pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.02725 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-03 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.EP· astro-ph.SR· hep-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

What Are Pulsar Companions Made of? Using Gravitational Tides to Probe Their Compositions

Liam Colombo-Murphy , Lucas Brown , Stefano Profumo , M. Grant Roberts , Aya Westerling
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 18:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SRhep-ph
keywords pulsar companionsgravitational tidestidal deformabilityapsidal motion constantspulsar timingequations of statecompanion compositiondense matter
0
0 comments X

The pith

Gravitational tides in short-period pulsar binaries can reveal the internal composition of their companions by matching modeled tidal effects to pulsar timing observations.

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

The paper proposes using measurements of tidal interactions in low-eccentricity, short-period pulsar systems to constrain the chemical and structural makeup of the companion objects. By calculating apsidal motion constants, orbital precession, and tidal deformability for different equations of state, the authors aim to match these predictions against data from pulsar timing observations. They apply this approach to four specific systems and suggest it could limit possible compositions while shedding light on formation histories.

Core claim

Low eccentricity, short orbital period pulsar companions may provide a probe to study novel dense and stable exoplanet internal compositions due to the potentially significant orbital evolution they experience caused by strong gravitational tides. We model the tidal characteristics such as apsidal motion constants, orbital precession, and tidal deformability for a variety of equations of state to be compared with values recovered via pulsar timing for a sample of four systems: PSR J1719-1438b, PSR J0636+5128b, PSR J2322+2650b, and PSR J1807-2459A b. With this method, we hope to place stringent limits on the chemical and structural composition of these objects through limiting the internal of

What carries the argument

Tidal characteristics including apsidal motion constants, orbital precession, and tidal deformability modeled from a variety of equations of state and compared directly to pulsar timing data.

If this is right

  • Stringent limits can be placed on the chemical and structural composition of the companions.
  • The unique history and formation of these objects can be better elucidated.
  • The method applies to the four systems PSR J1719-1438b, PSR J0636+5128b, PSR J2322+2650b, and PSR J1807-2459A b.
  • Novel dense and stable internal compositions become testable through tidal modeling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Successful application would allow similar tidal analysis in other compact binaries to constrain properties of dense matter.
  • It could connect pulsar companion studies to broader questions of planet formation in extreme radiation environments.
  • Expanding the sample beyond four systems would enable statistical constraints on possible compositions.

Load-bearing premise

Gravitational tides dominate the orbital evolution of these low-eccentricity short-period systems without significant contamination from other effects such as mass loss or magnetic interactions, and the chosen equations of state span the relevant possible compositions.

What would settle it

If pulsar timing observations yield orbital precession or apsidal motion values that cannot be reproduced by any of the modeled equations of state, or if independent evidence shows non-tidal effects dominate the evolution in these systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.02725 by Aya Westerling, Liam Colombo-Murphy, Lucas Brown, M. Grant Roberts, Stefano Profumo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Uncertainties on ω˙ values recovered by PINT for our two pulsar-timing systems of special interest, J1719-1438b and J0636+5128n, as a function of years of con￾sistent pulsar-timing measurements. hanan et al. (2018), even a 50% change in our estimate of Rc can lead to a factor of 32 change in the Newto￾nian apsidal precession. Because it will likely remain difficult to precisely constrain Rc via observation… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Mass-k2 relationships for same EOS described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plot of the relationship between mass and apsi￾dal motion for the various internal compositions described in Section 3.1, specifically modeled to PSR J1719-1438b. The greyed out region denotes parameter-space that is ruled out by the Roche-lobe limit of this companion. The vertical pink dashed line denotes the minimum mass of PSR J1719-1438b, as described in Section 2.1. The apsidal motion returned by even… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sij values for 5, 10, and 20 years of simulated observations of the J1719-1438b (top) and J0636+5128b (bottom) systems. Most EOS considered in this study have predicted ω˙ tot values which differ significantly enough to have the difference in their respective values greatly exceed the uncertainty on our recovered apsidal motion after only a few years of observations. Other EOS, like Cold CO, are difficult … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: Plot of the the relationship between mass and tidal deformabilities for our host of EOS, given by Equation (7). Right: The same plot as left, but for the dimensionless tidal deformability, Equation (8). With more compact compositions, such as strange quark objects, it is theorized that an inspiral stage could exist without tidally disrupting the companion (J. J. Geng et al. 2015), leading to a gravit… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Low eccentricity, short orbital period pulsar companions may provide a probe to study novel dense and stable exoplanet internal compositions due to the potentially significant orbital evolution they experience caused by strong gravitational tides. We model the tidal characteristics such as apsidal motion constants, orbital precession, and tidal deformability for a variety of equations of state to be compared with values recovered via pulsar timing for a sample of four systems: PSR J1719-1438b, PSR J0636+5128b, PSR J2322+2650b, and PSR J1807-2459A b. With this method, we hope to place stringent limits on the chemical and structural composition of these objects. Through limiting the internal composition of pulsar companions, we aim to elucidate their unique history and formation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes using gravitational tidal effects in four low-eccentricity, short-period pulsar binaries (PSR J1719-1438b, PSR J0636+5128b, PSR J2322+2650b, PSR J1807-2459Ab) to constrain the internal chemical and structural composition of the companions. It outlines modeling of apsidal motion constants, orbital precession, and tidal deformability across a range of equations of state, with the goal of comparing these predictions to parameters recovered from pulsar timing data to place limits on composition and formation history.

Significance. If the tidal contributions can be isolated cleanly and the modeling yields distinguishable predictions, the approach would provide a novel probe of dense-matter compositions in these unusual companions, potentially distinguishing between rocky, icy, or exotic EOS models and linking to their evolutionary pathways. The idea creatively repurposes standard tidal theory and existing timing precision, but its significance hinges on demonstrating that the method actually delivers usable constraints rather than remaining a conceptual sketch.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3] §3 (modeling of tidal characteristics): The manuscript states that apsidal motion constants, orbital precession, and tidal deformability are modeled for a variety of EOS, yet no explicit derivations, numerical results, tables, or figures are presented; without these, it is impossible to assess whether the models produce sufficiently distinct predictions to enable stringent compositional limits.
  2. [§4] §4 (application to the four systems): The central assumption that gravitational tides dominate the orbital evolution (enabling clean recovery of tidal parameters from timing) is not supported by any quantitative estimates showing that mass loss, magnetic interactions, or other effects are negligible for PSR J1719-1438b, PSR J0636+5128b, PSR J2322+2650b, and PSR J1807-2459Ab; this is load-bearing for the claimed comparison.
  3. [Timing recovery section] Timing recovery and error analysis section: No simulation or propagation of timing uncertainties is shown to demonstrate that current pulsar timing precision can extract apsidal precession or deformability at the level needed to discriminate between EOS models; the abstract's claim of 'stringent limits' therefore lacks supporting evidence.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and §4] The companion name 'PSR J1807-2459A b' uses inconsistent spacing; standardize to PSR J1807-2459Ab throughout.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which highlight important areas for clarification and strengthening. We address each major comment point by point below, with plans to revise the manuscript where appropriate to improve its rigor and completeness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (modeling of tidal characteristics): The manuscript states that apsidal motion constants, orbital precession, and tidal deformability are modeled for a variety of EOS, yet no explicit derivations, numerical results, tables, or figures are presented; without these, it is impossible to assess whether the models produce sufficiently distinct predictions to enable stringent compositional limits.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current manuscript outlines the modeling approach at a conceptual level without including the full set of numerical results, derivations, tables, or figures. In the revised version, we will incorporate explicit derivations of the apsidal motion constants and tidal deformability parameters using standard linear tidal perturbation theory for fluid bodies. We will also add tables listing computed values across a range of equations of state (including rocky, icy, and exotic compositions) and figures showing the resulting orbital precession rates as functions of companion properties. This will enable readers to evaluate the distinguishability of the predictions directly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (application to the four systems): The central assumption that gravitational tides dominate the orbital evolution (enabling clean recovery of tidal parameters from timing) is not supported by any quantitative estimates showing that mass loss, magnetic interactions, or other effects are negligible for PSR J1719-1438b, PSR J0636+5128b, PSR J2322+2650b, and PSR J1807-2459Ab; this is load-bearing for the claimed comparison.

    Authors: This is a fair and substantive criticism. The manuscript relies on the short orbital periods and low eccentricities to argue for tidal dominance, but does not provide quantitative comparisons. In the revision, we will add estimates of tidal precession timescales for each of the four systems and compare them against upper limits on mass-loss rates (drawn from observational constraints) and magnetic interaction effects (using known pulsar spin-down and magnetic field strengths). We will discuss the results transparently, noting any systems where competing effects may require additional modeling or caveats. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Timing recovery section] Timing recovery and error analysis section: No simulation or propagation of timing uncertainties is shown to demonstrate that current pulsar timing precision can extract apsidal precession or deformability at the level needed to discriminate between EOS models; the abstract's claim of 'stringent limits' therefore lacks supporting evidence.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract's reference to 'stringent limits' would benefit from supporting analysis. The manuscript is framed as a methodological proposal, but to address this gap we will include a basic error-propagation calculation in the revised version. This will use the published timing residuals, observation baselines, and parameter uncertainties for the four systems to estimate the achievable precision on apsidal precession rates. While a full Monte Carlo simulation of timing datasets may exceed the scope of this short paper, we will note it as a natural extension and provide the simpler propagation as initial evidence of feasibility. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; method uses independent timing data and external EOS models

full rationale

The paper proposes modeling apsidal motion constants, orbital precession, and tidal deformability from a variety of equations of state, then comparing those to values recovered from pulsar timing observations of four named systems. No derivation step reduces to the paper's own inputs by construction, no parameters are fitted to a subset and then called predictions, and no load-bearing premise rests on self-citation. The approach is self-contained against external benchmarks (timing data and standard EOS libraries) and does not rename known results or smuggle ansatzes via prior work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The proposal rests on standard tidal theory and a small set of domain assumptions about orbital dynamics; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Gravitational tides dominate the observed orbital evolution in the selected low-eccentricity, short-period systems
    Invoked to justify using tidal deformability as the primary observable for composition constraints.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5459 in / 1211 out tokens · 38557 ms · 2026-05-13T18:51:39.660565+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, Physical Review D, 104, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.104.083011

    Albino, M., Fariello, R., & Navarra, F. 2021, Physical Review D, 104, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.104.083011

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.083011 2021

  2. [2]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 235, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab5b0 13

    Arzoumanian, Z., Brazier, A., Burke-Spolaor, S., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 235, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab5b0 13

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aab5b0 2018

  3. [3]

    Goss, W. M. 1982, Nature, 300, 615, doi: 10.1038/300615a0

    work page doi:10.1038/300615a0 1982

  4. [4]

    D., Bhalerao, V., et al

    Bailes, M., Bates, S. D., Bhalerao, V., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 1717, doi: 10.1126/science.1208890

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1208890 2011

  5. [5]

    M., & O’Connell, R

    Barker, B. M., & O’Connell, R. F. 1975, ApJ, 199, L25, doi: 10.1086/181840

    work page doi:10.1086/181840 1975

  6. [6]

    C., & Batygin, K

    Becker, J. C., & Batygin, K. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 778, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/778/2/100

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/2/100 2013

  7. [7]

    G., De Vito, M

    Benvenuto, O. G., De Vito, M. A., & Horvath, J. E. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 753, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/753/2/l33

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/753/2/l33 2012

  8. [8]

    Bhattacharya, D., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1991, Phys. Rep., 203, 1, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(91)90064-S

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-1573(91)90064-s 1991

  9. [9]

    2023, Competitive effects between gravitational radiation and mass variation for two-body systems in circular orbits, https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.09069

    Blachier, B., Barrau, A., Martineau, K., & Renevey, C. 2023, Competitive effects between gravitational radiation and mass variation for two-body systems in circular orbits, https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.09069

    work page arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    2001, Lect

    Blanchet, L., Kopeikin, S., & Schaefer, G. 2001, Lect. Notes Phys., 562, 141, doi: 10.1007/3-540-40988-2_8

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-40988-2_8 2001

  11. [11]

    A., & Olle, T

    Brooker, R. A., & Olle, T. W. 1955, MNRAS, 115, 101, doi: 10.1093/mnras/115.1.101 Bulut, İ., Bulut, A., & Demircan, O. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468, 3342, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx593

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/115.1.101 1955

  12. [12]

    Burkart, J., Quataert, E., Arras, P., & Weinberg, N. N. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 433, 332, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt726

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt726 2013

  13. [13]

    N., et al

    Caballero, R. N., et al. 2016, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 457, 4421, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw179

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw179 2016

  14. [14]

    Weisskopf, V. F. 1974, Phys. Rev. D, 9, 3471, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.9.3471

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.9.3471 1974

  15. [15]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 2708–2715, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2466

    Conrad-Burton, J., Shabi, A., & Ginzburg, S. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 2708–2715, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2466

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2466 2023

  16. [16]

    Csizmadia, Sz., Hellard, H., & Smith, A. M. S. 2019, A&A, 623, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834376 D’Amico, N., Lyne, A. G., Manchester, R. N., Possenti, A., & Camilo, F. 2001, ApJ, 548, L171, doi: 10.1086/319096

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834376 2019

  17. [17]

    1983, Phys

    Damour, T. 1983, Phys. Rev. Lett., 51, 1019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.51.1019

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.51.1019 1983

  18. [18]

    Damour, T., & Taylor, J. H. 1991, ApJ, 366, 501, doi: 10.1086/169585

    work page doi:10.1086/169585 1991

  19. [19]

    J., & Orosz, J

    Dimoff, A. J., & Orosz, J. A. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 166, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aceaf4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aceaf4 2023

  20. [20]

    2001, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 380, 151–167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011402

    Douchin, F., & Haensel, P. 2001, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 380, 151–167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011402

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011402 2001

  21. [21]

    Draghis, P., & Romani, R. W. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 862, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad2db

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad2db 2018

  22. [22]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368, doi: 10.1086/160960 Flanagan, É. É., & Hinderer, T. 2008, Physical Review D, 77, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.77.021502

    work page doi:10.1086/160960 1983

  23. [23]

    J., Huang, Y

    Geng, J. J., Huang, Y. F., & Lu, T. 2015, ApJ, 804, 21, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/21

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/804/1/21 2015

  24. [24]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 1592–1603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3358

    Ginzburg, S., & Quataert, E. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 1592–1603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3358

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3358 2020

  25. [25]

    1966, Icarus, 5, 375, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(66)90051-0

    Goldreich, P., & Soter, S. 1966, Icarus, 5, 375, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(66)90051-0

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(66)90051-0 1966

  26. [26]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 2725–2732, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1917

    Guo, Y., Wang, B., & Han, Z. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 2725–2732, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1917

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1917 2022

  27. [27]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 677, 1216–1220, doi: 10.1086/533487

    Hinderer, T. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 677, 1216–1220, doi: 10.1086/533487

    work page doi:10.1086/533487 2008

  28. [28]

    D., Lang, R

    Hinderer, T., Lackey, B. D., Lang, R. N., & Read, J. S. 2010, Physical Review D, 81, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.81.123016

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.123016 2010

  29. [29]

    Horvath, J. E. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 813–816, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/009

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/009 2012

  30. [30]

    A., & Taylor, J

    Hulse, R. A., & Taylor, J. H. 1975, ApJ, 195, L51, doi: 10.1086/181708

    work page doi:10.1086/181708 1975

  31. [31]

    M., Santoni, L., Savić, N., & Vernizzi, F

    Iteanu, S., Riva, M. M., Santoni, L., Savić, N., & Vernizzi, F. 2025, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2025, doi: 10.1007/jhep02(2025)174

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2025)174 2025

  32. [32]

    L., Stovall, K., Kerkwijk, M

    Kaplan, D. L., Stovall, K., Kerkwijk, M. H. v., Fremling, C., & Istrate, A. G. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad54c Lourenço, O., Lenzi, C. H., Dutra, M., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 103010, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.103010

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad54c 2018

  33. [33]

    Love, A. E. H. 1909, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 82, 73, doi: 10.1098/rspa.1909.0008

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.1909.0008 1909

  34. [34]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe62f

    Luo, J., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 911, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe62f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe62f 2021

  35. [35]

    S., Freire, P

    Lynch, R. S., Freire, P. C. C., Ransom, S. M., & Jacoby, B. A. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 745, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/109

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/745/2/109 2012

  36. [36]

    Oppenheimer, G.M

    Oppenheimer, J. R., & Volkoff, G. M. 1939, Phys. Rev., 55, 374, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.55.374 Paczyński, B. 1971, ARA&A, 9, 183, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.09.090171.001151

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.55.374 1939

  37. [37]

    1978, Icarus, 36, 245, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(78)90109-4

    Peale, S., & Cassen, P. 1978, Icarus, 36, 245, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(78)90109-4

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(78)90109-4 1978

  38. [38]

    Peale, S. J. 1986, in IAU Colloquium 77: Some Background about Satellites, ed. J. A. Burns & M. S. Matthews, 159–223 14

    work page 1986

  39. [39]

    2023, Icarus, 394, 115424, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115424

    Podolak, M., Levi, A., Vazan, A., & Malamud, U. 2023, Icarus, 394, 115424, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115424

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115424 2023

  40. [40]

    Postnikov, S., Prakash, M., & Lattimer, J. M. 2010, Physical Review D, 82, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.82.024016

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.82.024016 2010

  41. [41]

    Ragozzine, D., & Wolf, A. S. 2009, ApJ, 698, 1778, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1778

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/698/2/1778 2009

  42. [42]

    M., Greenhill, L

    Ransom, S. M., Greenhill, L. J., Herrnstein, J. R., et al. 2001, ApJ, 546, L25, doi: 10.1086/318062

    work page doi:10.1086/318062 2001

  43. [43]

    W., & Sanchez, N

    Romani, R. W., & Sanchez, N. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 828, 7, doi: 10.3847/0004-637x/828/1/7

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/828/1/7 2016

  44. [44]

    2006, European Journal of Physics, 27, 577–610, doi: 10.1088/0143-0807/27/3/012

    Sagert, I., Hempel, M., Greiner, C., & Schaffner-Bielich, J. 2006, European Journal of Physics, 27, 577–610, doi: 10.1088/0143-0807/27/3/012

    work page doi:10.1088/0143-0807/27/3/012 2006

  45. [45]

    E., & Zapolsky, H

    Salpeter, E. E., & Zapolsky, H. S. 1967, Physical Review, 158, 876, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.158.876

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.158.876 1967

  46. [46]

    A., & Militzer, B

    Seager, S., Kuchner, M., Hier-Majumder, C. A., & Militzer, B. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 669, 1279–1297, doi: 10.1086/521346

    work page doi:10.1086/521346 2007

  47. [47]

    Shklovskii, I. S. 1970, Soviet Ast., 13, 562

    work page 1970

  48. [48]

    D., et al

    Spiewak, R., Bailes, M., Barr, E. D., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 469, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3157

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3157 2017

  49. [49]

    Sterne, T. E. 1939, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 99, 451, doi: 10.1093/mnras/99.5.451

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/99.5.451 1939

  50. [50]

    S., Ransom, S

    Stovall, K., Lynch, R. S., Ransom, S. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 791, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/67

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/791/1/67 2014

  51. [51]

    C., & Kumar, R

    Susobhanan, A., Gopakumar, A., Joshi, B. C., & Kumar, R. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 5260–5271, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2177

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2177 2018

  52. [52]

    L., Archibald, A

    Susobhanan, A., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 971, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad59f7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad59f7 2024

  53. [53]

    Tolman, R. C. 1939, Phys. Rev., 55, 364, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.55.364 van Haaften, L. M., Nelemans, G., Voss, R., & Jonker, P. G. 2012, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 541, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201218798

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.55.364 1939

  54. [54]

    R., Breton, R

    Voisin, G., Kennedy, M. R., Breton, R. P., Clark, C. J., & Mata-Sánchez, D. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 1758–1768, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2876

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2876 2020

  55. [55]

    2025, Strange quark stars in modified vector MIT bag model: role ofρ andϕmesons, https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.11017

    Wadhwa, M., Kumari, M., & Kumar, A. 2025, Strange quark stars in modified vector MIT bag model: role ofρ andϕmesons, https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.11017

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    2021, Phys

    Wang, X., Kuerban, A., Geng, J.-J., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 123028, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.123028

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.123028 2021

  57. [57]

    2008, Phys

    Willems, B., Vecchio, A., & Kalogera, V. 2008, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 041102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.041102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.041102 2008

  58. [58]

    F., & Militzer, B

    Wilson, H. F., & Militzer, B. 2014, ApJ, 793, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/34

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/1/34 2014

  59. [59]

    1997, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 68, 13, doi: 10.1023/A:1008279312993

    Wolszczan, A. 1997, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 68, 13, doi: 10.1023/A:1008279312993

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1008279312993 1997

  60. [60]

    Wolszczan, A., & Frail, D. A. 1992, Nature, 355, 145, doi: 10.1038/355145a0

    work page doi:10.1038/355145a0 1992

  61. [61]

    S., & Salpeter, E

    Zapolsky, H. S., & Salpeter, E. E. 1969, ApJ, 158, 809, doi: 10.1086/150240

    work page doi:10.1086/150240 1969

  62. [62]

    D., et al

    Zhang, M., Beleznay, M., Brandt, T. D., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 995, L64, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae157c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae157c 2025