Chandrasekhar limit for rotating quark stars

Ashadul Halder∗ and Shibaji Banerjee† Department of Physics, St. Xavier’s College, 30, Mother Teresa Sarani, Kolkata-700016, India.

Sanjay K. Ghosh‡ and Sibaji Raha§ Department of Physics and Centre for Astroparticle Physics & Space Science (CAPSS), Bose Institute, EN-80, Sector V, Bidhannagar, Kolkata-700091, India.

The limiting mass is a significant characteristic for compact exotic stars. In the case of quark stars, the limiting mass can be expressed in terms of fundamental constants and the Bag constant. In the present work, using bag model description, the maximum mass of a rotating quark star is found to depend on the rotational frequency apart from other fundamental parameters. The analytical results obtained agree with the results of several relevant numerical estimates as well as observational evidences. Keywords: Quark Star; Compact Star; Limiting mass

I. INTRODUCTION sequently, the effect due to the outer crust of the quark star is ignorable in limiting mass as well as the limiting The theoretical investigation for quark stars has turned radius. The newly formed quark phase contains only 2 out to be a worldwide enterprise after the first predic- flavors of quarks (‘u’ and ‘d’ quark) as it is generated tion of the quark core at the center of the core col- from the non-hyperonic baryons (mainly neutron). Later lapsed neutron stars [1]. The idea of the quark star the strangeness can be developed in the 2 flavor quark was brought to light by soviet physicists Ivanenko and state via weak interaction (ud → us, in excess of ‘d’ Kurdgelaidze [1, 2], about five years after the Gell-Mann quark) by absorbing the energy of the quark star [9, 10] prediction of quarks [3]. Several recent observations of and thus transforms into a strange quark star (SQS). The compact and comparatively cooler stars (SWIFTJ1749.4- SQS is basically composed of 3 flavors of quarks (contains 2807 [4], RXJ185635-3754 and 3C58 [5]) also provide ev- strange quark in addition to the ‘u’ and ‘d’ quark) con- idence in favor of the existence of quark stars. Unlike fined in a hypothetical large bag [8, 11], which is charac- other compact astrophysical objects and main sequence terized by the Bag Constant. The strange quark matter stars, the quark stars are self-bound by strong interac- can be treated as the perfect ground state of the strongly tion rather than by gravity alone [6, 7]. Apart from this interacting matter as predicted by E. Witten [6, 7]. Also, unique characteristic, the density of the quark stars is there are several alternative models [12–14] supporting remarkably high (even higher than nuclear density i.e. the conjecture of the SQS (for a review, see [15]). But 2.4×1014 g/cm3 [8]) and hence gain immense importance in another possibility, a quark star can be formed by as natural laboratory for quark matter. the clumping of ambient quark matters due to the grav- The quark star is considered to be the very end prod- itational interaction essentially like other normal stars. uct of the stellar evolution. As the fuel of a star (neutron This is only possible if a significant percentage of strange star) tends to get exhausted, the radiation pressure of the quarks [7] present in the system. Such “pure” quark stars star can no longer balance the self-gravity. As a result, [16] might belong to a hypothetical quark galaxy or might the core part of the star starts collapsing due to its own result from the accumulation of strangelets [17–19]. Pri- gravity. However, in certain cases, the density turns out mordial strange star can be another possible example of to be substantially high and therefore a quark core is the quark star. According to this conjecture, quark stars spontaneously generated (even without strangeness) at were formed due to the phase transition in the early Uni- the center of the star. Although initially, the collapse verse. Later those transform into strange stars in order takes place in the core part, it grows over time and oc- to maintain stability as assumed in the work of [7]. arXiv:2005.14567v3 [astro-ph.HE] 16 Mar 2021 cupies the entire star eventually by capturing free neu- The key difference between the ordinary stars and the trons from the vicinity of the surface in absence of the quark star is that the mass of an ordinary star is al- Coulomb barrier. Besides this process, a thin outer crust most entirely due to the baryons, whereas for the quark of comparatively lower density is also generated outside star, one has to define the effective mass for the ‘u’ and the quark core (∼ 1/1000 of the average density of the ‘d’ quarks, as those (quarks) are known to have very star), which does not contain any free neutrons [7]. Con- small masses. As the quark stars may be expected to be produced due to the hadron quark transition in neu- tron stars, its limiting mass is expected to be very close ∗ [email protected] to that of the neutron star. As a result, one can esti- † [email protected] mate the total mass of the star by solving the Tolman- ‡ [email protected] Oppenheimer-Volkov (TOV) equations [20] numerically § [email protected] [21, 22] by adopting the conjecture, proposed by E. Wit- 2 ten [7]. In several recent works [23, 24], the limiting mass The bag constant B depicts the difference between the for spinning quark star is also studied using the same pro- vacuum energy densities of the non-perturbative and the cedure as used for the case of static quark star. But there perturbative ground states of the quarks [29] and depends is no argument in the literature that favors the existence on density (and temperature, in general). In the case of of limiting mass which, like ordinary compact objects quark star, the entire star is assumed to be such a bag, [25], depends dominantly on the fundamental constants. which contains all the constituent quarks. Moreover, unlike neutron stars (which are bound by grav- The primary objective of this paper is to obtain an- ity), quark stars are self-bound by strong interaction (see alytical results of a rotating star that can be compared Ref. [6, 26]). Thus, it is not strictly necessary to include relative to a static star. In order to achieve this, we have the density as a function of radius. Quark stars are con- made use of only the essential features of this model, to fined compact objects, but their densities hover near nu- the extent of providing a dynamic mass to the constituent clear densities and hence the bag constant seems to cover light quarks. This approach has also been adopted in sev- appropriately the strong interaction section, particularly eral other recent works [8, 12, 35] which address the issue in view of the density dependent modeling (QMD) of the of the static mass limit of similar compact stars. quark star masses. A salient feature of this approach is that it is independent of any particular EOS (equation of state) models and the entire dynamics comes from the III. FERMI ENERGY confinement mechanism modeled by QMD. In the work of Banerjee et. al. [27], an analytical study for the limit- In the current work, the limiting mass for the quark ing mass carried out for static quark stars, starting from star is estimated by adopting the simple energy balance the energy balance relations as proposed by Landau [28], picture, as proposed by Landau [28]. According to this is found to depend mainly on the fundamental constants approach, the total energy per fermion (e) attains the and the MIT bag constant [29]. In the current work, we minima at the limiting case of the star, given by, look into such a theoretical limit for the case of rotating quark stars and estimate the possible limiting frequency e = ef + eG + erot, (1) of such compact stars. The effect of the bag constant and rotational frequency at the limiting mass and radius has where, ef , eG and erot represent the contributions of the also been studied in the theoretical regime. fermi energy, gravitational energy and the kinetic energy Since, the quark stars are self-bound by strong inter- due to the rotation of the star respectively. The Fermi action [6, 26] (which is far stronger than the gravita- energy density of the non-interacting fermions measures tional field), it can withstand high rotational frequency the maximum occupied energy by the fermions per unit without having notable shape deformation (ellipticity volume, at the ground state of the system [36]. In the case −4 −7 . 10 − 10 [30, 31] even in the case for millisecond of the quark star, the fermi energy occupies a significant (time period) stars). So, the modeled quark stars are fraction of the total energy of the star, mainly depending considered to be rigid and spherical in our entire calcu- on the fermi number density (n) and radius of the star lation. But as those stars are highly dense and massive, (R). The fermi energy density can be expressed in terms the volume of such a compact star can no longer remain of chemical potential (µ), given by [27], 4 3 an Euclidean sphere (i.e. volume 3 πRadius ) due to the g curvature of space-time. So, the general relativistic cor- E = µ4, (2) f 8π2 rection is to be taken into account in the calculation of the volume of the star. where, g is the statistical degeneracy factor of the system. The paper is organized as follows, in the sections II and The chemical potential (µ) for a star having N number III, we give an account of the bag constant and the fermi of fermions is described as, energy respectively. In section IV, the effective mass per 1 1 particle of the quark star is calculated in the context of 9π  3 N 3 µ = . (3) particle physics. Section V deals with the energy calcu- 2g R lation and the results. Finally in section VI, concluding remarks are given. So, the expression for the Fermi energy per particle takes the form,

1 1 II. BAG CONSTANT E 3 9π  3 N 3 e = f = . (4) f n 4 2g R MIT Bag model has turned out to be a successful model of the hadronic structure and achieved immense successes in hadron spectroscopy [32–34]. According to IV. EFFECTIVE MASS PER PARTICLE this phenomenological model, massless point-like quarks are confined in a hypothetical bag and the state is char- The effective mass of the quarks is an essential quan- acterized by a parameter bag constant B. tity, in order to estimate the total mass of the star as well 3 as the gravitational potential and the rotational kinetic energy. According to our assumption (rigid and spherical star), the effective mass of the entire star (M) is given by,

M = ef N + V B. (5) where V is the volume of the star. Extremizing the above expression of total mass M with respect to R, and fur- ther simplifying, the expression for bag constant (B) is reduced. e N B = f , (6) 3V

Applying the above expression of bag constant (B) in FIG. 1. Variation of the limiting mass (Mmax) with the Equ. 5, the simplified form of the total mass (M) of the rotational frequency the star. The solid line represents the star is obtained, given by variation for the actual frequency ω while the dotted line is for the observed redshifted frequency (ν) M = 4V B, (7) and thus the effective mass (m) of each quark inside the (heroti) is taken into account. Now the total effective star, energy per particle takes the form

M 4V B e = e + e + he i. (11) m = = . (8) f G rot N N According to the Landau’s energy balance picture, the Being fermions, the effective mass of the quark coin- limiting radius (Rmax) and the corresponding mass cides with the quark chemical potential. As a result, from (Mmax) of the star can be obtained by extremizing the the limit of vanishing quark density [27, 37, 38] we get, total energy per particle (e) with respect to the total number of particles (N). Although the star is assume to µ = B/n (9) be spherical in our entire calculation, the volume V of or, n = B/µ. the star is not same as that of an Euclidean sphere (i.e. 4 3 3 πR ) as those stars are highly dense and massive [39]. Now applying Eq. (3) and (9) in Eq. (8), the desired As a result, the general relativistic correction in volume expression for effective mass per quark particle (m) can is not negligible in the present calculation, hence we use be obtained in terms of fundamental constants and bag relativistic volume [40], given by constants. q dV = |gµν |drdθdφ, (12)

V. FORMALISM AND RESULT th where, gµν represents the µν component of the space- time metric and (r, θ, φ) are the coordinate in spherical The gravitational potential and rotational kinetic en- polar coordinate system. ergy per particle at the point (R, θ, φ) (in spherical polar The limiting mass and radius, which are calculated by coordinate system) with respect to the center of the star, extremizing the total energy e, is independent of the de- can be written in terms of effective mass and other pa- generacy factor g (see Ref. [27], the result holds also in rameters as, the rotating case). Consequently, we address a general Mm solution for both types of quark stars (2-flavored normal e = −G and quark star and 3-flavored strange quark star). In the G R (10) 2 current work, we also studied the dependence of the lim- erot = mc (γ − 1). iting mass, radius and the total number of particles N 1 on the bag constant as well as the rotational frequency. where γ = q and c is the speed of light The rotational effect of the star is parameterized by the 2πωR cos θ 2 1 − ( c ) rotational frequency (ω), however, due to the extreme in space. From the above expression it can be observed compactness and mass of the star (radius to mass ratio that, unlike the gravitational and fermi energy, the ki- ≤ 2.2903 in geometric unit, see Fig. 4c), the general rela- netic energy per particle changes over θ for any fixed tivistic effects emerge prominently in the observed rota- value of R. So, in order to overcome the θ-dependence tional frequency (ν) (as observed by a far away observer) in further calculations, a θ-averaged kinetic energy term [41, 42]. As a result, a far away observer would observe 4

Object Mass in M Ref. variation of limiting radius Rmax and corresponding num- 0.017 ber of particle containing the star (Mmax) respectively. PRS J1614-2230 1.9280.017 [43, 44] 0.04 In both the case, the same limiting frequencies (νmax) are PSR J0348+0432 2.010.04 [45] +0.1 observed for individual values of bag constants. PSR J0740+6620 2.14−0.09 [46] The limiting frequencies (νmax) are found to be differ- PSR J1311-3430 2.15 − 2.7 [47] ent for different values of bag constant. The correspond- 0.12 PSR B1957+20 2.40.12 [48] ing variation of νmax is plotted in Fig. 5, showing that, +0.7 1/4 PSR J1600-3053 2.3−0.6 [49, 50] the νmax increases almost linearly with B . Several nu- +0.17 PSR J2215+5135 2.27−0.15 [51, 52] merical models and simulations [32, 56, 57] indicate that, 0.2 PSR J0751+1807 2.100.2 [53, 54] the value of the bag constant for stable quark matter sys- +0.17 tem lies within the range of ∼ (130 MeV)4 −(162 MeV)4. PSR B1516+02B 1.94−0.19 [55] This range of bag constant corresponds to the observed TABLE I. Newly discovered massive pulsars. frequency (ν) range 677.4 ∼ 1052.6 Hz (see Fig. 5). As a consequence, the span of 677.4 ∼ 1052.6 Hz addresses the possible upper-bound of the observed frequency (ν) a red shifted form (ν) of the actual frequency (ω), given of quark stars (millisecond order) [58]. In contrast, these by values of bag constant ((130 MeV)4 ∼ (162 MeV)4) in- dicate the range on actual frequency (ω) 1131 ∼ 1755.0 r 2GM Hz, which agrees with the work of Gourgoulhon et al. ν = ω 1 − , (13) c2R [59]. For example, according to the best fit point of our χ2 analysis (B = (136.5 MeV)4), the maximum value of where, M and R are the mass and radius of the star re- observed frequency (ν ) of quark star is ∼ 747.7346 spectively. Consequently, a significant deviation from ω max Hz (agrees with observational evidences of fast spinning is obtained in the observed frequency (ν) in the case of pulsar). However, the corresponding actual frequency fast spinning stars as shown in (see Fig. 1). The variation (ω ) for that case is ∼ 1248 Hz. of the limiting mass M with observed red-shifted fre- max max In the current work, we have looked at a significant quency (ν) and actual frequency (ω) is described in Fig. 1 quantity given by the radius to the Schwarzschild radius for a chosen value of bag constant B = (145 MeV)4. ratio ( Rmax , inverse of compactness) of the star. The vari- From Fig. 2 it is evident that, for each chosen value Rsch ation of the ratio ( Rmax ) with frequency (ν) are traced out of bag constant, the limiting mass remains almost un- Rsch changed in the lower frequency range. But as the fre- for different values of bag constants (see Fig. 4c). In the quency (ν) reaches ∼ 300 Hz, the kinetic energy becomes low frequency range (ω < 200 Hz), the numerical value of sufficiently high to be taken into consideration for the the ratio is found to be independent of the bag constant evaluation of the effective mass. As a result Mmax starts and remains almost unchanged (∼ 2.2903 in the geomet- increasing gradually with frequency, however it suffers ric unit, as obtained from the work of [27]) with frequency a rapid increase above the frequency of 600 Hz. Be- (Fig. 4c). But it starts falling gradually with increasing yond a certain limit of Mmax for a given bag constant frequency as the rotational frequency reaches 300 Hz. In (B) the star becomes so massive that observed frequency this range of frequencies, a minute dependence of the bag (ν) starts falling with increasing ω due to gravitational constant is observable. However, at higher frequencies, all the Rmax curves for the different bag constants suffer effect. This provides a limiting value of ν (i.e. νmax) Rsch (see Fig. 2) for each value of bag constant. We also show a quick fall toward unity. From the above study, it is evi- the masses and observed frequencies of some recently dis- dent that the compactness of the quark star is extremely covered massive compact stars (see Table I) in the same high, but it cannot become a black hole even in the limit- plot and compared with our calculated masses and fre- ing case. Thus they (strange stars) and black hole could quencies for different values of bag constants (using χ2 co-exist as candidates of cold dark matter. While their analysis). It is to be noted that, the stars (pulsars) men- phenomenological signatures may not be sufficient to dis- tioned in Table I are probably neutron star with or with- tinguish between them, their different signatures in the out quark core, rather than a pure quark star. But since gravitational wave scenario may be interesting to study their average densities are estimated to be close to the [60]. nuclear density, one can compare those pulsars with the calculated outcomes of the current work. The χ2 for our 2 P Mcal−Mobs VI. CONCLUSION fit is defined as χ = , where, Mcal repre- i Mcal sents the calculated mass and Mobs is the mass estimated from the observation (Table I). From our χ2 analysis the In this work, we have studied the limiting mass for best-fit value of B is obtained around (136.5 MeV)4 (see the rotating quark star, which is introduced here as the Fig. 3. PSR J1311-3430 is excluded for larger uncertainty “Chandrasekhar limit for rotating quark stars”. The in mass). For this best fitted value of bag constant, the limit mostly depends on the universal constants and the mass variation with observed frequency is shown by the Bag parameter as well as the angular velocity of the star. solid black line in Fig. 2. Fig. 4a and Fig. 4b describe the The maximum possible observed frequency (νmax) is also 5

FIG. 2. Variation of limiting mass (Mmax) with observed frequency (ν) for different values of bag constant (B).

a static star (close to the work of Banerjee et al. [27] (i.e. 2.6667), where the relativistic correction in volume is not taken into account), however it tends toward unity for an extreme case of the rotation(ω → Rmaxc). But for a fast spinning star, the Schwarzschild radius cannot address the event horizon [40]. So, in order to obtain the event horizon for such spinning bodies, the Kerr space time has to be taken into account, which provides a com- paratively smaller horizon than that of the Schwarzschild metric system [40]. Consequently, one can conclude that a quark star can never behave as black hole. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

FIG. 3. Variation of χ2 value with bag constant B. Two of the authors (S.B. and A.H.) wish to acknowl- edge the support received from St. Xavier’s College. A.H. also acknowledges the University Grant Commis- estimated in the current work, which agrees with re- sion (UGC) of the Government of India, for providing cent observations [43, 46–48, 50, 52, 53, 58] as well as financial support, in the form of UGC-CSIR NET-JRF. results based on numerical simulation [59]. A relation The work of S.R. was performed under the aegis of the between the limiting radius (Rmax) and corresponding Raja Ramanna Fellowship of the Department of Atomic Schwarzschild radius (Rsch) for a range of rotational fre- Energy, Govt. of India. S.R. also gratefully acknowledges quencies has also been resolved in our current work. The the hospitality of Frankfurt Institute of Advance Studies numerical value of the quantity Rmax lie at ∼ 2.2903 for (FIAS). Rsch

[1] D. D. Ivanenko and D. F. Kurdgelaidze, Astrophysics 1, ter 2012): Nantes, France, July 18-24, 2002, Nucl. Phys. 251 (1965). A715, 835 (2003). [2] D. Ivanenko and D. F. Kurdgelaidze, Nuovo Cimento Let- [6] P. Jaikumar, C. Gale, D. Page, and M. Prakash, tere 2, 13 (1969). High energy physics. Proceedings, 26th Annual Montreal- [3] D. Griffiths, Introduction to elementary particles (John Rochester-Syracuse-Toronto Conference, MRST 2004, Wiley & Sons, 2008). Montreal, Canada, May 12-14, 2004, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [4] H. W. Yu and R. X. Xu, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 11, 471 A19, 5335 (2004). (2010). [7] E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 30, 272 (1984). [5] M. Prakash, J. M. Lattimer, A. W. Steiner, and [8] H. Li, X.-L. Luo, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D 82, D. Page, Proceedings, 16th International Conference on 065017 (2010). Ultra-Relativistic nucleus nucleus collisions (Quark Mat- 6

(a) (b)

(c)

FIG. 4. Variation of (a) limiting radius (Rmax), (b) Nmax and (c) Radius mass ratio with ν for different values of bag constant.

[13] S. K. Ghosh and P. K. Sahu, International Journal of Modern Physics E 2, 575 (1993). [14] F. Weber, M. Orsaria, H. Rodrigues, and S.-H. Yang, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union 8 (2012), 10.1017/S1743921312023174. [15] J. Madsen, Hadrons in dense matter and hadrosynthe- sis. Proceedings, 11th Chris Engelbrecht Summer School, Cape Town, South Africa, February 4-13, 1998, Lect. Notes Phys. 516, 162 (1999). [16] F. Weber, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 27, 465 (2001). [17] S. Banerjee, A. Bhattacharyya, S. K. Ghosh, S. Raha, B. Sinha, and H. Toki, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 340, 284 (2003). [18] S. Fredriksson, D. Enstrom, J. Hansson, S. Ekelin, and FIG. 5. Limiting observed frequency (νmax) and correspond- A. Nicolaidis, in Proceedings, 2nd International Heidel- ing actual frequency ω vs B1/4 graph. berg Conference on Dark matter in astrophysics and par- ticle physics (DARK 1998): Heidelberg, Germany, July 20-25, 1998 (1998) pp. 651–658, arXiv:astro-ph/9810389 [9] A. Bhattacharyya, S. K. Ghosh, P. S. Joarder, R. Mallick, [astro-ph]. and S. Raha, Phys. Rev. C 74, 065804 (2006). [19] D. Enstrom, S. Fredriksson, J. Hansson, A. Nicolaidis, [10] C. Alcock, E. Farhi, and A. Olinto, Astrophys. J. 310, and S. Ekelin, (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9802236 [astro- 261 (1986). ph]. [11] J. Rohlf, Modern Physics from alpha to Z0 (Wiley, 1994). [20] T. Overgard and E. Ostgaard, A&A 243, 412 (1991). [12] P. Haensel, J. L. Zdunik, and R. Schaefer, A&A 160, [21] G. Burgio, M. Baldo, P. Sahu, A. Santra, and H.-J. 121 (1986). Schulze, Physics Letters B 526, 19 (2002). 7

[22] Harko, T. and Cheng, K. S., A&A 385, 947 (2002). [42] A. K. Dubey and A. K. Sen, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 54, 2398 [23] G. Bozzola, P. L. Espino, C. D. Lewin, and V. Pascha- (2015). lidis, Eur. Phys. J. A55, 149 (2019). [43] E. Fonseca et al., The Astrophysical Journal 832, 167 [24] M. Szkudlarek, D. Gondek-Rosinska, L. Villain, and (2016). M. Ansorg, Astrophys. J. 879, 44 (2019). [44] P. B. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. M. Ransom, M. S. E. [25] S. L. Shapiro and S. A. Teukolsky, Black holes, white Roberts, and J. W. T. Hessels, Nature 467, 1081 (2010). dwarfs, and neutron stars: The physics of compact ob- [45] J. Antoniadis et al., Science 340 (2013), 10.1126/sci- jects (Wiley & Sons, 1983). ence.1233232. [26] E. Zhou, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 861, [46] H. T. Cromartie et al., Nature Astronomy 4, 72 (2020). 012007 (2017). [47] H. An, R. W. Romani, T. Johnson, M. Kerr, and C. J. [27] S. Banerjee, S. K. Ghosh, and S. Raha, Journal of Clark, The Astrophysical Journal 850, 100 (2017). Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 26, L1 (2000). [48] M. H. van Kerkwijk, R. P. Breton, and S. R. Kulkarni, [28] in Collected Papers of L.D. Landau, edited by D. T. The Astrophysical Journal 728, 95 (2011). HAAR (Pergamon, 1965) pp. 60 – 62. [49] S. M. Ord, B. A. Jacoby, A. W. Hotan, and M. Bailes, [29] T. Yazdizadeh and G. H. Bordbar, Astrophysics 56, 121 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 371, (2013). 337 (2006). [30] B. J. Owen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 211101 (2005). [50] Z. Arzoumanian et al., The Astrophysical Journal Sup- [31] G. Ushomirsky, C. Cutler, and L. Bildsten, Monthly No- plement Series 235, 37 (2018). tices of the Royal Astronomical Society 319, 902 (2000). [51] J. W. Broderick et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal As- [32] T. DeGrand, R. L. Jaffe, K. Johnson, and J. Kiskis, tronomical Society 459, 2681 (2016). Phys. Rev. D 12, 2060 (1975). [52] M. Linares, T. Shahbaz, and J. Casares, The Astrophys- [33] A. Chodos, R. L. Jaffe, K. Johnson, and C. B. Thorn, ical Journal 859, 54 (2018). Phys. Rev. D 10, 2599 (1974). [53] D. J. Nice, E. M. Splaver, I. H. Stairs, O. Lohmer, [34] A. Chodos, R. L. Jaffe, K. Johnson, C. B. Thorn, and A. Jessner, M. Kramer, and J. M. Cordes, The Astro- V. F. Weisskopf, Phys. Rev. D 9, 3471 (1974). physical Journal 634, 1242 (2005). [35] G. Alaverdyan and Y. Vartanyan, Astrophysics 60 [54] S. C. Lundgren, A. F. Zepka, and J. M. Cordes, Astro- (2017), 10.1007/s10511-017-9507-4. phys. J. 453, 419 (1995). [36] K. H. C. Kittel, Thermal Physics (2nd Edition) (W. H. [55] P. C. C. Freire, C. Bassa, Z. Wang, A. Cumming, Freeman Company, 1969). and V. M. Kaspi, AIP Conference Proceedings (2008), [37] G. N. Fowler, S. Raha, and R. M. Weiner, Zeitschrift f¨ur 10.1063/1.2900274. Physik C Particles and Fields 9, 271 (1981). [56] F. Weber, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 54, 193 (2005). [38] M. Plumer, Quark - Gluon - Plasma und vielfacherzeu- [57] S. Banerjee, Pramana 91, 27 (2018). gung in der Starken Wechselwirkung, Ph.D. thesis, [58] R. N. Manchester, G. B. Hobbs, A. Teoh, and M. Hobbs, Philipps University at, Marburg/Lahn, Germany (1984). The Astronomical Journal 129, 1993 (2005). [39] J. Synge and A. Schild, Tensor Calculus, Dover Books [59] E. Gourgoulhon, P. Haensel, R. Livine, E. Paluch, on Mathematics (Dover Publications, 2012). S. Bonazzola, and J. Marck, Astron. Astrophys. 349, [40] M. Hobson, E. P, G. Efstathiou, and A. Lasenby, General 851 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9907225. Relativity: An Introduction for Physicists (Cambridge [60] S. Singh, R. Mallick, and R. Prasad, arXiv e-prints University Press, 2006). , arXiv:2003.00693 (2020), arXiv:2003.00693 [astro- [41] L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, The Classical The-ory of ph.HE]. Fields (Butterworth - Heinemann, Indian Reprint 2008).