Charged Gravastars in Rastall-Rainbow Gravity

Ujjal Debnath

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 70 references

Charged Gravastars in Rastall-Rainbow Gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs a charged, horizonless gravastar in Rastall-Rainbow gravity and derives its full three-region geometry, shell physics, and stability condition.

desk verdict Genuinely new charged-gravastar construction in Rastall-Rainbow gravity, but the exterior solution contradicts the paper's own trace-free EM limit and the junction results do not stand. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01139 v1 pith:7EELFMJD submitted 2019-08-26 physics.gen-ph

Ujjal Debnath This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.gen-ph

keywords gravastarRastall-RainbowgravitychargedthinshellReissner-Nordstromexteriorjunctionconditionsstabilityparameterrainbowfunctions

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 claims that a charged gravastar—a compact, horizonless object proposed as an alternative to black holes—can exist in Rastall-Rainbow gravity, a modification of general relativity with a non-conserved energy-momentum tensor and an energy-dependent metric. For a spherically symmetric star with isotropic fluid and an electromagnetic field, it derives explicit solutions in all three gravastar regions: a vacuum-energy interior with $p=-\rho$, an ultra-stiff shell with $p=\rho$, and a Reissner-Nordstrom-type exterior. It then computes the shell's proper length, energy content, and entropy, matches the interior and exterior surfaces through junction conditions, and extracts the surface density, surface pressure, shell mass, total mass, and a stability parameter. If the construction is correct, charged gravastars in this theory are stable, horizon-free counterparts of charged black holes, with physical quantities that depend on the Rastall parameter $\lambda$ and the rainbow function $\Sigma(x)$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Rastall-Rainbow Einstein-Maxwell system, in which the effective density and pressures (18)-(20) absorb the Rastall parameter through $\alpha_1=(3\lambda-1)/(2(2\lambda-1))$ and $\alpha_2=(\lambda-1)/(2(2\lambda-1))$, and the metric (14) carries the rainbow functions $\Pi(x)$ and $\Sigma(x)$. This system is solved region by region using three assumptions: the equation-of-state choices $p=-\rho$ and $p=\rho$ in the interior and shell, the electric-field power-law ansatz $E(r)=E_0r^m$, and the thin-shell approximation $h\ll 1$ that makes the analytic shell solutions tractable. The junction calculation then supplies the surface quantities, and the ratio $\eta=P'/\rho'$ serves as the stability diagnostic.

What would settle it

Evaluate the exterior vacuum limit $p=\rho=0$ with only the electromagnetic field in equations (15)-(20). If the effective density and pressures reduce to the standard Maxwell form with no $\lambda$-dependence, then the Reissner-Nordstrom-type solution (45) cannot be the correct exterior, and the junction conditions (60)-(61) would have to be recomputed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, as the paper presents it, is a complete three-region charged gravastar solution in Rastall-Rainbow gravity. In the interior ($0\le r<D$), the equation of state $p=-\rho$ together with the electric-field ansatz $E(r)=E_0 r^m$ yields the metric coefficients (31)-(32) and the gravitational mass (34). In the thin shell ($D<r<D+\epsilon$), the stiff-fluid equation of state $p=\rho$ with the approximation $h\equiv A^{-1}\ll 1$ gives the solutions (40)-(41), from which the shell's proper length (49), energy content (51), and entropy (55) follow and are all directly proportional to the shell thickness $\epsilon$. In the exterior ($r>D+\epsilon$), the vacuum equations produce the Reissner-Nordstrom-type metric (45) with a charge term modified by $(2\lambda-1)\Sigma^2(x)$. Using the junction-condition formalism, the paper obtains the surface energy density (60), surface pressure (61), equation-of-state parameter, shell mass, and total mass, and reports that the stability parameter $\eta(D)=P'(D)/\rho'(D)$ stays positive across the plotted ranges, indicating a stable configuration.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the Rastall modification continues to act on the electromagnetic field in the vacuum exterior, so the charge term in the exterior metric carries the factor $(2\lambda-1)$; if that factor is absent, the exterior metric and every junction quantity built from it would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the solution is correct, a charged gravastar in Rastall-Rainbow gravity has no event horizon or central singularity, matching the original gravastar motivation.
The proper length, energy content, and entropy of the shell all scale linearly with shell thickness $\epsilon$, so thin-shell quantities are controlled by one small parameter.
The exterior metric reduces to a Schwarzschild rainbow metric when $Q=0$, so the charged model naturally contains the uncharged case.
The surface equation of state $w(D)$ is negative over the plotted ranges, consistent with a dark-energy-like surface layer rather than ordinary matter.
The positive stability parameter $\eta(D)$ across the plotted ranges supports the viability of these objects as stable alternatives to charged black holes.

Reading between the lines

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

A consistency check the paper leaves implicit is the limit $\lambda\to 1$ and $\Sigma(x)\to 1$, where the field equations should reduce to the standard charged gravastar equations; verifying that limit against known results would test the correctness of the Rastall modifications.
The $\lambda$-dependent charge term in the exterior metric suggests that electromagnetic observations of compact objects could, in principle, discriminate between Rastall-Rainbow gravity and general relativity, provided the modified exterior is physically realized.
The same three-region construction could be adapted to rotating gravastars or anisotropic fluid sources; whether the positive stability found here persists in those settings is an open question.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the short version. This paper is a genuine first: a charged gravastar in Rastall-Rainbow gravity, with explicit interior, shell, and exterior metrics and the usual derived quantities. But the exterior metric (45) is not a solution of the theory defined in Sec. II, and everything downstream of it inherits the problem. I would not reject it out of hand—the errors are worth a referee's time—but as it stands the central claim is not supported.

What's good: the interior and shell calculations are worked out in detail. The three-region construction follows the standard gravastar program, the ansatz E(r)=E0 r^m is standard, and the thin-shell quantities (proper length, energy, entropy) are computed in the epsilon << 1 limit and are algebraically self-consistent. The dependence on lambda and Sigma(x) is explicit throughout. That part is solid.

The load-bearing flaw is the exterior. In the exterior, p=rho=0 and the only source is the electromagnetic field, whose stress tensor is trace-free. Eq. (6) then reduces to ordinary Einstein–Maxwell; the Rastall correction term vanishes. The exterior should be Reissner–Nordstrom with charge term GQ^2/(Sigma^2 r^2) and no lambda. Instead, Eq. (45) carries a (2lambda-1) in the denominator, which comes from applying the Rastall projection to the total T rather than to the fluid trace. That is not a harmless difference: q1(x), the junction conditions (60)-(61), the equation-of-state parameter, the shell mass, and the stability analysis all depend on q1(x). If the exterior is wrong, the rest of the matching is unsupported. The author would need to state and justify a modified Maxwell–Rastall coupling, or redo the exterior and all derived quantities.

Two smaller issues. The charge density (33) is missing a factor of Sigma(x): from (26) the correct expression has Sigma/sqrt(A), not 1/sqrt(A). And Sec. V.C is not a stability analysis: plotting eta=P'/sigma' and noting it stays positive is not enough. A thin-shell stability argument needs a derivation of eta and a check on whether it lies in the allowed range; the paper provides neither.

Citation pattern is unremarkable; the field equations are taken from Mota et al., so part of the exterior error may be inherited, but the author is still responsible for checking the p=rho=0 limit. I would not cite this in its current form, but I'd send it to a referee who knows Rastall gravity; the interior work is salvageable and the error is instructive.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper constructs a three-region gravastar model in Rastall-Rainbow gravity with an electromagnetic field. The interior (p=-rho), thin shell (p=rho), and exterior (p=rho=0) solutions are obtained, and the paper computes the proper length, energy, entropy, junction surface quantities, equation-of-state parameter, shell mass, total mass, and a stability parameter. The abstract and discussion claim that all physical quantities depend on the Rastall parameter lambda and the rainbow function Sigma(x).

Significance. If the solutions were correct, the paper would extend the known gravastar construction to Rastall-Rainbow gravity and provide explicit closed-form expressions for shell quantities. The systematic three-region organization and the amount of analytical work are positive features. However, the central exterior solution does not follow from the stated field equations, and the stability conclusion is not derived. Since the exterior metric feeds into the junction conditions and all subsequent surface quantities, the claimed results do not currently establish a charged gravastar solution in this theory. The paper also makes no contact with observational constraints, so its significance is limited to the internal consistency of the model.

major comments (3)

[Sec. III.C, Eq. (45)] The exterior Reissner-Nordstrom-type metric (45) is not a solution of the Rastall field equation (6) stated in Sec. II. For the exterior one has T_{mu nu}=T^{EM}_{mu nu} with T^{EM}=0, so the Rastall correction in (6) vanishes identically and the exterior must satisfy the ordinary Einstein-Maxwell equations. In particular, Eq. (18) with p=rho=0 gives bar-rho = E^2/[8 pi (2 lambda - 1) Sigma^2] (using alpha_1 - 3 alpha_2 = 1/(2 lambda - 1)), whereas Eq. (6) gives bar-rho = E^2/(8 pi Sigma^2). The extra (2 lambda - 1)^{-1} factor in the charge term of (45) therefore has no support from the theory as defined. This factor propagates into the junction conditions (60)-(61), the equation of state (64), the masses (66)-(67), and the stability analysis of Sec. V.C. Unless the electromagnetic coupling is independently modified and justified, the central claim of a charged gravastar in this theory is not established.
[Sec. III.A, Eq. (33)] The charge density formula (33) is missing a rainbow factor. From the definition (26), E(r) = r^{-2} integral 4 pi r'^2 sigma(r') sqrt{A(r')}/Sigma(x) dr', so differentiating r^2 E(r) gives sigma = (m+2) E_0 r^{m-1} Sigma sqrt{A}/(4 pi). Equation (33) displays (m+2) E_0 r^{m-1} sqrt{h}/(4 pi) without the Sigma factor; the same omission occurs in the shell-region formula (43). This affects the reported electric charge density of the interior and shell.
[Sec. V.C] The stability conclusion is not derived. The parameter eta(D)=P'(D)/rho'(D) is defined in (68), and the text concludes stability from the positivity of eta in Figs. 18-19. However, linearized stability of a thin shell requires an analysis of the second derivative V''(a_0) of the effective potential in the Poisson-Visser formalism, involving derivatives of the surface energy and pressure and the shell radius. Positivity of eta alone is neither necessary nor sufficient as stated here. Without this analysis, the statement that eta positive 'allows the stability of the gravastar model' is unsupported.

minor comments (3)

[Sec. V, Eq. (60)] The junction surface is placed at r=D, although the exterior region was defined for r>D+epsilon. Please state explicitly that the thin-shell limit epsilon -> 0 identifies D with the outer radius r_2; otherwise the exterior metric is evaluated at a radius where it is not defined.
[Throughout] There are multiple typographical and grammatical errors, including 'equation of sate' in the abstract and 'the the energy content' in Sec. IV.B. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
[Figs. 1-19] The plots are presented without stating the numerical values of the constants used (e.g., G, k_2, E_0, m, M, h_1, h_2). Please specify the parameter choices or caption each figure with the relevant values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the gravastar quantities are direct integrations of the stated field equations under explicit ansätze; nothing is fitted, renamed, or reduced to its own input.

full rationale

The paper constructs closed-form charged gravastar solutions in Rastall-Rainbow gravity by adopting the standard gravastar equations of state (p=-\rho, p=\rho, p=\rho=0), a power-law electric field E=E0 r^m, and thin-shell approximations. Each reported quantity (metric coefficients, mass integral, charge density, proper length, shell energy, entropy, surface energy, pressure, and stability parameter) is obtained by explicit integration and algebraic manipulation of the stated field equations (15)-(20) and the conservation-type equation (25), rather than by fitting data or by importing a conclusion from a self-citation. The exterior metric (45) is derived from the same effective density formulas (18)-(20) used throughout the paper; whether those effective equations are consistent with Eq (6) for a trace-free electromagnetic source is a question of theory consistency, not circularity, because Eq (45) is not assumed as an input. The self-citations, such as Refs. [33] and [55], are background references for standard definitions or prior applications and are not load-bearing. No derivation step in the chain is equivalent by construction to its own assumption, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Rastall-Rainbow gravity framework, the chosen equations of state, an ad hoc electric field profile, and a questionable lambda-dependent EM coupling. Ten free parameters are introduced without data constraints. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (10)

E0
Amplitude of the electric field in the interior and shell via the ansatz E=E0 r^m (Eq 28).
m
Positive exponent in the electric field ansatz (Eq 28); appears in all physical quantities.
k2
Positive constant in the interior density/pressure (Eq 29), chosen to make the density positive at small r.
h1
Integration constant in the shell metric (Eq 40); assumed small (h1 << 1) for the thin-shell approximation.
h2
Integration constant in the shell function B(r) (Eq 41).
D
Junction radius, a free parameter in the junction and stability formulas and in the plots.
Q
Exterior electric charge, a free parameter in the Reissner-Nordstrom-like metric (45).
M
Exterior mass, a free parameter in the Reissner-Nordstrom-like metric (45).
lambda
Rastall parameter; a free theory parameter varied in the plots.
Sigma(x)
Rainbow function, chosen as sqrt(1+x^2) for the plots; otherwise unspecified.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Rastall gravity field equations (4)-(6) with non-conserved energy-momentum tensor.
The entire analysis uses this modified gravity framework; it is an assumed theory, not derived.
domain assumption Rainbow gravity metric ansatz (14) with energy-dependent functions Pi(x) and Sigma(x).
The metric is taken from prior rainbow-gravity literature [50,54].
ad hoc to paper Effective source definitions (18)-(20) in which electromagnetic terms carry alpha coefficients depending on the Rastall parameter lambda.
No derivation is given; this assumption leads to the lambda-dependent charge term in the exterior solution and is not standard for a zero-trace EM field.
domain assumption Equations of state p=-rho (interior), p=rho (shell), p=rho=0 (exterior).
These are the defining EoS of gravastar models from Mazur-Mottola and Visser.
domain assumption Thin-shell approximation A^{-1}=h << 1 with h1 << 1.
The shell is assumed infinitesimally thin; field equations are expanded in small h.
ad hoc to paper Stability criterion eta(D)=P'(D)/rho'(D) with eta > 0 implying stability.
The paper treats positivity of eta as a stability condition without constructing the effective potential or checking standard thin-shell stability criteria.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Charged Gravastars in Rastall-Rainbow Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7EELFMJD

@misc{pith2026190901139,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Charged Gravastars in Rastall-Rainbow Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7EELFMJD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01139}
}

abstract

In this work, we have considered the spherically symmetric stellar system in the contexts of Rastall-Rainbow gravity theory in presence of isotropic fluid source with electromagnetic field. The Einstein-Maxwell's field equations have been written in the framework of Rastall-Rainbow gravity. The gravastar consists of three regions: interior region, thin shell region and exterior region. In the interior region, the gravastar follows the equation of sate (EoS) $p=-\rho$ and we have found the solutions of all physical quantities like energy density, pressure, electric field, charge density, gravitational mass and metric coefficients. In the exterior region, we have obtained the exterior Riessner-Nordstrom solution for vacuum model ($p=\rho=0$). Since in the shell region, the fluid source follows the EoS $p=\rho$ (ultra-stiff fluid) and the thickness of the shell of the gravastar is infinitesimal, so by the approximation $h~(\equiv A^{-1})\ll 1$, we have found the analytical solutions within the thin shell. The physical quantities like the proper length of the thin shell, entropy and energy content inside the thin shell of the charged gravastar have been computed and we have shown that they are directly proportional to the proper thickness of the shell ($\epsilon$) due to the approximation ($\epsilon\ll 1$). The physical parameters significantly depend on the Rastall parameter and Rainbow function. Next we have studied the matching between the surfaces of interior and exterior regions of the charged gravastar and using the matching conditions, the surface energy density and the surface pressure have been obtained. Also the equation of state parameter on the surface, mass of the thin shell, mass of the gravastar have been obtained. Finally, we have explored the stable regions of the charged gravastar in Rastall-Rainbow gravity.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

[1]

Mazur and E

P. Mazur and E. Mottola, Report number: LA-UR-01- 5067 (arXiv:gr-qc/0109035)

arXiv
[2]

Mazur and E

P. Mazur and E. Mottola, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 101, 9545 (2004)

work page 2004
[3]

DeBenedictis et al [4] have found the gravastar solutions by taking continuous pressures and the equation of state

developed the mathematical model of the gravastar and described the stability of gravastar by taking some realistic values of EoS parameter. DeBenedictis et al [4] have found the gravastar solutions by taking continuous pressures and the equation of state. The anisotropic pressure for the structure of gravastar has ∗ ujjaldebnath@gmail.com been considered...

work page
[4]

DeBenedictis, D

A. DeBenedictis, D. Horvat, S. Ilijic, S. Kloster and K. S . Viswanathan, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 2303 (2006)

work page 2006
[5]

Cattoen, T

C. Cattoen, T. Faber and M. Visser, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 4189 (2005). 11

work page 2005
[6]

Bilic, G

N. Bilic, G. B. Tupper and R. D. Viollier, JCAP 0602, 013 (2006)

work page 2006
[7]

Visser and D

M. Visser and D. L. Wiltshire, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 113 5 (2004)

work page 2004
[8]

A. A. Usmani, F. Rahaman, S. A. Rakib, S. Ray, K. K. Nandi, P. K. F. Kuhﬁttig and Z. Hasan, Phys. Lett. B 701, 388 (2011)

work page 2011

Show all 70 references

[9]

Bhar, Astrophys

P. Bhar, Astrophys. Space Sci. 354, 2109 (2014)

2014
[10]

Banerjee, F

A. Banerjee, F. Rahaman, S. Islam and M. Govender, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 34 (2016)

2016
[11]

B. M. N Carter, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 4551 (2005)

2005
[12]

On the other hand, we have drawn the plots of surface energy density ̺(D) and surface pres- sure P(D) vs Rastall parameter λ and test particle’s charge E in ﬁg

From these ﬁgures we have seen that the surface energy density ̺(D) increases and surface pressure P(D) decreases as radius D increases. On the other hand, we have drawn the plots of surface energy density ̺(D) and surface pres- sure P(D) vs Rastall parameter λ and test partic...
[13]

Ghosh, S

S. Ghosh, S. Ray, F. Rahaman and B. K. Guha, Annals of Phys. 394, 230 (2018)

2018
[14]

B. M. N. Carter, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 4551 (2005)

2005
[15]

Rahaman, S

F. Rahaman, S. Chakraborty, S. Ray, A. A. Usmani and S. Islam, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 54, 50 (2015)

2015
[16]

Ghosh, F

S. Ghosh, F. Rahaman, B. K. Guha and S. Ray, Phys. Lett. B 767, 380 (2017)

2017
[17]

R. Chan, M. F. A. da Silva, P. Rocha and A. Wang, JCAP 0903, 010 (2009)

2009
[18]

Rahaman, S

F. Rahaman, S. Ray, A. A. Usmani, Islam and S. Islam, Phys. Lett. B 707, 319 (2012)

2012
[19]

Rocha, R

P. Rocha, R. Chan, M. F. A. da Silva and A. Wang, JCAP 0811, 010 (2008)

2008
[20]

Rocha, A

P. Rocha, A. Y. Miguelote, R. Chan, M. F. da Silva, N. O. Santos and A. Wang, JCAP 0806, 025 (2008)

2008
[21]

de Felice, Y

F. de Felice, Y. Yu and J. Fang, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 277, L17 (1995)

1995
[22]

B. V. Turimov, B. J. Ahmedov and A. A. Abdujabbarov, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 24, 733 (2009)

2009
[23]

F. S. N. Lobo and R. Garattini, JHEP 1312, 065 (2013)

2013
[24]

Banerjee, J

A. Banerjee, J. R. Villanueva, P. Channuie and K. Jusuf, Chin. Phys. C 42, 115101 (2018)

2018
[25]

Rahaman, A

F. Rahaman, A. A. Usmani, S. Ray and S. Islam, Phys. Lett. B 717, 1 (2012)

2012
[26]

C. F. C. Brandt, R. Chan, M. F. A. da Silva and P. Rocha, J. Mod. Phys. 6, 879 (2013)

2013
[27]

Horvat, S

D. Horvat, S. Ilijic and A. Marunovic, Class. Quant. Gra v. 26, 025003 (2009)

2009
[28]

Chan and M

R. Chan and M. F. A. da Silva, JCAP 1007, 029 (2010)

2010
[29]

In the framework of modiﬁed gravity theory, lot of works on compact star, neutron star, strange star and gravastar have been found in the literature

have described the charged strange quark star model in the framework of electromagnetic mass with conformal killing vector. In the framework of modiﬁed gravity theory, lot of works on compact star, neutron star, strange star and gravastar have been found in the literature. Boe...
[30]

C. G. Boehmer, A. Mussa and N. Tamanini, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 245020 (2011)

2011
[31]

Yousaf and M

Z. Yousaf and M. Z. Bhatti, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 458, 1785 (2016)

2016
[32]

Ovgun, A

A. Ovgun, A. Banerjee and K. Jusuﬁ, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 566 (2017)

2017
[33]

Ray and B

S. Ray and B. Das, Gravit. Cosmol. 13, 224 (2007)

2007
[34]

A. V. Kpadonou, M. J. S. Houndj and M. E. Rodrigues, Astrophys. Space Sci. 361, 244 (2016)

2016
[35]

Deliduman and B

C. Deliduman and B. Yapiskan, arXiv:1103.2225 [gr-qc]

arXiv
[36]

Abbas, S

G. Abbas, S. Qaisar and M. A. Meraj, Astrophys. Space Sci. 357, 156 (2015)

2015
[37]

Saha and U

P. Saha and U. Debnath, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2018, 3901790 (2018)

2018
[38]

Abbas, S

G. Abbas, S. Nazeer and M. A. Meraj, Astrophys. Space Sci. 354, 449 (2014)

2014
[39]

Abbas, S

G. Abbas, S. Qaisar, W. Javed and M.A. Meraj, Iran. J. Sci. Technol. A 42, 1659 (2016)

2016
[40]

M. G. Ganiou, C. Anamon, M. J. S. Houndjo and J. Tossa, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 132, 250 (2017)

2017
[41]

K. D. Krori and J. Barua, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 8, 508 (1975)

1975
[42]

A. Das, S. Ghosh, B. K. Guha, S. Das, F. Rahaman and S. Ray, Phys. Rev. D 95, 124011 (2017)

2017
[43]

Abbas, A

G. Abbas, A. Kanwal and M. Zubair, Astrophys. Space Sci. 357, 109 (2015)

2015
[44]

Abbas et al, Astrophys

G. Abbas et al, Astrophys. Space Sci. 357, 158 (2015)

2015
[45]

Abbas, M

G. Abbas, M. Zubair and G. Mustafa, Astrophys. Space Sci. 358, 26 (2015)

2015
[46]

A. M. Oliveira, H. E. S. Velten, J. C. Fabris and L. Casari ni, Phys. Rev. D 92, 044020 (2015)

2015
[47]

Yousaf, K

Z. Yousaf, K. Bamba, M. Z. Bhatti and U. Ghafoor, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024062 (2019)

2019
[48]

M. F. Shamir and M. Ahmad, Phys. Rev. D 97, 104031 (2018)

2018
[49]

Rastall, Phys

P. Rastall, Phys. Rev. D 6, 3357 (1972)

1972
[50]

− ” and “ +

is a distortion of space-time which is an extension of the doubly special relativity for curved space-times. The properties of neutron stars and dynamical stability conditions in the modiﬁed TOV in gravity’s rainbow have been investigated by Hendi et al [51]. The gravity’s rai...
[51]

Abbas and M

G. Abbas and M. R. Shahzad, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 211 (2018)

2018
[52]

Abbas and M

G. Abbas and M. R. Shahzad, Astrophys. Space Sci. 363, 251 (2018)

2018
[53]

Abbas and M

G. Abbas and M. R. Shahzad, Astrophys. Space Sci. 364, 50 (2019)

2019
[54]

Magueijo and L

J. Magueijo and L. Smolin, Class. Quantum Grav. 21, 1725 (2004)

2004
[55]

S. H. Hendi, G. H. Bordbar, B. E. Panah, S. Panahiyan, JCAP 1609, 013 (2016)

2016
[56]

Garattini and G

R. Garattini and G. Mandanici., arXiv:1601.00879 [physics.gen-ph]

arXiv
[57]

Garattini and G

R. Garattini and G. Mandanici, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 57 (2017)

2017
[58]

C. E. Mota, L. C. N. Santos, G. Grams, F. M. da Silva and D. P. Menezes, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024043 (2019)

2019
[59]

Debnath, Eur

U. Debnath, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 499 (2019)

2019
[60]

A. Awad, A. F. Ali and B. Majumder, JCAP 1310, 052 (2013)

2013
[61]

Khodadi, K

M. Khodadi, K. Nozari and H. R. Sepangi, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 48, 166 (2016)

2016
[62]

Amelino-Camelia et al, Nature 393, 763 (1998)

G. Amelino-Camelia et al, Nature 393, 763 (1998)

1998
[63]

Haldar and R

A. Haldar and R. Biswas, Gen. Rel. Grav. 51, 72 (2019)

2019
[64]

Leiva, J

C. Leiva, J. Saavedra and J. Villanueva, Mod. Phys. Lett . A 24, 1443 (2009)

2009
[65]

Darmois, Memorial des sciences mathematiques XXV, Fasticule XXV, (Gauthier-Villars, Paris, France, 1927), chap

G. Darmois, Memorial des sciences mathematiques XXV, Fasticule XXV, (Gauthier-Villars, Paris, France, 1927), chap. V

1927
[66]

Israel, Nuovo Cimemto 44, 1 (1966)

W. Israel, Nuovo Cimemto 44, 1 (1966)

1966
[67]

Israel, Nuovo Cimemto 48, 463(E) (1967)

W. Israel, Nuovo Cimemto 48, 463(E) (1967)

1967
[68]

Lanczos, Ann

K. Lanczos, Ann. Phys. 379, 518 (1924)

1924
[69]

Poisson and M

E. Poisson and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D 52, 7318 (1995)

1995
[70]

F. S. N. Lobo and P. Crawford, Class. Quantum Gravity 21, 391 (2004)

2004

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Mazur and E

P. Mazur and E. Mottola, Report number: LA-UR-01- 5067 (arXiv:gr-qc/0109035)

arXiv

[2] [2]

Mazur and E

P. Mazur and E. Mottola, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 101, 9545 (2004)

work page 2004

[3] [3]

DeBenedictis et al [4] have found the gravastar solutions by taking continuous pressures and the equation of state

developed the mathematical model of the gravastar and described the stability of gravastar by taking some realistic values of EoS parameter. DeBenedictis et al [4] have found the gravastar solutions by taking continuous pressures and the equation of state. The anisotropic pressure for the structure of gravastar has ∗ ujjaldebnath@gmail.com been considered...

work page

[4] [4]

DeBenedictis, D

A. DeBenedictis, D. Horvat, S. Ilijic, S. Kloster and K. S . Viswanathan, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 2303 (2006)

work page 2006

[5] [5]

Cattoen, T

C. Cattoen, T. Faber and M. Visser, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 4189 (2005). 11

work page 2005

[6] [6]

Bilic, G

N. Bilic, G. B. Tupper and R. D. Viollier, JCAP 0602, 013 (2006)

work page 2006

[7] [7]

Visser and D

M. Visser and D. L. Wiltshire, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 113 5 (2004)

work page 2004

[8] [8]

A. A. Usmani, F. Rahaman, S. A. Rakib, S. Ray, K. K. Nandi, P. K. F. Kuhﬁttig and Z. Hasan, Phys. Lett. B 701, 388 (2011)

work page 2011