Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 66 references

Non-singular anisotropic solutions for strange star model in $f(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{T},\mathcal{R}_{\zeta\gamma}\mathcal{T}^{\zeta\gamma})$ gravity theory

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that two anisotropic strange star solutions in f(R,T,RμνTμν) gravity are non-singular, stable, and physically viable for the compact object 4U 1820-30.

desk verdict Routine f(R,T,Q) compact-star paper whose viability analysis is done at coupling values that do not satisfy the surface boundary condition used to match real stars; the central claim is unsupported as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14159 v1 pith:OZ4V6L7S submitted 2025-04-19 gr-qc

Yihu Feng , Tayyab Naseer , G. Mustafa , S. K. Maurya This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83D0583C1585A15 PACS 04.50.Kd04.40.Dg97.60.Jd
keywords anisotropicstrangestarsf(RTRμνTμν)gravityDurgapal-FuloriaspacetimeMITbagmodel4U1820-30energyconditionshydrostaticequilibriumstellarstability
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 establish that two families of anisotropic strange star interiors, built in the modified gravity theory $f(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{T},\mathcal{R}_{\zeta\gamma}\mathcal{T}^{\zeta\gamma})$, are physically viable descriptions of the compact object 4U 1820-30. It closes the otherwise underdetermined field equations with the Durgapal-Fuloria metric and the MIT bag equation of state, then matches the interior to a Schwarzschild exterior. If the models are right, this matter–geometry coupling can support realistic, non-singular ultra-dense matter while satisfying energy conditions, hydrostatic equilibrium, and standard stability criteria over the parameter range plotted.

What carries the argument

The central object is the non-minimal coupling term $\mathcal{R}_{\zeta\gamma}\mathcal{T}^{\zeta\gamma}$ added to the Einstein-Hilbert action. It generates an extra geometric force that makes the energy-momentum tensor non-conserved, and the paper relies on two explicit forms of this coupling. To solve the resulting highly nonlinear field equations, the Durgapal-Fuloria spacetime ansatz and the MIT bag equation of state are used as closure conditions, reducing the system to a one-parameter family in $\eta$ for each model.

What would settle it

Compute the surface radial pressure $P_r(R)$ for 4U 1820-30 using the matched constants $d_1,d_2$ at each plotted $\eta$; any nonzero value shows that the analyzed interior fails the exterior matching condition that defines the stellar model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within this framework the paper derives the full anisotropic field equations for two model choices, $f=\mathcal{R}+\eta\mathcal{R}_{\zeta\gamma}\mathcal{T}^{\zeta\gamma}$ and $f=\mathcal{R}(1+\eta\mathcal{R}_{\zeta\gamma}\mathcal{T}^{\zeta\gamma})$. Using the Durgapal-Fuloria ansatz and the MIT bag relation $P_r=(\mu-4B_c)/3$, the authors obtain explicit expressions for density and pressures, fix the metric constants by continuity with the Schwarzschild exterior for 4U 1820-30, and report that across the interval $\eta=-1.5,0,1.5$ the solutions have positive finite central density, decreasing outward profiles, positive anisotropy growing outward, mass and compactness within Buchdahl's bound, surface redshift below theoretical limits, all energy conditions satisfied, TOV equilibrium, and stability by causality, cracking, and adiabatic-index tests.

Load-bearing premise

The plots and stability tests assume that the values $\eta=-1.5,0,1.5$ describe the boundary-matched star, but imposing the surface condition $P_r=0$ on Model 1 for 4U 1820-30 gives $\eta\approx -243$ to $-203$, so the tested and matched configurations are not the same.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Both models provide explicit nonsingular strange-star interiors in this modified gravity and are claimed to satisfy all standard physical viability conditions for 4U 1820-30.
  • The two functional forms give measurably different density and pressure profiles, so a comparison with future mass-radius data could distinguish which coupling form describes real quark stars.
  • At $\eta=0$ the solutions reduce to general relativity, making the modified theory's deviations from GR continuously tunable and testable.
  • Because all plotted energy conditions and stability indicators hold, the coupling term does not introduce an immediate instability for the chosen parameter range.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the surface boundary condition is taken seriously, Model 1's matched parameter for 4U 1820-30 is roughly $\eta\approx -243$ to $-203$, not the plotted values; the viability of those actually matched solutions has not been plotted and should be checked separately.
  • The same construction could be applied systematically to the other seven stars in the paper's tables, turning the predicted $\eta$ values into a test of whether the coupling improves mass-radius agreement relative to GR.
  • The extra force generated by the non-conserved energy-momentum tensor is likely responsible for much of the stability margin; isolating its contribution at each $\eta$ would make the mechanism behind the stability claim explicit.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs two anisotropic strange star models in f(R,T,RζγT^ζγ) gravity, using the Durgapal-Fuloria ansatz and the MIT bag equation of state. The authors derive the field equations for two functional forms (Model 1: R+ηRζγT^ζγ; Model 2: R(1+ηRζγT^ζγ)), match the interior to the Schwarzschild exterior via the first fundamental form, and then test matter variables, energy conditions, TOV equilibrium, causality, and adiabatic stability for η = -1.5, 0, 1.5. In Section V they impose the vanishing radial pressure condition Pr(R)=0 to determine η for an array of stars, and conclude that both models are well-behaved and suitable for modeling 4U 1820-30.

Significance. If the central claim were supported, the paper would provide two non-singular anisotropic strange star solutions in this modified gravity theory, with explicit field equations and standard physical tests. The algebraic derivation of the matter variables and the matching procedure are substantial, and the paper makes its calculations available in detail. However, the physical analysis is performed at parameter values that are inconsistent with the boundary-matched values obtained later; the conclusion that the models describe 4U 1820-30 is therefore not currently supported by the evidence presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV vs. Section V] The physical viability analysis in Section IV (Figures 2-12) is restricted to η = -1.5, 0, 1.5 with Bc = 90 MeV/fm^3, but the boundary condition Pr(R)=0 for 4U 1820-30 yields η ≈ -243, -223, -203 for Model 1 (Table III) and η ≈ 6.67, 3.31, 0.35 for Model 2 (Table IV). The analyzed configurations are therefore not the stellar models that match the observed mass and radius. The paper never repeats the energy-condition, TOV, or stability tests at the boundary-matched η values, so no evidence supports the concluding claim that the matched models are physically viable.
  2. [Section IV, Tables I and II] The incompatibility is quantitatively confirmed by the surface densities in Tables I and II. For the MIT bag EoS (15), Pr(R)=0 implies μ(R)=4Bc; with Bc=90 MeV/fm^3 this gives μ_s ≈ 6.4×10^14 g/cm^3, whereas Tables I and II list surface densities of roughly 8.6-9.5×10^14 g/cm^3 and 8.4-14.4×10^14 g/cm^3 for the plotted η values. Thus the graphed solutions do not satisfy the surface boundary condition used to match the star.
  3. [Section V] The vanishing-pressure constraint for Model 2 is stated to be omitted because it is too lengthy, yet Table IV reports fitted values of η for eight stars. Without the explicit constraint or a reproducible algorithm, these numerical results cannot be verified. This is a reproducibility gap in a load-bearing part of the paper.
  4. [Tables III and IV] If η is a coupling constant of the theory, it should be universal. The fitted values in Tables III and IV vary by hundreds (Model 1: from -826 to 143; Model 2: from -7.31 to 20.89) across the listed stars. The paper does not address whether any single value of η can simultaneously describe the array of stars, which undermines the statement that the results align with observed information of an array of stars.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 1] Figure 1 is described as showing metric components versus η and r, but the Durgapal-Fuloria components in Eq. (20) do not depend on η; the curves for different η should coincide. Please clarify whether the figure is meant to show only r-dependence.
  2. [Eq. (26)] The mass function m(r) is defined with an integral from 0 to R, but for a radial profile the upper limit should be r. This appears to be a typographical error in the definition.
  3. [Eqs. (15) and (16)-(19)] The MIT bag EoS is referred to as (g14a) in the text after Eq. (15); this label seems to be an artifact and should be corrected to Eq. (15).
  4. [Throughout] The phrase 'disappearing radial pressure' is unusual; 'vanishing radial pressure' is the standard terminology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the models are calibrated to observed mass/radius and checked for internal consistency, though the Section V boundary-matched η is not the η used in the Section IV viability plots.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an ansatz-based stellar modeling procedure, not a circular derivation. It fixes the Durgapal-Fuloria metric constants d1 and d2 by matching to the Schwarzschild exterior at the observed mass and radius of 4U 1820-30, imposes the MIT bag equation of state, solves the f(R,T,RζγTζγ) field equations for the matter variables, and then tests those solutions against regularity, energy conditions, TOV equilibrium, causality, and adiabatic-index bounds. Those tests are internal consistency checks on a constructed solution, and satisfying them is not equivalent by construction to the chosen ansatz or to the input mass and radius. The parameter η is explicitly fitted in Section V using the surface condition Pr(R)=0, and the fitted values are reported in Tables III and IV rather than being disguised as predictions. No equation is defined in terms of the conclusion, and no fitted quantity is renamed as an independent prediction. The self-citations to the Durgapal-Fuloria ansatz are ordinary references for a metric choice, not load-bearing uniqueness arguments. The serious weakness is a correctness gap, not circularity: for 4U 1820-30 the boundary-matched η values in Tables III and IV are very different from the η=-1.5, 0, 1.5 values used in all Section IV plots, so the configurations whose stability and energy conditions are verified are not shown to satisfy the stellar-surface boundary condition. That concern is a matter of internal consistency and reproducibility, not a circular reduction of the paper's outputs to its inputs.

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

The construction leans on prior theory, an assumed fluid Lagrangian, the MIT bag EoS, the Durgapal-Fuloria ansatz, and a boundary condition used to fit η. The only new scalar quantity is the per-model, per-star fit parameter η, which is not universal across stars.

free parameters (2)
  • η (theory coupling constant) = Tables III and IV: ranges from -826 to 143 depending on model, star, and bag constant; Section IV uses -1.5, 0, 1.5
    Free theory parameter fixed per star by imposing Pr=0 at the surface; no single universal value emerges.
  • Bag constant Bc = 90 MeV/fm^3 in Section IV; 73, 83, 93 MeV/fm^3 in Section V
    Input chosen to produce favorable outcomes and used to generate parameter tables; not independently determined here.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The f(R,T,Q) field equations and the non-conservation equation from Haghani et al. are correct.
    The paper uses them without derivation; the entire central analysis depends on these equations.
  • domain assumption The matter Lagrangian is Lm = -µ.
    Assumed from the literature to produce well-behaved results, as stated in Section II.
  • domain assumption Strange quark matter follows the MIT bag EoS Pr=(µ-4Bc)/3.
    Used to close the underdetermined system and compute matter variables; validity for these stars is not established.
  • ad hoc to paper The Durgapal-Fuloria metric is a valid interior ansatz and can be matched to the Schwarzschild exterior using the first fundamental form.
    Chosen to close the system; full junction conditions in modified gravity are not derived.
  • domain assumption The second junction condition reduces to Pr=0 at the surface.
    Assumed in Section V to fix η; no derivation from modified-gravity junction conditions is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-singular anisotropic solutions for strange star model in $f(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{T},\mathcal{R}_{\zeta\gamma}\mathcal{T}^{\zeta\gamma})$ gravity theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OZ4V6L7S

@misc{pith2026250414159,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-singular anisotropic solutions for strange star model in $f(\mathcalR,\mathcalT,\mathcalR_\zeta\gamma\mathcalT^\zeta\gamma)$ gravity theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OZ4V6L7S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14159}
}
abstract

This article focuses on different anisotropic models within the framework of a specific modified $f(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{T},\mathcal{R}_{\zeta\gamma}\mathcal{T}^{\zeta\gamma})$ gravity theory. The study adopts a static spherically symmetric spacetime to determine the field equations for two different modified models: (i) $f(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{T},\mathcal{R}_{\zeta\gamma}\mathcal{T}^{\zeta\gamma})=\mathcal{R}+\eta\mathcal{R}_{\zeta\gamma}\mathcal{T}^{\zeta\gamma}$, and (ii) $f(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{T},\mathcal{R}_{\zeta\gamma}\mathcal{T}^{\zeta\gamma})=\mathcal{R}(1+\eta\mathcal{R}_{\zeta\gamma}\mathcal{T}^{\zeta\gamma})$, where $\eta$ is a constant parameter. To address the additional degrees of freedom in the field equations and obtain their corresponding unique solution, the Durgapal-Fuloria spacetime geometry and MIT bag model are utilized. Matching conditions are applied to determine unknown constants within the chosen spacetime geometry. We adopt a certain range of model parameters to analyze the physical characteristics of the developed models in the interior distribution of a particular compact star candidate 4U 1820-30. Energy conditions and some other tests are also implemented to ensure their viability and stability. Additionally, the disappearing radial pressure constraint is employed to find the values of the model parameter, aligning with the observed information of an array of stars. The study concludes that both of our models are well-behaved and satisfy all necessary conditions, and thus we observe them suitable for the modeling of astrophysical objects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14159 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Metric components ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Matter determinants versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: First-order derivatives of matter determinants ver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Second-order derivatives of matter determinants ve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Anisotropy versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Physical terms versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: EoS parameters versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Energy bounds versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Energy bounds versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Variation in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Stability checks versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Adiabatic index versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Buchdahl, Non-linear Lagrangians and cosmologica l theory, Mon

    H.A. Buchdahl, Non-linear Lagrangians and cosmologica l theory, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 150 (1970) 1-8

    work page 1970

  2. [2]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, Modified gravity with negative and positive powers of curvature: Unification of inflation an d cosmic acceleration, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 123512

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    10: Variation in fa (solid), fh (dotted) and fy (dashed) versus r for Model 1 (left) and Model 2 (right)

    /Multiply 10/Minus 6 0.00001 0.000015 r /LBracket1km/RBracket1 f j /LBracket1km/Minus 2/RBracket1 FIG. 10: Variation in fa (solid), fh (dotted) and fy (dashed) versus r for Model 1 (left) and Model 2 (right). the corresponding expression using Eq.( 4) for both models as dPr dr + A′ 0 2 (µ + Pr) − 2 r (P⊥ − Pr) − 2ηe−A1 ηR + 16π [ A′ 0µ 8 ( A′2 0 − A′ 0A1 ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Astashenok, S

    A.V. Astashenok, S. Capozziello, S.D. Odintsov, Maxima l neutron star mass and the resolution of the hyperon puzzle i n modified gravity, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 103509

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    /Multiply 10/Minus 6 0

    /Multiply 10/Minus 6 0.00001 0.000015 r /LBracket1km/RBracket1 f j /LBracket1km/Minus 2/RBracket1 Η/Equal/Minus 1.5 Η/Equal 1.5 0 2 4 6 8 /Minus 0.00001 /Minus 5. /Multiply 10/Minus 6 0

    work page

  6. [6]

    Shamir, A

    M.F. Shamir, A. Malik, G. Mustafa, Noncommutative wormh ole solutions in modified f (R) theory of gravity, Chin. J. Phys. 73 (2021) 634

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Y.S. Song, W. Hu, I. Sawicki, Large scale structure of f (R) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 044004

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Barrow, S

    J.D. Barrow, S. Hervik, Anisotropically inflating unive rses, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 023007

    work page 2006

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Such radiations always travel through space, and hence, there occur a stretching in th eir wavelengths, leading to the redshift phenomenon

    A massive object, nestled within a potent gravity field, emits radiat ions. Such radiations always travel through space, and hence, there occur a stretching in th eir wavelengths, leading to the redshift phenomenon. Its formula is given as z(r) = 1√ 1 − 2β(r) − 1. (27) Theoreti...

  2. [10]

    Mustafa, I

    G. Mustafa, I. Hussain, M.F. Shamir, Stable Wormholes in the Background of an Exponential f (R) Gravity, Universe 6 (2020) 48. 24

    2020

  3. [11]

    Capozziello, S

    S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, A. Troisi, Cos mological viability of f (R)-gravity as an ideal fluid and its compat- ibility with a matter dominated phase, Phys. Lett. B 639 (200 6) 135

  4. [12]

    Harko, F.S.N

    T. Harko, F.S.N. Lobo, S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, f (R, T ) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 024020

    2011

  5. [13]

    Visser, Energy conditions in the epoch of galaxy forma tion, Science 276 (1997) 88

    M. Visser, Energy conditions in the epoch of galaxy forma tion, Science 276 (1997) 88

    1997

  6. [14]

    Naseer, M

    T. Naseer, M. Sharif, Implications of vanishing comple xity condition in f (R) theory, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 554

    2024

  7. [15]

    Bertolami, C.G

    O. Bertolami, C.G. Boehmer, T. Harko, F.S.N. Lobo, Extr a force in f (R) modified theories of gravity, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 104016

    2007

  8. [16]

    Maurya, A

    S.K. Maurya, A. Banerjee, F. Tello-Ortiz, Buchdahl mod el in f (R, T ) gravity: A comparative study with standard Ein- stein’s gravity, Phys. Dark Universe 27 (2020) 100438

    2020

  9. [17]

    (34) On the other hand, combining the same condition with ( 19), we can get the constraints for Model 2 , which we are left due to a very lengthy expression

    corresponding to Model 1 as, we have 7ηM2R ( 79 √ R5(9R − 14M) + 193R3) − 98ηM3( 6 √ R5(9R − 14M) + 11R3) − 8BcR2{ 56π 2R8 − 4πη R4( 196M2 − 259MR + 93R2) + η2M ( 2744M3 + 31R3 − 3283M2R + 938MR2)} − 40π R5( √ R5(9R − 14M) − 3R3) + MR2{ 28π × ( 3R2 √ R5(9R − 14M) − 8R5) − 131η...

  10. [18]

    Sharif, M

    M. Sharif, M. Zubair, Thermodynamic behavior of partic ular f (R, T )-gravity models, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 117 (2013) 248-257

    2013

  11. [19]

    Shabani, M

    H. Shabani, M. Farhoudi, f (R, T ) cosmological models in phase space, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 0 44048

    2013

  12. [20]

    A. Das, S. Ghosh, B.K. Guha, S. Das, F. Rahaman, S. Ray, Gr avastars in f (R, T ) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 124011

    2017

  13. [21]

    Mustafa, M

    G. Mustafa, M. Zubair, S. Waheed, X. Tiecheng, Realisti c stellar anisotropic model satisfying Karmarker conditio n in f (R, T ) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 26

    2020

  14. [22]

    P. Rej, P. Bhar, Charged strange star in f (R, T ) gravity with linear equation of state, Astrophys. Space Sc i. 366 (2021) 35

    2021

  15. [23]

    Errehymy, Y

    A. Errehymy, Y. Khedif, G. Mustafa, M. Daoud, Anisotrop ic stars of class one space-time in f (R, T ) gravity under the simplest linear functional of the matter-geometry couplin g, Chin. J. Phys. 77 (2022) 1502

    2022

  16. [24]

    Sharif, T

    M. Sharif, T. Naseer, Anisotropic complexity-free mod els in modified f (R, T ) theory, Ann. Phys. 459 (2023) 169527

    2023

  17. [25]

    Sharif, T

    M. Sharif, T. Naseer, Effect of extended gravitational d ecoupling on isotropization and complexity in f (R, T ) theory, Class. Quantum Grav. 40 (2023) 035009

    2023

  18. [26]

    Naseer, M

    T. Naseer, M. Sharif, Study of Decoupled Cosmological S olutions in f (R, T ) Theory, Fortschr. Phys. 71 (2023) 2300004

    2023

  19. [27]

    Haghani, T

    Z. Haghani, T. Harko, F.S.N. Lobo, H.R. Sepangi, S. Shah idi, Further matters in space-time geometry: f (R, T, R µν T µν ) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 044023

    2013

  20. [28]

    Sharif, M

    M. Sharif, M. Zubair, Study of thermodynamic laws in f (R, T, R µν T µν ) gravity, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2013) 042

    2013

  21. [29]

    Odintsov, D

    S.D. Odintsov, D. S´ aez-G´ omez,f (R, T, R µν T µν ) gravity phenomenology and ΛCDM universe, Phys. Lett. B 725 (2013) 437-444

    2013

  22. [30]

    Ayuso, J.B

    I. Ayuso, J.B. Jim´ enez, ´A. De la Cruz-Dombriz, Consistency of universally nonminim ally coupled f (R, T, R µν T µν ) theories, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 104003

    2015

  23. [31]

    Baffou, M.J.S

    E.H. Baffou, M.J.S. Houndjo, J. Tosssa, Exploring stabl e models in f (R, T, R µν T µν ) gravity, Astrophys. Space Sci. 361 (2016) 376

    2016

  24. [32]

    Sharif, A

    M. Sharif, A. Waseem, Physical behavior of anisotropic compact stars in f (R, T, R µν T µν ) gravity, Can. J. Phys. 94 (2016) 1024-1039

    2016

  25. [33]

    Yousaf, M.Z

    Z. Yousaf, M.Z. Bhatti, T. Naseer, Study of static charg ed spherical structure in f (R, T, Q ) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135 (2020) 353

    2020

  26. [34]

    Yousaf, M.Z

    Z. Yousaf, M.Z. Bhatti, T. Naseer, Measure of complexit y for dynamical self-gravitating structures, Int. J. Mod. P hys. D 29 (2020) 2050061

    2020

  27. [35]

    Yousaf, et al., The measure of complexity in charged c elestial bodies in f (R, T, R µν T µν ) gravity, Phys

    Z. Yousaf, et al., The measure of complexity in charged c elestial bodies in f (R, T, R µν T µν ) gravity, Phys. Dark Universe 29 (2020) 100581

    2020

  28. [36]

    Yousaf, M.Z

    Z. Yousaf, M.Z. Bhatti, T. Naseer, Evolution of the char ged dynamical radiating spherical structures, Ann. Phys. 4 20 (2020) 168267

    2020

  29. [37]

    Yousaf, M.Z

    Z. Yousaf, M.Z. Bhatti, T. Naseer, New definition of comp lexity factor in f (R, T, R µν T µν ) gravity, Phys. Dark Universe 28 (2020) 100535

    2020

  30. [38]

    Yousaf, et al., Influence of modification of gravity on the complexity factor of static spherical structures, Mon

    Z. Yousaf, et al., Influence of modification of gravity on the complexity factor of static spherical structures, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 495 (2020) 4334-4346

    2020

  31. [39]

    Naseer, M

    T. Naseer, M. Sharif, A. Fatima, S. Manzoor, Constructi ng traversable wormhole solutions in f (R, L m) theory, Chin. J. Phys. 86 (2023) 350

    2023

  32. [40]

    Sharif, T

    M. Sharif, T. Naseer, Study of charged compact stars in n on-minimally coupled gravity, Fortschr. Phys. 71 (2023) 22 00147

    2023

  33. [41]

    Das, P.C

    B. Das, P.C. Ray, I. Radinschi, F. Rahaman, S. Ray, Isotr opic cases of static charged fluid spheres in general relativ ity, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 20 (2011) 1675

    2011

  34. [42]

    Bordbar, A.R

    G.H. Bordbar, A.R. Peivand, Computation of the structu re of a magnetized strange quark star, Res. Astron. Astrophy s. 11 (2011) 851

    2011

  35. [43]

    Haensel, J.L

    P. Haensel, J.L. Zdunik, R. Schaefer, Strange quark sta rs, Astron. Astrophys. 160 (1986) 121

    1986

  36. [44]

    Cheng, Z.G

    K.S. Cheng, Z.G. Dai, T. Lu, Strange stars and related as trophysical phenomena, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 7 (1998) 139

    1998

  37. [45]

    M.K. Mak, T. Harko, An exact anisotropic quark star mode l, Chin. J. Astron. Astrophys. 2 (2002) 248

    2002

  38. [46]

    P. Rej, P. Bhar, Model of hybrid star with baryonic and st range quark matter in Tolman-Kuchowicz spacetime, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. 19 (2022) 2250104

    2022

  39. [47]

    P. Rej, A. Errehymy, M. Daoud, Charged strange star mode l in Tolman-Kuchowicz spacetime in the background of 5D Einstein-Maxwell-Gauss-Bonnet gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 392. 25

    2023

  40. [48]

    Demorest, T

    P.B. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S.M. Ransom, M.S.E. Robert s, J.W.T. Hessels, A two-solar-mass neutron star measured u sing Shapiro delay, Nature 467 (2010) 1081

    2010

  41. [49]

    Rahaman, K

    F. Rahaman, K. Chakraborty, P.K.F. Kuhfittig, G.C. Shit , M. Rahman, A new deterministic model of strange stars, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3126

    2014

  42. [50]

    Shahzad, G

    M.R. Shahzad, G. Abbas, Strange stars with MIT bag model in the Rastall theory of gravity, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 16 (2019) 1950132

    2019

  43. [51]

    Errehymy, A

    A. Errehymy, A. Ditta, G. Mustafa, S.K. Maurya, A Abdel- Aty, Anisotropic electrically charged stars in f (Q) symmetric teleparallel gravity, Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 137 (2022) 1311

    2022

  44. [52]

    Misner, D.H

    C.W. Misner, D.H. Sharp, Relativistic equations for ad iabatic, spherically symmetric gravitational collapse, P hys. Rev. 136 (1964) B571

    1964

  45. [53]

    Kalam, A.A

    M. Kalam, A.A. Usmani, F. Rahaman, S.M. Hossein, I. Kara r, R. Sharma, A relativistic model for strange quark star, In t. J. Theor. Phys. 52 (2013) 3319

    2013

  46. [54]

    Arba˜ nil, M

    J.D.V. Arba˜ nil, M. Malheiro, Radial stability of anis otropic strange quark stars, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2016) 012

    2016

  47. [55]

    Naseer, M

    T. Naseer, M. Sharif, S. Manzoor, A. Fatima, Anisotropi c Durgapal-Fuloria neutron stars in f (R, T 2) gravity, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 39 (2024) 2450048

    2024

  48. [56]

    Lake, All static spherically symmetric perfect-flui d solutions of Einstein’s equations, Phys

    K. Lake, All static spherically symmetric perfect-flui d solutions of Einstein’s equations, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 1 04015

    2003

  49. [57]

    Naseer, M

    T. Naseer, M. Sharif, Estimating the role of bag constan t and modified theory on anisotropic stellar models, Chin. J. Phys. 88 (2024) 10-31

    2024

  50. [58]

    G¨ uver, P

    T. G¨ uver, P. Wroblewski, L. Camarota, F. ¨Ozel, The Mass and Radius of the Neutron Star in 4 U 1820 − 30, Astrophys. J. 719 (2010) 1807

    2010

  51. [59]

    Buchdahl, General relativistic fluid spheres, Phy s

    H.A. Buchdahl, General relativistic fluid spheres, Phy s. Rev. 116 (1959) 1027

    1959

  52. [60]

    Ivanov, Maximum bounds on the surface redshift of a nisotropic stars, Phys

    B.V. Ivanov, Maximum bounds on the surface redshift of a nisotropic stars, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 104011

    2002

  53. [61]

    Tello-Ortiz, S.K

    F. Tello-Ortiz, S.K. Maurya, Y. Gomez-Leyton, Class I a pproach as MGD generator, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 324

    2020

  54. [62]

    Dayanandan, T.T

    B. Dayanandan, T.T. Smitha, S.K. Maurya, Self-gravita ting anisotropic star using gravitational decoupling, Phy s. Scr. 96 (2021) 125041

    2021

  55. [63]

    Abreu, H

    H. Abreu, H. Hernandez, L.A. Nunez, Sound speeds, crack ing and the stability of self-gravitating anisotropic comp act objects, Class. Quantum Grav. 24 (2007) 4631

    2007

  56. [64]

    Naseer, M

    T. Naseer, M. Sharif, Decoupled anisotropic Buchdahl’ s relativistic models in f (R, T ) theory, Phys. Scr. 99 (2024) 035001

    2024

  57. [65]

    Herrera, Cracking of self-gravitating compact obje cts, Phys

    L. Herrera, Cracking of self-gravitating compact obje cts, Phys. Lett. A 165 (1992) 206

    1992

  58. [66]

    Heintzmann, W

    H. Heintzmann, W. Hillebrandt, Neutron stars with an an isotropic equation of state-Mass, redshift and stability, Astron. Astrophys. 38 (1975) 51-55

    1975

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.