4.5 Article

Anisotropic fluid spheres in the framework of f (R, T) gravity theory

期刊

ANNALS OF PHYSICS
卷 414, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.aop.2020.168070

关键词

General relativity; Modified gravity; Dark matter; Exact solution; Compact star

资金

  1. Sultanate of Oman [BFP/RGP/CBS/19/099]
  2. CONICYT, Chile [PFCHA/DOCTORADO-NACIONAL/2019-21190856]
  3. Grant Fondecyt, Chile [1161192]
  4. Universidad de Antofagasta, Chile [ANT-1856, SEM-1802]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The main aim of this paper is to obtain analytic relativistic anisotropic spherical solutions in f(R, T) scenario. To do so we use modified Durgapal-Fuloria metric potential and the pressure anisotropy condition is imposed in order to obtain the effective anisotropic factor (Delta) over tilde. Besides, a notable and viable election on f(R, T) gravity formulation is taken. The choice of f (R, T) function modifies the matter sector only, including new ingredients to the physical parameters that characterize the model such as density, pressure, subliminal speeds of sound, surface redshift etc. We analyze all the physical and mathematical general requirements of the configuration taking M = 1.04M(circle dot) and varying chi from -0.1 to 0.1. It is shown by the graphical procedure that chi < 0 yields a more compact object in comparison when chi >= 0 (where chi = 0.0 corresponds to general relativity) and increases the value of the surface redshift. However, negative values of chi introduce in the system an attractive anisotropic force (inward) and the configuration is completely unstable (corroborated employing Abreu's criterion). Furthermore, the model in Einstein gravity theory presents cracking while for chi > 0 the system is fully stable. The relationship between effective radial pressure (p) over tilde (r) and effective density (rho) over tilde is discussed and obtained. This is achieved by establishing the corresponding equation of state. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据