Pulsar Timing IMBH Sensitivity Estimator

A pulsar near a central black hole feels a line-of-sight acceleration that drifts its arrival times by Δt ≈ ½(a/c)T². Given the pulsar's distance from cluster centre, the timing precision, and the observation baseline, this tool solves for the minimum IMBH mass detectable.

🔬 Newtonian sensitivity ⚠ IMBH constraint context

This tool is best viewed on a desktop or tablet.

The sensitivity chart needs the wider viewport.

Read the description instead →
Minimum detectable MBH at current parameters — M☉  computing… → Compare against all constraints
Hypothetical pulsar parameters
60 arcsec
Closer pulsar ⇒ stronger acceleration ⇒ smaller M_BH detectable. OC has known pulsars at ~30–250 arcsec from centre.
5 μs
Post-fit residual. Best OC pulsars achieve ~1–3 μs; cluster-confused or binary systems are worse.
5.0 yr
Longer baseline ⇒ much smaller M_BH detectable (M_min ∝ 1/T²). MeerKAT timing has been running ~4 yr; SKA will extend this.
Derived quantities
Distance r in physical units
Required acceleration for detection
Minimum detectable M_BH
vs. Bañares 2025 upper limit (6,000 M☉)
vs. Häberle 2024 lower bound (8,200 M☉)
Sensitivity curve — M_min(r) at current σ_t & T OC pulsar — at its own r & σ_t (T = your slider) Published upper limits (Bañares 2025, TRAPUM 2026)

The physics

A pulsar at projected distance r from a central mass M_BH feels a line-of-sight acceleration of order a = GM_BH / r² (Newtonian; valid because we're orders of magnitude outside the horizon). That acceleration drifts the apparent pulse-arrival times by Δt ≈ ½ (a/c) T² over an observation baseline T. The IMBH is detectable when Δt exceeds the timing precision σ_t. Solving for the smallest detectable M_BH:

M_min = 2 σ_t c r² / (G T²)

The quadratic in r makes pulsars near the cluster centre disproportionately valuable; the inverse-square in T makes longer baselines the high-leverage investment.

Why the chart's pulsars sit so far below the published bounds

The formula above is the formal sensitivity for an idealised, isolated pulsar with the intrinsic spin-down rate independently known. In practice, a constant line-of-sight acceleration produces a constant ΔP/P shift that is mathematically degenerate with intrinsic pulsar spin-down — the standard timing fit absorbs it, leaving the IMBH signature in higher-order terms (jerk, snap) that are much smaller. Real OC pulsar timing also has to contend with: the cluster's mean gravitational potential (which produces an acceleration of order GM_cluster/r_h² independent of any IMBH), binary orbital motion (for the majority of MSPs), interstellar dispersion variations, and confusion from other accelerating masses.

The practical consequence is that published combined bounds — Bañares et al. 2025's 6,000 M☉ (3σ) and TRAPUM 2026's 10⁵ M☉ (90% CL) — are weaker than per-pulsar formal sensitivities by factors of order 100–1000. The gap on this chart between the purple pulsar dots and the amber published-bound lines IS that systematics penalty. Closing it requires multi-pulsar joint analyses with kinematic priors on the cluster potential, which is what the published papers do.

How to read the chart

The teal curve is M_min(r) at your current σ_t and T sliders. The purple dots are real OC pulsars at their own measured σ_t (from the discovery papers) and your T slider value. Where a pulsar's dot lies on the chart is its individual sensitivity; the most sensitive pulsar (lowest-y point) sets the de-facto upper limit at its r. The horizontal amber dashed lines are the published combined upper limits — the tightest ones come from joint analyses that exploit multiple pulsars and cluster-kinematics priors simultaneously.

OC distance assumption

Conversion from arcsec to physical distance uses an OC distance of 5.43 kpc (Soltis et al. 2021, ApJ 908:L5). 1 arcsec at this distance ≈ 0.0263 pc ≈ 8.13×10¹⁴ m.

Cross-references

The published upper limits also appear in the IMBH Constraint Stacker as horizontal-axis markers, where you can see them in the company of kinematic and JWST constraints. The pulsar list itself comes from tools/data/measurements.js; per-pulsar parameters are illustrative pending a published per-pulsar ephemerides catalog.

Real-world reference numbers (as of May 2026)

📡 Pulsar Timing Array (PTA) precision today

The best millisecond pulsars achieve weekly RMS residuals of ~50–100 ns (PSR J1909-3744 at Green Bank Telescope is the gold standard at ~60 ns over 15 years). The four major PTAs — NANOGrav (North America), EPTA (Europe), PPTA (Parkes/Australia), and the MeerKAT-based MPTA — together monitor ~70 pulsars and recently reported (June 2023) evidence for a stochastic gravitational-wave background consistent with supermassive black hole binaries. SKA-Mid (first light ~2028) will push best-pulsar precision to ~10 ns and extend the network to ~200 pulsars.

🌀 OC's pulsar population

Omega Centauri hosts ~25 known pulsars as of 2026, almost all discovered by MeerKAT TRAPUM (Chen et al. 2023 reported 13 new ones; subsequent surveys have added ~12 more). Most are millisecond pulsars (P ≈ 2–10 ms). Per-pulsar timing precision varies widely: isolated MSPs with low DM achieve 1–5 μs RMS post-fit residuals; binary MSPs and ones in confused regions are 10× worse. The TRAPUM 2026 IMBH constraint (~10⁵ M☉ at 90% CL) combines ~10 of the best-timed pulsars across a 5-year baseline.

⚙ The spin-down degeneracy explained

A constant line-of-sight acceleration produces a constant ΔP/P shift that is mathematically indistinguishable from intrinsic pulsar spin-down. Standard pulsar timing software (TEMPO2, PINT) absorbs this into the fitted P-dot, leaving residual signal in higher-order derivatives (jerk, snap) that are much smaller. This is the central reason per-pulsar formal sensitivity (often quoted as M_BH ≲ few M☉) is ~1000× tighter than the published bounds (~10³–10⁵ M☉). Multi-pulsar joint analyses with kinematic priors can recover some of the loss by fitting cluster-potential-induced accelerations across many sightlines simultaneously.

v1.0 — 2026-05-14 · Code MIT · Prose CC BY 4.0 · Pulsar list: Chen et al. 2023 (MNRAS 520:3847), TRAPUM 2026 (arXiv:2603.21845)

Related proposals: MeerKAT / SKA →MeerKAT Deep Pulsar →