Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 78 references

An oscillating compact star modeled as a moving perfectly reflecting sphere in Schwarzschild spacetime spontaneously creates scalar particle pairs from the vacuum, with a resonance at Ω ≈ ω_nℓ + ω_n'ℓ and a finite total particle number.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 21:23 UTC pith:AQRN327P

load-bearing objection First non-perturbative 3+1 moving-boundary QFT computation in Schwarzschild, with careful numerics; the astrophysical punchline is only as strong as the star-as-mirror idealization. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.20253 v1 pith:AQRN327P submitted 2026-02-23 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

Spontaneous particle creation by oscillating compact stars

Adri\'an del R\'io , Pau L\'opez-Oliver This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.HE PACS 04.62.+v
keywords particle creationoscillating compact starsmoving Dirichlet boundaryBogoliubov coefficientsquantum vacuumSchwarzschild spacetimeresonance spectrumscalar field
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to establish that purely radial oscillations of a spherically symmetric compact object—the kind neutron stars undergo—can spontaneously excite particle pairs from the quantum vacuum in the surrounding curved spacetime. Modeling the star's surface as a moving perfectly reflecting (Dirichlet) boundary in an exactly Schwarzschild exterior, and solving the massless scalar field non-perturbatively, the authors compute the Bogoliubov coefficients between the early-time and late-time vacua. They find a clear resonance: particle creation is strongly enhanced when the stellar oscillation frequency equals the sum of the frequencies of the two created quanta, Ω ≈ ω_nℓ + ω_n'ℓ. The total number of particles is finite (≈5×10^-4 for the representative parameters), so the early-time and late-time vacuum descriptions are unitarily equivalent rather than producing an infinite particle flux. A sympathetic reader cares because this opens a new arena for quantum-vacuum effects—oscillating neutron stars—beyond cosmology and collapse, with concrete spectral predictions that could be tested against more realistic simulations.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that radial oscillations of a compact star act as a time-dependent boundary that converts part of the star's oscillatory energy into real scalar particles, starting from the vacuum. The microscopic content is the set of Bogoliubov coefficients β_nℓ,n'ℓ computed non-perturbatively by evolving in and out modes in comoving coordinates; these coefficients show a resonant ridge along Ω ≃ ω_nℓ + ω_n'ℓ, and the ℓ=0 sector dominates because the perturbation is purely radial. For the benchmark parameters—compactness 2M/R0 = 0.3, amplitude A = 1, frequency Ω = 0.03/M—the summed expectation value ⟨in|N_out|in⟩ is about 5×10^-4, a finite number that implies the in and out Fo

What carries the argument

The central object is the moving Dirichlet boundary—the star's surface, treated as a perfectly reflecting wall for the massless scalar field—with the ad hoc trajectory R0(t)=R0+M ε(t) sin(Ωt), where ε is a tanh switch-on/off envelope. A coordinate transformation to comoving coordinates immobilizes the boundary and converts the problem into a PDE with fixed boundary conditions; the field modes are expanded in Sturm-Liouville eigenfunctions of the static Schwarzschild radial operator with box normalization at a large radius. The identity that carries the argument is the resonance condition Ω ≃ ω_nℓ + ω_n'ℓ, which gives every particle pair's total energy matching the oscillation quantum. The Bo

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the star can be replaced, for quantum-field purposes, by a perfectly reflecting moving sphere in a fixed, non-dynamical exterior spacetime; if the scalar field actually penetrates the star or the oscillations shake the metric itself, the resonant particle-creation mechanism need not survive.

What would settle it

Run the same scalar-field evolution with the interior resolved and the metric perturbations sourced by the oscillations (a numerical-relativity solve with, say, a polytropic equation of state) and scan Ω across the resonant value; if the |β| ridge at Ω ≈ ω_nℓ + ω_n'ℓ disappears or drops to numerical noise, the moving-mirror boundary is the entire cause of the effect.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, any compact star undergoing sustained radial oscillations radiates scalar particles; the effect is strongest when the star's frequency matches the sum of two normal-mode frequencies of the exterior field.
  • Because the total particle number is finite, no infinite particle flux is produced; the in- and out-Fock spaces remain unitarily equivalent, so the effect is a finite, physical vacuum-selection phenomenon rather than a regulator artifact.
  • Particle pairs are produced within fixed ℓ sectors with m' = -m; the ℓ=0 spherical mode dominates by roughly four orders of magnitude per ℓ, so monopolar oscillations produce predominantly isotropic s-wave pairs.
  • The framework is not tied to sinusoidal oscillations or Dirichlet conditions: the authors state it applies to any radial process that is asymptotically static in the past and future, and it extends to other boundary conditions.
  • For more realistic, higher oscillation frequencies and slower damping, the total particle number is expected to rise, since the analytical estimate scales with the amplitude and the decay time while the resonance remains.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An extension the paper leaves implicit: replacing the reflecting boundary with a penetrable stellar interior in a fully dynamical metric should preserve the resonance, and then the created-particle spectrum becomes a direct readout of the star's quasi-normal mode frequencies.
  • Editorial inference: by analogy with the dynamical Casimir effect, stimulating the same field with pre-existing photons should amplify the spontaneous rate without shifting the resonance, potentially putting the mechanism in reach of radio observations around magnetars.
  • Editorial inference: for ultracompact objects that trap low-ℓ modes between the surface and the effective potential barrier in the exterior geometry, the finite per-cycle yield might accumulate across bounces, turning particle creation into a slow quantum drain that could constrain such exotic configurations.
  • A testable extension would scan the oscillation frequency across the fundamental radial mode of realistic neutron stars (Ω M ~ 0.1) and check whether the total particle number rises as the ℓ=0 analytic formula predicts; a null result would signal that the mirror description fails before the resonance matters.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a numerical study of spontaneous scalar particle creation in the exterior of a spherically symmetric compact star undergoing radial oscillations. The star is modeled as a moving Dirichlet boundary in an otherwise static Schwarzschild spacetime, with the surface trajectory R0(t) = R0 + M ε(t) sin(Ωt) and a tanh switching envelope. The authors solve the Klein-Gordon equation in comoving coordinates using a finite-box mode decomposition and the method of lines, compute Bogoliubov coefficients non-perturbatively, and verify norm conservation, unitarity, and time-independence of the coefficients. They report a resonance structure at Ω ≈ ω_nℓ + ω_n'ℓ, dominated by the ℓ=0 sector, and estimate a total particle number ⟨in|N_out|in⟩ ≈ 5×10^-4 for the chosen parameters (Ω=0.03/M, A=1, C=0.3). The central claim is that oscillating compact stars create particles from the vacuum with a characteristic resonant spectrum.

Significance. If the moving-mirror idealization is accepted as a faithful proxy for a real oscillating compact star, this is a substantial and novel result: it provides a non-perturbative, 3+1-dimensional, curved-spacetime computation of particle creation by an oscillating stellar surface, with a clear resonance condition and a concrete quantitative prediction. The numerical work is careful and reproducible: the code is public, the symplectic-structure norm is conserved at the 5×10^-9 level, and unitarity is checked at the 10^-3 level. The authors are also explicit about many limitations. However, the physical applicability to neutron stars is not established: the model contains no dynamical interior, no metric perturbations, and the scalar field is forced to vanish at a perfectly reflecting surface. The results are therefore best understood as an existence proof within a specific toy model, rather than a robust prediction for astrophysical compact stars. The abstract and conclusions frame the results more strongly than the modeling justifies.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.B and Sec. V] The only time-dependent element in the model is the moving Dirichlet boundary at the stellar surface. The justification for this boundary condition, based on low-frequency insensitivity to the stellar interior (Refs. [53,54]), concerns static scattering; it does not establish that a moving, partially transmitting surface produces the same particle-creation effect. Since the low-frequency modes that dominate the resonance are classically suppressed near the surface, the sensitivity to the boundary condition should be quantified. I recommend either repeating a subset of the ℓ=0 simulations with Neumann or Robin boundary conditions and comparing the resulting spectra, or explicitly reframing the abstract and conclusions so that the claim is confined to the moving-mirror toy model rather than to 'oscillating compact stars' generally.
  2. [Sec. IV.C, Eq. (59)] The 'analytical estimate' for |β_nℓ,n'ℓ| is presented as a physically motivated expression, but the prefactor (ω_nℓ+ω_n'ℓ)^2 is replaced by √(ω_nℓω_n'ℓ) after comparing with the numerics. This is a post-hoc fit, not a parameter-free derivation. The conclusions draw on Eq. (59) to argue for the resonance interpretation, but as written the formula overstates the first-principles understanding. The authors should clearly label Eq. (59) as a fit and either derive the prefactor from a more systematic approximation or omit the claim that the spectrum is 'understood on simple physical grounds.'
  3. [Sec. III.A and Sec. IV.C, Eq. (65)] The total particle number ⟨in|N_out|in⟩ is obtained using a finite-box normalization with an outer boundary at r_max=2100M. The final result is proportional to π^2/r_max^2 times a sum of |β|^2, but no explicit demonstration that the result is independent of r_max in the large-r_max limit is provided. Since the finiteness and magnitude of the total particle number are central claims, the authors should verify convergence by repeating one ℓ=0 computation at a different value of r_max (or by providing a careful scaling argument), so that the quoted value is not a box artifact.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (43)] The normalization factor A_ωℓ is written with an integral involving two different modes (ωℓ and ω'ℓ'), which appears to be a typographical error; the normalization should involve the same mode in the inner product.
  2. [General] Typos: 'Sturm-Liuiville' in the caption of Fig. 2, 'subsitutte' in Sec. III.B, and 'the the spectrum' in Sec. IV.C.
  3. [Sec. IV.C] The numerical uncertainty estimate (56) is defined as half the difference between maximum and minimum recorded values; this is reasonable, but the reported precision of 10^-6 for the spectra could be better contextualized by stating how many independent realizations or times were used.
  4. [Sec. V] The discussion of extensions to 'more physically realistic oscillations obtained from solutions of Einstein's equations' is a useful caveat, but it should appear in the abstract or introduction so that the reader immediately understands the toy-model status of the calculation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The central spectrum and total particle number are computed directly from evolved modes; only the analytic ℓ=0 estimate in Eq. (59) uses a post-hoc prefactor correction, a minor non-load-bearing circularity. The moving-mirror ansatz is an acknowledged modeling limitation, not a circular input.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV.C, Eqs. (57)-(59) and following paragraph]
    "The numerical results obtained for ℓ=0 in Fig. 6 are accurately described by this expression, with maximum relative deviations of order 10−2, provided we correct the global prefactor (ω nℓ +ω n′ℓ)2 → √ωnℓωn′ℓ. For higher values of ℓ, however, this ansatz no longer reproduces the numerical results with comparable accuracy."

    Eq. (59) is introduced as an analytical expectation for the ℓ=0 spectrum, but the prefactor √(ωnℓωn′ℓ) is adopted only after comparing (59) with the numerically computed spectrum. Its agreement with that spectrum is therefore a fit to the same data, not an independent prediction. This is not the route used for the main result: the total particle number (65) is computed from directly evolved modes via the sum (60), so the circularity is minor and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—the β spectrum and the finite total particle number ⟨in|N_out|in⟩ ~ 5×10^-4—is obtained by evolving the in/out radial modes under the stated PDE (40) with boundary conditions (38) and (41), then evaluating the symplectic inner product (50) and summing (60). This is a direct numerical computation, not a consequence of an a priori fitted formula. The Dirichlet boundary condition and the trajectory R0(t)=R0+M ε(t) sin(Ωt) are explicitly presented as a toy-model ansatz and are acknowledged as such in Sec. V; this is a physical modeling limitation (the exterior is Schwarzschild by Birkhoff, but the reflectivity of the stellar surface is imposed, not derived), not a circularity. No load-bearing result rests on a self-citation: [34] and other self-references are contextual, and no author-specific uniqueness theorem is invoked. The only reduction I can exhibit is the analytic estimate for the ℓ=0 spectrum, whose prefactor is corrected after comparison with the numerical data; because the total particle number is not obtained from that estimate, this is a minor, non-central circular step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central calculation rests on a moving-mirror toy model in a fixed Schwarzschild background. The free parameters (A, Omega, Delta, Ton/Toff, C) are chosen model inputs, not fitted to external data; the only explicit post-hoc adjustment is the prefactor correction in the analytic spectrum estimate. The axioms are standard QFT/Sturm-Liouville tools plus the key domain assumption that a Dirichlet moving boundary faithfully represents an oscillating star.

free parameters (6)
  • Oscillation amplitude A = 1.0 (M A = M, ~15% of R0)
    Chosen as the strength of the initial perturbation; not determined by stellar microphysics. Total particle number scales as A^2 if the ansatz (59) is representative.
  • Oscillation frequency Omega = 0.03 M^-1
    Chosen close to the lowest allowed mode frequencies to expose resonant behavior with a small mode count. Sets the resonance location Omega = omega_n,ell + omega_n',ell.
  • Switching width Delta = 40 M
    Controls the tanh turn-on/off timescale and the spectral width. Chosen for computational tractability; realistic damping is expected to be much larger (Sec. V).
  • Oscillation interval Ton, Toff = 765 M, 1330 M
    Finite duration of the oscillations, chosen for numerical convenience and to make the asymptotic in/out vacua well defined. The total number depends on the duration through sinc-type factors in Eq. (59).
  • Compactness C = 2M/R0 = 0.3
    A representative neutron-star value. It sets the mode spectrum and effective potential but is not fitted to the target result.
  • Prefactor correction in Eq. (59) = (omega+omega')^2 -> sqrt(omega omega')
    Ad hoc correction applied after comparing the analytic ansatz to the numerical ell=0 spectrum; explicitly acknowledged in Sec. IV C.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Birkhoff's theorem: the exterior of a spherically symmetric vacuum star is Schwarzschild.
    Sec. II A. Valid for a truly static exterior, but the star's oscillations are then encoded entirely in the boundary, not in the metric.
  • domain assumption Dirichlet boundary conditions at the stellar surface model the field-matter coupling.
    Sec. II B. Plausible for omega M <~ 1, but not derived from neutron-star microphysics; the scalar field is assumed perfectly reflected.
  • standard math In/out vacua are defined by the Killing time in the static early and late regimes; particle creation is measured by the Bogoliubov transformation.
    Sec. II C. Standard algebraic QFT in curved spacetime.
  • standard math Sturm-Liouville eigenfunctions on the finite box [z0,zmax] with Dirichlet boundaries form a complete orthogonal set, and the rmax -> infinity limit recovers the continuum.
    Sec. II D and III B. Standard Sturm-Liouville theory, with a finite-box regularization that is assumed harmless.
  • domain assumption The comoving coordinate transformation preserves the validity of quantization and the symplectic structure; symplectic flux vanishes at the moving boundary and spatial infinity.
    Sec. II E and Appendix A. Requires the asymptotic fall-off and Dirichlet boundary to give zero boundary flux.
  • ad hoc to paper The tanh switching envelope epsilon(t) represents the stellar oscillation profile.
    Eq. (35). A convenient smooth profile chosen by hand; realistic stellar damping and mode amplitudes are not modeled.
invented entities (1)
  • None no independent evidence
    purpose: No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.
    The moving boundary and switching envelope are modeling assumptions, not new physical entities.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25084 in / 14840 out tokens · 140975 ms · 2026-08-02T21:23:00.865735+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum field theory predicts that dynamical curved spacetimes can spontaneously excite particle pairs from the quantum vacuum, a phenomenon extensively studied in expanding universes and in scenarios involving gravitational collapse. In this article, we explore particle creation driven by radial oscillations of 3+1-dimensional spherically symmetric compact objects, such as neutron stars, using a massless, minimally coupled scalar field as a reference model. We employ a toy model to describe the oscillatory dynamics and its coupling to the field modes, focusing on the resulting effects in the exterior spacetime of the star. The Bogoliubov coefficients relating the in and out vacua are computed non-perturbatively using high-precision numerical methods, without relying on weak-field, small-amplitude or small-velocity expansions. This allows us to determine the full particle spectrum and the total particle number in the strong-field and fully relativistic regime. Our analysis confirms the existence of particle creation in this setting and, crucially, reveals a distinct resonance structure in the spectrum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.20253 by Adri\'an del R\'io, Pau L\'opez-Oliver.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Switching function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of the Sturm-Liuiville problem in Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Spacetime diagram in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Left: Absolute error of the norm of representative in (solid) and out (dashed) modes, computed at different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Numerical values of the Bogoliubov coefficients [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Particle spectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Unitarity conditions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Numerical estimate of the total particle number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Since bothϕ 1 and ϕ2 vanish identically on the boundary, the symplectic currentω a(ϕ1, ϕ2) vanishes there as well, and therefore no symplectic flux crosses the stellar surface

    At the moving stellar surface we impose Dirichlet boundary conditions,ϕ(t, R 0(t), θ, φ) = 0. Since bothϕ 1 and ϕ2 vanish identically on the boundary, the symplectic currentω a(ϕ1, ϕ2) vanishes there as well, and therefore no symplectic flux crosses the stellar surface

  2. [2]

    Sincej ℓ(ωr)∼sin(ωr−ℓπ/2)/rfor larger, the radial component of the symplectic current decays as 1/r2 up to oscillatory factors

    At largerwe demand that the field modes behave asymptotically as their Minkowskian counterpart, ϕ(t, r, θ, φ)∼ X ℓm Z dω Aωℓjℓ(ωr)e−iωtYℓm(θ, φ).(A4) for suitableA ωℓ. Sincej ℓ(ωr)∼sin(ωr−ℓπ/2)/rfor larger, the radial component of the symplectic current decays as 1/r2 up to oscillatory factors. The surface element contributes a factorr 2, so the boundary ...

  3. [3]

    N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies,Quantum Fields in Curved Space, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1984). 24 FIG. 9: Values ofA nℓ forℓ∈[0,50] andn∈[1,30] in logarithmic scale with respect to radial profiles satisfying Rnℓ(z) =j ℓ(ωnℓz) asz→ ∞

    1984

  4. [4]

    S. A. Fulling,Aspects of Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime, London Mathematical Society Student Texts (Cam- bridge University Press, 1989)

    1989

  5. [5]

    R. M. Wald,Quantum Field Theory in Curved Space-Time and Black Hole Thermodynamics, Chicago Lectures in Physics (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1995)

    1995

  6. [6]

    L. E. Parker and D. Toms,Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime: Quantized Field and Gravity, Cambridge Mono- graphs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2009)

    2009

  7. [7]

    Benini, C

    M. Benini, C. Dappiaggi, and T.-P. Hack, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28, 1330023 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    The creation of particles in an expanding universe,

    L. E. Parker, “The creation of particles in an expanding universe,” (2025), arXiv:2507.05372 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Parker, Phys

    L. Parker, Phys. Rev.183, 1057 (1969)

    1969

  10. [10]

    Parker, Phys

    L. Parker, Phys. Rev. D3, 346 (1971)

    1971

  11. [11]

    V. F. Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov, JETP Lett.33, 532 (1981)

    1981

  12. [12]

    Hawking, Phys

    S. Hawking, Phys. Lett. B115, 295 (1982)

    1982

  13. [13]

    A. H. Guth and S.-Y. Pi, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 1110 (1982)

    1982

  14. [14]

    Starobinsky, Phys

    A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B117, 175 (1982)

    1982

  15. [15]

    J. M. Bardeen, P. J. Steinhardt, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D28, 679 (1983)

    1983

  16. [16]

    del Rio and J

    A. del Rio and J. Navarro-Salas, Phys. Rev. D89, 084037 (2014)

    2014

  17. [17]

    Dodelson and F

    S. Dodelson and F. Schmidt,Modern Cosmology(2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    S. W. Hawking, Nature248, 30 (1974)

    1974

  19. [19]

    S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.43, 199 (1975)

    1975

  20. [20]

    R. M. Wald, Commun. Math. Phys.45, 9 (1975)

    1975

  21. [21]

    Parker, Phys

    L. Parker, Phys. Rev. D12, 1519 (1975)

    1975

  22. [22]

    Ashtekar, J

    A. Ashtekar, J. Baez, A. Corichi, and K. Krasnov, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 904 (1998)

    1998

  23. [23]

    Carlip, Phys

    S. Carlip, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 2828 (1999)

    1999

  24. [24]

    Tasi lectures on black holes in string theory,

    A. W. Peet, “Tasi lectures on black holes in string theory,” inStrings, Branes and Gravity, pp. 353–433

  25. [25]

    R. M. Wald, Living Rev. Relativ.4, 6 (2001)

    2001

  26. [26]

    Carlip, Class

    S. Carlip, Class. Quantum Grav.17, 4175 (2000)

    2000

  27. [27]

    Agull´ o, J

    I. Agull´ o, J. F. Barbero G., J. D ´ ıaz-Polo, E. Fern´ andez-Borja, and E. J. S. Villase˜ nor, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 211301 (2008)

    2008

  28. [28]

    J. F. Barbero G. and E. J. S. Villase˜ nor, Phys. Rev. D83, 104013 (2011)

    2011

  29. [29]

    Haensel, A

    P. Haensel, A. Y. Potekhin, and D. G. Yakovlev,Neutron stars 1: Equation of state and structure, Vol. 326 (Springer, New York, USA, 2007)

    2007

  30. [30]

    Cardoso and P

    V. Cardoso and P. Pani, Living Rev. Relativ.22(2019)

    2019

  31. [31]

    K. D. Kokkotas and B. G. Schmidt, Living Rev. Relativ.2, 2 (1999)

    1999

  32. [32]

    Ashtekar and A

    A. Ashtekar and A. del R ´ ıo, Phys. Rev. D106, 085003 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    Fabbri and J

    A. Fabbri and J. Navarro-Salas,Modeling Black Hole Evaporation(Imperial College Press, World Scientific Publishing, 2005)

    2005

  34. [34]

    del Rio, Gen

    A. del Rio, Gen. Rel. Grav.57, 30 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    Poisson and C

    E. Poisson and C. M. Will,Gravity: Newtonian, Post-Newtonian, Relativistic(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014)

    2014

  36. [36]

    Duarte-Baptista, A

    P. Duarte-Baptista, A. Vano-Vinuales, and A. del Rio, Class. Quantum Grav.43, 045009 (2026). 25

    2026

  37. [37]

    S. A. Fulling and P. C. W. Davies, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A348, 393 (1976)

    1976

  38. [38]

    P. C. W. Davies and S. A. Fulling, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A356, 237 (1977)

    1977

  39. [39]

    W. R. Walker and P. C. W. Davies, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.15, L477 (1982)

    1982

  40. [40]

    W. R. Walker, Phys. Rev. D31, 767 (1985)

    1985

  41. [41]

    R. D. Carlitz and R. S. Willey, Phys. Rev. D36, 2327 (1987)

    1987

  42. [42]

    M. R. R. Good, P. R. Anderson, and C. R. Evans, Phys. Rev. D88, 025023 (2013)

    2013

  43. [43]

    Mujtaba, E

    A. Mujtaba, E. Ievlev, M. J. Gorban, and M. R. R. Good, Phys. Rev. D111, 065011 (2025)

    2025

  44. [44]

    Chandrasekhar, Phys

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

    1964

  45. [45]

    Chandrasekhar, Astrophys

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

    1964

  46. [46]

    K. D. Kokkotas and J. Ruoff, Astron. Astrophys.366, 565 (2001)

    2001

  47. [47]

    R. M. Wald,General Relativity(Chicago Univ. Pr., Chicago, USA, 1984)

    1984

  48. [48]

    Ake Hau, J

    L. Ake Hau, J. L. Flores Dorado, and M. Sanchez Caja, Rev. Mat. Iberoam.37, 45 (2020)

    2020

  49. [49]

    Chandrasekhar,The mathematical theory of black holes(Oxford Univ

    S. Chandrasekhar,The mathematical theory of black holes(Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1983)

    1983

  50. [50]

    Lee and R

    J. Lee and R. M. Wald, J. Math. Phys.31, 725 (1990)

    1990

  51. [51]

    Margalef-Bentabol and E

    J. Margalef-Bentabol and E. J. S. Villase˜ nor, Phys. Rev. D103, 025011 (2021)

    2021

  52. [52]

    Margalef-Bentabol and E

    J. Margalef-Bentabol and E. J. S. Villase˜ nor, Phys. Rev. D105, L101701 (2022)

    2022

  53. [53]

    S. H. Volkel and K. D. Kokkotas, Class. Quantum Grav.36, 115002 (2019)

    2019

  54. [54]

    Ould El Hadj, T

    M. Ould El Hadj, T. Stratton, and S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D101, 104035 (2020)

    2020

  55. [55]

    S. R. Dolan and T. Stratton, Phys. Rev. D95, 124055 (2017)

    2017

  56. [56]

    Stratton and S

    T. Stratton and S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D100, 024007 (2019)

    2019

  57. [57]

    Ashtekar and A

    A. Ashtekar and A. Magnon, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A346, 375 (1975)

    1975

  58. [58]

    N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies,Quantum Fields in Curved Space, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1982)

    1982

  59. [59]

    G. T. Moore, J. Math. Phys.11, 2679 (1970)

    1970

  60. [60]

    Ikeda, V

    T. Ikeda, V. Cardoso, and M. Zilh˜ ao, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 191101 (2021)

    2021

  61. [61]

    xact: Efficient tensor computer algebra for the wolfram language,

    J. M. M.-G. et.al., “xact: Efficient tensor computer algebra for the wolfram language,”http://xact.es/(2002-2024)

    2002

  62. [62]

    J. H. Verner, Numer. Algorithms53, 383 (2010)

    2010

  63. [63]

    Rackauckas and Q

    C. Rackauckas and Q. Nie, J. Open Res. Softw.5, 15 (2017)

    2017

  64. [64]

    J. D. Pryce,Numerical Solution Of Sturm-liouville Problems, Monographs on Numerical Analysis (Oxford Univesity Press, 1993)

    1993

  65. [65]

    W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery,Numerical Recipes 3rd Edition: The Art of Scientific Computing, 3rd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    2007

  66. [66]

    Schwinger, Phys

    J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev.82, 664 (1951)

    1951

  67. [67]

    A. I. Nikishov, Sov. Phys. JETP30, 660 (1969)

    1969

  68. [68]

    Brezin and C

    E. Brezin and C. Itzykson, Phys. Rev. D2, 1191 (1970)

    1970

  69. [69]

    G. V. Dunne, Eur. Phys. J. D55, 327 (2009)

    2009

  70. [70]

    Dodonov, Physics2, 67 (2020)

    V. Dodonov, Physics2, 67 (2020)

    2020

  71. [71]

    B. A. Juarez Aubry and R. Weder, Supl. Rev. Mex. Fis.3, 020714 1 (2022)

    2022

  72. [72]

    E. N. Glass and L. Lindblom, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.53, 93 (1983)

    1983

  73. [73]

    Cutler, L

    C. Cutler, L. Lindblom, and R. J. Splinter, Astrophys. J.363, 603 (1990)

    1990

  74. [74]

    Beltr´ an-Palau, A

    P. Beltr´ an-Palau, A. del R ´ ıo, and J. Navarro-Salas, Phys. Rev. D107, 085023 (2023)

    2023

  75. [75]

    R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D13, 3176 (1976)

    1976

  76. [76]

    Agullo and L

    I. Agullo and L. Parker, Phys. Rev. D83, 063526 (2011)

    2011

  77. [77]

    Agullo and L

    I. Agullo and L. Parker, Gen. Rel. Grav.43, 2541 (2011)

    2011

  78. [78]

    Handbook of pulsar astronomy,

    D. R. Lorimer and M. Kramer, “Handbook of pulsar astronomy,” (2005)

    2005