, R. et al. (LIGO Scientific [2014a] Aasi, J., Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R. et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration) 2008d Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 211102 Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, IPN Collaboration) [2009] Abbott, B., Abbott, R., Adhikiri, R. et al. (LIGO Scientific 2014a Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 011102 Collaboration) 2009 ApJ 701, L68 [2014b] Aasi, J., Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R. et al. (LIGO Scientific [2010] Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Acernese, F. et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) 2014b Phys. Rev. D Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) 2010 ApJ 715, 1438 89, 122004 [2016a] Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016a Phys. [2010] Abadie, J., Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R. et al. (LIGO Scientific Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) 2010 ApJ 715, 1453 [2016b] Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016b Phys. [2011] Abadie, J., Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R. et al. (LIGO Scientific Rev. Lett. 116, 241103 Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) 2011 ApJ 734, L35 [2017a] Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. (LIGO Scien- [2012a] Abadie, J., Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R. et al (LIGO Scientific tific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) 2017a, Phys. Rev. Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) 2012a ApJ 760, 12 Lett. 119, 161101 [2012b] Abadie, J., Abbott, B. P., Abbott, T. D. et al (LIGO Scien- [2017b] Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. (LIGO Scien- tific Collaboration) 2012b ApJ 755 2 tific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) 2017b, ApJ Lett. [2004] Abbott, B., Abbott, R., Adhikiri, R. et al. (LIGO Scientific 848, L12 Collaboration) 2004 Phys. Rev. D 69, 102001 [2017c] Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D. et al. (LIGO and [2005] Abbott, B., Abbott, R., Adhikiri, R. et al. (LIGO Scientific Virgo Collaborations, Fermi GRB Monitor and INTEGRAL) Collaboration) 2005 Phys. Rev. D 72, 042002 2017c, ApJ Lett. 848, L13 [2007] Abbott, B., Abbott, R., Adhikiri, R. et al. (LIGO Scientific [2017d] Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D. et al. (LIGO Scien- Collaboration) 2007 Phys. Rev. D 76, 062003 tific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, IM2H Collaboration, [2008a] Abbott, B., Abbott, R., Adhikiri, R. et al (LIGO Scientific Dark Energy Camera GW-EM Collaboration, DES Collabora- 10

tion, DLT40 Collaboration, Las Cumbres Observatory Collab- [1997a] Costa, E., Feroci, M., Frontera, F. et al. 1997a IAU Circular oration, VINROUGE Collaboration, and MASTER Collabo- 6572 ration) 2017d Nature 551, 85 [1997b] Costa, E., Frontera, F., Butler, R. C. et al. 1997b Nature [2017e] Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. (LIGO Scien- 387, 783 tific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) 2017e ApJ Lett. [1992] Duncan, R. C., & Thompson, C. 1992 ApJ 392, L9 851, L16 [2006] Drago, A., Pagliara, G. & Berezhiani, Z. 2006 A&A 445, [2017f] Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D. et al. (LIGO Sci- 1053 entific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, IPN Collabora- [1989] Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T. & Schramm, D. N. 1989 tion) 2017f ApJ 841 89 Nature (London) 340, 126 [2017g] Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017g Phys. [2000] Finn, L. S., Gonzalez, G., Hough, J. et al. 2000 arXiv:gr- Rev. Lett. 119, 141101 qc/9911001, AIP Conference Proceedings 523, 451 [2017h] Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017h Phys. [2000] Finn, L. S., & Mohanty, S. D. 2000 Phys. Rev. D 60, 121101 Rev. Lett. 118, 221101 [1998] de Freitas Pacheco, J. A. 1998 A&A 336, 397 [2007] Acernese, F., Amico, P., Alshourbagy, M. et al. 2007 Class. [2009] Frontera, F., Guidorzi, Montanari, E. et al. 2009 ApJ Suppl. Quant. Grav. 24 S671 Ser. 180, 192 [2000] Allen, Z. A., Astone, P., Baggio, L. et al. IGEC (International [2006] Fruchter, A. S., Levan, A. J., Woosley, S. E. et al. 2006 Na- Gravitational Event Collaboration) 2000 Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, ture 441, 463. 5046 [2001] Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2001 ApJ 550, 372 [1977] Amaldi, E., Cosmelli, C., Bordoni, F. et al. 1977 Lettere al [1998] Fuller, G. M. & Shi, X. 1998 ApJ Lett. 502, L5 Nuovo Cimento 18, 425 [66] Gamma-ray Coordinates Network (GCN), Goddard Space [1989] Amaldi, E., Pallottino, G. V., Pizzella, G. 1989 Nature 338, Flight Center (GFSC-NASA) gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov. 122 [2017] Goldstein, A., Veres, P., Burns, E. et al., ApJ Lett. 848 L14 [1999] Amati L., Astone, P., Bassan, M., et al. 1999 A&A Suppl. (2017). Ser. 138, 605 [2005] Golenetskii, S., Aptekar, R., Mazets, E. etal. 2005 GCN Circ. [2017] Arcavi, I., Hosseinzadeh, G., Howell, D., et al. 2017, Nature 4197, 1 551 64 [2009] Golenetskii, S., Aptekar, R., Mazets, E. et al. 2009 GCN [1993] Astone, P., Bassan, M., Bonifazi, P. et al. 1993 Phys. Rev. D Circ. 6088 47, 362 [2006]G otz,¨ D., Mereghetti, S., Molkov, S. et al. 2006 A&A 445, [1997] Astone, P., Bassan, M., Bonifazi, P. et al. 1997 Astropart. 313 Phys. 7, 231 [2005] Grupe, D., Beardmore, A., Burrows, D. et al. 2005 GCN [1998] Astone, P., Bassan, M., Bonifazi, P. et al. 1998 (ROG Col- Circ. 3977 laboration), LNF-98-001 [1979] Helfand, D.J. & Long, K. S. 1979 Nature 282, 589 [1999] Astone, P., Barbiellini, G., Bassan, M. et al. (ROG Collabo- [1996] Heng, I. S., Blair, D. G., Ivanov, E. N., & Tobar, M. E. 1996 ration) 1999 A&A Suppl. Ser. 138, 603 Phys. Lett. A 218 190 [2000] Astone, P., Bassan, M., Bonifazi, P. et al. 2000 Phys. Rev. [2012] Hjorth, J. & Bloom, J. S. in Gamma-Ray Bursts, ed. Kouve- Lett. 84, 14 lioutou, R. A. M. J. Wijers, & S. Woosley (Cambridge Univ. [2002] Astone, P., Bassan, M., Bonifazi, P. et al. (ROG Collabora- Press), 2012 arxiv.org/abs/1104.2274 tion) 2002 Phys. Rev. D 66, 102002 [2009] Horowitz, C. J. & Kadau, K. 2009 Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, [2005] Astone, P., Bassan, M., Bonifazi, P. et al. (ROG Collabora- 191102 tion) 2005 Phys. Rev. D 71, 042001 [2018] Horvath,´ I., Toth, B. G., Hakkila, J. et al. 2018 Astrophys. [2006] Astone, P., Ballantini, R., Bassan, M. et al. 2006 Class. Space Sci. 363, 53 ; arXiv:1710.11509 [astro-ph.CO] Quantum Grav. 23, S169 [2005] Horvath, J. E. 2005 Mod. Phys. Lett. A 20, 2799 [2006] Astone, P., Bassan, M., Bonifazi, P. et al. (ROG Collabora- [1999] Hurley, K., Cline, T., Mazets, E. 1999 et al. Nature 397, 41 tion) 2006 Classical & 21 S759 [2005] Hurley, K., Boggs, S. E., Smith, D.M. etal. 2005 Nature 434, [2007] Astone, P., Baggio, L., Bassan, M. et al. 2007Phys. Rev. D 1098 76, 102001 [2010] Hurley, K., Guidorzi, C, Frontera, F. et al. 2010 A&A Suppl. [2008] Astone, P., Bassan, M., Bonifazi, P. et al., 2008 Astrop. Ser. 191, 179 Phys., 30, 200 [2011] Hurley, K., Atteia, J.-L., Barraud, C. et al. 2011 A&A Suppl. [2010] Astone, P., Baggio, L., Bassan, M. et al. 2010 Phys. Rev. D Ser. 197, 34 82, 022003 [82] Interplanetary Network Progress Report (in progress) [2005] Baggio, L., Bignotto, M., Bonaldi, M. et al. 2005 Phys. Rev. [2001] Ioka, K. 2001 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 327, 639 Lett. 95, 081103 [2005] Israel, G. L., Belloni, T., Stella, L. et al. 2005 ApJ Lett. 628, [2014] Berger, E. 2014 Ann. Rev. A&A 52, 43 L53 [1997] Boella, G., Butler, R. C., Perola, G. C. 1997 et al. A&A [2009] Kalmus, P., Cannon, K.C., Marka,ˇ S. & Owen, B.J. 2009 Suppl. Ser. 122, 299 Phys. Rev. D 80, 042001 [1998] Cline, T., Mazets, E., & Golenetskii, S.V. 1998 IAU Circ. [2017] Kilpatrick C. D., Foley, R., J., Kasen, D. et al. 2017 Science 7002 10.1126/science.aaq0073 [1998] Coccia, E., Pizzella, G., Veneziano, G. editors of Proceed- [1973] Klebesadel, R. W., Strong, I. B. & Olson, R. A. 1973 ApJ ings of the Second Edoardo Amaldi Conference on Grav- Lett. 182, L85 itational Waves, 1998 World Scientific, Singapore, 4 105-158 [2016] Levan, A., 2016 Space Sci. Rev. 202 33; arXiv:1611.03091 [2004] Coccia, E., Dubath, F. & Maggiore, M. 2004 Phys. Rev. D [astro-ph.HE] 70, 084010 [2016] Lien, A., Sakamoto, T., Barthelmy, S. D. et al. 2016 ApJ 829 [1968] Colgate, S., A., 1968 Canadian J. Phys., 46 S476 7 [2011] Corsi, A., & Owen, B. J. 2011 Phys. Rev. D 83 104014 [2017] Lipunov, V., M., Gorbovskoy, E., Kornilov V. G. et al., 2017 11

[astro-ph.HE] arXiv:1710.05461 and ApJ Lett. 850, L1 [1998] Prodi, G. A., Conti, L., Mezzena, R. et al. in Proceedings [1996] Mauceli, E., Geng, Z. K., Hamilton, W. O. et al. 1996 Phys. of the Second Edoardo Amaldi Conference on Gravitational Rev. D 54, 1264 Waves, edited by E. Coccia, G. Pizzella, and G. Veneziano, [1979] Mazets, E. P., Golenetskii, S. V., Il’inskii, V. N. et al., 1979 1998 World Scientific, Singapore, 4, 148 Nature 282, 587 [2001] van Putten, M. H. P. M., 2001 Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 091101 [2005] Mereghetti, S., Gotz, D., von Kienlin, A. et al. 2005 ApJ 624, [2004] van Putten, M. H. P. M. 2004 Phys. Rev. D 69, 044007 L105 [2017] Savchenko V., Ferrigno, C., Kuulkers, E. et al. 2017 ApJ [2008] Mereghetti, S. 2008 A&A Rev. 15, 225 Lett. 848, L15 [1973] Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., Wheeler, J. A. 1973 [1998] Soffitta, P., Feroci, M., Piro, L. et al. 1998 IAUC 6884 Gravitation, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco [2003] Stanek, K. Z., Matheson, T., Garnavich, P. M. et al. 2003 ApJ [2006] Modena, I. & Pizzella, G. 2006 Int. J. of Mod. Phys. 15, 485 591, L17 [1997] Modestino, G. & Pizzella, G. 1997 LNF-97/038 [2005] Stella L., Dall’Osso, S., Israel G., L., Vecchio, A., 2005 ApJ [1998] Modestino, G. et al. (ROG Collaboration) 1998 in Frontier 634, L165 Objects in Astrophysics and Particle Physics (World Scien- [2013] Sutton, P. J 2013 arXiv:1304.0210 tific, Singapore) 295 [2017] Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J. Gonzalez-Fernandez, C. 2017 ApJ [2000] Modestino, G., & Pizzella, G. 2000 A&A 364, 419 Lett. 848, L27 [2002] Modestino, G. & Moleti, A. 2002 Phys. Rev. D 65 022005 [2015] Tarnopolski, M. 2015 Astrophys. Space Sci 359, 20 [2011] Modestino, G. & Pizzella, G. 2011 Phys. Rev. D 83, 062004 arXiv:1506.07862 [astro-ph.HE] [2005] Owen, B. J. 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 211101 [1996] Thompson, C. & Duncan, R. C. 1996 ApJ 473, 322 [1999] Paciesas, W. S., Meegan, C. A., Pendleton, G., N. et al. 1999 [2001] Tricarico, P., Ortolan, A., Solaroli, A. et al. 2001 Phys. Rev. ApJ Suppl. Ser. 122, 465 D 63, 082002 [updating] Paciesas, W. S., Meegan, C. A., Pendleton, G., N. et al. [2003] Tricarico, P., Ortolan, A., & P. Fortini, 2003 Classical & Fourth BATSE Gamma Ray Burst Catalog (revised) gam- Quantum Gravity 20, 3523 maray.nsstc.nasa.gov [2017] Trimble, V. 2017 Eur. Phys. J. H 42, 261 [2005] Palmer, D. M., Barthelmy, S., Tueller, J., 2005 Nature 434, [2006] Watts, A. L. & Strohmayer, T. E. 2006 ApJ Lett. 637, L117 1107 [1996] Weber, J. & Radak, B. 1996 Il Nuovo Cimento B 111, 687 [2013] Pal’shin, V. D., Hurley, K., Svinkin, D. S. et al. 2013 ApJ (1996). Suppl. Ser. 207, 38 [1969] Weber, J. 1969 Phys. Rev. Lett. 22, 1320 [2017] Pan, Y.-C., Kilpatrick C. D., Simon, J., D. et al. 2017 ApJ [2003] Winkler, C., Courvoisier, J.-L., Di Cocco, G. et al. 2003 Lett. 848, L30 A&A 411, L1 [1997] Pizzella, G. 1997 Classical and Quantum Gravity, 14, 1481 [1999] Woosley, S. E., Eastman, R. G. & Schmidt, B. P. 1999 ApJ [2016] Pizzella, G. 2016 Eur. Phys. J. H 41, 267 516, 788 [1998] Tinney, C., Stathakis, R., Cannon et al. 1998 IAU Circular [2002] Wu, K., Soria, R., Campbell-Wilson, D. et al. 2002 ApJ 565, 6896 1161 [1972] Press, W. H., Thorne, K. S. 1972 Ann. Rev. AA 10 335