Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

A wormhole hidden at the core of a neutron star can keep the star traversable and, when magnetized, push the system's total mass beyond eight solar masses while emitting measurable gravitational-wave echoes.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 14:52 UTC pith:C7CES2KX

load-bearing objection The non-magnetized extension is coherent and the topic is fresh, but a real algebra error in the magnetized mass formula removes the >8 M_sun and z>1.5 claims; major revision needed before the magnetized results can be trusted. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.18795 v4 pith:C7CES2KX submitted 2025-12-21 gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-th

Mass--radius relations, surface redshift, and echo time of neutron-star--wormhole system with chaotic magnetic field and anisotropic matter

Muhammad Lawrence Pattersons , Freddy Permana Zen , Hadyan Luthfan Prihadi , Muhammad F. A. R. Sakti This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-th MSC 83C1583C5583C57
keywords traversable wormholeneutron staranisotropic pressurechaotic magnetic fieldscalar-field constraintsgravitational-wave echosurface redshiftultracompact object
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper seeks to show that a traversable wormhole can sit at the center of a neutron star without making the combined system unstable, even when the star's pressure is anisotropic and a chaotic magnetic field is present. The construction uses two constrained scalar fields whose only role is to supply the exotic matter needed to keep the throat open; once the constraints are imposed, the total energy density of the system is identically zero. The payoff is a set of testable-looking signatures: masses exceeding 8 solar masses, surface redshifts above 1.5, and gravitational-wave echo times spanning from tenths of a millisecond down to tenths of a microsecond. A careful reader should care because these are specific numbers that future gravitational-wave and X-ray observations could confront, even though they rest on a model in which ordinary stellar matter contributes no gravitational mass.

Core claim

Within general relativity, the authors construct static spherically symmetric solutions describing a wormhole embedded in a neutron star with CHEW-type pressure anisotropy and Lopes-Menezes chaotic magnetic fields. By choosing the metric ansatz e^{2λ}=(1-r0/r)^(-1) and a Tolman-VII-like density profile, they find that the scalar-field sector adjusts so that ρ_tot=0 exactly, making the ADM mass M equal to r0/2 everywhere. For magnetized solutions the throat radius is given explicitly by r0 = 2[4K(2-1/h)/(K+B0^2/(6πρ0^2))+1](ρc B0)/(ρ0 Bs) Rs, which leads to masses above 8 solar masses and surface redshifts z>1.5 in one of the two construction schemes. The gravitational-wave echo time τ=2∫_{r0

What carries the argument

The central object is the constrained two-scalar-field system, where the scalar fields are non-propagating auxiliary fields that source an effective exotic-matter sector; the ghost-free property follows from Lagrange-multiplier constraints that freeze field fluctuations. The geometric identity doing the heavy lifting is M=r0/2, which follows from ρ_tot=0 forced by the metric ansatz and density profile; this identity converts the throat radius into the total gravitational mass. The CHEW anisotropy model with parameter h makes the TOV-like conservation equation integrable, and the echo-time integral with photon sphere at R_p=3M maps the geometry to an observable time delay.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the chosen metric form and density profile force the total energy density to vanish, so ordinary neutron-star matter contributes no gravitational mass; if stellar matter contributed normally, the >8 solar-mass predictions and the ultracompactness would not follow.

What would settle it

Take the same wormhole-plus-star ansatz but integrate the TOV-like equations with a realistic tabulated neutron-star equation of state (instead of the polytrope p=Kρ^2 with K=100 km^2) and check whether ρ_tot remains zero; if the matter sector contributes to ρ_tot and the mass deviates from M=r0/2, the headline masses and echo-time scaling are falsified. Observationally, a neutron star with a mild surface field and independently measured mass below 8 solar masses showing an echo time in the predicted sub-millisecond band would also test the model's uniqueness.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the construction is right, neutron-star-like objects with wormhole cores should appear as ultracompact systems with masses above 8 solar masses and surface redshifts larger than 1.5 — values that ordinary neutron stars cannot reach.
  • The echo-time range (10^-2 to 10^-1 ms without fields; 10^-1 μs to 10^-1 ms with fields) gives gravitational-wave observatories a concrete window to search for prompt echoes accompanying compact-object signals.
  • The predicted drop in echo time as the magnetic field rises through ~10^16 G is a distinctive correlation: a magnetar-like source with strong surface field should show shorter echo delays than a weakly magnetized one at the same mass.
  • Because M=r0/2 ties the total mass to the throat radius, any measured mass for such a system directly fixes the wormhole geometry, making the model remarkably predictive despite its exotic ingredients.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The headline masses depend entirely on the neutron fluid contributing zero gravitational mass (ρ_tot=0). A version of the model with a realistic equation of state that feeds matter energy density into ρ_tot would likely collapse the masses to ordinary neutron-star values; the 8 solar-mass numbers should therefore be read as an upper bound of the toy construction, not a robust astrophysical predict
  • A natural testable extension is to repeat the echo-time calculation with the full density-dependent magnetic-field profile (η≠1) instead of the uniform-field toy model; if the sharp decrease at ~10^16 G persists, the relation could be used to infer the internal field strength of a candidate from echo timing alone.
  • The paper leaves implicit that a surface redshift z>1.5 is itself a nearly model-independent exotic-compact-object diagnostic, independent of echo detection; high-resolution spectral-line observations of a neutron-star-like source could test this even before gravitational-wave echoes are resolved.
  • Because the two scalar fields are introduced by hand and constrained to kill fluctuations, the ρ_tot=0 result may be a gauge artifact of that parametrization; re-deriving the same construction directly from the metric and matter without auxiliary fields would show whether the mass relation is physical or an artefact of the formalism.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends the ghost-free wormhole-plus-neutron-star (WH+NS) construction of Ref. [46] by adding Cosenza–Herrera–Esculpi–Witten (CHEW) pressure anisotropy and a chaotic magnetic field. With the metric ansatz e^{2λ}=(1-r0/r)^{-1}, a Tolman-VII-like density profile, a polytropic EOS, and the constrained two-scalar setup, the authors derive metric functions, throat radius, ADM mass, surface redshift, and gravitational-wave echo time for non-magnetized and magnetized configurations. The headline claims are that magnetized WH+NS systems can have ADM masses exceeding 8 M⊙, surface redshifts exceeding z≃1.5, and echo times ranging from 10^-2–10^-1 ms down to 10^-1 μs, with echo time decreasing for B≳10^16 G.

Significance. If the derivations were correct, the paper would provide a nontrivial extension of ghost-free compact-object-wormhole models and would connect them to potentially observable echo signatures. The authors are transparent about the ρ_tot=0 structure and about the non-uniform magnetic-field limit, which is a positive feature. However, the central magnetized mass formula contains a derivative error that invalidates the reported >8 M⊙ masses, the associated surface redshifts, and the magnetized echo-time results. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs or reproducible code, so the numerical claims cannot be independently verified without redoing the algebra. The significance is therefore conditional and, on the present equations, not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5, Eqs. (73)–(75)] Direct differentiation of Eq. (71) gives d(ln F1)/dr = ρρ'/D with D=αρ²+βρ+γ, so the anisotropic contribution to (e^{2ν})' is −4K(2−1/h)ρρ'/D. This vanishes at r=R_s because ρ(R_s)=0. Eq. (73) instead contains 4K(2−1/h)(2αρ+β−1)/(αD), whose surface value is nonzero. This spurious term propagates into Eq. (74) and becomes the K(2−1/h) enhancement in Eq. (75). Removing it leaves r_0=2(ρ_c/ρ_0)(B_0/B_s)R_s, with no anisotropy enhancement. All magnetized mass–radius curves, the >8 M⊙ masses, the z>1.5 claims, and the magnetized echo times in Figs. 7–11 depend on this erroneous term. The central claims are therefore not supported by the equations as written.
  2. [Sec. 4, Eq. (6) vs. Eqs. (7), (45), (46)] Eq. (6) states dp_r/dr = −h ν'(ρ+p_r). Combining Eq. (7) with the anisotropic conservation law Eq. (45) instead gives dp_r/dr = −[h/(2h−1)]ν'(ρ+p_r), equivalently ν' = −(2−1/h) p'/(ρ+p). These two relations agree only for h=1. Since the subsequent integration uses Eq. (7), Eq. (6) as written is inconsistent with the model actually solved. The non-magnetized h≠1 curves and the h-dependence of the throat radius inherit this ambiguity and require a corrected statement of the anisotropy parameter.
  3. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (39), (55)] Eq. (39) forces the total energy density to vanish, ρ_tot=0, and Eq. (55) then gives the ADM mass as M=r0/2 with zero volume integral of matter and magnetic-field energy. Thus the neutron fluid contributes no gravitational mass; the 'mass exceeding 8 M⊙' is entirely a throat/geometric mass determined by boundary matching. The paper should state this caveat prominently. As written, the comparison to the GW190814 secondary compact object and the phrase 'extremely massive neutron-star–wormhole systems' are likely to mislead readers into attributing the mass to the stellar matter.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (3)] The line element is missing the dr² term: it should read ds² = −e^{2ν}dt² + e^{2λ}dr² + r²(dθ²+sin²θ dφ²).
  2. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (6) and text] The stated choice f=(1−h)/2 ν' leads, through the standard TOV equation, to dp_r/dr=−(2−h)ν'(ρ+p_r), not −hν'(ρ+p_r). This appears to be a sign typo in the definition of f; please align Eq. (6) with Eq. (7) and Eq. (46).
  3. [Titles and abstract] The header title differs from the arXiv abstract title; ensure the final published title matches the journal submission.
  4. [Various notation] Subscript Λ_x in Eq. (17) should be Λ_χ. Also, some equations mix B and ℬ in Fig. 12; please unify notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: predictions are derived from explicit ansätze, not from fitting or self-citation.

full rationale

This paper's derivation chain is self-contained given the explicitly stated ansätze, and I find no step in which a predicted quantity is equivalent to an input by construction. The ghost-free construction and the metric/density choices (Eqs. 23, 24, 47, 48) are adopted transparently from Ref. [46], which is not authored by the present authors; adopting an earlier formalism is not itself circularity. The non-magnetized mass relation M=(8-4/h)Kρ_c R_s (Eq. 54) follows from integrating Eq. (45) to Eq. (50), fixing ν_c by surface matching, and differentiating to derive Eq. (53); no target mass or redshift is fitted. The magnetized mass formula (Eqs. 74–76) similarly follows from the integrated conservation law and the surface derivative; even if a reader disputes the differentiation leading to Eq. (73), that is an algebraic-correctness issue, not a circularity. The echo-time values come from the external formula τ=2∫e^{λ-ν}dr of Ref. [108] applied to the obtained metrics; the B-dependent toy model (Eqs. 77–79, Table 3) explicitly fixes R_s, r_0, R_p, ρ_c and calculates τ(B), so the decreasing behavior is a computed consequence rather than a fit. Self-citations (Refs [56], [71], [74]) are motivational/contextual and are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem from the present authors is invoked. The paper also flags its own limitations (toy-model status of Table 3; large-radius configurations 'incompatible with current observational evidence'). Accordingly there is no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 7 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claims rest on a large set of free parameters and modeling choices: h, K, n, ρ0, B0, Bs, η, ρc, plus the toy-model radii. The metric ansatz and density profile force ρ_tot=0, so all mass comes from the throat. The h-dependent results are further compromised by the Eq. (46) coefficient error.

free parameters (9)
  • h (CHEW anisotropy parameter) = 1, 1.5, 2
    Controls the strength of pressure anisotropy; all h-dependent mass/redshift/echo results scale with powers of 2-1/h in the paper.
  • K (polytropic EOS coefficient) = 100 km^2
    Adopted from Ref. [46]; sets the pressure scale through p_r=Kρ^2.
  • n (polytropic index) = 1
    Adopted from Ref. [46]; p_r=Kρ^{1+1/n}.
  • ρ0 (reference central density for magnetic ansatz) = 3240.46, 2008.27, 1459.81 MeV fm^-3 for h=1,1.5,2
    Scanning parameter; defined as the central density of the maximum-mass non-magnetized pure NS for each h.
  • B0 (core/throat magnetic field) = 3×10^15 to 3×10^18 G depending on set
    Free parameter in chaotic-field ansatz; four ranges in Table 1, with numerical sets using 3×10^18 G.
  • Bs (surface magnetic field) = 10^12 to 10^16 G
    Free parameter; numerical sets use 10^15 and 10^16 G.
  • η (magnetic profile exponent) = 1
    Set by hand to simplify the throat-radius calculation; the paper notes η close to zero would resemble a constant field.
  • ρc (central density scan) = scanned
    Central density along the mass-radius curves; free scan parameter.
  • Toy-model parameters (Rs, r0, Rp, ρc) = Set 1: 14.93, 10.66, 15.99 km, 0.078 MeV fm^-3; Set 2: 17.07, 11.99, 17.98 km, 0.769 MeV fm^-3
    Hand-picked inputs for the echo-time-vs-B toy model; chosen to give compactness 0.36 and 0.35 and treated as B-independent.
axioms (7)
  • ad hoc to paper Interior metric function e^{2λ}=(1-r0/r)^{-1} for all r≥r0
    Eq. (23); inherited from Ref. [46]. With the chosen density profile it forces total energy density ρ_tot=0 (Eq. 39) and ADM mass M=r0/2.
  • ad hoc to paper Tolman-VII-like density profile ρ=ρ_c[1-((r-r0)/(Rs-r0))^2]
    Eq. (48); assumed for both magnetized and non-magnetized cases and not derived from the polytropic EOS.
  • domain assumption CHEW anisotropy relation σ/r = (1-h)/2 (dν/dr)(ρ+p_r)
    Sec. 2.1; defines the anisotropy model, though the paper's algebra from this relation to Eq. (46) contains an apparent error.
  • domain assumption Chaotic magnetic field behaves as an isotropic fluid with ρ_B=B^2/8π, p_B=B^2/24π and B=B_s+B0(ρ/ρ0)^η
    Sec. 2.2; based on the Lopes-Menezes ansatz; the magnetic-field profile inside NSs is unknown and η is fixed to 1.
  • domain assumption Ghost elimination via Lagrange-multiplier constraints (Eqs. 17-19) makes the scalar fields non-propagating and fixes φ=t, χ=r
    Sec. 3.2; follows Ref. [46]; no independent check of the non-propagation claim is given in this paper.
  • domain assumption Echo-time formula τ=2∫_{r0}^{Rp} e^{λ-ν}dr and photon sphere Rp=3M
    Eqs. (57)-(59), from Ref. [108]; assumes the wormhole connects to an identical object and gravitational waves bounce between photon spheres.
  • domain assumption Magnetic field contributes negligibly to the EOS (no Landau quantization, no magnetization)
    Sec. 5, citing Refs. [80,109-113]; needed to keep the polytropic EOS unchanged in the magnetized case.
invented entities (2)
  • Constrained auxiliary scalar fields φ=t, χ=r no independent evidence
    purpose: Support the traversable wormhole geometry and provide effective exotic matter while avoiding ghosts
    No falsifiable handle outside the model; the fields are non-propagating by construction (Sec. 3.2).
  • Wormhole throat radius r0 embedded inside the neutron star no independent evidence
    purpose: Core ingredient of the WH+NS system; defines the ADM mass through M=r0/2
    No observational evidence for wormholes inside neutron stars; the throat is part of the model geometry.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 29771 in / 21489 out tokens · 194057 ms · 2026-08-03T14:52:02.140671+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this paper, we formulate neutron-star--wormhole (NSWH) systems supported by two scalar fields, allowing for both chaotic magnetic field and pressure anisotropy of the neutron fluid. The wormhole is traversable regardless of whether anisotropy of the neutron fluid and/or magnetic fields are included. In particular, the null energy condition (NEC) remains violated in the vicinity of the wormhole throat, ensuring the traversable nature of the geometry. For magnetized configurations, the resulting NSWH systems can become extremely massive, with ADM masses exceeding $8\,M_\odot$, and can exhibit large surface redshifts exceeding $z \simeq 1.5$. The system can also reach the ultracompact regime, which allows us to calculate echo time that might be produced the systems. Our calculations of the echo time indicate that it can vary depending on the chaotic magnetic field configuration and fluid anisotropy. For non-magnetized configurations, the gravitational-wave echo time is of the order of $10^{-2}-10^{-1}$ ms. For the magnetized configurations, however, it ranges from the order of $10^{-1}$ $\mu$s $-10^{-1}$ ms, suggesting that magnetic fields broaden the range of echo time. Moreover, to investigate the direct impact of the magnetic field on the echo time, we derive an explicit expression for the echo time as a function of uniform magnetic field. The resulting relation shows that the echo time decreases as the magnetic field strength increases.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Kerr/CFT Traversable Wormhole with Fermionic Double-Trace Deformation

    hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Fermionic double-trace deformation modifies the two-point function in Kerr/CFT to supply negative energy that opens a traversable wormhole, with traversability peaking at early times and increasing with near-extremal ...

  2. Proca-Maxwell System in an Infinite Tower of Higher-Derivative Gravity

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Higher-order terms in an infinite tower of higher-derivative gravity regularize a 5D Proca-Maxwell system, creating frozen regular cores that mimic extremal black holes and satisfy all energy conditions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    D.-C. Dai, D. Minic, D. Stojkovic, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 1103

    2020

  2. [2]

    Turimov, A

    B. Turimov, A. Davlataliev, B. Ahmedov, Z. Stuchl ´ ık, Chin. J. Phys. 94 (2025) 807–819

    2025

  3. [3]

    K. A. Bronnikov, S. V. Sushkov, Universe 9 (2) (2023) 81

    2023

  4. [4]

    Cataldo, L

    M. Cataldo, L. Liempi, P. Rodr ´ ıguez, Eur. Phys. J. C 77(2017) 748

    2017

  5. [5]

    Yousaf, B

    M. Yousaf, B. S. Alkahtani, G. Mustafa, S. K. Maurya, Chin. J. Phys. 97 (2025) 1255–1284. 25

    2025

  6. [6]

    Prat-Camps, C

    J. Prat-Camps, C. Navau, A. Sanchez, Sci. Rep. 5 (2015) 12488

    2015

  7. [7]

    D.-C. Dai, D. Stojkovic, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 083513

    2019

  8. [8]

    Godani, G

    N. Godani, G. C. Samanta, Chin. J. Phys. 62 (2019) 161–

    2019

  9. [9]

    M. K. Zangeneh, F. S. N. Lobo, Universe 11 (7) (2025) 236. arXiv:2507.14750 [gr-qc]. doi:10.3390/universe11070236

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Bambi, D

    C. Bambi, D. Stojkovic, Universe 7 (5) (2021) 136. arXiv:2105.00881 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Shinkai, T

    H. Shinkai, T. Torii, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 574 (2015) 012056. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/574/1/012056

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/574/1/012056 2015

  12. [12]

    M. Y. Piotrovich, S. V. Krasnikov, S. D. Buliga, T. M. Natsvlishvili, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 498 (3) (2020) 3684–3686

    2020

  13. [13]

    Flamm, Phys

    L. Flamm, Phys. Z. 17 (1916) 448–454

    1916

  14. [14]

    Flamm, Gen

    L. Flamm, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 47 (2015) 72. doi:10.1007/s10714-015-1908-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s10714-015-1908-2 2015

  15. [15]

    Einstein, N

    A. Einstein, N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 48 (1935) 73

    1935

  16. [16]

    C. W. Misner, J. A. Wheeler, Ann. Phys. 2 (1957) 525–603

    1957

  17. [17]

    Radhakrishnan, P

    R. Radhakrishnan, P. Brown, J. Matulevich, E. Davis, D. Mirfendereski, G. Cleaver, Symmetry 16 (2024) 1007. doi:10.3390/sym16081007

    doi:10.3390/sym16081007 2024

  18. [18]

    M. S. Morris, K. S. Thorne, Am. J. Phys. 56 (5) (1988) 395–412. doi:10.1119/1.15620

    doi:10.1119/1.15620 1988

  19. [19]

    F. S. N. Lobo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 25 (7) (2016) 1630017. arXiv:1604.02082 [gr-qc]. doi:10.1142/S0218271816300172

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    P. H. R. S. Moraes, P. K. Sahoo, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (8) (2019) 677

    2019

  21. [21]

    Kokubu, T

    T. Kokubu, T. Harada, Universe 6 (11) (2020) 197

    2020

  22. [22]

    Chianese, E

    M. Chianese, E. Di Grezia, M. Manfredonia, G. Miele, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 132 (2017) 164

    2017

  23. [23]

    Mustafa, T.-C

    G. Mustafa, T.-C. Xia, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 17 (10) (2020) 2050146

    2020

  24. [24]

    Azreg-A ¨ ınou, J

    M. Azreg-A ¨ ınou, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2015 (07) (2015) 037. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/07/037

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/07/037 2015

  25. [25]

    P. K. F. Kuhfittig, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 084014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.084014

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.084014 2006

  26. [26]

    Bhattacharya, S

    S. Bhattacharya, S. Halder, S. Chakraborty, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 34 (25) (2019) 1950200. doi:10.1142/S0217732319502006

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217732319502006 2019

  27. [27]

    Sreekumar, E

    H. Sreekumar, E. Harikumar, Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025) 82

    2025

  28. [28]

    De Simone, V

    C. De Simone, V. De Falco, S. Capozziello, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 064021. arXiv:2502.12646 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    De Falco, E

    V. De Falco, E. Battista, S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 104037. arXiv:2004.14849 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    De Falco, E

    V. De Falco, E. Battista, S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 044007. arXiv:2101.04960 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    De Falco, E

    V. De Falco, E. Battista, S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 157. arXiv:2102.01123 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    De Falco, M

    V. De Falco, M. De Laurentis, S. Capozziello, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 024053. arXiv:2106.12564 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    De Falco, Phys

    V. De Falco, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 024051. arXiv:2307.03151 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    P. Bhar, F. Rahaman, T. Manna, A. Banerjee, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 708

    2016

  35. [35]

    Biswas, C

    S. Biswas, C. Singha, S. Chakraborty, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 064043. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.064043

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.064043 2024

  36. [36]

    Hao, S.-X

    C.-H. Hao, S.-X. Sun, L.-X. Huang, R. Zhang, X. Su, Y.-Q. Wang, arXiv:2309.16379 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Su, C.-H

    X. Su, C.-H. Hao, J.-R. Ren, Y.-Q. Wang, arXiv:2311.17557 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Dzhunushaliev, V

    V. Dzhunushaliev, V. Folomeev, B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2011 (04) (2011)

    2011

  39. [39]

    Dzhunushaliev, V

    V. Dzhunushaliev, V. Folomeev, B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, Phys. Rev. D 85 (12) (2012) 124028. arXiv:1203.3615 [gr- qc]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.124028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  40. [40]

    doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2011/04/031

    arXiv:1102.4454 [astro-ph.GA]. doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2011/04/031

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  41. [41]

    Dzhunushaliev, V

    V. Dzhunushaliev, V. Folomeev, B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 084018. arXiv:1401.7093 [gr-qc]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.084018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  42. [42]

    Dzhunushaliev, V

    V. Dzhunushaliev, V. Folomeev, B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, Phys. Rev. D 87 (10) (2013) 104036. arXiv:1302.5217 [gr- qc]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.104036

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  43. [43]

    Dzhunushaliev, V

    V. Dzhunushaliev, V. Folomeev, A. Urazalina, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24 (2015) 1550097. arXiv:1506.03897 [gr- qc]. doi:10.1142/S0218271815500972

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  44. [44]

    Aringazin, V

    A. Aringazin, V. Dzhunushaliev, V. Folomeev, B. Klei- haus, J. Kunz, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2015 (04) (2015) 005. arXiv:1412.3194 [gr-qc]. doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2015/04/005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  45. [45]

    Dzhunushaliev, V

    V. Dzhunushaliev, V. Folomeev, B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 044060. arXiv:2210.04425 [gr- qc]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.044060

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    Dzhunushaliev, V

    V. Dzhunushaliev, V. Folomeev, B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2016 (08) (2016)

    2016

  47. [47]

    doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2016/08/030

    arXiv:1601.04124 [gr-qc]. doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2016/08/030

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  48. [48]

    Sulaksono, J

    A. Sulaksono, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 539 (2014) 012003

    2014

  49. [49]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, V. Folomeev, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 104007

    2024

  50. [50]

    M. L. Pattersons, A. Sulaksono, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 698

    2021

  51. [51]

    A. M. Setiawan, A. Sulaksono, AIP. Conf. Proc. 1862 (2017) 030001

    2017

  52. [52]

    Sulaksono, Int

    A. Sulaksono, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24 (01) (2015) 1550007. arXiv:1412.7247 [nucl-th]. doi:10.1142/S021830131550007X

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  53. [53]

    H. O. Silva, C. F. B. Macedo, E. Berti, C. B. Crispino, Class. Quantum Grav. 32 (14) (2015) 145008

    2015

  54. [54]

    Beltracchi, C

    P. Beltracchi, C. Posada, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 024052

    2024

  55. [55]

    Lopes, G

    I. Lopes, G. Panotopoulos, A. Rinc´ on, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 134 (2019) 454

    2019

  56. [56]

    Rizaldy, A

    R. Rizaldy, A. Sulaksono, Phys. Rev. C 109 (2024) 025803. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.025803

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.109.025803 2024

  57. [57]

    Yusmantoro, F

    Y. Yusmantoro, F. P. Zen, M. L. Pattersons, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 2550100. arXiv:2510.16061 [gr-qc]. doi:10.1142/S0218271825501007

    arXiv

  58. [58]

    L. M. Becerra, E. A. Becerra-Vergara, F. D. Lora-Clavijo, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 103004

    2024

  59. [59]

    M. L. Pattersons, F. P. Zen, H. L. Prihadi, M. F. A. R. Sakti, Phys. Lett. B 868 (2025) 139636

    2025

  60. [60]

    L. M. Becerra, E. A. Becerra-Vergara, F. D. Lora-Clavijo, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 103005

    2025

  61. [61]

    M. F. A. R. Sakti, A. Sulaksono, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 739 (2016) 012075

    2016

  62. [62]

    L. M. Becerra, E. A. Becerra-Vergara, F. D. Lora-Clavijo, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 043025

    2024

  63. [63]

    Abbott et al., Astrophys

    R. Abbott et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 896 (2) (2020) L44

    2020

  64. [64]

    V. A. Torres-S´ anchez, E. Contreras, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 829

    2019

  65. [65]

    Rahmansyah, A

    A. Rahmansyah, A. Sulaksono, A. B. Wahidin, A. M. Setiawan, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 769

    2020

  66. [66]

    Lander , D.I

    S.K. Lander , D.I. Jones, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 395 (4) (2009) 2162–2176

    2009

  67. [67]

    Fattoyev, C.J

    F.J. Fattoyev, C.J. Horrowitz, J. Piekarewicz, B. Reed, Phys. Rev. C 102 (2020) 065805

    2020

  68. [68]

    Kumar, P

    J. Kumar, P. Bharti, New Astron. Rev. 95 (2022) 101662. 26

    2022

  69. [69]

    Vida˜ na, Eur

    I. Vida˜ na, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 133 (2018) 445

    2018

  70. [70]

    Rizaldy, A

    R. Rizaldy, A. Sulaksono, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1011 (2018) 012083

    2018

  71. [71]

    Enoto, S

    T. Enoto, S. Kisaka, S. Shibata, Rep. Prog. Phys. 82 (10) (2019) 106901

    2019

  72. [72]

    F. Wu, C. Wu, Z.-Z. Ren, Chin. Phys. C 41 (2017) 4. arXiv:1612.04553 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  73. [73]

    Lopes, D

    L. Lopes, D. Menezes, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2015 (2015) 002. arXiv:1411.7209 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  74. [74]

    M. L. Pattersons, F. P. Zen, H. L. Prihadi, M. F. A. R. Sakti, G. Hikmawan, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 34 (15) (2025) 2550074. arXiv:2410.11884 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    J. M. Z. Pretel, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 27 (28) (2022) 2250188. arXiv:2301.02881 [gr-qc]. doi:10.1142/S0217732322501887

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  76. [76]

    L. L. Lopes, D. P. Menezes, Eur. Phys. J. A 56 (2020) 122

    2020

  77. [77]

    M. L. Pattersons, F. P. Zen, Proc. Int. Conf. Space Sci. Technol. Innov. (ICSSTI 2024), Bandung, Indonesia, De- cember 5, 2024, pp. 30–38. arXiv:2411.11558 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

    Y. B. Zel’dovich, I. D. Novikov,Stars and Relativity (Dover Publications, New York, 1971)

    1971

  79. [79]

    Herrera, W

    L. Herrera, W. Barreto, Physical Review D 88 (2013) 084022. arXiv:1310.1114 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  80. [80]

    Cosenza, L

    M. Cosenza, L. Herrera, M. Esculpi, L. Witten, J. Math. Phys. 22 (1981) 118–125

    1981

Showing first 80 references.