Probing (sub-)solar-mass black holes and superspinars with current and next-generation gravitational-wave observatories

Gravitational-wave observations provide a powerful probe of compact objects and strong-field gravity. In this work, we investigate the detectability of binaries containingsolar-mass black holes and superspinars with current and. The new analysis still awaits peer review, but it already lays out the central claim clearly.

This matters because astrophysics becomes persuasive only when an observed signal can be tied to a physically defensible explanation. Compact objects such as neutron stars and black holes are natural laboratories for extreme physics, but the distance and complexity of these systems make interpretation difficult without multi-wavelength coverage and careful modeling. A detection without a mechanism is only half a result. the other half comes from showing that the signal fits quantitatively inside a coherent physical picture rather than merely being consistent with a broad family of models. In this work, we investigate the detectability of binaries containing (sub-)solar-mass black holes and superspinars with current and next-generation gravitational-wave. Such objects may arise from primordial formation channels or from more exotic high-energy scenarios, and their detection would provide important insights into the population of.

We model the gravitational-wave signals using the frequency-domain post-Newtonian inspiral waveform model TaylorF2, and truncate the signal at the innermost stable circular orbit. We assess the observability of these systems using the sensitivities of current detectors such as Advanced LIGO and upcoming third-generation observatories including the Einstein.

Our results show that while current detectors have limited reach for very low-mass binaries, third-generation observatories can enhance both detection capability and. Their improved strain sensitivity and extended low-frequency coverage allow these observatories to track the inspiral phase over a substantially larger number of.

As a result, they achieve considerably higher signal-to-noise ratios and provide dramatically improved constraints on binary parameters. In particular, it is possible to measure the primary spin parameter with precision $Δχ_{1z}~\sim~10^{-4}-10^{-3}$, potentially allowing clear observational discrimination between.

The broader interest lies in turning an observational clue into something that can be weighed against competing models of the underlying physics. Astrophysics does not have the luxury of controlled experiments; everything is inferred from radiation that traveled across cosmic distances under conditions that cannot be reproduced in a terrestrial laboratory. This makes the interpretation chain longer and more uncertain than in bench science, but it also means that a well-constrained measurement of an extreme object carries theoretical information that no earthbound experiment can provide.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. ArXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Because this is still a preprint, the result should be read with genuine interest and proportionate caution. Peer review is not a guarantee of correctness, but it is a process that forces authors to respond to technical criticism from specialists who have no stake in a particular outcome. Preprints that survive that process, often with substantive revisions, emerge with a stronger evidential base than the version that first appeared. Until that stage is complete, the responsible reading keeps uncertainty explicitly visible rather than treating the claims as established findings.

The next step is to see whether independent datasets and physical modeling converge on the same interpretation. Multi-wavelength follow-up, combining X-ray, radio and optical data where possible, is typically what separates a compelling detection from a robust physical characterization. In high-energy astrophysics, results that initially looked definitive have been revised when data from a second messenger arrived; the current result should be read with that history in mind. Until peer review and independent follow-up address those open questions, skepticism is not a failure of appreciation for the work; it is part of how science decides what to keep.

Source