Physics of the Dark Universe 34 (2021) 100885

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Physics of the Dark Universe

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dark

Slowly rotating dark energy stars

∗
Grigoris Panotopoulos a,b , , Ángel Rincón c , Ilídio Lopes a
a
Centro de Astrofísica e Gravitação-CENTRA, Instituto Superior Técnico-IST, Universidade de Lisboa-UL, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal
b
Departamento de Ciencias Físicas, Universidad de La Frontera, Casilla 54-D, 4811186 Temuco, Chile
c
Sede Esmeralda, Universidad de Tarapacá, Avenida Luis Emilio Recabarren 2477, Iquique, Chile

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: We study isotropic and slowly-rotating stars made of dark energy adopting the extended Chaplygin
Received 2 July 2021 equation-of-state. We compute the moment of inertia as a function of the mass of the stars, both for
Received in revised form 30 July 2021 rotating and non-rotating objects. The solution for the non-diagonal metric component as a function
Accepted 11 September 2021
of the radial coordinate for three different star masses is shown as well. We find that (i) the moment
Keywords: of inertia increases with the mass of the star, (ii) in the case of non-rotating objects the moment of
Dark energy inertia grows faster, and (iii) the curve corresponding to rotation lies below the one corresponding to
Relativistic stars non-rotating stars.
Composition of astronomical objects © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction For those reasons, as was to be expected, a plethora of several

different dark energy models have been proposed and studied
The origin of dark energy (DE), i.e. the fluid component that over the years as possible alternatives to the ΛCDM model. Quite
dominates the current cosmic acceleration, [1–3], is still a mys- generically, all dark energy models are classified into two broad
tery, while at the same understanding its nature comprises one classes. On the one hand, there is a family of models related to
of the biggest challenges in modern theoretical Cosmology. It is alternative/modified theories of gravity, where new correction
well-known that according to the cosmological equations within terms appear to GR at cosmological scales. And on the other
Einstein’s General Relativity [4], a Universe consisting of radiation hand, in another family of models, we introduce a new dynamical
and non-relativistic matter only cannot expand at an accelerating
field with an equation-of-state (EoS) parameter w < −1/3.
rate. On the contrary, a non-vanishing (and positive) cosmological
In the first class of models, called geometrical DE, one finds
constant [5,6] has been proven to be the most economical model
for instance f (R) theories of gravity [18–21], brane-world mod-
in an overall excellent agreement with a wealth of available
els [22–24] and Scalar-Tensor theories of gravity [25–28], while
observational data.
The ΛCDM model, based on collisionless dark matter and a in the second class, called dynamical DE, one finds models such as
positive cosmological constant, despite its success, does not come quintessence [29], phantom [30], quintom [31], tachyonic [32] or
without problems. In modern times the community is facing a k-essence [33]. For an excellent review on the dynamics of dark
couple of puzzles related on the one hand to the cosmological energy see e.g. [34]. Of particular interest is the Chaplygin gas
constant problem [7,8] and on the other hand to the Hubble dark energy model and its generalization [35,36], which unifies
tension. To be more precise, regarding the value of the Hubble non-relativistic matter with the cosmological constant introduc-
constant H0 , there is nowadays a disagreement between high red- ing a single fluid with an equation-of-state p = −B2 /ρ ω , where
shift CMB data and local measurements at low red-shift data, see B, ω are positive constant parameters, and ω takes values in the
e.g. [9–12]. The value of the Hubble constant determined by the range 0 < ω ≤ 1.
PLANCK Collaboration [13,14], H0 = (67 − 68) km/(Mpc s), is Abandoning the cold dark matter paradigm, in which dark
found to be lower than the value obtained by local measurements, matter is collisionless, models where dark matter exhibits self-
H0 = (73 − 74) km/(Mpc s) [15,16]. This disagreement might call interactions have been proposed as an attractive and elegant
for new physics [17]. solution to the dark matter crisis at short (galactic) scales [37].
In such a scenario it is not contrived to imagine objects made
∗ Corresponding author at: Centro de Astrofísica e Gravitação-CENTRA, Insti- entirely of self-interacting dark matter, see e.g. [38–41]. Similarly,
tuto Superior Técnico-IST, Universidade de Lisboa-UL, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 given that the current cosmic acceleration calls for dark energy,
Lisboa, Portugal.
in a few recent works the authors considered the possibility that
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (G. Panotopoulos),
[email protected] (Á. Rincón), [email protected] spherical configurations made of dark energy, or more generi-
(I. Lopes). cally exotic matter, just might exist [42–44]. The possibility of

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2021.100885
2212-6864/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
G. Panotopoulos, Á. Rincón and I. Lopes Physics of the Dark Universe 34 (2021) 100885

′
obtaining interior solutions of relativistic stars and gravitation- p (r)
ν ′ (r) = − (9)
ally bounded configurations in different astrophysical contexts ρ (r) + p(r)
(such as anisotropic matter, carrying a net electric charge, non- The above equations need to be supplemented by an EoS such
conventional theories of gravity etc.) is a very exciting proposal;
as p(ρ ) or ρ (p), which will be discussed in the next section.
there is a vast amount of publications in the literature. For a
Besides, we impose the following conditions both at the center
partial list see e.g. [45–78] and references therein.
of the star, r = 0
In the present work we propose to study non-rotating dark
energy stars, extending the works of [43,44], where non-rotating m(0) = 0, and p(0) = pc , (10)
stars were considered, with isotropic matter assuming an ex-
tended Chaplygin EoS [79–83] of the form p = −B2 /ρ + A2 ρ , and at the surface of the star r = R
where a barotropic term is added to the standard Chaplygin
m(R) = M , and p(R) = 0. (11)
equation-of-state with ω = 1.
Our plan in the present article is the following: After this The latter is used to compute the radius, R, and the mass, M, of
introduction, in the next section we briefly review the structure the object. Moreover, the corresponding metric potential ν is also
equations for non-rotating relativistic stars. In Section 3 we add determined by integrating Eq (9) plus the condition at the surface
a non-vanishing angular momentum, we obtain the solutions, of the star, i.e.,
and we show and discuss discussing our main numerical results.
2M
Finally, we close our work with some concluding remarks in e2ν (R) = 1 − . (12)
the last section. We adopt the mostly positive metric signature, R
(−, +, +, +), and we work in geometrical units where the speed Therefore, the solution for ν (r) is given by
of light in vacuum as well as Newton’s constant are set to unity, r
p′ (z)
∫
c = 1 = G. ν (r) = ν (R) − (13)
R p(z) + ρ (z)
2. Hydrostatic equilibrium of non-rotating relativistic stars where its surface value is given by
( )
Here we shall briefly review the set of structure equations [84, 1 2M
ν (R) = ln 1 − . (14)
85] required to describe interior solutions of non-rotating rela- 2 R
tivistic stars within GR.
For a stationary, axially symmetric metric in Schwarzschild- 3. Stellar modeling of rotating relativistic stars
like coordinates, (t , r , θ, φ ), and using the metric tensor, we can
adopt the following ansatz in the slowly-rotating approximation:
Step # 2: To study non-rotating stars [86,87], for the interior
problem we make for the metric tensor the following ansatz
ds2 = −e2ν (r) dt 2 + A(r)dr 2 + r 2 (dθ 2 + sin2 θ dφ 2 ), (1)
ds2 = − e2ν (r) dt 2 + A(r)dr 2 + r 2 (dθ 2 + sin2 θ dφ 2 )
where e 2ν (r)
and A(r) ≡ e 2λ(r)
are the metric potentials depending (15)
− 2ω(r , θ )r 2 sin2 θ dφ dt ,
on the radial coordinate only. To simplify the treatment we shall
split the process in two steps: first, we will obtain the usual TOV where now there is a non-diagonal metric component to account
equations for the non-rotating case in this section, and then we for the rotation of the object.
shall consider first order corrections due to a slow rotation, see We shall now consider the differential equation for the tφ
next section. component:
Step # 1: For the non-rotating case, as usual we introduce for
convenience the mass function, m(r), defined by Rtφ = 8π Tφt (16)

2m(r) and we will obtain the first order (linear) contributions only. At
A(r)−1 ≡ 1 − (2)
r this point we recall that Ω is the angular velocity of the fluid
Moreover, if matter content is modeled as a perfect fluid it will (which is a constant for an uniformly rotating configuration) as
be characterized by a stress–energy tensor of the form seen by an observer at rest at some point (t , r , θ, φ ) in the fluid,
whereas ω(r , θ ) is the angular velocity acquired by an observer
Tνµ = diag(−ρ, p, p, p) (3) falling freely from infinity calculated to first order in Ω . Thus,
with ρ being the energy density and p being the pressure. In
Ω −ω give us the coordinate angular velocity of the fluid element
Einstein’s field equations, the tt and rr field equations yield at (r , θ ) seen by the freely falling observer.
To obtain the contribution Tφt , we first consider the normaliza-
m′ (r) = 4π r 2 ρ (r) (4) tion condition uµ uµ = −1, with
m(r) + 4π r 3 p(r)
ν ′ (r) =
√
(5) ut = −(gtt − 2Ω gt φ + Ω 2 gφφ ) (17)
r 2 (1 − 2m(r)/r)
r
respectively, where a prime denotes differentiation with respect u =0 (18)
to the radial coordinate r. Finally, instead of the angular field θ
u =0 (19)
equations, equivalently one is allowed to make use of the con- √
servation of energy, which reads uφ = Ω −(gtt − 2Ω gt φ + Ω 2 gφφ ) (20)
′ ′
p (r) = −[ρ (r) + p(r)]ν (r) (6) and the first order contributions is then
Therefore, one obtains the usual TOV equations [84,85]
Tφt = (ρ + p)ut uφ = (ρ + p)e−2ν (Ω − ω)r 2 sin2 θ. (21)
m (r) = 4π r ρ (r)
′ 2
(7)
We define the following convenient quantity
m(r) + 4π r 3 p(r)
p′ (r) = −[ρ (r) + p(r)] (8) ω̃(r , θ ) = Ω − ω(r , θ ), (22)
r 2 (1 − 2m(r)/r)
2
G. Panotopoulos, Á. Rincón and I. Lopes Physics of the Dark Universe 34 (2021) 100885

and writing down the first-order contribution of the Einstein field equation is improved by the inclusion of an additional term, to
equation, for which we obtain obtain
[ ]
1 ∂ A1/2 e−ν B̂
−1/2 −ν 4 ∂ ω̃ p = Âρ − , (32)
A e r + × ρω
r4 ∂r ∂r r 2 sin3 θ
(23)
where  a positive numerical value. The generalized Chaplygin
[ ]
∂ 3 ∂ ω̃
sin θ = 16π (ρ + p)A1/2 e−ν ω̃ = 0. EoS has been considerably used in different context, for example:
∂θ ∂θ i) compact stars in the framework of f (T ) gravity theory [95,
96], ii) wormhole geometries [97], iii) charged anisotropic fluid
As pointed out by Hartle [88], we can use the method of separa-
objects [98], iv) and 5-dimensional cosmology [99]. Let us rein-
tion of variables with the help of an expansion in vector spherical
force that the Chaplygin relations have been significantly used
harmonics. Thus, taking into account the following expansion
( ) in the cosmological scenario. The latter can be understood be-
∞ cause Chaplygin-like EoS correctly describes dark matter and
∑ 1 dPl
ω̃(r , θ ) = ω̃l (r) − (24) dark energy. In the present paper, however, we will consider the
sin θ dθ
l=1 extended Chaplygin EoS as follows:
the radial functions ω̃l must satisfy B2
p = A2 ρ − . (33)
ρ
[ ]
1 d 4 dω̃l A1/2 e−ν
A−1/2 e−ν r − (l(l + 1) − 2)ω̃l
r 4 dr dr r2 (25) 3.2. Moment of inertia: numerical results
1/2 −ν
= 16π (ρ + p)A e ω̃l .
Here we obtain the numerical solution, and we present and
For the exterior solution in asymptotically flat space–times we discuss our main results. We shall consider three concrete models
obtain as follows:
√
ω̃l → α r −(l+2) + β r l−1 (26) A= 0.4, B = 0.23 × 10−3 /km2 (model I) (34)
and for r → ∞, we have √
A= 0.425, B = 0.215 × 10−3 /km2 (model II) (35)
ω̃l → −2Jr −3
+ Ω. (27)
√
We conclude that ω̃l = 0 for l ≥ 2, whereas for l = 1 we obtain A= 0.45, B = 0.2 × 10−3 /km2 (model III). (36)
a simpler equation [89,90]
Note that when the pressure vanishes at the surface of the star,
the energy density takes the surface value ρs = B/A.
[ ]
1 d 4 dω̃
A−1/2 e−ν r = 16π (ρ + p)A1/2 e−ν ω̃, (28) The numerical values assumed here lead to masses and radii
r 4 dr dr
of stars similar to those of neutron stars and strange quark stars,
while the boundary conditions are given by [89,90] namely a mass M ∼ M⊙ and R ∼ 10 km. The very same numerical
values of A, B were considered in [44], and they are comparable to
dω̃
(0) = 0, and lim ω̃ = Ω . (29) the ones considered in [43] where anisotropic fluid spheres were
dr r →∞ studied.
We can define the moment of inertia, I, of the star as follows Once the EoS is known, we integrate the structure equations
J numerically imposing the initial conditions at the origin as well
I≡ , (30) as the matching conditions at the surface of the star. We thus
Ω compute all the unknown quantities (mass function, pressure
with J being the angular momentum of the star. Finally, utilizing etc.) as a function of the radial coordinate, and also the proper-
(29) plus the asymptotic form of ω̃ we obtain the following ties of the star, such as mass, radius, factor of compactness etc.
expression for the moment of inertia of a rotating star [89,90] Those were studied and discussed in our previous work. Here we
are interested in the moment of inertia and on the effect of a
8π R
ω̃ non-vanishing rotation speed.
∫ ( )
I= (ρ + p)e−ν A1/2 r 4 dr . (31) To demonstrate how observational data can validate such a
3 0 Ω
class of models, we compute here the angular momentum of a
pulsar with a known mass and frequency for the three EoS models
3.1. Equation-of-state
discussed above. The pulsar J1738+0333 in one that we studied in
a previous work (see [90] and references therein): this is rotating
To close the system of differential equations, we must include compact object with a mass at 1.47 solar masses, and a pulsar
an EoS for the matter content. frequency at 170.9 Hz. For the angular momentum of this object
In the following, we shall adopt the extended Chaplygin EoS, within the three EoSs considered here, we obtain
which has been considerably used in a cosmological context and,
not long ago, in stellar modeling of compact stars. The basic form JA = 1.77 × 1041 kg m2 /s (model I) (37)
of the above relation acquire the simple form p = −B̂/ρ where ρ
is the energy-density, p is the pressure and B̂ is a positive constant JB = 1.89 × 1041 kg m2 /s (model II) (38)
with units of length−4 . Albeit the previous relation allows us to
get some insight about the physics, such expression is inconsis-
JC = 2.02 × 1041 kg m2 /s (model III). (39)
tent with observational data, that is the reason why such equation
was generalized [91], namely p = −B̂/ρ ω for which ω is such that Moving from one EoS to another induces a variation in J of the
0 < ω ≤ 1. Subsequently, another generalization was obtained order of 10%, which should be sufficient to discriminate between
in [92,93] taking into account viscosity. Finally, in Ref. [94] such different equation-of-states.
3
G. Panotopoulos, Á. Rincón and I. Lopes Physics of the Dark Universe 34 (2021) 100885

Fig. 1. Dimensionless moment of inertia I /(MR2 ) as a function of the mass of the star (in solar masses) for different values of the parameters {A, B}. LEFT: panel
corresponds to A2 = 0.4 and B = 0.23 × 10−3 /km2 . MIDDLE: panel corresponds to A2 = 0.425 and B = 0.215 × 10−3 /km2 . RIGHT: panel corresponds to A2 = 0.45
and B = 0.2 × 10−3 /km2 .

Fig. 2. ω̃/Ω vs r /R for different values of the parameters {A, B} and for three masses aforementioned. Each panel corresponds to a different set {A, B}, as in Fig. 1,
while the three curves in each panel correspond to three different star masses. LEFT: Shown are from top to bottom: M = 1.48 M⊙ , M = 1.73 M⊙ , M = 1.96 M⊙ .
MIDDLE: Shown are from top to bottom: M = 1.47 M⊙ , M = 1.78 M⊙ , M = 2.00 M⊙ . RIGHT: Shown are from top to bottom: M = 1.42 M⊙ , M = 1.76 M⊙ ,
M = 2.00 M⊙ .

In Fig. 1 we show the dimensionless moment of inertia a ≡

I /(MR2 ) against the mass of the compact object for models A
(left panel), B (middle panel) and C (right panel). In each panel
there are two curves, both for rotating and non-rotating stars
for comparison reasons. The solid black line corresponds to the
moment of inertia without rotation, whereas the dashed blue
line corresponds to rotating stars. According to our results, we
can make the following observations: a) The moments of inertia
increase with the mass of the star, b) in the case of non-rotating
objects the moment of inertia grows faster, and c) the curve
corresponding to rotation lies below the one corresponding to
non-rotating stars. Therefore the deviation is smaller for light
stars and larger for heavy stars. Moreover, for a given mass a
rotating star has a lower moment of inertia than its non-rotating
counterpart.
What is more, in Fig. 2 we show the quantity ω̃/Ω as a
function of normalized radial coordinate, r /R, for the three sets A,
Fig. 3. Mass of the star versus (normalized) central energy density for the three
B and C. Each panel, corresponding to a different set, shows three
models considered here.
solutions corresponding to three different star masses as follows
(from top to down): i) a light star with a mass around 1.4 M⊙ ,
ii) a star with an intermediate mass around 1.75 M⊙ , and (iii) dM
a heavy star with a mass around 2 M⊙ . The dashed black line >0 → stable configuration, (41)
dρc
represents a light star, dotted blued line an intermediate mass
star, while dotted–dashed green line corresponds to a heavy star. to be satisfied by all stellar configurations. According to Fig. 3
In all cases ω̃/Ω is an increasing function of r /R. Moreover, in all the mass of the star reaches a maximum value at some ρc∗ , and
three panels as the mass of the object increases the curves are therefore the extremum point of the curve separates the stable
from the unstable configuration. Figs. 1 and 2 refer to stable stars
shifted downwards.
only.
Before we conclude our work, a comment regarding stability
is in order here. We now proceed to study the stellar mass
4. Conclusions
M against the central energy density ρc for the three different
models considered in the present work. We consider the so called In summary, in the present work we have considered isotropic
static stability criterion [100,101] and slowly-rotating dark energy stars, adopting the extended
dM Chaplygin equation-of-state (‘‘Chaplygin plus barotropic’’), char-
<0 → unstable configuration (40) acterized by two parameters A, B. The set of structure equations
d ρc
4
G. Panotopoulos, Á. Rincón and I. Lopes Physics of the Dark Universe 34 (2021) 100885

consists of the usual TOV equations for non-rotating stars plus References
one additional differential equation for the non-diagonal compo-
nent of the metric tensor due to rotation. Due to slow rotation, [1] A.G. Riess, et al., Astron. J. 116 (1998) 1009.
[2] S. Perlmutter, et al., Astrophys. J. 517 (1999) 565.
all unknown quantities depend on the radial coordinate only. [3] W.L. Freedman, M.S. Turner, Rev. Modern Phys. 75 (2003) 1433,
The complete system of coupled differential equations has been [astro-ph/0308418].
integrated numerically taking into account all the appropriate [4] A. Einstein, Annalen Phys. 49 (1916) 769–822.
[5] A. Einstein, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. ) 1917
initial and boundary conditions. Finally, we have computed the (1917) 142.
moment of inertia as a function of the mass of the stars, both [6] S.M. Carroll, Living Rev. Rel. 4 (2001) 1, [astro-ph/0004075].
for rotating and non-rotating objects for comparison reasons. The [7] Y.B. Zeldovich, JETP Lett. 6 (1967) 316; Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 6
(1967) 883.
solution for the non-diagonal metric component as a function of
[8] S. Weinberg, Rev. Modern Phys. 61 (1989) 1.
the radial coordinate is shown as well for three different star [9] B. Ryden, Nat. Phys. 13 (3) (2017) 314.
masses i) a light star (M ∼ 1.4 M⊙ ), ii) a heavy star (M ∼ 2 M⊙ ) [10] L. Verde, P. Protopapas, R. Jimenez, Phys. Dark Univ. 2 (2013) 166,
and iii) an average star (M ∼ 1.75 M⊙ ). Our main findings may be arXiv:1306.6766 [astro-ph.CO].
[11] K. Bolejko, Phys. Rev. D 97 (10) (2018) 103529.
summarized as follows: a) the moments of inertia increase with [12] E. Mrtsell, S Dhawan, arXiv:1801.07260 [astro-ph.CO].
the mass of the star, b) in the case of non-rotating objects the [13] P.A.R. Ade, et al., Planck Collaboration, Astron. Astrophys. 594 (2016) A13,
moment of inertia grows faster, and c) the curve corresponding to arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO].
[14] N. Aghanim, et al., Planck Collaboration, arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO].
rotation lies below the one corresponding to non-rotating stars. [15] A.G. Riess, et al., Astrophys. J. 826 (1) (2016) 56, arXiv:1604.01424
Therefore the deviation is smaller for light stars and larger for [astro-ph.CO].
heavy stars. Moreover, for a given mass a rotating star has a lower [16] A.G. Riess, et al., Astrophys. J. 861 (2) (2018) 126, arXiv:1804.10655
[astro-ph.CO].
moment of inertia than its non-rotating counterpart.
[17] E. Mörtsell, S. Dhawan, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 1809 (09) (2018) 025,
The NICER satellite is a NASA mission projected to observe arXiv:1801.07260 [astro-ph.CO].
thermal X-rays emitted by several millisecond pulsars. This type [18] T.P. Sotiriou, V. Faraoni, Rev. Modern Phys. 82 (2010) 451, arXiv:0805.
of data could help us distinguish between the different EoS in 1726 [gr-qc].
[19] A. De Felice, S. Tsujikawa, Living Rev. Rel. 13 (2010) 3, arXiv:1002.4928
such models. As pointed out in [102] a few years ago, the recent [gr-qc].
fast growth of millisecond pulsars with precisely measured mass [20] W. Hu, I. Sawicki, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 064004, arXiv:0705.1158
provides us with an excellent opportunity to probe the physics [astro-ph].
[21] A.A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. 86 (2007) 157.
of compact stars. Since the stellar parameter values can be com- [22] D. Langlois, Progr. Theoret. Phys. Suppl. 148 (2003) 181, [hep-
puted accurately in two complementary scenarios, on the one th/0209261].
hand, for known mass and spin rate, and on the other hand, for a [23] R. Maartens, Living Rev. Rel. 7 (2004) 7, [gr-qc/0312059].
[24] G.R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze, M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. B 485 (2000) 208,
chosen equation-of-state. The authors of [102] provided the first
[hep-th/0005016].
detailed catalog of numerically computed parameter values for 16 [25] C. Brans, R.H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 124 (1961) 925.
observed pulsars. Their study assumes eight different equations of [26] C.H. Brans, Phys. Rev. 125 (1962) 2194.
state corresponding to nucleonic, hyperonic, hybrid and strange [27] J.C.B. Sanchez, L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 103505, arXiv:
1002.2042 [astro-ph.CO].
matter. The increase of observational data expected in the coming [28] G. Panotopoulos, Á. Rincón, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (1) (2018) 40, arXiv:
years will allow us to study the effect of rotation on the moments 1710.02485 [astro-ph.CO].
of inertia to validate or exclude this type of EoS models. [29] B. Ratra, P.J.E. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D 37 (1988) 3406.
[30] I.Y. Aref’eva, A.S. Koshelev, S.Y. Vernov, Theoret. Math. Phys. 148 (2006)
895, [astro-ph/0412619]; Teor. Mat. Fiz. 148 (2006) 23.
[31] R. Lazkoz, G. Leon, Phys. Lett. B 638 (2006) 303, [astro-ph/0602590].
CRediT authorship contribution statement [32] J.S. Bagla, H.K. Jassal, T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 063504,
[astro-ph/0212198].
[33] C. Armendariz-Picon, V.F. Mukhanov, P.J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. D 63
Grigoris Panotopoulos: Conceptualization, Methodology,
(2001) 103510, [astro-ph/0006373].
Software, Writing - original draft, Visualization, Investiga- [34] E.J. Copeland, M. Sami, S. Tsujikawa, Internat. J. Modern Phys. D 15 (2006)
tion, Edition. Ángel Rincón: Conceptualization, Methodology, 1753, [hep-th/0603057].
Software, Writing - original draft, Visualization, Investigation, [35] A.Y. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, V. Pasquier, Phys. Lett. B 511 (2001)
265–268, arXiv:gr-qc/0103004 [gr-qc].
Edition. Ilídio Lopes: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, [36] M.C. Bento, O. Bertolami, A.A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 043507,
Writing - original draft, Visualization, Investigation, Edition. arXiv:gr-qc/0202064 [gr-qc].
[37] S. Tulin, H.B. Yu, Phys. Rep. 730 (2018) 1–57, arXiv:1705.02358 [hep-ph].
[38] X.Y. Li, T. Harko, K.S. Cheng, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 06 (2012) 001,
Declaration of competing interest arXiv:1205.2932 [astro-ph.CO].
[39] A. Maselli, P. Pnigouras, N.G. Nielsen, C. Kouvaris, K.D. Kokkotas, Phys.
Rev. D 96 (2) (2017) 023005, arXiv:1704.07286 [astro-ph.HE].
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan- [40] G. Panotopoulos, I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2) (2018) 024025, arXiv:
1801.03387 [gr-qc].
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
[41] A. Maselli, C. Kouvaris, K.D. Kokkotas, Internat. J. Modern Phys. D
to influence the work reported in this paper. 30 (01) (2021) 2150003, http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218271821500036,
Acknowledgments arXiv:1905.05769 [astro-ph.CO].
[42] K.N. Singh, A. Ali, F. Rahaman, S. Nasri, Phys. Dark Univ. 29 (2020) 100575,
arXiv:2005.00540 [gr-qc].
We thank the anonymous reviewer for useful comments and [43] F. Tello-Ortiz, M. Malaver, Á. Rincón, Y. Gomez-Leyton, Eur. Phys. J. C 80
suggestions. The authors G.P. and I.L. thank the Fundação para (5) (2020) 371, arXiv:2005.11038 [gr-qc].
[44] G. Panotopoulos, A. Rincon, I. Lopes, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135 (10) (2020)
a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT), Portugal, for the financial support
856, arXiv:2010.09373 [gr-qc].
to the Center for Astrophysics and Gravitation-CENTRA, Instituto [45] L. Herrera, N.O. Santos, Phys. Rep. 286 (1997) 53.
Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, through the Grants [46] M.K. Mak, T. Harko, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 459 (2003) 393.
No. UID/FIS/00099/2013 and No. PTDC/FIS-AST/28920/2017. The [47] M. Cosenza, L. Herrera, M. Esculpi, L. Witten, Phys Rev. D a3 (1982) 2527.
[48] L. Herrera, J. Ponce de León, J. Math. Phys. 26 (1985) 2302.
author A.R. acknowledges Universidad de Tarapacá for financial [49] J. Ponce de León, Gen. Relativity Gravitation 19 (1987) 797.
support. [50] J. Ponce de León, J. Math. Phys. 28 (1987) 1114.

5
G. Panotopoulos, Á. Rincón and I. Lopes Physics of the Dark Universe 34 (2021) 100885

[51] R. Chan, S. Kichenassamy, G. Le Denmat, N.O. Santos, Mon. Not. R. Astron. [75] G. Panotopoulos, T. Tangphati, A. Banerjee, M.K. Jasim, Phys. Lett. B 817
Soc. 239 (1989) 91. (2021) 136330, arXiv:2104.00590 [gr-qc].
[52] H. Bondi, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 259 (1992) 365. [76] P.H.R.S Moraes, G. Panotopoulos, I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D 103 (8) (2021)
[53] R. Chan, L. Herrera, N.O. Santos, Classical Quantum Gravity 9 (1992) 133. 084023, arXiv:2101.02207 [gr-qc].
[54] R. Chan, L. Herrera, N.O. and Santos, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 265 (1993) [77] F. Tello-Ortiz, S.K. Maurya, Y. Gomez-Leyton, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (4) (2020)
533. 324.
[55] M.K. Gokhroo, A.L. Mehra, Gen. Relativity Gravitation 26 (1994) 75. [78] F. Tello-Ortiz, S.K. Maurya, A. Errehymy, K.N. Singh, M. Daoud, Eur. Phys.
[56] A. Di Prisco, E. Fuenmayor, L. Herrera, V. Varela, Phys. Lett. A 195 (1994) J. C 79 (11) (2019) 885.
23. [79] B. Pourhassan, E.O. Kahya, Results Phys. 4 (2014) 101.
[57] A. Di Prisco, L. Herrera, V. Varela, Gen. Relativity Gravitation 29 (1997) [80] V.M.C. Ferreira, P.P. Avelino, Phys. Rev. D 98 (4) (2018) 043515, arXiv:
1239. 1807.04656 [gr-qc].
[58] K. Dev, M. Gleiser, Gen. Relativity Gravitation 34 (2002) 1793. [81] E.O. Kahya, B. Pourhassan, Astrophys. Space Sci. 353 (2) (2014) 677.
[59] M.K. Mak, T. Harko, Chin. J. Astron. Astrophys. 2 (2002) 248. [82] B. Pourhassan, Phys. Dark Univ. 13 (2016) 132, arXiv:1412.2605 [gr-qc].
[60] M.K. Mak, P.N. Dobson, T. Harko, Internat. J. Modern Phys. D 11 (2002) [83] B. Pourhassan, Can. J. Phys. 94 (7) (2016) 659, arXiv:1504.04173 [gr-qc].
207. [84] R.C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 55 (1939) 364.
[61] H. Abreu, H. Hernández, L.A. Núñez, Class. Quantum. Grav. 24 (2007) [85] J.R. Oppenheimer, G.M. Volkoff, Phys. Rev. 55 (1939) 374.
4631. [86] E. Gourgoulhon, arXiv:1003.5015 [gr-qc].
[62] S. Viaggiu, Internat. J. Modern Phys. D 18 (2009) 275. [87] V. Paschalidis, N. Stergioulas, Living Rev. Rel. 20 (1) (2017) 7, arXiv:
[63] R.P. Negreiros, F. Weber, M. Malheiro, V. Usov, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 1612.03050 [astro-ph.HE].
083006. [88] J.B. Hartle, Astrophys. J. 150 (1967) 1005–1029.
[64] B.V. Ivanov, Internat. J. Theoret. Phys. 49 (2010) 1236. [89] K.V. Staykov, D.D. Doneva, S.S. Yazadjiev, K.D. Kokkotas, J. Cosmol.
[65] G. Panotopoulos, A. Rincon, I. Lopes, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (1) (2021) 63, Astropart. Phys. 10 (2014) 006, arXiv:1407.2180 [gr-qc].
arXiv:2101.06649 [gr-qc]. [90] G. Panotopoulos, I. Lopes, Internat. J. Modern Phys. D 27 (09) (2018)
[66] G. Panotopoulos, A. Rincon, I. Lopes, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135 (10) (2020) 1850093, arXiv:1804.05023 [gr-qc].
856, arXiv:2010.09373 [gr-qc]. [91] L. Xu, J. Lu, Y. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1883.
[67] P. Bhar, F. Tello-Ortiz, A. Rincon, Y. Gomez-Leyton, Astrophys. Space Sci. [92] H. Saadat H, B. Pourhassan, Astrophys. Space Sci. 343 (2013) 783.
365 (8) (2020) 145. [93] H. Saadat, B. Pourhassan, Astrophys Space Sci. 344 (2013) 237.
[68] G. Abelln, A. Rincon, E. Fuenmayor, E. Contreras, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135 (7) [94] B. Pourhassan, Int. J. Modern Phys. D 22 (2013) 1350061.
(2020) 606. [95] A. Chanda, S. Dey, B.C. Paul, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 502.
[69] F. Tello-Ortiz, A. Rincon, P. Bhar, Y. Gomez-Leyton, Chin. Phys. C 44 (2020) [96] P. Saha, U. Debnath, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 919.
105102, arXiv:2006.04512 [gr-qc]. [97] F.S.N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 064028.
[70] F. Tello-Ortiz, M. Malaver, A. Rincon, Y. Gomez-Leyton, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 [98] P. Bhar, M. Govender, Int. J. Modern Phys. D 26 (2017) 1750053.
(5) (2020) 371, arXiv:2005.11038 [gr-qc]. [99] M. Salti, O. Aydogdu, H. Yanar, K. Sogut, Ann. Physics 390 (2018) 131.
[71] G. Panotopoulos, A. Rincon, I. Lopes, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (4) (2020) 318, [100] B.K. Harrison, Gravitational Theory and Gravitational Collapse, University
arXiv:2004.02627 [gr-qc]. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1965.
[72] G. Panotopoulos, A. Rincon, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 134 (9) (2019) 472, arXiv: [101] Y.B. Zeldovich, I.D. Novikov, Relativistic Astrophysics, I: Stars and
1907.03545 [gr-qc]. Relativity, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1971.
[73] L. Gabbanelli, . Rincon, C. Rubio, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (5) (2018) 370, [102] F. Tello-Ortiz, S.K. Maurya, A. Errehymy, K.N. Singh, M. Daoud, S. Bhat-
arXiv:1802.08000 [gr-qc]. tacharyya, I. Bombaci, D. Bandyopadhyay, A.V. Thampan, D. Logoteta, New
[74] G. Panotopoulos, T. Tangphati, A. Banerjee, arXiv:2105.10638 [gr-qc]. Astron. 54 (2017) 61–71.