Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Strange Matter

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pulsar-like objects are strange stars, not neutron stars.

desk verdict A readable review of the strangeon-star program that is honest in the text but overclaims in the abstract; useful as an entry point, not as evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.01146 v1 pith:ZKTCNY3G submitted 2025-11-03 astro-ph.HE

Chengjun Xia , Xiaoyu Lai , Renxin Xu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 12.38.-t24.85.+p26.60.+c26.50.+x
keywords strangestarsstrangeonmatterquarkequationofstatepulsarsglitchestidaldeformabilitydark
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 review argues that pulsar-like objects are not neutron stars but 'strange stars' composed entirely of strange matter—either deconfined strange quark matter or solid strangeon matter made of quark clusters with three-flavour symmetry. The authors survey equations of state for strange matter, from the bag model to a Lennard-Jones model in which strangeons pair-interact via a potential transferred from noble gases, and show that these models match observed surface properties, mass-radius measurements, large glitches, and binary merger constraints. If the strange star picture is right, the interiors of compact stars become a laboratory for low-energy QCD, and phenomena from gamma-ray bursts to dark matter candidates may share a strange-matter origin. The paper presents the strange star model as observationally viable while conceding that definitive verification remains open.

What carries the argument

The central object is the strangeon: a color-singlet cluster of N_q valence quarks (typically N_q=18, in a flavor-spin-color symmetric state) that binds through a Lennard-Jones potential u(r) = u0[4(r/r0)^12 − 4(r/r0)^6]. The paper uses the corresponding-state principle to transfer the equation of state of noble gases—which interact via the same functional form—to strangeon matter, with u0 and r0 as free parameters fitted to pulsar mass-radius data. This machinery yields EOSs for polytropic, Lennard-Jones, H-dibaryon, and linked-bag models, and supports the solid strangeon star picture that drives the glitch and merger predictions.

What would settle it

A falsifier would be a precise measurement of the radius of a 1.4-solar-mass compact star exceeding about 14 km (from independent X-ray or gravitational-wave observations), which would conflict with the small-radius predictions of the strangeon models presented here; conversely, confirming that HESS J1731-347 has a mass near 0.77 solar masses and a radius near 10.4 km would support the strange star picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that pulsar-like objects are composed of strange matter rather than neutron-rich matter. Strange matter is either strange quark matter—a Fermi liquid of u, d, s quasi-particles—or strangeon matter, a solid of quark clusters ('strangeons') that are multibaryon states with three-flavour symmetry, typically containing N_q=18 valence quarks. Because strange matter is self-bound, strange stars have a sharp surface at supra-nuclear density instead of a gravitationally bound crust. The authors argue this resolves several observational puzzles: the absence of atomic spectral lines from isolated pulsars, the small radius and low mass of HESS J1731-347, glitches as large a

Load-bearing premise

The strangeon-star scenario rests on the assumptions that strangeons—clusters of typically 18 valence quarks—exist as stable color-singlet units, that their pair interaction is well approximated by a Lennard-Jones potential, and that the corresponding-state principle transfers the noble-gas equation of state to strangeon matter with the potential depth u0 and equilibrium distance r0 treated as free parameters; if any of these fails, the strangeon-star model collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Strange stars have a sharp, self-bound surface with no atomic crust; this naturally explains the absence of hydrogen/helium spectral lines in isolated pulsars and predicts electron-oscillation absorption features like those seen in the central compact object 1E 1207.4-5209.
  • Solid strangeon matter has a high shear modulus, so starquakes in the solid core can power large glitches (Δν/ν up to ~10^-6) and unify the Crab and Vela glitch behaviors in a single model with plastic and elastic motion.
  • Strange stars are smaller and stiffer than neutron stars for a given mass, satisfying the GW170817 tidal-deformability constraint while still allowing maximum masses above 2.3 solar masses; the low-mass, small-radius object HESS J1731-347 is a natural strange star that neutron star models struggle to explain.
  • Binary strange star mergers produce ejecta and kilonova light curves matching observations, and a long-lived supramassive strangeon remnant can explain X-ray plateaus in short gamma-ray bursts and a starquake-powered precursor for events like GRB 211211A.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A solid strangeon star has a finite shear modulus and a characteristic seismic spectrum; detecting a continuous gravitational-wave or oscillation signal from a spinning pulsar would directly probe the solid-core picture in a way the review does not fully develop.
  • The corresponding-state principle implies that improving laboratory measurements of dense Lennard-Jones fluids would tighten the predicted EOS for strangeon matter, offering a cross-check of the model independent of astrophysical mass-radius fits.
  • The electron-spin magnetization mechanism for strangeon nuggets implies a specific scaling between nugget mass, magnetic moment, and interaction cross-section; searches with underwater acoustic detectors could be designed to test this scaling and distinguish strangeon dark matter from other macroscopic dark matter candidates.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a review of the 'strange matter' hypothesis for pulsar-like compact objects. It argues that pulsars may be strange quark stars or strangeon stars rather than neutron stars. Sections 2-3 provide historical background and introduce strangeons as multibaryon quark clusters. Section 4 presents six EOS models (MIT bag, polytropic, Lennard-Jones, corresponding-state, Yukawa/H-dibaryon, linked-bag) with explicit formulas. Section 5 compares the resulting mass-radius relations and tidal deformabilities with observations (NICER pulsars, GW170817, HESS J1731-347), discusses surface emission lines, glitch mechanisms, merger simulations and electromagnetic counterparts, and closes with strangeon nuggets as dark matter. The abstract claims pulsars are 'actually composed' of strange matter, although the body repeatedly states that definitive verification remains an open question.

Significance. The review is a timely and readable synthesis of a minority but long-standing hypothesis. Its strengths are the explicit presentation of six EOS models, the TOV-based M-R plots, the discussion of testable phenomena (glitches, tidal deformability, merger thresholds), and the inclusion of recent NICER and GW170817 constraints. The paper also gives a concrete falsifiable prediction: strangeon stars have M_TOV > 3 Msun and are self-bound with small radii. However, the central 'actually composed' claim is not established by the evidence presented; several model parameters (Nq, u0, r0, bag constants) are fitted to the same observations that are later cited as support. Thus the paper is a valuable review of a speculative scenario, not a demonstration of the scenario's correctness.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 1] The abstract's assertion that pulsars 'are actually composed of strange matter' is not supported by the body of the review. Section 1 (p. 3) itself states 'there is observational evidence for strange stars, but a definitive verification remains an open question,' and Section 5 discusses models as possible explanations. This is more than a wording issue: a review whose abstract makes a categorical claim while the internal evidence supports only a possibility will mislead a non-specialist reader. Recommend replacing 'actually composed' with 'may be composed' and clearly framing the paper as a status report on a hypothesis.
  2. [Sec. 4.3 and Secs. 5.2/5.4.1] The selection of Nq=18 in Eq. (16)/(Sec. 4.3) is justified by 'state-of-art observations on the masses and radii of pulsars' (Ref. 41). Yet Sec. 5.2 and Sec. 5.4.1 use the same mass-radius observations (HESS J1731-347, NICER PSR J0030+0451, PSR J0740+6620, PSR J0437-4715) as evidence supporting strangeon stars and to conclude that Nq=18 is 'more favorable'. This is a circular use of data: the model parameter is calibrated to a dataset and then the agreement with that dataset is presented as validation. The review should either explicitly separate calibration from prediction or refrain from citing this agreement as independent support.
  3. [Sec. 4.4, Eqs. (20) and (22)] The corresponding-state EOS (Eq. 20) is obtained by fitting the reduced EOS of noble gases and mapping it to strangeon matter through the free parameters u0 and r0. Equation (22) similarly transfers the melting heat H from Xe, Kr, Ar, Ne, H2, He to strangeon matter with no justification beyond an assumed Lennard-Jones universality. In Secs. 5.2 and 5.4.1, the small radii and high M_TOV of strangeon models are then compared favorably with observations (GW170817, HESS J1731-347). Because u0 and r0 are chosen to reproduce the desired mass-radius behavior (with Nq=18 selected in Sec. 4.3), the consistency is guaranteed, not tested. The manuscript should acknowledge that the corresponding-state predictions are not parameter-free and that the mapping to the strong interaction is an assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5.5, Eqs. (39)-(43)] The notation is unclear: 'overline d_e' in Eq. (39) is not defined; 'xi mu' after Eq. (42) mixes the magnetic moment with a chemical potential symbol; and the definition of B0 as 'xi mu / r0^3' should be stated with units.
  2. [Sec. 5.5, p. 24] Typo: 'untraheavy' should be 'ultraheavy'.
  3. [Sec. 5.2, p. 16] The phrase 'supporting stiff EOS models' is vague; specify which models (e.g., those with M_TOV > 2.5 Msun) and what constraints are being referenced.
  4. [Sec. 5.1, p. 14] Grammar: 'unless in the presence of super-strong magnetic field' should be 'unless there is a super-strong magnetic field' or 'except in the presence of'.
  5. [Fig. 10 and caption] The axis labels 'lg[m/GeV]' and 'lg[R/cm]' and the annotations 'mass gap', 'Dark Sector?', and '2f/3f' are not self-explanatory; expand the caption to explain the figure's content and the empirical basis of the mass ranges.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: Nq=18 is chosen to fit mass-radius data and the same data are then presented as evidence for the strangeon model.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.3 (Lennard-Jones Model) and Sec. 5.4.1 / Sec. 5.2, Figs. 3, 7]
    "A typical configuration is the “flavor-spin-color” symmetric state with N q = 18, like the quark-α. 40 In fact, N q = 18 is favorable according to the state-of-art observations on the masses and radii of pulsars. 41 ... It is found that the existing observational data indicates that the number of quarks inside a strangeon Nq = 18 is more favorable. 41"

    The review first fixes Nq=18 by appealing to observed masses and radii (Ref. 41); the same mass-radius observations (PSR J0030+0451, PSR J0740+6620, PSR J0437-4715 and GW170817 constraints in Sec. 5.2/5.4.1) are then used as evidence that the strangeon model is supported. The M-R curves in Fig. 3 are computed with the calibrated Nq=18, so their consistency with the calibration data is expected by construction. This is calibration presented as confirmation.

full rationale

The paper is a review, not a new derivation, and much of it is model construction plus comparison with data. The clearest circular step is the use of Nq=18: Sec. 4.3 adopts Nq=18 because it is 'favorable according to the state-of-art observations on the masses and radii of pulsars' (Ref. 41, a self-citation), and Sec. 5.4.1 then reports that the same data indicate Nq=18 is favorable, while Sec. 5.2/Fig. 3 presents Nq=18 EOS curves against these same mass-radius constraints. That specific piece of 'observational support' reduces to calibration. Other claimed evidence is not circular in the same way: the absence of H/He spectral lines, the GW170817 tidal-deformability consistency (allowed-region statements), the glitch/starquake models, and the GRB-plateau explanation use data that are not obviously the same quantities used to fix u0, r0, ns, or the bag parameters. The noble-gas-fitted melting heat H is transferred to strangeon matter and then compared with GRB plateaus; this is a genuine (if fragile) prediction conditional on the Lennard-Jones/corresponding-state ansatz. The paper itself concedes 'a definitive verification remains an open question,' which limits the strength of the abstract's 'actually composed' claim. No uniqueness theorem is imported, and no ansatz is hidden behind a citation beyond the stated Lennard-Jones assumption. Because one load-bearing piece of the confirmation is a calibrated parameter renamed as evidence, the score is 6 rather than higher; the central claim is not fully forced by the input.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central strange-star hypothesis rests on a set of untested assumptions and a large parameter space. The most load-bearing are the Bodmer-Witten conjecture, the existence and stability of strangeons, and the transfer of the Lennard-Jones/corresponding-state EOS to strong interaction matter. Many parameters (N_q, u_0, r_0, B, alpha_BR, etc.) are fitted or chosen by hand to reproduce the very observations used as evidence.

free parameters (7)
  • N_q = 18
    Quarks per strangeon; chosen because mass-radius fits favor it (Sec. 4.3).
  • u_0 = 30-40 MeV
    Lennard-Jones potential depth; free parameter set to reproduce pulsar properties (Secs. 4.3, 4.4).
  • r_0 = 2.5 fm
    Equilibrium distance; set via surface density n_bs=2 n0 for strangeon models (Sec. 4.3).
  • B (bag constant) = B^{1/4}=145 MeV
    Standard MIT bag constant; affects M-R curve (Sec. 4.1).
  • alpha_BR = 0.1-0.2
    Brown-Rho scaling parameter in H-dibaryon model (Sec. 4.5).
  • n_s/Surface density = 2 n0
    Surface baryon density used to fix r0 in strangeon and H-dibaryon models (Sec. 4.3).
  • B2, B3, z0 = 162.3 MeV/fm^3, 100 MeV/fm^3, 2.843
    Linked-bag parameters chosen to reproduce M-R in Fig. 3 (Sec. 4.6).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Bodmer-Witten conjecture: strange quark matter is more stable than iron at high density
    Underlies the strange matter hypothesis; stated in Sec. 2, unproven.
  • ad hoc to paper Strangeons exist as stable multibaryon clusters with three-flavour symmetry
    Introduced by Xu 2003; no direct evidence; Nq=18 is fitted (Sec. 4.3).
  • ad hoc to paper Lennard-Jones potential approximates the strong interaction between strangeons
    Assumed in Sec. 4.3; analogous to van der Waals, not derived from QCD.
  • domain assumption Corresponding states principle applies: noble-gas EOS can be mapped to strangeon matter
    Used in Sec. 4.4; requires same functional form of interaction potential.
  • ad hoc to paper Solid strangeon matter forms a simple cubic lattice with nearest-neighbor interactions
    Assumed in Sec. 4.3; other lattice structures give different EOS.
  • domain assumption Brown-Rho scaling reduces meson/baryon masses with density
    Used in Sec. 4.5; a conjectured scaling from QCD sum rules.
  • standard math TOV equation describes hydrostatic equilibrium in general relativity
    Standard, used in Sec. 5.2.
invented entities (3)
  • Strangeon
    purpose: Constituent of strangeon stars and nuggets; provides solid surface and glitch mechanism
    No direct detection; Nq=18 chosen to match observations; mass spectrum in Fig. 10 is speculative.
  • Strangeon nuggets/strangelets as dark matter
    purpose: Candidate for dark matter and seed for SMBH formation
    No observation; detection via acoustic arrays proposed but not demonstrated (Sec. 5.5).
  • H-dibaryon independent evidence
    purpose: Constituent of H-dibaryon stars
    Lattice QCD (Refs. 44-45) predicts a nearly-bound/stable H-dibaryon; the paper adopts m_H=2210 MeV as a handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strange Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZKTCNY3G

@misc{pith2026251101146,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strange Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZKTCNY3G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.01146}
}
read the original abstract

Pulsar-like objects are extremely compact, with an average density that exceeds nuclear saturation density, where the fundamental strong interaction plays an essential role, particularly in the low-energy regime. The internal structures and properties of those objects are profoundly connected to phenomena such as supernova explosions, gamma-ray bursts, fast radio bursts, high/low-mass compact stars, and even to issues like dark matter and cosmic rays. However, due to the non-perturbative nature of quantum chromodynamics, significant uncertainties remain in our current understanding of the composition and equation of state (EOS) for the dense matter inside them. Drawing on three-flavour symmetry and the strong coupling between light quarks, this paper presents a novel perspective on the nature of pulsars: they are actually composed of strange matter, in the form of either strange quark matter or strangeon (analogous to nucleons and representing multibaryon states with three-flavour symmetry) matter. As both strange quark matter and strangeon matter contain non-zero strangeness, we refer to them collectively as ``strange matter'', and to the corresponding compact stars as ``strange stars''. We then briefly introduce several physical models describing strange matter and present the resulting structures and properties of strange stars. This includes discussions on the EOSs, surface properties, mass-radius relations, glitches, binary compact star mergers, and dark matter. Furthermore, we will explore how observational properties of pulsar-like objects support the strange star model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.01146 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The triangle of light-quark flavors. The points inside this triangle define the states with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A schematic illustration of a lattice cell in strong matter. A spherical bag (centered at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The M-R curves of strange stars predicted by various models. The black dot-dashed line shows the results of the MIT bag model (B1/4 = 145 MeV, ∆ = 0, a4 = 1), the red dashed line represents the polytropic model (n = 0.5), the blue solid line represents the Lennard-Jones model (ns = 0.36 /fm3 , u0 = 30 MeV, Nq = 18), the green solid line represents the H dibaryon model (αBR = 0.15, ns = 2n0), the cyan dash-dotted lin… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The recovery coefficient Q as functions of glitch size ∆Ω/Ω, where the parameter a represents different degrees of exponential recovery. The observational values for the Crab pulsar, the Vela pulsar and several other pulsars are indicated by the red circles, blue trian…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Frequency residual in the recovery for a glitch of PSR J1852-0635 in the framework of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Constraints on the parameters of strangeon star models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Posterior distribution of the model parameters under the constraints of PSR J0030+0451, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The evolution of the minimum lapse function for three strange star mergers with total [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as Fig. 8 but the amount of unbound material for three strange star mergers with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Material world predicted by the standard model of particle physics. The mass spectra of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Strangeon Ergostars

    astro-ph.HE 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Strangeon-matter equations of state support dynamically stable, uniformly rotating ergostars with about 0.01 solar masses of extractable energy.

  2. Tidal deformation and strain accumulation of solid compact stars

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    Solid strangeon stars of 1.4 Msun differ by ~40% in tidal deformability from fluid counterparts and release up to 10^46 erg via central-peaking strain fracture at hundreds of Hz.

  3. A Poincar\'e-covariant study of strange quark stars

    nucl-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    A Poincaré-covariant vector-vector contact interaction yields an equation of state for strange quark matter whose mass-radius and tidal properties match pulsar and gravitational-wave constraints for two tuned parameter sets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Landau,Phys

    L. Landau,Phys. Z. Sowjetunion1, 285 (1932). November 4, 2025 2:25 Strange˙matter Strange Matter25

    1932

  2. [2]

    Baade and F

    W. Baade and F. Zwicky,Phys. Rev.46, 76 (Jul 1934), doi:10.1103/PhysRev.46.76.2

    doi:10.1103/physrev.46.76.2 1934

  3. [3]

    Hewish, S

    A. Hewish, S. J. Bell, J. D. H. Pilkington, P. F. Scott and R. A. Collins,Nature217, 709 (1968)

    1968

  4. [4]

    Itoh,Prog

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

    doi:10.1143/ptp.44.291 1970

  5. [5]

    A. R. Bodmer,Phys. Rev. D4, 1601 (Sep 1971), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.4.1601

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.4.1601 1971

  6. [6]

    Witten,Phys

    E. Witten,Phys. Rev. D30, 272 (Jul 1984), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.30.272

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.30.272 1984

  7. [7]

    Alcock, E

    C. Alcock, E. Farhi and A. Olinto,Astrophys. J.310, 261 (November 1986), doi: 10.1086/164679

    doi:10.1086/164679 1986

  8. [8]

    Alford, M

    M. Alford, M. Braby, M. Paris and S. Reddy,Astrophys. J.629, 969 (2005)

    2005

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    Xu,Astrophys

    R.-X. Xu,Astrophys. J.596, L59 (2003)

    2003

  2. [10]

    Alford, K

    M. Alford, K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek,Phys. Lett. B422, 247 (1998), doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00051-3

    1998 doi

  3. [11]

    E. S. Fraga, R. D. Pisarski and J. Schaffner-Bielich,Phys. Rev. D63, 121702 (May 2001), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.121702

    2001 doi

  4. [12]

    Zhang, Y

    C. Zhang, Y. Gao, C.-J. Xia and R. Xu,Phys. Rev. D108, 123031 (Dec 2023), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123031

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    E. S. Fraga, A. Kurkela and A. Vuorinen,Astrophys. J.781, L25 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    Kurkela, E

    A. Kurkela, E. S. Fraga, J. Schaffner-Bielich and A. Vuorinen,Astrophys. J.789, 127 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    J. F. Xu, G. X. Peng, F. Liu, D.-F. Hou and L.-W. Chen,Phys. Rev. D92, 025025 (Jul 2015), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.025025

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    Xia and S.-G

    C.-J. Xia and S.-G. Zhou,Nucl. Phys. B916, 669 (2017), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.nuclphysb.2017.01.022

    2017

  9. [17]

    C.-J. Xia, T. Maruyama, N. Yasutake and T. Tatsumi,Phys. Rev. D99, 103017 (May 2019), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.103017

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Holdom, J

    B. Holdom, J. Ren and C. Zhang,Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 222001 (May 2018), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.222001

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    E.-P. Zhou, X. Zhou and A. Li,Phys. Rev. D97, 083015 (Apr 2018), doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.97.083015

    2018

  12. [20]

    Miao, J.-L

    Z. Miao, J.-L. Jiang, A. Li and L.-W. Chen,Astrophys. J.917, L22 (Aug 2021), doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac194d

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    C. D. Roberts and A. G. Williams,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.33, 477 (1994), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0146-6410(94)90049-3

    1994 doi

  14. [22]

    Alkofer and L

    R. Alkofer and L. von Smekal,Phys. Rep.353, 281 (2001), doi:https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0370-1573(01)00010-2

    2001

  15. [23]

    G. X. Peng, A. Li and U. Lombardo,Phys. Rev. C77, 065807 (Jun 2008), doi:10. 1103/PhysRevC.77.065807

    2008

  16. [24]

    C. J. Xia, G. X. Peng, S. W. Chen, Z. Y. Lu and J. F. Xu,Phys. Rev. D89, 105027 (May 2014), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.105027

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    R. D. Pisarski,Nucl. Phys. A498, 423 (1989), doi:10.1016/0375-9474(89)90620-9

    1989 doi

  18. [26]

    Schertler, C

    K. Schertler, C. Greiner and M. H. Thoma,J. Phys. G23, 2051 (1997)

  19. [27]

    Schertler, C

    K. Schertler, C. Greiner and M. Thoma,Nucl. Phys. A616, 659 (1997), doi:10.1016/ S0375-9474(97)00014-6

    1997

  20. [28]

    Buballa,Phys

    M. Buballa,Phys. Rep.407, 205 (2005), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep. 2004.11.004

    2005 doi

  21. [29]

    Gholami, I

    H. Gholami, I. A. Rather, M. Hofmann, M. Buballa and J. Schaffner-Bielich,Phys. Rev. D111, 103034 (May 2025), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.103034

    2025 doi

  22. [31]

    X. Y. Lai and R. X. Xu,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.398, L31 (09 2009), doi: November 4, 2025 2:25 Strange˙matter 26Chengjun Xia, Xiaoyu Lai, and Renxin Xu 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00701.x

    2009

  23. [32]

    Guo, X.-Y

    Y.-J. Guo, X.-Y. Lai and R.-X. Xu,Chin. Phys. C38, 055101 (May 2014), doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/38/5/055101

    2014 doi

  24. [33]

    X. Y. Lai, C. Y. Gao and R. X. Xu,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.431, 3282 (2013), doi:10.1093/mnras/stt407

    2013 doi

  25. [34]

    Miao, C.-J

    Z.-Q. Miao, C.-J. Xia, X.-Y. Lai, T. Maruyama, R.-X. Xu and E.-P. Zhou,Int. J. Mod. Phys. E31, 2250037 (2022), doi:10.1142/S0218301322500379

    2022 doi

  26. [35]

    Weissenborn, I

    S. Weissenborn, I. Sagert, G. Pagliara, M. Hempel and J. Schaffner-Bielich,Astrophys. J.740, L14 (2011)

    2011

  27. [36]

    J. P. Pereira, C. V. Flores and G. Lugones,Astrophys. J.860, 12 (Jun 2018), doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfbf

    2018 doi

  28. [37]

    Zhang and R

    C. Zhang and R. B. Mann,Phys. Rev. D103, 063018 (Mar 2021), doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.103.063018

    2021

  29. [38]

    P. Ning, L. Li and D.-f. Min,Fundamentals of nuclear physics: nucleon and nucleus (Beijing: Higher Education Press

  30. [39]

    Huang and R.-Q

    K. Huang and R.-Q. Han,Solid state physics(Beijing: Higher Education Press

  31. [40]

    F. C. Michel,Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 677 (Feb 1988), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.60.677

    1988 doi

  32. [41]

    W.-L. Yuan, C. Huang, C. Zhang, E. Zhou and R. Xu,Phys. Rev. D111, 063033 (Mar 2025), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.063033

    2025 doi

  33. [42]

    S. Dai, L. Li and R. Xu,Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron.54, 1541 (2011), doi:10.1007/ s11433-011-4384-z

    2011

  34. [43]

    R. L. Jaffe,Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 195 (Jan 1977), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.38.195

    1977 doi

  35. [44]

    NPLQCD Collaboration Collaboration (S. R. Beane, E. Chang, W. Detmold, B. Joo, H. W. Lin, T. C. Luu, K. Orginos, A. Parre˜ no, M. J. Savage, A. Torok and A. Walker-Loud),Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 162001 (Apr 2011), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 106.162001

    2011 doi

  36. [45]

    Inoue, N

    HAL QCD Collaboration Collaboration (T. Inoue, N. Ishii, S. Aoki, T. Doi, T. Hat- suda, Y. Ikeda, K. Murano, H. Nemura and K. Sasaki),Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 162002 (Apr 2011), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.162002

    2011 doi

  37. [46]

    Faessler, A

    A. Faessler, A. Buchmann, M. Krivoruchenko and B. Martemyanov,Phys. Lett. B 391, 255 (1997), doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(96)01482-7

    1997 doi

  38. [47]

    Brown and M

    G. Brown and M. Rho,Phys. Lett. B237, 3 (1990), doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0370-2693(90)90450-K

    1990

  39. [48]

    Brown and M

    G. Brown and M. Rho,Phys. Rep.396, 1 (2004), doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. physrep.2004.02.002

    2004 doi

  40. [49]

    G. E. Brown, A. Sethi and N. M. Hintz,Phys. Rev. C44, 2653 (Dec 1991), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.44.2653

    1991 doi

  41. [50]

    M. S. Berger and R. L. Jaffe,Phys. Rev. C35, 213 (Jan 1987), doi:10.1103/PhysRevC. 35.213

    1987 doi

  42. [51]

    Madsen,Phys

    J. Madsen,Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 391 (Jan 1993), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.391

    1993 doi

  43. [52]

    Madsen,Phys

    J. Madsen,Phys. Rev. D47, 5156 (Jun 1993), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.5156

    1993 doi

  44. [53]

    Madsen,Phys

    J. Madsen,Phys. Rev. D50, 3328 (Sep 1994), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.3328

    1994 doi

  45. [54]

    Shuryak,Phys

    E. Shuryak,Phys. Lett. B79, 135 (1978), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ 0370-2693(78)90453-7

    1978

  46. [55]

    DeGrand, R

    T. DeGrand, R. L. Jaffe, K. Johnson and J. Kiskis,Phys. Rev. D12, 2060 (Oct 1975), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.12.2060

    doi

  47. [56]

    R. X. Xu, G. J. Qiao and B. Zhang,Astrophys. J.522, L109 (Sep 1999), doi:10.1086/ 312226

    1999

  48. [57]

    Yu and R.-X

    J.-W. Yu and R.-X. Xu,Res. Astron. Astrophys.10, 815 (2010), doi:10.1088/ 1674-4527/10/9/001. November 4, 2025 2:25 Strange˙matter Strange Matter27

    2010

  49. [58]

    J. Lu, B. Peng, R. Xu, M. Yu, S. Dai, W. Zhu, Y.-Z. Yu, P. Jiang, Y. Yue, L. Wang and F. A. S. T. Collaboration,Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy62, 959505 (2019), doi:10.1007/s11433-019-9394-x

    2019 doi

  50. [59]

    Xu, W.-Y

    Z.-H. Xu, W.-Y. Wang and R.-X. Xu (6 2025),arXiv:2506.12305 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  51. [60]

    Xu and W

    R. Xu and W. Wang,Astron. Nachr.345, e230153 (2024),https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/asna.20230153, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asna.20230153

    2024 doi

  52. [61]

    A. Chen, T. Yu and R. Xu,Astrophys. J.668, L55 (Sep 2007), doi:10.1086/522777

    2007 doi

  53. [62]

    W. Wang, J. Lu, H. Tong, M. Ge, Z. Li, Y. Men and R. Xu,Astrophys. J.837, 81 (Mar 2017), doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5e52

    2017 doi

  54. [63]

    R.-X. Xu,Res. Astron. Astrophys.14, 617 (May 2014), doi:10.1088/1674-4527/14/6/ 001

    2014 doi

  55. [64]

    R. X. Xu, S. I. Bastrukov, F. Weber, J. W. Yu and I. V. Molodtsova,Phys. Rev. D 85, 023008 (Jan 2012), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.023008

    2012 doi

  56. [65]

    Akmal and V

    A. Akmal and V. R. Pandharipande,Phys. Rev. C56, 2261 (Oct 1997), doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.56.2261

    1997

  57. [66]

    Antoniadis, P

    J. Antoniadis, P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex, T. M. Tauris, R. S. Lynch, M. H. van Kerk- wijk, M. Kramer, C. Bassa, V. S. Dhillon, T. Driebe, J. W. T. Hessels, V. M. Kaspi, V. I. Kondratiev, N. Langer, T. R. Marsh, M. A. McLaughlin, T. T. Pennucci, S. M. Ransom, I. H. Stairs, J. van...

    2013 doi

  58. [67]

    Yang, X.-Y

    X.-Y. Yang, X.-Y. Lai, W.-W. Tan and R.-X. Xu,Res. Astron. Astrophys.24, 035005 (2024), doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ad2127

    2024 doi

  59. [68]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela and A. Vuorinen,Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 172703 (Apr 2018), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.172703

    2018 doi

  60. [69]

    Haensel, J

    P. Haensel, J. L. Zdunik and F. Douchin,A&A385, 301 (2002), doi:10.1051/ 0004-6361:20020131

    2002

  61. [70]

    Doroshenko, V

    V. Doroshenko, V. Suleimanov, G. P¨ uhlhofer and A. Santangelo,Nat. Astron.6, 1444 (2022), doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01800-1

    2022 doi

  62. [71]

    Li, Z.-J

    Z.-S. Li, Z.-J. Qu, L. Chen, Y.-J. Guo, J.-L. Qu and R.-X. Xu,Astrophys. J.798, 56 (2015)

    2015

  63. [72]

    R. X. Xu, D. J. Tao and Y. Yang,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.373, L85 (11 2006), doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00248.x

    2006

  64. [73]

    Xu and E

    R. Xu and E. Liang,Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron.52, 315 (2009), doi:10.1007/ s11433-009-0045-x

    2009

  65. [74]

    S. Chen, Y. Gao, E. Zhou and R. Xu,Res. Astron. Astrophys.24, 025005 (2024), doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ad1430

    2024 doi

  66. [75]

    Wang, J.-C

    W.-Y. Wang, J.-C. Jiang, J. Lu, H. Xu, J. Xu, K. Lee, J. Liu and R. Xu,Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy65, 289511 (August 2022),arXiv:2112.06719 [astro-ph.HE], doi:10.1007/s11433-021-1912-0

    2022 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Wang, Y.-P

    W.-Y. Wang, Y.-P. Yang, C.-H. Niu, R. Xu and B. Zhang,Astrophys. J.927, 105 (March 2022),arXiv:2111.11841 [astro-ph.HE], doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4097

    2022 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Wang, J.-C

    W.-Y. Wang, J.-C. Jiang, K. Lee, R. Xu and B. Zhang,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 517, 5080 (December 2022),arXiv:2210.04401 [astro-ph.HE], doi:10.1093/mnras/ stac3070

    2022 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Andersson, K

    N. Andersson, K. Glampedakis, W. C. G. Ho and C. M. Espinoza,Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 241103 (Dec 2012), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.241103

    2012 doi

  70. [79]

    X. Y. Lai, C. A. Yun, J. G. Lu, G. L. L¨ u, Z. J. Wang and R. X. Xu,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.476, 3303 (02 2018), doi:10.1093/mnras/sty474

    2018 doi

  71. [80]

    A. Zhou, R. Xu, X. Wu and N. Wang,Astropart. Phys.22, 73 (2004), doi:https: November 4, 2025 2:25 Strange˙matter 28Chengjun Xia, Xiaoyu Lai, and Renxin Xu //doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2004.05.007

    2004 doi

  72. [81]

    Peng and R

    C. Peng and R. X. Xu,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.384, 1034 (07 2008), doi:10.1111/ j.1365-2966.2007.12575.x

    2008

  73. [82]

    E. P. Zhou, J. G. Lu, H. Tong and R. X. Xu,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.443, 2705 (08 2014), doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1370

    2014 doi

  74. [83]

    R. Lu, H. Yue, X. Lai, W. Wang, S. Zhang and R. Xu,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.520, 4289 (2023), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/520/3/4289/49283936/stad270.pdf, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad270

    2023 doi

  75. [84]

    X. Y. Lai, W. H. Wang, J. P. Yuan, R. P. Lu, H. Yue and R. X. Xu,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.523, 3967 (2023), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/523/3/3967/50620947/stad1653.pdf, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1653

    2023 doi

  76. [85]

    LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations,Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (Oct 2017), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    2017 doi

  77. [86]

    X. Lai, E. Zhou and R. Xu,Eur. Phys. J. A55, 60 (Apr 2019), doi:10.1140/epja/ i2019-12720-8

    2019 doi

  78. [87]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, S. Bogdanov, P. S. Ray, R. M. Ludlam, S. Guillot, Z. Arzou- manian, C. L. Baker, A. V. Bilous, D. Chakrabarty, K. C. Gendreau, A. K. Harding, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, S. M. Morsink and T. E. Strohmayer,Astrophys. J. 887, L21 (Dec 2019), doi:10.384...

    2019 doi

  79. [88]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, P. S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, S. M. Morsink, A. V. Bilous, Z. Arzoumanian, D. Choudhury, J. S. Deneva, K. C. Gendreau, A. K. Hard- ing, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, M. Loewenstein, R. M. Ludlam, C. B. Mark- wardt, T. Okajima, C. Prescod-Weinstei...

    2021 doi

  80. [89]

    Choudhury, T

    D. Choudhury, T. Salmi, S. Vinciguerra, T. E. Riley, Y. Kini, A. L. Watts, B. Dorsman, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, P. S. Ray, D. J. Reardon, R. A. Remillard, A. V. Bilous, D. Huppenkothen, J. M. Lattimer, N. Rutherford, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. M. Morsink and W. C. G. H...

    2024

  81. [90]

    E. Zhou, K. Kiuchi, M. Shibata, A. Tsokaros and K. b. o. Ury¯ u,Phys. Rev. D106, 103030 (Nov 2022), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.103030

    2022 doi

  82. [91]

    Lai, Y.-W

    X.-Y. Lai, Y.-W. Yu, E.-P. Zhou, Y.-Y. Li and R.-X. Xu,Res. Astron. Astrophys.18, 024 (2018)

    2018

  83. [92]

    Lai, C.-J

    X.-Y. Lai, C.-J. Xia, Y.-W. Yu and R.-X. Xu,Res. Astron. Astrophys.21, 250 (Nov 2021), doi:10.1088/1674-4527/21/10/250

    2021 doi

  84. [93]

    E. Zhou, Y. Gao, Y. Zhou, X. Lai, L. Shao, W. Wang, S. Xiong, R. Xu, S. Yi, G. Yim, H. Yue and Z. Zhang,Res. Astron. Astrophys.24, 025019 (2024), doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad0825

    2024 doi

  85. [94]

    C. Xia, Y. Gao and R. Xu,Strange matter and strange stars(Peking University Press

  86. [95]

    Madsen and J

    J. Madsen and J. M. Larsen,Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 121102 (Mar 2003), doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.90.121102

    2003

  87. [96]

    Lai and R

    X. Lai and R. Xu,J. Cosmol. Astropart. P.2010, 028 (May 2010), doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2010/05/028

    2010

  88. [97]

    Qi and R.-X

    H.-Y. Qi and R.-X. Xu,Res. Astron. Astrophys.25, 095010 (2025), doi:10.1088/ 1674-4527/ade953

    2025

  89. [98]

    Lai and R.-X

    X.-Y. Lai and R.-X. Xu,Chin. Phys. C40, 095102 (Sep 2016), doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ November 4, 2025 2:25 Strange˙matter Strange Matter29 40/9/095102

    2016 doi

  90. [99]

    Cleaver, C

    D. Cleaver, C. McCabe and C. A. J. O’Hare,Phys. Rev. D112, 063060 (2025), doi: 10.1103/jpzr-msx1

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.