Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Impact of Buchdahl metric potential on thin-shell gravastar framework in de Rham-Gabadadze-Tolley like massive gravity

T0 review · 5 major / 4 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 This paper claims that a Buchdahl-type gravastar in dRGT massive gravity provides a physically viable, horizon-free compact object that avoids the central singularity of a black hole.

desk verdict The interior metric is not a solution of the stated field equations and the junction conditions are applied to a metric of the wrong form; the central construction fails. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11171 v1 pith:HZTRGCDQ submitted 2025-06-12 gr-qc hep-th

Meghanil Sinha , S. Surendra Singh This is my paper
classification gr-qchep-th PACS 04.50.Kd
keywords gravastardRGTmassivegravityBuchdahlmetricpotentialthin-shelljunctionconditionssurfaceredshiftenergysingularity-freecompactobjectblackholealternative
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 claims that a gravitational vacuum star (gravastar)—a compact object with a dark-energy-like interior, an ultra-relativistic thin shell, and no event horizon—can be constructed in de Rham-Gabadadze-Tolley (dRGT) massive gravity using the Buchdahl metric potential. The interior solution is finite at the center, so the classical black-hole singularity is bypassed, and the exterior is Schwarzschild. The paper reports that the thin shell has positive length, energy, and entropy, that its surface redshift stays inside the accepted stability window, and that the null, weak, and strong energy conditions are satisfied while the dominant energy condition is violated. If these results hold, the configuration is a physically viable, horizon-free alternative to black holes and sidesteps the information paradox associated with event horizons.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the Buchdahl metric potential $e^{2m(r)}=P(Qr^2+1)/(P+Qr^2)$ inserted into the dRGT massive-gravity field equations, together with the three-layer gravastar decomposition: an interior with $p=-\rho$, a thin shell with $p=\rho$, and a Schwarzschild exterior. The graviton mass enters through the auxiliary parameters $\Pi$, $\Xi$, and $\Sigma$, which shift the effective density and pressure of the matter. The Darmois-Israel junction conditions turn the discontinuity of the second fundamental form at the shell into a surface energy density and pressure, and the surface-redshift formula $Z_s=1/e^m-1$ supplies the stability test.

What would settle it

Recompute the surface energy density and pressure using the actual interior components $g_{tt}=P(Qr^2+1)/(P+Qr^2)$ and $e^{-2n}=1-\frac{8\pi\rho_e r^2}{3}-\frac{\Pi r^2}{3}+\Xi r$ in equations (42)-(43), without assuming $g_{rr}=g_{tt}^{-1}$; if the resulting values differ from equations (44)-(45), the reported shell properties and energy-condition plots do not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is a three-region gravastar solution in dRGT massive gravity. In the interior the dark-energy equation of state $p=-\rho$ gives a constant density $\rho_e$, and the Buchdahl potential $e^{2m}=P(Qr^2+1)/(P+Qr^2)$ leads to the finite radial component $e^{-2n}=1-\frac{8\pi\rho_e r^2}{3}-\frac{\Pi r^2}{3}+\Xi r$, regular at $r=0$. The shell is an ultra-relativistic stiff fluid with $p=\rho$, and the exterior is the Schwarzschild vacuum. Matching the three regions through the Darmois-Israel junction conditions yields surface energy density and pressure, while the surface redshift $Z_s=\sqrt{(P+Qr^2)/(P(Qr^2+1))}-1$ lies within the stability bound. The paper concludes that the shell's proper length, energy, and entropy grow with thickness and that the null, weak, and strong energy conditions hold, so the model is a singularity-free, horizon-free compact object.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Darmois-Israel junction conditions, which apply to a metric of the form $ds^2=u(r)dt^2-u(r)^{-1}dr^2-r^2d\Omega^2$, can be used with the derived interior solution, whose $g_{tt}=P(Qr^2+1)/(P+Qr^2)$ and $g_{rr}=e^{2n}$ with $e^{-2n}=1-\frac{8\pi\rho_e r^2}{3}-\frac{\Pi r^2}{3}+\Xi r$ are not inverses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A gravastar built this way has no event horizon and a regular center, so the central singularity and the information-loss problem of black holes are avoided within this massive-gravity setting.
  • The shell's surface energy density and pressure are positive, and the null, weak, and strong energy conditions are satisfied, so the shell does not require exotic matter by those tests; the dominant energy condition is violated.
  • The surface redshift stays below the isotropic stability bound, supporting the configuration's stability.
  • The proper length, energy, and entropy of the shell all increase with thickness, which the paper reads as evidence of a physically meaningful shell.
  • The graviton-mass parameters $\Pi$, $\Xi$, and $\Sigma$ appear explicitly in the surface quantities, so the shell carries a signature of massive gravity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the junction-condition calculation should be checked against the actual interior metric components: equations (42)-(43) assume $g_{rr}=g_{tt}^{-1}$, while the derived interior has $g_{tt}=P(Qr^2+1)/(P+Qr^2)$ and $e^{-2n}=1-\frac{8\pi\rho_e r^2}{3}-\frac{\Pi r^2}{3}+\Xi r$, which are not inverses.
  • Beyond the paper, if the corrected matching still gives positive surface energy, the same Buchdahl-plus-thin-shell construction could be tested in other modified-gravity settings to see whether horizon-free compact objects are generic.
  • Beyond the paper, computing quasinormal modes or tidal deformability of this gravastar and comparing with Schwarzschild black-hole predictions would give an observational route to distinguish the two objects.
  • Beyond the paper, the model is static and spherically symmetric; checking whether the singularity-free and stability properties survive rotation or radial perturbations is a natural next step.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a three-region gravastar model in dRGT-like massive gravity. The interior is taken to be a de Sitter-like fluid with p = -ρ, described by the Buchdahl metric potential (25) and by the radial function e^{-2n} from Eq. (32); the thin shell is a stiff fluid with p = ρ described by Eqs. (34)-(35); the exterior is taken to be Schwarzschild; and the regions are matched with Darmois-Israel junction conditions. The authors then compute shell length, energy, entropy, surface redshift, and energy conditions, and claim a stable, singularity-free, horizon-free alternative to black holes.

Significance. Gravastars are an active subject, and extending their construction to ghost-free massive gravity is a reasonable research goal. If the construction were correct, the paper would provide horizon-free compact objects in dRGT massive gravity and quantify how the massive-gravity parameters affect shell properties. The paper also addresses standard physical checks such as surface redshift and energy conditions, which is appropriate for this type of model. However, the central derivations are not sound: the interior does not satisfy the dRGT field equations, the junction-condition calculation uses formulas that are incompatible with the actual metric form, and the exterior Schwarzschild metric is not a solution of the massive-gravity equations used in the paper. These are load-bearing problems, not presentation issues.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Eqs. (23), (25), (27), (32)] The interior metric is not a solution of the field equations. The authors solve only the tt equation (27) for e^{-2n} and do not impose the rr equation (23) or the angular equation (24). Substituting the Buchdahl ansatz (25) and Eq. (32) into (23) with p = -ρ_e, the leading singular terms do not match: the left-hand side contains Ξ/r while the right-hand side contains 2Ξ/r, and the constant terms also differ. The mismatch is proportional to Ξ and hence nonzero for every Ξ ≠ 0, including the plotted value Ξ = 0.05. The central claim of a singularity-free interior is therefore unsupported.
  2. [Section 6, Eqs. (40)-(45)] The Darmois-Israel surface quantities are computed with formulas derived for a metric of the form ds^2 = u(r)dt^2 - u(r)^{-1}dr^2 - r^2 dΩ^2, as stated in Eq. (40). However, the interior metric has g_tt = P(QR^2+1)/(P+QR^2) while g_rr^{-1} = 1 - 8πρ_eR^2/3 - ΠR^2/3 + ΞR, and these two functions are not inverse to one another. In Eq. (44) the interior contribution should be sqrt(g_tt) = sqrt(P(QR^2+1)/(P+QR^2)), but the paper instead uses the fourth root of g_rr^{-1}; Eq. (45) similarly differentiates this fourth root. The surface density, surface pressure, shell mass, EoS parameter, and the energy-condition results in Figs. 5-7 and 12-14 therefore do not follow from the stated junction conditions.
  3. [Section 4, Eq. (34)] The thin-shell metric potential is asserted without derivation. The text states that Eqs. (27)-(29) give e^{-2n} = 2Ξr - Πr^2 + log[r] - X, but no intermediate steps or approximations are shown, and the expression contains log[r] with a dimensionful argument. Since Eq. (34) is the basis for the proper length, energy, and entropy calculations in Section 8, its correctness is load-bearing and requires a complete derivation.
  4. [Section 4, Eq. (35)] The claimed shell density ρ = p = W exp((P-1)P/(P+Qr^2)) does not follow from the conservation equation (30) and the Buchdahl ansatz (25). With p = ρ, Eq. (30) gives ρ ∝ e^{-2m} = (P+Qr^2)/(P(Qr^2+1)), which is not the exponential appearing in Eq. (35). Consequently the shell energy (55) and entropy (59) are computed from an incorrect density profile.
  5. [Section 5, Eqs. (22)-(24) and (36)] The exterior is taken to be the vacuum Schwarzschild metric with p = ρ = 0, but the dRGT field equations (22)-(24) contain the massive-gravity source terms Π and Ξ. Substituting the Schwarzschild metric into Eq. (22) gives 4M/r^3 = Π - 2Ξ/r, which is not an identity for nonzero Π or Ξ. The exterior must be a solution of the same massive-gravity equations, and the junction conditions must match to that solution rather than to the standard Schwarzschild metric.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (34)] The expression log[r] should be made dimensionless by introducing a length scale; as written, the argument of the logarithm has units of radius.
  2. [Section 7, Eq. (50)] The stability statement is unclear about which bound is being applied: the text mentions a redshift limit of 2 for isotropic fluids but states that the model's Z_s is 'within 1'; please state the specific criterion used.
  3. [Figures and parameters] Figures 4 and 8-11 use several different parameter sets without explaining how representative values are chosen; because the reported results are parameter-dependent, the selected parameter set should be justified and documented consistently.
  4. [References and typos] There are typographical errors, including 'Dramois-Israel' for Darmois-Israel and 'Fasticule' in Ref. [49] for Fascicule; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is an explicitly ansatz-based construction; the paper's red flags are mathematical consistency errors, not circular loops.

full rationale

The paper explicitly adopts the Buchdahl ansatz e^{2m}=P(Qr^2+1)/(P+Qr^2) (Eq. 25) and a fiducial metric (Eq. 7) as inputs, then integrates the conservation/field equations to obtain the interior metric (Eq. 32), shell metric (Eq. 34), and surface quantities (Eqs. 44-45). None of the outputs is fed back into the input or renamed as a fitted prediction; the free parameters (P, Q, ρe, Π, Ξ, M) are chosen, not fitted to a data subset, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction loop. The self-citations (Refs. [24], [26]) appear in the introduction and in a supportive remark about the null energy condition, but they do not carry the derivation; the NEC statement is computed here from Eqs. (44)-(45). No uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked, and no ansatz is smuggled in as derived: the text says 'we have adopted here the Buchdahl form' and 'we opt for the simple fiducial metric,' which are stated inputs, not disguised predictions. The stability/energy-condition discussion is a consistency check of the chosen model rather than an independent empirical prediction, which is normal model construction and not circularity. The serious technical defects—the rr field equation is never imposed on the interior and is violated for Ξ≠0; the Darmois-Israel formulas assume u^{-1}=g_rr while the interior has e^{-2n}≠g_tt; and Eq. (44) uses a fourth root where Eq. (42) requires a square root—are mathematical correctness risks that would invalidate the claimed solution, but they are not reductions of outputs to inputs. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on several chosen ansatze: the Buchdahl form, the fiducial metric, the equations of state, and freely selected values for the parameters. None of these are derived from a fundamental principle; they are inputs to the model.

free parameters (8)
  • P = 0.0000135, 0.0000209, etc.
    Buchdahl metric parameter chosen by hand; affects metric potential and shell properties.
  • Q = -7.455e-8 km^2 etc.
    Buchdahl metric parameter chosen by hand.
  • Pi (Π) = 0.005
    Massive gravity parameter chosen for plots (eq. 12).
  • Xi (Ξ) = 0.05
    Massive gravity parameter chosen for plots.
  • rho_e = 0.0001
    Interior energy density, chosen for plots.
  • M = 3.75 M_sun
    Total mass of the gravastar, chosen for junction condition plots.
  • W = not specified
    Integration constant in shell density (eq. 35).
  • X = not specified
    Integration constant in shell metric (eq. 34).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Einstein field equations with dRGT massive gravity action (eq. 1)
    Assumed as the governing theory.
  • domain assumption Fiducial metric choice (eq. 7): diag(0,0,U^2,U^2 sin^2θ)
    A specific reference metric is chosen following prior work [39,41]; this affects all subsequent equations.
  • ad hoc to paper Buchdahl metric ansatz (eq. 25): e^{2m} = P(Qr^2+1)/(P+Qr^2)
    The metric potential is postulated without derivation; the paper's claim depends on this choice.
  • domain assumption Interior EoS p = -rho
    Standard for gravastar interiors.
  • domain assumption Shell EoS p = rho
    Standard for the thin shell of stiff fluid.
  • domain assumption Exterior is vacuum Schwarzschild
    Standard exterior for a compact object.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of Buchdahl metric potential on thin-shell gravastar framework in de Rham-Gabadadze-Tolley like massive gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HZTRGCDQ

@misc{pith2026250611171,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of Buchdahl metric potential on thin-shell gravastar framework in de Rham-Gabadadze-Tolley like massive gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HZTRGCDQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11171}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a study on gravitational vacuum stars (gravastars) with an isotropic matter distribution in de Rham-Gabadadze-Tolley (dRGT) massive gravity incorporating Buchdahl metric function. Here we have conducted an analysis on thin-shell singularity-free gravastar configuration. The study demonstrates the viability of gravastars as alternatives to black holes (BHs) in this massive gravity. Our research yields singularity free analytical solutions for gravastar interior and without event horizon. Our discussion focuses on the properties of the thin shell of ultra-relativistic stiff fluid viz., length, energy, entropy and the massive gravity's impact on these physical properties. The junction conditions have been carefully examined and study of surface redshift analysis implies regularity of the model. Our investigation also includes energy condition analysis supporting the thin shell formation. Thus our solutions eliminate singularities and information paradoxes and the implications of these solutions are seemingly noteworthy and exhibit physical desirable properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11171 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plot of the metric potential e −2n in the interior versus radial co-ordinate for Π = 0.005, Ξ = 0.05, ρe = 0.0001 Figure (1) presents the metric potential e −2n’s behavior in the interior, where it is evident that the inte￾rior solutions are singularity free. As a result, the central singularity problem of the classical black hole 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plot of active gravitational mass in the interior versus rad [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plot of the metric potential e −2n in the shell versus shell thickness for Π = 0.005, Ξ = 0.05 where X represents the constant of integration. Figure (3) highlights the variation of e −2n(r) in the shell region. It is smooth, well-behaved and devoid of any type of singularities. Equations (25), (30) and the 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plot of the metric potential e −2n in the shell versus shell thickness for (i)P = 0.0000135, Q = −7.455 × 10−8km2 , (ii)P = 0.0000209, Q = −1.1446 × 10−7km2 , (iii)P = 0.0000319, Q = −1.5664 × 10−7km2 , (iv)P = 0.0000296, Q = −1.4545 × 10−7km2 , (v)P = 0.000023, Q = −1…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plot of surface energy density versus shell thickness fo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plot of surface pressure versus shell thickness for Π = 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Plot of EoS parameter versus shell thickness for Π = 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Plot of surface redshift versus shell thickness for ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Plot of proper shell length versus shell thickness for Π = 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Plot of shell energy versus shell thickness for ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Plot of shell entropy versus shell thickness for ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Plot of surface NEC versus shell thickness for Π = 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Plot of surface SEC versus shell thickness for Π = 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Plot of surface DEC versus shell thickness for Π = 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The large scale structure of space -time, Cambridge (1973)

    work page 1973

  2. [2]

    S. W. Hawking, Nature 248, 30 (1974)

    1974

  3. [3]

    N. D. Birrell, P. C. W. Davies, Quantum fields in curved space, Camb ridge (1982)

    work page 1982

  4. [4]

    Mazur, E

    P. Mazur, E. Mottola, arXiv:gr-qc/0109035v5, Report number : LA-UR-01-5067 (2001)

    arXiv 2001

  5. [5]

    Mazur, E

    P. Mazur, E. Mottola, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 9545 (20 04)

    work page

  6. [6]

    R. B. Laughlin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 18, 831 (2003)

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Chapline, E

    G. Chapline, E. Hohlfield, R. B. Laughlin, and D. I. Santiago, Int. J . Mod. Phys. A 18, 3587 (2003)

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    E. B. Gliner, Hz. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 49, 542 (1965)

    work page 1965

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Y. B. Zeldovich, Sov. Phys. JETP 14, 11437 (1962)

    1962

  2. [10]

    Y. B. Zeldovich, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 160, 1 (1972)

    1972

  3. [11]

    Visser, D

    M. Visser, D. L. Wiltshire Class. Quantum Grav., vol. 21, no. 4, p. 1135, 2004

    2004

  4. [12]

    Cattoen, T

    C. Cattoen, T. Faber, M. Visser Class. Quantum Grav., vol. 22, no. 20, p. 4189, 2005. 17

    2005

  5. [13]

    C. B. M. H. Chirenti, L. Rezzolla Class. Quantum Grav., vol. 24, p. 4191, 2007

    2007

  6. [14]

    Bili /acute.ts1c, G

    N. Bili /acute.ts1c, G. B. Tupper, R. D. Viollier J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., vol. 2006 , p. 013, 2006

    2006

  7. [15]

    Horvat, S

    D. Horvat, S. Iliji /acute.ts1c, A. Marunovi /acute.ts1c Class. Quantum Grav., vol. 28, p. 195008, 2011

    2011

  8. [16]

    Perlmutter et al., Phys

    S. Perlmutter et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 670 (1999)

    1999

  9. [17]

    A. G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J. 607, 665 (2004)

    2004

  10. [18]

    B. P. Abbott et al., (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Ph ys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    A. R. Akbarieh et al., Phys. Rev. D 103, 123518 (2021). arXiv:21 05.03744v2 [gr-qc]

    2021

  12. [20]

    A. Das, S. Ghosh, B. K. Guha, S. Das, F. Rahaman, S. Ray (201 7). Gravastars in f (R, T ) gravity

  13. [21]

    Gravastars in f (R, Σ , T ) strong-gravity and antigravity theories,

    “Gravastars in f (R, Σ , T ) strong-gravity and antigravity theories,” Pramana 97, no.4, 189 (2023) doi:10.1007/s12043-023-02665-3

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Ghosh, S

    S. Ghosh, S. Dey, A. Das, A. Chanda, B. C. Paul, (2021). Stud y of gravastars in Rastall gravity. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021(07), 004

    2021

  15. [23]

    Pradhan, D

    S. Pradhan, D. Mohanty, P. K. Sahoo (2023). Thin-shell grav astar model in f (Q, T ) gravity. Chinese Physics C, 47(9), 095104

    2023

  16. [24]

    Sinha, S

    M. Sinha, S. Surendra Singh. Gravastar model in the structur e of f (R, Lm, T ) modi- fied theory of gravity, Modern Physics Letters A 40, 05n06, 2450 227, 0217-7323 (2025). doi:10.1142/S0217732324502274

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    Sengupta, S

    R. Sengupta, S. Ghosh, S. Ray, B. Mishra, S. K. Tripathy (202 0). Gravastar in the framework of braneworld gravity. Physical Review D, 102(2), 024037

  18. [26]

    Sinha, S

    M. Sinha, S. Sanasam. Behaviour of gravastar model in mimetic g ravity. Physica Scripta, 2025. Volume 100, 2025, 055012, 5. https://doi.org/10.1088/1402-489 6/adca5d

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    Rahaman, S

    F. Rahaman, S. Ray, A. A. Usmani, S. Islam (2012). The (2 + 1)- dimensional gravastars. Physics Letters B, 707(3-4), 319-322

    2012

  20. [28]

    Ghosh, S

    S. Ghosh, S. Ray, F. Rahaman, B. K. Guha. Gravastars with hig her dimensional spacetimes, Annals of Physics, Volume 394, 2018, Pages 230-243, ISSN 0003-4916, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2018.05.002

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    Yousaf, K

    Z. Yousaf, K. Bamba, M. Z. Bhatti, U. Ghafoor, (2019). Char ged gravastars in modified gravity. Physical Review D, 100(2), 024062

    2019

  22. [30]

    Debnath, (2021)

    U. Debnath, (2021). Charged gravastars in Rastall-Rainbow g ravity. The European Physical Journal Plus, 136(4), 1-23

    2021

  23. [31]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 138, B988 (1965)

    1965

  24. [32]

    R. P. Feynman, F. B. Morinigo, W. G. Wagner, B. Hatfield, The Ad vanced Book Program (Addison- Wesley, Reading, 1995). 18

    1995

  25. [33]

    Fierz, W

    M. Fierz, W. E. Pauli, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Sc i. 173, 211 (1939)

    1939

  26. [34]

    de Rham, A

    C. de Rham, A. J. Tolley, S.Y. Zhou, JHEP 04, 188 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    de Rham, G

    C. de Rham, G. Gabadadze, Phys. Rev. D 82, 044020 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    de Rham, G

    C. de Rham, G. Gabadadze, A. J. Tolley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106. 231101 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    D. G. Boulware, S. Deser, Phys. Rev. D 6, 3368 (1972)

    1972

  30. [38]

    Katsuragawa, S

    T. Katsuragawa, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, M. Yamazaki, Phys. Rev. D 93, 124013 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    S. G. Ghosh, L. Tannukij, P. Wongjun, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 119 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    D. C. Zou, R. Yue, M. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 256 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    K. P. Das, A. Karmakar, U. Debnath. Color flavor locked stran ge stars in de Rham–Gabadadze–Tolley like massive gravity. Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 12 13 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13556-1

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    P. Bhar. Existence and stability of (3+1)-dimensional gravast ar model in de Rham–Gabadadze–Tolley like massive gravity, Physics Letters B, Vo lume 865, 2025, 139476, ISSN 0370-2693, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2025.13947 6

    2025

  35. [43]

    Burikham, T

    P. Burikham, T. Harko, M. J. Lake, Phys. Rev. D 94, 064070 (2 016)

  36. [44]

    Sokoliuk, S

    O. Sokoliuk, S. Pradhan, P. K. Sahoo, A. Baransky (2022). Bu chdahl quark stars within f (Q) theory. The European Physical Journal Plus, 137(9), 1-15

    2022

  37. [45]

    Y. B. Zeldovich Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., vol. 160, p. 1P, 19 72

  38. [46]

    M. S. Madsen, J. P. Mimoso, J. A. Butcher, G. F. R. Ellis Phys. Re v. D, vol. 46, p. 1399, 1992

    1992

  39. [47]

    P. S. Wesson Vistas Astron., vol. 29, p. 281, 1986

    1986

  40. [48]

    Alcock, E

    C. Alcock, E. Farhi, A. Olinto, Strange Stars, ApJ 310, 261 (19 86)

  41. [49]

    Darmois, Memorial des Sciences Mathematiques XXV, Fasticu le XXV, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, France, Chap

    G. Darmois, Memorial des Sciences Mathematiques XXV, Fasticu le XXV, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, France, Chap. V (1927)

    1927

  42. [50]

    Israel, Singular hypersurfaces and thin shell in general rela tivity, Nuo

    W. Israel, Singular hypersurfaces and thin shell in general rela tivity, Nuo. Cim. B44 (1966) 1

    1966

  43. [51]

    Lanczos, Ann

    K. Lanczos, Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 379 (1924) 518

    1924

  44. [52]

    Sen, Ann

    N. Sen, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 378 (1924) 365

    1924

  45. [53]

    H. A. Buchdahl. Gen. Rel. Fl. Sph Phys. Rev. 116 1027 (1959)

    1959

  46. [54]

    Straumann

    N. Straumann. Gen Rel and Rel Astrophys, Springer, Berlin (1 984)

  47. [55]

    B. V. Ivanov. Phys. Rev. D 65, 104011(2002)

    2002

  48. [56]

    D. E. Barraco et al. Phys. Rev. D 65 124028 (2002). 19

    2002

Pith tools

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