Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Braneworld Neutron Stars: Constraining Brane Tension with Observational Data

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A braneworld with high brane tension can produce neutron stars heavier than general relativity permits, including the GW190814 secondary.

desk verdict A straightforward braneworld neutron-star scan with a headline brane-tension bound that is weakened by importing GR-derived constraints without re-deriving them. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10730 v1 pith:LDPRIRQN submitted 2025-01-18 gr-qc

Masum Murshid , Nilofar Rahman , Mehedi Kalam This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 04.40.Dg04.50.-h97.60.Jd
keywords braneworldbranetensionneutronstarsGW190814tidaldeformabilitypiecewisepolytropicequationofstatemodifiedTOVequationsextradimensions
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 argues that if our universe is a four-dimensional brane embedded in a five-dimensional bulk, the extra dimension lets neutron stars grow heavier than general relativity's maximum mass while still matching observed radii and tidal deformations. The key control parameter is the brane tension—the vacuum energy density of the brane—which the authors vary across several orders of magnitude. Solving the braneworld stellar-structure equations with six equations of state that already satisfy the GW170817 merger and pulsar constraints in general relativity, they find that a brane tension above $2\times 10^{37}$ dyne/cm$^2$ accommodates the $2.5$--$2.67\,M_\odot$ secondary of GW190814 as an ordinary neutron star. Lower tension inflates radii and tidal deformability, most strongly for high-mass stars, and the canonical neutron-star radius and tidal deformability supply the tightest constraints on the tension. If the model is right, the heaviest observed compact objects need not contain exotic matter and the brane tension becomes an astrophysically measurable quantity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the braneworld-modified TOV system: radial equations for mass, pressure, metric function, and Weyl energy density derived from the Shiromizu-Maeda-Sasaki effective field equations on the brane, closed by the Israel-Darmois surface condition $U^-(R) = -\kappa^2 \rho(R)^2/4$. Tidal deformability is obtained from the Hinderer master equation for the even-parity metric perturbation, with an effective sound speed that absorbs brane corrections. The six piecewise polytropic equations of state (AP3, WFF2, ENG, MPA1, ALF2, ALF4) provide the nuclear-physics input connecting the model to GW170817 and pulsar observations.

What would settle it

Measure the radius and tidal deformability of a neutron star in the $2.5$--$2.67\,M_\odot$ range: a simultaneous measurement that falls outside the braneworld mass-radius and mass-$\Lambda$ bands predicted for $\lambda \geq 2\times 10^{37}$ dyne/cm$^2$ (for example a radius below about 10 km or above about 13 km at that mass) would falsify the claim that these equations of state in a braneworld explain GW190814.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the braneworld, the effective energy density and pressure inside a star gain quadratic matter corrections plus a non-local 'dark radiation' term from the bulk Weyl tensor, so the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations acquire extra source terms. The authors solve these equations with a shooting method that enforces the Israel-Darmois boundary condition at the stellar surface, and compute tidal deformability with the Hinderer even-parity perturbation formalism. For brane tensions around $10^{38}$ dyne/cm$^2$ (and down to $2\times 10^{37}$ for the softer ALF4 equation of state), the maximum mass exceeds the general-relativistic value and the $2.5$--$2.67\,M_\odot$ GW190814 object becomes a viable neutron star. For the equations of state that reach that mass, the braneworld curves remain consistent with the canonical radius $R_{1.4}=10.9^{+1.9}_{-1.5}$ km and tidal deformability $\Lambda_{1.4}=190^{+390}_{-120}$, and the paper presents this consistency as the basis for the lower bound $\lambda > 2\times 10^{37}$ dyne/cm$^2$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the canonical neutron-star radius and tidal deformability values measured under general relativity can be transferred unchanged as absolute constraints into the braneworld theory, so a braneworld re-analysis of the same data could shift the allowed ranges and the quoted tension bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The GW190814 secondary can be a neutron star built from conventional equations of state that already satisfy GW170817 and pulsar constraints, with no exotic matter required.
  • The brane-tension lower bound from neutron-star structure, $\lambda > 2\times 10^{37}$ dyne/cm$^2$, is stronger than the bounds from Big Bang cosmology and earlier astrophysical estimates cited in the paper.
  • Tidal deformability deviates from its general-relativistic value more strongly than radius at fixed brane tension, so tidal measurements are the sharper probe of extra dimensions.
  • The location of the turning point in the mass-radius curve depends on equation-of-state stiffness, tying the inferred tension to which nuclear model nature chooses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The bound assumes the GR-derived canonical constraints are theory-independent; re-deriving those posteriors inside the braneworld is the natural next step and could shift the numerical value of $\lambda$.
  • If brane tension is near the lower bound, high-mass neutron stars should be systematically larger in radius and more tidally deformable than GR predicts at the same mass, giving a signature that future inspiral or X-ray measurements can hunt for.
  • The same modified structure equations could be applied to rapidly rotating stars or to hybrid quark-hadron stars, where brane corrections may be amplified and yield independent tension bounds.
  • Readers should note a sign inconsistency in the conclusions: one sentence states the bound as $\lambda < 2\times 10^{37}$ dyne/cm$^2$ while the abstract, tables, and intended argument support $\lambda > 2\times 10^{37}$ dyne/cm$^2$; the tables indicate the lower-bound direction.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies neutron stars in the Randall-Sundrum type II braneworld scenario by integrating modified Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations that include the non-local bulk Weyl contribution ('dark radiation'). It uses six piecewise-polytropic equations of state (AP3, WFF2, ENG, MPA1, ALF2, ALF4) and computes mass-radius and mass-tidal-deformability curves for brane tensions from the GR limit down to λ = 2×10^37 dyne/cm^2. The authors find that lowering λ increases the maximum mass, so that the GW190814 secondary in the 2.5–2.67 solar mass range can be reproduced, while the canonical radius R1.4 and tidal deformability Λ1.4 remain near their observed values. They conclude with a claimed lower bound on the brane tension, λ > 2×10^37 dyne/cm^2, although Section VI contains a sign-reversed version of this inequality.

Significance. The qualitative finding—that braneworld gravity can raise the maximum neutron-star mass without invoking exotic matter and can in principle accommodate GW190814-like objects—is interesting and broadly consistent with earlier work by Lugones and Arbañil and others. If the quantitative bound were robust, it would provide an astrophysical handle on extra dimensions. The paper is strongest on the exploratory numerical side; the central λ constraint, however, rests on a theory-dependent application of GR-derived observational intervals and on a tidal-perturbation treatment that is not fully justified. The claimed bound should therefore be regarded as provisional until the constraint transfer is addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Fig. 2 and Fig. 4] The 90% intervals for R1.4 (10.9^{+1.9}_{-1.5} km, ref. [39]) and Λ1.4 (190^{+390}_{-120}, ref. [26]) used as hard cuts are derived from GW170817/NICER analyses assuming general relativity. The paper applies these intervals unchanged to braneworld curves. This is not justified: in the braneworld the mapping between observables and stellar parameters changes with λ, so the same observations would in general yield shifted posteriors for R1.4 and Λ1.4. The effect is numerically visible in Table I: at λ = 2×10^37 dyne/cm^2, R1.4 deviates by only about 1–2%, but Λ1.4 deviates by roughly 10–20% (e.g., MPA1 Λ goes from 518 to 584; WFF2 from 245 to 297). A modest shift in the Λ1.4 posterior would therefore move the claimed boundary. The authors should either re-derive the relevant constraints within the braneworld model or explicitly demonstrate that the GR-derived intervals are conservative over the adopted λ range. As it stands, the quantitative bound λ > 2×10^37 dyne/cm^2 is not established.
  2. [Section VI, second paragraph] The conclusion states 'a stringent lower bound on the value of the brane tension to be λ < 2 × 10^37 dyne/cm^2'. This is the reverse of the abstract and of the Section V discussion, which give λ > 2 × 10^37 dyne/cm^2. A lower bound cannot be expressed with '<'. Please correct the inequality and check all related statements, since this reversal changes the central quantitative claim.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (22)] The tidal Love-number calculation perturbs the effective stress-energy tensor as δT^eff = diag[−δρ_eff, δP_eff, δP_eff, δP_eff] and defines c_s^2 = dP_eff/dρ_eff. The full Weyl correction E_μν in Eq. (5), however, contains an anisotropic-stress (dark-pressure) contribution whose perturbation contributes to the tidal response separately from an isotropic pressure perturbation. The master equation as written appears to omit these contributions, so the Λ values in Tables I and II are not derived from a complete braneworld perturbation problem. This is load-bearing because the Λ1.4 constraint is used to set the claimed brane-tension bound. Please justify the truncation or extend the perturbation equations to include the anisotropic-stress perturbations.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (14)] The jump condition is written as [f]_Σ = f(R+) − f(R+), which is evidently a typo for f(R+) − f(R−); please correct it.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (22)] The displayed master equation is incomplete as typeset; it lacks an '= 0' and the final H0 term appears disconnected from the rest of the equation. Please provide the full, correctly formatted equation.
  3. [Table II] The quoted ± values for R and Λ are not derived anywhere in the text. Please state how the GW190814 mass range and any EoS or numerical uncertainties were propagated, and give the precise definition of the reported intervals.
  4. [Table I] The column header says 'Love No.' but the listed values are the dimensionless tidal deformability Λ, not the Love number k2; please rename the header accordingly.
  5. [Section I and Section II] The text contains 'wrapedness' (should be 'warpedness'), and the symbol P is used both for the fluid pressure and for the dark pressure in and around Eq. (5); please distinguish these quantities notationally.
  6. [Section V] The sentence about the turning point ('This suggests that the turning point occurs at a higher value of brane tension for stiffer EoS compared to softer EoS') is unclear, since no quantitative turning-point analysis is presented; please explain the criterion used to identify the turning point and state how it was determined from the numerical curves.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the braneworld high-mass prediction and the lambda bound are forward calculations checked against external constraints, not fits to the target claim.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward integration of braneworld-modified TOV equations (Eqs. 7-10) and the Hinderer tidal equation (Eq. 22) for six literature equations of state, with the brane tension lambda scanned over a grid. The central claim that masses above the GR maximum, including the GW190814 secondary mass, can be obtained in the braneworld is a direct consequence of the modified structure equations and is not obtained by fitting lambda to that mass; Table II reports the radius and tidal deformability at the resulting high masses as model outputs. The headline lower bound lambda > 2e37 dyne/cm^2 is obtained by comparing the computed canonical 1.4-solar-mass radius and tidal deformability with the external intervals R1.4 = 10.9^{+1.9}_{-1.5} km and Lambda1.4 = 190^{+390}_{-120} from references [39] and [26]; this is a constraint application, not a self-referential reduction, and the MPA1 curves at lambda = 2e37 dyne/cm^2 are not constructed to match those intervals by definition. No equation is defined in terms of the target result, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no load-bearing uniqueness claim is imported from same-author citations, and no ansatz is smuggled in through a citation. The equations of state were pre-selected to satisfy GR constraints, but the braneworld calculation is an independent forward evaluation. A legitimate caveat is that the canonical constraints were derived under GR and their unconditional transfer into the braneworld is a theory-dependent assumption rather than a circular step; the contradictory statement in Section VI rendering the bound as lambda < 2e37 instead of lambda > 2e37 is an internal inconsistency but not circularity. The derivation is therefore self-contained in the circularity sense and scores 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model pulls the braneworld effective equations, the dark radiation closure, the EoS, and the observational anchors from prior literature. The only scanned parameter is the brane tension λ. No new entity is introduced by this paper, though the dark radiation field is an unobserved component whose behavior drives the result.

free parameters (2)
  • Brane tension λ = Scanned over ∞, 10, 1, 0.5, 0.4, 0.2 in units of 10^38 dyne/cm^2; claimed lower bound λ > 2×10^37 dyne/cm^2
    The central model parameter; not fit continuously, but the discrete choices determine the turning points and the quoted bound.
  • Selected EoS set = AP3, WFF2, ENG, MPA1, ALF2, ALF4 from the 34 Read PWP EoS
    Results depend on which EoS are used; ALF2 fails the canonical constraints and MPA1 drives the lower bound.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption RS2 braneworld effective field equations with Z2 symmetry and no bulk matter (Eqs.1-5, Section II).
    The modified TOV equations are only valid within this specific extra-dimensional framework.
  • domain assumption Exterior spacetime is Schwarzschild with U^+=0 and P^+=0, and interior P^-=0, giving Eq.15.
    This closes the dark radiation boundary condition; alternative exterior Weyl configurations would change mass-radius predictions.
  • domain assumption Dark radiation U evolves via Eq.10 with the speed-of-sound closure Eq.23 and no anisotropic stress.
    The interior profile of U is not derived from a bulk solution but imposed by this closure.
  • domain assumption GR-derived constraints R1.4 and Λ1.4 apply unchanged to braneworld predictions.
    The paper uses these observational bounds as absolute anchors without re-analyzing the data in the braneworld model.
  • domain assumption Piece-wise polytropic EoS with SLy crust represent neutron star matter.
    The six EoS are taken from Read et al.; their realism is prior input, not tested here.
invented entities (1)
  • Dark radiation U (projection of the bulk Weyl tensor)
    purpose: Non-local bulk gravity contribution in the brane TOV equations; its negative surface value enables the modified mass-radius behavior
    Standard RS2 quantity, not introduced here, but central to the result and fixed by the Schwarzschild matching assumption rather than by direct observation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Braneworld Neutron Stars: Constraining Brane Tension with Observational Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LDPRIRQN

@misc{pith2026250110730,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Braneworld Neutron Stars: Constraining Brane Tension with Observational Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LDPRIRQN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10730}
}
abstract

In this article, we investigate the properties of neutron stars within the braneworld model, employing six distinct piece-wise polytropic equation of states. These equation of states satisfy observational constraints put by GW170817 event and pulsar observations (PSR J0740 and PSR J0030) within general relativity framework. Our primary goal is to assess whether these equation of states, in conjunction with the braneworld framework, can accommodate more massive neutron stars, as suggested by the GW190814 observation, while remaining consistent with established observational constraints. The brane tension parameter significantly affects the mass-radius and mass-tidal deformability relations, particularly for neutron stars with masses exceeding the canonical value. We establish strong constraints on the brane tension by comparing the canonical neutron star radius and tidal deformability with the results from the braneworld model, a stringent lower bound on the brane tension, $\lambda > 2 \times 10^ {37} \, \text {dyne/cm} ^2 $. Our results demonstrate that the braneworld model allows for the existence of neutron stars with masses greater than those predicted by General Relativity, in agreement with the GW190814 observation, and highlight the significant role of brane tension in shaping the properties of neutron stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10730 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Relationships between the mass of compact objects and various physical properties within the framework of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Mass-Radius relation in braneworld scenario ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Mass-Density relation in braneworld scenario ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Mass-Love No. relation in braneworld scenario ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Compact stars in a large-tension braneworld: mildly negative Weyl coupling consistent with NICER and gravitational-wave data

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A large-tension braneworld with α_U ≈ −0.15 fits NICER and GW170817 data for SLy, raising M_max to ~2.30 M_⊙ and R_1.4 to ~13.3 km relative to GR.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [39]

    Kumar and P

    B. Kumar and P. Landry, Phys. Rev. D 99, 123026 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.99.123026

    work page 2019

  2. [26]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018), 1805.11581

    arXiv 2018

  3. [1]

    Kaluza, Sitzungsber

    T. Kaluza, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. ) 1921, 966 (1921), 1803.08616

    arXiv 1921

  4. [2]

    Randall and R

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370 (1999), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.83.3370. 9

    work page 1999

  5. [3]

    Randall and R

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4690 (1999), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.83.4690

    work page 1999

  6. [4]

    Shiromizu, K.-i

    T. Shiromizu, K.-i. Maeda, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D 62, 024012 (2000), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.024012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.62.024012 2000

  7. [5]

    Maartens, Phys

    R. Maartens, Phys. Rev. D 62, 084023 (2000), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD. 62.084023

    doi:10.1103/physrevd 2000

  8. [6]

    Sasaki, T

    M. Sasaki, T. Shiromizu, and K.-i. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D 62, 024008 (2000), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.024008

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.62.024008 2000

Show all 40 references
  1. [7]

    Dadhich, R

    N. Dadhich, R. Maartens, P. Papadopoulos, and V. Reza- nia, Phys. Lett. B 487, 1 (2000), hep-th/0003061

    2000 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Germani and R

    C. Germani and R. Maartens, Phys. Rev. D 64, 124010 (2001), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.64.124010

    2001

  3. [9]

    Ovalle, Mod

    J. Ovalle, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 23, 3247 (2008), gr- qc/0703095

    2008

  4. [10]

    Ovalle, Int

    J. Ovalle, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 18, 837 (2009), 0809.3547

    2009 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Ovalle, Mod

    J. Ovalle, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 25, 3323 (2010), 1009.3674

    2010 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Ovalle, F

    J. Ovalle, F. Linares, A. Pasqua, and A. Sotomayor, Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 175019 (2013), 1304.5995

    2013 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Casadio and J

    R. Casadio and J. Ovalle, Gen. Rel. Grav. 46, 1669 (2014), 1212.0409

    2014 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Creek, R

    S. Creek, R. Gregory, P. Kanti, and B. Mistry, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 6633 (2006), hep-th/0606006

    2006 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Binetruy, C

    P. Binetruy, C. Deffayet, U. Ellwanger, and D. Langlois, Phys. Lett. B 477, 285 (2000), hep-th/9910219

    2000 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Maeda and D

    K.-i. Maeda and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D 62, 124009 (2000), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.62.124009

    2000

  11. [17]

    Langlois, Phys

    D. Langlois, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2212 (2001), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.86. 2212

    2001 doi

  12. [18]

    C.-M. Chen, T. Harko, and M. K. Mak, Phys. Rev. D 64, 044013 (2001), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.64.044013

    2001 doi

  13. [19]

    Kiritsis, JCAP 10, 014 (2005), hep-th/0504219

    E. Kiritsis, JCAP 10, 014 (2005), hep-th/0504219

    2005 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Campos and C

    A. Campos and C. F. Sopuerta, Phys. Rev. D 63, 104012 (2001), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.63.104012

    2001

  15. [21]

    L. B. Castro, M. D. Alloy, and D. P. Menezes, JCAP 08, 047 (2014), 1403.1099

    2014 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Gonz´ alez Felipe, D

    R. Gonz´ alez Felipe, D. Manreza Paret, and A. P´ erez Mart ´ ınez, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 337 (2016), 1601.01973

    2016 arXiv

  17. [23]

    F. X. Linares, M. A. Garc ´ ıa-Aspeitia, and L. A. Ure˜ na L´ opez, Phys. Rev. D92, 024037 (2015), 1501.04869

    2015 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Lugones and J

    G. Lugones and J. D. V. Arba˜ nil, Phys. Rev. D 95, 064022 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.95.064022

    2017

  19. [25]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), 1710.05832

    2017 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett. 896, L44 (2020), 2006.12611

    2020 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Maartens and K

    R. Maartens and K. Koyama, Living Rev. Rel. 13, 5 (2010), 1004.3962

    2010 arXiv

  22. [29]

    K. S. Thorne and A. Campolattaro, Astrophys. J 149, 591 (1967)

    1967

  23. [30]

    Regge and J

    T. Regge and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. 108, 1063 (1957), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRev.108.1063

    1957

  24. [31]

    Hinderer, Astrophys

    T. Hinderer, Astrophys. J. 677, 1216 (2008), URL https://doi.org/10.1086/533487

    2008 doi

  25. [32]

    J. S. Read, B. D. Lackey, B. J. Owen, and J. L. Friedman, Phys. Rev. D 79, 124032 (2009), 0812.2163

    2009 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Akmal, V

    A. Akmal, V. R. Pandharipande, and D. G. Ravenhall, Phys. Rev. C 58, 1804 (1998), nucl-th/9804027

    1998 arXiv

  27. [34]

    R. B. Wiringa, V. Fiks, and A. Fabrocini, Phys. Rev. C 38, 1010 (1988)

    1988

  28. [35]

    Engvik, G

    L. Engvik, G. Bao, M. Hjorth-Jensen, E. Osnes, and E. Ostgaard, Astrophys. J. 469, 794 (1996), nucl- th/9509016

    1996

  29. [36]

    M¨ uther, M

    H. M¨ uther, M. Prakash, and T. L. Ainsworth, Phys. Lett. B 199, 469 (1987)

    1987

  30. [37]

    Alford, M

    M. Alford, M. Braby, M. W. Paris, and S. Reddy, Astro- phys. J. 629, 969 (2005), nucl-th/0411016

    2005 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Douchin and P

    F. Douchin and P. Haensel, Astron. Astrophys. 380, 151 (2001), astro-ph/0111092

    2001 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Maartens, D

    R. Maartens, D. Wands, B. A. Bassett, and I. P. C. Heard, Phys. Rev. D 62, 041301 (2000), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.62.041301

    2000 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.