Relativistic compact stars coupled with dark energy in Heintzmann spacetime

Nayan Sarkar; Susmita Sarkar

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 95 references

Relativistic compact stars coupled with dark energy in Heintzmann spacetime

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-fluid Einstein model with dark energy in Heintzmann spacetime produces non-singular compact stars and matches observed masses and radii.

desk verdict A competent, incremental exact-solution paper in a crowded genre, but the abstract's 'predicted surface radii' are really fits because the dark-energy coupling alpha is chosen by hand; 'physically viable' is too strong given that proportionality is an ungrounded input. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.10930 v1 pith:WVPZKWPM submitted 2025-08-11 gr-qc

Susmita Sarkar , Nayan Sarkar This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qc MSC 83C0583C1583C55 PACS 04.40.Dg95.36.+x

keywords compactstarsdarkenergyEinsteingravityHeintzmannansatztwo-fluidmodelmass-radiusrelationTolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoffequationstellarstability

topics Dark Energy

open problems Dark Energy

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 tries to show that dark energy can sit inside compact stars without causing singularities. It builds a two-fluid stellar model in Einstein gravity, with isotropic baryonic matter and isotropic dark energy, and assumes the dark energy density is a fixed proportion of the baryonic density. Using Heintzmann's ansatz for the metric, it derives explicit profiles for density, pressure, mass, and radius, then verifies the energy conditions, hydrostatic equilibrium, and two stability criteria. The model reproduces the masses and radii of three known compact stars and gives a finite maximum mass on each mass-radius curve. If correct, dark energy inside stars is a viable way to prevent gravitational collapse to a singularity.

What carries the argument

The engine is Heintzmann's ansatz, a closed algebraic form for a metric function in a static spherically symmetric line element, combined with the proportionality $\rho_{DE}=\alpha \rho_b$. These two inputs close the Einstein field equations, make the mass-radius relation computable, and determine total mass and radius by matching to the exterior Schwarzschild solution.

What would settle it

Compute the same two-fluid equilibrium with a physically derived equation of state for dark energy inside matter instead of $\rho_{DE}=\alpha \rho_b$; if no non-singular stable solution exists, the model fails. Observationally, a compact star whose measured mass and radius lie outside the union of all M-R curves produced by the allowed $\alpha$ range would rule the model out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a non-singular, physically admissible two-fluid compact star can exist in Einstein gravity when isotropic baryonic matter is mixed with isotropic dark energy under the condition $\rho_{DE}=\alpha \rho_b$. With Heintzmann's metric ansatz, the field equations close and yield monotonic radial profiles with finite central values and a boundary where pressure vanishes, matching an exterior Schwarzschild geometry. The authors show that the configuration satisfies all energy conditions, obeys the generalized Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation, and meets the adiabatic-index and Harrison-Zeldovich-Novikov stability criteria. For selected values of $\alpha$, the predicted ma

Load-bearing premise

The model's quantitative outputs rest on the input that dark energy density inside a star is a fixed multiple of baryonic matter density, with the multiplier $\alpha$ chosen by hand; if real dark energy does not track baryonic density that way, the predicted masses and radii lose their physical meaning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For the parameter ranges tested, the interior has finite central density and pressure, offering a singularity-free route to hydrostatic equilibrium in compact stars.
The mass-radius curves have well-defined maxima for each coupling $\alpha$, giving a concrete upper mass limit beyond which a star is unstable.
Because the energy conditions are satisfied, the two-fluid mixture does not require exotic matter; dark energy contributes negative pressure without violating standard energy inequalities.
Matching three observed compact stars selects preferred values of $\alpha$, making dark energy a stellar-structure parameter that observations can constrain.
The generalized TOV and stability checks imply that adding dark energy does not destroy equilibrium; the negative-pressure component can offset gravitational compression.

Reading between the lines

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

The proportionality $\rho_{DE}=\alpha \rho_b$ is an input rather than a derived equation of state; if dark energy is a cosmological constant or a slowly varying field, its local density inside a star would not simply track baryonic density, so the fitted $\alpha$ values should be read as phenomenological until a microphysical derivation appears.
The same two-fluid construction could be carried out with other exact metric ansätze to test whether finiteness, stability windows, and maximum masses survive a change of metric ansatz.
A precise mass-radius measurement outside the union of all predicted curves for admissible $\alpha$ would distinguish this model from alternatives, while a match would give indirect evidence for stellar-scale dark energy.
The model assumes isotropic pressures in both fluids; allowing anisotropy or rotation would likely shift the maximum mass and stability boundaries, so the reported numbers are a baseline rather than a final prediction.

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 my take: this is a routine exact-solution construction, the specific combination of Heintzmann's 1969 ansatz with two-fluid baryons-plus-dark-energy where rho_DE = alpha rho_b does appear new, and the paper does the standard stability and energy-condition checks. That's honest work in a genre where most papers are this kind of incremental addition.

The soft spots are real, but they are also mostly about framing. The density proportionality is asserted, not derived, and alpha is a free parameter scanned by hand. Every quantitative output depends on it. So the abstract's claim that the model is 'physically viable' goes beyond what the construction supports: alpha being adjustable means the three observed stars can be accommodated, not that the model predicts them. The phrase 'predicted surface radii from the M-R graph' is retrospective, because the same three stars anchor the solution family. I'd want the authors to say plainly that for each alpha value the model reproduces the observed stars, and that the predictive content is the M-R trend across alpha, not the individual radii.

Also, the full text I received is a garbled extraction, so I could not verify a single equation or numerical table. That makes it impossible for me to vouch for soundness; it also means the paper's own detailed checks (causality, stability, energy conditions) need an actual referee's eyes. The abstract alone is enough to raise the concerns above, but it's not enough to condemn the derivation.

This is not a milestone, and the central assumption is admittedly ad hoc. But the genre tolerates phenomenological inputs like this, and the paper is transparent about it. If I were handling it, I'd send it to peer review with a request to reframe the predictions and either justify alpha or explicitly label it as a phenomenological parameter. The math and tables need checking, but the construction is plausible. I'd give it a one-shot revise-and-resubmit.

For us, it's not high priority, but if someone in the group works on dark-energy compact objects, it's worth a skim. I wouldn't cite it unless I needed a compact-star model with this specific coupling.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a two-fluid model of static, spherically symmetric compact stars in Einstein gravity, adopting Heintzmann's metric ansatz and assuming that the energy density of dark energy is proportional to the baryonic energy density, rho_DE = alpha rho_b. From this ansatz the authors derive the metric functions, total density and pressure, mass-radius relation, compactness, gravitational and surface redshifts, energy conditions, generalized Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equilibrium, and stability via the adiabatic index and the Harrison-Zeldovich-Novikov condition. They apply the model to three known compact stars and report maximum masses and 'predicted' surface radii from the mass-radius graph for different values of alpha. The central claim is that the model is non-singular and physically viable, satisfying all essential conditions.

Significance. If the construction is correct and the dark-energy contribution is physically motivated, the paper would provide another exact two-fluid stellar model in which dark energy modifies the mass-radius relation and stability limit. The main value would be as a parameterized family of non-singular solutions that could be confronted with observations. However, the significance is substantially weakened by the ad hoc proportionality between dark-energy and baryonic densities, by the retrospective use of three known stars to fix the free parameters, and by the lack of any independent constraint on the coupling alpha. The paper also ships no reproducible code or machine-checked derivations, and the received manuscript text is garbled to the point that no equation or table can be independently verified.

major comments (3)

[Abstract (rho_DE = alpha rho_b)] The proportionality between dark-energy and baryonic density is asserted without derivation or physical justification. alpha is a free parameter that is apparently scanned by hand. Because every quantitative output of the model—mass, radius, maximum mass, stability boundary—depends on alpha, the fits to three known stars only demonstrate that alpha can be chosen to match them. The claim that the model is 'physically viable' therefore rests entirely on the plausibility of this ungrounded coupling. To make the claim load-bearing, the paper must either provide an independent physical derivation of rho_DE = alpha rho_b, or present observational constraints on alpha (e.g., tidal deformability, pulsar timing, or radius measurements) that could falsify the model. Without this, the paper is a parametrization rather than a predictive stellar model.
[Abstract ('predicted surface radii from the M-R graph')] The abstract describes the surface radii as 'predicted' from the mass-radius graph for different values of alpha. But the three well-known compact stars are used to anchor the model (through central-density normalization and choice of alpha). Plotting those same stars on the mass-radius graph is therefore retrospective: it replots calibration data, not independent predictions. The paper should clearly distinguish between the calibration step and a genuine out-of-sample prediction, e.g., fixing alpha a priori and then predicting the mass-radius relation of a fourth, unused compact object. As written, the language of prediction overstates what the analysis can show.
[Full text (entire manuscript)] The mathematical content of the submitted manuscript is not legible: the equations, tables, and figures appear as garbled rendering artifacts, and no numbered equation, section, or table can be checked. I therefore cannot verify that the Heintzmann ansatz is correctly applied, that the Einstein field equations are solved consistently, that the boundary conditions at the star's surface and center are satisfied, or that the reported energy conditions and stability criteria are correctly evaluated. This is a fundamental reproducibility barrier. A clean, typeset manuscript with numbered equations and tables is required before the paper can be assessed for publication.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Phrases such as 'there is a great possibility' are informal for a journal article. The abstract also uses 'predicted' loosely; I recommend 'fitted' or 'model-dependent' in the first occurrence.
[General] The reference to Phys. Rev. D 103, 084042 (2021) is given in the abstract without a citation number; the paper should use a consistent citation format. Because the full text is unintelligible, I cannot identify further typographical issues or reference omissions.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 'predicted surface radii' are one-parameter outputs of the hand-chosen dark-energy coupling α and the anchor stars, so the M-R curve is partly retrospective.

fitted input called prediction [Abstract (assumption and M-R prediction); mass–radius section]
"Here, the density of dark energy is assumed to be proportional to the density of baryonic matter. ... We perform an in-depth analysis of the physical attributes of the model, such as metric function, density, pressure, mass-radius relation, compactness parameter, gravitational and surface redshifts, along with the energy conditions for three well-known compact stars. ... Moreover, we estimate the solutions representing the maximum masses and the predicted surface radii from the M-R graph for different values of the coupling parameter {\alpha}."

The coupling α is a free input, not derived from microphysics or external data. It directly sets ρ_de and hence the total density entering the mass function m(r) ∝ (1+α)∫ρ_b r^2 dr. The M-R graph is therefore a one-parameter family of curves generated by the same input used to accommodate the three known compact stars. The stars anchor the allowed α/constant choices, so reading 'predicted surface radii' off the M-R graph is interpolation within that input family rather than an independent prediction. The radii are retrospective outputs, not forecasts, for the α values that place the anchor stars on the curve.

full rationale

The circularity is confined to the mass-radius 'prediction' language. The constitutive assumption ρ_de = α ρ_b is openly stated, not derived, so the model is a parametrization rather than a first-principles derivation; that alone is not circular. However, the abstract simultaneously uses three well-known compact stars to analyze the model's physical attributes and then presents 'predicted surface radii' from M-R graphs for different α. Because α enters the total density as (1+α)ρ_b, the M-R curves are a family indexed by the same free parameter used to anchor the model to the known stars. The radii read from these curves are conditional outputs of α, and when α is chosen to make the curve pass near or through the anchor stars, the agreement is partly retrospective. The remaining tests—energy conditions, TOV equilibrium, adiabatic index, and HZN stability—are internal consistency checks and do not themselves create a circular dependence. No load-bearing self-citation is present. Overall, the central derivation is a legitimate, if assumption-dependent, solution of Einstein's equations, but the 'predicted surface radii' claim reduces in part to the fitted/anchored input α.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The contribution consists of a metric choice (Heintzmann) and a proportionality relation between dark energy and baryonic density; all other machinery is standard GR. One free coupling alpha is scanned by hand, and the three benchmark stars supply the anchor data that fixes the mass-radius curves. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced; 'dark energy inside a star' enters only as a fluid with a prescribed density relation.

free parameters (2)

alpha (dark energy to baryonic density coupling) = not stated in abstract; scanned over a range
rho_DE = alpha rho_b; alpha controls the mass-radius curves, maximum masses, and all reported predictions. It is chosen by hand, not derived or measured.
per-star normalization (central density or boundary radius) = not stated in abstract
The three named compact stars are used to anchor the solutions; this per-star matching makes the 'predicted' surface radii on the M-R graph partly retrospective.

assumptions (5)

standard math General relativity (Einstein's field equations) governs the stellar interior
The entire model is built in Einstein gravity; this is the background theory, not derived in the paper.
ad hoc to paper Heintzmann ansatz for the static spherically symmetric metric
A metric form chosen from the 1969 Heintzmann paper; the paper does not derive it from a physical principle.
ad hoc to paper Dark energy density proportional to baryonic density (rho_DE = alpha rho_b)
Stated in the abstract as an assumption; it carries the entire phenomenological content of the model and is not derived or observationally motivated.
domain assumption Both fluids are isotropic perfect fluids
The abstract specifies isotropic baryonic matter and isotropic dark energy; anisotropic stresses are excluded from the model.
domain assumption Boundary matching to exterior Schwarzschild with vanishing surface pressure
Standard matching conditions in this genre, implied by the mass-radius analysis but not derived in the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relativistic compact stars coupled with dark energy in Heintzmann spacetime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WVPZKWPM

@misc{pith2026250810930,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relativistic compact stars coupled with dark energy in Heintzmann spacetime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WVPZKWPM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.10930}
}

read the original abstract

The literature suggests that dark energy is responsible for the accelerating expansion of the universe due to its negative pressure, therefore, dark energy can be used as a possible option to prevent the gravitational collapse of compact objects into singularities. In this regard, there is a great possibility that dark energy can interact with the compact stellar matter configuration [Phys. Rev. D 103, 084042 (2021)]. In this article, we introduce a physically viable model for celestial compact stars made of isotropic baryonic matter and isotropic dark energy with Heintzmann's ansatz [Zeitschrift f\"ur Physik 228, 489-493 (1969)] in the context of Einstein's gravity. Here, the density of dark energy is assumed to be proportional to the density of baryonic matter. The main focus of the present article is to see the effects of dark energy on the physical properties of the stars. We perform an in-depth analysis of the physical attributes of the model, such as metric function, density, pressure, mass-radius relation, compactness parameter, gravitational and surface redshifts, along with the energy conditions for three well-known compact stars. We analyse the equilibrium of the present model via the generalised Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation and the stability with the help of the adiabatic index and Harrison-Zeldovich-Novikov's static stability condition. Moreover, we estimate the solutions representing the maximum masses and the predicted surface radii from the M-R graph for different values of the coupling parameter {\alpha}. All the analyses ensure that the present model is non-singular and physically viable by satisfying all the essential conditions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

[1]

Schwarzschild, Sitzber

K. Schwarzschild, Sitzber. Deut. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, Kl. Math.Phys. Tech. , 424-434 (1916)

1916
[2]

R. H. Fowler, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 87 , 114 (1926)

1926
[3]

R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 55 , 364 (1939)

1939
[4]

J. R. Oppenheimer and G. Volkoff, Phys. Rev. 55 , 374 (1939)

1939
[5]

Chandrasekhar, Astrophys

S. Chandrasekhar, Astrophys. J. 74 , 81 (1931)

1931
[6]

B. P. Abbott et al., Physical Review Letters 119 , 161101, (2017)

2017
[7]

Abbott et al., Astrophysical Journal Letters 896 , 44 (2020)

R. Abbott et al., Astrophysical Journal Letters 896 , 44 (2020)

2020
[8]

Zhen-Yu Zhu, En-Ping Zhou, and Ang Li, Astrophysical Journal , 862 , 98 (2018)

2018

Show all 95 references

[9]

Rana Nandi and Prasanta Char, Astrophysical Journal , 857 12, (2018)

2018
[10]

Gordon Baym and et al, Astrophysical Journal , 885 42, ( 2019)

2019
[11]

Godzieba, David Radice, and Sebastiano Bernuzzi, Astrophysical Journal 908 , 122 (2021)

Daniel A. Godzieba, David Radice, and Sebastiano Bernuzzi, Astrophysical Journal 908 , 122 (2021)

2021
[12]

Bertone, D

G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Physics Reports 405 , 279 (2005)

2005
[13]

Del Popolo, Int

A. Del Popolo, Int. J. of Mod. Phys. D 23 , 231430005 (2014)

2014
[14]

Planck Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade, N. Aghanim, M. Arnaud et al., A & A 594 , 13 (2016)

2016
[15]

Grant et al, Astrophys

A. Grant et al, Astrophys. J. 560 , 49 (2001)

2001
[16]

Perlmutter, M

S. Perlmutter, M. S. Turner and M. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 , 670 (1999)

1999
[17]

C. L. Bennett et al, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148 , 1 (2003)

2003
[18]

Hinshaw et al

G. Hinshaw et al. [WMAP Collaboration], Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148 , 135 (2003)

2003
[19]

Aghanim and Et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics 641 , 6 (2020)

N. Aghanim and Et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics 641 , 6 (2020)

2020
[20]

P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Reviews of Modern Physics 75 , 559 (2003)

2003
[21]

E. J. Copeland, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. of Mod. Phys. D 15 , 1753 (2006)

2006
[22]

R. R. Caldwell and M. Kamionkowski, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 59 , 397 (2009)

2009
[23]

D. N. Spergel, Science (New York, N.Y.) 347 , 1100 (2015)

2015
[24]

B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela and D. Pavon, Reports on progress in physics , Physical Society (Great Britain) 79 (2016)

2016
[25]

Aghanim and Et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics 641 , 1 (2020)

N. Aghanim and Et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics 641 , 1 (2020)

2020
[26]

Addazi, Physics of the Dark Universe 37 , 101102 (2022)

A. Addazi, Physics of the Dark Universe 37 , 101102 (2022)

2022
[27]

Bargiacchi et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 515 , 1795-1806 (2022)

G. Bargiacchi et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 515 , 1795-1806 (2022)

2022
[28]

Capozziello, D

S. Capozziello, D. Rocco, and L. Orlando, Physics of the Dark Universe 36 , 101045 (2022)

2022
[29]

Sokoliuk, B

O. Sokoliuk, B. Alexander, and P. K. Sahoo, Physics Letters B 829 , 137048 (2022)

2022
[30]

Chapline, in Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, ed

G. Chapline, in Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, ed. by T. D. Black et al. (World Sci., Singapore, 1992)

1992
[31]

Barbierii and G

J. Barbierii and G. Chapline, Phys Lett. B 590 , 8 (2004)

2004
[32]

Chapline, E

G. Chapline, E. Hohlfeld, R. B. Laughlin and D. Santiago, Phil. Mag. B 81 , 235 (2001)

2001
[33]

S. N. F. Lobo, Class. Quantum. Grav. 23 , 1525 (2006)

2006
[34]

Herrera, Phys

L. Herrera, Phys. Rev. D 101 , 104024 2020

2020
[35]

K. G. Sagar, B. Pandey, and N. Pant, Astrophysics and Space Science , 367 , 72 (2022)

2022
[36]

Saklany, B

S. Saklany, B. Pandey, and N. Pant, Modern Physics Letters A 37 , 2250182 (2022)

2022
[37]

K. G. Sagar, N. Pant, and B. Pandey, Physics of the Dark Universe 38 , 101125 (2022)

2022
[38]

Bhar and F

P. Bhar and F. Rahaman, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 , 41 (2015)

2015
[39]

A. K. Yadav, F. Rahaman and S. Ray, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 50 , 871 (2011)

2011
[40]

S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D 83 , 127501 (2011)

2011
[41]

Dayanandan and T

B. Dayanandan and T. T. Smitha, Chin. J. Phys. 71 , 683 (2021)

2021
[42]

Smerechynskyi, M

S. Smerechynskyi, M. Tsizh, and B. Novosyadlyj, JCAP 02 , 045 (2021)

2021
[43]

P. Rej, R. S. Bogadi, and M. Govender, Chinese Journal of Physics 87 , 608 (2024)

2024
[44]

Bhar, Physics of the Dark Universe 34 100879 (2021)

P. Bhar, Physics of the Dark Universe 34 100879 (2021)

2021
[45]

P. Bhar, T. Manna, F. Rahaman, and A. Banerjee, Can. J. Phys. 96 , 594 (2018)

2018
[46]

R. Bibi, T. Feroze, and A. A. Siddiqui, Can. J. Phys. 94 , 758 (2016)

2016
[47]

Das and N

K. Das and N. Ali, Astrophys. Space Sci. 356 , 57 (2015)

2015
[48]

Halpern and M

P. Halpern and M. Pecorino, ISRN Astron. Astrophys. 2013 , 939876 (2013)

2013
[49]

Rahaman Rahaman, R

F. Rahaman Rahaman, R. Maulick, Y. K. Yadav, S. Ray, Saibal and R. Sharma, General Relativity and Gravitation 44 , 107-124 (2012)

2012
[50]

A. B. Tudeshki, G. H. Bordbar, and B. E. Panah, Physics Letters B 835 , 137523 (2022)

2022
[51]

K. P. Das, U. Debnath, and S. Ray, Fortschritte der Physik 71 , 2200148 (2023)

2023
[52]

R. Chan, M. F. A. Da Silva, and J. F. V. da Rocha, General Relativity and Gravitation 41 , 1835-1851 (2009)

2009
[53]

A. B. Tudeshki, G. H. Bordbar, and B. E. Panah, Physics of the Dark Universe 42 , 101354 (2023)

2023
[54]

C. R. Ghezzi, Astrophysics and Space Science 333 437-447 (2011)

2011
[55]

S. S. Yazadjiev, and D. D. Doneva, |it JCAP 2012 , 037 (2012)

2012
[56]

Horvat, and A

D. Horvat, and A. Marunović, Classical and quantum gravity 30 , 145006 (2013)

2013
[57]

P. Rej, A. Karmakar, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 , 699 (2023)

2023
[58]

Chodil, H

G. Chodil, H. Mark, R. Rodrigues, F. D. Seward, C. D. Swift, Astrophysical Journal 150 , 57 (1967)

1967
[59]

Giacconi, et al., Astrophysical Journal 178 , 281 (1972)

R. Giacconi, et al., Astrophysical Journal 178 , 281 (1972)

1972
[60]

Giacconi, H

R. Giacconi, H. Gursky, E. Kellog, E. Schreier, H. Tananbaum, Astrophysical Journal 167 , 67 (1971)

1971
[61]

Schreie, R

E. Schreie, R. Levinson, H. Gursky, E. Kellog, H. Tananbaum, R. Giacconi, Astrophysical Journal , 172 , 79 (1972)

1972
[62]

R. E. Price, D. J. Groves, R. M. Rodrigues et al. ApJL 168 L7 (1971)

1971
[63]

Leong , E

C. Leong , E. Kellogg, H. Gursky, H. Tananbaum and R. Giacconi, ApJL 170 L67 (1971)

1971
[64]

Schreier, R

E. Schreier, R. Giacconi, H. Gursky, E. Kellogg and H. Tananbaum, ApJL 178 L71 (1972)

1972
[65]

Chevalier, S

C. Chevalier, S. A. Ilovaisky, A & A 59 , L9 (1977)

1977
[66]

C. R. Ghezzi, Astrophys. Space Sci. 333 , 437 (2011)

2011
[67]

Heintzmann, Zeitschrift f¨ur Physik 228 , 489-493 (1969)

H. Heintzmann, Zeitschrift f¨ur Physik 228 , 489-493 (1969)

1969
[68]

C. R. Ghezzi, Phys. Rev. D 72 , 104017 (2005)

2005
[69]

Barreto, B

W. Barreto, B. Rodriguez, L. Rosales, O. Serrano, Gen. Rel. Grav. 39 , 23 (2007)

2007
[70]

N. K. Glendenning, Compact Stars: Nuclear Physics, Particle Physics and General Relativity (Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, 2012)

2012
[71]

C. S. Chu, H.S. Tan, Universe 8 , 250 (2022)

2022
[72]

Darmois, Les equations de la gravitation einsteinienne

G. Darmois, Les equations de la gravitation einsteinienne. Mémorial des Sciences Mathematiques, no 27, p. 58 (1927)

1927
[73]

Israel, Nuovo Cim

W. Israel, Nuovo Cim. B 44S10, 1 (1966) [Erratum: Nuovo Cim.B 48, 463 (1967)]

1966
[74]

Chandrasekhar, Science 226 , 497 (1984)

S. Chandrasekhar, Science 226 , 497 (1984)

1984
[75]

L. Baum, P. H. Frampton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 , 071301 (2007)

2007
[76]

H. A. Buchdahl, Phys. Rev. 116 , 1027 (1959)

1959
[77]

S. W. Hawking, G.F.R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time , (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973)

1973
[78]

R. M. Wald, General Relativity (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984)

1984
[79]

S. L. Shapiro, S.A. Teukolsky, Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and Neutron Stars: The Physics Of Compact Objects (Wiley, New York, 2008)

2008
[80]

Y. B. Zeldovich, I. D. Novikov, Relativistic Astrophysics Vol. 1: Stars and Relativity (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1971)

1971
[81]

Y. B. Zeldovich, I.D. Novikov, J. Silk, Phys. Today 25 , 63 (1972)

1972
[82]

L’Dovich, Sov

Y. L’Dovich, Sov. Phys. JETP 14 , 1609 (1962)

1962
[83]

Bondi, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

H. Bondi, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 281 , 39–48 (1964)

1964
[84]

Heintzmann and W Hillebrandt, Astronomy and Astrophysics 38 , 51–55, (1975)

H. Heintzmann and W Hillebrandt, Astronomy and Astrophysics 38 , 51–55, (1975)

1975
[85]

R. Chan, L. Herrera, and N. O. Santos, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 265 , 533–544 (1993)

1993
[86]

C. C. Moustakidis, General Relativity and Gravitation 49 , 68, (2017)

2017
[87]

B. K. Harrison, K.S. Thorne, M. Wakano, J.A. Wheeler, Gravitational theory and gravitational collapse (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1965)

1965
[88]

M. L. Rawls, J. A. Orosz, J. E. McClintock, M. A. P. Torres, C. D. Bailyn, and M. M. Buxton, Astrophys. J. 730 , 25 (2011)

2011
[89]

Bauswein et al., Astrophys

A. Bauswein et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 850 , L34 (2017)

2017
[90]

C. D. Capano et al., Nat. Astron. 4 , 625 (2020)

2020
[91]

C. E. Rhoades, R. Ruffini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 32 , 324 (1972)

1972
[92]

J. M. Lattimer, M. Prakash, Phys. Rep. 442 , 109 (2007)

2007
[93]

J. B. Hartle, Astrophys. J. 150 , 1005 (1967)

1967
[94]

Bejger, P

M. Bejger, P. Haensel, A & A 396 , 917 (2002)

2002
[95]

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

2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Schwarzschild, Sitzber

K. Schwarzschild, Sitzber. Deut. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, Kl. Math.Phys. Tech. , 424-434 (1916)

1916

[2] [2]

R. H. Fowler, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 87 , 114 (1926)

1926

[3] [3]

R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 55 , 364 (1939)

1939

[4] [4]

J. R. Oppenheimer and G. Volkoff, Phys. Rev. 55 , 374 (1939)

1939

[5] [5]

Chandrasekhar, Astrophys

S. Chandrasekhar, Astrophys. J. 74 , 81 (1931)

1931

[6] [6]

B. P. Abbott et al., Physical Review Letters 119 , 161101, (2017)

2017

[7] [7]

Abbott et al., Astrophysical Journal Letters 896 , 44 (2020)

R. Abbott et al., Astrophysical Journal Letters 896 , 44 (2020)

2020

[8] [8]

Zhen-Yu Zhu, En-Ping Zhou, and Ang Li, Astrophysical Journal , 862 , 98 (2018)

2018