Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 60 references

Cylindrical gravastars with Kuchowicz metric potential

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A cylindrical gravastar built on the Kuchowicz metric potential yields non-singular interior and shell solutions, and the paper argues this is a viable black-hole alternative in general relativity.

desk verdict The central claim fails: the interior metric function does not satisfy the paper's own Einstein equations, so the gravastar solution is not a solution. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10464 v1 pith:NOIXHMUA submitted 2025-02-12 physics.gen-ph

Meghanil Sinha , S. Surendra Singh This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.gen-ph
keywords gravastarcylindricalsymmetryKuchowiczmetricpotentialnon-singularsolutionthinshellcosmologicalconstantsurfaceredshiftstifffluid
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 sets out to show that a gravastar — a compact object with a dark-energy interior, a thin shell of stiff fluid, and a vacuum exterior — can be built in cylindrical symmetry using the Kuchowicz metric potential, and that the resulting spacetime is free of singularities and horizons. If the model is right, it would give a black-hole alternative that stays inside Einstein's general relativity without needing an event horizon. The central result is a set of explicit metric functions for the interior and shell, a junction-condition surface density and pressure, and physical quantities such as proper length, energy, entropy, and surface redshift that all behave well for chosen parameters. A reader should care because the construction claims to resolve the singularity problem for a less-studied symmetry class of compact objects.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Kuchowicz metric potential, $e^a=e^{\alpha r^2+2\ln\beta}$, an ansatz for the time component of the metric that is finite and positive everywhere. From it the paper derives the radial metric function $e^b$ separately for the interior and the shell, using the Einstein field equations with a radial cosmological constant. The Darmois-Israel junction conditions then sew the interior to the exterior through the thin shell and produce the surface density and pressure. The thin-shell approximations $0<e^{-b}\ll 1$ and the stiff-fluid equation of state $p=\rho$ carry the shell solution.

What would settle it

Substitute the interior metric function of equation (15), together with the Kuchowicz form of $e^a$ and $p=-\rho$, into the unused field equation (12); a direct substitution gives expressions that agree with equation (11) only when $\alpha^2 r^2+\alpha=0$, which fails for the positive parameters used in the paper, so this substitution decides whether the claimed interior is an Einstein solution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, in a static cylindrically symmetric spacetime with line element $ds^2=-e^{\alpha r^2+2\ln\beta}dt^2+e^b(r)(dr^2+dz^2)+r^2d\theta^2$ and a radial cosmological constant, the gravastar's interior ($p=-\rho$) and thin shell ($p=\rho$) admit non-singular solutions: equation (15) for the interior metric function and equation (18) for the shell. The Darmois-Israel junction conditions then give the surface energy density and surface pressure at the shell, and the surface redshift stays inside the range used as a stability criterion. The paper presents the model as a theoretically consistent and physically plausible alternative to black holes within general relativity.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the proposed metric functions satisfy the full Einstein system: the interior metric is derived from only two of the three independent field equations, and the third equation is never checked; the shell metric and shell density are obtained from different approximations, with no proof that they solve the same equations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The interior metric function from equation (15) is finite and positive for all radii, so the model removes the central singularity usually associated with black holes.
  • The thin shell obeys the Zel'dovich stiff-fluid condition $p=\rho$, and its matter density decreases monotonically toward the outer boundary.
  • The surface redshift stays within the stability range quoted for isotropic perfect-fluid configurations, supporting the model's stability.
  • The junction conditions express the total mass in terms of the shell's surface density, giving a concrete relation between the interior parameters and the exterior mass.
  • The model offers a gravastar realization in cylindrical symmetry within Einstein's general relativity, extending the gravastar idea beyond the usual spherical constructions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the missing field-equation check is completed successfully, the junction conditions would tie the parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$, $H$, and $C_1$ to the shell radius and mass, turning the model into a sharper quantitative prediction.
  • The same three-region construction could be run with other non-singular metric potentials; the Darmois-Israel machinery and the cylindrical exterior would carry over unchanged.
  • A concrete next test would be to compute the quasinormal-mode spectrum of this cylindrical gravastar and compare it with the black-hole spectrum, since the absence of a horizon should shift the ringdown frequencies.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs a three-region gravastar model in static cylindrical symmetry using the Kuchowicz metric potential e^a = e^{αr²+2 ln β}. The interior is assumed to obey p = −ρ and yields the metric function e^b in Eq. (15); the intermediate shell is treated with p = ρ and the approximation 0 < e^{−b} ≪ 1, giving Eq. (18) from the field equations and Eq. (19) from conservation; the exterior is taken as the vacuum metric of Eq. (20). Darmois–Israel junction conditions are used to obtain the surface energy density and pressure, Eqs. (27)–(28), and the shell's proper length, energy, entropy, and surface redshift are computed. The paper's central claim is that this provides a non-singular, stable gravastar and therefore a viable alternative to black holes within general relativity.

Significance. If the construction were valid, the paper would give an explicit cylindrically symmetric gravastar solution in general relativity with a Kuchowicz potential, extending earlier spherically symmetric models and providing concrete shell diagnostics. The manuscript is transparent in displaying its ansatz and equations, and it makes contact with external stability criteria. However, the central result fails: the interior metric function does not satisfy the full Einstein field equations, the shell metric is not shown to solve the same system as the conservation-derived matter density, and the exterior metric has an unresolved signature problem. These issues are load-bearing because the abstract and conclusion rest on the claim that a non-singular, stable Einstein solution has been found.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3, Eq. (15)] The interior solution does not satisfy the full Einstein system. Equation (15) is derived using only Eqs. (10) and (11); the third independent field equation, Eq. (12), is never enforced. Substituting the Kuchowicz potential and Eq. (15) into Eq. (12) gives 8πp − Λ = e^{−b}(2α²r² + 4α), whereas Eq. (11) gives 8πp − Λ = e^{−b}(α²r² + 3α). Equality of these two expressions for the same isotropic pressure requires α²r² + α = 0, which cannot hold for positive α and generic r. Therefore the claimed non-singular interior is not a solution of the stated Einstein equations, and the junction conditions in Eqs. (27)–(28) built on Eq. (15) are unsupported.
  2. [§4, Eqs. (18)–(19)] The shell is not established as an Einstein solution. Equation (18) is obtained by dropping the b'' term in Eqs. (10)–(11) under the assumption 0 < e^{−b} ≪ 1, but this approximation is uncontrolled: the discarded term is of the same order as the retained terms unless additional conditions on b'' are imposed, which are not stated. Equation (19) is derived from the conservation equation (13) alone, and no compatibility check is made between Eq. (19) and the full field equations or with Eq. (18). Moreover, Eq. (18) is positive only for Λ < 0, a sign convention that is not introduced until the exterior section, creating an additional ambiguity.
  3. [§5, Eq. (20) and §6, Eqs. (27)–(28)] The exterior metric is not a consistent static vacuum geometry with the signature of the interior metric. With Λ < 0, the coefficient Λr² of dz² is negative while g_tt = −(Λr² − 4M/r) can be positive, so the line element does not have the standard (−, +, +, +) signature used in Eqs. (1)–(3). The Darmois–Israel matching in Section 6 therefore requires a sign/signature convention that is not provided. Independently, since the interior metric (15) fails the field equations as shown above, the surface density and pressure in Eqs. (27)–(28) do not describe a valid thin-shell junction.
  4. [§8, Eq. (37)] The stability conclusion is not supported by the analysis performed. The surface redshift Zs is computed from the single metric component g_tt and compared with static bounds from the literature; this is at best a necessary local condition and does not address radial or axial perturbations, energy conditions, or the stability of the junction under perturbations. The statement in the conclusion that the model 'emerges as a stable and acceptable solution' is therefore overreaching.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2, Eq. (8)] The pressure symbol appears to be missing: the equation reads '8π − Λ' rather than '8πp − Λ', which would match Eqs. (11) and (12).
  2. [§3, Eq. (16)] The active mass formula uses the spherical volume element 4πr²ρ dr in a cylindrical model; for cylindrical symmetry the mass per unit length should use 2πr ρ dr, or the definition should be explicitly stated.
  3. [§6, Eqs. (29)–(30)] Equation (29) appears to contain a typographical error ('4πR²π'), and Eq. (30) is very difficult to parse; these expressions should be re-derived and displayed more carefully.
  4. [§7.1, Eq. (32)] The proper-length expression contains log(−√α r + √(3 + αr²)), which has a negative argument for positive α and r, and the overall expression appears dimensionally inconsistent; the integration and its result should be checked.
  5. [§7.3, Eq. (36)] The displayed entropy integral has unbalanced brackets, making it difficult to verify the derivation.
  6. [§4 and figures] The figure captions and axis labels are inconsistent: Fig. 2 is described as plotting e^b against thickness while the axis is labeled 'Thickness(ϵ)', and Fig. 3 should state whether pressure or density is plotted; the notation should be unified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the gravastar is an explicit ansatz-based construction, not a derivation whose conclusion is folded back into its input; the unenforced field equation is a consistency defect, not a circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a direct construction: it assumes the Kuchowicz metric potential e^a = e^{αr^2+2ln β} (Eq. 9), combines the field equations (10) and (11) under the interior equation of state p = −ρ to obtain e^b (Eq. 15), and then tests the shell redshift against external stability bounds (Zs ≤ 2). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: α and β are taken from the independent prior paper [42], and the stability criterion is an external benchmark. The references to [42] are not self-citations (no author overlap with the present paper), and they supply parameter values and comparative plots rather than serving as the load-bearing logical premise. The non-singularity of the resulting metric is indeed largely inherited from the smooth positive exponential ansatz and the positive exponential form of Eq. (15), but the paper does not claim to derive singularity-freedom from more basic principles; this is built-in-by-construction rather than circular reasoning. A separate, non-circular correctness problem exists: Eq. (12), the third independent field equation, is never enforced, and substituting Eq. (15) into Eq. (12) does not reproduce Eq. (11) except when α^2r^2 + α = 0. Likewise, the shell metric Eq. (18) is obtained under an uncontrolled approximation and is not checked against the full field equations. These are mathematical consistency defects, not circularity, and therefore do not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction rests on a large set of choices: the cylindrical metric ansatz, the isotropic fluid assumption, the Kuchowicz potential, the two equations of state, the thin-shell approximation, the Lemos-Zanchin exterior, and the redshift stability bound. None of these are derived in the paper, and Eq (8) is misprinted, so the reader must supply or repair several assumptions. No new particles or fields are introduced; the dark-energy interior is treated as a cosmological-constant-like vacuum energy. The metric parameters α and β are taken from Ref [42], while H, C1, A, Λ, M, η, D, and ǫ remain free constants with no observational input.

free parameters (10)
  • α = 0.01491932683 (from Ref [42])
    Kuchowicz metric parameter; sets the radial scale of all plotted functions.
  • β = 0.2371387430 (from Ref [42])
    Dimensionless Kuchowicz parameter in g_tt and in the redshift formula.
  • H = 10 (Fig 1)
    Integration constant in the interior metric function (15); arbitrary.
  • C1 = 1 (Fig 1)
    Integration constant in the interior metric function (15); arbitrary.
  • Λ = not specified
    Cosmological constant appearing in shell metric (18) and exterior metric (20); sign is inconsistent between the two regions.
  • A = not specified
    Integration constant in shell density/pressure (19), needed for energy and entropy.
  • D = ≈10 km from figures
    Radius of the inner shell boundary in the plots.
  • ǫ = ≈0.008 km from figures
    Shell thickness in the plots.
  • M = not specified
    Mass parameter in the exterior metric and shell mass expressions (29)-(30).
  • η = not specified
    Dimensionless entropy-density parameter in Eq (35).
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Static cylindrically symmetric line element with e^b=e^c and e^d=r², Eq (3).
    Restricts the spacetime ansatz; not derived from a uniqueness theorem.
  • domain assumption Isotropic perfect-fluid stress-energy tensor T_{mn}=(ρ+p)u_m u_n + p g_{mn}, Eq (4).
    Assumes pressure isotropy in all spatial directions.
  • ad hoc to paper Kuchowicz metric potential e^a=e^{αr²+2 ln β}, Eq (9).
    Chosen ansatz; its finiteness is the source of the claimed non-singularity.
  • domain assumption Interior equation of state p=-ρ, Eq (14), and shell equation of state p=ρ, Eq (17).
    Standard gravastar equations of state taken from Mazur-Mottola and Zel'dovich literature.
  • ad hoc to paper Thin-shell approximation 0<e^{-b}≪1 in Section 4.
    Used to derive Eq (18); no order-of-magnitude justification is given.
  • domain assumption Exterior vacuum metric of Lemos-Zanchin form with Λ<0, Eq (20).
    Adopted from Ref [41], but the stated sign conflicts with the metric signature.
  • domain assumption Surface-redshift stability criteria Zs≤2 (isotropic) and Zs≤5 (anisotropic with Λ), Section 8.
    Used to conclude stability without a perturbation analysis.
  • domain assumption Einstein field equations with a radial cosmological constant Λ(r), Eq (5).
    The gravitational framework of the paper; variable Λ is a modeling choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cylindrical gravastars with Kuchowicz metric potential." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NOIXHMUA

@misc{pith2026250210464,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cylindrical gravastars with Kuchowicz metric potential},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NOIXHMUA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10464}
}
abstract

Mazur and Mottola's gravastar model represents one of the few serious alternatives to the traditional understanding of the black hole. The gravastar is typically regarded as a theoretical alternative for the black hole. This article investiagtes the creation of gravastar(gravitational vacuum star) within the realm of cylindrically symmetric space-time utilizing the Kuchowicz metric potential. A stable gravastar comprises of three distinct regions, starting with an interior region marked by positive energy density and negative pressure $(p=-\rho)$ which is followed by an intermediate thin shell, where the interior negative pressure induces a outward repulsive force at each point on the shell. Ultra-relativistic stiff fluid makes up the thin shell governed by the equation of state(EoS) $(p=\rho)$, which meets the Zel'dovich criteria. And then comes the region exterior to it which is total vacuum. In this scenario, the central singularity is eliminated and the event horizon is effectively substituted by the thin bounding shell. Employing the Kuchowicz metric potential we have derived the remaining metric functions for the interior region and the shell regions yielding a non-singular solution for both the regions. Additionally, we have investigated various characteristics of this shell region including its proper shell length, the energy content and entropy. This theoretical model successfully resolves the singularity issue inherent to the black holes. Therefore, this gravastar model presents a viable alternative to the traditional black holes, reconciled within the context of Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10464 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The metric co-efficient e b(r) with respect to the radial distance r(km) in the gravastar is plotted for H = 10, C = 1 and α = 0.01491932683 [42] can be determined through the following expression as, Mactive = Z r1 0 4πr2 ρdr = 4 3 πr3 1ρk. (16) 4 Intermediate thin shell of the gravastar The gravastar’s interior is enveloped by a thin, finite shell comprising ultra-relativistic fluid or soft quanta, which adheres t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Graphical representation of metric coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Variation of the pressure or matter density with respect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The change in the proper length of the shell is plotted with r [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The change in the energy content is represented with res [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The variation in the entropy of the shell is plotted with resp [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The variation of Zs is plotted with respect to the thickness parameter ǫ(km) for α = 0.01491932683 and β = 0.2371387430 [42] 9 Conclusion and discussions Building on the Mazur-Mottola model from a General Relativistic perspective, we have designed a dis￾tinctive gravas…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [42]

    Gravasta rs with Kuchowicz metric potential,

    S. Ghosh, D. Shee, S. Ray, F. Rahaman, B.K. Guha. “Gravasta rs with Kuchowicz metric potential,” Results in Physics, Volume 14, 2019, 102473

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    Gravitational condensate stars: an alternative to black holes,

    P. Mazur and E. Mottola, “Gravitational condensate stars: an alternative to black holes,” Report Number. LA-UR-01-5067,2001

    work page 2001

  3. [2]

    Gravitational vacuum condensate stars,

    P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, “Gravitational vacuum condensate stars,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 101, no. 26, p. 9545, 2004

    work page 2004

  4. [3]

    Chapline, E

    G. Chapline, E. Hohlfield , R. B. Laughlin, and D. I. Santiago, Int. J . Mod. Phys. A18, 3587 (2003)

    work page 2003

  5. [4]

    E. B. Gliner, Sov. Phys. JETP, 22, 378 (1966)

    work page 1966

  6. [5]

    The Equation of State at Ultrahigh Densities and Its Relativistic Limitations,

    Y. B. Zel’dovich, “The Equation of State at Ultrahigh Densities and Its Relativistic Limitations,” Sov. Phys. JETP 14 (1962) 5, pg. 1143

    work page 1962

  7. [6]

    A hypothesis, unifying the structure and the e ntropy of the Universe,

    Y. B. Zel’dovich. “A hypothesis, unifying the structure and the e ntropy of the Universe,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 160 (1972) 1P

    work page 1972

  8. [7]

    Visser,DL

    M. Visser,DL. Wiltshire, Class Quant Gravit 2004;21:1135

    work page 2004

Show all 60 references
  1. [8]

    BMN. Carter. Class Quant Gravit 2005;22:4551

    2005

  2. [9]

    FSN. Lobo, R. Garattini. J Hi Energy Phys 2013;1312:065

    2013

  3. [10]

    Rahaman, S

    F. Rahaman, S. Ray, AA. Usmani, S. Islam . Phys Lett B 2012;707 :319

    2012

  4. [11]

    Usmani, F

    AA. Usmani, F. Rahaman, PKF. Kuhfittig, A. Sk. Rakib . Phys Let t B 2011;701:388

    2011

  5. [12]

    Rahaman, AA

    F. Rahaman, AA. Usmani, S. Ray, S. Islam. Phys Lett B 2012;717 :1

    2012

  6. [13]

    Rahaman, S

    F. Rahaman, S. Chakraborty, S. Ray, AA. Usmani, S. Islam. In t J Theor Phys 2015;54:50. 13

    2015

  7. [14]

    P. Bhar. Astrophys Spac Sci 2014;354:457

    2014

  8. [15]

    Ghosh, F

    S. Ghosh, F. Rahaman, BK. Guha, S. Ray. Phys Lett B 2017;767 :380

    2017

  9. [16]

    T. Kubo,N. Sakai. Phys Rev D 2016;93:084051

    2016

  10. [17]

    Abbott, LIGO/Virgo Scientific Collaboration, et al

    BP. Abbott, LIGO/Virgo Scientific Collaboration, et al. Phys Rev Lett 2016;116:061102

    2016

  11. [18]

    Cardoso, E

    V. Cardoso, E. Franzin, P. Pani. Phys Rev Lett 116; 2016: 171 101. 117; 2016: 089902 (E)

    2016

  12. [19]

    Chirenti, L

    C. Chirenti, L. Rezzolla. Phys Rev D 2016;94:084016

    2016

  13. [20]

    H. Weyl. Ann. Phys. Lpz. 54(1917)117

    1917

  14. [21]

    Levi-Civita

    T. Levi-Civita. Atti Acc. Lincei Rend. 28(1919)101

    1919

  15. [22]

    Perlmutter et al 1997 ApJ 483 565

    S. Perlmutter et al 1997 ApJ 483 565

    1997

  16. [23]

    Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the Universe,

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, M.D. Valle, S. Deustua, R.S. Ellis, S. Fa bbro, A. Fruchter, G. Goldhaber, D.E. Groom, I.M. Hook, and A.G. Kim 1998. “Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the Universe,” Nature, 391(6662), pp.51-54

    1998

  17. [24]

    Measureme nts of omega and lambda from 42 high-redshift supernovae,

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R.A. Knop, P. Nugent , P.G. Castro, S. Deustua, S. Fabbro, A. Goobar, D.E. Groom, and I.M. Hook, 1999. “ Measureme nts of omega and lambda from 42 high-redshift supernovae,” The Astrophysical Journal, 517(2 ), p.565

    1999

  18. [25]

    Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological const ant,

    A.G. Riess, A.V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P.M . Garnavich, R.L. Gilliland, C.J. Hogan, S. Jha, R.P. Kirshner, and B.R.U.N.O. Leibundgut, 1998. “ Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological const ant,” The as...

    1998

  19. [26]

    Zeldovich, JETP letters 6(1967)316

    Y.B. Zeldovich, JETP letters 6(1967)316

    1967

  20. [27]

    Ratra, B, Rev

    P.J.E Peebles and B. Ratra, B, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75(2003)559

    2003

  21. [28]

    Cylindrically symme tric models of anisotropic compact stars,

    G. Abbas, Sumara Nazeer, and M. A. Meraj. “Cylindrically symme tric models of anisotropic compact stars,” Astrophysics and Space Science 354 (2014): 449-455

    2014

  22. [29]

    Ghosh, S

    S. Ghosh, S. Ray, F. Rahaman, BK. Guha. Ann Phys 2018;394:23 0

    2018

  23. [30]

    Tangherlini

    FR. Tangherlini. Nuo Cim 1963;27:636

    1963

  24. [31]

    Cylindrica lly symmetric static solutions of the Einstein field equations for elastic matter,

    I. Brito, J. Carot, F.C. Mena, and E.G.L.R. Vaz, 2012. “Cylindrica lly symmetric static solutions of the Einstein field equations for elastic matter,” Journal of mathema tical physics, 53(12)

    2012

  25. [32]

    Kuchowicz

    B. Kuchowicz. Acta Phys Pol 1968;33:541

    1968

  26. [33]

    S. Ray, U. Mukhopadhyay, XH. Meng. Gravit Cosmol 2007;13:14 2

    2007

  27. [34]

    Usmani AA, PP

    AA. Usmani AA, PP. Ghosh, U. Mukhopadhyay, PC. Ray, S. Ray . Mon Not R Astron Soc. 2008;386:L92

    2008

  28. [35]

    BJ. Carr. Astrophys J 1975;201:1. 14

    1975

  29. [36]

    Chakraborty, A

    I. Chakraborty, A. Pradhan. Gravit Cosmol 2001;7:55

    2001

  30. [37]

    Linares, M

    LP. Linares, M. Malherio, S. Ray. Int J Mod Phys D 2004;13:1355

    2004

  31. [38]

    Braje, R W

    TM. Braje, R W. Romani. Astrophys J 2002;580:1043

    2002

  32. [39]

    T. Buchert. Gen Rel Gravit 2001;33:1381

    2001

  33. [40]

    Israel, Nuovo Cimemto 44, 1 (1966); 48, 463(E)(1967)

    W. Israel, Nuovo Cimemto 44, 1 (1966); 48, 463(E)(1967)

    1966

  34. [41]

    Lemos, V.T

    J.P.S. Lemos, V.T. Zanchin. Phys. Rev D54(1996)3840

    1996

  35. [43]

    Bhattacharjee, and P

    D. Bhattacharjee, and P. K. Chattopadhyay. ”Stable charg ed gravastar model in cylindrically sym- metric space-time.” Physica Scripta 98.8 (2023): 085013

    2023

  36. [44]

    Memorial des Sciences Mathematiques XXV, Fastic ule XXV

    G. Darmois. “Memorial des Sciences Mathematiques XXV, Fastic ule XXV”. Paris, France. Gauthier- Villars; 1927. Chap. V

    1927

  37. [45]

    Ann Phys (Berlin) 1924;379:518

    K Lanczos. Ann Phys (Berlin) 1924;379:518

    1924

  38. [46]

    N. Sen. Ann Phys (Leipzig) 1924;378:365

    1924

  39. [47]

    Perry, RB

    GP. Perry, RB. Mann. Gen Rel Gravit 1992;24:305

    1992

  40. [48]

    Musgrave, K

    P. Musgrave, K. Lake. Class Quant Gravit 1996;13:1885

    1996

  41. [49]

    Bhattacharjee, P

    D. Bhattacharjee, P. K. Chattopadhyay, and B. C. Paul. ”St able Gravastar model in Cylindrically Symmetric Space-time.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04874 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Gravastars with cylindric al space-time in f (G, T ) grav- ity,

    M.Z. Bhatti, Z.Yousaf and A. Rehman, “Gravastars with cylindric al space-time in f (G, T ) grav- ity,”Pramana96, 4, 224 (2022).doi:10.1007/s12043-022-02473-1

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    Pradhan, D

    S. Pradhan, D. Mohanty, P.K. and Sahoo, 2023. Thin-shell gra vastar model in f (Q, T ) gravity. Chinese Physics C, 47(9), p.095104

    2023

  44. [52]

    Gravastars in f (R, T ) gravity,

    A. Das, S. Ghosh, B.K. Guha, Swapan Das, F. Rahaman, and S. R ay. “Gravastars in f (R, T ) gravity,”Phys. Rev. D95, 12, 124011 (2017).doi:10.1103/PhysRev D.95.124011

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    H. A. Buchdahl : Gen. Rel. Fl. Sph Phys. Rev. 116 1027(1959)

    1959

  46. [54]

    Straumann: Gen Rel and Rel Astrophys, Springer, Berlin (1 984)

    N. Straumann: Gen Rel and Rel Astrophys, Springer, Berlin (1 984)

  47. [55]

    Ivanov: Phys

    B.V. Ivanov: Phys. Rev. D 65, 104011(2002)

    2002

  48. [56]

    Barraco et al.: Phys

    D.E. Barraco et al.: Phys. Rev. D 65 124028 (2002)

    2002

  49. [57]

    C. G. Bohmer et al.: Class. Quant. Gravit. 23 6479 (2006)

    2006

  50. [58]

    Banerjee, JR

    A. Banerjee, JR. Villanueva, P. Channuie, K. Jusuf. Chin Phys C 2018;42:115101

    2018

  51. [59]

    Ghosh et al.: Phys

    S. Ghosh et al.: Phys. Lett. B 767, 380 (2017)

    2017

  52. [60]

    Ghosh et al.: Res

    S. Ghosh et al.: Res. in Phys. 14, 102473 (2019). 15

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.