Probing the existence of a minimal length through compact binary inspiral

Aldo Perri; Alessandro Pesci; N. V. Krishnendu; Sumanta Chakraborty

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 91 references

Probing the existence of a minimal length through compact binary inspiral

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A minimal spacetime length would make black holes reflect low-frequency gravitational waves, shifting binary inspiral phases at 2.5 post-Newtonian order.

desk verdict A well-built phenomenological bridge from minimal length to GW phasing, but the load-bearing reflectivity rule is asserted rather than derived, so the headline constraints are conditional on an unproven step. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22877 v1 pith:ULJOXKHF submitted 2025-05-28 gr-qc

N. V. Krishnendu , Aldo Perri , Sumanta Chakraborty , Alessandro Pesci This is my paper

classification gr-qc PACS 04.30.-w04.70.-s04.60.-m

keywords zero-pointlengthminimaltidalheatinggravitational-waveinspiralblack-holereflectivitypost-Newtonianphasingextrememassratioquantumgravityphenomenology

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that if spacetime has a minimal (zero-point) length ℓ0, then a black-hole horizon cannot change its area by less than about 4πℓ0²; any incoming gravitational wave that would produce a smaller area increase is perfectly reflected, while larger waves are absorbed as in classical general relativity. This frequency-dependent reflectivity modifies the tidal-heating term—the absorption of orbital energy by the holes—which enters the gravitational-wave phase at 2.5 post-Newtonian order. The size of the effect is controlled by the free parameter β = ℓ0/ℓp, so gravitational-wave observations of inspiraling binaries become a probe of the minimal length. For high spins the model predicts perfect reflectivity up to the innermost stable circular orbit regardless of β, while for slowly spinning binaries the inspiral waveform should constrain β in the window 0.1 ≲ β ≲ 2, and extreme-mass-ratio inspirals observed by a future space-based detector could bound β ≲ 4.

What carries the argument

The key object is the qmetric, an effective metric built from bi-tensors that keeps the geodesic interval from shrinking below ℓ0², which forces a lower bound of 4πℓ0² on horizon area changes; combined with the first law of black-hole mechanics ΔM = (κ/8π)ΔA + Ωh ΔJ and the choice Δj = 2, this yields the step reflectivity |R(f)|² = 1 for f < fmin and 0 for f ≥ fmin, and the tidal-heating phase δϕQBH of Eq. (19), controlled by the minimum velocity vmin = (Mωmin/2)^{1/3}.

What would settle it

Look at a gravitational-wave event from a high-spin, nearly extremal binary, or an EMRI with a rapidly spinning primary: if the inspiral waveform shows the standard classical tidal-heating phase at frequencies far below the predicted fmin, meaning the holes absorb rather than reflect low-frequency radiation, the perfect-reflection step and the formula ωmin = κβ²/2 + 2Ωh are ruled out. Concretely, a matched-filter search for the δϕQBH term of Eq. (19) in a χ ≳ 0.25 event should find zero absorption if the paper is right; finding absorption with |R|² ≈ 0 at those frequencies falsifies the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the qmetric description of quantum spacetime, the authors show that the zero-point length ℓ0 translates into a minimum area increment ΔA0 = 4πℓ0² for black-hole horizons. Using the first law of black-hole mechanics and assuming angular momentum changes by Δj = 2 (spin-2 gravitons), this yields a minimum absorption frequency ωmin = κβ²/2 + 2Ωh; below it the horizon is perfectly reflecting, above it the hole behaves classically. Inserting this step-function reflectivity into the tidal-heating flux gives a closed 2.5PN phasing correction whose dephasing against classical black holes is controlled by β. The observational punchline is that a detection of highly spinning, almost perfectly absorbing black holes would be in tension with the quantum picture, and if future detectors see no strongly reflecting black holes, the zero-point length must be at most about the Planck length, with the most promising window for bounding β at low spins and 0.1 ≲ β ≲ 2.

Load-bearing premise

If a black-hole horizon area cannot change by less than 4πℓ0², incoming waves that would cause a smaller area increase are reflected rather than absorbed—this step-function transition is assumed, not derived, and every waveform prediction in the paper hangs on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

High-spin black holes (χ ≳ 0.25) are predicted to be perfectly reflecting throughout the inspiral band, so a detection of a high-spin binary with classically absorbing behaviour would be in direct tension with the minimal-length and angular-momentum-quantization picture.
If the zero-point length exceeds the Planck length by β ≳ 2, black holes are perfectly reflecting up to the ISCO for all spins; observing absorbing black holes would therefore rule out models with ℓ0 much larger than ℓp, including the β ≈ 10^4 value suggested by a 4π cosmological-information argument.
The inspiral waveform carrying δϕQBH differs from both classical-black-hole and point-particle templates, and the mismatch analysis identifies low-spin, asymmetric-mass binaries as the best case for constraining β, though the single-event effect for current ground-based detectors is small.
For extreme-mass-ratio inspirals, the number of cycles accumulated from tidal heating is at least about one for β ≲ 4, giving a realistic route to bounding the zero-point length with a future space-based detector.
If the minimum frequency fmin lies below the detector cutoff (20 Hz for current ground-based detectors, 0.5 mHz for a space-based mission), the quantum-corrected black holes are indistinguishable from classical ones, so the constraints come from the parameter regions where fmin exceeds the detector band.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The step-function reflectivity is the load-bearing phenomenological input; if instead reflectivity ramps smoothly over a frequency window, the sharp threshold and the logarithmic terms in Eq. (19) would be replaced by integrals, but the qualitative dephasing at low spin and β ~ 1 should survive.
The same minimal-area logic should also apply to single black-hole ringdown and echo searches, not just tidal heating; echoes at frequencies below fmin are a direct corollary the paper mentions but does not quantify.
The constraint β ≲ 2 from 'no perfectly reflecting black holes' can be viewed as a bound on the minimal length itself, ℓ0 ≲ 2ℓp, which would connect to other quantum-gravity phenomenology that places similar upper limits on a fundamental length scale.
A testable extension is to stack many low-spin, asymmetric-mass binary events and look for a collective 2.5PN tidal-heating dephasing, which could overcome the O(10^-4) single-event mismatch the paper finds.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Useful read, with a clear caveat. The paper takes the qmetric's minimal area 4πℓ0² and turns it into a step-function reflectivity for black holes, producing a new 2.5PN tidal-heating phasing correction with a minimum-frequency cutoff. The algebra from Eq. (7) to Eq. (19) checks out under the stated assumptions; the parameter-space plots and the EMRI cycle-count estimate are careful. Credit where due: the authors are explicit that comparable-mass binaries give no constraint with current detectors, that the mismatch is O(10⁻⁴), and that a full parameter-estimation study is still needed. The discussion tying β~10⁴ from the cosmological constant to superradiant instability is a nice consistency check.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test puts it. Eq. (10)'s sharp reflectivity is the bridge from minimal length to waveform, and it is posited, not derived. The qmetric gives a lower bound on area increments; it does not say that smaller increments are forbidden. Appendix A makes this visible: it derives ΔA ≳ 4πℓ_p² and then adds a separate postulate that a quantum is either engulfed or not. That postulate is the step function. Similarly, ω_min in Eq. (8) relies on Δj=2 angular momentum quantization, an independent input. So the high-spin 'prediction' of perfect reflectivity is not a prediction of minimal length alone; it follows from the chosen quantization rule. If one replaced Eq. (10) with a smooth, frequency-dependent reflectivity—what you'd expect from scattering off a finite-width quantum region—the O(1) bounds on β would likely shift. That should be stated as a model assumption and tested for robustness. The van Vleck approximation Δ≈1 also deserves scrutiny in vacuum Kerr, where the stated Ricci-based criterion is not obviously the right one.

The abstract goes further than the body supports. There is no actual 'constraint' from GW observations yet; there is a forecast of what future EMRI detections could do. The 'must be Planck scale or smaller' phrasing should be tempered to 'if this model is correct, β>2 leads to perfect reflectivity, which future detectors could exclude.'

This paper deserves a serious referee. It is internally consistent, clearly written, and opens an observable channel for a speculative but well-defined framework. The right outcome is likely major revision with the reflectivity assumption made explicit and the constraints reframed as conditional, not rejection. I'd bring it to a reading group focused on quantum gravity phenomenology, but I wouldn't cite it in my own work unless I was working on that specific model.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that a minimal (zero-point) length ℓ₀, treated through the qmetric construction, endows black-hole horizons with a minimum area increment ΔA₀ = 4πℓ₀², which translates into a minimum absorption frequency ω_min below which the hole is perfectly reflecting and above which it behaves classically. This frequency-dependent reflectivity is then inserted into the tidal-heating contribution to the inspiral phasing of binary black holes, giving a closed-form 2.5PN phase correction δϕ_QBH. The authors study mismatches for comparable-mass binaries with TaylorF2-type waveforms and compute accumulated cycles for extreme mass-ratio inspirals, concluding that β ≳ 2 and highly spinning absorbing black holes would be in tension with the minimal-length picture, while 0.1 ≲ β ≲ 2 is the most promising window for future LISA constraints.

Significance. If the central physical input were derived, the paper would identify a genuinely new observational channel for minimal-length physics: tidal heating is a low-order PN effect, and the predicted frequency threshold is in principle within the band of current and future detectors. The paper is also commendably explicit about its limitations: it reports that the comparable-mass Bayesian posterior for β is unconstrained and it provides closed-form phase expressions that can be reused or falsified. The main conceptual value is therefore the proposal of a concrete, testable phenomenological rule connecting a minimal area to GW phasing. However, the significance is presently conditional, because the perfect-reflection threshold is asserted rather than derived from the qmetric framework, and the high-spin conclusions rely on a separate angular-momentum quantization rule.

major comments (4)

[Sec. II, closing paragraph and Eq. (10)] The step-function reflectivity |R(f)|² = 1 for f < f_min and 0 for f ≥ f_min is the load-bearing bridge of the paper, but it is not derived from the qmetric framework. The qmetric construction in Sec. II yields a limiting area in the coincidence limit; it does not imply that horizon area changes are discrete or that sub-threshold energy is forbidden to be absorbed. Appendix A confirms this reading: it derives only the lower bound ΔA ≳ 4πℓ_p² in Eq. (A6), and then adds a separate postulate that a quantum is either entirely engulfed or not engulfed at all. That postulate is exactly the step-function reflectivity, not a consequence of the preceding calculation. Since every β constraint in Eqs. (19)-(24) and the phase diagram in Table I depends on a sharp threshold, the central claim is currently conditional on an unproven assumption.
[Eq. (8) and Sec. III] The minimum frequency ω_min = κβ²/2 + 2Ω_h contains two independent ingredients: the minimal-area threshold from ℓ₀ and angular-momentum quantization with Δj = 2. The latter is an input, not an output, of the minimal-length model. Consequently the high-spin branch (χ ≳ 0.25), for which f_min exceeds the ISCO frequency independently of β, is driven entirely by the term 2Ω_h and by the assumed Δj = 2 selection rule. The abstract and Sec. VI describe this as tension between absorbing high-spin black holes and 'the quantum properties of BH geometries,' but the tension is really with the added quantization postulate, not with the minimal length itself. This should be stated clearly and the conclusions re-scaled accordingly.
[Eqs. (4)-(6)] The evaluation of the limiting area ΔA₀ = 4πℓ₀² assumes Δ_ℓ₀ ≈ 1 in all directions, justified by the condition ℓ₀ ≪ 1/√R. For vacuum Kerr spacetime the Ricci tensor vanishes, so this condition is vacuous and gives no license to set the van Vleck determinant to unity; the van Vleck determinant encodes nonlocal geodesic focusing and is not controlled by the local Ricci tensor alone. Since ΔA₀ is the input to Eq. (7) and hence to f_min, the quantitative value of the threshold is not established for the Kerr backgrounds used throughout the paper.
[Sec. V and Eq. (24)] The EMRI 'golden window' claim (0.1 ≲ β ≲ 2, and β ≲ 4 being constrainable) is based on the number of accumulated cycles |N_cycles| plotted in Fig. 12. The number of cycles is not a detection or measurement criterion: it does not include SNR, detector noise, confusion noise, or a parameter-estimation covariance. The paper itself reports in Sec. IV that a comparable-mass Bayesian analysis yields an unconstrained posterior for β, and the mismatch in Figs. 10-11 is only O(10⁻⁴). Without a noise-weighted Fisher or Bayesian treatment for LISA EMRIs, the statement that β can be 'well constrained' by EMRIs is not supported by the analysis presented.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (8)] The quantity β² appears inside the surface-gravity term of ω_min; since β is defined as a ratio of lengths, it may be worth stating explicitly whether natural units with ℓ_p = 1 are being used, so that the dimensions of the expression are transparent.
[Sec. III, footnote 1] The footnote's explanation that 'the magnetic part of the total angular momentum must reach till (j+2)' is too terse to be checkable; a few equations defining the quantum numbers j, m and the allowed Δm for quadrupolar radiation would remove ambiguity.
[Sec. III, paragraph after Eq. (16)] The statement that 'the requirement of the cosmological information being 4π' yields β = 10⁴ is asserted without a derivation or a precise reference; please supply the argument or move this remark to a footnote with a full derivation.
[Fig. 10] The right panel of Fig. 10 has a very narrow y-axis range (1.577×10⁻³ to 1.579×10⁻³), which visually exaggerates the β-dependence of the mismatch; a linear scale from zero would better represent the small magnitude of the effect.
[References] Reference [50] is listed as 'Work in Progress (2025)' and should be replaced by a published preprint or removed, since it does not allow the reader to verify the claimed connection.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Appendix A's heuristic 'derivation' of the minimal area is a self-definitional restatement of the all-or-nothing engulfment postulate, so the step-function reflectivity that drives all waveform predictions is an input rather than a derived consequence.

self definitional [Appendix A, Eqs. (A5)-(A6), used to justify the reflectivity assigned in Eq. (10) and the minimum frequency in Eq. (8)]
"As a basic tenet of quantum physics we assume that a quantum of energy is either entirely engulfed by the horizon or it is not engulfed at all; that is we forbid that, e.g. a photon, can be in a situation in which it is only partially engulfed. ... Using this in Eq. (A4) we obtain, ∆A ≳ 4πℓ2p."

The appendix presents this as a heuristic derivation of the limiting area increment from quantum principles. But the 'basic tenet' introduced here is exactly the threshold behavior later asserted in the main text: Eq. (10) sets |R(f)|^2 = 1 for f < fmin and 0 for f ≥ fmin, i.e., a GW quantum is either wholly absorbed or wholly reflected. The uncertainty-principle chain (A5)-(A6) only converts this all-or-nothing engulfment postulate into an area lower bound; it adds no independent evidence for the cutoff. Thus the claimed derivation of ΔAmin, and hence of ωmin in Eq. (8) and the reflectivity that enters every waveform prediction (Eqs. 19 and 24), reduces to the model's own input.

full rationale

The main-text chain is not circular in the simple fitting sense: Eq. (6) is a genuine qmetric limit-area result, and Eq. (8) follows from standard BH mechanics once a minimal area and angular-momentum quantization are assumed. The defect is at the crucial bridge from minimal area to perfect reflection. The paper states, without derivation from the qmetric, that an area change smaller than ΔA0 causes the incident energy to be reflected. Appendix A attempts to justify the corresponding area bound, but its 'basic tenet of quantum physics' is the all-or-nothing engulfment assumption, which is logically equivalent to the step-function reflectivity of Eq. (10). Consequently the headline prediction—a minimum absorption frequency and the resulting tidal-heating dephasing—is a recoding of the threshold input together with the standard tidal-heating calculus. The self-citations to [75] (qmetric area) and [81] (tidal-heating phase) are load-bearing but appear to be prior independent derivations, so I treat them as support rather than circularity; they do, however, make the observable forecast heavily dependent on the authors' earlier framework. The high-spin, β-independent conclusions additionally require the separate Δj = 2 quantization assumption stated in Sec. II, which is an input rather than an output of the minimal-length model. Overall, partial circularity is present at the reflectivity step, but the central minimal-area result retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on the qmetric minimal-length framework (prior work by the authors), an approximation for the van Vleck determinant, an assumed quantization of BH angular momentum, and a posited perfect-reflection rule below the minimum frequency. The observable phase shift is parameterized by the free ratio beta.

free parameters (1)

beta = ell_0 / ell_p
Ratio of the zero point length to the Planck length; the free parameter controlling the minimum frequency in Eq. (8). It is not fitted to data in this paper; the paper forecasts how it could be constrained.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The qmetric construction with a minimal length ell_0 yields a finite transverse area in the coincidence limit.
The paper adopts the qmetric framework from [65-67,75] without deriving it; this is the physical input that a minimal length modifies spacetime geometry.
ad hoc to paper The van Vleck determinant in the coincidence limit is approximately unity (Delta_ell0 ~ 1).
Used to get Delta_A0 = 4*pi*ell_0^2 from Eq. (5). The stated condition ell_0 << 1/sqrt(R) is not the correct criterion for vacuum black hole backgrounds where the Ricci tensor vanishes but Riemann is large; the approximation is not justified.
ad hoc to paper Black hole angular momentum is quantized, J^2 ~ hbar^2*j*(j+1), and absorption occurs via Delta_j = 2.
Introduced in Sec III after Eq. (7); no derivation is given. This term drives the high-spin perfect-reflectivity prediction.
ad hoc to paper An incident GW quantum whose associated area change is below Delta_A0 is perfectly reflected.
The load-bearing assumption stated at the end of Sec II and encoded in Eq. (10); no alternative channel analysis is provided.
standard math Standard first law of BH mechanics and stationary phase approximation for GW phasing.
Used to translate area change to mass change (Eq. 7) and to derive the phasing formula (Eq. 18-19).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing the existence of a minimal length through compact binary inspiral." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ULJOXKHF

@misc{pith2026250522877,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing the existence of a minimal length through compact binary inspiral},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ULJOXKHF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22877}
}

read the original abstract

Existence of a minimal length in spacetime geometries avoids several singular situations involving quantum theory and gravity. In this work, we show that the existence of such a minimal length also affects the gravitational wave (GW) waveform of any inspiraling binary black hole (BH) system by introducing a minimum frequency, below which the BHs behave as perfectly reflecting compact objects, while above they are identical to classical BHs. This leads to a significant imprint on the tidal heating term, appearing in the GW waveform at 2.5 post Newtonian order. Based on these modifications to the inspiraling waveform, it turns out that the detection of highly spinning and highly absorbing, almost classical BH like compact objects, inspiraling around each other, would be in tension with the quantum properties of BH geometries. The same would also be true if the zero point length exceeds the Planck length by a significant amount, suggesting that the zero point length, if it exists, must be of the same order as the Planck length, or smaller, purely from GW observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22877 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** In particular, in the extremal limit, κ → 0, and hence the minimum frequency becomes independent of β, depending on the spin of the BH alone. This suggests that if we detect the inspiral of either a solar mass BH using LVK or, next generation GW detectors, or, an EMRI using LISA, with very high spin, then the presence of the quantum nature of the BH, in particular, the quantization of angular momentum, argues that… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Having described the implications of the existence of a minimum frequency and its correlation with BH parameters, we would like to discuss its effect on the GW waveform, which in turn requires determination of the GW flux. The GW flux emitted in the centre of mass frame will be distributed into a part reaching infinity and another part reaching the horizon. The GW flux entering the BH horizon is referred to as the … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The minimum frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The minimum frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. The phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. The phase of a quantum BH binary, due to tidal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Phasing of a quantum BH binary, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Phasing of a classical BH binary with total mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Left plot: The mismatch between the waveform model for quantum BH binary, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11. The mismatch between waveform model with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12. The number of cycles associated with the phasing of GW due to tidal heating of zero point length corrected primary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

v3 − v3 v4 Ψ5 4 + 995 168 + 952 168 η v3 − v3 v2 Ψ5 4 − v3 − v3 v Ψ8 2 + Ψ5 2 (4π + FSO) # = 10 32η 2X i=1

Using the laws of BH mechanics for a rotating BH of mass M and angular momentum J, the above minimum area change can be translated to a minimum change of BH mass as, ∆Mmin = κ 8π 4πβ 2ℓ2 p + ∆J 2 4M M 2 + √ M 4 − J 2 . (7) Here we have defined the parameter β ≡ (ℓ0/ℓp), where, ℓp is the Planck length, and is a free parameter of the problem. Moreover, the ...
[2]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2016
[3]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D 100, 104036 (2019), arXiv:1903.04467 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2019
[4]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D 103, 122002 (2021), arXiv:2010.14529 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2021
[5]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2021), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2021
[6]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Astron. Astrophys. 659, A84 (2022), arXiv:2105.15120 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2022
[7]

A. H. Nitz, S. Kumar, Y.-F. Wang, S. Kastha, S. Wu, M. Sch¨ afer, R. Dhurkunde, and C. D. Capano, Astro- phys. J. 946, 59 (2023), arXiv:2112.06878 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2023
[8]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys. Rev. D 109, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2108.01045 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2024

Show all 91 references

[9]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[10]

Olsen, T

S. Olsen, T. Venumadhav, J. Mushkin, J. Roulet, B. Za- ckay, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043009 (2022), arXiv:2201.02252 [astro-ph.HE]

2022 arXiv
[11]

C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel. 17, 4 (2014), arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[12]

B. S. Sathyaprakash et al. , (2019), arXiv:1903.09221 [astro-ph.HE]

2019
[13]

Berti, A

E. Berti, A. Sesana, E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and K. Belczynski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 101102 (2016), arXiv:1605.09286 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[14]

Dreyer, B

O. Dreyer, B. J. Kelly, B. Krishnan, L. S. Finn, D. Garri- son, and R. Lopez-Aleman, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 787 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0309007

2004 arXiv
[15]

Berti, K

E. Berti, K. Yagi, and N. Yunes, Gen. Rel. Grav. 50, 46 (2018), arXiv:1801.03208 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[16]

Berti, K

E. Berti, K. Yagi, H. Yang, and N. Yunes, Gen. Rel. Grav. 50, 49 (2018), arXiv:1801.03587 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[17]

Barack et al

L. Barack et al. , Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 143001 (2019), arXiv:1806.05195 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[18]

B. S. Sathyaprakash and B. F. Schutz, Living Rev. Rel. 12, 2 (2009), arXiv:0903.0338 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[19]

Agullo, V

I. Agullo, V. Cardoso, A. del Rio, M. Maggiore, and J. Pullin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 041302 (2021), arXiv:2007.13761 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[20]

Cardoso, V

V. Cardoso, V. F. Foit, and M. Kleban, J. Cosmol. As- tropart. Phys. 08, 006 (2019), arXiv:1902.10164 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[21]

Cardoso and P

V. Cardoso and P. Pani, Living Rev. Rel. 22, 4 (2019), arXiv:1904.05363 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[22]

P. Pani, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, Y. Chen, and R. Norte, Phys. Rev. D 80, 124047 (2009), arXiv:0909.0287 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[23]

Poisson, Phys

E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D70, 084044 (2004), arXiv:gr- qc/0407050 [gr-qc]

2004
[24]

Alvi, Phys

K. Alvi, Phys. Rev. D 64, 104020 (2001), arXiv:gr- qc/0107080

2001
[25]

Chakraborty, S

S. Chakraborty, S. Datta, and S. Sau, Phys. Rev. D 104, 104001 (2021), arXiv:2103.12430 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[26]

Datta, Phys

S. Datta, Phys. Rev. D 102, 064040 (2020), arXiv:2002.04480 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[27]

Datta, R

S. Datta, R. Brito, S. Bose, P. Pani, and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D 101, 044004 (2020), arXiv:1910.07841 [gr- qc]

2020 arXiv
[28]

Chatziioannou, E

K. Chatziioannou, E. Poisson, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 87, 044022 (2013), arXiv:1211.1686 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[29]

M. V. S. Saketh, J. Steinhoff, J. Vines, and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D 107, 084006 (2023), arXiv:2212.13095 [gr- qc]

2023 arXiv
[30]

Chakraborty, G

S. Chakraborty, G. Comp` ere, and L. Machet, (2024), arXiv:2412.14831 [gr-qc]. 17

2024 arXiv
[31]

Chakraborty, E

S. Chakraborty, E. Maggio, M. Silvestrini, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 110, 084042 (2024), arXiv:2310.06023 [gr- qc]

2024 arXiv
[32]

Cardoso, E

V. Cardoso, E. Franzin, A. Maselli, P. Pani, and G. Ra- poso, Phys. Rev. D 95, 084014 (2017), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 95, 089901 (2017)], arXiv:1701.01116 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[33]

Creci, T

G. Creci, T. Hinderer, and J. Steinhoff, Phys. Rev. D 104, 124061 (2021), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 105, 109902 (2022)], arXiv:2108.03385 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[34]

Chakravarti, S

K. Chakravarti, S. Chakraborty, S. Bose, and S. SenGupta, Phys. Rev. D 99, 024036 (2019), arXiv:1811.11364 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[35]

Binnington and E

T. Binnington and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D80, 084018 (2009), arXiv:0906.1366 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[36]

Nagar and S

A. Nagar and S. Akcay, Phys. Rev. D85, 044025 (2012), arXiv:1112.2840 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[37]

R. F. Rosato, S. Biswas, S. Chakraborty, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 111, 084051 (2025), arXiv:2501.16433 [gr- qc]

2025 arXiv
[38]

Abedi, N

J. Abedi, N. Afshordi, N. Oshita, and Q. Wang, Universe 6, 43 (2020), arXiv:2001.09553 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[39]

Q. Wang, N. Oshita, and N. Afshordi, Phys. Rev. D 101, 024031 (2020), arXiv:1905.00446 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[40]

Z. Mark, A. Zimmerman, S. M. Du, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D96, 084002 (2017), arXiv:1706.06155 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[41]

Pani and V

P. Pani and V. Ferrari, Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 15LT01 (2018), arXiv:1804.01444 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[42]

R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 793 (2011), arXiv:1102.4014 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[43]

K. D. Kokkotas and B. G. Schmidt, Living Rev. Rel. 2, 2 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9909058 [gr-qc]

1999 arXiv
[44]

Biswas, M

S. Biswas, M. Rahman, and S. Chakraborty, Phys. Rev. D 106, 124003 (2022), arXiv:2205.14743 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[45]

Chakraborty, E

S. Chakraborty, E. Maggio, A. Mazumdar, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 106, 024041 (2022), arXiv:2202.09111 [gr- qc]

2022 arXiv
[46]

M. A. Scheel et al. , (2025), arXiv:2505.13378 [gr-qc]

2025
[47]

K. Paul, A. Maurya, Q. Henry, K. Sharma, P. Satheesh, Divyajyoti, P. Kumar, and C. K. Mishra, Phys. Rev. D 111, 084074 (2025), arXiv:2409.13866 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[48]

Datta and K

S. Datta and K. S. Phukon, Phys. Rev. D 104, 124062 (2021), arXiv:2105.11140 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[49]

Chakravarti, R

K. Chakravarti, R. Ghosh, and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D 104, 084049 (2021), arXiv:2108.02444 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[50]

Chakravarti, R

K. Chakravarti, R. Ghosh, and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D 105, 044046 (2022), arXiv:2112.10109 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[51]

Krishnendu, R

N. Krishnendu, R. Ghosh, S. Datta, S. Chakraborty, and P. Ajith, Work in Progress (2025)

2025
[52]

J. D. Bekenstein, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 11, 467 (1974)

1974
[53]

Maggiore, Phys

M. Maggiore, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 141301 (2008), arXiv:0711.3145 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[54]

Chakraborty and K

S. Chakraborty and K. Lochan, Phys. Lett. B 789, 276 (2019), arXiv:1711.10660 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[55]

Lochan and S

K. Lochan and S. Chakraborty, Phys. Lett. B 755, 37 (2016), arXiv:1509.09010 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[56]

Hod, Phys

S. Hod, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4293 (1998), arXiv:gr- qc/9812002

1998
[57]

V. F. Mukhanov, JETP Letters 44, 63 (1986)

1986
[58]

J. F. Barbero G., J. Lewandowski, and E. J. S. Vil- lase˜ nor, Phys. Rev. D80, 044016 (2009), arXiv:0905.3465 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[59]

Padmanabhan, Gen

T. Padmanabhan, Gen. Rel. Grav. 17, 215 (1985)

1985
[60]

Padmanabhan, Annals Phys

T. Padmanabhan, Annals Phys. 165, 38 (1985)

1985
[61]

L. J. Garay, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 10, 145 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9403008

1995 arXiv
[62]

Nicolini, Gen

P. Nicolini, Gen. Rel. Grav. 54, 106 (2022), arXiv:2208.05390 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[63]

Padmanabhan, Phys

T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997), arXiv:hep- th/9608182

1997
[64]

Fontanini, E

M. Fontanini, E. Spallucci, and T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Lett. B 633, 627 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0509090

2006 arXiv
[65]

Bishop, J

M. Bishop, J. Contreras, P. Martin, P. Nicolini, and D. Singleton, Phys. Lett. B 847, 138263 (2023), arXiv:2307.05367 [quant-ph]

2023 arXiv
[66]

Kothawala, Phys

D. Kothawala, Phys. Rev. D 88, 104029 (2013), arXiv:1307.5618 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[67]

Kothawala and T

D. Kothawala and T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D 90, 124060 (2014), arXiv:1405.4967 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[68]

D. J. Stargen and D. Kothawala, Phys. Rev. D92, 024046 (2015), arXiv:1503.03793 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[69]

Pesci, Phys

A. Pesci, Phys. Rev. D 102, 124057 (2020), arXiv:1911.04135 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[70]

Padmanabhan, Int

T. Padmanabhan, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 29, 2030001 (2020), arXiv:1909.02015 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[71]

Padmanabhan, S

T. Padmanabhan, S. Chakraborty, and D. Kothawala, Gen. Rel. Grav. 48, 55 (2016), arXiv:1507.05669 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[72]

Chakraborty, D

S. Chakraborty, D. Kothawala, and A. Pesci, Phys. Lett. B 797, 134877 (2019), arXiv:1904.09053 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[73]

Chatziioannou, E

K. Chatziioannou, E. Poisson, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 94, 084043 (2016), arXiv:1608.02899 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[74]

J. B. Hartle, Phys. Rev. D 8, 1010 (1973)

1973
[75]

Poisson, Phys

E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D 91, 044004 (2015), arXiv:1411.4711 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[76]

Pesci, Class

A. Pesci, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 075009 (2019), [Erratum: Class.Quant.Grav. 36, 229501 (2019)], arXiv:1812.01275 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[77]

J. H. Van Vleck, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 14, 178 (1928)

1928
[78]

Morette, Phys

C. Morette, Phys. Rev. 81, 848 (1951)

1951
[79]

B. S. DeWitt and R. W. Brehme, Annals Phys. 9, 220 (1960)

1960
[80]

B. S. DeWitt, Conf. Proc. C 630701, 585 (1964)

1964
[81]

Padmanabhan, Entropy 17, 7420 (2015), arXiv:1508.06286 [gr-qc]

T. Padmanabhan, Entropy 17, 7420 (2015), arXiv:1508.06286 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[82]

N. V. Krishnendu and S. Chakraborty, Phys. Rev. D109, 124047 (2024), arXiv:2402.15336 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[83]

Padmanabhan and H

T. Padmanabhan and H. Padmanabhan, Phys. Lett. B 773, 81 (2017), arXiv:1703.06144 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[84]

Tichy, E

W. Tichy, E. E. Flanagan, and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D 61, 104015 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/9912075

2000 arXiv
[85]

S. Nair, S. Chakraborty, and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D 107, 124041 (2023), arXiv:2208.06235 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[86]

Ajith et al

P. Ajith et al. , J. Astrophys. Astron. 46, 6 (2025), arXiv:2501.04333 [astro-ph.IM]

2025 arXiv
[87]

Borhanian and B

S. Borhanian and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D110, 083040 (2024), arXiv:2202.11048 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[88]

Maggiore et al

M. Maggiore et al. (ET), JCAP 03, 050 (2020), arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[89]

Padmanabhan, Gravitation: Foundations and fron- tiers (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

T. Padmanabhan, Gravitation: Foundations and fron- tiers (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

2010
[90]

Jacobson, Phys

T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1260 (1995), arXiv:gr- qc/9504004

1995
[91]

Pesci, Entropy 17, 5799 (2015), arXiv:1404.7631 [gr- qc]

A. Pesci, Entropy 17, 5799 (2015), arXiv:1404.7631 [gr- qc]

2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

v3 − v3 v4 Ψ5 4 + 995 168 + 952 168 η v3 − v3 v2 Ψ5 4 − v3 − v3 v Ψ8 2 + Ψ5 2 (4π + FSO) # = 10 32η 2X i=1

Using the laws of BH mechanics for a rotating BH of mass M and angular momentum J, the above minimum area change can be translated to a minimum change of BH mass as, ∆Mmin = κ 8π 4πβ 2ℓ2 p + ∆J 2 4M M 2 + √ M 4 − J 2 . (7) Here we have defined the parameter β ≡ (ℓ0/ℓp), where, ℓp is the Planck length, and is a free parameter of the problem. Moreover, the ...

[2] [2]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2016

[3] [3]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D 100, 104036 (2019), arXiv:1903.04467 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2019

[4] [4]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D 103, 122002 (2021), arXiv:2010.14529 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2021

[5] [5]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2021), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2021

[6] [6]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Astron. Astrophys. 659, A84 (2022), arXiv:2105.15120 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2022

[7] [7]

A. H. Nitz, S. Kumar, Y.-F. Wang, S. Kastha, S. Wu, M. Sch¨ afer, R. Dhurkunde, and C. D. Capano, Astro- phys. J. 946, 59 (2023), arXiv:2112.06878 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys. Rev. D 109, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2108.01045 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2024