Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Constraints on color-flavor locked quark matter in view of the HESS J1731-347 measurement

T0 review · 5 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 Color-flavor locked quark matter fits every compact-star constraint, the paper argues.

desk verdict The paper's central B/Δ window rests on a misreading of the PSR J0952-0607 mass as a two-sided bound, though the hybrid negative result is solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17234 v2 pith:X6L7JLL7 submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.HE gr-qcnucl-th

K. Kourmpetis , P. Laskos-Patkos , Ch.C. Moustakidis This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qcnucl-th
keywords neutronstarsquarkhybridcolor-flavorlockedmatterequationofstateHESSJ1731-347GW170817PSRJ0952-0607
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

This paper argues that absolutely stable color-flavor locked (CFL) quark matter — a color-superconducting phase in which up, down, and strange quarks pair — can simultaneously explain the very light compact object in the HESS J1731-347 supernova remnant, the high mass of PSR J0952-0607, and the GW170817 tidal-deformability constraint. Scanning the bag constant B (the confinement energy density) and the pairing gap Δ (the Cooper-pair energy gap), the authors find that curves with B roughly 50 to 60 percent of Δ pass through all three observational boxes. In contrast, hybrid stars that join a hadronic equation of state to CFL matter through a Maxwell phase transition reproduce the low-mass object only on a separate branch whose maximum mass falls below two solar masses. A successful pure-quark fit would establish HESS J1731-347 as a quark star rather than a neutron star and would tie the bag constant to the superconducting gap.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the CFL equation of state in the MIT bag framework, whose free parameters are the bag constant $B$ and the superconducting gap $\Delta$. The absolute-stability condition — energy per baryon at zero pressure, $3\mu$, must be at most the neutron mass — becomes the inequality $B < -m_s^2 m_n^2/(12\pi^2) + \Delta^2 m_n^2/(3\pi^2) + m_n^4/(108\pi^2)$, defining a stability window in the B-Δ plane. The paper integrates this equation of state in the TOV equations to get mass-radius curves, and uses a Maxwell construction (equal pressure and baryon chemical potential) to join the hadronic MDI-APR1 equation of state to CFL matter for the hybrid case. The mechanism that selects the window is the ratio $B/\Delta \approx 0.5$–$0.6$: lower ratios push the maximum mass above PSR J0952-0607, and higher ratios or unstable matter drop the low-mass branch out of the HESS box.

What would settle it

A new measurement of HESS J1731-347's radius to roughly 0.5 km accuracy that falls outside 9.6–11.3 km, or a mass measurement of any pulsar above the maximum allowed by the window, would rule out the claimed $B \approx 0.5$–$0.6 \Delta$ band; a first-principles QCD calculation showing that absolutely stable CFL matter cannot exist in that parameter region would also settle it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that absolutely stable CFL quark matter, described by the MIT bag equation of state with pressure $P = 3\mu^4/(4\pi^2) + 9a\mu^2/(2\pi^2) - B$ and energy density $\varepsilon = 9\mu^4/(4\pi^2) + 9a\mu^2/(2\pi^2) + B$, with $a = -m_s^2/6 + 2\Delta^2/3$, produces mass-radius sequences that satisfy all current constraints. For a strange quark mass of 95 MeV, the stability window and the observational constraints select a band in the B-Δ plane: the bag constant must be about 50 to 60 percent of the pairing gap. Within that band the maximum mass falls in the PSR J0952-0607 range and the low-mass branch crosses the HESS J1731-347 mass-radius box. The paper further claims that a Maxwell-constructed hybrid combining the MDI-APR1 hadronic equation of state with CFL matter cannot reach two solar masses, ruling out such hybrids against the heaviest pulsar unless the bag parameter is made density dependent.

Load-bearing premise

The entire window depends on the HESS J1731-347 mass-radius measurement being accurate; if that object's true mass or radius lies outside the reported ranges, the selected B-Δ band loses its anchor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, HESS J1731-347 is a pure quark star, not a neutron star, because its low mass is reproduced by the CFL quark branch itself.
  • The allowed window implies a tight relation $B \approx (0.5$–$0.6)\Delta$, which becomes a direct target for equations of state derived from first principles.
  • The hybrid CFL models, as constructed, are excluded as universal descriptions: they fit the low-mass object but violate the highest pulsar mass, so any viable hybrid needs a stiffening mechanism such as a density-dependent bag constant.
  • Because the paper also checks causality, the selected CFL curves are consistent with subluminal sound speed and approach the conformal limit $c_s^2 = 1/3$ at high density.
  • The work demonstrates that a single two-parameter quark-matter equation of state can bracket the mass-radius plane from below one solar mass to above two solar masses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the HESS J1731-347 atmospheric model were revised, shifting the radius beyond the reported box, the $B/\Delta$ band would likely move or disappear; the paper does not quantify this sensitivity.
  • The same $B \approx 0.5$–$0.6 \Delta$ coincidence could be checked independently with future radius measurements of low-mass compact objects, which would either sharpen or falsify the window.
  • A density-dependent bag constant, which the paper invokes as a fix for hybrids, would also change the pure-CFL window; allowing $B(\mu)$ may enlarge the allowed parameter space and blur the clean ratio.
  • The result suggests that gravitational-wave events involving a low-mass compact object could distinguish quark stars from neutron stars through their tidal deformability, though the paper only applies GW170817 as a constraint.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies compact star equations of state (EoS) built from Color-Flavor Locked (CFL) quark matter and from a Maxwell-constructed hybrid of MDI-APR1 hadronic matter with CFL matter. The authors integrate the TOV equations, impose constraints from the HESS J1731-347 central compact object, the massive pulsars PSR J0348+0432, PSR J0740+6620, and PSR J0952-0607, and the GW170817 event. They claim that absolutely stable CFL quark matter with a bag constant B roughly 50-60% of the pairing gap Δ produces mass-radius curves consistent with all of these observations, while the hybrid CFL models cannot reach the masses of the most massive pulsars. The paper therefore proposes that the HESS J1731-347 object could be a CFL quark star.

Significance. If the claimed parameter window were correct, it would provide a concrete astrophysical constraint on the CFL bag constant and pairing gap and would support a quark-star interpretation of the unusually light HESS J1731-347 object. The TOV integration, the CFL stability-window algebra leading to Eq. (8), and the Maxwell construction are standard and appear formally sound. The paper is also commendable for simultaneously confronting several independent observations. However, the central quantitative claim is a consistency fit to the same data that defines the allowed window, and, as detailed below, the specific 50-60% rule is currently based on an incorrect statistical interpretation of the pulsar mass measurement and on an undefined boundary fit. The conclusion is therefore not yet established.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3 (Results and Discussion), first paragraph and Fig. 2] The statement that 'if B is lower than 50% of Δ, the maximum mass would potentially exceed the mass-range of PSR J0952-0607' is physically incorrect. A measured pulsar mass is a lower bound on the maximum mass of the EoS, not an upper bound: observing a 2.35±0.17 M☉ pulsar requires M_max ≳ 2.18 M☉, but it does not exclude M_max = 2.8 M☉ or higher. Therefore the upper boundary of the greenish allowed region in Fig. 2 (right), which is attributed to the PSR J0952-0607 mass range, is not justified. The analysis should treat the J0952 constraint as M_max ≥ the appropriate lower limit and should show what bounds on B and Δ remain from the HESS radius and GW170817 constraints alone.
  2. [§3 (Results and Discussion), first paragraph] The text is internally inconsistent: it states that 'the EoS that meet all the requirements are CFL-2, CFL-3 and CFL-6' but then immediately states that 'CFL-3 exceeds this range, having B = 40% of Δ.' If CFL-3 exceeds the PSR J0952-0607 mass range, it cannot satisfy all requirements under the paper's own criterion. This ambiguity obscures the definition of the allowed parameter window and must be clarified with a precise list of which models pass or fail each individual constraint.
  3. [§3 (Results and Discussion), Fig. 2 (right)] The 'upper boundary fit' that defines the greenish region is never specified: no equation, fit procedure, or parameter values are given, and no table of the CFL model parameters (B, Δ) is provided. Without this information, the central allowed region in the B-Δ plane is not reproducible. Please provide the explicit fitting function, the underlying (B, Δ) grid and step sizes, and the precise numerical constraints imposed for the HESS box, the pulsar masses, and the GW170817 tidal deformability.
  4. [§2 (The Model), Eqs. (3)-(8) and Fig. 2] The paper repeatedly uses 'B = 0.5Δ' and 'B is 50-60% of Δ' while labeling B in MeV·fm⁻³ and Δ in MeV. As written, this ratio is not dimensionless and Eq. (8) cannot support such a direct comparison because the right-hand side has dimension MeV⁴. Please clarify whether B is used in natural units (MeV⁴) in Eqs. (3)-(8) and only later converted to MeV·fm⁻³, whether the criterion actually refers to B^(1/4) relative to Δ, or whether a conversion factor is missing. The reader needs this clarification to evaluate the claimed 50-60% window.
  5. [§3 (Results and Discussion), overall constraints] The GW170817 constraint is shown graphically but never defined quantitatively in the text: the paper does not state the mass range or the tidal deformability bound (e.g., Λ_1.4) used to draw the corresponding curve in Figs. 1 and 2. Since the greenish allowed region depends on all three constraints, the analysis should state the numerical values and confidence levels of every imposed constraint.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] The introduction cites Ref. [24] as posing tight constraints on strange quark matter, but the paper never returns to this issue; please clarify whether the CFL window found here is compatible with those constraints.
  2. [Abstract and Conclusions] The phrase 'effectively explains all observed measurements' overstates what a parameter scan can demonstrate; 'is consistent with' would be a more precise description of a fit to the same observations.
  3. [§2 (The Model), Eqs. (3)-(6)] The parameter introduced as 'a' in Eq. (3) is later written as 'α' in Eqs. (4)-(6); please use a single symbol throughout.
  4. [§3 (Results and Discussion)] The HESS J1731-347 measurement is used as a hard mass-radius box without discussion of systematic uncertainties (e.g., distance, atmosphere, and spectral modeling). A sentence acknowledging these systematics would strengthen the presentation.
  5. [References] Some references have incomplete bibliographic information (e.g., Refs. [7] and [23]); please complete them for publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CFL parameter window is obtained by calibrating computed M-R curves to data, not by defining the model in terms of the data; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a parameter-constraint study rather than a derivation chain: the CFL EoS (Eqs. 3-8), the TOV equations, and the Maxwell construction are standard inputs from the literature, and the M-R curves are computed rather than assumed. The allowed B-Delta window in Fig. 2 (right) is defined by requiring the computed curves to pass through the HESS J1731-347 box, the PSR J0952-0607 mass range, and the GW170817 constraint; therefore the abstract's statement that CFL matter 'effectively explains' all these measurements is an in-sample calibration summary, not an out-of-sample prediction. That is loose terminology, but it is not circular in the derivation sense: the model is not defined in terms of the data, and the existence of a non-empty allowed window is a nontrivial computed result. Several references are to prior work by the same group (Refs. 31, 38, 43, 55), but none carries the load of the central conclusion: Ref. 31 merely motivates the CFL possibility, Ref. 38 supplies the MDI-APR1 hadronic EoS as an input, and Refs. 43 and 55 are a suggested extension and a numerical method. The criticism that the PSR J0952-0607 mass range is treated as an upper bound on the maximum mass is a physical/correctness issue, not a circularity issue. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations or citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the CFL MIT bag EoS and the stability window, both taken from prior work, plus two free parameters (B and Delta) fit to the observations. The most fragile input is the disputed HESS J1731-347 mass-radius measurement.

free parameters (2)
  • Bag constant B = Scanned roughly in 57-150 MeV fm^-3; allowed window near B about 50% to 60% of Delta
    Free parameter of the CFL MIT bag EoS; the paper scans B and selects values whose mass-radius curves match HESS J1731-347, pulsars and GW170817.
  • CFL pairing gap Delta = Scanned roughly in 50-150 MeV; allowed window with B about 0.5 to 0.6 Delta
    Free parameter introduced in the CFL EoS; scanned and selected to fit the same observations.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math TOV equations are the correct structure equations for static, spherically symmetric compact stars
    Used in Eqs. (1)-(2); standard general relativity result, not proved in the paper.
  • domain assumption CFL MIT bag EoS, Eqs. (3)-(6), is valid to order Delta^2 and m_s^2 over the entire stellar density range
    Taken from Lugones and Horvath [28]; the paper extrapolates the EoS down to zero pressure for pure quark stars.
  • domain assumption Absolute stability criterion epsilon/n_B = 3 mu <= m_n at P=0
    Eqs. (7)-(8) from Farhi and Jaffe [18]; defines the stability window used to select EoS.
  • domain assumption The HESS J1731-347 central object is a compact star with the reported mass and radius
    All mass-radius curves are required to pass through the measurement box of Ref. [5]; not independently verified.
  • domain assumption Maxwell construction with equal baryon chemical potential is the correct treatment of the hadron-quark phase transition
    Eq. (9); used for hybrid EoS, standard but not unique.
  • domain assumption MDI-APR1 EoS accurately represents the hadronic phase for the hybrid model
    Used for hybrid stars; taken from Ref. [38].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraints on color-flavor locked quark matter in view of the HESS J1731-347 measurement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X6L7JLL7

@misc{pith2026241117234,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraints on color-flavor locked quark matter in view of the HESS J1731-347 measurement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X6L7JLL7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17234}
}
abstract

Astrophysical observations play a crucial role in understanding the processes within compact stars. A recent study measured the central object in the HESS J1731-347 supernova remnant (SNR), estimating its mass at $M=0.77^{+0.20}_ {-0.17} \ M_\odot$ and radius at $R = 10.40^{+0.86}_{-0.78} \ \mathrm{km}$, identifying it as the lightest neutron star ever observed. Conventional models suggest neutron stars form with a minimum gravitational mass of approximately $1.17 \ M_\odot$, raising the question of whether this object is a typical neutron star or possibly an "exotic" star. To investigate, we utilize the Color-Flavor Locked (CFL) equation of state (EoS), integrating data from the HESS J1731-347 measurement with pulsar observations and gravitational wave detections. Additionally, we construct hybrid EoS by combining the MDI-APR1 (hadronic) and CFL (quark) EoS, introducing a phase transition through Maxwell construction. Our findings reveal that absolutely stable CFL quark matter effectively explains all observed measurements, including the central object of HESS J1731-347, whereas hybrid models incorporating the CFL MIT Bag model cannot account for the masses of the most massive observed pulsars.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N. K. Glendenning, Compact Stars, Springer, 1997; doi: 10.1007/978-1-4684-0491-3

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-0491-3 1997

  2. [2]

    Schaffner -Bielich, Compact Star Physics Cambridge University Press, 2020 ; doi: 10.1017/9781316848357

    J. Schaffner -Bielich, Compact Star Physics Cambridge University Press, 2020 ; doi: 10.1017/9781316848357

    doi:10.1017/9781316848357 2020

  3. [3]

    Weber, Pulsars as Astrophysical Laboratories for Nuclear and Particle Physics, England, 1999 ; doi: 10.1201/9780203741719

    F. Weber, Pulsars as Astrophysical Laboratories for Nuclear and Particle Physics, England, 1999 ; doi: 10.1201/9780203741719

    work page doi:10.1201/9780203741719 1999

  4. [4]

    Haensel et al., Neutron Stars 1: Equation of State and Structure, New York, 2007 ; doi: 10.1007/978- 0-387-47301-7

    P. Haensel et al., Neutron Stars 1: Equation of State and Structure, New York, 2007 ; doi: 10.1007/978- 0-387-47301-7

    doi:10.1007/978- 2007

  5. [5]

    Doroshenko et al., Nat

    V. Doroshenko et al., Nat. Astron. 6, 1444 (2023); doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01800-1. K. Kourmpetis et al. HNPS Advances in Nuclear Physics vol. 31, pp.XXX-XXX (2025) HNPS2024 doi: 10.12681/hnpsanp.XXXX page 6

    doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01800-1 2023

  6. [6]

    Thermal Radiation from Neutron Stars: Chandra Results

    G.G. Pavlov et al., Proc. of the 270 -th Heraeus Seminar on Neutron Stars, Pulsars and Supernova Remnants, W. Becker, H. Lesch and J. Truemper (eds.) (2002), MPE Reports 278, p. 283 ; doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0206024

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0206024 2002

  7. [7]

    et al , edited by Camilo, F., Gaensler, B.M

    Pavlov G.G. et al , edited by Camilo, F., Gaensler, B.M. (eds.) , Young Neutron Stars and Their Environments, vol. 218, p. 239 (2004)

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Phys.: Conf

    De Luca A., J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 932, 012006 (2017); doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/932/1/012006

    doi:10.1088/1742-6596/932/1/012006 2017

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Suwa et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 481, 3305 (2018) ; doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2460

    Y. Suwa et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 481, 3305 (2018) ; doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2460

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Brodie and A

    L. Brodie and A. Haber, Phys. Rev. C 108, 025806 (2023); doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.025806

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Di Clemente et al., ApJ 967, 159 (2024); doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad445b

    F. Di Clemente et al., ApJ 967, 159 (2024); doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad445b

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    J. E. Horvath et al., A&A 672, L11 (2023); doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345885

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Alcock et al., ApJ 310, 261 (1986); doi: 10.1086/164679

    C. Alcock et al., ApJ 310, 261 (1986); doi: 10.1086/164679

    1986 doi

  6. [14]

    Alcock and A

    C. Alcock and A. V. Olinto, Ann ual Review of Nuclear and Partic le Science 38, 161 (1988) ; doi: 10.1146/annurev.ns.38.120188.001113

    1988

  7. [15]

    Haensel et al., A&A 160, 121 (1986)

    P. Haensel et al., A&A 160, 121 (1986)

    1986

  8. [16]

    Madsen, Lect.Notes Phys

    J. Madsen, Lect.Notes Phys. 516, 162 (1999); doi: 10.1007/BFb0107314

    1999 doi

  9. [17]

    Weber, Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys

    F. Weber, Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys. 54, 193 (2005); doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2004.07.001

    2005 doi

  10. [18]

    Farhi and R

    E. Farhi and R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D 30, 2379 (1984); doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.30.2379

    1984 doi

  11. [19]

    Itoh, Prog

    N. Itoh, Prog. Theor. Phys. 44, 291 (1970); doi: 10.1143/PTP.44.291

    1970 doi

  12. [20]

    A. R. Bodmer, Phys. Rev. D 4, 1601 (1971); doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.4.1601

    1971 doi

  13. [21]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 30, 272 (1984); doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.30.272

    1984 doi

  14. [22]

    Terazawa, J

    H. Terazawa, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 58, 3555 (1989); doi: 10.1143/JPSJ.58.3555

    1989 doi

  15. [23]

    Terazawa, J

    H. Terazawa, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 58, 4388 (1989); doi: 10.1143/JPSJ.58.4388

    1989 doi

  16. [24]

    Bai and T.K

    Y. Bai and T.K. Chen, arXiv:2410.19678 (2024); doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.19678

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Alford et al., Nucl

    M. Alford et al., Nucl. Phys. B 537, 443 (1999); doi: 10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00668-3

    1999 doi

  18. [26]

    M. G. Alford, Ann ual Review of Nucl ear and Part icle Science 51, 131 (2001) ; doi: 10.1146/annurev.nucl.51.101701.132449

    2001

  19. [27]

    M. G. Alford et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1455 (2008); doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.80.1455

    2008 doi

  20. [28]

    Lugones and J

    G. Lugones and J. E. Horvath, Phys. Rev. D 66, 074017 (2002); doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.074017

    2002 doi

  21. [29]

    Bardeen et al., Phys

    J. Bardeen et al., Phys. Rev. 106, 162 (1957); doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.106.162

    1957 doi

  22. [30]

    Bardeen et al., Phys

    J. Bardeen et al., Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 (1957); doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.108.1175

    1957 doi

  23. [31]

    P. T. Oikonomou and Ch. C. Moustakidis, Phys. Rev. D 108, 063010 (2023) ; doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.063010

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Gholami et al., Phys

    H. Gholami et al., Phys. Rev. D 111, 103034 (2025); doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.103034

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    Alford et al., ApJ 629, 969 (2005); doi: 10.1086/430902

    M. Alford et al., ApJ 629, 969 (2005); doi: 10.1086/430902

    2005 doi

  26. [34]

    Baym et al., Rep

    G. Baym et al., Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 056902 (2018); doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/aaae14

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    M. G. Alford et al., Phys. Rev. D 88, 083013 (2013); doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.083013

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    J. E. Christian et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 28 (2018); doi: 10.1140/epja/i2018-12472-y

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    Montaña et al., Phys

    G. Montaña et al., Phys. Rev. D 99, 103009 (2019); doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.103009

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    P. S. Koliogiannis and Ch. C. Moustakidis, ApJ 912, 69 (2021); doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe542

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    Sagun et al., ApJ 958, 49 (2023); doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfc9e

    V. Sagun et al., ApJ 958, 49 (2023); doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfc9e

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    Tsaloukidis et al., Phys

    L. Tsaloukidis et al., Phys. Rev. D 107, 023012 (2023); doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.023012

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    Mariani et al., Phys

    M. Mariani et al., Phys. Rev. D 110, 043026 (2024); doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.043026

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    J. J. Li et al., ApJ 967, 116 (2024); doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4295

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    Laskos-Patkos et al., Phys

    P. Laskos-Patkos et al., Phys. Rev. D 109, 063017 (2024); doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063017

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Gao et al., Phys

    B. Gao et al., Phys. Rev. C 109, 065807 (2024); doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.109.065807

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    Tewari et al., Phys

    S. Tewari et al., Phys. Rev. D 111, 103009 (2025); doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.103009

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    X. F. Zhao, Chin. J. of Phys. 54, 839 (2016); doi: 10.1016/j.cjph.2016.08.009

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    Fonseca et al., ApJL 915, L12 (2021); doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8

    E. Fonseca et al., ApJL 915, L12 (2021); doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    W. R. Romani et al., ApJL 934, L17 (2022); doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8007

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    B. P. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018); doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    Schwarzschild, Sitzungsber

    K. Schwarzschild, Sitzungsber. K. Preuss. Akad. Wiss, 189 (1916)

    1916

  43. [51]

    Alho et al., Phys

    A. Alho et al., Phys. Rev. D 106, L041502 (2022); doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.L041502

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    Ya. B. Zel’dovich, Zh. Eksp. Teoret. Fiz. 41, 1609 (1961)

    1961

  45. [53]

    J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, Phys. Rev. 55, 374 (1939); doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.55.374

    1939 doi

  46. [54]

    Piekarewicz, Acta Physica Polonica B 50, 239 (2018); doi: 10.5506/APhysPolB.50.239

    J. Piekarewicz, Acta Physica Polonica B 50, 239 (2018); doi: 10.5506/APhysPolB.50.239

    2018 doi

  47. [55]

    K. Ch. Chatzisavvas et al., Phys. Lett. A 373, 3901 (2009); doi: 10.1016/j.physleta.2009.08.042

    2009 doi

  48. [56]

    DeGrand et al., Phys

    T. DeGrand et al., Phys. Rev. D 12, 2060 (1975); doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.12.2060

    1975 doi

  49. [57]

    Vásquez Flores and G

    C. Vásquez Flores and G. Lugones, Phys. Rev. C 95, 025808 (2017); doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.95.025808

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    Yang and C.-M

    S.-H. Yang and C.-M. Pi, JCAP09, 052 (2024); doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/09/052

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    Baym et al., Astrophys

    G. Baym et al., Astrophys. J. 170, 299 (1971); doi: 10.1086/151216

    1971 doi

Pith tools

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