REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 70 references
Role of gravitational decoupling on theoretical insights of relativistic massive compact stars in the mass gap
T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The paper claims that gravitational decoupling of a strange-star seed solution can produce compact objects of 2.87–2.95 solar masses that sit inside the lower mass gap.
desk verdict A routine gravitational-decoupling strange-star paper whose headline mass-radius predictions rest on an internal beta=0 inconsistency; the boundary algebra needs to be fixed before the numbers can be trusted. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The carrying mechanism is the minimal geometric deformation (MGD) version of gravitational decoupling: one starts from a seed solution whose energy density is the modified Mak–Harko profile (3.1) and whose quark matter obeys the MIT bag equation of state $P_r=(\epsilon-4\mathcal{B}_g)/3$, then adds a second source $\theta_{ij}$ whose effect is tuned by the decoupling constant $\beta$ through the deformation $G(r)$ of the radial metric component. The two mimic constraints—either $\theta^0_0=\epsilon$ (density) or $\theta^1_1=P_r$ (pressure)—close the system and determine $G(r)$. The boundary conditions at the star's surface, requiring the effective radial pressure to vanish against an exterior Schwarzschild metric, then fix the bag constant $\mathcal{B}_g$ and integration constant $C$ as functions of the central and surface densities, and it is this relation that converts the parameter choices into mass–radius and mass–inertia curves.
What would settle it
Integrate the TOV equation for the $\beta=0$ seed configuration with the density profile (3.1) and the bag EOS, and compare the maximum mass and radius with the paper's Table 5; the two mimic constraints should produce the same $\beta=0$ curve, so a difference there—or a mismatch with the integrated curve—would settle whether the junction conditions used to generate the M-R curves are correct.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a minimally deformed strange star can support masses up to $M_{\max}=2.87\,M_\odot$ (density mimic, $\beta=0.1$, $\mathcal{B}_g=55$ MeV/fm$^3$, radius $11.20$ km) and $M_{\max}=2.95\,M_\odot$ (pressure mimic, $\beta=0$, $\mathcal{B}_g=55$ MeV/fm$^3$, radius $11.32$ km), with the lower-mass endpoint at $1.58\,M_\odot$ when $\mathcal{B}_g=70$ MeV/fm$^3$. The decoupling constant $\beta$ and the bag constant $\mathcal{B}_g$ affect the maximum mass in the same or opposite directions depending on which mimic constraint is used: raising $\beta$ increases the maximum mass for the density-constraint solution, while it decreases the maximum mass for the pressure-constraint solution, and lowering $\mathcal{B}_g$ always increases it. The paper connects these curves to observed objects by predicting, for each observed mass, the radius and moment of inertia; it also reports that the effective anisotropy roughly doubles when decoupling is switched on, and that the adiabatic index and $dM/d\epsilon_0$ stability criteria are satisfied.
Load-bearing premise
Everything rests on the boundary equations that convert central density into a stellar radius and bag constant; if those equations have a hidden branch or a sign error, all predicted radii and moments of inertia shift.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- For the density-mimic solution, increasing $\beta$ from 0 to 0.1 raises the maximum mass from $2.48\,M_\odot$ to $2.87\,M_\odot$, so the decoupling parameter alone can lift a strange star across the $2.5\,M_\odot$ threshold.
- For the pressure-mimic solution, decreasing $\beta$ from 0.1 to 0 raises the maximum mass from $2.69\,M_\odot$ to $2.95\,M_\odot$, so the two mimic branches bracket the mass-gap region from both sides.
- Lowering the bag constant from 70 to 55 MeV/fm$^3$ raises the maximum mass from $1.58\,M_\odot$ to $2.85\,M_\odot$ in the density case, mapping the bag constant directly onto the observed mass-gap range.
- The model assigns radii of roughly 10.9–12.1 km and moments of inertia of roughly $1.8$–$3.7\times10^{45}$ g cm$^2$ to the four observed compact objects, so any future radius or moment-of-inertia measurement is a direct test of the model.
- Both mimic solutions pass the adiabatic-index and $dM/d\epsilon_0$ stability criteria, which the paper takes as evidence that the mass-gap endpoints are stable configurations rather than artifacts.
Reading between the lines
- Because the two mimic constraints must coincide when $\beta=0$, the different $\beta=0$ maxima in Table 5 ($2.48$ vs $2.95\,M_\odot$) suggest the boundary conditions may have more than one branch; checking which branch the omitted $r_s(\epsilon_0)$ relation selects would settle the model's internal consistency, a check the paper does not report.
- If the predicted radii are accurate, a future detection of tidal deformability in a $2.5\,M_\odot$ binary merger would distinguish the density-mimic from the pressure-mimic branch, since they give different compactness at the same mass.
- The monotonic dependence on $\mathcal{B}_g$ implies that mass-gap observations can act as a quark-matter equation-of-state probe; the paper does not develop this inversion, but the machinery directly allows it.
- The $M-I$ curves peak sharply near the maximum mass, so a precise pulsar-timing moment-of-inertia measurement for PSR J0952-0607 would constrain both $\beta$ and $\mathcal{B}_g$ simultaneously.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper applies the gravitational decoupling/minimal geometric deformation (MGD) approach to construct anisotropic strange-star models from a Mak-Harko quadratic density profile and the MIT bag equation of state. Two mimic constraints are considered: matching the seed energy density to the decoupling source component, and matching the radial pressure to that component. The authors derive exact metric potentials, impose junction conditions with Schwarzschild exterior, and then produce mass-radius and mass-moment-of-inertia curves. By varying the decoupling constant β and the bag constant B_g, they report maximum masses between 2.48 and 2.95 M_sun and quote radii and moments of inertia for PSR J1614-2230, PSR J0952-0607, GW190814, and GW200210. The central claim is that these configurations populate the lower mass gap and match gravitational-wave and pulsar observations.
Significance. If the results were correct, the paper would provide a simple analytic, two-parameter family of strange-star models that can reach the mass-gap regime while remaining within general relativity with an additional source. The authors include a large amount of detailed algebra, physical-profile plots, adiabatic-index stability analysis, and Harrison-Zel'dovich-Novikov stability checks. However, the significance is undermined by an internal inconsistency in the β=0 limit and by a missing description of how the M-R curves are generated. Because the headline predictions depend on these points, the paper in its present form does not establish its main claims.
major comments (3)
- [Sect. 4, Eqs. (4.9), (4.11), and Sect. 6.2, Table 5] The β=0 limit is internally inconsistent. At β=0 both mimic constraints must reduce to the same seed solution, since the decoupling source switches off and e^{-N0}=B0(r) in both cases. However, Eq. (4.11) for solution 3.2 gives B_g = ε_s/(32π), whereas the MIT bag boundary condition P_r(r_s)=0 with P_r=(ε-4B_g)/3 requires B_g=ε_s/4. Eq. (4.9) does not reduce to ε_s/4 either. As a consequence, the mass formula for solution 3.2 in Sect. 6.2 does not reduce to M=(4π/15)r_s^3(2ε0+3εs) at β=0, and Table 5 lists M_max=2.48 M_sun (R=10.69 km) for ε=θ0_0 versus M_max=2.95 M_sun (R=11.32 km) for P_r=θ1_1 at the same β=0. Since the two decoupled geometries are identical at β=0, this discrepancy invalidates the maximum-mass, radius, and moment-of-inertia predictions that form the central claim of the paper.
- [Sect. 5.3 and Sect. 6.2] The M-R and M-I curves in Figs. 9 and 10 are not reproducible from the text. The only mass equations displayed in Sect. 6.2 are algebraic formulas at fixed r_s; the paper never states how r_s is determined as a function of the central density ε0, nor does it show the TOV integration or the r_s(ε0) relation used to generate the curves. Without this relation, the radii quoted in Tables 1-4 and the maximum masses in Table 5 cannot be checked, so the phenomenological predictions are not verifiable from the presented derivation.
- [Abstract and Sect. 1] The masses attributed to GW190814 and GW200210 in the abstract and introduction are incorrect. The values 23.2+1.1/-1.0 M_sun and 24.1+7.5/-4.6 M_sun are the primary black-hole masses; the secondary compact objects have masses around 2.59 M_sun and 2.83 M_sun, which are the values actually used in Tables 1-4. The statement that 'the masses observed in GW190814 and GW200210' are the large primary masses conflates the two binary components and should be corrected throughout.
minor comments (4)
- [Sect. 4.1, Eq. (4.9)] The notation in Eq. (4.9) is corrupted: symbols such as 'r0', 'rs', and 'r2s' are mixed with ε0 and ε_s, making the formula impossible to evaluate as printed. Please rewrite Eq. (4.9) with clear, consistent notation.
- [Sect. 1, organization paragraph] The last paragraph of Sect. 1 says 'Subsect. 3.1 addressing the density constraint ... and Subsect. 3.1 focusing on the pressure constraint'; the second reference should be to Subsect. 3.2.
- [Tables 1-4] Several entries in Tables 1-4 are left as dashes without explanation; please clarify whether those parameter combinations are excluded because the observed mass is not reached, because the solution becomes unphysical, or for some other reason.
- [Sect. 5.3, Eq. (5.1)] The Bejger-Haensel formula is an empirical moment-of-inertia estimate calibrated for neutron stars; applying it directly to strange stars in the MGD framework should be justified, or its accuracy for these models should be checked.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the M-R/I outputs follow from explicit ansätze and junction conditions; self-citations are background, not load-bearing.
full rationale
The paper's derivation chain is self-contained at the level of the Einstein equations: it adopts the MGD decomposition (Eqs. 2.14-2.26), the MIT bag EOS (Eq. 3.4), and the Mak-Harko density profile (Eq. 3.1), then solves the decoupling system under two explicitly stated mimic constraints (Sect. 3.1: ε=θ⁰₀; Sect. 3.2: P_r=θ¹₁). The junction conditions in Sect. 4 determine the constants, and the mass formulas in Sect. 6.2 are algebraic consequences of those choices. The maximum masses and radii in Table 5 are therefore outputs of a well-defined forward calculation, not identities that presuppose the quoted observational masses. The paper explicitly says it constrains the free parameters by analyzing observed mass-radius limits and then predicts radii and moments of inertia for the same objects; this is standard calibration followed by conditional prediction, and no radius or moment-of-inertia measurement is shown to be used as an input. The Bejger-Haensel formula (Eq. 5.1) is an external empirical relation, not a re-derivation of the paper's own outputs. Self-citations (refs. 35-38, 48-49) appear as background applications of the gravitational decoupling/mimic technique, but the technique itself is re-derived from the field equations in the paper, so these citations are not load-bearing. There is no imported uniqueness theorem and no hidden ansatz: the deformation choices G(r)=B₀-1 and G(r)=1/(1+rA′₀)-B₀ are stated explicitly. The noted β=0 discrepancy between the two mimic solutions (Table 5) and the suspicious bag-constant boundary expression (Eq. 4.11) concern internal algebraic consistency and physical correctness, not circularity; they would affect the validity of the numbers but do not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (5)
- epsilon_0 (central seed density) =
0.0003 km^-2 in displayed profiles; varied to generate M-R curves
- epsilon_s (surface seed density) =
0.00024 km^-2 in displayed profiles; tied to the bag constant through boundary conditions
- r_s (stellar radius) =
11.5 km in profile plots; solved from boundary conditions for M-R curves
- beta (decoupling constant) =
0 to 0.1
- B_g (bag constant) =
55 to 70 MeV/fm3
assumptions (6)
- domain assumption Einstein field equations with a conserved total stress-energy including the theta source
- domain assumption MIT bag equation of state Pr = (epsilon - 4 B_g)/3
- ad hoc to paper Mak-Harko quadratic density profile epsilon(r) = epsilon_0 [1 - (1 - epsilon_s/epsilon_0) r^2/r_s^2]
- ad hoc to paper Mimic closures G = B_0 - 1 or G = 1/(1 + r A_0') - B_0
- domain assumption Schwarzschild exterior with G* = 0 and vanishing effective radial pressure at the surface
- standard math Stability criteria from the literature (adiabatic index and Harrison-Zel'dovich-Novikov)
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Role of gravitational decoupling on theoretical insights of relativistic massive compact stars in the mass gap." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BB7R7FHW
@misc{pith2026250100735,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Role of gravitational decoupling on theoretical insights of relativistic massive compact stars in the mass gap},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BB7R7FHW}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00735}
}
abstract
Advancements in theoretical simulations of mass gap objects, particularly those resulting from neutron star mergers and massive pulsars, play a crucial role in addressing the challenges of measuring neutron star radii. In the light of this, we have conducted a comprehensive investigation of compact objects (CSs), revealing that while the distribution of black hole masses varies based on formation mechanisms, they frequently cluster around specific values. For instance, the masses observed in GW190814 $(23.2^{+1.1}_{-1.0} \, M_{\odot})$ and GW200210 $(24.1^{+7.5}_{-4.6} M_{\odot})$ exemplify this clustering. We employed the gravitational decoupling approach within the framework of standard general relativity and thus focusing on the strange star model. This model highlights the effects of deformation adjusted by the decoupling constant and the bag function. By analyzing the mass-radius limits of mass gap objects from neutron star mergers and massive pulsars, we can effectively constrain the free parameters in our model, allowing us to predict the radii and moments of inertia for these objects. The mass-radius ($M-R$) and mass-inertia ($M-I$) profiles demonstrate the robustness of our models. It is shown that as the decoupling constant $\beta$ increases from 0 to 0.1 and the bag constant $\mathcal{B}_g$ decreases from 70 $MeV/fm^3$ to 55 $MeV/fm^3$, the maximum mass reaches $M_{max} = 2.87 \, M_\odot$ with a radius of 11.20 km. In contrast, for $\beta = 0$, the maximum mass is $M_{max} = 2.48 \, M_\odot$ with a radius of 10.69 km. Similarly, it has been exhibited that as $\beta$ decreases to 0, the maximum mass peaks at $M_{max} = 2.95 M_\odot$ for $\mathcal{B}_g = 55 MeV/fm^3$ with a radius of 11.32 km. These results not only exceed the observed masses of CSs but also correlate with recent findings from gravitational wave events like GW190814 and GW200210.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
B. P. Abbottet al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett.116, no.6, 061102 (2016)
2016
-
[2]
B. P. Abbottet al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Astrophys. J. Lett.848, no.2, L12 (2017)
work page 2017
-
[3]
Guo and Y
L. Guo and Y. Niu, Phys. Rev. C110, no.1, L012801 (2024)
2024
-
[4]
Radice, A
D. Radice, A. Perego, F. Zappa and S. Bernuzzi, Astrophys. J. Lett.852, no.2, L29 (2018)
2018
-
[5]
G. F. Burgio, A. Drago, G. Pagliara, H. J. Schulze and J. B. Wei, Astrophys. J.860, no.2, 139 (2018)
2018
-
[6]
M. Ruiz, S. L. Shapiro and A. Tsokaros, Phys. Rev. D97, no.2, 021501 (2018)
2018
-
[7]
R. Abbott et al. [KAGRA, VIRGO and LIGO Scientific], Phys. Rev. X13, no.1, 011048 (2023)
work page 2023
-
[8]
C. D. Bailyn, R. K. Jain, P. Coppi and J. A. Orosz, Astrophys. J.499, 367 (1998)
1998
Show all 70 references
-
[9]
F. Ozel, D. Psaltis, R. Narayan and J. E. McClintock, Astrophys. J.725, 1918-1927 (2010)
2010
-
[10]
W. M. Farr, N. Sravan, A. Cantrell, L. Kreidberg, C. D. Bailyn, I. Mandel and V. Kalogera, Astrophys. J. 741, 103 (2011)
2011
-
[11]
Arca Sedda, Astrophys
M. Arca Sedda, Astrophys. J. Lett.908, no.2, L38 (2021)
2021
-
[12]
P. Bhar, A. Errehymy, S. Ray, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 1151 (2023)
2023
-
[13]
Samsing, D
J. Samsing, D. J. D’Orazio, K. Kremer, C. L. Rodriguez and A. Askar, Phys. Rev. D101, no.12, 123010 (2020)
2020
-
[14]
C. S. Ye, W. f. Fong, K. Kremer, C. L. Rodriguez, S. Chatterjee, G. Fragione and F. A. Rasio, Astrophys. J. Lett.888, no.1, L10 (2020)
2020
-
[15]
Fragione, A
G. Fragione, A. Loeb and F. A. Rasio, Astrophys. J. Lett.895, no.1, L15 (2020)
2020
-
[16]
W. Lu, P. Beniamini and C. Bonnerot, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.500, no.2, 1817-1832 (2020)
2020
-
[17]
Liu and D
B. Liu and D. Lai, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.502, no.2, 2049-2064 (2021)
2021
-
[18]
Abbott et al
R. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Astrophys. J. Lett.896, no.2, L44 (2020) – 25 –
2020
-
[19]
Bartos, S
I. Bartos, S. Rosswog, V. Gayathri, M. C. Miller, D. Veske and S. Marka, [arXiv:2302.10350 [astro-ph.HE]]
-
[20]
Farrow, X
N. Farrow, X. J. Zhu and E. Thrane, Astrophys. J.876, no.1, 18 (2019)
2019
-
[21]
Kiziltan, A
B. Kiziltan, A. Kottas, M. De Yoreo and S. E. Thorsett, Astrophys. J.778, 66 (2013)
2013
-
[22]
Valentim, E
R. Valentim, E. Rangel and J. E. Horvath, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.414, 1427 (2011)
2011
-
[23]
C. M. Zhang, J. Wang, Y. H. Zhao, H. X. Yin, L. M. Song, D. P. Menezes, D. T. Wickramasinghe, L. Ferrario and P. Chardonnet, Astron. Astrophys.527, A83 (2011)
2011
-
[24]
Ovalle, Phys
J. Ovalle, Phys. Rev. D95, no.10, 104019 (2017)
2017
-
[25]
Ovalle, Phys
J. Ovalle, Phys. Lett. B788, 213-218 (2019)
2019
-
[26]
da Rocha, Phys
R. da Rocha, Phys. Rev. D102, no.2, 024011 (2020)
2020
-
[27]
Ovalle, R
J. Ovalle, R. Casadio, R. da Rocha and A. Sotomayor, Eur. Phys. J. C78, no.2, 122 (2018)
2018
-
[28]
Ovalle, R
J. Ovalle, R. Casadio, R. d. Rocha, A. Sotomayor and Z. Stuchlik, Eur. Phys. J. C78, no.11, 960 (2018)
2018
-
[29]
Ovalle, C
J. Ovalle, C. Posada and Z. Stuchlík, Class. Quant. Grav.36, no.20, 205010 (2019)
2019
-
[30]
Casadio, E
R. Casadio, E. Contreras, J. Ovalle, A. Sotomayor and Z. Stuchlick, Eur. Phys. J. C79, no.10, 826 (2019)
2019
-
[31]
Zubair and H
M. Zubair and H. Azmat, Annals Phys.420, 168248 (2020)
2020
-
[32]
Ovalle, R
J. Ovalle, R. Casadio, E. Contreras and A. Sotomayor, Phys. Dark Univ.31, 100744 (2021)
2021
-
[33]
Ovalle, E
J. Ovalle, E. Contreras and Z. Stuchlik, Phys. Rev. D103, no.8, 084016 (2021)
2021
-
[34]
Contreras, J
E. Contreras, J. Ovalle and R. Casadio, Phys. Rev. D103, no.4, 044020 (2021)
2021
-
[35]
S. K. Maurya, A. Errehymy, K. Newton Singh, A. Aziz, S. Hansraj and S. Ray, Astrophys. J. 972, no.2, 175 (2024)
2024
-
[36]
S. K. Maurya, A. Errehymy, R. Nag and M. Daoud, Fortsch. Phys.70, no.5, 2200041 (2022)
2022
-
[37]
S. K. Maurya, M. Govender, K. N. Singh and R. Nag, Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.1, 49 (2022)
2022
-
[38]
S. K. Maurya, A. Banerjee, A. Pradhan and D. Yadav, Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.6, 552 (2022)
2022
-
[39]
C. W. Misner, D. H. Sharp, Phys. Rev. 136, B571 (1964)
1964
-
[40]
Gokhroo, A.L
M.K. Gokhroo, A.L. Mehra, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.26, 75 (1994)
1994
-
[41]
Tolman, Phys
R.C. Tolman, Phys. Rev., 55, 364 (1939)
1939
-
[42]
Oppenheimer and G.M
J.R. Oppenheimer and G.M. Volkoff, Phys. Rev., 55, 374 (1939)
1939
-
[43]
Harko and M
T. Harko and M. K. Mak, Chin. J. Astron. Astrophys.2, no.3, 248 (2002)
2002
-
[44]
Chodos, R.L.Jaffe, K
A. Chodos, R.L.Jaffe, K. Johnson, C.B.Thorn,& V.F. Weisskopf, Phys. Rev. D 9, 3471 (1974)
1974
-
[45]
Ovalle, Phys
J. Ovalle, Phys. Rev. D, 95, 104019 (2017)
2017
-
[46]
Ovalle, R
J. Ovalle, R. Casadio, R. da Rocha, A. Sotomayor, Eur. Phys. J. C, 78, 122 (2018)
2018
-
[47]
Sharif, A
M. Sharif, A. Majid, Phys. Dark Univ. 30, 100610 (2020)
2020
-
[48]
S. K. Maurya, K. N. Singh, M. Govender, G. Mustafa and S. Ray, Astrophys. J. Suppl.269, no.2, 35 (2023)
2023
-
[49]
S. K. Maurya, K. N. Singh, M. Govender and S. Hansraj, Astrophys. J.925, no.2, 208 (2022)
2022
-
[50]
Demorest, T
P. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. Ransom, M. Roberts and J. Hessels, Nature467, 1081-1083 (2010) – 26 –
2010
-
[51]
R. W. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V. Filippenko, T. G. Brink and W. Zheng, Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, no.2, L17 (2022)
2022
-
[52]
Abbott et al
R. Abbott et al. [KAGRA, VIRGO and LIGO Scientific], Phys. Rev. X13, no.4, 041039 (2023)
2023
-
[53]
Bejger and P
M. Bejger and P. Haensel, Astron. Astrophys.396, 3 (2002)
2002
-
[54]
A. V. Astashenok, S. Capozziello, S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Lett. B816, 136222 (2021)
2021
-
[55]
A. V. Astashenok, S. Capozziello, S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Lett. B811, 135910 (2020)
2020
-
[56]
A. V. Astashenok and S. D. Odintsov, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.498, no.3, 3616-3623 (2020)
2020
-
[57]
A. V. Astashenok and S. D. Odintsov, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.493, no.1, 78-86 (2020)
2020
-
[58]
A. V. Astashenok, S. Capozziello and S. D. Odintsov, JCAP12, 040 (2013)
2013
-
[59]
A. V. Astashenok, S. Capozziello and S. D. Odintsov, JCAP01, 001 (2015)
2015
-
[60]
A. V. Astashenok, S. D. Odintsov and A. de la Cruz-Dombriz, Class. Quant. Grav.34, no.20, 205008 (2017)
2017
-
[61]
S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rev. D107, no.10, 104039 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.104039
2023 doi
-
[62]
G. G. L. Nashed and S. Capozziello, Eur. Phys. J. C81, no.5, 481 (2021)
2021
-
[63]
1992, MNRAS, 259, 365
Bondi, H. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 365
1992
-
[64]
1975, A&A, 38, 51
Heintzmann, H., & Heintzmann, W. 1975, A&A, 38, 51
1975
-
[65]
Chan, R., Herrera, L., & Santos, N. O. 1993, MNRAS, 265, 533
1993
-
[66]
Chan, R., Herrera, L., & Santos, N. O. 1992, CQGra, 9, 133
1992
-
[67]
C. C. Moustakidis, Gen. Rel. Grav.49, no.5, 68 (2017)
2017
-
[68]
P. S. Koliogiannis and C. C. Moustakidis, Astrophys. Space Sci.364, no.3, 52 (2019)
2019
-
[69]
Harrison, K.S
B.K. Harrison, K.S. Thorne, M. Wakano, J.A. Wheeler, Gravitational Theory and Gravitational Collapse, University of Chicago Press (1965)
1965
-
[70]
Zeldovich, I.D
Ya.B. Zeldovich, I.D. Novikov, Relativistic Astrophysics Stars and Relativity, Vol. 1, University of Chicago Press (1971) – 27 –
1971
Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.