Analyzing Gravastar Structure with the Finch-Skea Metric in Extended Modified Symmetric Teleparallel Gravity

Iqra Ibrar; M. Sharif

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Analyzing Gravastar Structure with the Finch-Skea Metric in Extended Modified Symmetric Teleparallel Gravity

T0 review · 6 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the Finch-Skea gravastar in f(Q,T) gravity is a stable, singularity-free alternative to black holes, satisfying all standard physical and stability criteria.

desk verdict The Finch-Skea f(Q,T) gravastar combination is new, but the inner region never satisfies the p = -ρ condition, so the paper does not actually construct a gravastar. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09679 v1 pith:EZUVZCZE submitted 2025-02-13 gr-qc

Iqra Ibrar , M. Sharif This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783D05 PACS 04.70.Bw04.50.kd04.40.Dg

keywords gravastarf(QT)gravitysymmetricteleparallelFinch-Skeametricthin-shellIsraeljunctionconditionsblackholealternativestabilityanalysis

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 aims to establish that gravastars—hypothesized objects with a vacuum-energy core, a thin shell, and no event horizon—can be realized in f(Q,T) gravity, an extension of symmetric teleparallel gravity where gravity arises from spacetime non-metricity coupled to matter. Using the Finch-Skea metric, the authors derive explicit solutions for the de Sitter-like core, the stiff-fluid shell, and the Schwarzschild exterior, and connect them through Israel junction conditions. They then test the model against standard physical requirements: energy conditions, surface redshift, causal sound speed, and adiabatic stability. The intended conclusion is that modified gravity is essential for keeping the gravastar viable and stable, making it a physically plausible black-hole alternative without a singularity.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Finch-Skea metric ansatz inserted into the field equations of f(Q,T) gravity with the linear model $f(Q,T)=\mu Q+\nu T$, where $Q$ is the non-metricity scalar and $T$ the trace of the energy-momentum tensor. The three-region gravastar decomposition—core with $p=-\rho$, thin shell with $p=\rho$, and Schwarzschild exterior—is stitched together by Israel junction conditions, which give the surface energy density and pressure at the shell. Stability is carried by the effective potential $V(R)$, the surface redshift bound, the causality condition $0\le v_s^2\le 1$, and the adiabatic index $\Gamma>4/3$; satisfying these is what the paper counts as physical viability.

What would settle it

Compute the value of $e^{-\beta(R_0)}$ from Eq.~(39) using the matched constants from Eqs.~(47)-(49); if it is not much smaller than one, the thin-shell approximation and the surface quantities derived from it are invalid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the f(Q,T) gravastar built from the Finch-Skea ansatz satisfies the criteria for a stable, singularity-free compact object. With $f(Q,T)=\mu Q+\nu T$ and the metric potentials $e^{\alpha}=(\xi+\tfrac{1}{2}r\phi\sqrt{r^2\chi})^2$, $e^{\beta}=r^2\chi+1$, the core obeys $p=-\rho$ (de Sitter-like), the shell obeys $p=\rho$ (stiff fluid), and the exterior is Schwarzschild. The constants $\chi$, $\xi$, $\phi$ are fixed by matching the interior metric to Schwarzschild at the boundary, and Israel's thin-shell formalism yields the surface energy density and pressure. The model produces shell energy increasing with thickness, proper length proportional to thickness, entropy rising toward the outer surface, a phantom-like equation-of-state parameter $\omega<-1$, a positive second derivative of the effective potential, surface redshift below 2, sound speed in $[0,1]$, and adiabatic index above $4/3$. The paper concludes that these results demonstrate the structural viability and stability of gravastars in f(Q,T) gravity.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes the shell is so thin that the radial metric factor is effectively negligible, but the paper never demonstrates that its own shell solution actually satisfies that smallness condition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the model is right, the gravastar has no event horizon and no singularity, so it can serve as a black-hole mimicker whose shadow and lensing could differ from Schwarzschild black holes.
The null energy condition is satisfied with ordinary matter in the shell, so the model does not require exotic matter to stay stable.
All tested stability indicators—$V''(R_0)>0$, surface redshift below 2, $0\le v_s^2\le 1$, and $\Gamma>4/3$—hold simultaneously, giving a self-consistent stable configuration.
Shell energy, proper length, and entropy all grow monotonically with shell thickness, so thicker shells are energetically favorable in this framework.
The phantom-like equation-of-state parameter $\omega<-1$ places the shell fluid in the dark-energy regime, linking gravastar structure to cosmic acceleration phenomenology.

Reading between the lines

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

The junction parameters are fixed by matching the core metric, not the shell solution; if the shell metric is not itself matched to the exterior, the surface quantities may rest on an unsupported assumption. Computing $e^{-\beta(R_0)}$ from the shell solution would settle this.
Because the model uses only the linear form $f(Q,T)=\mu Q+\nu T$, the stability criteria could be re-derived for nonlinear $f(Q,T)$ to see whether the conclusions survive beyond the linear choice.
Observational discriminators such as gravitational-wave echo signatures or shadow-radius measurements could distinguish this gravastar from a black hole; the phantom-like shell equation of state would predict distinctive tidal or quasinormal-mode behavior.
The Finch-Skea core solution may be more robust than the thin-shell calculation: if the shell approximation fails for some parameter ranges, an alternative junction prescription could still leave the core viable.

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

Two things you should know about arXiv:2502.09679. First, the specific model is new: nobody has combined the Finch-Skea ansatz with f(Q,T) gravity for the three-layer gravastar, and the explicit core and shell expressions are not in the prior literature. Second, the central construction is invalid: the core equation of state p = -ρ is never satisfied, so the three-layer gravastar is not established.

The paper does follow the standard gravastar template carefully. The field equations for the f(Q,T) model are derived, the Finch-Skea metric is applied, junction conditions are written down, and physical quantities are plotted. The literature review covers relevant prior work, including Finch-Skea gravastars in f(R,T²) and gravastars in f(Q). For a reader wanting to see the template executed in this theory, the organization is clear.

The problem is load-bearing. In Section 3.1 the authors posit p = -ρ and derive condition (34). They never check whether it can hold. After the exterior matching (47)-(49), with M>0 and R>2M, the constants χ, ξ, φ are positive. For r>0, the numerator of (34) reduces to r[A r^4 + B r^2 + C] with A = (ν-3)φχ², B = -5(ν+12)φχ + 2(ν-3)ξχ^{3/2}, C = 6(ν-6)ξ√χ - 6(2ν+9)φ. Vanishing on an interval requires A = B = C = 0. A = 0 forces ν = 3, but then B = -75φχ ≠ 0. So condition (34) cannot be satisfied. The inner region is not a de Sitter core, and the gravastar's defining EoS fails.

The shell derivation has additional issues. The thin-shell reduction assumes e^{-β} << 1, but the text justifies it with "as r approaches zero" in a shell located near R0, and the resulting e^{-β} from (39) is never checked for smallness. The proper length computation sets dΠ_-/dR = 1/Π_- without justification; that identity is not true. Undefined symbol ψ appears in the surface quantities (60), (65), (66). The matching constants are fixed by fitting the core metric to Schwarzschild, not by matching the shell, so the surface quantities rely on an unestablished junction. The plots show no parameter values, so the stability conclusions cannot be reproduced or checked.

Who gets value from this? Only a reader cataloguing how the gravastar template is applied in f(Q,T). As a result, it does not support the claim that modified gravity is essential for viable stable gravastars. I would not send it to peer review in its current form; desk reject and invite a resubmission if the inner-region EoS can actually be satisfied and the shell matching cleaned up.

Referee Report

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a gravastar model in f(Q,T) modified gravity using the Finch-Skea metric, with the standard three-layer structure: a de Sitter-like interior (p=-rho), a stiff-fluid thin shell (p=rho), and a Schwarzschild exterior (p=0). It derives the field equations for the core and shell, matches the core metric to Schwarzschild to fix constants, and then computes shell energy, proper length, energy conditions, entropy, equation-of-state parameter, and several stability indicators, concluding that the model is a physically plausible and stable singularity-free alternative to black holes.

Significance. If the construction were sound, the paper would provide another example of a gravastar solution in an extended teleparallel gravity, and its explicit field equations and matching procedure would be useful for comparison with existing models. However, the central three-layer construction fails: the inner-region equation of state is never satisfied, the shell solution rests on unjustified approximations and an unproven junction, and several computed quantities contain algebraic or dimensional errors. The paper offers no machine-checked proofs, no reproducible parameter sets for its plots, and no comparison with the GR limit, so its concluding claim about the essential role of modified gravity is not supported by the analysis as presented.

major comments (6)

[Section 3.1, Eq. (34)] The inner-region equation of state p=-rho is never satisfied. With the matched constants of Eqs. (47)-(49) one has chi>0, so for r>0 the terms sqrt(r^2 chi) and (r^2 chi)^(3/2) reduce to r sqrt(chi) and r^3 chi^(3/2); the numerator of Eq. (34) then becomes mu chi [A r^5 + B r^3 + C r], where A=(nu-3) phi chi^2, B=-5(nu+12) phi chi + 2(nu-3) xi chi^(3/2), and C=6(nu-6) xi sqrt(chi) - 6(2 nu+9) phi. Vanishing on any interval requires A=B=C=0. Since phi is nonzero for M>0, A=0 forces nu=3, but then B=-75 phi chi is nonzero. Thus Eq. (34) cannot hold on the core region, and the paper never solves or checks it; instead it computes the core mass from rho in Eq. (29). The defining gravastar core is therefore absent, and the three-layer construction on which all viability and stability claims rest is not established.
[Sections 3.2 and 4] The thin-shell solution is derived under the assumption e^{-beta} << 1, but the text in Section 3.2 replaces this with 'as the radial coordinate r approaches to zero', which is inappropriate at the shell radius R0, and the resulting e^{-beta} from Eq. (39) is never checked to be small. Moreover, the constants chi, xi, phi that appear in the shell quantities are fixed in Section 4 by matching the core metric (28) to the Schwarzschild exterior at r=R, not by matching the shell metric; c1 remains free and no continuity or junction conditions across the shell are imposed. Consequently the surface energy density and pressure in Eqs. (65)-(66), which underlie nearly all subsequent conclusions, are computed from an unjustified shell geometry.
[Section 5.1, Eq. (68)] The shell energy expression is not derived from the surface density rho0 of Eq. (65), as the text claims. The right-hand side of Eq. (68) equals (4 pi/3)((R0+epsilon)^3 - R0^3) times the core energy density rho(R0) from Eq. (29), i.e., the energy of a bulk spherical core of thickness epsilon, not the energy stored in the thin shell. The claim 'Using Eqs.(65)' is therefore incorrect, and Figure 5 does not establish the stated behavior of the shell energy.
[Section 5.2, Eqs. (70)-(72)] The proper length computation contains multiple errors. Since e^{-beta}=Pi_- by the identification used in Eq. (60), the integrand of L = int sqrt(e^beta) dR is 1/sqrt(Pi_-), not 1/Pi_- as written in Eq. (71). The further substitution dPi_-/dR = 1/Pi_- is introduced with no justification and is dimensionally inconsistent; it is not a property of the Finch-Skea metric or of the shell solution. The resulting expression L = Pi_-(R0+epsilon) - Pi_-(R0) and Figure 6 are therefore not the proper length of the gravastar shell.
[Section 5.4, Eq. (75)] The entropy calculation pulls the factor R^2 out of the radial integral without justification. Starting from Eq. (73), the integrand is 4 pi R^2 s(R) sqrt(e^beta), so after substituting s(R) the R^2 factor must remain inside the integral; Eq. (75) instead defines N = int sqrt(P0 e^beta) dR and multiplies by a constant R^2. In addition, the antiderivative F(R) in Eq. (77) is never computed, so Figure 8 is not supported by the equations presented.
[Sections 5.3 and 5.6] The concluding claim that modified gravity is 'essential' for the structural viability and stability of the gravastar is not tested. No comparison is made with the GR limit (nu=0, mu=1) or with varied coupling constants, and the plots in Figures 7 and 10-13 do not specify the values of nu, c1, M, and R0 used. The energy-condition and stability checks are therefore computed from the same ansatz, coupling constants, and matching constants used to construct the model, and they provide no independent confirmation of the model's viability.

minor comments (5)

[Eqs. (60), (65), (66)] The symbol psi appears in the expressions for Pi_-, rho0, and P0 but is never defined, so these key surface quantities cannot be evaluated by the reader.
[Eqs. (25)-(31) and (68)] The notation is inconsistent: eta, zeta, and 'nu a' appear in places where nu and mu are clearly intended, for example in Eq. (68) versus Eq. (29), and this obscures the derivations.
[Figure 7] The caption states that the NEC is plotted versus the model parameter mu, but the text does not specify the fixed values of nu, M, R0, and c1, so the plot cannot be reproduced or checked.
[Section 5.5] The equation-of-state parameter omega is described as entering the phantom region, but no explicit expression for omega is given; only Figure 9 is shown, again without a reproducible parameter set.
[Section 5.6, Eq. (78)] The speed of sound is written as v_s^2 = p'/rho' for the thin-shell fluid, but the text does not state with respect to which variable the derivatives are taken or at which radius the expression is evaluated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model is a self-consistency construction whose stability and viability checks are evaluated from the same derived solution, not extracted from its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper does not exhibit any of the circularity patterns defined in the brief. The metric ansatz (28) and the f(Q,T) model (24) are explicit inputs; Eqs. (29)-(32), (39), (65)-(66) are derived consequences of those inputs. The later energy-condition, redshift, causality, and adiabatic-index checks are consistency evaluations of that same solution, not independent predictions that reduce to fitted parameters. The constants χ, ξ, φ are fixed by boundary matching at the junction (Eqs. (41)-(43)) and are then reused in the shell and surface quantities; this is parameter propagation within a self-contained model, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. No load-bearing step relies on a self-citation: the Finch-Skea modification is attributed to Ref. [90], the f(Q,T) form to Ref. [87], and the Israel formalism to Refs. [96,99]. There are serious non-circularity concerns that should be weighed separately: Eq. (34), obtained by imposing the inner-region EoS p = -ρ, is never verified and with the matched constants (47)-(49) its numerator cannot vanish identically, so the 'inner region' does not demonstrably satisfy the gravastar-defining EoS; the thin-shell assumption e^{-β} << 1 is not checked against the shell solution (39); and the concluding claim that modified gravity is 'essential' is not supported by a GR-limit or parameter-variation comparison. These are validity and support gaps, not circular reductions, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces several unconstrained constants (mu, nu, c1, M, R0, and the undefined psi) and relies on the gravastar EoS and the Finch-Skea ansatz as inputs. The central claim is therefore a constructed example, not a parameter-free derivation.

free parameters (5)

nu (coupling constant) = unspecified
Constant in f(Q,T) = mu Q + nu T; appears in all physical quantities and in the stability plots but its value is not stated or constrained.
mu (coupling constant) = unspecified
Scale of f(Q,T); Figure 7 plots NEC against mu but no value or range is given.
c1 (shell integration constant) = unspecified
Appears in the shell metric (39) and in surface density and pressure (65)-(66); left arbitrary and unfixed by matching.
M and R0 (mass and matching radius) = unspecified
Used to set chi, xi, phi in (47)-(49) and in all figures; no numerical values are given, so plots cannot be reproduced.
psi (undefined symbol) = unspecified
Appears in Pi_- (60) and in rho0, P0 (65)-(66) without definition; if it is a parameter, it is free and unconstrained.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The f(Q,T) field equations as written in (20)-(22) are correct for the chosen action (13) and matter model (19).
The paper does not derive these from the action in full; it cites refs [80]-[86]. If the equations contain the typos visible in (25)-(27) (eta, nu a), the subsequent derivation is unreliable.
domain assumption The Finch-Skea ansatz (28) is taken as the interior metric.
Adopted from [64] and [90] without deriving it from physics.
domain assumption Gravastar EoS: p = -rho in the core and p = rho in the shell.
These are imposed as definitions of the gravastar regions, not derived.
domain assumption Thin-shell approximation: e^{-beta} is positive and much smaller than unity, and r-dependent terms are negligible as r goes to 0.
Section 3.2 uses this to reduce the field equations, but the r goes to 0 statement is not appropriate for a shell at finite radius.
ad hoc to paper Setting dPi_-/dR = 1/Pi_- to evaluate the proper length integral.
Section 5.2, Eqs (71)-(72); this substitution is not a property of the function Pi_- and is unjustified.
ad hoc to paper The equivalence of matching the core metric to the exterior and using the resulting constants in the shell solution.
Section 4 matches Eq (28) (core) to Schwarzschild, then uses those constants in the shell metric (39) and surface quantities (60), without a continuity condition at the core-shell boundary.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analyzing Gravastar Structure with the Finch-Skea Metric in Extended Modified Symmetric Teleparallel Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EZUVZCZE

@misc{pith2026250209679,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analyzing Gravastar Structure with the Finch-Skea Metric in Extended Modified Symmetric Teleparallel Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EZUVZCZE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09679}
}

abstract

This study analyzes the physical features of a gravastar within the $f(\mathcal{Q}, \mathbb{T})$ gravity framework, where $\mathcal{Q}$ is the non-metricity scalar and $\mathbb{T}$ is the trace of the energy-momentum tensor. Gravastars present a viable alternative to black holes, featuring a central de Sitter core, a surrounding thin shell and a dynamic layer in the Schwarzschild exterior that separates these two regions. Using the Finch-Skea metric, the necessary field equations for the core and shell are derived, while the Israel junction conditions maintain a seamless connection between the inner and outer regions. This work extensively explores crucial aspects such as energy distribution, proper length, energy conditions, entropy and the equation of state parameter. The model's stability is studied through the effective potential, redshift, causality conditions and adiabatic index. Our results highlight the essential role of modified gravity in maintaining the structural viability and stability of gravastars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09679 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Plot of M with respect to r. these types of fluids are often considered improbable, they provide an essential educational resource by demonstrating various techniques for investigating different systems and addressing physically interesting challenges. In this context, Zel′dovich [93] was the first to introduce the idea of this fluid, characterizing it as a stiff fluid. Staelens et al. [94] conducted an in-depth … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Plot of ̺ = p with respect to r. Substituting Eqs.(23), (24), (28) and (35) into Eqs.(36) through (38), we first combine Eqs.(36) and (37), and then add Eqs.(37) and (38). Solving the resulting pair of equations leads us to the final outcome e −β(r) = −c1 − (ν + 2) (r 2χ + 1) 2ξ + rϕp r 2χ r 2χ 6(ν − 2)ξ + (ν − 10)rϕp r 2χ , (39) where c1 is the constant of integration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (10 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Plots of ρ0 and P0 with respect to R0. 5.1 Energy The center of a gravastar indicates the existence of DE due to the negative pressure that produces a repulsive force. The energy of the shell can be determined using the following formula [102] E = Z R0+ǫ R0 4πR2 ρ0dR. …

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Plot of energy with respect to thickness. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Plot of proper length with respect to thickness. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Plot of the NEC versus the model parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Plot of entropy with respect to thickness. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Plot of EoS with respect to R0. ω ≥ −1 defines the non-phantom regime. Current research explores potential variations in the EoS parameter over time and the implications of different forms of DE, making it essential for understanding the universe fate and the evolution…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Plot of V ′′(R0) against R0. 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 R@kmD ZHRL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Plot of Z(R) against R. distribution of perfect fluid [103]. This requirement is critical for the stability of such systems, as it prevents excessive gravitational forces that could lead to instability or collapse. A surface redshift exceeding this limit suggests a …

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Plot of υ 2 s with respect to R. and Eq.(37), we can express the speed of sound as υ 2 s = p ′ ̺ ′ . (78) To determine the speed of sound specifically within the thin-shell, we evaluate this expression at R. According to Poisson and Visser [105], the causality conditi…

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Plot of Γ with respect to R. The stability of an object is determined for Γ to be greater than 4/3. If Γ is below this critical value, the object becomes unstable and could collapse [104] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Neutron stars in $f(\mathbb{Q})$ gravity
gr-qc 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

For f(Q)=Q+αQ² and f(Q)=Q^β, neutron-star solutions that admit power-series expansions at the center or at infinity collapse to General Relativity; genuine beyond-GR effects must be non-analytic.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Hubble, E.: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 15(1929)168

1929
[2]

and Ratra, B.: Rev

Peebles, P.J.E. and Ratra, B.: Rev. Mod. Phys. 75(2003)559

2003
[3]

and Yo, H.J.: Chin

Nester, J.M. and Yo, H.J.: Chin. J. Phys. 37(1999)113

1999
[4]

and Koivisto, T.: Phys

Jimenez, J.B., Heisenberg, L. and Koivisto, T.: Phys. Rev. D 98(2018)044048

2018
[5]

Adeel, M.: et al.: Mod. Phys. Lett. A 38(2023)2350152

2023
[6]

Sharif, M.: et al.: Chin. J. Phys. 91(2024)66

2024
[7]

Rani, S.: et al.: Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 21(2024)2450033

2024
[8]

et.: Eur

Gul, M.Z. et.: Eur. Phys. J. C 84(2024)8

2024

Show all 106 references

[9]

et al.: Phys

Maurya, S.K. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 46(2024)101619

2024
[10]

109(2024)102211

Sharif, M.: et al.: New Astron. 109(2024)102211

2024
[11]

Dark Universe 47(2025)101754

Rani, S.: et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 47(2025)101754

2025
[12]

Dark Universe 47(2025)101760

Sharif, M.: et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 47(2025)101760

2025
[13]

et al.: Phys

Koussour, M. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 46(2024)101577

2024
[14]

et al.: Chin

Gul, M.Z. et al.: Chin. J. Phys. 88(2024)388

2024
[15]

et al.: Eur

Sharif, M. et al.: Eur. Phys. J. C 84(2024)1094

2024
[16]

et al.: Phys

Myrzakulov, Y. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 45(2024)101545. 33

2024
[17]

and Gul, M.Z.: Ann

Sharif, M. and Gul, M.Z.: Ann. Phys. 465(2024)169674

2024
[18]

et al.: Physics of the Dark Universe 46(2024)101555

Errehymy, A. et al.: Physics of the Dark Universe 46(2024)101555

2024
[19]

and Gul, M.Z.: Phys

Sharif, M. and Gul, M.Z.: Phys. Scr. 99(2024)065036

2024
[20]

et al.: Chin

Gul, M.Z. et al.: Chin. J. Phys. 89(2024)1347

2024
[21]

et al.: Eur

Xu, Y. et al.: Eur. Phys. J. C 79(2019)708

2019
[22]

High Energy Astrophys

Zhadyranova, A.: J. High Energy Astrophys. 44(2024)123

2024
[24]

Koussour, M.: Chin. J. Phys. 90(2024)108

2024
[26]

et al.: Chin

Gul, M.Z. et al.: Chin. Phys. C. 48(2024)12503

2024
[27]

Dark Universe 45(2024)101527

Koussour, M.: Phys. Dark Universe 45(2024)101527

2024
[28]

et al.: Phys

Nan, G. et al.: Phys. Dark Universe 46(2024)101635

2024
[29]

et al.: Eur

Gul, M.Z. et al.: Eur. Phys. J. C 84(2024)802

2024
[31]

et al.: Fortschr

Pradhan, S. et al.: Fortschr. der Phys. 72(2024)2400092

2024
[32]

et al.: Phys

Gul, M.Z. et al.: Phys. Scr. 99(2024)045006

2024
[33]

et al.: Phys

Arora, S. et al.: Phys. Dark Univ. 30(2020)100664

2020
[34]

and Sahoo, P.K.: Eur

Bhattacharjee, S. and Sahoo, P.K.: Eur. Phys. J. C 80(2020)289

2020
[35]

and Samanta, G.C.: Int

Godani, N. and Samanta, G.C.: Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys . 18(2021)2150134

2021
[36]

et al.: Phys

Agrawal, A.S. et al.: Phys. Dark Univ. 33(2021)100863

2021
[37]

and Farhoudi, M.: Phys

Shiravand, M., Fakhry, S. and Farhoudi, M.: Phys. Dark Univ. 37(2022)101106. 34

2022
[38]

and Sahoo, P.K.: Phys

Tayde, M., Hassan, Z. and Sahoo, P.K.: Phys. Dark Univ. 42(2023)101288

2023
[39]

and Ibrar, I.: Chin

Sharif, M. and Ibrar, I.: Chin. J. Phys. 89(2024)1578; Eur. Phys. J. Plus 139(2024)1; Phys. Scr. 99(2024)105034

2024
[40]

and Mazur, P.O.: Gravitational condensate stars: An alter- native to black holes (In APS April Meeting Abstracts, 2002); Mazur, P.O

Mottola, E. and Mazur, P.O.: Gravitational condensate stars: An alter- native to black holes (In APS April Meeting Abstracts, 2002); Mazur, P.O. and Mottola, E.: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 101(2004)9545

2004
[41]

et al.: Phys

Sakai, N. et al.: Phys. Rev. D 90(2014)104013

2014
[42]

and Sakai, N.: Phys

Kubo, T. and Sakai, N.: Phys. Rev. D 93(2016)084051

2016
[43]

and Mazur, P.O.: Universe 9(2023)88

Mottola, E. and Mazur, P.O.: Universe 9(2023)88

2023
[44]

Visser, M

Sotiriou, T.P. Visser, M. and Weinfurtner, S.: J. High Energy Phy s. 9(2023)88

2023
[45]

and Pani, P.: Phys

Cardoso, V., Franzin, E. and Pani, P.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 116(2016)171101; 117(2016)089902

2016
[46]

et al.: Astrophys

Akiyama, K. et al.: Astrophys. J. Lett. 875(2019)L6

2019
[47]

and Wiltshire, D.L.: Class

Visser, M. and Wiltshire, D.L.: Class. Quantum Grav. 21(2004)1135

2004
[48]

Quantum Grav

Carter, B.M.N.: Class. Quantum Grav. 22(2005)4551

2005
[49]

et al.: J

Bilic, N. et al.: J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2006(2006)13

2006
[50]

et al.: Results Phys

Ghosh, S. et al.: Results Phys. 14(2009)102473

2009
[51]

et al.: Phys

Das, A. et al.: Phys. Rev. D 95(2017)124011

2017
[52]

and Ahmad, M.: Phys

Shamir, M.F. and Ahmad, M.: Phys. Rev. D 97(2018)104031

2018
[53]

and Waseem, A.: Astrophys

Sharif, M. and Waseem, A.: Astrophys. Space Sci. 364(2019)189

2019
[54]

et al.: Ann

Ghosh, S. et al.: Ann. Phys. 411(2019)167968

2019
[55]

and Rehman, A.: Phys

Bhatti, M.Z., Yousaf, Z. and Rehman, A.: Phys. Dark Univ. 29(2020)100561. 35

2020
[56]

and Sahoo, P.K.: Chin

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

2023
[57]

and Sahoo, P.K.: Fortschr

Mohanty, D. and Sahoo, P.K.: Fortschr. Phys. 72(2024)2400082

2024
[58]

et al.: Chin

Javed, F. et al.: Chin. J. Phys. 90(2024)421

2024
[59]

and Sahoo, P.K.: Ann

Mohanty, D., Ghosh, S. and Sahoo, P.K.: Ann. Phys. 463(2024)169636

2024
[60]

and Oikonomou, V.K.: Phys

Odintsov, S.D. and Oikonomou, V.K.: Phys. Rev. D 107(2023)104039

2023
[61]

et al.: Phys

Teruel, G.R.P. et al.: Phys. Dark Univ. 43(2024)101404

2024
[62]

and Tabassum, A.: Chin

Sharif, M., Naseer, T. and Tabassum, A.: Chin. J. Phys. 92(2024)579

2024
[63]

and Ray, R.: Class

Dourah, H.L. and Ray, R.: Class. Quantum Grav. 4(1987)1691

1987
[64]

and Skea, J.E.F.: Class

Finch, M.R. and Skea, J.E.F.: Class. Quantum Grav. 6(1989)467

1989
[65]

Space Sci

Bhar, P.: Astrophys. Space Sci. 359(2015)41

2015
[66]

and Dey, S.: Astrophys

Paul, B.C. and Dey, S.: Astrophys. Space Sci. 363(2018)220

2018
[67]

and Pradhan, A.: Mod

Banerjee, A., Jasim, M.K. and Pradhan, A.: Mod. Phys. Lett. A 35(2020)2050071

2020
[68]

and Naz, S.: Mod

Sharif, M. and Naz, S.: Mod. Phys. Lett. A 38(2023)2350123

2023
[69]

et al.: Chin

Dayanandan, B. et al.: Chin. J. Phys. 82(2023)155

2023
[70]

et al.: Chin

Mustafa, G. et al.: Chin. J. Phys. 88(2024)954

2024
[71]

et al.: Phys

Shahzad, M.R. et al.: Phys. Dark Univ. 46(2024)101646

2024
[72]

and Govender, M.: Chin

Rej, P., Bogadi, R.S. and Govender, M.: Chin. J. Phys. 87(2024)608

2024
[73]

and Rej, P.: Chin

Karmakar, A., Debnath, U. and Rej, P.: Chin. J. Phys. 90(2024)1142

2024
[74]

et al.: Astrophys

Das, B. et al.: Astrophys. Space Sci. 369(2024)76

2024
[75]

Weyl, H.: Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. 465(1918)01

1918
[76]

Dirac, P.A.M.: Proc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 333(1973)403

1973
[77]

and Bergliaﬀa, S.P.: Phys

Novello, M. and Bergliaﬀa, S.P.: Phys. Rep. 463(2008)127. 36

2008
[78]

and Lifshitz, E.M.: The Classical Theory of Fields (Else- vier, 2013)

Landau, L.D. and Lifshitz, E.M.: The Classical Theory of Fields (Else- vier, 2013)

2013
[79]

and Ajmal, M.: Chin

Sharif, M. and Ajmal, M.: Chin. J. Phys. 88(2024)706; Phys. Scr. 99(2024)085039; Phys. Dark Univ. 46(2024)101572

2024
[80]

and Arooj, A.: Fortschr

Gul, M.Z., Sharif, M. and Arooj, A.: Fortschr. Phys. 72(2024)2300221

2024
[81]

et al.: Eur

Gul, M.Z. et al.: Eur. Phys. J. C 84(2024)775

2024
[82]

et al.: Eur

Gul, M.Z. et al.: Eur. Phys. J. C 84(2024)1232

2024
[83]

et al.: Phys

Sharif, M. et al.: Phys. Scr. 99(2024)115003

2024
[84]

et al.: Gen

Gul, M.Z. et al.: Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 56(2024)45

2024
[85]

et al.: Mod

Sharif, M. et al.: Mod. Phys. Lett. A 39(2024)2450140

2024
[86]

et al.: Chin

Gul, M.Z. et al.: Chin. J. Phys. 93(2025)256

2025
[87]

et al.: Eur Phys

Xu, Y. et al.: Eur Phys. J. C 79(2019)19

2019
[88]

et al.: Eur Phys

Xu, Y. et al.: Eur Phys. J. C 80(2020)22; Tayde, M. et al.: Chin. Phys. C 46(2022)115101

2020
[89]

and Lake, K.: Comput

Delgaty, M.S.R. and Lake, K.: Comput. Phys. Commun. 115(1998)395

1998
[90]

et al.: Eur

Das, B. et al.: Eur. Phys. J. C 82(2022)519; Murshid, M. et al.: Gen. Relativ. Grav. 97(2023)51; Sokoliuk, O., Baransky, A. and Sahoo, P.K.: Chin. Phys. C 47(2023)015104

2022
[91]

et al.: Ann

Deb, D. et al.: Ann. Phys. 387(2017)239

2017
[92]

and Psaltis, D.: Astrophys

Ozel, F., Guver, T. and Psaltis, D.: Astrophys. J. 693(2009)1775

2009
[93]

Zeldovich, Y.B.: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 160(1972)1P

1972
[94]

et al.: Gen

Staelens, F. et al.: Gen. Relativ. Grav. 53(2021)1

2021
[95]

Carr, J.B.: Astrophys. J. 201(1975)1; Madsen, M.S. et al.: Phys. Rev. D 46(1992)1399; Braje, T.M. et al.: Astrophys. J. 580(2002)1043; Ferrari, L. et al.: Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 16(2007)2834; Rahaman, F. et al.: Eur. Phys. J. C 74(2014)2845. 37

1975
[96]

Israel, W.: Nuo. Cim. B 44(1966)1

1966
[97]

Sen, N.: Ann. Phys. 378(1924)365

1924
[98]

et al.: Memorial des sciences mathematiques (Gauthier- Villars Paris, 1927)

Darmois, G. et al.: Memorial des sciences mathematiques (Gauthier- Villars Paris, 1927)

1927
[99]

Israel, W.: Nuo. Cim. B 48(1967)463

1967
[100]

and Javed, F.: Eur

Sharif, M. and Javed, F.: Eur. Phys. J. C 81(2021)1

2021
[101]

et al.: Phys

Mustafa, G. et al.: Phys. Dark Univ. 46(2020)101574

2020
[102]

et al.: Phys

Ghosh, S. et al.: Phys. Lett. B 767(2017)380

2017
[103]

Buchdahl, H.A.: Phys. Rev. 116(1959)1027; Barraco, D.E. and Hamity, V.H.: Phys. Rev. D 65(2002)124028

1959
[104]

Chandrasekhar, S.: Astrophys. J. 140(1964)417; Chan, R., Herrera, L. and Santos, N.: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 265(1993)533

1964
[105]

and Visser, M.: Phys

Poisson, E. and Visser, M.: Phys. Rev. D 52(1995)7318

1995
[106]

and Crawford, P.: Class

Lobo, F.S.N. and Crawford, P.: Class. Quantum Grav. 21(2003)391

2003
[107]

and Saeed, M.: Chin

Sharif, M. and Saeed, M.: Chin. J. Phys. 77(2022)583

2022
[108]

et al.: Nucl

Das, A. et al.: Nucl. Phys. B 954(2020)114986

2020
[109]

et al.: Phys

Shah, H. et al.: Phys. Scr. 98(2023)085246. 38

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Hubble, E.: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 15(1929)168

1929

[2] [2]

and Ratra, B.: Rev

Peebles, P.J.E. and Ratra, B.: Rev. Mod. Phys. 75(2003)559

2003

[3] [3]

and Yo, H.J.: Chin

Nester, J.M. and Yo, H.J.: Chin. J. Phys. 37(1999)113

1999

[4] [4]

and Koivisto, T.: Phys

Jimenez, J.B., Heisenberg, L. and Koivisto, T.: Phys. Rev. D 98(2018)044048

2018

[5] [5]

Adeel, M.: et al.: Mod. Phys. Lett. A 38(2023)2350152

2023

[6] [6]

Sharif, M.: et al.: Chin. J. Phys. 91(2024)66

2024

[7] [7]

Rani, S.: et al.: Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 21(2024)2450033

2024

[8] [8]

et.: Eur

Gul, M.Z. et.: Eur. Phys. J. C 84(2024)8

2024