Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 111 references

The Sun's Dark Core: Helioseismic and neutrino flux constraints on a compact solar center

T0 review · 3 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 argues that current p-mode helioseismology constrains any compact dark core in the Sun to masses below about $10^{-5}$ solar masses—a thousand times tighter than neutrino limits—and that a $10^{-3}$ solar-mass core would…

desk verdict Solid, transparent solar-model study with real first constraints; the mass limits share a degeneracy with the assumed inner boundary radius, so the headline numbers are indicative rather than precise. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01503 v1 pith:U2X2XC4Z submitted 2025-05-02 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.COhep-ph

Earl Patrick Bellinger , Matt E. Caplan This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords darkmattercompactobjectssolarcorehelioseismologyneutrinospmodesgmodels
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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 asks whether the Sun could harbor a compact dark object at its center—something like strange quark matter or a dark-sector macro—that interacts with ordinary matter only through gravity. It calibrates solar evolution models with a central point mass ranging from $10^{-8}$ to $10^{-2}$ solar masses and compares them with neutrino fluxes and with the acoustic (p-mode) and future gravity (g-mode) oscillation spectra. The result is a hierarchy of constraints: neutrinos rule out only the most massive cores, around 1% of the Sun's mass; current p-mode helioseismology already pushes the limit to about $10^{-5}$ solar masses; and future g-mode period spacings could reach $10^{-7}$ solar masses. A model with a $10^{-3}$ solar-mass dark core substantially improves agreement with the observed oscillation frequencies ($\chi^2_r = 308$ versus 2633 for the standard solar model), but the authors interpret this as the dark core emulating a metal-rich core caused by enhanced gravitational settling, not as evidence for dark matter.

What carries the argument

The central object is a point-like dark core of mass $M_0$ at the center of an otherwise standard solar evolution model, added to the hydrostatic equilibrium equation as an extra gravitational term $-GM_0\rho(r)/r^2$. The integration is truncated at the Bondi radius $r_B = 2GM_0/c_s^2$, whose value in solar radii is numerically close to the dark core mass in solar masses; the largest model considered, $10^{-2}~\mathrm{M}_\odot$, therefore removes the innermost 1% of the solar radius from the computational domain. This inner boundary produces a density cusp, drives rapid gravitational settling of heavy elements toward the center, raises the mean molecular weight, and thereby changes the sound speed, the buoyancy frequency, and the p- and g-mode oscillation frequencies that are compared with observations.

What would settle it

Measure the Sun's dipole g-mode period spacings with the precision now achieved for p modes: the standard model predicts approximately uniform spacings of about 25 minutes, a $10^{-3}~\mathrm{M}_\odot$ dark core predicts spacings near 1 minute, and a $10^{-7}~\mathrm{M}_\odot$ core perturbs the spacings by about 2%. Observing a standard 25-minute pattern across many periods would exclude dark cores above about $10^{-7}~\mathrm{M}_\odot$, while a compressed spacing would confirm a massive core; alternatively, a targeted search for the predicted high-inertia mixed modes in the solar oscillation spectrum would, if they are absent at observable amplitudes, rule out dark cores above about $10^{-5}~\mathrm{M}_\odot$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is that a non-accreting, non-luminous compact dark core in the present Sun would be nearly invisible to neutrino detectors but visible to seismology: the absence of measured p-mode frequency shifts excludes dark cores above about $10^{-5}~\mathrm{M}_\odot$, neutrino fluxes only exclude cores at or above about $10^{-2}~\mathrm{M}_\odot$, and a model with a $10^{-3}~\mathrm{M}_\odot$ core fits the helioseismic sound-speed profile and radial-mode frequencies better than the standard solar model. The paper argues that this improvement is driven not by dark matter per se but by the heavy metal core that the strong central gravity creates through enhanced settling of magnesium, oxygen, and neon, and it therefore suggests the dark-core construction may be emulating star-formation effects that are usually neglected in solar models. The models also predict high-inertia mixed modes and a greatly compressed g-mode period spacing, which would observationally distinguish a genuine dark core from a metal-rich core.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the dark core is non-accreting and non-luminous and interacts with the surrounding solar plasma only gravitationally, with the evolution truncated at a fixed Bondi radius; if a real compact dark object accretes or radiates, or if the time-varying Bondi radius (which the authors note can change by about an order of magnitude) shifts the effective core size, the derived mass limits and the apparent improvement at $10^{-3}~\mathrm{M}_\odot$ would not apply as stated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Current p-mode frequencies and the inferred sound-speed profile already push any compact dark core in the Sun below about $10^{-5}$ solar masses, a factor of a thousand tighter than the neutrino limit.
  • A model with a $10^{-3}$ solar-mass dark core matches the helioseismic data substantially better than the standard solar model ($\chi^2_r = 308$ versus 2633) and places the convection-zone base within $1\sigma$ of its observed value, but the paper attributes this to the metal-rich core, not to dark matter.
  • The predicted high-inertia mixed modes would be observable signatures of dark cores above about $10^{-5}$ solar masses; their absence in the Sun and in solar-like oscillators generally suggests such cores are absent or rare.
  • Future solar g-mode measurements, if they reach the precision of current p-mode data, could constrain dark cores down to about $10^{-7}$ solar masses, with a $10^{-3}$ core shortening the period spacing from roughly 25 minutes to about 1 minute.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $10^{-3}$ model's improvement is truly a proxy for a metal-rich solar core, the same dark-core construction could be used as a numerical shortcut to generate testable asteroseismic predictions for other main-sequence stars, regardless of whether dark matter is involved.
  • Extending the calculation to a slowly accreting, time-variable core would map how the mass limits shift and would connect these solar constraints to the primordial-black-hole limits from earlier work, since the present non-accreting assumption deliberately sets that physics aside.
  • A coarse future g-mode detection may separate the dark-core scenario from the metal-rich-core scenario even before high precision is reached, because the predicted period spacing differs by roughly a factor of 25, far larger than most modeling uncertainties.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper uses MESA solar evolution models with a point-mass central object (a 'dark core') of mass 10^-8 to 10^-2 M_sun, calibrated to solar luminosity, radius, and surface composition. The inner boundary is fixed at the Bondi radius. The authors compute neutrino fluxes and GYRE pulsation frequencies, then compare with observed solar neutrino fluxes and helioseismic data. They conclude that neutrino fluxes only rule out M0 >= 10^-2 M_sun, p-mode frequencies rule out M0 > 10^-5 M_sun, a 10^-3 M_sun dark core improves agreement with helioseismic data (chi2_r = 308 vs 2633), and future g-mode spacings could probe down to 10^-7 M_sun. They attribute the apparent improvement to a metal-rich core that may emulate star-formation effects rather than dark matter.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a new, model-dependent route to constrain macroscopic dark matter using the Sun as a laboratory. It is clearly written, uses publicly available codes (MESA, GYRE, and a public GitHub repository), and makes falsifiable predictions (mixed modes, g-mode period spacings) that distinguish the dark-core scenario from standard solar physics. The qualitative result that a compact central mass can alter the temperature and composition structure so as to mimic a metal-rich core is interesting and connects to discussions of the solar abundance problem. However, the quantitative limits are compromised by an unquantified degeneracy between M0 and the assumed inner boundary radius, the neutrino analysis is based on only two flux components, and the claimed 10^-3 improvement is based on a selected subset of oscillation data while the paper itself notes that mixed modes may rule out that mass. These issues are central to the paper's main claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, fixed inner boundary] The paper states that varying the inner radius boundary condition 'had a very similar effect on the resulting solar structure as when changing the dark core mass.' Since the inner boundary is set to the Bondi radius r_B = 2GM0/c_s^2 and then held fixed, the constraints reported in Sections 4 and 5 are not on M0 alone but on the joint configuration (M0, r_B). The paper does not quantify how the p-mode limit at ~10^-5 M_sun, the g-mode projection at ~10^-7 M_sun, or the 10^-3 M_sun improvement shift when r_B is varied independently or when the Bondi radius evolves by the order-of-magnitude variation the authors mention. This degeneracy is load-bearing because the claimed mass limits and the apparent improvement could be reinterpreted as constraints on the boundary location rather than on the dark-core mass. A quantitative exploration of the M0-r_B degeneracy, or a physical argument fixing r_B uniquely for each candidate class, is required before the stated limits can be accepted.
  2. [Section 3, Figure 3] The neutrino constraints are derived using only the pp and CNO fluxes. The 8B flux, and to a lesser extent the 7Be and pep fluxes, depend much more steeply on the central temperature (8B approximately as T_c^20) and could be far more sensitive to the presence of a compact core than the pp flux, which is nearly fixed by the solar luminosity. The paper does not report these fluxes or compare them with the observational constraints that are already available. Therefore the conclusion that neutrino measurements only rule out dark-core masses above ~10^-2 M_sun is not established by the presented analysis. The complete set of solar neutrino fluxes should be computed and compared with measurements before claiming that neutrinos provide the weakest constraints.
  3. [Section 4 and Section 4.1] The chi-squared improvement reported for the 10^-3 M_sun model is computed from radial p-modes only, after a surface correction. The paper itself notes that in this model some mixed modes take the place of ordinary non-radial p-modes and 'may rule out such a massive dark core.' A comparison based on a selected subset of the helioseismic data, while the same data contain modes that are in high tension with the model, does not by itself establish that the 10^-3 model is a better representation of the Sun. A quantitative assessment including non-radial modes, or a clear justification for excluding them, is necessary before the apparent improvement can be presented as a meaningful finding. This does not negate the interest of the result, but it does affect the strength of the central claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'we calibrate standard solar evolution models' may be misleading, because models with a dark core are not standard; consider saying 'we calibrate solar evolution models' or 'solar models.'
  2. [Figure 4 caption] The label 'Dark - Standard' in the left panel is not defined in the caption; please state explicitly that this is the theoretical frequency difference between a dark-core model and the standard model.
  3. [Throughout] The instrument name 'Mesa' appears in the text while the standard capitalization is 'MESA'; likewise 'Gyre' should be 'GYRE'. Please unify the capitalization for consistency.
  4. [Section 5] The non-monotonic behavior of the g-mode period spacing for the 10^-2 M_sun model is explained by a smaller propagation cavity, but it would help to state explicitly that this is a competing effect with the increased buoyancy frequency in the core.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the dark-core mass constraints are computed from independent MESA/GYRE model outputs compared with external helioseismic and neutrino data, with M0 scanned rather than fitted to the constrained observables.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. A grid of fixed dark-core masses M0 is inserted as a point-mass inner boundary at the Bondi radius r_B = 2GM0/c_s^2 (Section 2), each model is calibrated in Y0, Z, and alpha_MLT to solar luminosity, radius, and metallicity, and then neutrino fluxes, p-mode frequencies, sound-speed profiles, and g-mode spacings are computed with the independent codes MESA and GYRE. The constraints are obtained by comparing these model outputs to external helioseismic and neutrino observations; M0 is never fitted to the frequencies, fluxes, or spacings that the paper uses it to constrain. The 10^-3 Msun improvement is presented as a grid point, not as an optimized fit, and the authors explicitly caution against interpreting it as evidence for dark matter, noting that mixed modes may rule it out. The self-citations to the authors' prior MESA/PBH implementation and public code are methodological rather than load-bearing, and no uniqueness theorem is imported to force the chosen boundary prescription. The acknowledged degeneracy that varying the inner boundary radius mimics changing M0 is an identifiability and robustness caveat, not a circular reduction: the central mass is not defined in terms of the observables it predicts. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims depend on a small set of standard solar calibration parameters, a scanned dark core mass, and several domain assumptions about non-accreting dark matter, fixed Bondi radius, composition scale, surface corrections, and external data reliability. No new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Dark core mass M_0 = Grid over 1e-8 to 1e-2 M_sun; 1e-3 M_sun highlighted
    The parameter of interest, not fitted to solar data but scanned; the focus on 1e-3 M_sun is a posteriori selection for improved fit.
  • Initial helium abundance Y0 = Calibrated per model (e.g., 0.27 for the standard model, 0.255 for the most massive core)
    Adjusted iteratively so each model reaches solar luminosity, radius, and surface metallicity at the solar age; a standard solar model calibration parameter.
  • Initial metallicity Z = Calibrated to give (Z/X)_s = 0.02293
    Part of the solar calibration; the composition choice is the Grevesse and Sauval 1998 high-metallicity scale.
  • Mixing length parameter alpha_MLT = Calibrated per model (e.g., 1.81 for the standard model, 2.14 for the most massive core)
    Adjusted to match the solar radius; standard calibration parameter in solar models.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Hydrostatic equilibrium with a central point-mass term (Eq. 1) is valid down to the Bondi radius.
    MESA integrates the structure equations with the inner boundary at m0 = dark core mass, r0 = Bondi radius; this requires the plasma to remain in hydrostatic equilibrium and the dark core to be non-accreting.
  • domain assumption The dark core is non-accreting, non-luminous, and gravitationally coupled only.
    Stated in Section 1.3; the constraints do not apply to accreting or luminous compact objects such as radiatively efficient primordial black holes.
  • domain assumption The solar surface composition is the Grevesse and Sauval 1998 high-metallicity mixture.
    Appendix A sets (Z/X)_s = 0.02293; because the solar modeling problem is abundance-sensitive, the claimed 1e-3 M_sun improvement may not survive a low-Z composition.
  • domain assumption The Ball and Gizon 2014 surface correction removes near-surface modeling errors from the frequency comparison.
    Section 4; residual surface effects could bias the chi-squared comparison and the inferred improvement of the 1e-3 M_sun model.
  • ad hoc to paper A fixed Bondi radius inner boundary is an adequate approximation.
    Section 2; the authors note r_B can vary by roughly an order of magnitude over evolution and that varying r_B mimics a different core mass, so quantitative limits carry an unquantified systematic.
  • domain assumption The external helioseismic inversions and neutrino flux measurements used for comparison are reliable.
    Sections 3 and 4 use Basu et al. 2009 sound speed data and Bergstrom et al. 2016 and Basilico et al. 2023 neutrino fluxes as external benchmarks.
invented entities (1)
  • Non-luminous point-like dark core at the solar center
    purpose: Represents any macroscopic dark matter candidate that is compact and non-accreting inside the Sun, such as strange quark matter, compact dark objects, or dMACHOs.
    No evidence for such an object in the Sun is claimed or provided; it is a test hypothesis. The paper does not invent a new particle, but the point-mass insertion is a modeling construct from prior literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Sun's Dark Core: Helioseismic and neutrino flux constraints on a compact solar center." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U2X2XC4Z

@misc{pith2026250501503,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Sun's Dark Core: Helioseismic and neutrino flux constraints on a compact solar center},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U2X2XC4Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01503}
}
abstract

As dark matter appears to comprise most of the Galactic mass, some of it may accumulate in the cores of stars, thereby making the Sun a laboratory for constraining various dark matter theories. We consider the effects on the solar structure arising from a general class of macroscopic dark matter candidates that include strange quark matter, compact dark objects, and others. We calibrate standard solar evolution models (i.e., models that reproduce the mass, luminosity, radius, and metallicity of the Sun at its present age) with variable compact dark core masses ranging from $10^{-8}$ to $10^{-2}~\rm{M}_\odot$ and assess their properties. We find that the weakest constraints come from solar neutrino flux measurements, which only rule out the most massive dark core comprising at least $\sim 1\%$ of the total solar mass. The Sun's acoustic oscillations impose stronger constraints, probing masses down to $\sim 10^{-5}~\rm{M}_\odot$. We find that a model with a $10^{-3}~\rm{M}_\odot$ dark core appears to improve the agreement with helioseismic observations. We nevertheless caution against interpreting this as evidence for dark matter in the solar interior, and suggest plausible effects that the dark core may instead be emulating. Finally, we show that future measurements of solar $g$~modes may constrain dark core masses down to $10^{-7}~\rm{M}_\odot$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01503 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Internal structures of calibrated dark core solar evolution models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Chemical abundances of dark core solar models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Neutrino constraints on dark core masses. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Constraints from p-mode helioseismology on dark core masses. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of dark core models with helioseismic observations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Oscillation modes in dark core models. Left Panel: Propagation diagram showing the dipole p-mode and g-mode frequency cavities. Dark cores more massive than 10−5 M⊙ have an increased central buoyancy frequency, changing the g-mode period spacing and giving rise to obse…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Echelle diagram comparing the ´ p-mode frequency spectrum for a normal solar model (black points) and a model with a 10−4 M⊙ dark core (colored points). Mixed modes with very high mode inertia arise in models with dark core masses exceeding 10−5 M⊙. Here we visualized …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Helioseismology of dark core g modes. Left Panel: The dipole g-mode period spacings of the normal solar model as well as the effects of the two least massive dark core models. If g modes can be observed, they may constrain dark core masses down to 10−7 M⊙. Right Panel:…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Solar calibration of dark core models. Left Panel: Initial parameters (initial helium abundance Y0 and mixing length parameter αMLT) of dark core models that yield models of the present Sun. Calibration parameters for the least and most massive dark cores shown are lab…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Nuclear energy sources in dark core models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Dark core heavy metal. Left Panel: Mass fractions of metals in dark core models. Right Panel: Mean molecular weight gradient in dark core models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    7 'NDf> _ 7^ 8G# qnRϱb 9˻ϟ o^ ۟ nƨpV* l csU > j?: Z :[x'[*miz KzneE4l[̾ .aOG_J ; Z, WESfo mz]4mk ekSN gE|X1MϲiZz-iP+*\.n*[ w) 6]d M]]e M צg ѻpygEr 1_I6 U_

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Aerts , C., Christensen-Dalsgaard , J., & Kurtz , D. W. 2010, Asteroseismology (Springer Science), 10.1007/978-1-4020-5803-5

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-5803-5 2010

  5. [5]

    R., Allen , R

    Ahmad , Q. R., Allen , R. C., Andersen , T. C., et al. 2002, , 89, 011301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.011301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.89.011301 2002

  6. [6]

    1977, , 58, 41

    Aizenman , M., Smeyers , P., & Weigert , A. 1977, , 58, 41

    1977

  7. [7]

    2017, Nature Physics, 13, 584, 10.1038/nphys4109

    Anastassopoulos , V., Aune , S., Barth , K., et al. 2017, Nature Physics, 13, 584, 10.1038/nphys4109

    doi:10.1038/nphys4109 2017

  8. [8]

    1999, , 656, 3, 10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00030-5

    Angulo , C., Arnould , M., Rayet , M., et al. 1999, , 656, 3, 10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00030-5

    doi:10.1016/s0375-9474(99)00030-5 1999

Show all 111 references
  1. [9]

    M., et al

    Appourchaux , T., Belkacem , K., Broomhall , A. M., et al. 2010, , 18, 197, 10.1007/s00159-009-0027-z

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    1990, Vistas in Astronomy, 33, 211 , https://doi.org/10.1016/0083-6656(90)90021-Y

    Arny, T. 1990, Vistas in Astronomy, 33, 211 , https://doi.org/10.1016/0083-6656(90)90021-Y

    1990 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 958502, 10.3389/fspas.2022.958502

    Ayala , A. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 958502, 10.3389/fspas.2022.958502

    2022

  4. [12]

    N., & Davis , Raymond, J

    Bahcall , J. N., & Davis , Raymond, J. 1976, Science, 191, 264, 10.1126/science.191.4224.264

    1976 doi

  5. [13]

    N., & Sears , R

    Bahcall , J. N., & Sears , R. L. 1972, , 10, 25, 10.1146/annurev.aa.10.090172.000325

    1972

  6. [14]

    J., & Lu , S

    Bai , Y., Long , A. J., & Lu , S. 2019, , 99, 055047, 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.055047

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    2020, , 2020, 044, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/09/044

    ---. 2020, , 2020, 044, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/09/044

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    H., & Gizon , L

    Ball , W. H., & Gizon , L. 2014, , 568, A123, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424325

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    2023, , 108, 102005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.102005

    Basilico , D., Bellini , G., Benziger , J., et al. 2023, , 108, 102005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.102005

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    1998, , 298, 719, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01690.x

    Basu , S. 1998, , 298, 719, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01690.x

    1998

  11. [19]

    2016, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 13, 2, 10.1007/s41116-016-0003-4

    ---. 2016, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 13, 2, 10.1007/s41116-016-0003-4

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Basu , S., & Antia , H. M. 1995, , 276, 1402, 10.1093/mnras/276.4.1402

    1995 doi

  13. [21]

    M., & Narasimha , D

    Basu , S., Antia , H. M., & Narasimha , D. 1994, , 267, 209, 10.1093/mnras/267.1.209

    1994 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Elsworth , Y., New , R., & Serenelli , A

    Basu , S., Chaplin , W. J., Elsworth , Y., New , R., & Serenelli , A. M. 2009, , 699, 1403, 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1403

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    B., Schwab , J., Bildsten , L., & Cheng , S

    Bauer , E. B., Schwab , J., Bildsten , L., & Cheng , S. 2020, , 902, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb5a5

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    P., Basu , S., Hekker , S., Christensen-Dalsgaard , J., & Ball , W

    Bellinger , E. P., Basu , S., Hekker , S., Christensen-Dalsgaard , J., & Ball , W. H. 2021, , 915, 100, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0051

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    P., & Caplan , M

    Bellinger , E. P., & Caplan , M. E. 2024, The Sun's Dark Core: Helioseismic and neutrino flux constraints on a compact solar center , 1.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.14498161

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    P., & Christensen-Dalsgaard , J

    Bellinger , E. P., & Christensen-Dalsgaard , J. 2022, , 517, 5281, 10.1093/mnras/stac1845

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    P., Hekker , S., Angelou , G

    Bellinger , E. P., Hekker , S., Angelou , G. C., Stokholm , A., & Basu , S. 2019, , 622, A130, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834461

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    P., Caplan, M

    Bellinger, E. P., Caplan, M. E., Ryu, T., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 959, 113

    2023

  21. [29]

    C., Maltoni , M., et al

    Bergstr \"o m , J., Gonzalez-Garcia , M. C., Maltoni , M., et al. 2016, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2016, 132, 10.1007/JHEP03(2016)132

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    1952, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 112, 195

    Bondi, H. 1952, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 112, 195

    1952

  23. [31]

    2002, , 66, 053005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.053005

    Bottino , A., Fiorentini , G., Fornengo , N., et al. 2002, , 66, 053005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.053005

    2002 doi

  24. [32]

    2023, , 669, L9, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245448

    Buldgen , G., Eggenberger , P., Noels , A., et al. 2023, , 669, L9, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245448

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    Burgers , J. M. 1969, Flow Equations for Composite Gases (Academic Press)

    1969

  26. [34]

    E., Bellinger, E

    Caplan, M. E., Bellinger, E. P., & Santarelli, A. D. 2024, Astrophysics and Space Science, 369, 8

    2024

  27. [35]

    J., Clesse , S., Garc \' a-Bellido , J., Hawkins , M

    Carr , B. J., Clesse , S., Garc \' a-Bellido , J., Hawkins , M. R. S., & K \"u hnel , F. 2024, , 1054, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2023.11.005

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    2009, , 705, 135, 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/135

    Casanellas , J., & Lopes , I. 2009, , 705, 135, 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/135

    2009 doi

  29. [37]

    2015, , 2015, 042, 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/04/042

    Catena , R., & Schwabe , B. 2015, , 2015, 042, 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/04/042

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    2014, , 2014, 049, 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/05/049

    Choi , K., Rott , C., & Itow , Y. 2014, , 2014, 049, 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/05/049

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    2021, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 18, 2, 10.1007/s41116-020-00028-3

    Christensen-Dalsgaard , J. 2021, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 18, 2, 10.1007/s41116-020-00028-3

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    P., Houdek , G., & Pijpers , F

    Christensen-Dalsgaard , J., di Mauro , M. P., Houdek , G., & Pijpers , F. 2009, , 494, 205, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810170

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    Christensen-Dalsgaard , J., & Gough , D. O. 1976, , 259, 89, 10.1038/259089a0

    1976 doi

  34. [42]

    R., & Thompson , M

    Christensen-Dalsgaard , J., Proffitt , C. R., & Thompson , M. J. 1993, , 403, L75, 10.1086/186725

    1993 doi

  35. [43]

    I., Dewitt , H

    Chugunov , A. I., Dewitt , H. E., & Yakovlev , D. G. 2007, , 76, 025028, 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.025028

    2007 doi

  36. [44]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.01705, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.01705

    Cirelli , M., Strumia , A., & Zupan , J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.01705, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.01705

    2024 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    D., Casolino, M., Drago, A., Lattanzi, M., & Ratti, C

    Clemente, F. D., Casolino, M., Drago, A., Lattanzi, M., & Ratti, C. 2024, Strange quark matter as dark matter: 40 years later, a reappraisal. 2404.12094

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    N., Guzik , J

    Cox , A. N., Guzik , J. A., & Raby , S. 1990, , 353, 698, 10.1086/168659

    1990 doi

  39. [47]

    T., Guzik , J

    Cumberbatch , D. T., Guzik , J. A., Silk , J., Watson , L. S., & West , S. M. 2010, , 82, 103503, 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.103503

    2010 doi

  40. [48]

    H., Amthor , A

    Cyburt , R. H., Amthor , A. M., Ferguson , R., et al. 2010, , 189, 240, 10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/240

    2010 doi

  41. [49]

    R., Broomhall , A

    Davies , G. R., Broomhall , A. M., Chaplin , W. J., Elsworth , Y., & Hale , S. J. 2014, , 439, 2025, 10.1093/mnras/stu080

    2014 doi

  42. [50]

    A., Kaiser , D

    De Lorenci , V. A., Kaiser , D. I., & Peter , P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.08113, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.08113

    2024 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    Eddington , A. S. 1920, , 106, 14, 10.1038/106014a0

    1920 doi

  44. [52]

    2023, , 107, 103052, 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103052

    Esser , N., & Tinyakov , P. 2023, , 107, 103052, 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103052

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    J., Timmes , F

    Farag , E., Fontes , C. J., Timmes , F. X., et al. 2024, , 968, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4355

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    T., & Sarkar , S

    Frandsen , M. T., & Sarkar , S. 2010, , 105, 011301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.011301

    2010 doi

  47. [55]

    1938, Physical Review, 53, 907, 10.1103/PhysRev.53.907

    Gamow , G. 1938, Physical Review, 53, 907, 10.1103/PhysRev.53.907

    1938 doi

  48. [56]

    2017, , 2017, 007, 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/05/007

    Garani , R., & Palomares-Ruiz , S. 2017, , 2017, 007, 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/05/007

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    Goldstein , J., & Townsend , R. H. D. 2020, , 899, 116, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba748

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    1987, , 321, 571, 10.1086/165653

    Gould , A. 1987, , 321, 571, 10.1086/165653

    1987 doi

  51. [59]

    Grevesse , N., & Sauval , A. J. 1998, , 85, 161, 10.1023/A:1005161325181

    1998 doi

  52. [60]

    Haberreiter , M., Schmutz , W., & Kosovichev , A. G. 2008, , 675, L53, 10.1086/529492

    2008 doi

  53. [61]

    Hamerly , R., & Kosovichev , A. G. 2012, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 462, Progress in Solar/Stellar Physics with Helio- and Asteroseismology, ed. H. Shibahashi , M. Takata , & A. E. Lynas-Gray , 537, 10.48550/arXiv.1110.1169

    2012 doi arXiv

  54. [62]

    1971, , 152, 75, 10.1093/mnras/152.1.75

    Hawking , S. 1971, , 152, 75, 10.1093/mnras/152.1.75

    1971 doi

  55. [63]

    2020, Physical Review Letters, 124, 10.1103/physrevlett.124.051102

    Horowitz, C., & Widmer-Schnidrig, R. 2020, Physical Review Letters, 124, 10.1103/physrevlett.124.051102

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    Horowitz, C. J. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 083031, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.083031

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    M., & Saslaw, W

    Huntley, J. M., & Saslaw, W. C. 1975, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 199, July 15, 1975, pt. 1, p. 328-335., 199, 328

    1975

  58. [66]

    A., & Rogers , F

    Iglesias , C. A., & Rogers , F. J. 1996, , 464, 943, 10.1086/177381

    1996 doi

  59. [67]

    M., Starkman, G

    Jacobs, D. M., Starkman, G. D., & Lynn, B. W. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 3418

    2015

  60. [68]

    L., Busza, W., Wilczek, F., & Sandweiss, J

    Jaffe, R. L., Busza, W., Wilczek, F., & Sandweiss, J. 2000, Reviews of Modern Physics, 72, 1125

    2000

  61. [69]

    S., Bauer , E

    Jermyn , A. S., Bauer , E. B., Schwab , J., et al. 2023, , 265, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    1991, , 378, 315, 10.1086/170433

    Kaplan , J., Martin de Volnay , F., Tao , C., & Turck-Chieze , S. 1991, , 378, 315, 10.1086/170433

    1991 doi

  63. [71]

    1862, On the Age of the Sun’s Heat (Macmillan's Magazine), 356--375, 10.1093/owc/9780199554652.003.0021

    Kelvin, L. 1862, On the Age of the Sun’s Heat (Macmillan's Magazine), 356--375, 10.1093/owc/9780199554652.003.0021

  64. [72]

    2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution (Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    Kippenhahn , R., Weigert , A., & Weiss , A. 2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution (Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    2013 doi

  65. [73]

    Kuhn, T. S. 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press)

    1962

  66. [74]

    2021, , 655, A51, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141256

    Kunitomo , M., & Guillot , T. 2021, , 655, A51, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141256

    2021 doi

  67. [75]

    2022, , 667, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244169

    Kunitomo , M., Guillot , T., & Buldgen , G. 2022, , 667, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244169

    2022 doi

  68. [76]

    B., Noyes , R

    Leighton , R. B., Noyes , R. W., & Simon , G. W. 1962, , 135, 474, 10.1086/147285

    1962 doi

  69. [77]

    2018, , 560, 582, 10.1038/s41586-018-0431-5

    Li , Q., Xue , C., Liu , J.-P., et al. 2018, , 560, 582, 10.1038/s41586-018-0431-5

    2018 doi

  70. [78]

    2014, , 780, L15, 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L15

    Lopes , I., Kadota , K., & Silk , J. 2014, , 780, L15, 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L15

    2014 doi

  71. [79]

    2012, , 757, 130, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/130

    Lopes , I., & Silk , J. 2012, , 757, 130, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/130

    2012 doi

  72. [81]

    P., Silk , J., & Hansen , S

    Lopes , I. P., Silk , J., & Hansen , S. H. 2002 b , , 331, 361, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05238.x

    2002

  73. [82]

    N., Silva Aguirre , V., Davies , G

    Lund , M. N., Silva Aguirre , V., Davies , G. R., et al. 2017, , 835, 172, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/172

    2017 doi

  74. [83]

    1995, , 277, 25, 10.1093/mnras/277.1.25

    Markovic , D. 1995, , 277, 25, 10.1093/mnras/277.1.25

    1995 doi

  75. [84]

    2008, , 386, 1487, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13112.x

    Miglio , A., Montalb \'a n , J., Noels , A., & Eggenberger , P. 2008, , 386, 1487, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13112.x

    2008

  76. [85]

    C., & White , S

    Mo , H., van den Bosch , F. C., & White , S. 2010, Galaxy Formation and Evolution (Cambridge University Press)

    2010

  77. [86]

    1938, Publications of the Tartu Astrofizica Observatory, 30, C1

    \"O pik , E. 1938, Publications of the Tartu Astrofizica Observatory, 30, C1

    1938

  78. [87]

    S., Folkner , W

    Park , R. S., Folkner , W. M., Williams , J. G., & Boggs , D. H. 2021, , 161, 105, 10.3847/1538-3881/abd414

    2021 doi

  79. [88]

    2011, , 192, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton , B., Bildsten , L., Dotter , A., et al. 2011, , 192, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  80. [89]

    2013, , 208, 4, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton , B., Cantiello , M., Arras , P., et al. 2013, , 208, 4, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  81. [90]

    2015, , 220, 15, 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton , B., Marchant , P., Schwab , J., et al. 2015, , 220, 15, 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    2015 doi

  82. [91]

    B., et al

    Paxton , B., Schwab , J., Bauer , E. B., et al. 2018, , 234, 34, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    2018 doi

  83. [92]

    2019, , 243, 10, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton , B., Smolec , R., Schwab , J., et al. 2019, , 243, 10, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    2019 doi

  84. [93]

    Payne , C. H. 1925, PhD thesis, Radcliffe College

    1925

  85. [94]

    2013, Physical Review Letters, 110, 111102

    Rafelski, J., Labun, L., & Birrell, J. 2013, Physical Review Letters, 110, 111102

    2013

  86. [95]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.05447

    Rauer , H., Aerts , C., Cabrera , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.05447

    2024 doi arXiv

  87. [96]

    2013, , 2013, 034, 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/08/034

    Redondo , J., & Raffelt , G. 2013, , 2013, 034, 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/08/034

    2013 doi

  88. [97]

    Ritter , G. A. D. 1880, Wiedemann Annalen

  89. [98]

    Sakstein , J., & Saltas , I. D. 2024, , 527, L14, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad133

    2024 doi

  90. [99]

    D., Caplan , M

    Santarelli , A. D., Caplan , M. E., & Bellinger , E. P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.17052, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.17052

    2024 doi arXiv

  91. [100]

    1946, , 104, 203, 10.1086/144846

    Schwarzschild , M. 1946, , 104, 203, 10.1086/144846

    1946 doi

  92. [101]

    1957, , 125, 233, 10.1086/146297

    Schwarzschild , M., Howard , R., & H \"a rm , R. 1957, , 125, 233, 10.1086/146297

    1957 doi

  93. [102]

    E., Silva Aguirre , V., et al

    Stokholm , A., Nissen , P. E., Silva Aguirre , V., et al. 2019, , 489, 928, 10.1093/mnras/stz2222

    2019 doi

  94. [103]

    Sun , M., Townsend , R. H. D., & Guo , Z. 2023, , 945, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb33a

    2023 doi

  95. [104]

    2010, , 82, 083509, 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.083509

    Taoso , M., Iocco , F., Meynet , G., Bertone , G., & Eggenberger , P. 2010, , 82, 083509, 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.083509

    2010 doi

  96. [105]

    Townsend , R. H. D., Goldstein , J., & Zweibel , E. G. 2018, , 475, 879, 10.1093/mnras/stx3142

    2018 doi

  97. [106]

    Townsend , R. H. D., & Teitler , S. A. 2013, , 435, 3406, 10.1093/mnras/stt1533

    2013 doi

  98. [107]

    P., & Christensen-Dalsgaard , J

    Vanlaer , V., Aerts , C., Bellinger , E. P., & Christensen-Dalsgaard , J. 2023, , 675, A17, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245597

    2023 doi

  99. [108]

    L., et al

    Vinyoles , N., Serenelli , A., Villante , F. L., et al. 2015, , 2015, 015, 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/10/015

    2015 doi

  100. [109]

    C., Sanderson , R

    Wetzel , A., Hayward , C. C., Sanderson , R. E., et al. 2023, , 265, 44, 10.3847/1538-4365/acb99a

    2023 doi

  101. [110]

    1984, , 30, 272, 10.1103/PhysRevD.30.272

    Witten , E. 1984, , 30, 272, 10.1103/PhysRevD.30.272

    1984 doi

  102. [111]

    2019, , 881, 103, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f77

    Zhang , Q.-S., Li , Y., & Christensen-Dalsgaard , J. 2019, , 881, 103, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f77

    2019 doi

  103. [112]

    2005, , 94, 121301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.121301

    Zioutas , K., Andriamonje , S., Arsov , V., et al. 2005, , 94, 121301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.121301

    2005 doi

Pith tools

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