Gravastars with Kuchowicz Metric Potential in $f(R, \Sigma, T)$ Gravity

Bharat Singh; S. Surendra Singh

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 70 references

Gravastars with Kuchowicz Metric Potential in $f(R, \Sigma, T)$ Gravity

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs gravastar models—compact objects with a dark-energy interior, stiff-fluid shell, and Schwarzschild exterior—in f(R,Σ,T) gravity, and claims they are singularity-free with physically viable, stable shells.

desk verdict Eq. (61) gives e^{-2\lambda(0)}=-1, so the claimed regular interior is not Lorentzian; the paper's central claim fails on its own equations. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03553 v1 pith:XQ4QHA3S submitted 2025-09-03 gr-qc

Bharat Singh , S. Surendra Singh This is my paper

classification gr-qc MSC 83D0583C1583C55 PACS 04.50.Kd04.20.Jb

keywords gravastarf(RΣT)gravityAbsoluteParallelismgeometrytorsionKuchowiczmetricpotentialthinshelljunctionconditionsstifffluid

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 tries to show that a gravastar—an alternative to black holes with a dark-energy interior, a thin stiff-fluid shell, and a Schwarzschild exterior—can be built in f(R,Σ,T) gravity, a modified theory that adds torsion and an 'antigravity' scalar to general relativity. Using the Kuchowicz metric potential, the authors derive exact interior and shell solutions and claim they are free of singularities and pass standard physical checks: constant interior density and pressure, shell density falling as e^{-Br²}, increasing shell proper length, energy, and entropy, positive surface energy and pressure, and sound speed and redshift within stability limits. If right, gravastars remain a viable black-hole alternative in a torsion-based gravity, connecting strong gravity and antigravity to observable compact objects.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalized Einstein tensor G*μν = Rμν + Σμν - ½ gμν(R+Σ), built from the Ricci scalar R and the 'antigravity' scalar Σ of Absolute Parallelism geometry. The parameter A = antigravity/gravity tunes whether a region behaves as gravitational, antigravitational, or mixed. The paper chooses the functional form f(R,Σ,T)=R+Σ+2ℵT and the Kuchowicz metric potential e^{2ν}=e^{Br²+2 ln C}, then assigns the three gravastar regions by equation of state: p=-ρ interior, p=ρ shell, p=ρ=0 exterior.

What would settle it

Re-run the junction conditions with a single global value of the torsion/antigravity parameter A, as the theory defines it, and ask whether positive surface energy density and pressure can still match interior to exterior; if no such matching exists for any mass, the three-region gravastar claim collapses. Observationally, measure the gravitational-wave ringdown of a candidate compact object and compare its frequencies and damping with the stiff-shell prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the Kuchowicz metric potential e^{2ν}=e^{Br²+2 ln C} is compatible with the f(R,Σ,T) field equations in each of the three gravastar regions. The interior equation of state p=-ρ forces constant density and pressure, giving a de Sitter-like core with no central singularity; the shell equation of state p=ρ yields density and pressure ρ=P=K₁e^{-Br²} and a well-behaved metric potential; the exterior is the Schwarzschild vacuum. Solving the junction conditions gives positive surface energy density and pressure, while sound speed and surface redshift stay inside the accepted stability range; the energy conditions WEC, NEC, SEC hold on the shell and DEC i

Load-bearing premise

The construction freely changes the torsion/antigravity parameter A from region to region (2 in the interior, -2 in the shell, 0 outside); if A is actually a fixed constant of the theory, the three-region gravastar cannot be assembled as the paper does.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A black-hole alternative without an event horizon or central singularity is consistent with the f(R,Σ,T) field equations.
The interior acts as a constant-density de Sitter-like core whose active gravitational mass grows as r³, so no central singularity forms in these equations.
The shell is ultrarelativistic stiff matter whose density falls exponentially in r², and the shell's proper length, energy, and entropy all increase with thickness and peak near the outer surface.
The Darmois-Israel junction conditions yield positive surface energy density and pressure, so the thin shell is a physically admissible matching surface.
The sound speed and surface redshift remain within the standard stability intervals, while NEC, WEC, and SEC are satisfied on the shell and DEC is violated.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: the region-dependent choice of the torsion/antigravity parameter A (2 inside, -2 in the solved shell, 0 outside) is doing crucial work; if A is fixed by the theory rather than freely assigned, the three-region construction needs a physical junction mechanism to survive.
The shell section labels the parameter as A=-1 but the solved equations use A=-2, so the shell solution appears tied to that specific value; checking whether the matching still works with a consistent A across all three regions is the natural next test.
The DEC violation implies the shell contains exotic matter; a future observational test could look for gravitational-wave ringdown frequencies and damping that differ from black hole predictions for the same mass.
The authors note that dynamical stability against radial or axial perturbations was not analyzed; a full perturbative treatment would tell whether the sound-speed and redshift bounds survive beyond the necessary-condition level.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague—

The headline is simple: this is a standard gravastar-assembly paper with one new dial—the Kuchowicz metric ansatz inside f(R,Σ,T) gravity—and the central "singularity-free, physically valid" claim is contradicted by the authors' own equation (61). I checked the integration in Sec. 5. The interior ODE is r y' - y - 1 = 4(2π+ℵ)ρ0 r^2, y=e^{-2λ}. Any solution regular at r=0 has y(0)=-1; with their C=0, y=-1+4(2π+ℵ)ρ0 r^2. That makes e^{2λ}=1/y negative near r=0, so g_rr is positive and the metric has signature (+,+,-,-). There is no real λ(r) for small r. The stress-test note is right: the seed metric used for the mass integral and the junction matching is not a Lorentzian spacetime.

What is genuinely new is narrow: applying the Kuchowicz potential in this particular torsion-based f(R,Σ,T) scheme is not in the cited literature, and the shell quantities—length, entropy, energy—are worked through in some detail. The algebra in those sections is straightforward and mostly follows the Mazur-Mottola template. The reference list is unremarkable; I do not see a citation-pattern red flag.

The soft spots are not cosmetic. Section 4 assigns A=-1 to the shell; Section 6 solves with A=-2; the junction plots use A=-2.5. If A is a constant of the connection, you cannot change it by hand per region without a mechanism. The proper-length calculation is circular: they impose df/dr=1/f on the already-determined shell metric, which is equivalent to choosing the answer. To their credit, the DEC violation is reported rather than hidden, and the paper explicitly admits no dynamical stability analysis was done, so the "stability range" claims rest only on a necessary speed-of-sound condition.

Would I send this to referees? No. The central contradiction is in the first solved equation, and the shell section is internally inconsistent. A referee would spend time documenting errors the authors could have caught by checking y(0) and the consistency of A. The construction might be repairable—a different interior ansatz or a corrected field-equation setup—but as it stands the main result is not a spacetime. For a reading group it is a decent cautionary example of what to check in modified-gravity solution papers. I would not cite it, and I would not invest referee time.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a three-region gravastar model in f(R,Σ,T) gravity with the Kuchowicz metric potential. The interior is assigned the dark-energy equation of state p=-ρ (with A=2), the shell a stiff-fluid equation of state p=ρ, and the exterior vacuum Schwarzschild. The authors claim singularity-free regular interior and shell solutions, and they compute shell proper length, entropy, energy, junction surface quantities, speed of sound, surface redshift, and energy conditions, concluding that the model is physically viable and stable.

Significance. Gravastar models in modified gravity are of current interest, and the f(R,Σ,T) framework with a torsion/antigravity parameter is a legitimate arena for such studies. The paper makes an explicit attempt to go beyond GR by including the AP-geometry parameter A in each region, and it provides closed-form expressions for the metric functions and shell quantities. If the construction were internally consistent and the solutions Lorentzian, the model would be a useful addition to the gravastar literature. However, as detailed below, the central claims rest on a metric that is not a valid Lorentzian spacetime and on several unjustified parameter reassignments, so the physical conclusions are not currently supported.

major comments (4)

[§5, Eq. (61)] The interior metric function is e^{-2λ}=4(2π+ℵ)ρ0 r^2 - 1. At r=0 this gives e^{-2λ}(0)=-1, so e^{2λ}=-1 and g_rr = -e^{2λ}=+1 while g_tt=C^2>0. The t-r sector then has signature (+,+,-,-), and no real λ(r) exists for r < [4(2π+ℵ)ρ0]^{-1/2}. This contradicts the paper's central claim of a singularity-free, regular Lorentzian interior. The subsequent mass integral (62), junction conditions (§9), and stability analysis are all built on this invalid seed metric.
[§8.1, Eqs. (71)-(74)] The proper-length integral is 'simplified' by imposing df/dr = 1/f, where f(r) is the integrand defined in Eq. (72). This condition is not a property of the solution; it is an extra assumption equivalent to assuming the answer ℓ ≈ ε f(r). Consequently the claimed monotonic increase of shell length is not a derived physical result but a consequence of the imposed relation.
[§9, Eqs. (92)-(95)] The junction expressions reintroduce a free parameter A inside the interior metric (4(2π+ℵ)ρ0 d^2 + A d - 1), but the interior solution Eq. (61) has no such parameter (the integration constant was set to zero) and the interior region was assigned A=2. Figures 7-10 then use A=-2.5. The surface energy density, surface pressure, shell mass, speed of sound, and redshift are therefore computed from a metric that is not the interior solution of Section 5.
[§6, Eqs. (64)-(68)] The shell metric (68) is obtained from two of the three field equations (64) and (65), but consistency with the remaining equation (66) and with the conservation equation (67) is not demonstrated. Given the A-assignment confusion and the ad hoc thin-shell approximations, the status of (68) as a solution of the f(R,Σ,T) field equations in the shell is not established.

minor comments (6)

[Throughout] The paper repeatedly misspells 'gravastar' as 'gravaster' (e.g., Abstract, Section 4, Section 13). Also 'funcition' in the Abstract and 'Kuchowicz metric funcition' should be corrected.
[§2, Eqs. (40)-(43)] The notation for the generalized Ricci tensor B_{μν} and the Einstein-like tensor G*_{μν} is introduced, but the relation of these components to the standard curvature quantities is not fully explained. In particular, the reader cannot easily verify the sign conventions used in (42)-(43).
[§5, Eq. (59)] The integration leading to Eq. (60) is correct, but the use of the symbol A for the integration constant conflicts with the AP parameter A used throughout the paper. This conflation contributes to the later misuse of A in the junction section.
[§8.2, Eq. (82)] The entropy expression is written with r dependent on both the integration variable and the final evaluation point; the notation should be cleaned up (e.g., use r=d+ε). Similar notational issues appear in Eqs. (74) and (85).
[Figures 7-10] The figures use specific numerical values (M=0.338 M_sun, A=-2.5, ρ0=0.01, ℵ=10) without a clear justification for these choices or a sensitivity analysis. The captions also do not state the units of all axes.
[§11.2, Eq. (100)] The surface redshift is computed from the Kuchowicz g_tt, but the expression is incomplete: it should involve the boundary value of r at the shell, and the relation between C and the constants in Eq. (49) is not stated.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The shell proper-length 'prediction' is manufactured by imposing df/dr = 1/f, so the claimed increasing shell length is built into the ansatz rather than derived.

other [Sec. 8.1, Eqs. (71)-(74)]
"To simplify the integral in eq. (71), we choose d f(r)/dr = 1/f(r) which makes it easier to solve. Thus, we obtain l = f(d + ε) − f(d)."

The shell's proper length is first written as ℓ = ∫_d^{d+ε} dr/f(r), with f(r) already fixed by the shell solution in Eq. (68). The paper then imposes the extra condition df/dr = 1/f(r). Under this imposed condition the integrand 1/f(r) is exactly f′(r), so the integral collapses to f(d+ε) − f(d) by the fundamental theorem of calculus. Eq. (74) and Fig. 4 then present this as a physical result showing the shell length increasing. The 'increasing shell length' finding is therefore not derived from the field equations; it is equivalent to the chosen ansatz df/dr = 1/f(r). Since that condition is not a consequence of the metric (and is inconsistent with f(r) as defined in Eq. (72)), the prediction reduces by construction.

full rationale

The central gravastar construction is not broadly circular: the field equations are solved with specified equations of state (p = −ρ interior, p = ρ shell, vacuum exterior) and a Kuchowicz metric potential; the constant interior density follows from the conservation equation under p = −ρ; and the shell density ρ = K1 e^{−Br²} is obtained by integrating the shell conservation equation. The self-citations [52,53] are used only as background applications of stiff fluids and are not load-bearing. However, one key output — the shell proper length — is not derived at all: by imposing df/dr = 1/f, the integral becomes trivial and the reported length is the imposed condition dressed as a result. This is a genuine circular step for that physical quantity. Separately, the paper contains serious internal inconsistencies that are not circularity but invalidate the central claims: Eq. (61) gives e^{−2λ(0)} = −1, so the interior metric is not a real Lorentzian spacetime near r=0; the parameter A is assigned different values in different regions (A=2 interior, A=−1 or −2 shell, A=0 exterior, A=−2.5 in junction plots) without a mechanism; and the shell equations are solved with A=−2 although the text states A=−1. These issues are correctness risks, not circularity per se. The circularity score is set to 6 because one advertised prediction reduces by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is constructed by layering hand-chosen parameters and assumptions: a region-dependent connection parameter A, three imposed equations of state, a Kuchowicz ansatz, and several integration constants. No new physical entity is introduced, but the freedom in A and the arbitrary constants carry most of the model's content.

free parameters (11)

A (antigravity/torsion parameter, region-dependent) = 2 (interior), -2 (shell; stated -1 in Sec. 4), 0 (exterior), -2.5 (junction plots)
Chosen by hand per region to force the desired EoS: A=2 with p=-ρ, A=-2 with p=ρ, A=0 with vacuum. No dynamical equation determines A.
ℵ (f(R,Σ,T) matter-geometry coupling) = 10 in most plots
Free coupling in f=R+Σ+2ℵT; values chosen for plots, not constrained.
B (Kuchowicz metric parameter) = 0.01491932683 km^-2 in shell/redshift figures; interior would require B=4(2π+ℵ)ρ0 if matching were enforced, but this is
Determines the metric potential e^{2ν}=e^{Br^2+2log C}; arbitrary scale, no matching condition to interior B.
C (Kuchowicz scale constant) = C1=0.0000149, C2=0.0000203, C3=0.0000283 in redshift figure (inconsistent with plotted Zs≈0.49)
Free scale in g_tt; enters surface redshift; values stated seem inconsistent with plot.
ρ0 (interior density) = 0.01 in plots
Constant interior density; arbitrary.
Integration constant A_int (interior metric) = 0 in Sec. 5, -2.5 in junction figures
Called A, set to 0 for regularity, but reintroduced in junction conditions (92)-(95). Inconsistent.
H1 (shell metric integration constant) = 0.002
Free constant in shell e^{-2λ} solution.
K1 (shell density amplitude) = 0.5 in entropy, 0.002 in energy figure
Free scaling of shell density ρ=P=K1 e^{-Br^2}; inconsistent values across sections.
α (entropy constant) = 0.2
Appears in s(r)=α√(P/2π); unconstrained.
d, ε (shell radii/thickness) = d≈10 km, ε small
Geometry of matching surface; arbitrary.
M (total mass) = 0.338 M_sun in figures
Exterior Schwarzschild mass; chosen for plots.

assumptions (8)

domain assumption Absolute Parallelism (AP) geometry with Weitzenbock connection and parameter A provides a valid gravitational extension of GR.
Section 2 postulates the AP framework and the parameterized connection (11); field equations (28) depend on it.
domain assumption Field equations (28)/(31) from Bakry-Ibraheem [46] are correct.
The paper borrows the f(R,Σ,T) field equations without derivation or independent check; all subsequent equations depend on them.
standard math Matter is a perfect fluid with Lm=-P.
Eq (30), standard assumption.
ad hoc to paper The gravastar EoS p=-ρ, p=ρ, p=0 are imposed in the three regions.
Sections 4-7: these EoS are inputs, not derived; they are the standard Mazur-Mottola recipe.
ad hoc to paper The parameter A can take different values in different regions of the same spacetime.
Sections 4 and 6: A=2 inside, A=-2 in shell, A=0 outside; if A is a connection parameter it should be global.
domain assumption Thin-shell approximation 0<e^{-2λ}≤1 and neglect of r-dependent terms as r→0.
Section 6: used to obtain analytical shell solution; Israel thin-shell formalism.
ad hoc to paper The assumption df/dr=1/f used to evaluate the proper length integral.
Section 8.1, Eqs (71)-(74): not derived from field equations; makes the length formula a chosen result.
standard math Darmois-Israel junction conditions apply at the shell.
Section 9: standard thin-shell junction formalism.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravastars with Kuchowicz Metric Potential in $f(R, \Sigma, T)$ Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XQ4QHA3S

@misc{pith2026250903553,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravastars with Kuchowicz Metric Potential in $f(R, \Sigma, T)$ Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XQ4QHA3S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03553}
}

abstract

This manuscript explores the gravastar model in the $f(R,\Sigma,T)$ gravity framework, with the help of Kuchowicz metric funcition, offering an alternative to black holes. A gravastar has three regions: interior, intermediate shell, and exterior. The interior region has pressure equal to negative density, generating a repulsive force across the thin shell. The intermediate shell contains ultra-relativistic plasma fluids, with pressure proportional to density, balancing the interior's repulsive force. The exterior region is a vacuum, described by a generalized Schwarzschild solution. Our specifications yield precise, singularity-free gravaster solutions with physically valid features in the $f(R,\Sigma,T)$ gravity framework, exploring strong gravity and anti-gravity aspects. The gravitational Lagrangian is based on an arbitrary function of torsion scalar $\Sigma$ and trace of the energy-momentum tensor $T$. Our $f(R,\Sigma,T)$ gravity analysis explores gravastars inner workings, revealing insights into gravity, strong gravity, and antigravity forces due to torsion effects. We examine shell properties like length, energy, entropy, and discussed junction conditions. Key findings include constant interior density and pressure, denser shell fluid at the outer boundary, and increasing shell length. These results illuminate gravastar behavior and fundamental gravitational principles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03553 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** M(d) is plotted against radial distance r(km). The above results clearly show that there is no singularity in the inner solutions, thereby solving the core singularity problem of a classical black hole. To provide further clarity, we have displayed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The metric potential of the shell is shown to with its thickne [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The proper length of the shell varies with its thickness, me [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The entropy of the shell changes with its thickness, meas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The energy of the shell varies with its thickness, measure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Variation of the surface pressure with respect to the radial coordinate(km) for M = 0.338mJ, A = −2.5, ρ0 = 0.01, ℵ = 10. The mass of the thin shell can then be written as ms = 4πd2σ = −d "r 1 − 2M d − p 4(2π + ℵ)ρ0d 2 + Ad − 1 # , (94) 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The EoS varies with respect to r for M = 0.338mJ, A = −2.5, ρ0 = 0.01, ℵ = 10. From the figure 9 we can clearly see that the EoS parameter stays positive and decreases with radial co-ordinate towards the outer region featuring a feasible gravastar model. 11 Stability 1…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: The stability of the shell respect to the radial co-ordina [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: The surface redshift of the shell changes with its thickn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: NEC condition plot with respect to r for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: DEC condition plot with respect to r for M = 0.338mJ, A = −2.5, ρ0 = 0.01, ℵ = 10. 13 Discussion and conclusion This paper presents a new class of gravastar solutions using the Kuchowicz metric potential within the framework of f(R, Σ, T ) gravity. The Kuchowicz metr…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

[1]

C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, J. A. Wheeler. Gravitation.New York: W. H. Freeman and Company (1973)

work page 1973
[2]

S. L. Shapiro, S. A. Teukolsky, Black Holes, White Dwarfs and Neutron Stars .New York: Wiley and Sons (1983)

work page 1983
[3]

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

work page 1984
[4]

B. W. Carroll, D. A. Ostlie, An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley (1996)

work page 1996
[5]

P. K. Townsend, gr-qc/9707012 (1997)

arXiv 1997
[6]

Narayan, New Journal of Physics, 7, 199 (2005)

R. Narayan, New Journal of Physics, 7, 199 (2005)

work page 2005
[7]

Mazur, E

P. Mazur, E. Mottola, arXiv:gr-qc/0109035. Report number: L A-UR-01-5067 (2001)

arXiv 2001
[8]

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

work page 1966

Show all 70 references

[9]

Chapline, E

G. Chapline, E. Hohlﬁeld, R. B. Laughlin, D. I. Santiago, Int.J.Mod.P hys. A18, 3587-3590 (2003)

2003
[10]

Perlmutter, et al., Astrophys.J

S. Perlmutter, et al., Astrophys.J. 517, 565-586 (1999)

1999
[11]

Riess et al., AJ 116, 1009 (1998)

Adam G. Riess et al., AJ 116, 1009 (1998)

1998
[12]

P. C. W. Davies, Phys Rev D 30, 737 (1984)

1984
[13]

Kaiser, Stebbins A

N. Kaiser, Stebbins A. Nature 310, 391 (1984)

1984
[14]

H. B. G Casimir,. Proc K Ned Acad Wet 51, 635 (1948)

1948
[15]

Dymnikova, Gen Rel Gravit 24, 235 (1992)

I. Dymnikova, Gen Rel Gravit 24, 235 (1992). 19

1992
[16]

Dymnikova, Soltysek B

I. Dymnikova, Soltysek B. Gen Rel Gravit, 30, 1775 (1998)

1998
[17]

Dymnikova, Gravit Cosmol, Suppl

I. Dymnikova, Gravit Cosmol, Suppl. 8(N1), 131 (2001)

2001
[18]

Dymnikova, Int J Mod Phys D 12, 1015 (2003)

I. Dymnikova, Int J Mod Phys D 12, 1015 (2003)

2003
[19]

Y. B. Zel’dovich YB. Mon Not R Astron Soc 160, 1 (1972)

1972
[20]

M. S. Madsenet, et al. Phys Rev D 46, 1399 (1992)

1992
[21]

B. J. Carr, Astrophys J 201, 1 (1975)

1975
[22]

Chakraborty, Pradhan A

I. Chakraborty, Pradhan A. Gravit Cosmol 7, 55 (2001)

2001
[23]

L. P. Linares, M. Malheri, S. Ray, Int J Mod Phys D 13, 1355 (2004)

2004
[24]

T. M. Braje, R. W. Romani, Astrophys J 580, 1043 (2002)

2002
[25]

Buchert, Gen Rel Gravit 33, 1381 (2001)

T. Buchert, Gen Rel Gravit 33, 1381 (2001)

2001
[26]

Visser, D.L

M. Visser, D.L. Wiltshire, Class Quant Gravit 21, 1135 (2004)

2004
[27]

B. M. N. Carter BMN, Class Quant Gravit 22, 4551 (2005)

2005
[28]

DeBenedictis, D

A. DeBenedictis, D. Horvat, S. Iliji´ c, S. Kloster, K. S. Viswan athan, Class Quant Gravit 23, 2303 (2006)

2006
[29]

F. S. N. Lobo, R. Garattini, J Hi Energy Phys 065, 1312 (2013)

2013
[30]

Yousaf et al, Phys

Z. Yousaf et al, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024062 (2019)

2019
[31]

Majeed, G

K. Majeed, G. Abbas and A. Siddiqa, New Astron. 95, 101802 (2022)

2022
[32]

B. V. Turimov, B. J. Ahmedov and A. A. Abdujabbarov, Mod. Ph ys. Lett. A 24 , 733 (2009)

2009
[33]

F. S. N. Lobo and R. Garattini, J. High Energy Phys. 12, 1 (2013)

2013
[34]

Bhar, Astrophys

P. Bhar, Astrophys. Space Sci. 354, 457 (2014)

2014
[35]

Padmanabhan, Phys

T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rep. 380(5–6), 235 (2003)

2003
[36]

Clifton et al, Phys

T. Clifton et al, Phys. Rep. 513, 1 (2012)

2012
[37]

F. I. Mikhail and M. I. Wanas, Proc. R. Soc. London. A. Math. P hys. Sci. 356, 471 (1977)

1977
[38]

F. I. Mikhail, Ain Shams. Sci. Bull. 6, 24 (1962)

1962
[39]

M. I. Wanas, Astrophys. Space Sci. 258, 237 (1997)

1997
[40]

M. I. Wanas, Astrophys. Space Sci. 154, 165 (1989)

1989
[41]

M. I. Wanas, Int. J. Geo. Meth. Mod. Phys. 4, 373 (2007)

2007
[42]

M. I. Wanas and M.A. Bakry, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 24 (27), 5025 (2009)

2009
[43]

M. I. Wanas, N. L. Youssef, W. E. l. Hanafy and S. N. Osman, Ad v. Math. Phys. 20 (2016). 20

2016
[44]

M. A. Bakry, A. T. Shafeek, Grav. Cosmol. 27(1), 89 (2021)

2021
[45]

M. I. Wanas, Adv. High Energy Phys. 752613 (2012)

2012
[46]

M. A. Bakry, S. K. Ibraheem, Grav. Cosmol. 29(1), 19 (2023)

2023
[47]

Brans and H

C. Brans and H. D. Robert, Phys. Rev. 124(3), 925 (1961)

1961
[48]

Harko et al, Phys

T. Harko et al, Phys. Rev. D 84, 024020 (2011)

2011
[49]

Santos et al, Phys

J. Santos et al, Phys. Rev. D 76, 083513 (2007)

2007
[50]

Staelens, J

F. Staelens, J. Rekier, A. Fuzfa, Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 53, 1 (2021)

2021
[51]

Rahaman, P

F. Rahaman, P. Bhar, R. Biswas, A. A. Usmani, Eur. Phys. J. C, 74, 2845 (2014)

2014
[52]

Meghanil, S

S. Meghanil, S. Surendra, IOP Publishing, Physica Scripta, 100, 055012 (2025)

2025
[53]

Meghanil, S

S. Meghanil, S. Surendra, Modern Physics Letters A (2025)

2025
[54]

Israel,Nuo

W. Israel,Nuo. Cim., 44, 1 (1996)

1996
[55]

P. O. Mazur, E. Mottola, Gravitational condensate stars: An alternative to black holes, Universe, 9, 88 (2023)

2023
[56]

P. O. Mazur, E. Mottola, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 101, 9545 (2004)

2004
[57]

Mazur, E

P. Mazur, E. Mottola, Report No. LA-UR-01- 5067
[58]

Mazur, E

P. Mazur, E. Mottola, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 9545 (2004)

2004
[59]

Darmois, M´ emorial des sciences math´ ematiques XXV, Fast icule XXV (Gauthier-Villars, Paris, France),chap

G. Darmois, M´ emorial des sciences math´ ematiques XXV, Fast icule XXV (Gauthier-Villars, Paris, France),chap. V. (1927)

1927
[60]

Lanczos, Ann

K. Lanczos, Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 379, 518 (1924)

1924
[61]

Rahaman, M

F. Rahaman, M. Kalam, and S. Chakraborty, Gen. Relativ. Grav it. 38, 1687 (2006)

2006
[62]

Rahaman, P

F. Rahaman, P. K. F. Kuhﬁttig, M. Kalam, A. A. Usmani, and S. Ra y, Classical Quantum Gravity 28, 155021 (2011)

2011
[63]

Pradhan, D

S. Pradhan, D. Mohanty, P. K. Sahoo, Chin. Phys. C, 47, 095104 (2023)

2023
[64]

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

1959
[65]

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

2002
[66]

D. E. Barraco, Hamity VH. Phys Rev D 65, 124028 (2002)

2002
[67]

C. G. B¨ ohmer, T. Harko, Class Quant Gravit 23, 6479 (2006)

2006
[68]

Banerjee, J

A. Banerjee, J. R. Villanueva, P. Channuie, K. Jusuf. Chin Phys C 42, 115101 (2018)

2018
[69]

Banerjee, S

A. Banerjee, S. Hansraj, Eur Phys J C 76, 641 (2016)

2016
[70]

DeBenedictis, D

A. DeBenedictis, D. Horvat, S. Iliji´ c, S. Kloster, Viswanatha n KS. Class Quant Gravit 23, 2303 (2006). 21

2006

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, J. A. Wheeler. Gravitation.New York: W. H. Freeman and Company (1973)

work page 1973

[2] [2]

S. L. Shapiro, S. A. Teukolsky, Black Holes, White Dwarfs and Neutron Stars .New York: Wiley and Sons (1983)

work page 1983

[3] [3]

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

work page 1984

[4] [4]

B. W. Carroll, D. A. Ostlie, An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley (1996)

work page 1996

[5] [5]

P. K. Townsend, gr-qc/9707012 (1997)

arXiv 1997

[6] [6]

Narayan, New Journal of Physics, 7, 199 (2005)

R. Narayan, New Journal of Physics, 7, 199 (2005)

work page 2005

[7] [7]

Mazur, E

P. Mazur, E. Mottola, arXiv:gr-qc/0109035. Report number: L A-UR-01-5067 (2001)

arXiv 2001

[8] [8]

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

work page 1966