Dark energy effects on realistic neutron stars

Jos\'e D. V. Arba\~nil; Juan M. Z. Pretel; Mariana Dutra; Odilon Louren\c{c}o; Sergio B. Duarte

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 77 references

Dark energy effects on realistic neutron stars

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Neutron stars with a Chaplygin dark-fluid core and a realistic hadronic crust are radially stable and consistent with pulsar and gravitational-wave observations.

desk verdict A competent extension of the CDF-core hybrid model; the observational agreement is partly parameter-tuned and the stability claim rests on the rapid-transition assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08793 v1 pith:HUJQK3AO submitted 2024-11-13 gr-qc astro-ph.HEnucl-th

Juan M. Z. Pretel , Sergio B. Duarte , José D. V. Arbañil , Mariana Dutra , Odilon Lourenço This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEnucl-th

keywords Chaplygindarkfluidneutronstarenergyhybridtidaldeformabilityradialstabilityequationofstategeneralrelativity

topics Dark Energy

open problems Dark Energy

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 neutron stars can contain a core of Chaplygin dark fluid, a hypothetical substance with negative pressure, without contradicting observed astrophysics. It builds two-phase stars in which a Chaplygin core is matched to a realistic hadronic crust described by two nuclear equations of state, then solves the relativistic structure, tidal-deformation, and radial-oscillation equations. The central findings are that such hybrids can reach masses above two solar masses, that their mass-radius and tidal-deformability predictions fall inside the ranges allowed by pulsar measurements and GW170817, and that a larger energy-density jump at the core-crust interface makes the star radially more stable. If these results hold, dark-energy cores remain a viable ingredient of neutron-star interiors and a possible link between cosmic dark energy and compact-object physics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a two-phase equation of state with a first-order density discontinuity: $p = A\rho - B/\rho$ in the core and a realistic hadronic $p(\rho)$ in the crust, joined by pressure continuity through Eq. (18), which fixes $B$ in terms of $A$, $\alpha$, and the interface density. The density jump is parametrized by $\alpha = \rho^-_{\rm dis}/\rho^+_{\rm dis}$, with smaller $\alpha$ meaning a larger jump. The argument then runs through three standard tools: the relativistic stellar-structure equations for equilibrium, the tidal-perturbation equation with a jump condition at the interface for the Love number and tidal deformability, and the relativistic radial-pulsation equations solved with the rapid-phase-transition junction conditions, which allow mass to flow across the interface during oscillation. The key quantity that decides stability is the squared frequency of the fundamental radial mode, $\omega_0^2$; the star is stable where $\omega_0^2 > 0$ and unstable where it is negative.

What would settle it

Compute the fundamental radial-mode eigenfrequency using the slow-phase-transition junction conditions, Eq. (31), for the same equations of state and parameters; if the sign change of $\omega_0^2$ occurs at a central density well below the maximum-mass density, the stability claim as stated is not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that adding a Chaplygin dark-fluid core to a neutron star does not spoil the agreement between realistic crust equations of state and observations, and in some respects improves it. With the SLy4 or BSR8 equation of state in the crust and the standard outer-crust model, the free parameters are the central density, the interface density, the density-jump ratio $\alpha$, and the Chaplygin parameter $A$. Increasing $A$ raises the maximum mass, up to about $2.1$--$2.2\,M_\odot$ for $A=0.4$, while decreasing $\alpha$, i.e. enlarging the jump, shifts the onset of radial instability to higher central density. The paper therefore states that smaller $\alpha$ increases the radial stability of a neutron star with a Chaplygin dark-fluid core regardless of the crust equation of state, and that the stable configurations satisfy the tidal-deformability constraint $\Lambda_{1.4} \in [70,580]$ from GW170817.

Load-bearing premise

The stability conclusion rests on the assumption that the phase conversion between the dark-energy core and the hadronic crust is rapid enough that mass can flow freely across the interface during a millisecond pulsation; no measured timescale supports this.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Hybrid stars with a Chaplygin dark-fluid core can reach maximum masses above $2\,M_\odot$, comfortably above the observed massive-pulsar thresholds.
For fixed $A$, making the density jump larger (smaller $\alpha$) enlarges the range of central densities over which the star is radially stable, so the interface jump itself acts as a stabilizer.
The dimensionless tidal deformability grows with both $A$ and $\alpha$, and the predicted $\Lambda_{1.4}$ values lie inside the GW170817 bound of $70$ to $580$.
At the GW170817 chirp mass, the softer SLy4 crust yields binary tidal-deformability curves inside the published 50% and 90% contours for all values of $\alpha$ studied, while the stiffer BSR8 crust passes through those contours only for $\alpha = 0.7$.
Causality imposes an upper limit on $A$ of roughly $0.52$ to $0.57$ depending on $\alpha$ and the crust equation of state.

Reading between the lines

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

An open test not performed in the paper is to repeat the radial-stability analysis with the slow-phase-transition junction conditions instead of the rapid ones; the critical central density where $\omega_0^2$ changes sign could move, because the interface response is different.
If dark-energy cores are real, the next observable signature to look for is a correlation between mass, radius, and tidal deformability that cannot be produced by a purely hadronic equation of state, especially at masses near the maximum.
The same two-phase geometry could be inverted, with ordinary matter in the core and a dark-energy shell outside, or mixed into a single-fluid model, and those variants would produce different tidal and oscillation signatures that future binary-merger events could distinguish.
The parameter $\alpha$, originally introduced as a matching device, effectively encodes the kinetics of the phase transition; measuring or bounding that kinetics would turn $\alpha$ from a free parameter into a physical constraint on dark-fluid models.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Short version: this is a competent phenomenological extension of the authors' own CDF-core hybrid star model, with new tidal deformability and radial oscillation curves. The observational agreement is real but partly tuned in; the stability result is real only under the rapid-transition assumption.

What's new: replacing the old polytropic envelope with realistic BSR8 and SLy4 crusts, and adding Λ(M), Λ1-Λ2 binary contours, and radial oscillation spectra. The equations are standard and the implementation looks correct. The causality check on the CDF sector is a nice safeguard. The parameter scan is systematic, and the qualitative behavior—stiffer crust gives larger masses/radii and better NICER agreement; SLy4 binary contours sit inside the GW170817 50% region—is reasonable.

Soft spots, in order of importance. First, the parameters A and α are picked, in the authors' own words, to make the results compatible with the observations they then compare against. That doesn't make the model wrong, but it drains the NICER/GW170817 'agreement' of most of its evidential value. Second, the radial stability analysis only uses the rapid phase transition junction conditions (Eq. 32). The conversion timescale between Chaplygin fluid and hadronic matter is unknown, and the slow-transition conditions (Eq. 31) are not computed. Since the stability claim ('smaller α increases stability') is a central headline, it is only established under an unverified assumption. The M-R and tidal results are unaffected, but the stability component is conditional. Third, Table III contains what look like typos: for BSR8 with A=0.4, the maximum masses for α=0.8 and 0.9 are listed as 1.117 and 1.173 M⊙, which break the monotonic trend and are almost certainly 2.117 and 2.173. Fourth, no code or data are released, so reproducing the numbers takes real effort.

Who this is for: people working on exotic cores in neutron stars and on the interpretation of tidal deformability measurements. A graduate student or postdoc could use this as a clear example of how to set up a two-phase stellar model with junction conditions. It is not a must-read for the broader community.

Recommendation: send to peer review. The typos and the slow-transition gap should be fixed or explicitly acknowledged; the parameter-tuning issue should be discussed honestly. But the paper is coherent, the formalism is standard, and the new results are useful enough to justify referee time.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs hybrid neutron-star models in which a Chaplygin dark fluid (CDF) core, described by p = Aρ - B/ρ, is matched to a hadronic envelope described by the SLy4 or BSR8 equation of state plus the BPS outer crust. The authors integrate the TOV equations, compute mass-radius relations, tidal deformabilities (single-star and binary Λ1-Λ2 curves for a GW170817-like chirp mass), and radial oscillation eigenfrequencies under the rapid phase-transition junction conditions of Pereira et al. They compare the results with NICER mass-radius constraints and the GW170817 tidal deformability, and conclude that larger A increases the maximum mass, larger α (smaller density jump) increases mass and radius, and smaller α increases radial stability. The paper explicitly states that the free parameters {ρ+_dis, α, A} were chosen partly to match the same observations used for comparison, and it computes only the rapid-transition oscillation spectrum, leaving the slow-transition case unexamined.

Significance. If the results are taken at face value, the paper shows that a two-phase star with a CDF core and realistic hadronic crusts can satisfy current NICER and GW170817 constraints, extending earlier toy-model studies to more realistic crust equations of state and adding tidal-deformability and binary-signal predictions. The paper has clear strengths: it uses standard TOV, tidal, and radial-oscillation formalism; it includes a causality check on the CDF core (Fig. 2 and Table II); it considers two independent hadronic parametrizations; and it reports explicit numerical tables of maximum-mass properties. However, the observational agreement is weakened by the explicit selection of parameters to match those observations, and the central radial-stability claim rests entirely on the rapid phase-transition assumption. The paper is therefore a useful phenomenological survey of a plausible model class, but it does not provide an independent test of the CDF-core hypothesis, and its stability conclusions are conditional on an unverified microphysical timescale.

major comments (3)

[Sec. II, final paragraph] The paper states that the model parameters {ρ+_dis, α, A} are chosen 'in addition to allowing us to obtain results compatible with the different recent observational measurements.' This means the subsequent agreement with NICER (Figs. 3 and 4) and GW170817 (Fig. 5) is partly a selection outcome rather than a prediction. To claim observational viability as a falsifiable result, the authors should either fix the parameters a priori (for example, using the values from Ref. [43]) and then compare with data, or perform a systematic Bayesian/posterior analysis that accounts for the parameter freedom. Without this, the statement in the abstract that 'our theoretical results are consistent with' the observations is overstated.
[Sec. IV, radial stability; Sec. V (ii)] The central stability conclusion—'regardless of the EoS for the outer layer, smaller values of α increase the stability of a NS with a CDF core'—is derived exclusively from the rapid phase-transition junction conditions, Eq. (32). The paper itself notes in Sec. III that slow transitions require different conditions, Eq. (31), and that only the rapid case is investigated. Since the physical conversion timescale between the CDF and hadronic matter is unknown, the slow-transition modes could yield different eigenfrequencies and a different location of the stability boundary. The authors should either compute the slow-transition spectrum and show that the conclusion is unchanged, or explicitly restrict the claim to the rapid-transition case and remove the unqualified wording in Sec. V.
[Table III] In the BSR8 EoS crust block, for A = 0.4, the maximum masses for α = 0.8 and α = 0.9 are listed as 1.117 M⊙ and 1.173 M⊙, respectively. These values are not continuous with the neighboring entries (2.062 for α = 0.7 and 2.227 for α = 1.0) and are almost certainly typographical errors (probably 2.117 and 2.173). As printed, they propagate into the discussion of maximum-mass trends and must be corrected and re-verified.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 2] The 'Causality violation' blue region is shown, but the actual line v² = 1 is not drawn; adding a dashed horizontal line at v² = 1 would make the upper limits on A in Table II easier to read.
[Table I] The column header reads 'B0' for the binding energy, while the text refers to 'Be'; please use a single consistent notation.
[Sec. IV, tidal deformability paragraph] The sentence 'the value of Λ grows with the value of the parameters A and α' is only true for a fixed mass; for a fixed configuration near the maximum mass the behavior can differ. Please rephrase to avoid ambiguity.
[Sec. II, Eqs. (8)-(13)] In the Skyrme-model expressions, the notation H_l(y) is defined but the subscript is sometimes omitted in the text; please ensure consistent use of H_l and H'_l in all equations.
[Sec. IV, Figs. 3 and 4] The orange dots marking the transition to the dark sector are mentioned in the captions, but their physical meaning (the configuration where the central density equals ρ+_dis?) is not explained in the main text; please clarify.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Observational consistency is partly a selection outcome because the CDF parameters are chosen with NICER and GW170817 agreement already in mind; the TOV/tidal/pulsation derivations themselves are self-contained.

fitted input called prediction [Section II, final paragraph after Eq. (18)]
"The values adopted for these parameters will be based on recent studies [43, 57], in addition to allowing us to obtain results compatible with the different recent observational measurements."

The parameters {ρ+_dis, α, A} enter the EoS, Eq. (1), and fix B through Eq. (18); the M-R curves, tidal deformabilities, and binary tidal curves in Figs. 3-5 and 7 are outputs of these inputs. Because the inputs are expressly chosen 'in addition to allowing us to obtain results compatible with' NICER and GW170817, the later claims of consistency with those observations are not independent predictions but partly selected outcomes. The paper discloses the criterion, and the radial-stability trend with α is not fitted to the same data, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

full rationale

The core derivation is standard and self-contained: TOV integration (Eqs. 21-22), tidal Love number with the first-order transition jump (Eq. 27), and Chandrasekhar radial pulsations (Eqs. 29-30) with rapid-transition junction conditions (Eq. 32) from an external reference. The stability conclusion is re-derived here and is not a renamed known result. The principal circular element is the explicit parameter selection in Sec. II: the free parameters are chosen 'in addition to allowing us to obtain results compatible with the different recent observational measurements,' yet the abstract and conclusions present the NICER and GW170817 agreement as 'theoretical results.' That agreement is therefore partially guaranteed by construction. A separate limitation, flagged in Sec. III ('In the next section, we only investigate the radial oscillation modes for the rapid phase transition case') and Sec. IV ('In our previous study ... only rapid phase transitions are compatible ...'), is that the domain of the stability claim is imported from the authors' prior work [43] without modeling the CDF-hadron conversion timescale. This is a correctness risk and a self-citation, but not a circular reduction, because the eigenfrequencies are computed, not quoted. Score 5 reflects one genuine fitted-input component affecting the observational consistency claim while the structural and stability derivations retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model adds three hand-chosen parameters and an ad hoc dark-energy EoS. There are no new particles or forces beyond the Chaplygin fluid itself, which is adopted from prior literature without independent astrophysical evidence.

free parameters (4)

A = 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 (up to 0.7 in causality scans)
Dimensionless Chaplygin fluid parameter in p = A rho - B/rho; scanned by hand. Larger A increases mass and tidal deformability, and the values are chosen partly to match observations.
alpha = 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0
Ratio of energy densities at the phase-splitting surface; controls the density jump. Smaller alpha gives a larger jump and, according to the paper, greater radial stability. Not derived from microphysics.
rho+_dis = 0.8 x 10^15 g/cm3
Inner transition energy density, fixed to a single value based on previous studies [43, 57]. The text notes that smaller values may increase the maximum mass, but this parameter is not varied.
rho_c = scanned up to about 3 x 10^15 g/cm3
Central energy density varied to generate equilibrium sequences along the M-R curve. Standard for TOV integration, but central to the reported mass-radius and stability results.

assumptions (6)

standard math General relativity with the perfect-fluid TOV equations describes the star
Invoked in Sec. III through Eqs. (21)-(23); standard background for compact star models.
ad hoc to paper The dark energy core obeys the Chaplygin EoS p = A rho - B/rho
Introduced in Eq. (1), Sec. II, as a postulate. No microphysical derivation is given for applying the cosmological Chaplygin fluid at nuclear densities inside a neutron star.
domain assumption Pressure continuity at the phase-splitting surface with a sharp density jump
Used in Eq. (18) and the definition of alpha. This is a Maxwell-like construction that excludes mixed phases or finite-width transition layers.
domain assumption The rapid phase transition junction conditions describe the radial oscillations
Eq. (32), taken from Pereira et al. [69], assumes mass transfer across the interface on timescales much shorter than the oscillation period. The physical conversion rate between Chaplygin fluid and hadronic matter is unknown.
domain assumption Causality requires the squared speed of sound to be below 1
Used in Sec. II to set upper limits on A. This is a standard physics constraint, but its application to an exotic dark-energy fluid is an assumption.
domain assumption The BPS EoS describes the outer crust
The Baym-Pethick-Sutherland EoS [52] is adopted for the low-density region without re-derivation; standard in neutron star modeling.

invented entities (1)

Chaplygin dark fluid core inside neutron stars
purpose: Provides additional pressure support and modifies the mass-radius relation, tidal deformability, and radial stability of the star
The CDF core is adopted from prior literature, not discovered here. The model parameters A, alpha, and rho+_dis are free and tuned partly to match the same NICER and GW170817 observations used for consistency checks, so there is no independent falsifiable handle outside the fitted choices.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark energy effects on realistic neutron stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HUJQK3AO

@misc{pith2026241108793,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark energy effects on realistic neutron stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HUJQK3AO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08793}
}

abstract

By considering realistic equations of state (EoSs) to describe the ordinary matter of the stellar crust, in this study, we explore the effect of a dark energy core, made of Chaplygin Dark Fluid (CDF), on neutron stars (NSs). To accomplish this purpose, we solve the stellar structure equations and investigate the impact of the CDF parameters on the several macroscopic properties of NSs such as mass-radius ($M-R$) relation, and tidal deformabilities of a single star and of a binary system, the latter being of great importance when analyzing gravitational-wave signals coming from the merger of such compact objects. We also present an analysis of the radial oscillation modes for the rapid phase transition, with the aim of distinguishing regions consisting of dynamically stable stars from those of unstable ones. Specifically, our outcomes reveal that an increase in the energy density jump (controlled by a parameter $\alpha$) leads to an increase in the radial stability of the NS with a CDF core. Furthermore, our theoretical results are consistent with the observational $M-R$ measurements of millisecond pulsars from NICER data and tidal deformability constraints from the GW170817 event.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08793 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Squared speed of sound for the dark energy fluid confined in the core of the star considering a crust whose microphysics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Mass-radius diagrams (left), and mass versus central energy density relation (right) for neutron stars with a dark-energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Mass as a function of the radius (left) and central density (right) predicted by Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The dimensionless tidal deformability Λ as a function of the NS mass using the same values for the parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Oscillation spectrum under the effect of rapid phase transition for NSs with a dark energy core and SLy4 (left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Tidal deformabilities of binary NSs with a dark energy core calculated for some values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

[43]

A. B. Tudeshki, G. H. Bordbar, and B. E. Panah, Phys. Lett. B 848, 138333 (2024)

work page 2024
[1]

A. G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J. 116, 1009 (1998)

work page 1998
[2]

Perlmutter et al., Astrophys

S. Perlmutter et al., Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999)

1999
[3]

classical

The Hartree approximation to the T00 and Tii/3 components of the energy-momentum tensor leads to the energy density and pressure written as (units of ℏ = c = 1) ρRMF = 1 2 m2 σσ2 + A 3 σ3 + B 4 σ4 − 1 2 m2 ωω2 0 − C 4 (g2 ωω2 0)2 − 1 2 m2 ρb2 0(3) + gωω0n + gρ 2 b0(3)n3 + ρp kin + ρn kin − gσg2 ρσb2 0(3) α2 + 1 2 α′ 2gσσ − 1 2 α′ 3g2 ωg2 ρω2 0b2 0(3) − gσ...

work page
[4]

Jimenez and A

R. Jimenez and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J. 573, 37 (2002)

2002
[5]

D. J. Eisenstein et al., Astrophys. J. 633, 560 (2005). 12

work page 2005
[6]

P. A. R. Ade et al., A&A 594, A13 (2016)

work page 2016
[7]

B. S. Haridasu, V. V. Lukovi´ c, R. D’Agostino, and N. Vittorio, A&A 600, L1 (2017)

work page 2017

Show all 77 references

[8]

C. A. P. Bengaly, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. Lett. 499, L6 (2020)

2020
[9]

Aghanim et al., A&A 641, A6 (2020)

N. Aghanim et al., A&A 641, A6 (2020)

2020
[10]

Weinberg, Rev

S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989)

1989
[11]

Padmanabhan, Phys

T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rep. 380, 235 (2003)

2003
[12]

Ratra and P

B. Ratra and P. J. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D37, 3406 (1988)

1988
[13]

Armend´ ariz-Pic´ on, T

C. Armend´ ariz-Pic´ on, T. Damour, and V. Mukhanov, Phys. Lett. B 458, 209 (1999)

1999
[14]

Kamenshchik, U

A. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, and V. Pasquier, Phys. Lett. B 511, 265 (2001)

2001
[15]

E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753 (2006)

2006
[16]

L. Miao, L. Xiao-Dong, W. Shuang, and W. Yi, Commun. Theor. Phys. 56, 525 (2011)

2011
[17]

Clifton, P

T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, Phys. Rep. 513, 1 (2012)

2012
[18]

Joyce, L

A. Joyce, L. Lombriser, and F. Schmidt, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 66, 95 (2016)

2016
[19]

Koyama, Rep

K. Koyama, Rep. Prog. Phys. 79, 046902 (2016)

2016
[20]

Montefalcone, P

G. Montefalcone, P. J. Steinhardt, and D. H. Wesley, J. High Energ. Phys. 2020 (6), 91

2020
[21]

Shankaranarayanan and J

S. Shankaranarayanan and J. P. Johnson, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 54, 44 (2022)

2022
[22]

Zheng et al., Eur

J. Zheng et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 582 (2022)

2022
[23]

Bento, O

M. Bento, O. Bertolami, and A. Sen, Phys. Lett. B 575, 172 (2003)

2003
[24]

Bertolami, A

O. Bertolami, A. A. Sen, S. Sen, and P. T. Silva, MNRAS 353, 329 (2004)

2004
[25]

Barreiro, O

T. Barreiro, O. Bertolami, and P. Torres, Phys. Rev. D 78, 043530 (2008)

2008
[26]

Park, J.-c

C.-G. Park, J.-c. Hwang, J. Park, and H. Noh, Phys. Rev. D 81, 063532 (2010)

2010
[27]

L. Xu, J. Lu, and Y. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1883 (2012)

2012
[28]

Wang et al., Phys

Y. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. D 87, 083503 (2013)

2013
[29]

H. Li, W. Yang, and L. Gai, A&A 623, A28 (2019)

2019
[30]

W. Yang, S. Pan, S. Vagnozzi, E. D. Valentino, D. F. Mota, and S. Capozziello, JCAP 2019 (11), 044

2019
[31]

A. A. Mamon, A. Paliathanasis, and S. Saha, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 232 (2022)

2022
[32]

Li, H.-P

X.-Q. Li, H.-P. Yan, L.-L. Xing, and S.-W. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D 107, 104055 (2023)

2023
[33]

Sekhmani et al., Eur

Y. Sekhmani et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 227 (2024)

2024
[34]

Sekhmani et al., Phys

Y. Sekhmani et al., Phys. Dark Univ. 46, 101567 (2024)

2024
[35]

Li, H.-P

X.-Q. Li, H.-P. Yan, X.-J. Yue, S.-W. Zhou, and Q. Xu, JCAP 2024 (05), 048

2024
[36]

J. M. Z. Pretel, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 26 (2023)

2023
[37]

A. B. Tudeshki, G. Bordbar, and B. E. Panah, Phys. Dark Univ. 42, 101354 (2023)

2023
[38]

Bhattacharjee and P

D. Bhattacharjee and P. K. Chattopadhyay, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 77 (2024)

2024
[39]

O. P. Jyothilakshmi, L. J. Naik, and V. Sreekanth, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 427 (2024)

2024
[40]

Rahaman, S

F. Rahaman, S. Ray, A. K. Jafry, and K. Chakraborty, Phys. Rev. D 82, 104055 (2010)

2010
[41]

Panotopoulos, A

G. Panotopoulos, A. Rinc´ on, and I. Lopes, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135, 856 (2020)

2020
[42]

Panotopoulos, ´Angel Rinc´ on, and I

G. Panotopoulos, ´Angel Rinc´ on, and I. Lopes, Phys. Dark Univ. 34, 100885 (2021)

2021
[44]

J. M. Z. Pretel, M. Dutra, and S. B. Duarte, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023524 (2024)

2024
[45]

Li, L.-W

B.-A. Li, L.-W. Chen, and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rep. 464, 113 (2008)

2008
[46]

Dutra et al., Phys

M. Dutra et al., Phys. Rev. C 90, 055203 (2014)

2014
[47]

B. Sun, S. Bhattiprolu, and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. C 109, 055801 (2024)

2024
[48]

Stone and P.-G

J. Stone and P.-G. Reinhard, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 58, 587 (2007)

2007
[49]

Dutra, O

M. Dutra, O. Louren¸ co, J. S. S´ a Martins, A. Delfino, J. R. Stone, and P. D. Stevenson, Phys. Rev. C 85, 035201 (2012)

2012
[50]

S. K. Dhiman, R. Kumar, and B. K. Agrawal, Phys. Rev. C 76, 045801 (2007)

2007
[51]

Chabanat, P

E. Chabanat, P. Bonche, P. Haensel, J. Meyer, and R. Schaeffer, Nucl. Phys. A 635, 231 (1998)

1998
[52]

B. V. Carlson, M. Dutra, O. Louren¸ co, and J. Margueron, Phys. Rev. C 107, 035805 (2023)

2023
[53]

G. Baym, C. Pethick, and P. Sutherland, Astrophys. J. 170, 299 (1971)

1971
[54]

Bordemann and J

M. Bordemann and J. Hoppe, Phys. Lett. B 317, 315 (1993)

1993
[55]

Ogawa, Phys

N. Ogawa, Phys. Rev. D 62, 085023 (2000)

2000
[56]

Jackiw, arXiv:physics/0010042 [physics.flu-dyn] (2000)

R. Jackiw, arXiv:physics/0010042 [physics.flu-dyn] (2000)

2000 arXiv
[57]

Sotani, K

H. Sotani, K. Tominaga, and K.-i. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D 65, 024010 (2001)

2001
[58]

J. D. V. Arba˜ nil, L. S. Rodrigues, and C. H. Lenzi, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 211 (2023)

2023
[59]

E. R. Most, L. R. Weih, L. Rezzolla, and J. Schaffner- Bielich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 261103 (2018)

2018
[60]

Chatziioannou, Gen

K. Chatziioannou, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 52, 109 (2020)

2020
[61]

Dietrich, T

T. Dietrich, T. Hinderer, and A. Samajdar, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 53, 27 (2021)

2021
[62]

Postnikov, M

S. Postnikov, M. Prakash, and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. D 82, 024016 (2010)

2010
[63]

Tak´ atsy and P

J. Tak´ atsy and P. Kov´ acs, Phys. Rev. D 102, 028501 (2020)

2020
[64]

Chandrasekhar, Astrophys

S. Chandrasekhar, Astrophys. J. 140, 417 (1964)

1964
[65]

Chandrasekhar, Phys

S. Chandrasekhar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 12, 114 (1964)

1964
[66]

Gondek, P

D. Gondek, P. Haensel, and J. L. Zdunik, A&A 325, 217 (1997)

1997
[67]

V´ asquez Flores and G

C. V´ asquez Flores and G. Lugones, Phys. Rev. D 82, 063006 (2010)

2010
[68]

J. M. Z. Pretel and M. F. A. da Silva, MNRAS 495, 5027 (2020)

2020
[69]

B. Hong, Z. Ren, C. Wu, and X. Mu, Class. Quantum Grav. 40, 125007 (2023)

2023
[70]

J. P. Pereira, C. V. Flores, and G. Lugones, Astrophys. J. 860, 12 (2018)

2018
[71]

T. E. Riley et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L21 (2019)

2019
[72]

M. C. Miller et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L24 (2019)

2019
[73]

T. E. Riley et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L27 (2021)

2021
[74]

M. C. Miller et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L28 (2021)

2021
[75]

B. P. Abbott et al. (The LIGO Scientific Collabora- tion and the Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018)

2018
[76]

Kumar, B

R. Kumar, B. K. Agrawal, and S. K. Dhiman, Phys. Rev. C 74, 034323 (2006)

2006
[77]

B. P. Abbott et al. (The LIGO Scientific Collabora- tion and the Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [43]

A. B. Tudeshki, G. H. Bordbar, and B. E. Panah, Phys. Lett. B 848, 138333 (2024)

work page 2024

[2] [1]

A. G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J. 116, 1009 (1998)

work page 1998

[3] [2]

Perlmutter et al., Astrophys

S. Perlmutter et al., Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999)

1999

[4] [3]

classical

The Hartree approximation to the T00 and Tii/3 components of the energy-momentum tensor leads to the energy density and pressure written as (units of ℏ = c = 1) ρRMF = 1 2 m2 σσ2 + A 3 σ3 + B 4 σ4 − 1 2 m2 ωω2 0 − C 4 (g2 ωω2 0)2 − 1 2 m2 ρb2 0(3) + gωω0n + gρ 2 b0(3)n3 + ρp kin + ρn kin − gσg2 ρσb2 0(3) α2 + 1 2 α′ 2gσσ − 1 2 α′ 3g2 ωg2 ρω2 0b2 0(3) − gσ...

work page

[5] [4]

Jimenez and A

R. Jimenez and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J. 573, 37 (2002)

2002

[6] [5]

D. J. Eisenstein et al., Astrophys. J. 633, 560 (2005). 12

work page 2005

[7] [6]

P. A. R. Ade et al., A&A 594, A13 (2016)

work page 2016

[8] [7]

B. S. Haridasu, V. V. Lukovi´ c, R. D’Agostino, and N. Vittorio, A&A 600, L1 (2017)

work page 2017