Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 42 references

Pressure profile bounds from relaxing the TOV equation

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read If the density of a relativistic star lies between known central and surface values, the entire interior pressure profile is forced between two constant-density comparison profiles, with no monotonicity assumption needed.

desk verdict Careful comparison-function bounds for TOV pressure profiles, but the flagship Corollary 2a needs an unstated compactness condition before it holds; the rest of the paper is solid and worth a referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11619 v1 pith:H3VWPUYO submitted 2026-08-12 gr-qc

Christopher Simmonds (Victoria University of Wellington) , Matt Visser (Victoria University of Wellington) This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 04.20.-q04.40.Dg
keywords pressureprofileboundsTOVequationperfectfluidspheresdifferentialinequalitiesBuchdahlboundgeneralrelativitydensitymonotonicityconstant-densitycomparisonprofiles
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks what can be said about the pressure inside a relativistic star when the equation of state is unknown. It shows that very weak information about the density—positivity alone, or just upper and lower density bounds—already forces the pressure to lie between explicit comparison curves obtained by solving the constant-density TOV equation. The main new result is a two-sided enclosure of the pressure profile that requires no assumption that the density decreases outward. The paper also derives a sharper family of bounds when the volume-averaged density is monotone or bounded below by its surface value, replacing the usual square-root comparison profiles by profiles with a non-trivial fractional exponent. These results matter because they give model-independent consistency checks and Buchdahl-type compactness limits for any spherically symmetric perfect-fluid star.

What carries the argument

The central object is the one-parameter family of comparison pressure profiles \hat p(ρ_0,K_0;r) defined in eqs (4.7) and (4.9), namely the exact pressure profile of a Schwarzschild constant-density star with density ρ_0, parametrized by a dimensionless constant K_0. Choosing K_0 to match boundary data—at the surface, the centre, or an interior point—turns these profiles into upper and lower fences. The argument runs through differential inequalities: bounding the density bounds the enclosed mass m(r) between the two constant-density masses, which turns the TOV equation into two one-sided differential inequalities; subtracting \hat p converts each inequality into a statement that d/dr |p - \hat p| has a fixed sign, so the difference can never cross zero. For the average-density bounds, the same machinery is generalized to profiles \hat p(ρ_s,\barρ_s,K;r) carrying the fractional exponent (3ρ_s/4\barρ_s - 1/4), with the constant-density square-root profiles recovered when ρ_s = \barρ_s.

What would settle it

Integrate the TOV equations numerically for a density profile that oscillates between ρ_c and ρ_s but has a local trough near the surface, and check whether the resulting pressure stays inside the two comparison curves of eq (4.29); any interior crossing of either curve would falsify Corollary 2a. For Theorem 4, choose a density whose volume average dips below \barρ_s at some radius; if the Corollary 4a lower bound is violated, that identifies the added premise as essential.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 2 with Corollary 2a is the central claim: if the density satisfies ρ_c > ρ(r) > ρ_s throughout the interior, then for all r in (0,r_s) the pressure is bracketed by the two constant-density comparison profiles displayed in eq (4.29), with equality only at the surface. The proof relaxes the TOV equation into differential inequalities by replacing the actual enclosed mass m(r) with the constant-density enclosed masses (4π/3)ρ_s $r^{3}$ and (4π/3)ρ_c $r^{3}$, then uses the fact that the difference between p(r) and either comparison profile has monotone absolute value, so the two curves act as fences that the pressure can never cross. A second set of results assumes knowledge of the central pressure and uses higher-derivative matching at the centre, yielding bounds tight at r=0. A final theorem treats bounded monotone average density and delivers comparison profiles with a non-trivial exponent (3ρ_s/4\barρ_s - 1/4), which reproduce the earlier bounds in the constant-density limit and weaken the Buchdahl–Bondi limit when the surface average density exceeds the surface density.

Load-bearing premise

The two-sided enclosure of Corollary 2a rests only on the density staying between a central maximum and a positive surface value; the sharper Theorem 4 bounds additionally assume the volume-averaged density never falls below its surface value, which boundedness alone does not guarantee.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the density is only known to obey ρ_c > ρ(r) > ρ_s, then at every interior radius the pressure must lie between the two comparison profiles of eq (4.29); in particular this yields two-sided bounds on the central pressure in terms of ρ_c, ρ_s, and r_s.
  • When the central pressure p_c is known, the pressure is trapped between profiles that match p_c and the central second derivative at r=0, and the requirement that the resulting lower bound be positive gives constraints on the surface radius, including simple bounds 1/(3πρ_c) < r_s^2 < 1/(3πρ_s).
  • Knowing the pressure at one interior point p_* = p(r_*) gives local bounds that tighten as r approaches r_*, reduce to the surface-based bounds as r_* → r_s, and reduce to the centre-based bounds as r_* → 0.
  • If the density is monotone decreasing, the comparison can be refined piecewise using the local density ρ_* = ρ(r_*), yielding tighter bounds inside and outside r_* than the non-monotone version.
  • If the volume-averaged density is bounded below by its surface value, or is monotone decreasing, then p(r) is bounded by comparison profiles with a non-trivial exponent, and the central pressure diverges only when 2m_s/r_s approaches a generalized Buchdahl-type limit that reduces to the Buchdahl–Bondi bound in the constant-density case.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because Corollary 2a makes no monotonicity assumption, it should apply to stars with density inversions or sharp phase transitions, where the volume-averaged density may not be monotone; this is an extension the paper itself does not pursue.
  • The enclosure depends only on ρ_c, ρ_s, and r_s, so a numerical or observationally inferred density profile that violates eq (4.29) at any interior point is either inconsistent with the assumed density bounds or with the TOV equations; this provides a cheap consistency test for tabulated equation-of-state models.
  • Theorem 4's fractional exponent suggests a one-parameter family of comparison profiles indexed by w = ρ_s/\barρ_s; one could optimize over w for a given mass–radius pair to find the sharpest possible bound, or seek an analogous family for anisotropic pressure.
  • If the central density has a local maximum with finite curvature scale a, the fourth-derivative matching in the Appendix makes the Corollary 2b comparison strict; the same expansion technique could generate higher-order corrections to the central-pressure enclosure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper develops a sequence of pressure-profile bounds for static, spherically symmetric perfect-fluid TOV stars under progressively stronger hypotheses: positivity of density only (Theorem 1), bounded density (Theorem 2 and Corollaries 2a–2c), bounded monotone density (Theorem 3), and bounded monotone volume-averaged density (Theorem 4 and Corollaries 4a–4c). The main technical device is to compare a given TOV solution against exact constant-density Schwarzschild-interior comparison profiles, or against the generalized comparison profile of eqs (6.17)–(6.21), with constants chosen to match boundary data at the surface, center, or an interior point. The paper claims two-sided, model-independent enclosures of the pressure profile using only bounds on the density, and it discusses the trade-offs between the strength of the input assumptions and the strength of the resulting bounds.

Significance. If the bounds are valid, they provide simple analytic two-sided inequalities for the internal pressure that require no equation-of-state assumption beyond density bounds. The strengths of the paper are that the comparison functions are exact TOV solutions, the constants are fixed by boundary conditions rather than fitted to data, and the results are carefully placed in the historical literature. However, the flagship Corollary 2a is not valid under the stated hypotheses, and the proof of Theorem 2's absolute-value monotonicity statements is not sound. These issues are load-bearing and require correction before the central claims can be accepted; with the needed compactness condition and proof repairs, the comparison-profile approach would be a useful contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Corollary 2a, eqs (4.24) and (4.29)] The upper bound in eq (4.29) fails at r=0 whenever ρ_c r_s² exceeds 1/(3π). With K_c = sqrt(1-(8π/3)ρ_c r_s²), the central value of the upper comparison profile is U(0)=ρ_c(1-K_c)/(3K_c-1), which is negative if K_c<1/3 and non-real if (8π/3)ρ_c r_s² exceeds 1. The theorem's hypotheses, ρ_c>ρ(r)>ρ_s>0 and p(r_s)=0, do not exclude these cases: a star with a small dense core and a low-density envelope can have ρ_c r_s² arbitrarily large while satisfying the Buchdahl bound on the total mass. Corollary 2a therefore needs an explicit compactness condition, for example ρ_c r_s²<1/(3π) (equivalently K_c>1/3); without such a condition the claimed model-independent enclosure is false.
  2. [§4, Theorem 2, eqs (4.12)–(4.17)] The derivation of the absolute-value monotonicity is invalid. Eq (4.12) yields only q' < -A q for q=p-\hat p, and when q<0 this implies q'<positive, not q'>0 as claimed in eq (4.15). Consequently the statement d/dr|p-\hat p_s|≤0 in eq (4.18) is not established. In fact, for the Corollary 2b comparison profile anchored at the centre, \hat p_s'' is greater than p'' (with the correct second-derivative formula), so |p-\hat p_s| increases from zero near r=0, contradicting eq (4.18). The corollary inequalities can be recovered by applying Gronwall's lemma directly to q_s'<-A q_s and q_c'>-B q_c with zero initial data at the centre, but Theorem 2 as stated needs to be corrected.
  3. [§4, eqs (4.24), (4.25), (4.37), and (4.39)] There are algebraic errors in key formulas. Eq (4.24) writes ρ_s where ρ_c is intended in the central-density comparison profile, and eq (4.25) has r_c² in the denominator instead of r_s². More seriously, eqs (4.37) and (4.39) state \hat p''(0)=-(4π/3)(ρ_0+p_c)(ρ_0+2p_c), whereas direct differentiation of eq (4.9) with K_0=(ρ_0+p_c)/(ρ_0+3p_c) gives -(4π/3)(ρ_0+p_c)(ρ_0+3p_c). This changes the curvature comparison in eq (4.40) and affects the ordering argument that supports Corollary 2b.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§4, Note 2b-2, eq (4.44)] The statement that the denominators in eq (4.44) are guaranteed positive should be justified explicitly; positivity follows only under the compactness condition K_c,K_s∈(1/3,1) discussed in the major comments.
  2. [§6, Corollary 4a, text after eq (6.30)] The argument ruling out the ≤ option invokes 'half of Corollary 2a'; once Corollary 2a is corrected with the needed compactness condition, this justification should be rechecked and stated self-consistently.
  3. [References, item [41]] Reference [41] gives the year as 2016, but Schwarzschild's paper on incompressible fluid spheres was published in 1916; the year should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the comparison-profile bounds are derived algebraically from the TOV equations, with self-citations used only for context and standard background.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The comparison functions \hat p(\rho_0,K_0;r) in eqs. (4.7)-(4.9) are exact constant-density TOV solutions, verified directly in eq. (4.8), and the differential inequalities (4.5)-(4.6) follow by substitution from assumptions (4.1)-(4.4). The constants K_s, K_c, and K are chosen to match boundary or initial data (p=0 at r_s, p=p_c at r=0, or p=p_* at r=r_*); this is standard anchoring of a comparison solution, not fitting free parameters to the quantity being bounded. Likewise, Theorem 4's \hat p(\rho_s,\bar\rho_s,K;r) in eqs. (6.17)-(6.18) is explicitly verified as a saturating solution of the differential inequality (6.16), and Corollary 4a's K_s is fixed by the surface value and slope through eqs. (6.27)-(6.29). No prediction is a renamed input. The several citations to earlier works by the same authors ([17], [19]-[21], [29], [38]-[40]) are used for historical context, standard near-origin Taylor expansions, and saturation examples; none carries the proof, and the main theorems would stand with those citations removed. The skeptical concern about Corollary 2a - that the upper bound can become negative at r=0 when \rho_c r_s^2 > 1/(3\pi), indicating an unstated compactness restriction - is a mathematical validity issue, not circularity: the claimed bound may fail, but it does not reduce to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, forces, or dimensions. The auxiliary functions phat are exact constant-density solutions used as comparison barriers. The free parameters are boundary-matching constants and one proof-only curvature scale; none are fitted to observational data. The main physical inputs are the assumed density bounds and monotonicity conditions, which the paper states explicitly.

free parameters (2)
  • Boundary-matching constants K_s, K_c, K, K* = Chosen to match surface, center, or interior boundary conditions
    These dimensionless constants parametrize the comparison profiles and are eliminated when the final bounds are written in terms of ρ_s, ρ_c, ρ̄_s, p_c or p*. They are not fitted to data.
  • Central density curvature scale a = Defined by (ρ'')_c = -ρ_c/a^2, a in (0,∞]
    Introduced in the Appendix to characterize the fourth-order Taylor expansion of the density at the center. Used only to prove the sign of (p'''')_c comparison; it does not appear in the final Corollary 2b bounds.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The TOV system of ODEs (2.1)-(2.3) governs static, spherically symmetric perfect fluid spheres.
    The entire paper operates within this model, stated in Section 2.
  • domain assumption The interior is regular at r=0, with p(r)=p_c+O(r^2), ρ(r)=ρ_c+O(r^2), m(r)=O(r^3).
    Used for near-center expansions and boundary conditions, eq (2.4).
  • ad hoc to paper For Corollary 2b, the central density has a local maximum, so (ρ'')_c < 0 and a finite scale a exists.
    Assumed in the Appendix (eq A.4) to obtain the fourth-derivative comparison A.18 that fixes the sign of p-phat near the center.
  • standard math The constant-density comparison profiles saturate the relevant differential equalities.
    The functions phat(ρ0,K0,r) are exact solutions of the TOV equation for constant density, verified by direct substitution around eq (4.8).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pressure profile bounds from relaxing the TOV equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H3VWPUYO

@misc{pith2026260811619,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pressure profile bounds from relaxing the TOV equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H3VWPUYO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11619}
}
read the original abstract

We develop several new and quite general bounds on the internal pressure profiles of general relativistic perfect fluid spheres --- based on various ways of relaxing the TOV system of ODEs to obtain several distinct differential inequalities. There is, as usual, a trade-off between strength of the bound, weakness of the input assumptions, and tractability of the analysis. Specifically we shall develop several straightforward but nontrivial bounds that variously depend only on the positivity of density, the boundedness of density, the monotonicity of density, or the monotonicity of the average density. We shall carefully place these new bounds within the historical framework of previous efforts in this regard, and explore the ways in which they are inter-related.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Principles of stellar dynamics

    S. Chandrasekhar, “Principles of stellar dynamics”, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1942). Dover reprint, 2008: ISBN: 0486606597, 9780486606590

    work page 1942

  2. [2]

    Effect of Inhomogeneity on Cosmological Models

    R.C. Tolman, “Effect of Inhomogeneity on Cosmological Models”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences20 #3(1934) 169–176. doi:10.1073/pnas.20.3.169

    doi:10.1073/pnas.20.3.169 1934

  3. [3]

    Static Solutions of Einstein’s Field Equations for Spheres of Fluid

    R.C. Tolman, “Static Solutions of Einstein’s Field Equations for Spheres of Fluid”, Physical Review.55 #4(1939) 364–373. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.55.364

    doi:10.1103/physrev.55.364 1939

  4. [4]

    On massive neutron cores

    J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, “On massive neutron cores”, Phys. Rev.55(1939) 374-381. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.55.374

    doi:10.1103/physrev.55.374 1939

  5. [5]

    General Relativistic Fluid Spheres

    H. A. Buchdahl, “General Relativistic Fluid Spheres”, Phys. Rev.116(1959) 1027. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.116.1027

    doi:10.1103/physrev.116.1027 1959

  6. [6]

    Massive spheres in general relativity

    H. Bondi, “Massive spheres in general relativity”, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A282(1964), 303-317. doi:10.1098/rspa.1964.0234

    arXiv 1964

  7. [7]

    General relativistic fluid spheres II. General inequalities for regular spheres

    H. A. Buchdahl, “General relativistic fluid spheres II. General inequalities for regular spheres”, The Astrophysical Journal,146(1966) 275–281. doi:10.1086/148875

    work page doi:10.1086/148875 1966

  8. [8]

    Some extremal properties of massive spheres in general relativity

    A. Kovetz, “Some extremal properties of massive spheres in general relativity”, The Astrophysical Journal,154(1968) 241–250. doi:10.1086/149754

    work page doi:10.1086/149754 1968

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Minimal and maximal values of the central pressure and temperature in convectively stable stars

    A. Kovetz, “Minimal and maximal values of the central pressure and temperature in convectively stable stars”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 144(1969) 459–460. doi:10.1093/mnras/144.4.459

    1969 doi

  2. [10]

    Some general relativistic inequalities for a star in hydrostatic equilibrium

    Jamal N. Islam, “Some general relativistic inequalities for a star in hydrostatic equilibrium”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,145(1969) 21, doi:10.1093/mnras/145.1.21

    1969 doi

  3. [11]

    Some general relativistic inequalities for a star in hydrostatic equilibrium II

    Jamal N. Islam, “Some general relativistic inequalities for a star in hydrostatic equilibrium II”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,147(1970) 377–388. doi:10.1093/mnras/147.4.377

    1970 doi

  4. [12]

    Some Relativistic Integral Theorems

    David A. Forrester, “Some Relativistic Integral Theorems”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,151(1971) 149–156, doi:10.1093/mnras/151.2.149 – 31 –

    1971 doi

  5. [13]

    Guven and N

    J. Guven and N. O’Murchadha, “The Constraints in spherically symmetric classical general relativity. 1. Optical scalars, foliations, bounds on the configuration space variables and the positivity of the quasilocal mass”, Phys. Rev. D52(1995), 758-775 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.52.75...

    1995 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Geometric bounds in spherically symmetric general relativity

    J. Guven and N. O’Murchadha, “Geometric bounds in spherically symmetric general relativity”, Phys. Rev. D56(1997), 7650-7657 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.7650 [arXiv:gr-qc/9709064 [gr-qc]]

    1997 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Bounds on 2m/Rfor static spherical objects

    J. Guven and N. O’Murchadha, “Bounds on 2m/Rfor static spherical objects”, Phys. Rev. D60(1999), 084020 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.084020 [arXiv:gr-qc/9903067 [gr-qc]]

    1999 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Physical acceptability of isolated, static, spherically symmetric, perfect fluid solutions of Einstein’s equations

    M. S. R. Delgaty and K. Lake, “Physical acceptability of isolated, static, spherically symmetric, perfect fluid solutions of Einstein’s equations”, Comput. Phys. Commun.115(1998), 395-415 doi:10.1016/S0010-4655(98)00130-1 [arXiv:gr-qc/9809013 [gr-qc]]

    1998 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Bounds on the interior geometry and pressure profile of static fluid spheres

    D. Martin and M. Visser, “Bounds on the interior geometry and pressure profile of static fluid spheres”, Class. Quant. Grav.20(2003), 3699-3716 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/20/16/311 [arXiv:gr-qc/0306038 [gr-qc]]

    2003 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Some exact solutions in general relativity

    P. Boonserm, “Some exact solutions in general relativity”, (MSc thesis) [arXiv:gr-qc/0610149 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Generating perfect fluid spheres in general relativity

    P. Boonserm, M. Visser and S. Weinfurtner, “Generating perfect fluid spheres in general relativity”, Phys. Rev. D71(2005), 124037 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.124037 [arXiv:gr-qc/0503007 [gr-qc]]

    2005 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Solution generating theorems for the TOV equation

    P. Boonserm, M. Visser and S. Weinfurtner, “Solution generating theorems for the TOV equation”, Phys. Rev. D76(2007), 044024 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.044024 [arXiv:gr-qc/0607001 [gr-qc]]

    2007 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Solution generating theorems for perfect fluid spheres

    P. Boonserm, M. Visser and S. Weinfurtner, “Solution generating theorems for perfect fluid spheres”, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.68(2007), 012055 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/68/1/012055 [arXiv:gr-qc/0609088 [gr-qc]]

    2007 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Much ado about nothing: A Treatise on empty and not so empty spacetimes

    D. J. Martin, “Much ado about nothing: A Treatise on empty and not so empty spacetimes”, (MSc thesis). [arXiv:gr-qc/0607022 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Galactic halos and gravastars: Static spherically symmetric spacetimes in modern general relativity and astrophysics

    T. Faber, “Galactic halos and gravastars: Static spherically symmetric spacetimes in modern general relativity and astrophysics”, (MSc thesis). [arXiv:gr-qc/0607029 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Buchdahl-like transformations for perfect fluid spheres

    P. Boonserm and M. Visser, “Buchdahl-like transformations for perfect fluid spheres”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D17(2008), 135-163 doi:10.1142/S0218271808011912 [arXiv:0707.0146 [gr-qc]]. – 32 –

    2008 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Buchdahl-Like Transformations in General Relativity

    P. Boonserm and M. Visser, “Buchdahl-Like Transformations in General Relativity”, Thai Journal of Mathematics5 # 2(2007) 209–223

    2007

  18. [26]

    Isotropic stars in general relativity

    M. K. Mak and T. Harko, “Isotropic stars in general relativity”, Eur. Phys. J. C73 (2013), 2585 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2585-5 [arXiv:1309.5123 [gr-qc]]

    2013 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Maximum mass, moment of inertia and compactness of relativistic stars

    C. Breu and L. Rezzolla, “Maximum mass, moment of inertia and compactness of relativistic stars”, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.459(2016) no.1, 646-656 doi:10.1093/mnras/stw575 [arXiv:1601.06083 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Gravitational Vacuum Condensate Stars

    E. Mottola, “Gravitational Vacuum Condensate Stars”, doi:10.1007/978-981-99-1596-5 8 [arXiv:2302.09690 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    The Spacetime Geodesy of Perfect Fluid Spheres

    C. Simmonds and M. Visser, “The Spacetime Geodesy of Perfect Fluid Spheres”, Symmetry17(2025) no.12, 2043 doi:10.3390/sym17122043 [arXiv:2510.17159 [gr-qc]]

    2025

  22. [30]

    Static Stellar Phase Transitions in General Relativity and a Generalized Buchdahl Limit

    M. Reintjes and R. Xia, “Static Stellar Phase Transitions in General Relativity and a Generalized Buchdahl Limit”, [arXiv:2511.14287 [gr-qc]]

  23. [31]

    Buchdahl limit and TOV equations in interacting vacuum scenarios

    R. Maier, “Buchdahl limit and TOV equations in interacting vacuum scenarios”, Eur. Phys. J. C86(2026) no.5, 514 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-026-15784-z [arXiv:2604.13011 [gr-qc]]

    2026 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Gravitational theory and gravitational collapse

    B. K. Harrison, K. S. Thorne, M. Wanako and J. A. Wheeler, “Gravitational theory and gravitational collapse”, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1965). ISBN 0226318028; 9780226318028

    1965

  25. [33]

    Gravitation and cosmology: principles and applications of the general theory of relativity

    S. Weinberg, “Gravitation and cosmology: principles and applications of the general theory of relativity”, (Wiley, New York, 1972). ISBN 0471925675; 978-0471925675

    1972

  26. [34]

    Gravitation

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler, “Gravitation”, (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973). ISBN 9780691177793; 978-0691177793

    1973

  27. [35]

    General Relativity

    R. M. Wald, “General Relativity”, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984). ISBN 0226870332; 978-0226870335

    1984

  28. [36]

    Exact solutions of Einstein’s field equations

    H. Stephani, D. Kramer, M. A. H. MacCallum, C. Hoenselaers and E. Herlt, “Exact solutions of Einstein’s field equations”, Cambridge University Press, 2003, ISBN 978-0-521-46702-5, 978-0-511-05917-9 doi:10.1017/CBO9780511535185

    2003 doi

  29. [37]

    Exact Space-Times in Einstein’s General Relativity

    J. B. Griffiths and J. Podolsky, “Exact Space-Times in Einstein’s General Relativity”, Cambridge University Press, 2009, ISBN 978-1-139-48116-8 doi:10.1017/CBO9780511635397 – 33 –

    2009 doi

  30. [38]

    Power laws, scale invariance, and generalized Frobenius series: Applications to Newtonian and TOV stars near criticality

    M. Visser and N. Yunes, “Power laws, scale invariance, and generalized Frobenius series: Applications to Newtonian and TOV stars near criticality”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A18(2003), 3433-3468 doi:10.1142/S0217751X03013892 [arXiv:gr-qc/0211001 [gr-qc]]

    2003 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Effective geometrostatics of spherical stars beyond general relativity

    J. Arrechea, R. Carballo-Rubio and M. Visser, “Effective geometrostatics of spherical stars beyond general relativity”, Phys. Rev. D114 # 2(2026) 024081, doi:10.1103/b892-6ys4 [arXiv:2603.24269 [gr-qc]]

    2026 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Revisiting Schwarzschild’s constant density star in isotropic coordinates

    C. Simmonds and M. Visser, “Revisiting Schwarzschild’s constant density star in isotropic coordinates”, [arXiv:2606.01061 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    ¨Uber das Gravitationsfeld einer Kugel aus inkompressibler Fl¨ ussigkeit nach der Einsteinschen Theorie

    Karl Schwarzschild, “¨Uber das Gravitationsfeld einer Kugel aus inkompressibler Fl¨ ussigkeit nach der Einsteinschen Theorie” [On the gravitational field of a ball of incompressible fluid following Einstein’s theory]. Sitzungsberichte der K¨ oniglich-Preussischen Akademie der ...

    2016

  34. [42]

    On the Gravitational Field of a Sphere of Incompressible Liquid, According to Einstein’s Theory (translation)

    Karl Schwarzschild, “On the Gravitational Field of a Sphere of Incompressible Liquid, According to Einstein’s Theory (translation)”. The Abraham Zelmanov Journal,1(2008) 20–32. ISSN 1654-9163; ISSN 2001-7235 Translated by Larissa Borissova and Dmitri Rabounski. – 34 –

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.