Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 65 references

Strange quark stars in modified vector MIT bag model: role of $\rho$ and $\phi$ mesons

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Adding ρ and φ mesons to the vector MIT bag model can lift strange quark stars to 2.48 solar masses.

desk verdict First ρ/φ extension of the vector MIT bag model, but Eq. (11) drops the quark-vector interaction energy, so the 2.48/2.42 M⊙ maxima are inflated; fixable, but reject as is. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11017 v2 pith:Q4QVOF5W submitted 2025-01-19 hep-ph

Mukul Wadhwa , Manisha Kumari , Arvind Kumar This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords strangequarkstarsvectorMITbagmodelrhomesonphiequationofstatemass-radiusrelationtidaldeformabilitygravitationalredshift
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 extends the vector MIT bag model, a phenomenological description of quark matter, by adding two vector meson channels—the isovector ρ and the strange φ—alongside the usual ω. By solving the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations with two forms of quartic vector self-interactions, the authors claim that the repulsive ρ and φ channels stiffen the equation of state enough that strange quark stars can reach maximum masses of 2.48 and 2.42 solar masses (for the two self-interaction forms) at vector coupling g_v = 3, with radii near 12 km. The paper also computes tidal deformability, Love numbers, and gravitational redshift, and finds consistency with pulsar timing and gravitational-wave constraints for selected bag constants.

What carries the argument

The central object is the modified vector MIT bag model with the Lagrangian of Eq. (1), which couples u, d, s quarks to ω, ρ, and φ vector mesons and includes two forms of quartic self-interactions, $L^{{Non}}$_{vec−I} = 2c_4 Tr[(g_M V)^4] and $L^{{Non}}$_{vec−II} = c_4 [Tr(g_M $V^{2}$)]^2 with c_4 = 1. The meson equations of motion (Eqs. 7–9) determine the field values, and the pressure is obtained from the energy density via p = −ε + Σ_i μ_i ρ_i, which is then fed into the TOV equations to find mass–radius relations.

What would settle it

Derive the energy density by Legendre-transforming the grand potential of the Lagrangian in Eq. (1), keeping the quark-vector interaction term Σ_i g_i^V φ_i ρ_i in ε, and recompute the TOV curves; the difference between the resulting maximum mass and 2.48 M⊙ at g_v = 3 would test the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that strange quark stars built from β-equilibrated u, d, s quark matter with electrons and muons can support masses above 2.4 M⊙ once the vector MIT bag model includes ρ and φ mesons in addition to ω, together with quartic self-interactions of the vector fields. With the coupling choice g_u^ω = g_d^ω = g_u^ρ = −g_d^ρ = g_s^φ/√2 = g_v, the maximum mass grows from 1.93 M⊙ (g_v = 0) to 2.48 M⊙ (g_v = 3, self-interaction form I) at $B^{{1/4}}$ = 145 MeV, and the corresponding radius grows from 10.60 km to 12.27 km. The authors find that including ρ and φ significantly enhances mass and radius relative to an ω-only model, and that the tidal deformability Λ increases with g_v, most visibly for low-mass stars.

Load-bearing premise

The reported masses and radii rest on Eq. (11) being the complete energy density of cold strange quark matter, with pressure then defined as p = −ε + Σ_i μ_i ρ_i; if that energy expression omits a contribution that should be present, every tabulated star property shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, strange quark stars are not necessarily low-mass objects; repulsive vector channels can push them above the 2 M⊙ pulsar-mass threshold.
  • The stable-bag window shifts downward as g_v grows (B^{1/4} from 145–159 MeV at g_v = 0 to 131–145 MeV at g_v = 3), so higher vector coupling demands a lower bag constant for three-flavor matter to be the ground state.
  • The increase in Λ with g_v, especially for low-mass stars, provides a possible observational discriminator using future gravitational-wave tidal measurements.
  • The two self-interaction forms produce nearly identical stars at g_v ≤ 2, so distinguishing them requires high-coupling (g_v ≈ 3) mass and radius measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The qualitative stiffening from ρ and φ is likely robust, but the numerical maximum masses could shift if the energy density is derived from the full thermodynamic potential rather than Eq. (11); a recalculation keeping the quark-vector interaction term Σ_i g_i^V φ_i ρ_i in ε would give corrected values.
  • The same coupling scheme could be tested in hybrid star configurations to see whether ρ and φ also lift the maximum mass of stars with hadronic outer layers.
  • Temperature-dependent extensions of this model could predict whether the ρ/φ stiffening persists in hot, lepton-rich matter relevant to binary merger remnants.
  • The predicted range Λ_{1.4} ≈ 94–131 at g_v = 3 is testable with next-generation gravitational-wave detectors; if future events demand Λ_{1.4} below this, the model's coupling strength is disfavored.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends the vector MIT bag model for strange quark stars by adding ρ and ϕ vector meson channels alongside ω, with two forms of quartic vector-meson self-interactions. The authors compute the equation of state for β-equilibrated, charge-neutral strange quark matter, solve the TOV equations to obtain mass–radius relations, and calculate tidal deformability, Love numbers, and gravitational redshift for several vector couplings g_v and bag constants B^{1/4}. The main quantitative claims are maximum masses up to 2.48 M⊙ and 2.42 M⊙ at g_v = 3 with B^{1/4} = 145 MeV, and up to 2.70 M⊙ when average stability-window bag constants are used, together with a monotonic stiffening of the EoS and an increase in radius and tidal deformability with g_v.

Significance. If the results were correct, the paper would be a useful systematic study of multi-channel vector repulsion in the vector MIT bag model, and the predicted stiffening with ρ and ϕ mesons would be relevant for interpreting massive compact objects and tidal-deformability constraints. The manuscript is clearly organized, covers a broad parameter scan, and compares with NICER, GW170817, GW190814, and other observational bounds, which are useful features. However, the central energy-density formula in Eq. (11) is thermodynamically inconsistent, and this invalidates the reported numerical results. The qualitative expectation that additional repulsive vector channels stiffen the EoS may survive a corrected calculation, but the quantitative conclusions and the headline maximum masses cannot be accepted as they stand.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (11)] The energy density in Eq. (11) omits the positive quark–vector interaction energy Σ_i g_i^V φ_i ρ_i. The single-particle energies in Eq. (2) include the mean-field shifts g_i^ωω + g_i^ρρ + g_i^φφ, so the total energy density must contain the corresponding interaction term. Using the equations of motion (7)–(9), one obtains p_paper = p_consistent + Σ_i g_i^V φ_i ρ_i, i.e., an extra positive contribution m_ω²ω² + m_ρ²ρ² + m_ϕ²ϕ² + φ ∂L_Non/∂φ. This spurious repulsion stiffens the EoS at all densities and directly inflates the maximum masses, radii, and tidal deformabilities in Tables 3–4 and Figs. 4–6, including the headline values 2.48/2.42 M⊙ in the abstract. The observation in Fig. 1 that pressure vanishes at the E/A minimum is an algebraic identity of Eqs. (11) and (13) and does not constitute a thermodynamic consistency check of the omitted term.
  2. [Sec. 4, Table 2 and Fig. 1] Because Eq. (11) underestimates the energy density, the energy per baryon E/A in Fig. 1 is too low, and the stability windows in Table 2 are therefore not reliable. The omitted positive interaction term raises E/A, which tends to shrink or shift the windows and to move the allowed B^{1/4} values; the common choice B^{1/4}=145 MeV used for Tables 3 and Figs. 4–6 may lie outside the corrected stability window. All results derived from this parameter choice are thus called into question.
  3. [Sec. 4, Fig. 5 and Conclusion] The comparison with Ref. [10] and the statement that inclusion of ρ and ϕ mesons 'significantly enhances both the mass and radius' are based on the inconsistent energy functional of Eq. (11). Since the same missing term affects the ω-only and the ω+ρ+ϕ calculations differently because the respective field values differ, the comparison cannot separate the physical effect of the new meson channels from the artifact of double-counted vector repulsion. The conclusion should be re-evaluated after correcting Eq. (11).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figs. 6 and 8] The axis labels in Figs. 6 and 8 contain LaTeX artifacts such as '/uni2299' and '⊙⊙'; they should render as M/M☉.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eq. (20)] In Eq. (20), 'dϵ/d p' should presumably be 'dε/dp', and the bracket structure is difficult to parse; please format the equation more clearly.
  3. [Sec. 3, text after Eq. (20)] The quantity H(r) is described as 'the metric function'; it is actually the metric perturbation function in the tidal-deformability formalism, so the wording should be corrected.
  4. [Abstract] The phrase 'for two kind of non-linear self-interactions' should be 'for two kinds of non-linear self-interactions'.
  5. [Sec. 4, tidal deformability constraints] The constraint '70 ≤ Λ_1.4 ≤ 580' attributed to GW170817 should be accompanied by a specific citation to Ref. [32] at the point where it is first used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: model inputs are scanned parameters, and the derived star properties are compared to observations after the fact rather than being fitted from them.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained within its stated model assumptions. The vector couplings g_v and the bag constant B are chosen as free input parameters or from stability windows (Table 2), not fitted to the maximum masses, radii, or tidal deformabilities that are later reported. The EoS is computed from the Lagrangian and mean-field equations (Eqs. 1-13), the TOV equations are solved, and the resulting mass-radius relations are compared with observational constraints only afterward. The claim that including rho and phi mesons stiffens the EoS follows directly from the model's repulsive vector channels at fixed g_v, not from any constructed equivalence between input and output. The cited prior work is used for model motivation and comparison (e.g., Ref. [10] for the omega-only case), and the authors' own earlier papers are cited only as related models, not as the unique justification for the central result. There is no self-citation chain that forbids alternatives and no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The reader's skeptical note about Eq. (11) possibly omitting the positive quark-vector interaction energy is a thermodynamic-consistency or correctness concern, not circularity: even if the EoS is overly stiff, that would be an error within the model's assumptions rather than a reduction of the prediction to its own inputs. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

The model rests on several free parameters (g_v, B, c4, coupling ratios) and on the mean-field strange-matter description. No genuinely new particles are introduced; ρ and φ mesons are standard. The critical issue is the incomplete energy density in Eq (11), which is listed as an axiom in the sense that the derivation depends on it.

free parameters (4)
  • Vector coupling g_v = 0, 1, 2, 3
    Global quark-vector coupling strength scanned over four values; the qualitative stiffening increases with g_v, and headline masses correspond to g_v=3.
  • Bag constant B^1/4 = 145 MeV or stability-window averages (138-152 MeV)
    Confining pressure from the bag model; different values are used for g_v=0,1,2,3, with 145 MeV chosen as the common value.
  • Self-interaction coefficient c4 = 1 (dimensionless)
    Set to unity following Ref [10]; controls strength of quartic vector meson self-interactions.
  • Coupling ratios g_u^rho/g_u^omega and g_s^phi/g_u^omega = 1 and sqrt(2)
    SU(3)-inspired relations from Ref [49]; not varied or fitted.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Strange quark matter is the absolute ground state (strange matter hypothesis)
    Enables identifying stable strange quark stars; invoked in the introduction and stability-window analysis.
  • domain assumption Mean-field treatment of static vector meson fields with Lagrangian Eq (1)
    Standard RMF approximation; meson fields are classical condensates.
  • ad hoc to paper The thermodynamic relation p = -ε + Σ μ_i ρ_i with ε from Eq (11) gives the correct EoS
    This is the premise that fails: Eq (11) omits the quark-vector interaction energy, making the computed pressure too high.
  • standard math TOV equations describe static spherically symmetric strange stars
    Used in Sec. 3 to integrate mass-radius; standard general relativity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strange quark stars in modified vector MIT bag model: role of $\rho$ and $\phi$ mesons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q4QVOF5W

@misc{pith2026250111017,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strange quark stars in modified vector MIT bag model: role of $\rho$ and $\phi$ mesons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q4QVOF5W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11017}
}
abstract

In the present work, we study the properties of strange quark stars (SQSs) using the vector MIT bag model with modification in vector channels. Unlike recent studies which only consider interactions through $\omega$ mesons, we analyze the possibility of $\rho$ and $\phi$ vector channels. We consider two types of higher order non-linear self-interaction terms for the vector mesons. With these modifications, we computed the equation of state (EoS) and mass-radius of strange stars for different values of vector coupling strength. Considerations of $\rho$ and $\phi$ vector mesons along with $\omega$, as well as an increase in the strength of vector coupling $g_v$, enhance the mass and radius of SQSs. For two kind of non-linear self-interactions of vector mesons considered in the present calculations, we observe the SQSs with maximum mass $2.48$ and $2.42 M_{\odot}$ for the vector coupling $g_v = 3$. Corresponding radii of these SQSs are found to be $12.27$ and $12.18$ km, respectively. We also calculate the tidal deformability parameter $\Lambda$, the Love number $k_2$ and the gravitational redshift of SQSs. The tidal deformability parameter $\Lambda$ is observed to increase with $g_v$, with appreciable effect for low mass stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11017 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Color online) The energy per baryon E/A is plotted as a function of baryon density ρB in subplots (a) and (b) for LNon vec−I and LNon vec−II, respectively. Pressure p corresponding to these two cases is shown in subplots (c) and (d). In all subplots results are shown for gv = 0, 1, 2, 3 of strange matter and compared with gv = 3 case of two flavor matter. 00 0 0 0 0 0   ρ  0 0 0  0 0 0  0 0 0 … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Color online) In figure above, strange quark fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Color online) In the above figure the EoS of SQSs, i.e., [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Color online) In the above figure the mass-radius ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (Color online) In the above figure the Love number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Color online) In above figure, the tidal deformability pa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Color online) In the above figure the gravitation redshift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    L. L. Lopes, C. Biesdorf, D. e. P. Menezes, Phys. Scripta 96 (2021) 065303

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    A. R. Bodmer, Phys. Rev. D 4 (1971) 1601

    work page 1971

  3. [2]

    of Tokyo) (1979)

    H.Terazawa, INS-Report-336(INS, Univ. of Tokyo) (1979)

    work page 1979

  4. [3]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 30 (1984) 272

    1984

  5. [4]

    A. V . Olinto, Phys. Lett. B 192 (1987) 71

    work page 1987

  6. [5]

    Chodos, R

    A. Chodos, R. L. Ja ffe, K. Johnson, C. B. Thorn, V . F. Weis- skopf, Phys. Rev. D 9 (1974) 3471

    work page 1974

  7. [6]

    Chodos, R

    A. Chodos, R. L. Ja ffe, K. Johnson, C. B. Thorn, Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974) 2599

    work page 1974

  8. [7]

    T. A. DeGrand, R. L. Ja ffe, K. Johnson, J. E. Kiskis, Phys. Rev. D 12 (1975) 2060

    work page 1975

Show all 65 references
  1. [8]

    R. O. Gomes, V . Dexheimer, S. Han, S. Schramm, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 485 (2019) 4873

    2019

  2. [9]

    Franzon, R

    B. Franzon, R. O. Gomes, S. Schramm, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 463 (2016) 571

    2016

  3. [11]

    Lugones, A

    G. Lugones, A. G. Grunfeld, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 043025

    2023

  4. [12]

    O. G. Benvenuto, G. Lugones, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 7 (1998) 29

    1998

  5. [13]

    Chu, L.-W

    P.-C. Chu, L.-W. Chen, Astrophys. J. 780 (2014) 135

    2014

  6. [14]

    G. X. Peng, H. C. Chiang, J. J. Yang, L. Li, B. Liu, Phys. Rev. C 61 (2000) 015201

    2000

  7. [15]

    X. J. Wen, X. H. Zhong, G. X. Peng, P. N. Shen, P. Z. Ning, Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005) 015204

    2005

  8. [16]

    Kumari, A

    M. Kumari, A. Kumar, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 791

    2021

  9. [17]

    Kumari, A

    M. Kumari, A. Kumar, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136 (2021) 19

    2021

  10. [18]

    Li, S.-Y

    C.-M. Li, S.-Y . Zuo, Y . Yan, Y .-P. Zhao, F. Wang, Y .-F. Huang, H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 063023. 8

    2020

  11. [19]

    Q. Wang, T. Zhao, H. Zong (2019). arXiv:1908.01325

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Buballa, Phys

    M. Buballa, Phys. Rept. 407 (2005) 205

    2005

  13. [21]

    Hatsuda, T

    T. Hatsuda, T. Kunihiro 247 (1994) 221

    1994

  14. [22]

    C. H. Lenzi, A. S. Schneider, C. Providencia, R. M. Marinho 82 (2010) 015809

    2010

  15. [23]

    Li, Z.-F

    B.-L. Li, Z.-F. Cui, Z.-H. Yu, Y . Yan, S. An, H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 043001

    2019

  16. [24]

    Zhang, P.-C

    Z. Zhang, P.-C. Chu, X.-H. Li, H. Liu, X.-M. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 103021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Chu, X.-H

    P.-C. Chu, X.-H. Li, H. Liu, M. Ju, Y . Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 108 (2023) 025808

    2023

  18. [26]

    S. Pal, G. Chaudhuri, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 123021

    2024

  19. [27]

    Demorest, T

    P. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. Ransom, M. Roberts, J. Hessels, Nature 467 (2010) 1081

    2010

  20. [28]

    Antoniadis, et al., Science 340 (2013) 6131

    J. Antoniadis, et al., Science 340 (2013) 6131

    2013

  21. [29]

    Linares, T

    M. Linares, T. Shahbaz, J. Casares, Astrophys. J. 859 (2018) 54

    2018

  22. [30]

    H. T. Cromartie, et al., Nature Astron. 4 (2019) 72

    2019

  23. [31]

    B. P. Abbott, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 161101

    2017

  24. [32]

    B. P. Abbott, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 161101

    2018

  25. [33]

    Abbott, et al., Astrophys

    R. Abbott, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 896 (2020) L44

    2020

  26. [34]

    T. E. Riley, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 918 (2021) L27

    2021

  27. [35]

    E. S. Fraga, R. D. Pisarski, J. Scha ffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 121702

    2001

  28. [36]

    Alford, M

    M. Alford, M. Braby, M. W. Paris, S. Reddy, Astrophys. J. 629 (2005) 969

    2005

  29. [37]

    Podder, S

    S. Podder, S. Pal, D. Sen, G. Chaudhuri, Nucl. Phys. A 1042 (2024) 122796

    2024

  30. [38]

    M. Ju, P. Chu, X. Wu, H. Liu arXiv:2404.14775

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Kumar, V

    A. Kumar, V . B. Thapa, M. Sinha, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 063024

    2023

  32. [40]

    D. Sen, N. Alam, G. Chaudhuri, J. Phys. G 48 (2021) 105201

    2021

  33. [41]

    D. Sen, N. Alam, G. Chaudhuri, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 083008

    2022

  34. [42]

    S. Pal, S. Podder, D. Sen, G. Chaudhuri, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 063019

    2023

  35. [43]

    S. Pal, G. Chaudhuri, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 103028

    2023

  36. [44]

    R. J. Furnstahl, B. D. Serot, H.-B. Tang, Nucl. Phys. A 618 (1997) 446

    1997

  37. [45]

    Papazoglou, D

    P. Papazoglou, D. Zschiesche, S. Schramm, J. Schaffner-Bielich, H. Stoecker, W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 59 (1999) 411

    1999

  38. [46]

    Papazoglou, S

    P. Papazoglou, S. Schramm, J. Scha ffner-Bielich, H. Stoecker, W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 57 (1998) 2576

    1998

  39. [47]

    Dexheimer, S

    V . Dexheimer, S. Schramm, Astrophys. J. 683 (2008) 943

    2008

  40. [48]

    Cruz-Camacho, R

    N. Cruz-Camacho, R. Kumar, M. Reinke Pelicer, J. Peterson, T. A. Manning, R. Haas, V . Dexheimer, J. Noronha-Hostler (2024). arXiv:2409.06837

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    P. Wang, V . E. Lyubovitskij, T. Gutsche, A. Faessler, Phys. Rev. C 67 (2003) 015210

    2003

  42. [50]

    Kumari, A

    M. Kumari, A. Kumar, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 31 (2022) 2250050

    2022

  43. [51]

    N. K. Glendenning, Compact stars: Nuclear physics, particle physics, and general relativity, 1997

    1997

  44. [52]

    J. R. Oppenheimer, G. M. V olkoff, Phys. Rev. 55 (1939) 374

    1939

  45. [53]

    Hinderer, Astrophys

    T. Hinderer, Astrophys. J. 677 (2008) 1216

    2008

  46. [54]

    Hinderer, B

    T. Hinderer, B. D. Lackey, R. N. Lang, J. S. Read, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 123016

    2010

  47. [55]

    Postnikov, M

    S. Postnikov, M. Prakash, J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 024016

    2010

  48. [56]

    Lourenco, C

    O. Lourenco, C. H. Lenzi, M. Dutra, E. J. Ferrer, V . de la Incera, L. Paulucci, J. E. Horvath, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 103010

    2021

  49. [57]

    M. B. Albino, R. Fariello, F. S. Navarra, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 083011

    2021

  50. [58]

    Fonseca, et al., Astrophys

    E. Fonseca, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 915 (2021) L12

    2021

  51. [59]

    M. C. Miller, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 918 (2021) L28

    2021

  52. [60]

    T. E. Riley, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 887 (2019) L21

    2019

  53. [61]

    M. C. Miller, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 887 (2019) L24

    2019

  54. [62]

    R. W. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V . Filippenko, T. G. Brink, W. Zheng, Astrophys. J. Lett. 934 (2022) L17

    2022

  55. [63]

    Doroshenko, V

    V . Doroshenko, V . Suleimanov, G. P ¨uhlhofer, A. Santangelo, Nature Astron. 6 (2022) 1444

    2022

  56. [64]

    Prakash, J

    M. Prakash, J. M. Lattimer, A. W. Steiner, D. Page, Nucl. Phys. A 715 (2003) 835

    2003

  57. [65]

    G. H. Bordbar, F. Sadeghi, F. Kayanikhoo, A. Poostforush, In- dian J. Phys. 95 (2021) 1061. 9

    2021

Pith tools

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