Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 64 references

Strange quark stars in mimetic gravitational theory

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 A strange quark star model in mimetic gravity, built from the Buchdahl metric and MIT bag equation of state, is claimed to satisfy energy conditions, TOV equilibrium with an extra force, and stability criteria.

desk verdict Routine Buchdahl quark-star model in mimetic gravity, but the mimetic constraint is never checked and the 'extra force' is invented; the central validation collapses. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.10583 v1 pith:5DJUHPJO submitted 2025-09-11 gr-qc hep-th

Meghanil Sinha , S. Surendra Singh This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th PACS 04.40.Dg04.50.Kd
keywords strangequarkstarsmimeticgravityBuchdahlmetricMITbagmodelanisotropicfluidTOVequilibriumenergyconditionsstellarstability
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 tries to establish that strange quark stars, described by the MIT bag equation of state and a non-singular Buchdahl metric ansatz, are physically viable inside mimetic gravity. The authors match the interior metric to the exterior Schwarzschild spacetime, solve the mimetic field equations numerically for five pulsar-like candidates, and check standard stellar-structure criteria: energy conditions, radial and tangential equations of state, TOV equilibrium with an extra mimetic force, adiabatic stability, surface redshift, and causality of the sound speed. If the construction holds, it would extend compact-star modeling to a modified gravity theory that treats a scalar field's conformal degree as dark-matter-like, offering an alternative arena for testing quark matter at extreme density.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing pieces are the Buchdahl metric ansatz for g_tt, the MIT bag model equation of state, and the mimetic scalar field η = ∫ dr/√(e^i). The scalar field is meant to satisfy the mimetic constraint g^{αβ}∂_αη∂_βη = −1, which ties η to the metric; the Buchdahl ansatz supplies a non-singular, center-regular g_tt; the MIT bag EoS links pressure to density through the bag constant B; the junction conditions determine Ξ. Together they close the field equations so that ρ, pr, pt, and e^j can be computed.

What would settle it

Compute e^j(r) from the field equations for the chosen parameters and compare it with e^{-i(r)} over the stellar interior. Any interior radius where e^j differs from e^{-i} would violate the mimetic scalar constraint, eliminating the configuration as a mimetic gravity solution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Buchdahl metric potential e^i(r) = Σ(Ξr²+1)/(Σ+Ξr²), with Ξ fixed by junction conditions with the Schwarzschild exterior, together with the MIT-bag relation pr = (ρ−4B)/3, yields an anisotropic strange quark star solution in mimetic gravity. For the values of Σ and Ξ corresponding to the five candidate stars, the density and pressures remain positive, all energy conditions hold, the EoS parameters stay between 0 and 1, the modified TOV equation balances when a small extra mimetic force is included, the adiabatic index exceeds 4/3, the surface redshift stays below 2, and the squared sound speed lies between 0 and 1.

Load-bearing premise

The scalar field ansatz η = ∫ dr/√(e^i) satisfies the mimetic constraint only if e^{i+j}=1 everywhere, and the paper does not establish this for the interior Buchdahl metric; if e^j differs from e^{-i}, the resulting solution is not a solution of mimetic gravity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, mimetic gravity can reproduce observed pulsar-like compact object properties with strange quark matter without abandoning GR's successes at low density.
  • The extra mimetic force FE that enters the TOV equation acts as an additional balancing agent, so stability analyses in mimetic gravity must include it.
  • The Buchdahl metric function, used previously in other modified theories, transfers to mimetic gravity, suggesting a family of non-singular quark star models.
  • The parameter Σ controls stability: the paper notes that larger Σ may destabilize near the core, implying an upper bound on Σ for physically admissible mimetic strange stars.
  • These models predict surface redshift values below 2 and subluminal sound speeds that could be compared with future observational constraints.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The mimetic constraint requires e^{i+j}=1, so the scalar field ansatz is consistent only if the computed e^j equals e^{-i} at every interior point; a direct numerical check of this equality would settle whether the solution genuinely belongs to mimetic gravity rather than to GR with an auxiliary scalar.
  • A natural extension would be to test other non-singular metric potentials, such as Kuchowicz or Durgapal–Fuloria forms, in the same mimetic framework; the current work indicates the machinery transfers once the constraint is handled rigorously.
  • Mapping the allowed (Σ, B) region from the stability bounds could yield an exclusion curve for strange quark stars in mimetic gravity.
  • Since TOV equilibrium requires a small extra force, future work could seek an analytic expression for FE in terms of the mimetic scalar and check whether its magnitude is tied to dark-matter-like effects.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs anisotropic strange quark star models in mimetic gravity, using a Buchdahl-type metric potential and the MIT bag equation of state. The interior Buchdahl metric is matched to the exterior Schwarzschild spacetime, and the field equations are solved numerically for several candidate stars (PSR J1614−2230, 4U 1608−52, etc.). The authors then verify energy conditions, EoS parameters, TOV equilibrium with an added 'extra force', adiabatic stability, surface redshift, and causality. The central claim is that the Buchdahl metric plus MIT bag EoS yields a physically valid and stable strange quark star configuration in mimetic gravity.

Significance. If the construction were valid, it would provide a new family of quark star solutions in mimetic gravity and extend the literature on non-singular compact star models in modified gravity. The paper does provide explicit matching conditions and numerical plots for several physical quantities, which is a useful template. However, the central validation is not sound: the mimetic scalar field ansatz is not shown to satisfy the defining constraint of the theory, and the TOV equilibrium is enforced by an unexplained extra force rather than derived from the field equations. As a result, the paper does not currently establish that the presented configuration is a solution of mimetic gravity, nor does it provide a testable prediction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eqs. (2), (6), (16)] The scalar field choice η=∫1/√(e^i)dr is claimed to satisfy the mimetic constraint (2), but this is not shown. For the diagonal metric (6), g^{αβ}∂_αη∂_βη = -e^{-j}(η')² = -e^{-(i+j)}. The constraint (2) therefore requires e^{i+j}=1, i.e., j(r)=-i(r) for all r. The paper only imposes the matching condition e^j(R)=e^{-i}(R) at the surface, while j(r) is obtained by integrating (7)–(8) with the MIT bag EoS. No interior relation j=-i is derived or checked. If j≠-i in the interior, the solution does not belong to mimetic gravity; if j=-i is enforced, the analysis below shows a negative central density. This is the central defect of the paper.
  2. [Section 4.3, Eq. (21)] The modified TOV equation (21) introduces an 'extra force' F_E without any derivation from the mimetic field equations (4) or (7)–(9). The term is not present in the field equations, and no explicit expression for F_E is given. The subsequent statement that 'without the extra force, solutions seem to be unstable, however introducing a small positive extra force renders them stable' is circular: F_E is evidently chosen to make the balance equation (21) hold. A stability test whose central ingredient is an unconstrained free function does not validate the model. The authors must derive F_E from the conservation of the effective energy-momentum tensor in mimetic gravity, or demonstrate that (21) follows from (4); otherwise the TOV analysis is an assumption, not a test.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (7) and Section 4.1] Even if one attempted to enforce the mimetic constraint by setting j=-i, the resulting central energy density is negative. With e^i = Σ(1+Ξr²)/(Σ+Ξr²) and the small-r expansion e^i ≈ 1 + [Ξ(Σ-1)/Σ]r², Eq. (7) gives 8πρ(0) = -3Ξ(Σ-1)/Σ. For Ξ<0 (as stated below Eq. (15)) and 0<Σ<1, this is negative. This contradicts the weak energy condition and the positive ρ+p_r, ρ+p_t plots in Figures 3–4. Thus the scalar ansatz (16) either violates the mimetic constraint or forces a negative central density; the energy-condition figures are therefore not derived from a valid mimetic solution.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1] The stability criterion is stated inconsistently: 'the adiabatic index must not exceed 4/3' is immediately followed by 'Γ > 4/3 within the stellar interior confirms adiabatic stability.' The standard condition is Γ > 4/3, and the plotted values (≈1.8–1.95) satisfy it. Please correct the wording and cite the standard criterion consistently.
  2. [Figure 18 / Section 5.3] The speed-of-sound plot axis label is garbled, and the values shown seem inconsistent with the MIT bag EoS pr=(ρ-4B)/3, which gives dpr/dρ=1/3 identically. If the numerical solution does not exactly satisfy the MIT bag EoS, this should be stated explicitly; otherwise the figure and the claim of a 0-to-1 range are misleading.
  3. [Various] There are numerous typographical and formatting errors (e.g., 'spactime', incomplete reference [2], garbled equation lines in Eqs. (8)–(9), and the unlabeled vertical line in Figure 1). These should be corrected in a revision.
  4. [Section 4.3, Eq. (22)] The definitions of F_H, F_A, F_G are given, but F_E is not defined or given units. A precise definition and its physical origin are necessary for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The TOV-equilibrium validation is a fitted residual (F_E balances the equation by construction), and the mimetic constraint is asserted for the η ansatz rather than verified; the physical-validity checks therefore do not independently test the model.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 2, Eq. (16) and discussion following Eq. (2)]
    "Now we choose a scalar field form which would satisfy equation (2), that is given by η = ∫ 1√ ei dr."

    For the line element (6), the mimetic constraint (2) reads g^{rr}(η')^2 = -e^{-(i+j)} = -1, i.e. e^{i+j}=1 throughout the interior. The chosen η' = e^{-i/2} makes the constraint equivalent to j(r) = -i(r). The paper never enforces or verifies this inside the star: e^j is integrated from Eqs. (7)-(8) using only the surface condition e^j(R)=e^{-i}(R), and no interior identity j=-i is shown. At r=0 the identity fails with the quoted parameters: using (10) and (15), j=-i would give 8πρ(0)=3Ξ(Σ-1)/Σ < 0 for Ξ<0 and 0<Σ<1, contradicting the WEC plots. Thus the mimetic constraint is not a derived consequence but a definitional input that is inconsistent with the reported solution.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.3, Eq. (21) and the paragraph defining F_E]
    "The equation differs from the standard TOV equilibrium due to the additional force FE which is crucial for accurately modeling the stable quark star configurations in mimetic gravity. Equilibrium is ensured by the extra force term in the modified equations... Without the extra force, solutions seem to be unstable, however introducing a small positive extra force renders them stable."

    F_E is introduced in Eq. (21) without any expression derived from the mimetic field equations (4). After F_H, F_A, and F_G are computed from the ansatz, Eq. (21) simply defines F_E as the negative of the other three terms, so the equilibrium condition is satisfied identically by construction. The paper then presents the resulting balance as a validation of stability, but it is a restatement of the fitted residual: the 'extra force' is chosen precisely to make the TOV sum zero, and stability is not an independent prediction. This is a fitted input renamed as a consistency check.

full rationale

The paper is not circular in the strongest sense: it does not merely rename a known result, and the energy-condition profiles are computed from the field equations rather than being adopted as inputs. However, two load-bearing steps make the central validation partly self-fulfilling. First, the scalar field ansatz (16) is declared to satisfy the mimetic constraint (2), but for the metric (6) that claim is equivalent to imposing e^{i+j}=1; the paper integrates e^j without enforcing this interior relation, and the small-r limit shows the relation would force a negative central density. The model's status as a mimetic solution is therefore asserted by definition rather than demonstrated. Second, the modified TOV equation (21) includes an extra force F_E with no independent formula; 'equilibrium' is guaranteed by construction, so the stability conclusion in Figs. 13-15 reduces to the choice of F_E. Self-citations in the references are contextual and not load-bearing; the adiabatic-index and sound-speed checks inherit the constructed quantities, and the reported values (e.g. Γ≈1.8-1.95) appear inconsistent with the MIT-bag EoS fixing dpr/dρ=1/3, which is an additional internal inconsistency rather than a separate circularity. Overall, the claimed validation is partially circular because the TOV test is fitted by definition and the mimetic constraint is an unverified input, warranting a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model is constructed from a chosen metric and scalar field, and the primary verification is that derived profiles satisfy inequalities. The TOV equilibrium is enforced by an unspecified extra force, which carries most of the burden.

free parameters (2)
  • Σ (Buchdahl metric parameter) = 1.35e-5, 2.09e-5, 2.30e-5, 2.96e-5, 3.19e-5
    Free parameter in the metric function (Eq. 10); chosen by hand for each star candidate, not fitted to data with uncertainties.
  • Extra force F_E in TOV equation = unspecified 'small positive'
    Introduced in Eq. (21) to balance the equilibrium equation; no formula or derivation from the mimetic field equations is given.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Mimetic field equations (4) and constraint (2) from Chamseddine-Mukhanov
    The theory is assumed as the background framework.
  • domain assumption MIT bag equation of state pr = (ρ - 4B)/3 (Eq. 19)
    Standard simplified EoS for strange quark matter.
  • ad hoc to paper Scalar field choice η = ∫ 1/√(e^i) dr satisfies Eq. (2)
    Not verified; substitution shows it requires e^{i+j}=1, which is not established for the interior Buchdahl metric.
  • ad hoc to paper Existence of extra force F_E in TOV equilibrium
    Needed for equilibrium; no derivation provided.
invented entities (1)
  • Extra force F_E
    purpose: To make the modified TOV equation balance so the star is in equilibrium
    Not derived from the theory; introduced ad hoc. Without it the solutions are unstable (per the paper's own text).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strange quark stars in mimetic gravitational theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5DJUHPJO

@misc{pith2026250910583,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strange quark stars in mimetic gravitational theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5DJUHPJO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10583}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a novel anisotropic quark star model in the backdrop of mimetic gravitational theory. Our study focuses on the strange quark stars using the MIT bag equation of state (EoS) admitting non-singular Buchdahl metric function. The proposed model matches the interior spacetime of the strange quark star with the exterior Schwarzschild spacetime. Our analysis of the energy conditions, radial and tangential EoSs along with the energy momentum tensor gradients and TOV equilibrium condition analysis support the model's physical validity. Further study of adiabatic index, surface redshift function and speed of sound analysis have demonstrated the stability of the strange quark star in mimetic gravity. Thus, we can say that the model stability and consistency have been validated for various parameter values of the Buchdahl function throughout our study in the context of mimetic gravity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10583 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure of the matched interior spacetime with the exterior [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Graph of the metric potential for P SRJ1614 − 2230 with Σ = 0.0000135, Ξ = −5.84604 × 10−8 , 4U1608 − 52 with Σ = 0.0000209, Ξ = −9.04237 × 10−8 , SMCX − 1 with Σ = 0.0000230, Ξ = −8.36387 × 10−8 , 4U1538 − 52 with Σ = 0.0000296, Ξ = −1.05825 × 10−8 , SAXJI8084.4 − 3658 with Σ = 0.0000319, Ξ = −7.66959 × 10−8 4.1 Energy conditions Energy conditions assess the realism of matter behavior. There are mainly four types o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Graph of ρ + pr against r(km) for Σ = 0.0000135, Ξ = −5.84604 × 10−8 , Σ = 0.0000209, Ξ = −9.04237 × 10−8 , Σ = 0.0000230, Ξ = −8.36387 × 10−8 , Σ = 0.0000296, Ξ = −1.05825 × 10−8 , Σ = 0.0000319, Ξ = −7.66959 × 10−8 Σ=0.0000135 Σ=0.0000209 Σ=0.0000230 Σ=0.0000296 Σ=0.0000319 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 5.0×10-7 1.0×10-6 1.5×10-6 r [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Graph of ρ + pt against r(km) for Σ = 0.0000135, Ξ = −5.84604 × 10−8 , Σ = 0.0000209, Ξ = −9.04237 × 10−8 , Σ = 0.0000230, Ξ = −8.36387 × 10−8 , Σ = 0.0000296, Ξ = −1.05825 × 10−8 , Σ = 0.0000319, Ξ = −7.66959 × 10−8 Σ=0.0000135 Σ=0.0000209 Σ=0.0000230 Σ=0.0000296 Σ=0.…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Graph of ρ− | pr against r(km) for Σ = 0.0000135, Ξ = −5.84604 × 10−8 , Σ = 0.0000209, Ξ = −9.04237 × 10−8 , Σ = 0.0000230, Ξ = −8.36387 × 10−8 , Σ = 0.0000296, Ξ = −1.05825 × 10−8 , Σ = 0.0000319, Ξ = −7.66959 × 10−8 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Graph of ρ− | pt against r(km) for Σ = 0.0000135, Ξ = −5.84604 × 10−8 , Σ = 0.0000209, Ξ = −9.04237 × 10−8 , Σ = 0.0000230, Ξ = −8.36387 × 10−8 , Σ = 0.0000296, Ξ = −1.05825 × 10−8 , Σ = 0.0000319, Ξ = −7.66959 × 10−8 Σ=0.0000135 Σ=0.0000209 Σ=0.0000230 Σ=0.0000296 Σ=0…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Graph of ρ+pr+2pt against r(km) for Σ = 0.0000135, Ξ = −5.84604×10−8 , Σ = 0.0000209, Ξ = −9.04237 × 10−8 , Σ = 0.0000230, Ξ = −8.36387 × 10−8 , Σ = 0.0000296, Ξ = −1.05825 × 10−8 , Σ = 0.0000319, Ξ = −7.66959 × 10−8 4.2 Equations of state Next we focus on the EoS para…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Variation of ̟r for different parameter values Σ=0.0000135 Σ=0.0000209 Σ=0.0000230 Σ=0.0000296 Σ=0.0000319 0 2 4 6 8 10 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 r  t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Variation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Nature of radial gradient of energy density for differen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Nature of radial gradient of pr for different parameter values Σ=0.0000135 Σ=0.0000209 Σ=0.0000230 Σ=0.0000296 Σ=0.0000319 0 2 4 6 8 10 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 r rpt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Nature of radial gradient of pt for different parameter values 4.3 TOV equilibrium The modified TOV equilibrium equation below helps assess the viability of the matter distribution inside the star, which can be seen in the works of [58–61] − dpr dr − j ′ (r) 2 (ρ + pr…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Plot of FH versus r for different parameter values Σ=0.0000135 Σ=0.0000209 Σ=0.0000230 Σ=0.0000296 Σ=0.0000319 0 2 4 6 8 10 -0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 r FA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Plot of FA versus r for different parameter values Σ=0.0000135 Σ=0.0000209 Σ=0.0000230 Σ=0.0000296 Σ=0.0000319 0 2 4 6 8 10 -0.0007 -0.0006 -0.0005 -0.0004 -0.0003 -0.0002 -0.0001 0.0000 r FG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Plot of FG versus r for different parameter values 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Adiabatic index for different parameter values against [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Surface redshift function for different parameter valu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Speed of sound analysis for different parameter values a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Akiyama, et al., Event Horizon Telescope, Astrophys

    K. Akiyama, et al., Event Horizon Telescope, Astrophys. J. Lett . 875 (2019) L1, arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Abbott, et al., LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Phys

    B.P. Abbott, et al., LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 0 61102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    A. H. Guth, Phy. Rev. D, 23, 347 (1981). 14

    1981

  4. [4]

    Albrecht, and P

    A. Albrecht, and P. J. Steinhardt, 1982, Phy. Rev. Lett, 48, 1 220 (1982)

    1982

  5. [5]

    A. D. Linde, Phy. Lett. B, 108, 389 (1982)

    1982

  6. [6]

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

    1981

  7. [7]

    S. W. Hawking, Phy. Lett. B, 115, 295 (1982)

    1982

  8. [8]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Phy. Lett. B, 117, 175 (1982)

    1982

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    M. W. Hossain, R. Myrzakulov, M. Sami, and E. N. Saridakis, Phy. R ev. D, 89, 123513 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Martin, C

    J. Martin, C. Ringeval, R. Trotta, and V. Vennin, JCAP, 2014, 0 39 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis, AJ, 116, 1009 (1998)

    1998

  4. [12]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, R. A. Knop, et al., ApJ, 517, 565 (19 99)

  5. [13]

    P. A. R. Ade, R. A. Aghanim, M. Arnaud, et al., Astronomy and As trophysics, 594, A1 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    G. G. L. Nashed, MPLA, 22, 1047 (2007)

    2007

  7. [15]

    Nojiri, and S

    S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov, Phy. Rev., 505, 59 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou, 2017, Phy. Rev. , 692, 1 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    A. V. Astashenok, and S. D. Odintsov, MNRAS, 498, 3616 (202 0)

  10. [18]

    A. H. Chamseddine, and V. Mukhanov, JHEP, 11, 135 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    A. H. Chamseddine, and V. Mukhanov, EPJC, 77, 183 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    Sinha, S

    M. Sinha, S. Sanasam. Behaviour of gravastar model in mimetic g ravity. Physica Scripta, Volume 100, 2025, 055012, 5 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1088/1402-48 96/adca5d

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    A. H. Chamseddine, and V. Mukhanov, JCAP, 1703, 009 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    A. H. Chamseddine, and V. Mukhanov, JHEP, 06, 060 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rev. D 93 023517 (2 016)

  16. [24]

    Zhong, and D

    Y. Zhong, and D. S /acute.ts1aez-Chill/acute.ts1on G /acute.ts1omez, Symmetry. 10 170 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Vagnozzi, Class

    S. Vagnozzi, Class. Quantum Grav. 34 185006 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Casalino, M

    A. Casalino, M. Rinaldi, L. Sebastiani, and S. Vagnozzi, Class. Qua ntum Grav. 36 017001 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    S. L. Shapiro, S. A. Teukolsky, Black holes, white dwarfs, and n eutron stars: The physics of compact objects. Wiley, New York, p. 645 (1983)

    1983

  20. [28]

    Psaltis, Living Rev

    D. Psaltis, Living Rev. Rel. 11, 9 (2008). arXiv:0806.1531 [astrop h]

    2008 arXiv

  21. [29]

    D. R. Lorimer, Living Rev. Rel. 11, 8 (2008). arXiv:0811.0762

    2008 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Sinha, S

    M. Sinha, S. Surendra Singh. Gravastar model in the structur e of f (R, Lm, T ) modi- fied theory of gravity, Modern Physics Letters A 40, 05n06, 2450 227, 0217-7323 (2025). doi:10.1142/S0217732324502274. 15

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    Sinha, and S

    M. Sinha, and S. Surendra Singh. Cylindrical gravastars with Ku chowicz metric potential, Interna- tional Journal of Modern Physics A, 2550129, (2025). doi:10.1142 /S0217751X25501295

    2025

  24. [32]

    Sinha, S

    M. Sinha, S. Surendra Singh, A gravastar model with Durgapal— Fuloria metric potential, Annals of Physics, Volume 480, 170129, ISSN 0003-4916 (2025). https:/ /doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2025.170129

    2025

  25. [33]

    Ghosh, D

    S. Ghosh, D. Shee, S. Ray, F. Rahaman, B. K. Guha, Gravasta rs with Kuchow- icz metric potential, Results in Physics, Volume 14, 102473, ISSN 221 1-3797, (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2019.102473

    2019

  26. [34]

    Kettner, F

    Ch. Kettner, F. Weber, M. K. Weigel et al., Phys. Rev. D 51, 144 0 (1995)

    1995

  27. [35]

    M. Dey, I. Bombaci, J. Dey et al., Phys. Lett. B 438, 123 (1998)

    1998

  28. [36]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 30, 272 (1984)

    1984

  29. [37]

    A. R. Bodmer, Phys. Rev. D 4, 1601 (1971)

    1971

  30. [38]

    Farhi, R.L

    E. Farhi, R.L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D 30, 2379 (1984)

    1984

  31. [39]

    O. E. Nicotra et al., Phys. Rev. D 74, 123001 (2006)

    2006

  32. [40]

    Joshi, S

    S. Joshi, S. Sau, S. Sanyal, JHEAp 30, 16 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    J. D. V. Arba˜ nil, C. V. Flores, C. H. Lenzi, J. M. Z. Pretel, Phys . Rev. D 107, 124016 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    I. G. Salako et al., Theor. Math. Phys. 208, 1299 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    J. M. Z. Pretel, T. Tangphati, A. Banerjee, Ann. Phys. 458, 1 69440 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

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

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    Sinha, S

    M. Sinha, S. S. Singh. Strange Quark Stars with Kuchowicz Metr ic Function in Modified Gravita- tional Theory. Int J Theor Phys 64, 197 (2025). https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10773-025-06069-4

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    Panotopoulos, D

    G. Panotopoulos, D. Vernieri, I. Lopes. Quark stars with isotr opic matter in Hoˇ rava gravity and Einstein–æther theory. Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 537 (2020). https:// doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020- 8105-5

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    Sokoliuk, S

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

    2022

  40. [48]

    Capozziello, J

    S. Capozziello, J. Matsumoto, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov, Phy . Lett. B, 693, 198 (2010)

    2010

  41. [49]

    E. A. Lim, I. Sawicki, and A. Vikman, JCAP, 05, 012 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    C. Gao, Y. Gong, X. Wang, and X. Chen, X, Phy. Lett. B, 702, 1 07 (2011)

    2011

  43. [51]

    Kumar Prasad and J

    A. Kumar Prasad and J. Kumar, Charged Analogues of Isotrop ic Compact Stars Model with Buchdahl Metric in General Relativity, Astrophys. Space Sci. 366, 26 (2021), arXiv:1910.10471 [physics.gen-ph]. 16

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Chodos, R

    A. Chodos, R. L. Jaffe, K. Johnson, C. B. Thorn, V. F. Weissko pf, Phys. Rev. D 9, 3471 (1974)

    1974

  45. [53]

    Alcock, E

    C. Alcock, E. Farhi, and A. Olinto, Strange Stars, ApJ 310, 261 (1986)

    1986

  46. [54]

    Alcock and A

    C. Alcock and A. Olinto, Exotic phases of hadronic matter and th eir astrophys- ical application, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 38, 16 1 (1988), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ns.38.120188.001113

    1988

  47. [55]

    Chakraborty, A

    K. Chakraborty, A. Aziz, F. Rahaman, S. Ray. Quark matter s upported wormhole in third order Lovelock gravity. Chinese Journal of Physics, 83, 315-324 (2023 )

    2023

  48. [56]

    Creminelli, M

    P. Creminelli, M. A. Luty, A. Nicolis, and L. Senatore, Starting th e Universe: Stable Violation of the Null Energy Condition and Non-standard Cosmologies, JHEP 12, 080, arXiv:hep-th/0606090

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    Hochberg and M

    D. Hochberg and M. Visser, Dynamic wormholes, anti-trapped s urfaces, and energy conditions, Phys. Rev. D 58, 044021 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9802046

    1998 arXiv

  50. [58]

    J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, On massive neutron cores, Phys. Rev. 55, 374 (1939)

    1939

  51. [59]

    Ponce de Leon, Limiting configurations allowed by the energy c onditions, Gen

    J. Ponce de Leon, Limiting configurations allowed by the energy c onditions, Gen. Relativ. Gravit 25, 1123 (1993)

    1993

  52. [60]

    Rahaman, P

    F. Rahaman, P. K. F. Kuhfittig, S. Ray, and N. Islam, Possible ex istence of wormholes in the galactic halo region, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2750 (2014), arXiv:1307.1237 [gr-q c]

    2014 arXiv

  53. [61]

    R. C. Tolman, Static solutions of einstein’s field equations for sph eres of fluid, Phys. Rev. 55, 364 (1939)

    1939

  54. [62]

    Chandrasekhar, Dynamical instability of gaseous masses ap proaching the schwarzschild limit in general relativity, Phys

    S. Chandrasekhar, Dynamical instability of gaseous masses ap proaching the schwarzschild limit in general relativity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 12, 114 (1964)

    1964

  55. [63]

    S. K. Maurya and S. D. Maharaj, Anisotropic fluid spheres of em bedding class one using Karmarkar condition, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 328 (2017), arXiv:1702.04192 [physic s.gen-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Heintzmann, W

    H. Heintzmann, W. Hillebrandt, Astron. Astrophys. 38(1), p. 51-55 (1975). Research supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. 38, 51 (1975). 17

    1975

Pith tools

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