Eur. Phys. J.

C (2023) 83:698
https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11882-4

Regular Article - Theoretical Physics

Confront f (R, T ) = R + β T modified gravity with the massive

pulsar PSR J0740+6620
G. G. L. Nashed1,a
1 Centre for Theoretical Physics, The British University in Egypt, P.O. Box 43, El Sherouk City, Cairo 11837, Egypt

Received: 8 June 2023 / Accepted: 28 July 2023 / Published online: 7 August 2023
© The Author(s) 2023

Abstract Many physically inspired general relativity (GR) maximum compactness allowed by the strong energy condi-
modifications predict significant deviations in the proper- tion for f (R, T) = R+βT and for GR, which are C = 0.757
ties of spacetime surrounding massive neutron stars. Among and 0.725, respectively. These values are approximately 3%
these modifications is f (R, T), where R is the Ricci scalar, higher than the prediction made by GR.. Furthermore, we
T is the trace of the energy–momentum tensor, the gravi- estimate the maximum mass M ≈ 4.26M at a radius of
tational theory that is thought to be a neutral extension of R ≈ 15.9 km for the surface density at saturation nuclear
GR. Neutron stars with masses above 1.8 M expressed as density ρnuc = 2.7 × 1014 g/cm3 .
radio pulsars are precious tests of fundamental physics in
extreme conditions unique in the observable universe and
unavailable to terrestrial experiments. We obtained an exact
analytical solution for anisotropic perfect-fluid spheres in
hydrostatic equilibrium using the frame of the linear form of 1 Introduction
f (R, T) = R + βT where β is a dimensional parameter.
We show that the dimensional parameter β and the compact- Neutron stars (NSs) provide a special environment for
ness, C = 2G M
Rc2
can be used to express all physical quantities studying matter at high densities, which are several times
within the star. We fix the dimensional parameter β to be at higher than the nuclear saturation density of ρnuc ≈ 2.7 ×
most β1 = κβ2 = 0.1 in positive values through the use of 1014 g/cm3 . Such high-density matter cannot be studied on
observational data from NICER and X-ray Multi-Mirror tele- Earth. Recent observations of X-ray and gravitational wave
scopes on the pulsar PSR J0740+6620, which provide infor- signals have provided new opportunities for determining the
mation on its mass and radius. The mass and radius of the masses and radii of NSs. The main goal of the NICER mis-
pulsar PSR J0740+6620 were determined by analyzing data sion is to determine the mass and radius of millisecond pul-
obtained from NICER and X-ray Multi-Mirror telescopes. It sars (MSPs), and consequently their Equation of State (EoS).
is important to mention that no assumptions about equations This is accomplished by examining the deflection of light due
of state were made in this research. Nevertheless, the model to gravity and studying the patterns of X-ray emission from
demonstrates a good fit with linear patterns involving bag the rotating heated regions found on the surfaces of millisec-
constants. Generally, when the dimensional parameter β is ond pulsars (MSPs) [1,2]. NICER has been monitoring some
positive, the theory predicts that a star of the same mass will MSPs with masses around 1.5 solar masses, including PSR
have a slightly larger size than what is predicted by GR. It J0030+0451, which has a mass of M = 1.44+0.15 −0.14M
has been explained that the hydrodynamic equilibrium equa- according to [3], and M = 1.34+0.15 −.16M according to
tion includes an additional force resulting from the coupling [4]. Other MSPs such as PSR J0437-4715, with a mass of
between matter and geometry. This force partially reduces M = 1.44 ± 0.07M according to [5], are also being exam-
the effect of gravitational force. As a result, we compute the ined [6]. The radius of the isolated pulsar PSR J0030+0451
has been determined using two separate analysis of data from
Here κ 2 is the coupling constant of Einstein which is figured as +1.24
NICER. The first analysis yielded a radius of R = 13.02−1.06
κ 2 = 8πc4G , the Newtonian constant of gravitation is denoted as F
while c represents the speed of light.
km according to [3], while the second analysis produced a
radius of R = 12.71+1.14
−1.19 km [4]. Although different assump-
a e-mail: nashed@bue.edu.eg (corresponding author) tions are made regarding the characteristics of the hot spots in

123
698 Page 2 of 20 Eur. Phys. J. C (2023) 83:698

these studies, both approaches yield consistent results when withstanding numerous and increasingly more refined and
it comes to measuring the radius of the pulsar. accurate tests, ranging from astrophysical to cosmological
Moreover, a few MSP with mass ∼ 2M , for example scales for more than a century [29–31], it fails to provide a
PSR J1614-2230 with mass M = 1.908 ± 0.016M [7–9], satisfactory description for all of the observed gravitational
PSR J0348+0432 with mass M = 2.01 ± 0.04M [10] and phenomena, such as the flatness of the rotation curves of
PSR J0740+6620 with mass M = 2.08 ± 0.07M using galaxies and the early- and late-time accelerated phases of
the relativistic Shapiro time delay [11,12], are particularly the universe [32]. Also, in the strong gravity regime, the well-
intriguing because the measurements obtained fall within the known paradoxes posed by mathematical black holes (BHs),
upper limit for a NS or the lower limit for a black hole (BH). e.g., the loss of information [33], and the unavoidable devel-
The pulsar PSR J0740+6020, in particular, is in a binary opment of geodesically incomplete paths in the interior of
structure that offers individual readings of mass and incli- BHs [34,35], suggest that Einstein’s theory may only corre-
nation. As a result, its mass can be fixed with greater pre- spond to an approximate description of a more fundamental
cision; nevertheless, its low NICER count rate in compari- theory of gravity.
son to PSR J0348+0432 presents an obstacle. The radius of To address these unanswered concerns, a variety of modifi-
the pulsar PSR J0740+6020 was determined using data from cations of the Einstein–Hilbert (EH) gravitational lagrangian
both the NICER and X-ray Multi-Mirror (XMM) Newton density have been studied [36]. Notably, Einstein made the
observatories. In a study by Miller et al. [13], the radius was first attempt to change the EH Lagrangian when he proposed
calculated as R = 13.7+2.6
−1.5 km. Another study by Riley et al. the cosmological constant1 to enable his field equations to
[14] independently derived a radius of R = 12.39+1.30 −0.98 km
admit a static universe solution [43,44]. It is possible to think
at a 68% confidence level. Additionally, combining data of the later modification of the gravity sector as elevating the
from NICER and XMM using a Gaussian process and non- EH term to the status of a linear function of the Ricci scalar
parametric equation of state (EoS) method, Legred et al. [15] R. One of the simplest and most effective extensions of GR
obtained a mass of M = 2.07 ± 0.11M and a radius of corresponds to substituting the EH term with any arbitrary
+1.89 smooth function of R in the so-called f (R) theory of gravity
R = 12.34−1.67 km. These findings are consistent with the
results presented by Landry et al. [16] at a 68% confidence [45,46], which allows for the accommodation of the acceler-
level. ated phases of the universe [47–49]. Moreover, this theory’s
There are many known solutions to the field equations for compact object solutions have been found; for example, see
spherically symmetric fluid spheres in general relativity (GR) [48] and the references therein.
[17]. Nevertheless, it was identified that only nine (out of 127) The so-called f (R, T) gravity [50], which includes the
fulfill the basic criteria for physical plausibility [18]. The trace of the energy–momentum tensor (EMT) T ≡ g μν Tμν
Buchdahl [19], Nariai IV [20], and the Tolman VII (T-VII) in the construction of the modified gravity sector, is another
[21], Krori–Barua [22] solutions are frequently used in the generalization of f (R) gravity that has gained significant
modeling of realistic neutron stars (NSs). Krori and Barua’s interest in recent years. The generalized curvature-matter
(KB) [22] singularity space-time metric meets the physical coupling theories, which include the f (R, T) theory of grav-
requirements of a real star. The main motivation for consid- ity, produce intriguing phenomenology when used in cosmo-
ering KB spacetime is to investigate gravitational theories logical contexts [51–53]. Yet, in f (R, T) gravity, solutions
or models that deviate from the standard general relativity. to relativistic compact stars have also been studied in [54–
Krori and Barua spacetime, was proposed by the physicists 57]. In the frame of f (R, T) an anticipation of the presence
Krori and Barua, represents an alternative metric that can be of quark stars composed of quark matter in the color-flavor-
used to describe the geometry of spacetime in specific scenar- locked phase of color superconductivity has been studied in
ios. By studying this spacetime, researchers aim to explore [58]. Moreover, the properties of quark stars have been inves-
its implications and potential applications in understanding tigated in the context of f (R, T) [59].
gravity, cosmology, and other related phenomena. The moti- Throughout this study, we focus on the KB spacetime [22],
vation lies in expanding our understanding of gravitational a model that has been demonstrated to be relevant for the
theories beyond the conventional framework and potentially investigation of the interior structure of NSs. We derive an
uncovering new insights into the nature of spacetime and analytical extension in the linear of f (R, T) = R+βT grav-
the universe. As a result, the KB model has been the target ity for this model and look at how the dimensional param-
of intensive research in the literature, and many interesting eter β affects the internal structure of the stellar object. We
properties have been mentioned in [23–28].
It is remarkable that in the context of GR, not overly com- 1 For the accretion events in [37] for compact objects and dark matter
plicated solutions for perfect fluid spheres are available for halos in [38–40], as well as for the relative motion of galaxies in [41],
the modeling of realistic stars. Nevertheless, GR, despite the effect of the repulsive cosmological constant in the framework of
cosmology was summarized in [42].

123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2023) 83:698 Page 3 of 20 698

also numerically solve the modified Tolman–Oppenheimer– R and the trace of the energy–momentum tensor (EMT) T,
Volkoff (TOV) system of equations for a uniform density whilst Lm is the sector of the matter Lagrangian density. Sup-
profile and show the effect of the extra force that reproduces posing that Lm depends on the metric the EMT of matter is
from this theory. figured as:
Anisotropic spacetime is relevant in alternative theories √ 
of gravity beyond general relativity. Various modified grav- −2 δ −gLm
Tμν = √ . (2)
ity theories propose modifications to the Einstein field equa- −g δg μν
tions, allowing for anisotropic contributions to the gravita- We construct the interior of the star as anisotropic fluid, where
tional field. By studying anisotropic spacetime, researchers the EMT is given by the following form:
can test and refine these alternative theories, exploring their
implications and potential observational signatures. Tμ ν = ( pt + ρc2 )w μ w ν + pt δνμ + ( pr − pt )v μ v ν . (3)
The arrangement of this article is as follows: In Sect. 2
we give a summary of the construction of f (R, T) gravi- In this particular scenario, the symbol ρ = ρ(r ) denotes
tational theory, where we explain the generalized form of the energy density of the fluid. The term pr = pr (r) refers
the field equations and the hydrostatic equilibrium condi- to the pressure exerted in the radial direction (i.e., in the
tions for perfect-fluid spheres. Consequently, following KB’s same direction as the time-like four-velocity wα ), while
approach [22], in Sect. 3 we obtain an analytic solution to the pt = pt (r) represents the tangential pressure acting perpen-
field equations of linear f (R, T) gravitational theory. Also In dicular to wα . Furthermore, vα is the unit space-like vector
Sect. 4, we use the observations of the PSR PSR J0740+6620 oriented in the radial direction. Consequently, the energy–
made by the X-ray telescopes NICER and XMM to determine momentum tensor can be written in a diagonal form as
the values of the parameters used in the model. Furthermore, Tα β = diag(−ρc2 , pr , pt , pt ). By varying the metric with
we examine the intrinsic characteristics of the pulsar PSR respect to Eq. (1), the resulting equations correspond to the
PSR J0740+6620 and evaluate its stability by considering modified Einstein equations [50]:
the limitations imposed by the existing model. In Sect. 5, we 1
compare our model to additional data from pulsars, which is f R Rμν − f gμν + Sμν f R
2
presented in Tables 1 and 2. In Sect. 6, we calculate the high-  
= κ 2 Tμν − f T Tμν + μν ≡ Tμν , (4)
est permissible compactness based on physical constraints
and subsequently generate curves of mass versus radius for where
 f R ≡ ∂ f (∂R,T)
R , fT ≡
∂ f (R,T)
∂T , Sμν stands for Sμν ≡
various surface densities. For each category, the maximum gμν  − ∇μ ∇ν and
attainable mass for a stable structure serves as its represen-
tation. In Sect. 7 we draw our conclusions. δTαβ αβ ∂ Lm
2
μν ≡ g αβ = −2Tμν + gμν Lm − 2g .
δg μν ∂g μν ∂g αβ
Conventions and notation: We use the metric signature
(5)
(−, +, +, +). Unless otherwise stated, primes denote deriva-
tives of the radial coordinate. It is known that for perfect fluids there is no fixed definition
for Lm (see also [50,61,62]) so we have to suppose it in order
to proceed furthermore. Using the same technique given by
2 Perfect fluid spheres and hydrostatic equilibrium in Harko et al. [50], we assume Lm = p, (note that in [50],
f (R, T) gravity Lm = − p, however we use the opposite sign for the metric)
and with this assumption, we have: μν = −2Tμν + pgμν .
Now, we are going to give a brief review of f (R, T) gravity Taking the trace of Eq. (4) we get the dynamical equation for
[50] in the metric construction. In this formalism the connec- the Ricci scalar as:
tion is the Levi-Civita one. For the other Palatini construction
the connection is dealt as an independent variable when one f R R − 2 f + 3 f R = κ 2 T. (6)
carry out the variation of the action (see [60]). The action of Equation (6), for f (R, T) theory are nonlinear in R and
f (R, T) theory has the form: yields to a second-order differential equation, which is not an
  
4 √ f (R, T ) algebraic form as in the case of pure GR. Therefore, nonlinear
S = d x −g + Lm , (1) forms of f (R, T) give a non-vanishing Ricci scalar even in
κ2
the exterior region of the star. Because of the existence of
with κ 2 being the coupling constant of Einstein which is fig- the trace of the EMT in the Lagrangian of f (R, T) theory
ured as κ 2 = 8πc4G , G is the gravitational Newtonian constant which is characterized by a non-minimal coupling between
and c is the speed of light. In this study, the gravity sector curvature and matter; therefore, the four-divergence of the
f (R, T) is an arbitrary smooth function of the Ricci scalar EMT generally will be nonzero and is given by [63]

123
698 Page 4 of 20 Eur. Phys. J. C (2023) 83:698


fT   gravity, one could generally, discuss the complexity of the
∇ μ Tμν = Tμν + μν ∇ μ ln f T + ∇ μ μν
κ − fT
2 field equations through the dynamical equivalence of scalar-
 tensor representations of the theory and by using the Palatini
1
− ∇ν T . (7) construction, (see also [66,67]).
2
Due to the non conservation of the EMT of matter for
f (R, T) theory, there is an extra force which is perpendic- 3 Interior spherically symmetric solution
ular to the velocity of test particles making their trajectories
deviate from geodesics. This force may effect the gravita- In this section we are going to derive a spherically symmetric
tional beyond GR and could be relevant at galactic scales interior solution in the frame of f (R, T) = R + β T. For
and the solar-system [50]. The conservation of the EMT is this aim we use the general spherically symmetric geometry
hold in the limit of f (R) gravity i.e. when f T = 0 and for and static which is by the following line element [68–70]:
special forms that impose the conservation of Tμν as a priory
of requirement of the theory, and it is construct from this con- ds 2 = −eα(r ) dt 2 + eα1 (r ) dr 2 + r 2 dθ 2 + r 2 sin2 θ dφ 2 ,
dition the form of f (R, T) (see also [64]). Nevertheless, the (12)
corresponding field equations can then only be solved numer-
where α(r ) and α1 (r ) are functions of the radial coordinate.
ically and because in this work we are interested mainly in
Since Eq. (11) is a special form of the theories described
the analytic solutions we will not discuss such special models
by Eq. (9), the substitution of Eqs. (3) and (12) into Eq. (10)
of f (R, T) gravitational theory.
yields the following system of differential equations:
It is suitable to reformulate the field equations (4) in their
  
equivalent effective form of GR, where the Einstein tensor 1 α1 r + eα1 − 1 5κβ1  
κ 2 ρc2 = + p + 2 p ,
G μν appears on the left-hand side and the right-hand side 1 + 3 β1 r2 eα1 3 r t
  
maths the effective EMT which involves the contributions 3 α r − eα1 + 1 κβ1  
κ 2 pr = + 3ρc 2
− 10p ,
from both, matter fields, and curvature terms as follows: 3 + 11 β1 r2 eα1 3 t

     
1 f − R fR 3 2α r + α  [α  − α1 ] + 2 5
κ 2 pt = + κβ ρc 2
−
G μν = Tμν + gμν − Sμν f R ≡ T(eff)
μν . 3 + 16 β1 4reα1
1 p
3 r
fR 2
(13)
(8)
Generally, for an arbitrary f (R, T) theory, the terms for the where  denotes the derivative with respect to the radial coor-
(eff)
components of Tμν will be very intricate and therefore, dinate r and β1 = κβ2 . By utilizing the aforementioned equa-
deriving an exact analytic solution in this theory will be very tions, we can derive the anisotropy parameter, denoted as
difficult duty. We should mention that for the special model (r), which is defined as the difference between the tangen-
tial pressure pt and the radial pressure pr as:
f (R, T ) = R + h(T ), (9)
2α  r2 + α 2 r2 − α1 r − 2 rα  + 4eα1 − 2α1 r − 4
which is linear in the Ricci scalar and does not contain mixing (r) = .
4κ (2β1 + 1) r2 eα1
term between R and T, the contributions of the curvature (14)
fluids in the effective EMT simplify significantly so that the
formulation of the field equations yields: Surprisingly, the connection between matter and geometry
that results from the trace component T does not add to the
h  
G μν = κ 2 Tμν + gμν + h T Tμν − p gμν . (10) anisotropy described by Eq. (14), unless we suppose that
2 the spacetime configuration is spherically symmetric [71].
In this study and in order to explain the minimal extension Nonetheless, if β1 = 0, we can anticipate a minor alteration
of Einstein GR in the framework of f (R, T) gravity, and in anisotropy. Hence, different anisotropic effects are unable
to avoid overly complicated field equations that could be to conceal discrepancies from GR that are produced by the
prevent the search of an exact analytic solution, we limit our connection between matter and geometry. If the dimension-
discussion to the case of linear f (R, T) gravity in which less parameter β1 is equal to zero, the differential equations
f (R, T) takes the form: (13) will be the same as the field equations of GR theory for
a spherically symmetric interior spacetime (c.f., [23]).
f (R, T) = R + βT, (11)
The system of differential equations (13) has three inde-
where β is a dimensional constant parameter of the theory. pendent non-linear differential equations and five unknowns
For this linear case, an analytic solution can be easily derived α, α1 , ρ, pr and pt . Therefore, we required two extra con-
for the field equations (see also [54,55,64,65]). Remember- ditions to limit the system. Therefore, we will introduce the
ing that for the complicated non-linear forms of f (R, T) Krori–Barua (KB) ansatz as [22]:

123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2023) 83:698 Page 5 of 20 698

μ r2 Here, C denotes the compactness and η(x) is defined as:

α(r ) = + ν ≡ μ x 2 + ν,
R2
λ r2 2G M
α1 (r ) = 2 ≡ λ x 2 , (15) C = ,
R c2 R
9  
λ− 2 9 15 √ √
16xλ 2 + μ π λ2 (λ + μ)erf( λx) eλx
2
where the dimensionless radius x is defined as η(x) =
r 3 4
0≤ = x ≤ 1,  
15 5 7 3 5
R − x μλ 2 + 5λ 2 (μx 2 + ) μλ 2
2 2
where R is the radius of the stellar. Furthermore, we establish 9

the values of the dimensionless coefficients μ, ν, λ by enforc- − (5μx 2 − 16)λ 2 , (22)
ing matching criteria at the stellar’s surface. Moreover, we
present dimensionless quantities to simplify the analysis. where er f is the error function defined as
 t=y
ρ(r ) pr (r ) 2
e−t dt.
2
ρ(r ) = , pr (r ) = , er f (y) = √
ρ∗ ρ∗ c2 π t=0
pt (r ) (r )
pt (r ) = , (r ) = , (16) Equations (21) reduces to the model of GR when β1 = 0
ρ∗ c2 ρ∗ c2
[23].
where ρ∗ is the characteristic density defined as:
1 3.1 Matching conditions
ρ∗ = . (17)
κ 2 c2 R 2 (1 + 10β1 + 16β1 2 )
Therefore, the equation of motions (13) can be expressed as It is well-known that the vacuum solutions of both Einstein’s
follows: GR and f (R, T) = R + β1 T are the same, and the exterior
solution is described by Schwarzschild’s solution, which is
e−λx λx 2
2

ρ= (e − 1 + 2λx 2 ) given by:

x2  
2β1 2G M dr 2
+ 2 5μ(μ − λ)x 4 ds 2 = − 1 − 2 c2 dt 2 +  + r 2 dθ 2
x c r 1 − c2 r
2G M
 
+ (16λ + 15μ)x 2 − 8 e−λx + 8 ,
2

+ r 2 sin2 θ dφ 2 . (23)
e −λx 2
(1 − eλx + 2μx 2 )
2
pr = Remembering the interior spacetime given by Eq. (18), there-
x2 fore, we assume
2β1
− 2 5μ(μ − λ)x 4
x   α(x = 1) = ln(1 − C), α1 (x = 1) = − ln(1 − C). (24)
−(9λ − 8μ)x 2 − 8 e−λx + 8 ,
2

Furthermore, we assume that the pressure in the radial direc-

pt = e−λx (2a0 − λ + μ(μ − λ)x 2 )
2
tion, pr , becomes zero at the surface of the star, i.e.,
2β1
− 2 7μ(μ − λ)x 4 p̄r (x = 1) = 0. (25)
x  
−(9λ − 4μ)x 2 + 8 e−λx − 8 ,
2
(18) Using the KB ansatz (15), the radial pressure (18), and the
boundary conditions mentioned above, we obtain:
and anisotropy parameter (14) takes the following form:  
9 − 5 ln C 1
e−λx
2  μ= + 5 2β1 2 C (ln C)
= (1 + 8β ) e λx 2
− 1 + μ(μ − λ)x 4
− λx 2
.(19) 10 10C1/2 β1
x2
1  
3 81
The quantity that describes the total mass enclosed within a − 10 β1 C β1 + ln C − (3C − 1) β1 2
25 25
radius r is called the mass function, which is defined as: 1/2 
 r 6 9
− (16C − 9) β1 + C − 3C 1/2
,
M(r ) = 4π ρ(r ) r 2 d r . (20) 25 25
0 
1 √
Substitute the density given by Eq. (18) in Eq. (20) we get: ν=− √ β1 C[9 − 15 β1 ln C] + C[9
10 Cβ1
M
e−λx x(eλx − 1)
2 2
M(x) = − 30 β1 ln C + 50β1 2 ln C] − 84 β1 C
C(1 + 10β1 + 16β1 )
2

+ β1 η(x)] . (21) − 250C β1 2 ln C − 241 β1 2 C + 54 β1

123
698 Page 6 of 20 Eur. Phys. J. C (2023) 83:698

1/2 
non-parametric equation of state method. The stellar system
+ 81 β1 2
+ 3C
1/2
, λ = − ln C, under consideration has a radius of R = 12.34+1.89 −1.67 km
where C = (1 − C). (26) and a mass of M = 2.07 ± 0.11M according to a study
by Legred [15], with the solar mass denoted as M =
As the parameter β1 approaches zero, the set of constants 1.9891 × 1030 kg. To be considered physically legitimate, a
(26) becomes identical to the corresponding values in GR star model must comply with a group of requirements called
[23] (I) to (XIII):
C C
μ= , ν = ln C − , λ = − ln C. (27)
2C 2C 4.1 Matter sector
It is fascinating that all the measurable properties of the KB
spacetime in the star, where 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, can be rephrased
Constrain (I): The components of the EMT, energy-density,
using the dimensionless equations that involve β1 and the
radial and tangential pressures, of the stellar fluid (0 <
compactness parameters C. These non-dimensional expres-
r/R < 1), should maintain a positive outlook, specifically
sions include ρ(β1 , C), pr (β1 , C), and pt (β1 , C). In general,
ρ(0 < r/R < 1) > 0, pr (0 < r/R < 1) >0 and
the observational data sets a specific value for the compact-
pt (0 < r/R < 1) > 0.
ness parameter, thereby indirectly constraining the extent of
Constrain (II): Interior solutions must have a regular, non-
non-minimal coupling between matter and the geometry, as
singular pattern. Therefore: The energy density, radial pres-
proposed in β1 gravity. Additionally, this provides an oppor-
sure, and tangential pressure of the fluid in this study must
tunity to establish an upper limit on the permissible com-
be non-singular at the core of the star. These quantities must
pactness for anisotropic NS, and, therefore, the upper limit
behave regularly throughout the interior of the star, i.e.,
of mass they can attain. A comprehensive discussion on this
topic will be presented in Sect. 6.
A. ρ(r = 0) > 0, ρ  (r = 0) = 0, ρ  (r = 0) < 0, and
3.2 Radial gradients ρ  (0 < r ≤ R) < 0,
B. pr (r = 0) > 0, pr (r = 0) = 0, pr (r = 0) < 0, and
In this subsection, we calculate the radial derivatives of the pr (0 < r ≤ R) < 0,
density and pressures of the fluid, expressed as: C. pt (r = 0) > 0, pt (r = 0) = 0, pt (r = 0) < 0, and
 
2e−a2 x
2

ρ = 1 − e λx 2
− 2λ 2 4
x + λx 2
−
2β1
8eλx − 8
2 pt (0 < r ≤ R) < 0.
x3 3

− 5μa2 (λ − μ)x 6 + [5(4λ − μ)μ − 16a22 ]x 4 − 8λx 2 , Constrain (III): At the boundary of the star, the radial pres-
sure of the fluid must be equal to zero, i.e., pr (r = R) = 0.
(28) However, the tangential pressure is not necessarily zero at
 
−2e−λx
2
2β1 the boundary.
pr = λx 2
8 − eλx
2
1 − e + 2μλx 4
+ λx 2
−
x3 3 Constrains from (I)–(III) are verified for the pulsar
 PSR J0740+6620 as shown in Fig. 1a–e.
− 5μλ(λ − μ)x 6 − [4(2λ − μ)μ − 5μ2 ]x 4 − 8λx 2 , (29) As displayed in Fig. 1a, the model in this study approx-
  imates a NS core density ρcore ≈ 5.84 × 1014 g/cm3 ≈
2e−λx
2
2β1
pt = μλ(λ − μ)x 6 + [λ(λ − 3μ) + μ2 ]x 4 + 4 3.26ρnuc for the pulsar PSR J0740+6620. Therefore, the cur-
x3 3
rent model does not exclude the possibility that the core of
− 4eλx + 7μλ(λ − μ)x 6 − [(16λ − 7μ)μ − 4μ2 ]x 4
2


the pulsar contains neutrons. Furthermore, this central value
+ 4λx 2 ,
of the energy density supports the assumption that the fluid
has an anisotropic form.
(30) Constrain (IV): The anisotropy parameter, , needs to attain
a value of zero at the center of the star i.e., pr (r = 0) = pt (r = 0).
where  ≡ d
dx .
Equations (28)–(30) describe the gradients of
Moreover, must have an increasing value at the surface of
the components of the EMT. These equations play a crucial
the star, i.e.  (0 ≤ r/R ≤ 1) > 0. Thus, the anisotropic
role in demonstrating the physical stability of the compact
force Fa = 2 r should be vanishing at the core. As shown in
object.
Eq. (19), taking the limit r → 0 gives → 0.
As shown in Fig. 1f and g, constrain (IV) has been con-
4 Observational constrains and the stability conditions firmed to the pulsar PSR J0740+6620.
We can also demonstrate that (r > 0) >0 ensuring
In this study, we will use the pulsar PSR J0740+6620, the pt > pr . This condition is crucial for making the anisotropy
radius and mass determined from NICER+XMM based on a force repulsive allowing larger NS sizes than for an isotropic

123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2023) 83:698 Page 7 of 20 698

(a) The energy-density (b) The radial pressure (c) The tangential pressure

(d) The gradients (GR) (e) The gradients f(R,T) (f) The anisotropy (GR)

(g) The anisotropy f(R,T)

Fig. 1 The patterns of the components of energy–momentum tensor as parameter for both GR and f (R, T) cases, as given by Eq. (19). All
described by Eq. (18) of the pulsar PSR J0740+6620 are plotted in a–c. the plots listed in this figure ensure that the constrains displayed from
d and e depict the radial profiles of these quantities “gradients” for both (I) to (IV) are satisfied
GR and f (R, T) cases. f and g illustrate the behavior of the anisotropy

123
698 Page 8 of 20 Eur. Phys. J. C (2023) 83:698

(a) The Mass function (b) The Compactness parameter

Fig. 2 We have plotted the mass function and the compactness parameters: β1 = 0.1, κ = 2.302 × 10−43 , N −1 , μ = 0.4248802917,
parameter, given by Eqs. (21) and (22), respectively, for the pulsar ν = −1.109209, λ = 0.6843287084. In the case of GR, we set β1 = 0,
PSR J0740+6620. The resulting curves are in excellent harmony with and the corresponding values for the parameters are μ = 0.4912202964,
the data of (M = 2.07 ± 0.11M and R = 12.34 ± 1.89 km) [15]. For ν = −1.175549005
the f (R, T) = R + β1 , T case, we assign the following values to the

fluid. However, taking β1 > 0, means the anisotropy in at a radius of R = 13.65 km, with a corresponding com-
f (R, T) = R + β1 T is slightly less than the GR. pactness of C = 0.3214945055, when β1 is set to 0.1. This
is consistent with the values of (M = 2.07 ± 0.11M and
4.2 Zeldovich condition R = 12.34 ± 1.89 km) [15]. This fixes the set of constants
in Eq. (26) {μ = 0.4248802917, ν = −1.109209, λ =
Constrain (V): According to the study [72], at the core of 0.6843287084, κ = 2.302 × 10−43 N −1 }. These numerical
the star the radial pressure must be less than or equal to the values clearly verify the Zeldovich condition (31). We show
energy density, i.e., the mass function and compactness trends in Fig. 2a and b to
indicate the model’s consistency with the pulsar’s observed
pr (0) mass and radius. Compared to GR, f (R, T) = R + β1 T
≤ 1. (31)
ρ(0) with positive β1 predicts the same mass but at a larger radius
At the center of the pulsar, we derive equations for the density, (or less mass at same radius). Thus, f (R, T) = R + β1 T
the pressure in the radial direction, and the pressure in the expects a higher compactness for a given mass. This demon-
tangential direction as: strates that f (R, T) = R + β1 , T has the ability to accom-
modate higher masses or greater compactness values while
ρ(x = 0) = 3λ + 2β1 (8λ + 5μ), still satisfying stability conditions.
pr (x = 0) = pt (x = 0) = 2μ(1 + 3β1 ) − λ. (32) 4.4 Geometric sector

We calculate the compactness parameter of the pulsar Constrain (VI): The metric potentials grr and gtt should have
PSR J0740+6620 to be C = 0.491+±0.0547087977. Thus, no physical or coordinate singularities within the stellar inte-
we can use the Zeldovich condition (31) to determine a valid rior 0 ≤ x ≤ 1. The metric (15) satisfies this constraint
range of values for the dimensionless parameter β1 , which is because: At the core, gtt (x = 0) = eν and grr (x = 0) = 1,
0 ≤ β1 ≤ 0.1. In this interval, the value of β1 is expected to i.e, they remain finite. The condition (VI) is verified as Fig. 3
be consistent with that of GR when β1 = 0. shows.
Constrain (VII): The solutions for the metric potentials in
4.3 The mass and radius observational limits using pulsar both the exterior and interior regions must match smoothly
PSR J0740+6620 at the star’s boundary.
It is evident from Fig. 3 that conditions (VI) and (VII) are
Taking into account the restrictions imposed by the mass and fulfilled for pulsar PSR J0740+6620.
radius of PSR J0740+6620, we find that the mass function Constrain (VIII): The red-shift of the metric (15) is figured
given by Eq. (21) predicts a total mass of M = 2.12M as:

123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2023) 83:698 Page 9 of 20 698

of Z R = 2 [73], see also [74,75] for the anisotropic study and

[76] in the presence of a cosmological constant. The maxi-
mum red-shift limit does not provide a tight constraint and
cannot properly bound compactness alone, as discussed in
other works. Less restrictive constraints are needed (c.f., [74–
76]). Applying energy conditions to the matter sector yields
considerably more stringent constraints, as demonstrated in
(see, [23]).

4.5 Energy conditions

In GR, focusing theorems relate the positivity of the tidal

tensor trace to physical phenomena, Rαβ w α w β ≥ 0 and
Rαβ α β ≥ 0, where, wα refers to a vector with a timelike
component that can take any value, while α represents any
null vector that is directed towards the future. These theorems
impose four restrictions on the energy–momentum tensor
Fig. 3 The metric components, grr and g00 , of the star
PSR J0740+6620 have finite values within its interior of the pul-
(EMT) Tαβ . These restrictions are known as the energy con-
sar and seamlessly match with the Schwarzschild vacuum solution ditions. The energy conditions can be generalized to modified
outside. The above plots provide confirmation of these conditions gravitational theories beyond GR. They provide limits on the
matter sector based on geometric properties. Specifically, for
the theory f (R, T) = R+β1 T: The energy conditions can be
expressed using the (EMT) as: Tα β = diag(−ρc2 , pr , pt , pt ).
Constrain (IX): Summary of the necessary energy conditions
for a physically acceptable stellar model:

(a) The weak energy condition (WEC) must satisfy the

inequalities: ρ ≥ 0, ρc2 + pr > 0, ρc2 + pt > 0,
(b) The null energy condition (NEC) must satisfy the
inequalities: ρc2 + pr ≥ 0, ρc2 + pt ≥ 0,
(c) The strong energy condition (SEC) must satisfy fol-
lowing inequalities: ρc2 − pr − 2 pt ≥ 0, ρc2 + pr ≥ 0,
ρc2 + pt ≥ 0,
(d) The dominant energy conditions (DEC) must satisfy fol-
lowing inequalities: ρ ≥ 0, ρc2 − pr ≥ 0, and ρc2 −
pt ≥ 0.
Fig. 4 The red-shift function (33) of the pulsar PSRJ0740. This figure
ensures that condition (VIII) is verified
Now let us reformulate the field equations (13) as:
1 1 5β1
Z=√ −1= √ − 1. (33) ρc2 = ρG R c2 + ( pr + 2 pt ),
−gtt μ
e x+ν 3(1 + 3 β1 )
β1 
The gravitational red-shift must be positive, have a finite pr = pr G R + 3ρc2 − 10 pt ,
3 + 11β1
value inside the stellar body, and decrease in the direction  
of the stellar surface, i.e., Z > 0 and Z  < 0. 3β1 5
pt = pt G R + ρc − pr .
2
(34)
It is evident from Fig. 4 that condition (VIII) is fulfilled 3 + 16 β1 3
for the pulsar PSR J0740+6620. When the dimensionless parameter β1 = 0 we can recover
At the center of the star: The gravitational red-shift fac- the GR case. Now let us analysis condition (IX) in analytic
tor is Z (0) ≈ 0.7412521838 (the value of Z (0) is below way.
the corresponding value in GR, which is approximately By the use of constrains (I) and (II), we can demonstrate
0.7999781079). This central value is the maximum red-shift that: The density and radial/tangential pressures are positive
within the star. At the boundary (surface) of the star: The red- within the interior of the star. This confirms the NEC is ver-
shift factor is Z R ≈ 0.4079916880 (approximately same as ified. Some additional implications and proofs can shown:
the GR value). This surface value is less than the upper bound

123
698 Page 10 of 20 Eur. Phys. J. C (2023) 83:698

(27 β1 + 9 ) ρc2 + (55 β1 + 15 ) pr + 20 β1 pt

ρc2 + pr = (ρG R c2 + pr G R ) + β1 , ρc2 + pt = (ρG R c2 + pt G R )
9 + 99 β1 2 + 60 β1
 
10pt [3 − 16β1 ] − 125 pr β1 + 9 ρc2 [1 + 3β1 ]
− β1 , ρc2 − pr − 2pt = (ρG R c2 − pr G R − 2pt G R )
3 (1 + 3 β1 ) (3 − 16 β1 )
   
162 β1 2 + 297β1 + 81 ρc2 − 1870β1 2 + 675β1 + 45 pr + 20pt (3 − 16β1 )
+ β1 , (35)
27 − 1584 β1 3 − 663 β1 2 + 36 β1
 
15 pr + 55pr β1 + 60 pt + 200 pt β1 − 9 ρc2 [1 + 3β1 ]
ρc2 − pr = (ρG R c2 − pr G R ) + β1 , ρc2 − pt = (ρG R c2 − pt G R )
3 (1 + 3 β1 ) (3 + 11 β1 )
 
pr [30 − 35β1 ] + pt [30 − 160pt β1 ] − 9ρc2 [1 + β1 ]
+ β1 , ρc2 − pr − 2pt = (ρG R c2 − pr G R − 2pt G R ) (36)
9 − 144β1 2 − 21 β1
 
β1 pr [135 + 525β1 + 110β1 2 ] + pt [180 − 360β1 − 3200 β1 2 ] − 3 ρc2 [27 + 99β1 + 54β1 2 ]
+ . (37)
3 (1 + 3 β1 ) (3 + 11 β1 ) (3 − 16 β1 )

Given that β1 > 0 (with a value of β1 = 0.1 in this 4.6 Stability conditions and causality
study), and considering that ρ ≥ 0, pr ≥ 0, and pt ≥ 0, the
only thing left to demonstrate is that The tangential and radial sound speeds are figured as:

pr [30 − 35β1 ] + pt [30 − 160 pt β1 ] > 9 ρc2 [1 + β1 ] > 0, dpt p dpr p

 vt2 = = t , vr2 = = r , (38)
dρ ρ dρ ρ
162 β1 2 + 297β1 + 81 ρc2 + 20p2 β1 (3 − 16β1 )
 where the density and the derivative of the radial and tangen-
> 1870β1 2 + 675β1 + 45 pr > 0, tial pressures are given in Eqs. (28)–(30).
Constrain (X):The star’s structure must be causal, meaning
and
that it must satisfy the causality condition, which requires
10pt [3 − 16β1 ] + 9ρc2 [1 + 3β1 ] > 125 pr β1 > 0, that the speeds of sound be positive and less than the speed of
light in the stellar region (0 ≤ vt /c ≤ 1, 0 ≤ vr /c ≤ 1), and
to ensure that the energy conditions (I–IV) are satisfied.
that they decrease towards the boundary (vt 2 < 0, vr 2 < 0).
The figures in Fig. 5a–e make it clear that the energy con-
Although the speed of sound near the core of the pulsar
ditions (IX) are met for the pulsar PSR J0740+6620.
PSR J0740+6620, satisfies the causality and stability con-
It should be noted that the condition of energy density
ditions, the speed of sound predicted by GR goes beyond
being greater than the sum of radial and tangential pressures
the suggested upper bound for the speed of sound, which
is guaranteed in the theory f (R, T) = R + β1 T just as it is
is vr2 = cs2 ≤ c2 /3. This contradiction suggested for NS
in GR, since

 
β1 pr [135 + 525β1 + 110β1 2 ] + pr [180 − 360β1 − 3200 β1 2 ] − 3 ρc2 [27 + 99β1 + 54β1 2 ]
ρc − pr − 2pt =
2
.
3 (1 + 3 β1 ) (3 + 11 β1 ) (3 − 16 β1 )

Some authors refer to the requirement that energy density with radii less than ∼ 11.8 km [80]. Furthermore, vari-
exceeds total pressure as the SEC (c.f. [23,77–79]). ous models have shown a discrepancy with the conformal
From the above discussion, we understand that the energy upper limit on the speed of sound, either by assuming the
conditions primarily relate to and constrain the matter sec- EoS [16,81] or by using a non-parametric EoS approxima-
tor in f (R, T) gravitational theories, though they do not tion based on Gaussian processes in conjunction with X-ray
necessarily require the same formulations across all cases. NICER+XMM observations of the pulsar PSR J0740+6620
However, certain key conditions are necessary to ensure the [15]. In contrast, as indicated in Fig. 6a, the conformal limit
others can also be met where density and pressures remain on the speed of sound for the pulsar PSR J0740+6620 is not
positive: The dominant energy condition (DEC) stipulating violated in the f (R, T) = R + β1 , T model from the center
ρc2 − pr − 2pt ≥ 0 is especially crucial. This condition must of the star to its boundary.
be verified for the plausibility of the others. Constrain (XI ): The structure of the stellar must be stable
which means that it should verify the stability constrain −1 <
(vt2 − vr2 )/c2 < 0 in the stellar [82–85].

123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2023) 83:698 Page 11 of 20 698

(a) WEC & NEC (radial) (b) WEC &NEC (tangential) (c) SEC

(d) DEC (radial) (e) DEC (tangential)

Fig. 5 The figures presented in this figure for the pulsar PSR J0740+6620 provide evidence that the energy conditions (IX) are satisfied

(a) Radial speed of sound (b) Tangential speed of sound (c) difference between radial and
tangential speed of sounds

Fig. 6 The speeds of sound in the radial and tangential directions given by Eq. (38) for the pulsar PSR J0740+6620. The figures assure that the
conditions of causality and stability referred to as (XII) and (XIII) have been verified

123
698 Page 12 of 20 Eur. Phys. J. C (2023) 83:698

It is clear that the causality and stability conditions (X) while at the surface the density decreases up to ρcore ≈ 3.28×
and (XI) are satisfied for the pulsar PSR J0740+6620 as 1014 g/cm3 . As we see that the central density is only ∼ 2.1
shown in Fig. 6a–c. times the nuclear saturation density ρnuc = 2.7×1014 g/cm3 .
We see that the central density in f (R, T) gravitational the-
4.7 The hydrodynamic equilibrium ory with β1 > 0 is less than the value of GR (β1 = 0), since
in a given radius the estimated mass of f (R, T) gravity is
To ensure the viability of our model we will employ another less than Einstein theory as depicted in Fig. 2a. The value of
extra exam to test the stability of the derived model in the central density assumes that the pulsar PSR J0740+6620
f (R, T) = R + α1 T gravity. We ill examine the validity core consists of neutrons. In Fig. 8a, and c, when β1 = 0 and
of TOV equation [54,86] assuming that the sphere is in a β1 = 0, we plot the evolution of the tangential and radial
hydrostatic equilibrium where the forces acting in the oppo- EoSs, i.e., wr (r) = pr /ρ and wt (r) = pt /ρ via the radial dis-
site directions on a star are in equilibrium with each other. tance from the center. The figures show that the EoSs slightly
The TOV equation can be formalized as follows to reflect the change from the maximum at the center with a monotoni-
modified form caused by the newly introduced force, FT : cally decreasing behavior to the surface of the pulsar, where
wr approximates to zero at the boundary as constrain (III)
Fa + Fg + Fh + FT = 0, (39) stated. We see that the variation of the EoSs is sharper in
where the gravitational force is denoted by Fg and the hydro- R + β1 T than the GR case, which can be explained as an
static force is denoted by Fh . In this study we figured the effect of the matter-geometry coupling. Moreover, we should
various forces as follow: note that we did not assume any form of the EoS in the
2 Mg model under construction, Fig. 8a and c, nevertheless, we
Fa = , Fg = − (ρc2 + pr )eγ /2 , Fh = −pr , note that the EoS p(ρ) in the radial and tangential directions
r r
β1 are fit well with linear models, where the best fit are given by

FT = (c2 ρ − pr − 2pt ). (40) pr ≈ 0.281 ρ − 8.56 and pt ≈ 0.173 ρ − 2.9 for the pulsar
3(1 − β1 )
PSR J0740+6620. Surprisingly, the slopes of the fitted lines
Here γ ≡ γ (r ) = α − α1 and the mass Mg of the isolated are dpr /dρ = 0.281 = vr2 and dpt /dρ = 0.173 = vt2 which
time-independent systems in a 3-space V (t = constant) is are in agreement with the corresponding values in Table 2 for
defined by the Tolman mass form [89] the pulsar under consideration. Also, the current anisotropic
 √ NS pattern generates an EoS that is not extremely stiff, as
Mg (r ) = Tr r + Tθ θ + Tφ φ − Tt t −g d V is typically shown for NS models, but is following the EoS
V
predicted from gravitational wave signals, where there isn’t
(eα/2 ) α1 /2 α  −γ /2
= e r = re , (41) any obvious indication of a tidal deformation in the observed
eα 2 GW patterns.
with Fg = − μr R2
(ρc2 + pr ) being the force of gravity. Now
we ready to put the stability condition the amended TOV
equation. 5 Additional observational constraints
Constrain (XII): The anisotropic star is in a hydrodynamic
equilibrium as far as the total forces verify the amended TOV We will now compare the model under discussion to the data
equation (39). We employ Eqs. (18) and (28)–(30) to evaluate from other pulsars to evaluate its applicability to a variety
the total forces (40) that are plotted in Fig. 7 for the GR and of astrophysical observations. Additionally, we depict the
for the f (R, T) theories. The plots show that the negative mass-radius pattern corresponding to several boundary den-
gravitational force compensates (the positive forces) for a sity selections that are consistent with the nuclear saturation
hydrodynamics equilibrium as required for a stable pattern. density as boundary conditions to demonstrate the model’s
It is clear that the hydrodynamic equilibrium condition consistency in predicting masses in the lower mass range
(XII) is satisfied for the pulsar PSR J0740+6620 as shown 3.5 − 5.3M. Additionally, we compare the model’s antic-
in Fig. 7. ipated compactness parameter to the Buchdahl compactness
limit.
4.8 EoS
5.1 Pulsars’ data
By the use of the observational data of the pulsar PSR J0740
+6620, we derived a satisfactory value of the parameter In addition to the pulsar PSR J0740+6620, the same discus-
β1 = 0.1 which describes the coupling between matter and sion is applied to another 21 pulsars, with masses ranging
geometry in curved spacetime. Therefore, we evaluate the from 0.8M to 2.01M for heavy pulsars. Assuming, that
central density which has the value ρ R ≈ 5.82 × 1014 g/cm3 the f (R, T) = R + β1 T with parameter β1 = 0.1, we

123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2023) 83:698 Page 13 of 20 698

Fig. 7 The various forces (40)

of the amended TOV equation
given by Eq. (39) of the pulsar
PSR J0740+6620. The figures
assure the hydrodynamic
stability constrain (XIII) which
is hold true for the pulsar
PSR J0740+6620

(a) GR (b) f (R, T) = R + β1 T

(a) Radial EoS (b) Linear radial EoS (c) Tangential EoS

(d) Linear tangential EoS

Fig. 8 The pressures-density relation of the pulsar PSRJ0740 is in a the NS matters fulfill the conjectured conformal bound on the sound
good agreement with the linear EoS with bag constant whereas the speed cs2 ≤ c2 /3 everywhere inside the star
slopes dp1 /dρ = 0.281c2 and dp2 /dρ0.173c2 evidently confirm that

123
698 Page 14 of 20 Eur. Phys. J. C (2023) 83:698

Table 1 Observed mass-radius of twenty pulsars and the corresponding model parameters ( = 0.06)
Pulsar Ref. Observed mass Observed radius Estimated mass μ ν λ
(M ) [km] (M )

High-mass X-ray binaries

Her X-1 [87] 0.85 ± 0.15 8.1 ± 0.41 0.664 0.184 −0.555 0.371
4U 1538-52 [88] 0.87 ± 0.07 7.866 ± 0.21 0.68 0.2 −0.596 0.396
LMC X-4 [90] 1.04 ± 0.09 8.301 ± 0.2 0.816 0.245 −0.707 0.462
Cen X-3 [91] 1.49 ± 0.49 9.178 ± 0.13 1.182 0.397 −1.05 0.653
Vela X-1 [90] 1.77 ± 0.08 9.56 ± 0.08 1.42 0.532 −1.32 0.792
Low-mass X-ray binaries (quiescence/thermonuclear bursts)
EXO 1785-248 [92] 1.3 ± 0.2 8.849 ± 0.4 1.026 0.325 −0.895 0.569
M13 [93] 1.38 ± 0.2 9.95 ± 0.27 1.087 0.292 −0.820 0.527
X7 [94] 1.1 ± 0.35 12 0.857 0.151 −0.467 0.316
4U 1820-30 [95] 1.46 ± 0.2 11.1 ± 1.8 1.147 0.266 −0.758 0.492
4U 1608-52 [96] 1.57 ± 0.3 9.8 ± 1.8 1.244 0.386 −1.027 0.641
KS 1731-260 [92] 1.61 ± 0.37 10 ± 2.2 1.277 0.39 −1.035 0.646
EXO 1745-268 [92] 1.65 ± 0.25 10.5 ± 1.8 1.31 0.371 −0.995 0.624
4U 1724-207 [92] 1.81 ± 0.27 12.2 ± 1.4 1.43 0.331 −0.908 0.577
SAX J1748.9-2021 [92] 1.81 ± 0.3 11.7 ± 1.7 1.432 0.36 −0.97 0.611
Millisecond pulsars
PSR J0030+0451 [4] 1.34 ± 0.16 12.71 ± 1.19 1.0467 0.186 −0.559 0.373
PSR J0030+0451 [3] 1.44 ± 0.16 13.02 ± 1.24 1.126 0.2 −0.596 0.396
PSR J0437-4715 [5] & [97] 1.44 ± 0.07 13.6 ± 0.9 1.125 0.187 −0.562 0.375
PSR J1614-2230 [98] 1.908 ± 0.016 13 ± 2 1.51 0.325 −0.893 0.569
PSR J0348+0432 [10] 2.01 ± 0.04 13 ± 2 1.59 0.359 −0.969 0.61
Gravitational-wave signals
LIGO-Virgo [99] 1.4 12.9 ± 0.8 1.094 0.194 −0.58 0.387
GW170817-1 [100] 1.45 ± 0.09 11.9 ± 1.4 1.137 0.234 −0.68 0.446
GW170817-2 [100] 1.27 ± 0.09 11.9 ± 1.4 0.99 0.19 −.568 0.379

display the observed masses and radii of each related with and PSR J0030+0451; (iv) three gravitational wave signals,
the associated model parameters μ, ν, and λ in Table 1. We which include the initial NS-NS merger to be discovered
guarantee that the pulsar masses predicted by this study l are (GW170817), as well as LIGO-Virgo restrictions on the
consistent with the observed values. We list the determined NS radius from GW170817+GW190814. Significantly, the
values of the most relevant physical quantities in Table 2. GW190814 binary’s companion is the first compact object
The values of the density agree with the nuclear density, as to be discovered in the low mass gap, M = 2.6M . Also,
seen in Table 2. using the associated values of the model parameters μ, ν and
We list the pulsars in Table 1 together with the obser- λ, we estimate the masses of the pulsars (according to the
vations associated mass and radius constraints. We com- observed/estimated mean value of R). The predicted masses
prise: (i) dive high mass X-ray binaries; (ii) nine low mass are consistent with the corresponding observed values, as can
X-ray binaries, where two quiescent low mass X-ray bina- be seen in Table 1.
ries (M13 and X7) can be identified by Type I X-ray Squeezable models face a challenge from NICER obser-
bursts thermonuclear explosions on the neutron star surface, vations of PSR J0030+0451 and PSR J0740+6620 since the
while others can be identified by mass-radius constraints latter has a lot more mass than the former despite both being
obtained using spectral analysis techniques; (iii) four MSPs, almost of the same size. This was highlighted in the intro-
including the two most massive pulsars PSR J0348+0432 duction. We see that the current model estimates for the pul-
and PSR J1614-2230, for which the mass-radius constraints sar PSR J0030+0451 (M = 1.34M , R = 12.71 km) and
are fixed by determining the time at which pulses arrive. (M = 1.44M , R = 13.02 km) are following its NICER
We also take into account the most recent NICER obser- observational constraints as reported by [3,4], respectively.
vational constraints for the two pulsars PSR J0437-4715 In agreement with NICER+XMM readings, it also provides

123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2023) 83:698 Page 15 of 20 698

Table 2 Calculated physical quantities of the most interest

Pulsar ρ [g/cm3 ] vr2 /c2 vt2 /c2 DEC [dyne/cm2 ] ZR
Center Surface Center Surface Center Surface Center Surface

High-mass X-ray binaries

Her X-1 7.15 × 1014 5.22 × 1014 0.221 0.201 0.119 0.09 7.53 × 1034 5.24×1034 0.204
4U 1538-52 8.1 × 1014 5.79 × 1014 0.226 0.204 0.124 0.094 8.62 × 1034 5.86×1034 0.219
LMC X-4 8.54 × 1014 5.77 × 1014 0.239 0.213 0.137 0.1 9.37 × 1034 5.98×1034 0.26
Cen X-3 10 × 1014 5.79 × 1014 0.28 0.24 0.176 0.129 1.2 × 1035 6.44×1034 0.386
Vela X-1 11.3 × 1014 5.86 × 1014 0.314 0.262 0.205 0.152 14.5 × 1034 6.92×1034 0.486
Low-mass X-ray binaries (quiescence/thermonuclear bursts)
EXO 1785-248 9.32 × 1014 5.77 × 1014 0.261 0.227 0.159 0.116 10.7 × 1034 6.22 × 1034 0.329
M13 6.81 × 1014 4.36 × 1014 0.252 0.222 0.15 0.111 7.69 × 1034 4.63 × 1034 0.302
X7 2.76 × 1014 2.11 × 1014 0.211 0.194 0.108 0.084 2.84 × 1034 2.08 × 1034 0.171
4U 1820-30 5.09 × 1014 3.36 × 1014 0.245 0.217 0.143 0.106 5.66 × 1034 3.52 × 1034 0.279
4U 1608-52 8.61 × 1014 5.03 × 1014 0.277 0.238 0.173 0.127 10.3 × 1034 5.57 × 1034 0.378
KS 1731-260 8.33 × 1014 4.85 × 1014 0.278 0.239 0.174 0.128 9.95 × 1034 5.38 × 1035 0.381
EXO 1745-268 7.29 × 1014 4.32 × 1014 0.273 0.235 0.17 0.124 8.62 × 1034 4.75 × 1034 0.366
4U 1724-207 4.97 × 1014 3.06 × 1014 0.263 0.229 0.16 0.117 5.75 × 1034 3.31 × 1034 0.334
SAX J1748.9-2021 5.74 × 1014 3.44 × 1014 0.27 0.233 0.167 0.122 6.74 × 1034 3.76 × 1034 0.357
Millisecond pulsars
PSR J0030+0451 2.92 × 1014 2.13 × 1014 0.221 0.201 0.119 0.091 3.08 × 1034 2.14 × 1034 0.205
PSR J0030+0451 2.96 × 1014 2.11 × 1014 0.262 0.204 0.124 0.094 3.15 × 1034 2.14 × 1034 0.219
PSR J0437-4715 2.56 × 1014 1.86 × 1014 0.222 0.202 0.120 0.091 2.71 × 1034 1.88 × 1034 0.206
PSR J1614-2230 4.31 × 1014 2.67 × 1014 0.261 0.227 0.158 0.116 4.97 × 1034 2.88 × 1034 0.329
PSR J0348+0432 4.65 × 1014 2.78 × 1014 0.27 0.233 0.167 0.122 5.46 × 1034 3.04 × 1034 0.357
Gravitational-wave signals
LIGO-Virgo 2.94 × 1014 2.12 × 1014 0.224 0.203 0.122 0.093 3.12 × 1034 2.14 × 1034 0.213
GW170817-1 4 × 1014 2.74 × 1014 0.235 0.211 0.134 0.1 4.36 × 1034 2.83 × 1034 0.25
GW170817-2 3.38 × 1014 2.45 × 1014 0.222 0.202 0.121 0.092 3.58 × 1034 2.47 × 1034 0.208
For the pulsars 4U 1608-52 and KS 1731-260, the sound speed at the core is in agreement with the conjectured conformal bound on the sound
speed cs2 ≤ c2 /3, unlike the GR version [23,101,102]. This confirms the role of the matter-geometry coupling to avoid the violation of the upper
conformal bound of the sound speed

an estimate (M = 1.96M , R = 13.04 km) for the pul- with our earlier discussion of the sound speed of the pulsar
sar PSR J0740+6620. This supports our assertion that the PSR J0740+6620. This demonstrates the potential function
induced anisotropic force becomes important to maintain the of the geometry-matter coupling in maintaining this upper
NS size as a pulsar gains mass and density. bound across the entire compact object.
In accordance with the criteria listed in the preceding sec-
tion, we further assess the model’s stability. In Table 2 we
provide the physical quantities that are of the most interest. 6 Mass–radius relation
The outcomes demonstrate the model’s capacity to forecast
stable compact star structure that is consistent with obser- We derive boundary densities 1.86 × 1014  ρ R  5.86 ×
vations. It’s interesting to note that the sound speeds deter- 1014 g/cm3 as shown in Table 2; and therefore, we select
mined by this model for all categories match with the confor- the following three surface densities as boundary conditions:
mal limit c2 s ≤ c2 /3. It should be mentioned that the gen- ρ R = ρnuc = 2 × 1014 g/cm3 at nuclear saturation density,
eral relativistic version of this work anticipated cs2 = 0.34 ρ R = 3.5 × 1014 g/cm3 and ρ R = 5.5 × 1014 g/cm3 to cover
at the core above the conformal limit as derived by [23], the nuclear solidification density. Thus, for the dimension-
specifically for the low mass X-ray binaries 4U 1608-52 and less parameter β1 = 0.1, we derive a relationship between the
KS 1731-260. The results of Table 2confirm that the sound compactness C and the radius R for each boundary restric-
speed violation is avoided in the current investigation, in line tion on the surface density through the use of the density

123
698 Page 16 of 20 Eur. Phys. J. C (2023) 83:698

(a) Figure of Compactness and Radius (b) Figure of Mass and Radius relation of (c) LIGO-Virgo and NICER restrictions
relation of the GR case the GR case of the GR case

Fig. 9 a The compactness-radius curves of the GR case, using various density is set to the saturation nuclear density ρnuc = 2 × 1014 g/cm3 .
surface energy-densities, which indicate that the maximum compact- Solid green circles represent MSP, and solid red circles represent GW
ness is C = 1 just greater than the limit of Buchdahl C = 8/9 (dotted signals as given from Table 1. c A closer look at some of the most inter-
horizontal line). b The mass-radius curves of the GR case show that the esting pulsars. LIGO-Virgo restrictions on the radius of a canonical NS,
DEC (diagonal dashed line) gives an upper mass of M ≈ 5.9M in the NICER restrictions on the pulsar PSR J0030+0451 and NICER+XMM
lower mass gap with radius R ≈ 19.6 km where the surface energy- on the pulsar PSR J0740+6620 all are consistent with the ρnuc -curve

(a) Figure of Compactness and Radius (b) Figure of Mass and Radius relation (c) LIGO-Virgo and NICER restrictions
relation

Fig. 10 a The compactness-radius curves, using various surface where the surface energy-density is set to the saturation nuclear density
energy-densities, which indicate that the maximum compactness is ρnuc = 2 × 1014 g/cm3 . Solid blue circles represent low-mass X-ray
C = 0.868 just smaller than the limit of Buchdahl C = 8/9 (dot- binaries, solid green circles represent MSP, and solid red circles rep-
ted horizontal line). However, the strong energy condition sets a more resent GW signals as given from Table 1. c A closer look at some of
strict constraint on the upper bound C = 0.757 (dashed horizontal line) the most interesting pulsars of the GR case. LIGO-Virgo restrictions
for an anisotropic compact object to be physically viable. b The mass- on the radius of a canonical NS, NICER restrictions on the pulsar PSR
radius curves show that the DEC (diagonal dashed line) gives an upper J0030+0451 and NICER+XMM on the pulsar PSR J0740+6620 all are
mass of M ≈ 4.86M in the lower mass gap with radius R ≈ 18.3 km consistent with the ρnuc -curve

equation (18), i.e., ρ(r = R) = ρ R . In Figs. 9a and 10a, we anisotropic model which reduce the value of the compactness
plot the compactness-radius curves with the chosen bound- as shown from the above discussion. Next we give the mass-
ary density for the GR case and f (R, T) = R + β1 T and radius curves for each case in addition to the corresponding
get C = 1 and 0.868 respectively. The figures ensure that observational data from Table 1 as obtained by Fig. 10b.
the maximum compactness of GR is C = 1 which is greater Next, the mass-radius curves for each case are then shown,
than the Buchdahl limit C = 8/9 (represented by a hori- along with the relevant observational data from Table 1 as
zontal dotted line) for the isotropic star and 0.868 which is determined by Figs. 9b and 10b for the GR situation, and
smaller than the Buchdahl limit. This ensure the effect of the for f (R, T) = R + β1 T respectively. With the help of the

123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2023) 83:698 Page 17 of 20 698

DEC restriction (shown as a diagonal dashed line), we deter- enables higher compactness values to be produced within the
mine the maximum permitted masses Mmax = 5.9M and framework of f (R, T) = R + β1 T. We demonstrated that
Mmax = 4.86M at maximum radii of Rmax = 19.6 km and for a given mass, the additional force of f (R, T) = R+β1 T
Rmax = 18.3 km, respectively, for the boundary density at gravitational theory helps the hydrodynamic equilibrium par-
the nuclear saturation density ρnuc = 2 × 1014 g/cm3 for tially offset the gravitational force, allowing for larger com-
the GR case and f (R, T) = R + β1 T respectively [23]. pact stars than would otherwise be possible. Also, we demon-
With a positive parameter value of β1 = 0.1, f (R, T) = strated that the Schwarzschild radius bound approaches the
R + β1 T predicts roughly the same mass inside a ∼ 1.3 km upper bound on the compactness parameter, which is C = 1
smaller size than GR predictions. Similar to this, for the for the isotropic case, just above the Buchdahl limit of
surface densities ρ R = 5.5 × 1014 g/cm3 and ρ R = C = 8/9 for the GR case as shown in Fig. 9a. The highest
5.5 × 1014 g/cm3 , respectively, we obtain the maximum permitted compactness for f (R, T) = R + β1 T is discov-
masses and radii (Mmax = 3.57M, Rmax = 13.7 km) ered to be Cmax = 0.868, which is lower than the Buchdahl
and (Mmax = 2.83M , Rmax = 10.85 km) for the case limit of C = 8/9.
f (R, T) = R + β1 T,which are compatible with the nuclear Surprisingly, despite the fact that we did not make any
solidification density. It’s interesting to note that the current specific EoS assumptions, the model perfectly matches a lin-
study can produce an NS in the mass range 2.83−4.86M , ear EoS with a bag constant. More intriguingly, we found
thus this does not rule out the possibility that the companion the maximum squared sound speeds at the NS core to be
to the binary GW190814 with mass M = 2.6M is an NS vr2 = 0.332c2 (radial direction) and vt2 = 0.222c2 (tangen-
with a boundary density consistent with nuclear saturation tial direction), which, unlike the GR case, satisfy the con-
density and a linear EoS. The model determines that in this jectured conformal bound on the sound speed cs2 ≤ c2 /3 at
instance, its radius is R = 10.45 km. the core and everywhere inside the NS. Contrarily, the speed
In Fig. 10c, we focus our investigation on a few of the most of sound is severely broken in hadronic EoS models and
intriguing pulsars. The pulsars PSR J0740+6620(NICER the Gaussian process non-parametric EoS approach (using
+XMM) and PSR J0030+0451(NICER) are found to fit the NICER+XMM data of the pulsar PSR J0740+6620) where
ρnuc -curve in a precise manner. Additionally, we investi- the speed of sound is strongly violated cs2 = 0.75c2 .
gate whether the surface density at ρnuc and the LIGO-Virgo For a surface density at saturation nuclear energy ρnuc =
restrictions on the radius of canonical NS are consistent. 2 × 1014 g/cm3 the model allows for a maximum mass
M = 4.86M at radius R = 18.3 km which indeed gives
smaller compactness value in comparison to GR prediction
7 Conclusion for same surface density boundary condition as clear from
Figs. 9a and 10a. This result keeps an open window for the
According to [50], we looked into the effects of the non- companion of GW 190814 to be an anisotropic NS with no
minimal connection between matter and geometry, for need to assume any exotic matter sources.
f (R, T) = R+β1 T gravitational theory, on the mass-radius The present evaluations ensure that the matter-geometry
relationship of compact objects. In the presence of curved coupling reconciles the sound speed in high mass compact
spacetime, the theory pre supposes a local violation of the objects ∼ 2M with the conformal upper bound which is not
law of conservation of energy; otherwise, it degenerates into the case in GR. This critical results among other similar work
GR. Given that spacetime is substantially curved, this effect confirm the inequivalence between f (R, T) = R + β1 T
should be carefully explored by stellar structures of compact and GR. To summarize we succeeded in deriving a realistic
objects. The data of pulsar PSR J0740+6620, i.e., the radius stellar model in the frame of f (R, T ) theory. Can we apply
and mass, were precisely measured by NICER, which helped the same procedure in f (T , T ) [103–106], where T is the
to establish a strict estimate of the parameter β1 . scalar torsion?
We demonstrated that the anisotropy in f (R, T) = R +
Data Availability Statement This manuscript has no associated data
β1 T is identical to that in GR for a spherically symmetric or the data will not be deposited. [Authors’ comment: This manuscript
spacetime with an anisotropic matter source, which makes has no associated data.]
it easier to spot deviations from GR in terms of matter-
geometry coupling. We used the KB ansatz, in which the Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
parameter β1 and the compactness parameter C are utilized to bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation,
distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you
express all the physical values. As a result of the exact mass- give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, pro-
radius observational constraints from X-ray NICER+XMM vide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
observations of PSR J0740+6620, we fixed the parameter β1 were made. The images or other third party material in this article
in the positive range with value β = 0.1. In contrast to GR, are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indi-
cated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
this scenario suggests a bigger size for a given mass, which

123
698 Page 18 of 20 Eur. Phys. J. C (2023) 83:698

included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81. arXiv:2105.06980 [astro-
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permit- ph.HE]
ted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copy- 15. I. Legred, K. Chatziioannou, R. Essick, S. Han, P. Landry,
right holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecomm Phys. Rev. D 104(6), 063003 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/
ons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. PhysRevD.104.063003. arXiv:2106.05313 [astro-ph.HE]
Funded by SCOAP3 . SCOAP3 supports the goals of the International 16. P. Landry, R. Essick, K. Chatziioannou, Phys. Rev. D 101(12),
Year of Basic Sciences for Sustainable Development. 123007 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.123007.
arXiv:2003.04880 [astro-ph.HE]
17. H. Stephani, D. Kramer, M.A.H. MacCallum, C. Hoense-
laers, E. Herlt, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003).
References ISBN 978-0-521-46702-5, 978-0-511-05917-9. https://doi.org/
10.1017/CBO9780511535185
1. S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, P.S. Ray, M.T. Wolff, D. Chakrabarty, 18. M.S.R. Delgaty, K. Lake, Comput. Phys. Commun. 115, 395–
W.C.G. Ho, M. Kerr, F.K. Lamb, A. Lommen, R.M. Ludlam et al., 415 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4655(98)00130-1.
Astrophys. J. Lett. 887(1), L25 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3847/ arXiv:gr-qc/9809013
2041-8213/ab53eb. arXiv:1912.05706 [astro-ph.HE] 19. H.A. Buchdahl, Astrophys. J. 147, 310 (1967). https://doi.org/10.
2. S. Bogdanov, F.K. Lamb, S. Mahmoodifar, M.C. Miller, 1086/149001
S.M. Morsink, T.E. Riley, T.E. Strohmayer, A.L. Watts, 20. H. Nariai, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 31, 945 (1999)
A.J. Dittmann, D. Chakrabarty et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 21. R.C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 55, 364–373 (1939). https://doi.org/10.
887(1), L26 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab5968. 1103/PhysRev.55.364
arXiv:1912.05707 [astro-ph.HE] 22. K.D. Krori, J. Barua, J. Phys. A Math. Gen. 8, 508 (1975). https://
3. M.C. Miller, F.K. Lamb, A.J. Dittmann, S. Bogdanov, Z. Arzou- doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/8/4/012
manian, K.C. Gendreau, S. Guillot, A.K. Harding, W.C.G. Ho, 23. Z. Roupas, G.G.L. Nashed, Eur. Phys. J. C 80(10), 905
J.M. Lattimer et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 887(1), L24 (2019). https:// (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08462-1.
doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5. arXiv:1912.05705 [astro- arXiv:2007.09797 [gr-qc]
ph.HE] 24. G.G.L. Nashed, Astrophys. J. 950(2), 129 (2023). https://doi.org/
4. G. Raaijmakers, T.E. Riley, A.L. Watts, S.K. Greif, S.M. Morsink, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd182. arXiv:2306.10273 [gr-qc]
K. Hebeler, A. Schwenk, T. Hinderer, S. Nissanke, S. Guillot et al., 25. F. Rahaman, R. Sharma, S. Ray, R. Maulick, I. Karar,
Astrophys. J. Lett. 887(1), L22 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3847/ Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 2071 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/
2041-8213/ab451a. arXiv:1912.05703 [astro-ph.HE] s10052-012-2071-5. arXiv:1108.6125 [gr-qc]
5. D.J. Reardon, G. Hobbs, W. Coles, Y. Levin, M.J. Keith, M. Bailes, 26. S. Monowar Hossein, F. Rahaman, J. Naskar, M. Kalam, S. Ray,
N.D.R. Bhat, S. Burke-Spolaor, S. Dai, M. Kerr et al., Mon. Not. R. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 21, 1250088 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1142/
Astron. Soc. 455(2), 1751–1769 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1093/ S0218271812500885. arXiv:1204.3558 [gr-qc]
mnras/stv2395. arXiv:1510.04434 [astro-ph.HE] 27. M. Kalam, F. Rahaman, S. Ray, S.M. Hossein, I. Karar, J. Naskar,
6. E. Balsamo, K. Gendreau, Z. Arzoumanian, AAS/High Energy Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 2248 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/
Astrophysics Division #14 (2014) s10052-012-2248-y. arXiv:1201.5234 [gr-qc]
7. E. Fonseca, T.T. Pennucci, J.A. Ellis, I.H. Stairs, D.J. Nice, S.M. 28. F. Rahaman, S. Ray, A.K. Jafry, K. Chakraborty, Phys. Rev.
Ransom, P.B. Demorest, Z. Arzoumanian, K. Crowter, T. Dolch D 82, 104055 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.
et al., Astrophys. J. 832(2), 167 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3847/ 104055. arXiv:1007.1889 [physics.gen-ph]
0004-637X/832/2/167. arXiv:1603.00545 [astro-ph.HE] 29. S.G. Turyshev, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 58, 207–248
8. P. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. Ransom, M. Roberts, J. Hes- (2008). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nucl.58.020807.111839.
sels, Nature 467, 1081–1083 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/ arXiv:0806.1731 [gr-qc]
nature09466. arXiv:1010.5788 [astro-ph.HE] 30. B.P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.
9. Z. Arzoumanian et al. (NANOGRAV),. Astrophys. J. 116(6), 061102 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.
859(1), 47 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aabd3b. 116.061102. arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]
arXiv:1801.02617 [astro-ph.HE] 31. K. Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J.
10. J. Antoniadis, P.C.C. Freire, N. Wex, T.M. Tauris, R.S. Lynch, Lett. 875, L1 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7.
M.H. van Kerkwijk, M. Kramer, C. Bassa, V.S. Dhillon, T. Driebe arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA]
et al., Science 340, 6131 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1126/science. 32. S. Dodelson (Academic Press, Cambridge, 2003). ISBN 978-0-
1233232. arXiv:1304.6875 [astro-ph.HE] 12-219141-1
11. H.T. Cromartie et al. (NANOGrav), Nature Astron. 4(1), 33. W.G. Unruh, R.M. Wald, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80(9), 092002 (2017).
72–76 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-019-0880-2. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/aa778e. arXiv:1703.02140
arXiv:1904.06759 [astro-ph.HE] [hep-th]
12. E. Fonseca, H.T. Cromartie, T.T. Pennucci, P.S. Ray, A.Y. 34. R. Penrose, Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, 57–59 (1965). https://doi.org/10.
Kirichenko, S.M. Ransom, P.B. Demorest, I.H. Stairs, Z. 1103/PhysRevLett.14.57
Arzoumanian, L. Guillemot et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 35. J.M.M. Senovilla, D. Garfinkle, Class. Quantum Gravity
915(1), L12 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8. 32(12), 124008 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/32/
arXiv:2104.00880 [astro-ph.HE] 12/124008. arXiv:1410.5226 [gr-qc]
13. M.C. Miller, F.K. Lamb, A.J. Dittmann, S. Bogdanov, Z. Arzou- 36. S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, V.K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rep. 692,
manian, K.C. Gendreau, S. Guillot, W.C.G. Ho, J.M. Lattimer, M. 1–104 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2017.06.001.
Loewenstein et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 918(2), L28 (2021). https:// arXiv:1705.11098 [gr-qc]
doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b. arXiv:2105.06979 [astro- 37. Z. Stuchlík, M. Kološ, J. Kovář, P. Slaný, A. Tursunov, Universe
ph.HE] 6(2), 26 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/universe6020026
14. T.E. Riley, A.L. Watts, P.S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, S.M. 38. C.G. Boehmer, Ukr. J. Phys. 50, 1219–1225 (2005).
Morsink, A.V. Bilous, Z. Arzoumanian, D. Choudhury, J.S. arXiv:gr-qc/0409030
Deneva et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 918(2), L27 (2021). https://

123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2023) 83:698 Page 19 of 20 698

39. Z. Stuchlík, S. Hledík, J. Novotný, Phys. Rev. D 94(10), 65. J.M.Z. Pretel, S.E. Jorás, R.R.R. Reis, J.D.V. Arbañil, JCAP
103513 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.103513. 04, 064 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/04/064.
arXiv:1611.05327 [gr-qc] arXiv:2012.03342 [gr-qc]
40. J. Novotný, Z. Stuchlík, J. Hladík, Astron. Astrophys. 66. J.L. Rosa, Phys. Rev. D 103(10), 104069 (2021). https://doi.org/
647, A29 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202039338. 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.104069. arXiv:2103.11698 [gr-qc]
arXiv:2101.00891 [astro-ph.CO] 67. J.L. Rosa, D. Rubiera-Garcia, Phys. Rev. D 106(6), 064007
41. Z. Stuchlik, J. Schee, JCAP 09, 018 (2011). https://doi.org/10. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.064007.
1088/1475-7516/2011/09/018 arXiv:2204.12944 [gr-qc]
42. S.M. Carroll, Living Rev. Relativ. 4, 1 (2001). https://doi.org/10. 68. G.G.L. Nashed, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 21, 2241–2250 (2006). https://
12942/lrr-2001-1. arXiv:astro-ph/0004075 doi.org/10.1142/S0217732306020445. arXiv:gr-qc/0401041
43. A. Einstein, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.) 69. G.G.L. Nashed, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 22, 1047–1056 (2007). https://
1917, 142–152 (1917) doi.org/10.1142/S021773230702141X. arXiv:gr-qc/0609096
44. C. O’Raifeartaigh, M. O’Keeffe, W. Nahm, S. Mitton, Eur. 70. G.G.L. Nashed, S. Capozziello, Eur. Phys. J. C 80(10),
Phys. J. H 42(3), 431–474 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjh/ 969 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08551-1.
e2017-80002-5. arXiv:1701.07261 [physics.hist-ph] arXiv:2010.06355 [gr-qc]
45. H.A. Buchdahl, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 150, 1 (1970) 71. G.G.L. Nashed, W. El Hanafy, Eur. Phys. J. C 82(8),
46. T.P. Sotiriou, V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 451–497 (2010). 679 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10634-0.
https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.82.451. arXiv:0805.1726 arXiv:2208.13814 [gr-qc]
[gr-qc] 72. Y.B. Zeldovich, I.D. Novikov (University of Chicago Press,
47. E.J. Copeland, M. Sami, S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Chicago, 1971)
Phys. D 15, 1753–1936 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1142/ 73. H.A. Buchdahl, Phys. Rev. 116, 1027 (1959). https://doi.org/10.
S021827180600942X. arXiv:hep-th/0603057 1103/PhysRev.116.1027
48. A. De Felice, S. Tsujikawa, Living Rev. Relativ. 13, 3 (2010). 74. B.V. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D 65, 104011 (2002). https://doi.org/10.
https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2010-3. arXiv:1002.4928 [gr-qc] 1103/PhysRevD.65.104011. arXiv:gr-qc/0201090
49. S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, Phys. Rep. 505, 59–144 (2011). https:// 75. D.E. Barraco, V.H. Hamity, R.J. Gleiser, Phys. Rev. D 67, 064003
doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2011.04.001. arXiv:1011.0544 [gr-qc] (2003). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.67.064003
50. T. Harko, F.S.N. Lobo, S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. 76. C.G. Boehmer, T. Harko, Class. Quantum Gravity 23,
D 84, 024020 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84. 6479–6491 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/23/22/
024020. arXiv:1104.2669 [gr-qc] 023. arXiv:gr-qc/0609061
51. T. Harko, F.S.N. Lobo, Galaxies 2(3), 410–465 (2014). https:// 77. C.A. Kolassis, N.O. Santos, D. Tsoubelis, Class. Quantum Gravity
doi.org/10.3390/galaxies2030410. arXiv:1407.2013 [gr-qc] 5, 1329 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/5/10/011
52. T.B. Gonçalves, J.L. Rosa, F.S.N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D 105(6), 78. B.V. Ivanov, Eur. Phys. J. C 77(11), 738 (2017). https://doi.org/
064019 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.064019. 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5322-7. arXiv:1708.07971 [gr-qc]
arXiv:2112.02541 [gr-qc] 79. S. Das, F. Rahaman, L. Baskey, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 853 (2019).
53. T.B. Gonçalves, J.L. Rosa, F.S.N. Lobo, Eur. Phys. J. C 82(5), https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7367-2
418 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10371-4. 80. P. Bedaque, A.W. Steiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114(3), 031103
arXiv:2203.11124 [gr-qc] (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.031103.
54. S. Hansraj, A. Banerjee, Phys. Rev. D 97(10), 104020 (2018). arXiv:1408.5116 [nucl-th]
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.104020 81. A. Cherman, T.D. Cohen, A. Nellore, Phys. Rev. D 80,
55. P. Bhar, P. Rej, M. Zubair, Chin. J. Phys. 77, 2201–2212 (2022). 066003 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.066003.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjph.2021.11.013. arXiv:2112.07581 arXiv:0905.0903 [hep-th]
[gr-qc] 82. L. Herrera, Phys. Lett. A 165, 206–210 (1992). https://doi.org/
56. J. Kumar, H.D. Singh, A.K. Prasad, Phys. Dark Universe 10.1016/0375-9601(92)90036-L
34, 100880 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2021.100880. 83. R. Chan, L. Herrera, N.O. Santos, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 265,
arXiv:2106.12560 [gr-qc] 533 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/265.3.533
57. Z. Feng, arXiv:2210.01574 [gr-qc] 84. S. Chandrasekhar, Astrophys. J. 140, 417–433 (1964). https://doi.
58. T. Tangphati, I. Karar, A. Pradhan, A. Banerjee, Eur. org/10.1086/147938. [Erratum: Astrophys. J. 140, 1342 (1964)]
Phys. J. C 82(1), 57 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/ 85. H. Heintzmann, W. Hillebrandt, Astron. Astrophys. 38, 51 (1975)
s10052-022-10024-6 86. J.R. Oppenheimer, G.M. Volkoff, Phys. Rev. 55, 374–381 (1939).
59. T. Tangphati, S. Hansraj, A. Banerjee, A. Pradhan, Phys. Dark https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.55.374
Universe 35, 100990 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2022. 87. M.K. Abubekerov, E.A. Antokhina, A.M. Cherepashchuk, V.V.
100990 Shimanskii, Astron. Rep. 52, 379–389 (2008). https://doi.org/10.
60. J. Wu, G. Li, T. Harko, S.D. Liang, Eur. Phys. J. C 78(5), 1134/S1063772908050041. arXiv:1201.5519 [astro-ph.SR]
430 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5923-9. 88. T. Gangopadhyay, S. Ray, X.D. Li, J. Dey, M. Dey, Mon. Not.
arXiv:1805.07419 [gr-qc] R. Astron. Soc. 431, 3216–3221 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1093/
61. V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. D 80, 124040 (2009). https://doi.org/10. mnras/stt401. arXiv:1303.1956 [astro-ph.HE]
1103/PhysRevD.80.124040. arXiv:0912.1249 [astro-ph.GA] 89. R.C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 35, 896 (1930). https://doi.org/10.1103/
62. P.P. Avelino, R.P.L. Azevedo, Phys. Rev. D 97(6), 064018 PhysRev.35.896
(2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.064018. 90. M.L. Rawls, J.A. Orosz, J.E. McClintock, M.A.P. Torres, C.D.
arXiv:1802.04760 [gr-qc] Bailyn, M.M. Buxton, Astrophys. J. 730, 25 (2011). https://
63. J. Barrientos, G.F. Rubilar, Phys. Rev. D 90(2), 028501 (2014). doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/25. arXiv:1101.2465 [astro-
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.028501 ph.SR]
64. J.M.Z. Pretel, S.E. Jorás, R.R.R. Reis, J.D.V. Arbañil, JCAP 91. S. Naik, B. Paul, Z. Ali, Astrophys. J. 737, 79 (2011). https://
08, 055 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/08/055. doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/79. arXiv:1106.0370 [astro-
arXiv:2105.07573 [gr-qc] ph.SR]

123
698 Page 20 of 20 Eur. Phys. J. C (2023) 83:698

92. F. Ozel, T. Guver, D. Psaltis, Astrophys. J. 693, 1775– 101. G.B. Rybicki, C.O. Heinke, R. Narayan, J.E. Grindlay, Astro-
1779 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1775. phys. J. 644, 1090–1103 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1086/503701.
arXiv:0810.1521 [astro-ph] arXiv:astro-ph/0506563
93. N.A. Webb, D. Barret, Astrophys. J. 671, 727 (2007). https://doi. 102. T. Guver, P. Wroblewski, L. Camarota, F. Ozel, Astrophys.
org/10.1086/522877. arXiv:0708.3816 [astro-ph] J. 719, 1807 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/
94. S. Bogdanov, C.O. Heinke, F. Özel, T. Güver, Astrophys. J. 1807. arXiv:1002.3825 [astro-ph.HE]
831(2), 184 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/ 103. G.G.L. Nashed, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 133(1), 18 (2018). https://doi.
184. arXiv:1603.01630 [astro-ph.HE] org/10.1140/epjp/i2018-11849-7
95. F. Ozel, D. Psaltis, T. Guver, G. Baym, C. Heinke, S. Guil- 104. G.G.L. Nashed, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2018, 7323574 (2018).
lot, Astrophys. J. 820(1), 28 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3847/ https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7323574
0004-637X/820/1/28. arXiv:1505.05155 [astro-ph.HE] 105. G.G.L. Nashed, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 27(7), 1850074 (2018).
96. F.E. Marshall, L. Angelini, IAU Circ. 6331, 1 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271818500748
97. D. Gonzalez-Caniulef, S. Guillot, A. Reisenegger, Mon. Not. R. 106. W. El Hanafy, G.G.L. Nashed, Eur. Phys. J. C 75,
Astron. Soc. 490(4), 5848–5859 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1093/ 279 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3501-y.
mnras/stz2941. arXiv:1904.12114 [astro-ph.HE] arXiv:1409.7199 [hep-th]
98. Z. Arzoumanian et al. (NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Suppl.
235(2), 37 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/aab5b0.
arXiv:1801.01837 [astro-ph.HE]
99. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett.
896(2), L44 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f.
arXiv:2006.12611 [astro-ph.HE]
100. B.P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.
121(16), 161101 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.
121.161101. arXiv:1805.11581 [gr-qc]

123