Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Ultracompact Anisotropic Stars and Gravastars in General Relativity

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Static, horizonless stars in general relativity can reach compactness arbitrarily close to a black hole if their pressure is anisotropic.

desk verdict A mostly solid analytical construction of ultracompact anisotropic stars and gravastars, with a couple of presentation issues that need fixing before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10991 v1 pith:O3SXPDKE submitted 2026-08-11 gr-qc

Prajwal Hassan Puttasiddappa , Nora Bretón , Santiago Esteban Perez Bergliaffa This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords anisotropicstarsultracompactobjectsgravastarsBuchdahllimitgeneralrelativityTolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoffequationblackholemimickershomogeneousdensity
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 constructs static, spherically symmetric fluid spheres in general relativity whose compactness $M/R$ (mass divided by radius) exceeds the Buchdahl bound—the maximum $4/9$ allowed for isotropic perfect fluids—and approaches the black-hole value $1/2$, all without an event horizon. The construction combines the covariant anisotropic equation of state $\Delta = C \rho\, k^\mu \nabla_\mu P_r$ with a constant density profile, which makes the pressure profile analytically solvable. The solutions split into two families separated by a curve where the central pressure diverges: regular stars with positive central pressure for large anisotropy, and singular configurations with negative central pressure that can be regularized by inserting a thick shell, producing gravastars. If correct, the model gives a purely classical, horizonless alternative to black holes that is externally indistinguishable from them in the high-compactness limit.

What carries the argument

The central object is the covariant anisotropic equation of state $\Delta = C f(\rho)\, k^\mu \nabla_\mu P_r$ (with $f(\rho)=\rho$), which ties the pressure anisotropy $\Delta = P_t - P_r$ to the radial gradient of the radial pressure. Combined with a constant density profile, it turns the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation into a first-order ODE whose solution is the analytical pressure profile $\hat P_r(\hat r) = \hat\rho_* (F-1)/(1-3F)$, with the explicit function $F(\hat M,\hat r,\hat C)$ given in Eq. (12). The condition $F=1/3$ marks the divergence of the central pressure and defines the critical curve separating regular from singular configurations; in the large-$\hat C$ limit $F\to 1$ and $\hat P_r\to 0$, which is what allows the compactness to approach $1/2$.

What would settle it

Numerically integrate the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations with the sign of $k^\mu$ in Eq. (7) reversed (equivalently, the plus sign in Eq. (8) changed to a minus) and look for roots of the central-pressure denominator; if no root exists above $\hat M=4/9$, the near-black-hole branch is an artifact of the sign choice.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, using the covariant anisotropic equation of state (7) with $f(\rho)=\rho$ and a homogeneous density profile, a mostly analytical model yields ultracompact configurations with compactness arbitrarily close to $1/2$. Two regimes exist: for sufficiently large anisotropy the central pressure stays positive and the star is regular; for arbitrary anisotropy the central pressure is negative and the pressure diverges at a finite radius inside the fluid. Replacing the region around that divergence with a constant-pressure thick shell removes the singularity, giving a three-layer gravastar with a negative-pressure interior and no event horizon. The same thick-shell procedure also produces fully isotropic gravastars, although these violate the null energy condition and have discontinuous pressure across the shell.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on a particular anisotropic pressure rule—the pressure difference is proportional to the radial gradient of the radial pressure, with a fixed sign—together with a strictly constant density interior; change the sign or allow the density to vary, and the claimed near-black-hole solutions no longer follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Regular anisotropic stars with positive central pressure exist for compactness $\hat M$ between $4/9$ and arbitrarily close to $1/2$, provided the anisotropy parameter $\hat C$ is large enough.
  • The negative-central-pressure branch gives singular configurations at any anisotropy, and the singularity is a curvature singularity with divergent Kretschmann scalar, so without the shell these are not viable astrophysical objects.
  • Replacing the divergent region by a thick shell yields regular ultracompact gravastars with compactness arbitrarily close to $1/2$; as $\hat M\to 1/2$ the shell moves toward the surface and the interior tends to a de Sitter-like constant negative pressure.
  • Fully isotropic gravastars are possible within this construction, but they violate the null energy condition in the inner region and have discontinuous pressure, so they do not contradict earlier results that gravastars must have anisotropic pressures.
  • The outer photon ring of these objects sits at the Schwarzschild value $3M$, identical to a black hole's, so observations of the photon ring alone cannot distinguish them from black holes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the near-black-hole branch likely depends on the constant-density ansatz; testing the same covariant equation of state with a polytropic density profile would show whether the effect survives when the density is not uniform.
  • Beyond the paper: the paper does not analyze dynamical stability, and its own note that high-compactness configurations have a shallower effective potential suggests a radial-oscillation or axial perturbation study could determine which, if any, of these mimickers are stable.
  • Beyond the paper: taking the zero-thickness limit of the thick shell, which the paper leaves for future work, would connect this construction to thin-shell gravastar models and could reveal whether the interior final state is always de Sitter-like.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs static, spherically symmetric, constant-density stars in general relativity with anisotropic pressure governed by the covariant equation of state Δ = C ρ k^μ ∇_μ P_r. It derives closed-form expressions for the radial and tangential pressures, identifies a critical curve in the (M̂, Ĉ) plane where the central pressure diverges, and separates the parameter space into positive- and negative-central-pressure branches. The positive-pressure branch is claimed to admit compactness beyond the Buchdahl bound and arbitrarily close to the black-hole value for large anisotropy. The negative-pressure branch is singular but is regularized by replacing the divergent region with a constant-pressure thick shell, yielding anisotropic and isotropic gravastar configurations. The paper also analyzes energy conditions, photon orbits, trapping zones, and junction conditions for the thick-shell construction.

Significance. If the construction is sound, the paper provides a mostly analytical family of horizonless, ultracompact configurations in general relativity, including models with compactness M/R arbitrarily close to 1/2 and a three-layer gravastar realization. The pressure solutions are explicit, the isotropic limit correctly reduces to the interior Schwarzschild solution and the Buchdahl bound, and the junction conditions are written out in detail. The work is a useful addition to the black-hole-mimicker and gravastar literature, although it does not provide a microphysical derivation of the equation of state, a stability analysis, or a general existence proof for the thick-shell solutions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eqs. (7)-(8)] The orientation of the unit spacelike vector k^μ is never stated. With k^r = +e^{-B/2}, Eq. (7) gives Δ = +Cρ e^{-B/2} P_r' and the TOV equation (5) produces a denominator 1 − 2Cρ√(1−2m/r)/r in Eq. (8); the printed plus sign requires k^r = −e^{-B/2}, i.e., an inward orientation. Since the sign of the anisotropy term controls the existence of the ultracompact and negative-pressure branches, this convention must be stated explicitly and its robustness to the opposite orientation should be discussed.
  2. [Section II, Eqs. (16) and (19)] There appears to be a sign error in the expression for A(r) and hence in the effective potential. From Eq. (9), A'(r) = 4M r/[(3F−1)(1−2M r²)] > 0 on the regular branch, so matching to the exterior Schwarzschild solution at r=1 gives A(r)=ln(1−2M) − 4M∫_r^1 x dx/[(3F−1)(1−2M x²)], not plus. The printed plus sign makes Eq. (19) inconsistent with the exact isotropic effective potential in Eq. (A2); for example, at M=0.3 and r=0.5 the plus sign gives V≈2.93 instead of the exact V≈0.874. Although the photon-orbit condition (20) is unchanged, the quantitative effective-potential curves and trapped-region statements in Fig. 5 need to be recomputed with the corrected sign.
  3. [Section III and final remarks] The paper contradicts its own parameter-space classification. Section II and Fig. 1 define the red region as positive central pressure and the blue region as negative central pressure, but Section III states that configurations with P_c<0 "fall under the red (regular) region in Fig. 1." Additionally, the final remarks state that in the positive-central-pressure ultracompact branch "the tangential pressure is negative in the interior," whereas Section II.1 concludes P_t ≥ P_r ≥ 0 for that branch and Fig. 3 shows P_t > 0. These statements must be reconciled and the region labels corrected.
  4. [Section III.A and Appendix B] The thick-shell gravastar construction is demonstrated only for selected parameter values. Equation (B14) is a nonlinear condition for r2 given r1, and the paper does not show that a solution with r1 < r_d < r2 < 1 exists for a non-empty range of (M̂, Ĉ, γ), nor does it discuss uniqueness. The examples in Figs. 11-14 are valuable, but the paper should either provide an existence argument or explicitly state that only representative numerical solutions are being exhibited and that no general existence proof is claimed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 14 caption] The caption contains an unresolved placeholder "Same as Fig.??"; please fill in the reference.
  2. [Section III, Fig. 10] The text says the metric coefficient g_tt "has a zero at r̂_d but remains positive everywhere"; since it vanishes at r̂_d, the wording should be 'non-negative' or 'vanishes only at r̂_d'.
  3. [Section II, Eq. (12)-(14)] The displayed formulas for F and P̂_c are typeset in a very compressed way, with exponents and arguments running together; this makes independent verification difficult and should be cleaned up.
  4. [General notation] The paper mixes hatted and unhatted variables in the shell discussion around Eqs. (24)-(26); please make the use of hats consistent there.
  5. [Abstract and Section IV] The claim of compactness 'arbitrarily close to the black-hole value' should specify that, for the positive-pressure branch, this requires Ĉ to grow without bound as M̂ approaches 1/2; as written it may be misread as a finite-parameter statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained given the explicitly assumed anisotropic equation of state.

full rationale

The paper's central construction starts from the covariant anisotropic equation of state (7), imported explicitly from Ref. [14], together with the constant-density ansatz. This is an assumption, not a claim derived from the target result; Eq. (8) is an algebraic substitution of (7) into the TOV equation, and Eqs. (11)-(15) are closed-form consequences of that system. No parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted: the compactness Mhat and anisotropy Chat are free parameters that are scanned, and the critical curve in Fig. 1 is obtained by solving the vanishing of the denominator of the central-pressure expression (14), not by imposing the desired compactness by hand. The claim of compactness arbitrarily close to 1/2 follows from taking limits in the explicit formulas, rather than from any circular reduction. The cited prior work [14] is external to the present authors and is used only as the source of the equation of state; the paper explicitly says it studies the consequences of that EOS, so no ansatz is smuggled in as a derivation. The only notable internal defect is a labeling mismatch in Section III, where singular negative-central-pressure configurations are said to fall under the red (regular) region although Fig. 1 assigns red to positive central pressure; this is an inconsistency in presentation, not a circular step. Because the derivation is self-contained conditional on its stated assumptions and does not rename or fit its inputs, no circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's new content is generated from two inputs: the covariant anisotropic EOS (7) and constant density. Neither is derived from microphysics, and the sign of k^mu is implicit. The gravastar construction adds a hand-chosen shell parameter gamma and shell radius r1. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • C/R (dimensionless anisotropy)
    Controls the strength of the covariant anisotropic EOS (7). The branch structure, critical curve, and compactness limits depend on it. It is not fitted to data but chosen by hand and scanned in the figures.
  • M/R (compactness)
    The central physical parameter scanned up to near 1/2. It is a boundary condition of the solution, not a fitted constant.
  • gamma (shell EOS parameter) = -2 (stiff matter) and 0 (isotropic examples)
    Sets the constant radial pressure in the thick shell through Eq. (26). Chosen by hand in the gravastar constructions.
  • r1 (inner shell radius) = values not greater than r_d
    The shell inner radius is not uniquely determined by the model. The paper scans values r1 less than or approximately equal to r_d and solves r2 from Eq. (B14).
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The covariant anisotropic EOS (7), Delta = C f(rho) k^mu grad_mu P_r with f(rho) = rho, is assumed to describe the matter.
    Imported from reference [14] and not derived from microphysics. All subsequent solutions are solutions of this assumed EOS.
  • domain assumption Constant homogeneous energy density rho = constant in all fluid regions.
    Used to integrate the mass function and obtain the closed-form pressure expressions in Eqs. (9) to (12).
  • ad hoc to paper The unit spacelike vector k^mu is oriented inward so that Eq. (8) has a plus sign in the denominator.
    The paper does not state the orientation of k^mu. The opposite orientation changes the sign of the anisotropy term and alters the solution branch structure.
  • domain assumption The stellar surface is defined by P_r(R) = 0, and the exterior is Schwarzschild. Israel junction conditions with zero energy density and non-zero tension are used for the gravastar shell.
    Standard GR matching for compact objects. For the gravastar, the junction requires surface layers with zero energy density and negative tension, as computed in Appendix B.
  • ad hoc to paper The pressure divergence in the negative-central-pressure branch is excised and replaced by a thick shell, defining a gravastar.
    This regularization is a construction choice, not forced by the field equations. Different shell parameters gamma and r1 give different members of the family.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultracompact Anisotropic Stars and Gravastars in General Relativity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O3SXPDKE

@misc{pith2026260810991,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultracompact Anisotropic Stars and Gravastars in General Relativity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O3SXPDKE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10991}
}
read the original abstract

We study static, spherically symmetric ultracompact objects in General Relativity with anisotropic stress. Using the covariant anisotropic equation of state and assuming homogeneous density, we construct a mostly analytical model admitting configurations beyond the Buchdahl limit and with compactness arbitrarily close to the black hole value. The solutions exhibit two regimes separated by a critical curve in the parameter space of compactness and anisotropy, associated with the divergence of the central pressure: regular anisotropic configurations with positive central pressure, and singular configurations with negative central pressure for arbitrary anisotropy. In the latter case, we show that introducing a thick shell removes the pressure divergence, yielding regular ultracompact gravastar configurations. We further construct both anisotropic and isotropic gravastar models using this thick-shell construction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10991 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The critical (thick blue) line indicates the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Fig.4. The lower bound is essential for regular anisotropic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Figure (a) (respectively, (b)) shows radial pressure profiles for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Tangential pressure profiles, following the same details as those in Fig.2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The figure shows the plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Effective potential, photon sphere and trapped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The figure shows the radial coordinate for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Profile of the radial pressure for (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The plot shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The figure shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Profiles of the radial normalized pressure profile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Redshift factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Energy conditions Before the examination of the standard pointwise en- ergy conditions for the anisotropic regular configurations, we study the behaviour of the functionF(ˆr, ˆM ,ˆC), which determines the pressures. From Eq.(11) it follows that the radial pressure ˆPr(ˆr) is positive and finite for 1≥F( ˆM ,ˆr,ˆC)> 1 3 .(17) At the surface of the star,Fre...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Since the trapping zones follow from the effective potential, we present its main features for the regular anisotropic configurations presented above

    Null geodesics and trapping zones As discussed in [4, 20, 21], the existence of a region in which null geodesics are trapped can be relevant for gravitational waves and is related to the stability of the object. Since the trapping zones follow from the effective potential, we present its main features for the regular anisotropic configurations presented a...

    work page

  3. [3]

    As a simplifying assumption, in the models described here we choose to fixk I in such a way thatA I takes at ˆr= 0 the value of the isotropic model, given by Eq.(A1)

    In region III, defined by ˆr 2 <ˆr <1, we adopt the anisotropic solution, as given in region I, with an integration constantk III fixed by matchingA III to Schwarzschild’s solution at the surface. As a simplifying assumption, in the models described here we choose to fixk I in such a way thatA I takes at ˆr= 0 the value of the isotropic model, given by Eq...

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Region I, defined by 0<ˆr <ˆr1, is described by the anisotropic solution, namely, AI(ˆr) = 4ˆM Z ˆr′dˆr′ (3F(ˆr′)−1)(1−2 ˆMˆr′2) +k I ,(30) ˆPrI = ˆρ∗ F(r)−1 1−3F(r) ,(31) wherek I is an integration constant to be fixed by the boundary condition at the center

    work page

  5. [5]

    Hence, the presence of the shell does not alter the Misner-Sharp mass of the object

    The constant density and constant radial pressure solution is adopted in region II (ˆr 1 <ˆr <ˆr 2), namely eAII =K II(1−2 ˆMˆr2)γ,(32) PrII =− ˆρ∗ 3 (2γ+ 1),(33) ˆPtII = − ˆM(2γ+ 1) + 2 ˆM 2ˆr2(γ2 +γ+ 1) 4π(1−2 ˆMˆr2) .(34) 2 e−B = 1−2 ˆMˆr2 in all three regions. Hence, the presence of the shell does not alter the Misner-Sharp mass of the object

    work page

  6. [6]

    For fixed ˆM, the higher the value of ˆC, smaller the divergence radius

    For a fixed anisotropy parameter ˆC, increasing the compactness shifts the divergence radius outward to the surface of the star. For fixed ˆM, the higher the value of ˆC, smaller the divergence radius. This behaviour is seen in Figs.7(a) and 7(b) (along with the tangential pressure profile in Fig.7(c)), which show that both pressures for configurations wi...

    work page

  7. [7]

    B. R. Iyer, C. V. Vishveshwara, and S. V. Dhurandhar, Ultracompact (R¡3 M) objects in general relativity, Clas- sical and Quantum Gravity2, 219 (1985)

    work page 1985

  8. [8]

    Maggio, P

    E. Maggio, P. Pani, and G. Raposo, Testing the nature of dark compact objects with gravitational waves, inHand- book of Gravitational Wave Astronomy(Springer Singa- pore, 2021) p. 1–37

    work page 2021

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Vagnozziet al., Horizon-scale tests of gravity theories and fundamental physics from the Event Horizon Tele- scope image of Sagittarius A, Class

    S. Vagnozziet al., Horizon-scale tests of gravity theories and fundamental physics from the Event Horizon Tele- scope image of Sagittarius A, Class. Quant. Grav.40, 165007 (2023), arXiv:2205.07787 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Cardoso, L

    V. Cardoso, L. C. B. Crispino, C. F. B. Macedo, H. Okawa, and P. Pani, Light rings as observational ev- idence for event horizons: long-lived modes, ergoregions and nonlinear instabilities of ultracompact objects, Phys. Rev. D90, 044069 (2014), arXiv:1406.5510 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Cardoso and P

    V. Cardoso and P. Pani, Testing the nature of dark com- pact objects: a status report, Living Rev. Rel.22, 4 (2019), arXiv:1904.05363 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    H. A. Buchdahl, General Relativistic Fluid Spheres, Phys. Rev.116, 1027 (1959)

    1959

  5. [13]

    S. L. Liebling and C. Palenzuela, Dynamical boson stars, Living Rev. Rel.26, 1 (2023), arXiv:1202.5809 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Bueno, R

    P. Bueno, R. A. Hennigar, ´A. J. Murcia, and A. Vicente-Cano, Buchdahl limits in theories with reg- ular black holes, Phys. Rev. D113, 084008 (2026), arXiv:2512.19796 [gr-qc]

    2026

  7. [15]

    Andreasson, Sharp bounds on 2m/r of general spher- ically symmetric static objects, J

    H. Andreasson, Sharp bounds on 2m/r of general spher- ically symmetric static objects, J. Diff. Eq.245, 2243 (2008), arXiv:gr-qc/0702137

    2008 arXiv

  8. [16]

    R. L. Bowers and E. P. T. Liang, Anisotropic Spheres in General Relativity, Astrophys. J.188, 657 (1974)

    1974

  9. [17]

    Herrera and N

    L. Herrera and N. O. Santos, Local anisotropy in self- gravitating systems, Phys. Rept.286, 53 (1997)

    1997

  10. [18]

    S. Y. Lau, S. Ajith, V. Guedes, and K. Yagi, Nonradial instabilities in anisotropic neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083020 (2024), arXiv:2405.04653 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Guedes, S

    V. Guedes, S. Ajith, S. Y. Lau, and K. Yagi, Gravitational-wave constraints on neutron-star pressure anisotropy via universal relations, Phys. Rev. D113, 043025 (2026), arXiv:2510.26042 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026

  12. [20]

    Raposo, P

    G. Raposo, P. Pani, M. Bezares, C. Palenzuela, and V. Cardoso, Anisotropic stars as ultracompact objects in General Relativity, Phys. Rev. D99, 104072 (2019), arXiv:1811.07917 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Cattoen, T

    C. Cattoen, T. Faber, and M. Visser, Gravastars must have anisotropic pressures, Class. Quant. Grav.22, 4189 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0505137

    2005 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Jampolski and L

    D. Jampolski and L. Rezzolla, Nested solutions of gravi- tational condensate stars, Class. Quant. Grav.41, 065014 (2024), arXiv:2310.13946 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Jampolski and L

    D. Jampolski and L. Rezzolla, Formation of gravastars, Phys. Rev. D113, L121502 (2026), arXiv:2509.15302 [gr- qc]

    2026 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Dev and M

    K. Dev and M. Gleiser, Anisotropic stars: Exact so- lutions, Gen. Rel. Grav.34, 1793 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0012265

    2002

  17. [25]

    Schwarzschild, On the gravitational field of a sphere 13 of incompressible fluid according to Einstein’s theory, Sitzungsber

    K. Schwarzschild, On the gravitational field of a sphere 13 of incompressible fluid according to Einstein’s theory, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. ) 1916, 424 (1916), arXiv:physics/9912033

    1916 arXiv

  18. [26]

    M. A. Abramowicz, Gravitational radiation in optical ge- ometry applied to super-compact stars, Phys. Rept.311, 325 (1999)

    1999

  19. [27]

    Stuchl ´ ık, J

    Z. Stuchl ´ ık, J. Schee, B. Toshmatov, J. Hlad ´ ık, and J. Novotn´ y, Gravitational instability of polytropic spheres containing region of trapped null geodesics: a possible explanation of central supermassive black holes in galactic halos, JCAP06, 056, arXiv:1704.07713 [gr- qc]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Stuchlik, S

    Z. Stuchlik, S. Hledik, J. Soltes, and E. Ostgaard, Null geodesics and embedding diagrams of the interior Schwarzschild-de Sitter space-times with uniform density, Phys. Rev. D64, 044004 (2001)

    2001

  21. [29]

    P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, Surface tension and nega- tive pressure interior of a non-singular ‘black hole’, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 215024 (2015), arXiv:1501.03806 [gr- qc]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, Gravitational Condensate Stars: An Alternative to Black Holes, Universe9, 88 (2023), arXiv:gr-qc/0109035

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Posada and C

    C. Posada and C. Chirenti, On the radial stability of ultra compact Schwarzschild stars beyond the Buchdahl limit, Class. Quant. Grav.36, 065004 (2019), arXiv:1811.09589 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Visser and D

    M. Visser and D. L. Wiltshire, Stable gravastars: An Alternative to black holes?, Class. Quant. Grav.21, 1135 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0310107

    2004 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Beltracchi and C

    P. Beltracchi and C. Posada, Slowly rotating covariant anisotropic objects, Phys. Rev. D112, 084046 (2025), arXiv:2505.00139 [gr-qc]

    2025

  26. [34]

    Israel, Singular hypersurfaces and thin shells in gen- eral relativity, Nuovo Cim

    W. Israel, Singular hypersurfaces and thin shells in gen- eral relativity, Nuovo Cim. B44S10, 1 (1966), [Erratum: Nuovo Cim.B 48, 463 (1967)]

    1966

  27. [35]

    Visser,Lorentzian wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking(1995)

    M. Visser,Lorentzian wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking(1995)

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.