Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Static Spherically Symmetric Chaplygin and Polytropic Fluid Solutions in Teleparallel $F(T)$ Gravity

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A covariant reconstruction procedure turns Chaplygin and polytropic fluids into admissible teleparallel F(T) models, producing compact-object-like and wormhole-like branches.

desk verdict Solid formal extension of Landry's CSC reconstruction program to Chaplygin/polytropic fluids, but the claimed compact-object and wormhole branches remain unevaluated integrals under a restrictive power-law ansatz. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.10100 v2 pith:5TBOFILR submitted 2026-06-08 gr-qc math-phmath.MP

Alexandre Landry This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcmath-phmath.MP PACS 04.50.Kd04.20.Jb95.36.+x
keywords teleparallelF(T)gravitycovariantcoframe/spin-connectionChaplyginfluidpolytropicstaticsphericalsymmetryreconstructionwormhole-likesolutionstorsioninvariants
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

The paper shows how to rebuild teleparallel F(T) gravity so that static, spherically symmetric geometries can be sourced by two realistic nonlinear fluids: Chaplygin gas (negative-pressure, dark-energy-like) and polytropic gas (ordinary stellar matter). Working entirely inside the covariant coframe/spin-connection formalism, the author derives the field equations and conservation laws, then inverts them: given a coframe ansatz and an equation of state, one obtains the functions F(T) that are consistent with that source. Power-law coframes produce several explicit branches—constant-radius product geometries, compact-object-like interiors, and wormhole-like throats. Chaplygin branches can support effective NEC violation at a throat by shifting exoticity into the torsion sector; polytropic branches remain ordinary-matter candidates for stars. All solutions are organized by torsion invariants so that distinct F(T) models that share the same metric symmetry remain distinguishable. The result is a single, covariant toolkit for constructing and classifying nonlinear-fluid compact objects and wormholes beyond general relativity.

What carries the argument

The reconstruction equation that rewrites the reduced field equations as an ordinary differential equation for F(T) once the torsion scalar is inverted from a chosen coframe, with the fluid equation of state and conservation law supplying the source term Λ_fluid(T).

What would settle it

Construct a static spherically symmetric Chaplygin or polytropic solution whose metric cannot be written in the power-law form used here, then check whether any F(T) still satisfies the covariant field equations and energy conditions; if none does, the reconstruction procedure fails for that geometry.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A general reconstruction procedure systematically determines admissible teleparallel F(T) models for arbitrary coframe ansätze and nonlinear fluid equations of state; for power-law configurations this yields constant-radius, compact-object-like and wormhole-like branches that serve as candidates for stellar-interior and wormhole studies.

Load-bearing premise

The power-law radial coframe is assumed rich enough to capture the physically relevant compact-object and wormhole geometries the paper claims to reconstruct.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a covariant reconstruction framework for static spherically symmetric solutions of teleparallel F(T) gravity sourced by isotropic Chaplygin and polytropic fluids. Using the coframe/spin-connection formalism, it derives the symmetric and antisymmetric field equations, the isotropic conservation law, and the torsion scalar for both constant-radius (A3=c0) and areal-radius (A3=r) gauges. Under a power-law coframe ansatz it obtains a formal reconstruction integral for F(T) and multi-scale torsion expressions, then discusses NEC behaviour, scalar-torsion viability conditions FT>0, FTT>0, throat conditions for wormhole-like geometries, and a Coley–Landry-type classification of the resulting branches. The abstract and conclusion present these as candidate constant-radius, compact-object-like and wormhole-like solution branches for future stellar-interior and wormhole studies.

Significance. If the reconstruction were carried through to explicit, viable F(T) models and density profiles that satisfy throat or stellar matching conditions, the work would supply a useful unified CSC-based catalogue of nonlinear-fluid teleparallel geometries and would usefully extend earlier perfect-fluid and scalar-field reconstructions. The formal apparatus (field equations, conservation law, reconstruction ODE, TEGR recovery, local NEC and FT, FTT diagnostics) is correctly set up and the complementary roles of Chaplygin versus polytropic sources are clearly motivated. At present, however, the physical content remains largely prospective: no explicit F(T) or ρ(r) is evaluated, so the claimed candidate branches cannot yet be used for concrete modelling.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. V A, Eq. (39); Sec. V B, Eqs. (66)–(67)] The central claim (abstract, Sec. V A, Sec. VI) that the procedure yields concrete constant-radius, compact-object-like and wormhole-like branches is not substantiated. Equation (39) and the multi-scale torsion scalar (49) remain formal; the reconstruction integral is never evaluated for either the Chaplygin EOS (14) or the polytropic EOS (20). Consequently no explicit F(T), no density profile ρ(r), and no metric functions satisfying the throat conditions (66)–(67) or exterior matching are exhibited. Without at least one worked example the “branches” cannot be verified as admissible solutions.
  2. [Sec. IV A/E, Eqs. (30), (48)] All reconstructed families rest on the power-law coframe A1=a0 r^a, A2=b0 r^b (and the constant-radius gauge A3=c0). This ansatz generates the multi-scale torsion (49) that permits the formal inversion, yet the manuscript never demonstrates that the same radial profiles can accommodate a regular stellar centre, a finite-mass exterior, or a traversable throat with finite redshift. If realistic geometries require qualitatively different A1(r), A2(r), the claimed physical relevance of the reconstructed F(T) families is lost. A justification or a non-power-law example is needed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. I] Abstract and introduction list “black-hole-like” branches among the reconstructed classes, yet the body never constructs or classifies a horizon-containing solution; the terminology should be aligned with what is actually derived.
  2. [Tables I–III] Tables I–III are useful summaries but remain schematic; once explicit branches exist they should be populated with concrete parameter ranges or sample F(T) expressions.
  3. [Sec. V C] The stability discussion (Sec. V C) correctly states the necessary conditions FT>0, FTT>0 and 0≤cs^{2}≤1, but presents them as local diagnostics only; a brief remark that a full linear perturbation analysis is left for future work would avoid over-statement.
  4. [Sec. V D] Heavy reliance on the author’s prior CSC and classification papers is appropriate for the geometric background, yet a short self-contained summary of the invariant hierarchy used in Table III would improve readability for non-specialists.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Reconstruction of F(T) is by direct integration of the rearranged field equations under the assumed power-law coframe and fluid EOS, so the claimed solution branches reduce to the input cases by construction; mild self-citation supplies the CSC geometry and Coley–Landry classification.

  1. self definitional [Sec. IV B, Eq. (39) and abstract claim of “obtained o branches”]
    "The formal reconstruction solution is F(T)=∫dT̄(T̄−T0)−γ[C1+∫dT̃(T̃−T0)γ−1Λfluid(T̃)]+C2. o Focusing on power-law configurations, we obtain several classes of reconstructed solution branches, including constant-radius, compact-object-like, and wormhole-like (WH-like) branches."

    Once the power-law coframe (which supplies the invertible T(r)) and the fluid EOS (which supplies Λ_fluid via the conservation law) are chosen, the reconstruction integral simply solves the rearranged field equation for F by construction. The “solution branches” are therefore identical to the input cases of ansatz parameters and EOS; no independent geometry or density profile is derived.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. II B and introductory citations [26–30]]
    "We adopt the same static spherically symmetric coframe/spin-connection pair as refs. [19, 20, 26–30] o Recent work has established covariant reconstruction procedures for static spherically symmetric teleparallel geometries o together with invariant classification schemes for the resulting solution spaces [26–30]. The resulting geometries are organized within the Coley–Landry invariant classification framework."

    The entire CSC geometry, torsion scalar, reconstruction methodology and Coley–Landry classification that underwrite every subsequent field equation and branch are taken from the author’s own prior papers. While the new fluid sectors are novel, the load-bearing claim of a “unified covariant reconstruction framework” rests on this self-citation chain rather than an independent derivation of the admissibility or completeness of the geometric setup.

full rationale

The paper’s central claim is a general reconstruction procedure that systematically determines admissible F(T) and yields constant-radius, compact-object-like and wormhole-like branches for Chaplygin/polytropic sources. In practice the only explicit result is the formal integral (39) (and its areal-radius analogue) obtained by rewriting the field equations after the power-law ansatz has already fixed T(r) and the conservation law has fixed Λ_fluid(T). Thus F is defined to be whatever function satisfies the assumed geometry plus EOS; the “branches” are simply the different choices of those inputs. This is the ordinary logic of reconstruction methods and is not deceptive, but it means the strongest claim reduces by construction rather than by independent derivation or explicit evaluation. In addition the CSC pair, torsion scalar and invariant classification framework are imported wholesale from the author’s prior series [26–30]. Those self-citations are load-bearing for the geometric setup yet do not themselves re-derive uniqueness or completeness of the ansatz class. No data fitting, no uniqueness theorem forbidding alternatives, and no renaming of external empirical patterns occur, so the circularity remains mild and typical of a methods-series extension. Score 3 reflects one self-definitional reduction of the main claim plus non-critical self-citation of the background geometry.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard covariant F(T) field equations, the previously published SS CSC pair, the isotropic-fluid conservation law, and the restrictive power-law coframe ansatz that makes the reconstruction ODE integrable. Free parameters are the ansatz exponents and fluid constants; no new physical entities are postulated. The ledger therefore records a modest set of domain assumptions plus one ad-hoc geometric restriction that generates the claimed branches.

free parameters (5)
  • power-law exponents a, b
    Chosen by hand to define the coframe ansatz A1=a0 r^a, A2=b0 r^b; they control the multi-scale torsion scalar and the reconstructed exponents n1, n2.
  • Chaplygin parameters A, α
    Equation-of-state constants that enter the source term Λfluid(T) and the NEC condition ρ^{α+1}≤A; free within the stated ranges.
  • polytropic parameters K, Γ (or np)
    Equation-of-state constants that fix the density profile via the conservation law and the sound-speed bound.
  • integration constants C1, C2
    Homogeneous solutions of the reconstruction ODE; they parametrize residual TEGR-like and cosmological-constant pieces.
  • coframe scales a0, b0, c0, δ
    Overall normalizations of the tetrad and the constant-radius gauge; free and set the background torsion T0.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Covariant teleparallel F(T) field equations (symmetric and antisymmetric) with matter energy-momentum Θ(ab)
    Taken as the starting point (Sec. II A, Eqs. 2–3); standard in the CSC literature.
  • domain assumption Static spherically symmetric CSC pair with the given spin-connection components ω^2_33=ω^2_44=δ/A3, ω^3_44=-cot heta/A3
    Adopted from prior Coley–Landry and Landry papers (Sec. II B); fixes the torsion scalar used throughout.
  • domain assumption Isotropic nonlinear fluid (pr=pt=p) whose dynamics are exhausted by the radial conservation law
    Stated in Sec. III A; closes the matter sector so that reconstruction depends only on the EOS and the coframe.
  • ad hoc to paper Power-law coframe ansatz A1=a0 r^a, A2=b0 r^b (and constant-radius A3=c0) is adequate for the claimed compact-object and wormhole branches
    Introduced in Sec. IV to obtain an invertible T(r) and an integrable reconstruction ODE; not derived from a variational principle or observational requirement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Static Spherically Symmetric Chaplygin and Polytropic Fluid Solutions in Teleparallel $F(T)$ Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5TBOFILR

@misc{pith2026260610100,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Static Spherically Symmetric Chaplygin and Polytropic Fluid Solutions in Teleparallel $F(T)$ Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5TBOFILR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.10100}
}
abstract

We investigate static, spherically symmetric (SS) spacetimes in covariant teleparallel $F(T)$ gravity sourced by nonlinear Chaplygin and polytropic fluids. Using the covariant coframe/spin-connection (CSC) formalism, we derive the corresponding field equations and conservation laws governing admissible matter distributions and nonlinear torsion sectors. A general reconstruction procedure is developed, allowing the systematic determination of teleparallel $F(T)$ models for arbitrary coframe ans\"atze and fluid equations of state. Focusing on power-law configurations, we obtain several classes of reconstructed solution branches, including constant-radius, compact-object-like, and wormhole-like (WH-like) branches. The Chaplygin sector naturally leads to effective dark-energy-like and exotic-matter candidate solution branches within the reconstruction framework, which may provide admissible sectors for wormhole-like reconstructed geometries, while the polytropic sector provides reconstructed branches that may serve as physically motivated candidates for future stellar-interior and compact-object models. We discuss the associated candidate horizon and throat conditions, torsion singularities, energy conditions, and local viability properties of the reconstructed branches. The resulting geometries are organized within a teleparallel invariant classification framework, highlighting the role of nonlinear torsion corrections in shaping the solution space. Overall, this work provides a unified covariant reconstruction framework for nonlinear-fluid sectors in teleparallel $F(T)$ gravity, identifying solution branches that may serve as candidates for future compact-object, stellar-interior, and wormhole studies.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Aldrovandi, R.; Pereira, J.G.Teleparallel Gravity: An Introduction; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013

    2013

  2. [2]

    New general relativity.Phys

    Hayashi, K.; Shirafuji, T. New general relativity.Phys. Rev. D1979,19, 3524. 13

  3. [3]

    The teleparallel equivalent of general relativity.Ann

    Maluf, J.W. The teleparallel equivalent of general relativity.Ann. Phys.2013,525, 339

    2013

  4. [4]

    Torsion gravity: A reappraisal.Int

    Arcos, H.I.; Pereira, J.G. Torsion gravity: A reappraisal.Int. J. Mod. Phys. D2004,13, 2193

  5. [5]

    Modified teleparallel gravity: Inflation without an inflaton.Phys

    Ferraro, R.; Fiorini, F. Modified teleparallel gravity: Inflation without an inflaton.Phys. Rev. D2007,75, 084031

  6. [6]

    Einstein’s other gravity and the acceleration of the Universe.Phys

    Linder, E.V. Einstein’s other gravity and the acceleration of the Universe.Phys. Rev. D2010,81, 127301

  7. [7]

    Dark torsion as the cosmic speed-up.Phys

    Bengochea, G.R.; Ferraro, R. Dark torsion as the cosmic speed-up.Phys. Rev. D2009,79, 124019

  8. [8]

    New classes of modified teleparallel gravity models.Phys

    Bahamonde, S.; Böhmer, C.G.; Krššák, M. New classes of modified teleparallel gravity models.Phys. Lett. B2017,775, 37–43

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Teleparallel Gravity: From Theory to Cosmology.Rep

    Bahamonde, S.; Dialektopoulos, K.F.; Escamilla-Rivera, C.; Farrugia, G.; Gakis, V.; Hendry, M.; Hohmann, M.; Levi Said, J.; Mifsud, J.; Di Valentino, E. Teleparallel Gravity: From Theory to Cosmology.Rep. Prog. Phys.2023,86, 026901

    2023

  2. [10]

    Bahamonde, S.; Dialektopoulos, K.F.; Gakis, V.; Said, J.L.f(T)gravity and cosmology.Rep. Prog. Phys.2023,86, 026901

    2023

  3. [11]

    Cai, Y.-F.; Capozziello, S.; De Laurentis, M.; Saridakis, E.N.f(T)teleparallel gravity and cosmology.Rep. Prog. Phys. 2016,79, 106901

    2016

  4. [12]

    Cosmography inf(T)gravity.Phys

    Capozziello, S.; Cardone, V.F.; Farajollahi, H.; Ravanpak, A. Cosmography inf(T)gravity.Phys. Rev. D2011,84, 043527

  5. [13]

    Dent, J.B.; Dutta, S.; Saridakis, E.N.f(T)gravity mimicking dynamical dark energy.J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2011, 01, 009

    2011

  6. [14]

    Dynamics of dark energy.Int

    Copeland, E.J.; Sami, M.; Tsujikawa, S. Dynamics of dark energy.Int. J. Mod. Phys. D2006,15, 1753–1936

    1936

  7. [15]

    Observational constraints onf(T)theory.Phys

    Wu, P.; Yu, H. Observational constraints onf(T)theory.Phys. Lett. B2010,693, 415

  8. [16]

    Large-scale structure inf(T)gravity.Phys

    Li, B.; Sotiriou, T.P.; Barrow, J.D. Large-scale structure inf(T)gravity.Phys. Rev. D2011,83, 104017

  9. [17]

    Cosmological perturbation inf(T)gravity revisited.J

    Izumi, K.; Ong, Y.C. Cosmological perturbation inf(T)gravity revisited.J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2013,06, 029

    2013

  10. [18]

    Viablef(T)models.Phys

    Nesseris, S.; Basilakos, S.; Saridakis, E.N.; Perivolaropoulos, L. Viablef(T)models.Phys. Rev. D2013,88, 103010

  11. [19]

    Teleparallel theories of gravity: Illuminating a fully invariant approach.Class

    Krssak, M.; van den Hoogen, R.J.; Pereira, J.G.; Böhmer, C.G.; Coley, A.A. Teleparallel theories of gravity: Illuminating a fully invariant approach.Class. Quantum Grav.2019,36, 183001

    2019

  12. [20]

    The covariant formulation off(T)gravity.Class

    Krssak, M.; Saridakis, E.N. The covariant formulation off(T)gravity.Class. Quantum Grav.2016,33, 115009

    2016

  13. [21]

    On the covariance of teleparallel gravity theories.Class

    Golovnev, A.; Koivisto, T.; Sandstad, M. On the covariance of teleparallel gravity theories.Class. Quantum Grav.2021, 38, 145014

    2021

  14. [22]

    Spherically symmetric solutions inf(T)gravity.Phys

    DeBenedictis, A.; Ilijic, S. Spherically symmetric solutions inf(T)gravity.Phys. Rev. D2016,94, 124025

  15. [23]

    Static anisotropic solutions inf(T)gravity.Eur

    Daouda, M.H.; Rodrigues, M.E.; Houndjo, M.J.S. Static anisotropic solutions inf(T)gravity.Eur. Phys. J. C2012,72, 1890

  16. [24]

    Static solutions with spherical symmetry inf(T)theories.Phys

    Wang, T. Static solutions with spherical symmetry inf(T)theories.Phys. Rev. D2011,84, 024042

  17. [25]

    Existence of relativistic stars inf(T)gravity.Class

    Böhmer, C.G.; Mussa, A.; Tamanini, N. Existence of relativistic stars inf(T)gravity.Class. Quantum Grav.2011,28, 245020

    2011

  18. [26]

    Spherically symmetric teleparallel geometries.Eur

    Coley, A.A.; Landry, A.; van den Hoogen, R.J.; McNutt, D.D. Spherically symmetric teleparallel geometries.Eur. Phys. J. C2024,84, 334

  19. [27]

    Static spherically symmetric perfect fluid solutions in teleparallelF(T)gravity.Axioms2024,13, 333

    Landry, A. Static spherically symmetric perfect fluid solutions in teleparallelF(T)gravity.Axioms2024,13, 333

  20. [28]

    Scalar Field Static Spherically Symmetric Solutions in TeleparallelF(T)Gravity.Mathematics2025,13, 1003

    Landry, A. Scalar Field Static Spherically Symmetric Solutions in TeleparallelF(T)Gravity.Mathematics2025,13, 1003

  21. [29]

    TeleparallelF(T)Electromagnetic Static Spherically Symmetric Spacetime Solutions.Symmetry2026,18, 891

    Landry, A. TeleparallelF(T)Electromagnetic Static Spherically Symmetric Spacetime Solutions.Symmetry2026,18, 891

  22. [30]

    Teleparallel Geometry with Spherical Symmetry: The diagonal and proper frames

    van den Hoogen, R.J.; Forance, H. Teleparallel Geometry with Spherical Symmetry: The diagonal and proper frames. JCAP2024, 11, 033

  23. [31]

    Symmetry and Equivalence in Teleparallel Gravity.J

    Coley, A.A.; van den Hoogen, R.J.; McNutt, D.D. Symmetry and Equivalence in Teleparallel Gravity.J. Math. Phys. 2020,61, 072503

    2020

  24. [32]

    Symmetries in Riemann-Cartan Geometries.SIGMA2024,20, 078

    McNutt, D.D.; Coley, A.A.; van den Hoogen, R.J. Symmetries in Riemann-Cartan Geometries.SIGMA2024,20, 078

  25. [33]

    Locally-homogeneous Riemann-Cartan geometries with the largest symmetry group.J

    McNutt, D.D.; van den Hoogen, R.J.; Coley, A.A. Locally-homogeneous Riemann-Cartan geometries with the largest symmetry group.J. Math. Phys.2024,65, 072502

    2024

  26. [34]

    Olver, P.Equivalence, Invariants and Symmetry; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1995

    1995

  27. [35]

    Generalized Teleparallel de Sitter geometries.Eur

    Coley, A.A.; Landry, A.; van den Hoogen, R.J.; McNutt, D.D. Generalized Teleparallel de Sitter geometries.Eur. Phys. J. C2023,83, 977

  28. [36]

    An alternative to quintessence.Phys

    Kamenshchik, A.Y.; Moschella, U.; Pasquier, V. An alternative to quintessence.Phys. Lett. B2001,511, 265–268

  29. [37]

    Generalized Chaplygin gas, accelerated expansion and dark-energy-matter unifica- tion.Phys

    Bento, M.C.; Bertolami, O.; Sen, A.A. Generalized Chaplygin gas, accelerated expansion and dark-energy-matter unifica- tion.Phys. Rev. D2002,66, 043507

  30. [38]

    Unification of dark matter and dark energy: The inhomogeneous Chaplygin gas

    Bilic, N.; Tupper, G.B.; Viollier, R.D. Unification of dark matter and dark energy: The inhomogeneous Chaplygin gas. Phys. Lett. B2002,535, 17–21

  31. [39]

    Accelerated universe from modified Chaplygin gas and tachyonic fluid.arXiv2002, hep-th/0205140

    Benaoum, H.B. Accelerated universe from modified Chaplygin gas and tachyonic fluid.arXiv2002, hep-th/0205140

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Wormholes in spacetime and their use for interstellar travel: A tool for teaching general relativity

    Morris, M.; Thorne, K. Wormholes in spacetime and their use for interstellar travel: A tool for teaching general relativity. Am. J. Phys.1988,56, 395–412

    1988

  33. [41]

    Chaplygin traversable wormholes.Phys

    Lobo, F.S.N. Chaplygin traversable wormholes.Phys. Rev. D2006,73, 064028

  34. [42]

    Axially symmetric rotating traversable wormholes sustained by generalized Chaplygin gas.Phys

    Kuhfittig, P.K.F. Axially symmetric rotating traversable wormholes sustained by generalized Chaplygin gas.Phys. Rev. D 2009,79, 124027

    2009

  35. [43]

    Visser, M.Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking; AIP Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995

    1995

  36. [44]

    Wormholes, Warp Drives and Energy Conditions

    Lobo, F.S.N. Wormholes, Warp Drives and Energy Conditions. InSpringer Handbook of Spacetime; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2014; pp. 653–681

    2014

  37. [45]

    General relativistic polytropic fluid spheres.Astrophys

    Tooper, R.F. General relativistic polytropic fluid spheres.Astrophys. J.1964,140, 434–459

    1964

  38. [46]

    Adiabatic fluid spheres in general relativity.Astrophys

    Tooper, R.F. Adiabatic fluid spheres in general relativity.Astrophys. J.1965,142, 1541–1562. 14

    1965

  39. [47]

    Chandrasekhar, S.An Introduction to the Study of Stellar Structure; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1939

    1939

  40. [48]

    Newtonian polytropes for anisotropic matter: General framework and applications.Phys

    Herrera, L.; Barreto, W. Newtonian polytropes for anisotropic matter: General framework and applications.Phys. Rev. D 2013,88, 084022

    2013

  41. [49]

    Harko, T.; Lobo, F.S.N.; Nojiri, S.; Odintsov, S.D.f(R, T)gravity.Phys. Rev. D2011,84, 024020

  42. [50]

    Traversable Wormhole Solutions in MassiveF(T)Gravity

    Landry, A.; Sekhmani, Y.; Maurya, S.K.; Ali, A.; Saridakis, E.N. Traversable Wormhole Solutions in MassiveF(T)Gravity. Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys.2026, in press. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887826501926

    2026 doi

  43. [51]

    Coley, A.A.Dynamical Systems and Cosmology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.