Test particle motion around a black hole dressed with a spherically symmetric stationary fluid

Ariadna Uxue Palomino Ylla; Chul-Moon Yoo; Yasutaka Koga

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 25 references

Test particle motion around a black hole dressed with a spherically symmetric stationary fluid

T0 review · 2 major / 3 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 redshift of stars orbiting a black hole can reveal the rate and type of matter falling into it.

desk verdict A clean, internally consistent perturbative calculation of accretion-modified orbits and redshift around Schwarzschild — but the headline redshift trend is plotted past the paper's own |QV|≪M0 bound, so the late-time claims need a convergence check. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21755 v2 pith:4KK3V745 submitted 2025-04-30 gr-qc

Ariadna Uxue Palomino Ylla , Yasutaka Koga , Chul-Moon Yoo This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783C1083C55

keywords blackholeaccretionperfectfluidequationofstategeodesicmotionapsisshiftosculatingorbitalelementsredshiftSchwarzschildperturbation

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

Accreting matter changes the geometry around a black hole, and this paper works out how those small changes alter the orbit of a test particle and the redshift seen by a distant observer. The authors model the surroundings as a stationary radial inflow of a perfect fluid with equation of state $p=w\rho$, treated as a first-order perturbation of the Schwarzschild metric, and they study four cases: $w=2/3$, $1/3$, $-3/4$, and $-4/3$. Positive accretion ($Q>0$) shrinks the orbit and enlarges the redshift modulation amplitude, while phantom-like accretion with $w<-1$ makes the orbit expand and the redshift modulation shrink. The central observable claim is that these distinct signatures allow accretion to be probed through long-term redshift monitoring of stars orbiting a black hole.

What carries the argument

The central object is the first-order perturbed metric $ds^2 \simeq -(1-2M(V,r)/r)(1+2\lambda(r))\,dV^2 + 2(1+\lambda(r))\,dV\,dr + r^2\,d\Omega^2$, built around the Schwarzschild solution with a mass function $M(V,r)=M_0+QV - 4\pi \int T^0_{\ 0}\,r^2\,dr$, where $Q=\dot M$ is the constant accretion rate. The fluid conservation equations reduce the inflow to a single function $F(r,v)$, whose saddle point for $w>0$ selects the physically critical solution. The analytical workhorse for the orbit part is the osculating orbital element method, which treats each revolution as a Kepler ellipse and yields the apsis-shift split $\Delta\omega = \Delta\omega_0 + \Delta\omega_Q + \Delta\omega_\rho$; the observable redshift is then evaluated from Eq. (67), which approximates photon paths as straight along the $x$-direction with the $V$-component of photon momentum conserved.

What would settle it

Ray-trace null geodesics through the perturbed metric instead of using the straight-photon approximation of Eq. (67), and check whether the growing redshift-modulation amplitude for $w=2/3$ and the shrinking amplitude for $w=-4/3$ survive; if the sign or size of the effect changes, the probe is an artifact of the approximation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that a spherically symmetric stationary perfect-fluid accretion flow, with constant accretion rate $Q$ and linear equation of state $p=w\rho$, leaves a measurable imprint on the orbits of massive test particles and on the redshift of a star following such an orbit. The apsis shift decomposes into the Schwarzschild advance $\Delta\omega_0$, an accretion-rate term $\Delta\omega_Q$ whose sign follows the sign of $Q$, and a matter-density term $\Delta\omega_\rho$ whose sign is controlled by the active gravitational mass density $(1+3w)\rho$ in the weak-field uniform limit. For regular fluid ($w=1/3$, $2/3$) the orbit shrinks and the redshift modulation amplitude grows over time; for the phantom-like case $w=-4/3$ the accretion rate is negative, the orbit expands, and the modulation amplitude decreases. The paper therefore presents the redshift time series as a practical observable that can distinguish accretion scenarios.

Load-bearing premise

The redshift calculation in Sec. V assumes that light from the star travels to the observer along a straight line in the $x$-direction and that the $V$-component of the photon momentum is conserved, even though the perturbed spacetime is not stationary; if photon bending or the time dependence of the metric changes the redshift pattern enough, the claimed accretion probe would not work as described.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For ordinary accretion ($w>0$, $Q>0$), the orbit tightens with time and the redshift modulation amplitude grows, while for the phantom-like case ($w=-4/3$, $Q<0$) the orbit expands and the modulation amplitude falls.
The periapsis shift can be retrograde at early times—as in the $w=2/3$ case—before turning prograde once the Schwarzschild term $\Delta\omega_0$ dominates as the orbit shrinks.
In the static uniform weak-field limit, the matter contribution to the apsis shift is proportional to $-(1+3w)\rho$, so the active gravitational mass density decides whether the total advance is larger or smaller than the vacuum value.
The accretion-rate term $\Delta\omega_Q$ is always negligibly small relative to $\Delta\omega_0$ and $\Delta\omega_\rho$, so redshift monitoring, rather than high-precision apsis measurement, is the more promising observational route.

Reading between the lines

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

If the redshift probe is confirmed, long-term monitoring of stars or pulsars near Sgr A* could in principle measure both the sign of $Q$ and a rough value of $w$, turning stellar orbits into an accretion-flow experiment.
The straight-photon approximation in Sec. V is the main target for a stricter test: full ray-tracing of null geodesics in the non-stationary metric could confirm the growth or shrinkage of the redshift modulation or show that lensing contaminates it.
The same perturbative machinery could be extended to spinning or charged black holes, where the accretion flow might break the degeneracy between spin-induced and matter-induced apsidal shifts.
Because the stress-energy tensor is an effective one, a positive detection need not mean exotic fluid; it could signal modified gravity, so the observable is a test of the strong-field gravitational theory as much as of accretion.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The thing to know: this is a careful, workmanlike first-order perturbative calculation of test-particle orbits and redshift around a Schwarzschild black hole dressed with a stationary radial perfect-fluid inflow. What's new is the combination — stationary rather than static fluid with metric backreaction, a spread of equations of state including phantom cases, and a first pass at an observable redshift signature. The derivation is self-contained and, as far as I checked, internally consistent: the vacuum limit returns Schwarzschild, and Table I reproduces the formulas (Δω0 = 6πM0²/l² ≈ 0.295 for l = 8; ΔωQ ≈ −2.4×10^-4). The authors are also upfront that the Sec. V redshift estimate assumes photon kV conservation and x-directed propagation, which they note is inconsistent with the non-stationary background.

The soft spot that matters is the late-time regime. The reader flagged the photon-path approximation as the weakest assumption; I think the perturbativity violation is more serious. For the reference orbit (l = 8, ri = 120, Q = 10^-6, M0 = 1), the Keplerian period is about 4.6×10^3 M0. Fig. 5 runs to 40 turns, where QV ≈ 0.19 M0; Fig. 7 runs to 50 turns, QV ≈ 0.23 M0. That contradicts the paper's own consistency condition (19), |QV| ≪ M0. The headline claim — the secular change in the redshift modulation amplitude over many cycles — is itself a first-order-in-QV effect, and at QV/M0 ~ 0.2 the formally neglected second-order terms are ~4% of the leading effects. That is enough to matter for small quantities like ΔωQ and for the quantitative late-time values generally; no truncation check or second-order estimate is reported. The early part of the evolution (Fig. 4, a few cycles) is likely fine, so the qualitative direction of the trend is probably right, but the late-time curves are not established. This is load-bearing for the abstract's 'may be probed by redshift' claim.

Secondary points: the photon-path error per crossing is plausibly small — the fractional metric change during a photon traversal is of order QΔV/M0 ~ 4×10^-4, and deflection contributes at the few-percent level of the Doppler terms — but the size of the inconsistency is not quantified, and a bound would be easy to add. The paper also never connects its parameters to a realistic accretion scenario, so the abstract's claim is an existence argument rather than a detection forecast. Citations are appropriate; the static-fluid precursors and Michel-type accretion flow are properly credited.

This is a paper for relativists building toy models of accretion-modified orbits around Sgr A*. It deserves a serious referee: the derivation is honest and the main flaw is concrete and fixable. I would send it to review expecting major revision; my own verdict is conditional, not accept.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies timelike geodesics in a spacetime obtained by perturbing Schwarzschild with a stationary, spherically symmetric radial inflow of a perfect fluid with equation of state p = wρ. The authors follow the first-order scheme of Babichev et al. to derive the metric functions M(V,r) and λ(r) in ingoing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, obtaining M(V,r) = M0 + QV − 4π ∫ T^0_0 r^2 dr with a constant accretion rate Q. After deriving the geodesic equations (44)–(46), they integrate them for w = 2/3, 1/3, −3/4, and −4/3 and find that the orbital radius generally shrinks for Q > 0 and expands for Q < 0. They then use the osculating orbital elements (OOE) method to split the apsidal shift into GR, accretion-rate, and fluid-density contributions (Eqs. (59)–(61)). Finally, assuming edge-on observation and photon paths along the x-direction, they compute the redshift of the orbiting particle and show that the modulation amplitude grows for Q > 0 and decreases for Q < 0. The abstract concludes that accretion effects “may be probed by using the redshift observation of stars orbiting around the black hole.”

Significance. If the results are valid, the paper provides a clean, self-contained framework for translating a phenomenological effective stress-energy tensor around a black hole into orbital observables. Its strengths are the explicit first-order derivation, the correct Schwarzschild limit, the validation of the OOE predictions against direct numerical geodesics, and the absence of any fitting of the output to the input parameters. The model also usefully extends earlier work on static dark-matter halos to stationary accreting fluids with exotic equations of state. However, the quantitative late-time predictions rest on two approximations that need to be controlled: the perturbativity of the first-order line element at large V, and the photon-propagation assumptions in the redshift calculation. With those controlled, the paper would be a credible proof-of-principle for accretion diagnostics via stellar redshift monitoring.

major comments (2)

[Secs. IV–V, Eq. (19), Figs. 4, 5, 7] The displayed integrations violate the perturbativity bound (19) at late times. For the fiducial orbit (l = 8M0, ri = 120M0, M0 = 1), the Keplerian elements are e ≈ 0.467 and a ≈ 81.8M0, giving P ≈ 4.6 × 10^3 M0. The redshift plots in Fig. 7 extend to φ = 100π (about 50 orbits), so V ≈ 2.3 × 10^5 M0 and |QV|/M0 ≈ 0.23 for Q = 10^-6; the apsis-shift plots in Fig. 5 reach N = 40, giving |QV|/M0 ≈ 0.18. These values are not “much smaller” than unity, so the later parts of the orbits lie outside the stated domain of validity of the first-order line element (22). Because the paper’s central observable claim is the secular growth or decay of the redshift modulation over many cycles, which is a first-order-in-QV effect, the uncomputed second-order terms (of order 4% at |QV|/M0 ≈ 0.2) could be comparable to the small ΔωQ contribution and to the late-time redshift changes. The authors should either restrict the numerical evolution to |QV| ≪ M0 or demonstrate convergence by including second-order corrections.
[Sec. V, Eq. (67)] The redshift observable is computed under two approximations that are acknowledged but not quantified: photon paths are taken to travel along the x-direction, and the V-component of the photon momentum is treated as conserved although the metric depends on V. Since this redshift is the only observable supporting the headline claim, the paper should estimate the systematic error of these approximations, for example by a simple ray-tracing estimate in the slowly varying metric, or explicitly restrict the conclusion to a proof-of-principle demonstration. Without such an estimate, the statement in the abstract and conclusions that accretion “may be probed by using the redshift observation” is stronger than the calculation supports.

minor comments (3)

[Sec. IV.B, after Eq. (59)] There is a typo: “apsis shit” should be “apsis shift.”
[References] The bibliography entries [26]–[50] appear to be printed twice after Sec. VI; the duplicate block should be removed.
[Sec. III] The text should state explicitly that the numerical integrations in Figs. 3–7 use M0 = 1; this is implied by the axes and by the sentence after Eq. (47) but never stated as a general convention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the metric, geodesics, apsis shifts, and redshift are all computed from the stated perturbative setup; Q, B, and w are free inputs, not fitted to the outputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The perturbed metric is obtained by solving the Einstein equations with a perfect-fluid stress-energy tensor (Eqs. 5-18), with consistency conditions given in Eqs. (19-21). The geodesic equations (44-46) follow from the Euler-Lagrange equations of that metric, and reduce to the known Schwarzschild equation (47) when the fluid is removed. The apsis-shift formulas (59-61) are derived by substituting the perturbed force terms into the standard osculating-element equations from Poisson's textbook; the contributions Δω0, ΔωQ, and Δωρ are integrated analytically, not fitted to the numerically observed precession. The redshift in Sec. V is computed from the same numerically integrated particle four-velocity and a null photon momentum constructed from the metric (Eq. 68); the photon-path approximation is explicitly acknowledged as a modeling simplification ('although it is not exactly consistent with the non-stationary background spacetime'), but this is a stated limitation, not a circular step. The parameters Q, B, and w are chosen inputs; the orbital shrinkage/growth and the redshift modulation amplitude are outputs. The self-citations [37-39,48] are used only to identify the critical velocity with the sound speed, and that identification is rederived here via ∂rF = ∂vF = 0 in Eqs. (36)-(38); they are corroborative, not load-bearing. The skeptical concern that |QV|/M0 grows beyond the stated bound (19) at late times is a correctness/validity issue, not an indication that a result is equivalent to its input. No equation in the paper has a target result inserted by hand, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

The model rests on standard Einstein gravity, a perfect fluid with a linear equation of state, and a specific stationary radial inflow configuration. The free parameters Q, B, w, and the particle initial conditions are chosen by hand to make the perturbation small and to illustrate the effects; they are not fitted to observations. No new particles, forces, or geometric structures are introduced.

free parameters (5)

Q (accretion rate) = 1e-6 for w=1/3, 2/3, -3/4; -1e-6 for w=-4/3
Sets the strength of the matter perturbation; chosen by hand to satisfy the perturbative restrictions (Eq. 19).
B (integration constant) = 1.30e-7 (w=1/3), 1.48e-7 (w=2/3), 4e-10 (w=-3/4), 4e-10 (w=-4/3), units of M0
Determines the fluid density profile through Eq. (34); for w>0 fixed by the critical transonic condition, for w<0 chosen by hand.
w (equation of state parameter) = 1/3, 2/3, -3/4, -4/3
Chosen to represent radiation, stiff matter, exotic matter, and phantom energy.
l (test particle angular momentum per unit mass) = 8 M0
Initial condition for the orbit; chosen to produce a relativistic orbit.
r_i (initial radius) = 120 M0
Initial radius of the particle motion; also sets the reference radius r0 in the metric integrals.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The Einstein field equations G_mu_nu = 8 pi T_mu_nu hold with an effective stress-energy tensor that may include gravity modifications (Eq. 1).
Basis of the perturbative setup; the paper explicitly frames T_eff as capturing both matter and possible theory modifications.
domain assumption Spherical symmetry and a perfect fluid stress-energy tensor with linear equation of state p = w rho.
The entire model is built on this, as stated in Sec. II.
domain assumption The fluid is a stationary radial inflow, with four-velocity given by Eq. (24) in the background Schwarzschild spacetime.
The fluid configuration is assumed, not derived from initial conditions; it defines the accretion model.
ad hoc to paper The first-order perturbation scheme of Babichev et al. [32] applies: G_mu_nu[g0 + kappa g1] = 8 pi T_mu_nu[g0] with divergence-free T (Eqs. 12-13).
This is the specific approximation scheme adopted, with restrictions (19)-(21) that the paper states but does not verify in the long-time integrations.
standard math The osculating orbital elements method from Poisson and Will [43] applies under the slow-motion ordering (54).
Used to compute apsidal shifts; a standard textbook method that the paper invokes without re-derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Test particle motion around a black hole dressed with a spherically symmetric stationary fluid." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4KK3V745

@misc{pith2026250421755,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Test particle motion around a black hole dressed with a spherically symmetric stationary fluid},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4KK3V745}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21755}
}

abstract

We investigate the motion of a massive particle around a spherically symmetric black hole surrounded by a stationary and radial inflow of perfect fluid. The background spacetime is modelled as a spherically symmetric solution to the Einstein field equations, where the effect of the fluid on the geometry is treated as a perturbation on the Schwarzschild background. The equation of state for the fluid is assumed to follow the linear relationship $p = w \rho$, where $p$ is the pressure, $\rho$ is the energy density with $w$ being a constant. The stress-energy tensor is treated as a phenomenological model to capture deviations from the vacuum Einstein theory. We allow the parameter $w$ of the equation of state to take both positive and negative values accepting a broad range of scenarios including exotic ones. Specifically, we examine the cases $w =2/3$, $1/3$, $-3/4$ and $-4/3$. For $\rho\geq0$, the former two cases satisfy all standard energy conditions while the case of $w=-3/4$ violates the strong energy condition and the case of $w=-4/3$ violates all standard energy conditions. By solving the geodesic equations, we visualize the time-like geodesics around the black hole, focusing on the apsis shift of the orbit. To gain further insight into the effects of accretion, we employ the method of osculating orbital elements. Additionally, we analyze the observable effects on spacetime by studying the redshift of the orbiting test particles as an example of possible observables. We show that the difference in the particle orbits due to the matter accretion may be probed by using the redshift observation of stars orbiting around the black hole.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21755 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Polar plot showing the vacuum geodesic solution for a test particle orbiting a black hole, highlighting the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Geodesic orbits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Comparison of perturbed and unperturbed orbits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: Apsis angle shift per orbital cycle components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: Redshift distribution in the orbital plane of a test particle under the Schwarzschild metric, used as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7: Redshift distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[51]

P., et al

Abbott, B. P., et al. 2016, Physical Review Letters, 116, 061102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102 2016
[52]

2016, Living Rev

—. 2016, Living Rev. Rel., 19, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9

doi:10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9 2016
[53]

2020, Astron

Abuter, R., et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 636, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037813

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037813 2020
[54]

G., et al

Adame, A. G., et al. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.03002

arXiv 2024
[55]

2020, Astronomy amp; Astrophysics, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/ 201833910

Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., et al. 2020, Astronomy amp; Astrophysics, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/ 201833910

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 2020
[56]

2022, Astrophys

Akiyama, K., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 930, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6674

doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac6674 2022
[57]

2012, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 29, 115002, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/ 29/11/115002

Babichev, E., Dokuchaev, V., & Eroshenko, Y. 2012, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 29, 115002, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/ 29/11/115002

doi:10.1088/0264-9381/ 2012
[58]

Collaboration, T. E. H. T., Akiyama, K., & et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 875, L1, doi: 10.3847/ 2041-8213/ab0ec7

work page 2019

Show all 25 references

[59]

2023, Int

Harada, T., Igata, T., Saida, H., & Takamori, Y. 2023, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 32, 2350098, doi:10.1142/S0218271823500980

2023 doi
[60]

2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 155007, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/15/155007

Iwata, K., & Yoo, C.-M. 2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 155007, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/15/155007

2016 doi
[61]

2021, PTEP, 2021, 093E03, doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptab101

Kimura, M., Harada, T., Naruko, A., & Toma, K. 2021, PTEP, 2021, 093E03, doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptab101

2021 doi
[62]

2019, Phys

Koga, Y. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 99, 064034, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.064034

2019 doi
[63]

2016, Phys

Koga, Y., & Harada, T. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 044053, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.044053

2016 doi
[64]

2018, Phys

—. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 024018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.024018

2018 doi
[65]

Michel, F. C. 1972, Astrophysics and Space Science, 15, 153, doi: 10.1007/BF00649949

1972 doi
[66]

2013, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2013, 042–042, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/06/042

Novosyadlyj, B., Sergijenko, O., Durrer, R., & Pelykh, V. 2013, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2013, 042–042, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/06/042

2013 doi
[67]

2007, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 119, 349–359, doi: 10.1086/517934

Nucita, A., De Paolis, F., Ingrosso, G., Qadir, A., & Zakharov, A. 2007, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 119, 349–359, doi: 10.1086/517934

2007 doi
[68]

Poisson, E., & Will, C. M. 2014, Gravity: Newtonian, post-newtonian, relativistic (Cambridge University Press)

2014
[69]

Schutz, B. F. 1985, A FIRST COURSE IN GENERAL RELATIVITY (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Pr.), doi: 10. 1017/CBO9780511984181

1985
[70]

2022, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 39, 215002, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ac8cca

Semiz, I. 2022, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 39, 215002, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ac8cca

2022 doi
[71]

2009, Astron

Smits, R., Kramer, M., Stappers, B., et al. 2009, Astron. Astrophys., 493, 1161, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810383

2009 doi
[72]

2024, Motion of spinning particles around black hole in a dark matter halo

Tan, Q., Deng, W., Long, S., & Jing, J. 2024, Motion of spinning particles around black hole in a dark matter halo. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.17760

2024
[73]

2020, Phys

Tsuchiya, M., Yoo, C.-M., Koga, Y., & Harada, T. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 044057, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.044057

2020 doi
[74]

Will, C. M. 2014, Living Reviews in Relativity, 17, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2014-4

2014 doi
[75]

2022, The general static spherical perfect fluid solution with EoS parameter w=-1/6

˙Ibrahim Semiz. 2022, The general static spherical perfect fluid solution with EoS parameter w=-1/6. https://arxiv.org/ abs/2210.16648

2022 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [51]

P., et al

Abbott, B. P., et al. 2016, Physical Review Letters, 116, 061102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102 2016

[2] [52]

2016, Living Rev

—. 2016, Living Rev. Rel., 19, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9

doi:10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9 2016

[3] [53]

2020, Astron

Abuter, R., et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 636, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037813

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037813 2020

[4] [54]

G., et al

Adame, A. G., et al. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.03002

arXiv 2024

[5] [55]

2020, Astronomy amp; Astrophysics, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/ 201833910

Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., et al. 2020, Astronomy amp; Astrophysics, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/ 201833910

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 2020

[6] [56]

2022, Astrophys

Akiyama, K., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 930, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6674

doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac6674 2022

[7] [57]

2012, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 29, 115002, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/ 29/11/115002

Babichev, E., Dokuchaev, V., & Eroshenko, Y. 2012, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 29, 115002, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/ 29/11/115002

doi:10.1088/0264-9381/ 2012

[8] [58]

Collaboration, T. E. H. T., Akiyama, K., & et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 875, L1, doi: 10.3847/ 2041-8213/ab0ec7

work page 2019