Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 6 cited by

Non-singular solutions to the Boltzmann equation with a fluid Ansatz

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The friction on a cosmological bubble wall no longer diverges at the speed of sound when the plasma background is allowed to vary in space, and in a Standard Model with a low cutoff this yields deflagration solutions for almost all cutoff…

desk verdict A promising fix for the speed-of-sound singularity in the fluid Ansatz, but the detonation branch rests on an enforced source cancellation that the paper's own check shows to fail. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09266 v1 pith:KWBOA7AJ submitted 2024-12-12 hep-ph

Gláuber C. Dorsch , Thomas Konstandin , Enrico Perboni , Daniel A. Pinto This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords cosmologicalphasetransitionsbubblewallvelocityBoltzmannequationfluidAnsatzspeedofsoundsingularityplasmafrictionelectroweaktransitiongravitationalwaves
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that the well-known singularity in bubble-wall friction, which appears exactly when the wall velocity equals the speed of sound, is an artifact of assuming a constant plasma background. It shows that allowing the background temperature and fluid velocity to vary with distance to the wall modifies the linearized Boltzmann equation so that all singular source terms vanish. The authors apply this to a Standard Model with a low cutoff, solving for the terminal wall velocity and width. They find non-singular friction, with deflagration solutions for almost every cutoff scale between 600 and 800 GeV and non-runaway detonations only for cutoffs around 625–635 GeV. If correct, this removes a key obstruction to predicting bubble wall velocities and the gravitational waves and baryon asymmetries that depend on them.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fluid Ansatz with a space-dependent background: out-of-equilibrium distribution functions are expanded around local equilibrium using $T_{\rm bg}(z)$ and $v_{\rm bg}(z)$ obtained from the non-linear conservation equations (26). The key identity is the on-shell cancellation of the sources $S_1$ and $S_2$ of the linearized energy-momentum conservation equations: the new terms proportional to $\partial_z T$ and $\partial_z v$ cancel the mass-dependent source terms, turning the undamped equations into algebraic relations between light and heavy species fluctuations. This cancellation removes the $1/(1-3v_w^2)$ denominator that caused the singularity in the friction.

What would settle it

Solve the Boltzmann equation for the same low-cutoff Standard Model on a momentum-space lattice without imposing the fluid Ansatz, and check whether the friction diverges as the wall speed approaches the speed of sound; a divergence would show the singularity is a real feature rather than an artifact of the constant-background linearization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the speed-of-sound singularity in bubble-wall friction is a consequence of expanding the fluid Ansatz around a constant background. The paper defines a z-dependent background — temperature $T_{\rm bg}(z)$ and velocity $v_{\rm bg}(z)$ — by solving the non-linear energy-momentum conservation equations (26) across the wall, including the scalar field contribution. Linearizing the Boltzmann equation around this background introduces new source terms proportional to $\partial_z T$ and $\partial_z v$. The authors show that when the Higgs equation of motion is satisfied, these new terms cancel the original mass-dependent sources in the two linear combinations of Boltzmann equations that encode energy-momentum conservation; these undamped equations then become algebraic constraints linking light and heavy fluctuations, and the singular factor $1/(1-3v_w^2)$ no longer appears. Enforcing this cancellation, the paper obtains finite friction across the speed of sound, with a discontinuity only at the Jouguet velocity, and uses the resulting pressures to compute terminal wall velocities in the low-cutoff Standard Model benchmark.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's resolution depends on assuming that the two source terms in the linearized energy-momentum conservation equations can be set to zero once the background is chosen; the paper itself shows this cancellation is incomplete for detonations and strong transitions, so if the enforcement fails the singularity could return.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The friction on the bubble wall is finite and continuous across the speed of sound; only a discontinuity at the Jouguet velocity remains, where the hydrodynamic boundary conditions change between hybrids and detonations.
  • Light-species fluctuations now represent only genuine departures from local equilibrium, and their contribution to the wall pressure is small but non-negligible, with opposite sign to the heavy-species contribution.
  • Out-of-equilibrium corrections shift the terminal wall velocity by roughly 25–45% and the wall width by 10–25% relative to equilibrium-only calculations, so equilibrium backreaction alone does not give accurate predictions.
  • For the low-cutoff Standard Model benchmark, deflagration solutions exist for almost every cutoff scale in the range 600–800 GeV, while non-runaway detonations occur only for $\Lambda \in [625,\,635]$ GeV and always coexist with a deflagration.
  • For this benchmark, the deflagration is most likely the stable solution, so detonations would not be realized even where they exist mathematically.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same background-absorption strategy could be applied to other linearized transport problems at bubble walls, such as electroweak baryogenesis, where constant-background expansions produce analogous singular denominators.
  • The incomplete source cancellation for strong transitions and detonations (shown in Fig. 8) suggests that including next-order corrections could shift wall velocities in those regimes; a direct computation of the residual sources without enforcing $S_1 = S_2 = 0$ would quantify this shift.
  • A fully variational wall profile, rather than the two-parameter tanh shape, would test whether the source cancellation is robust to the profile choice.
  • If the narrow detonation window found here is generic across models, gravitational wave predictions based on non-runaway detonations may need to focus on deflagration and hybrid contributions; scanning a broader model space would settle this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the well-known singularity in linearized fluid-Ansatz treatments of bubble wall friction when the wall velocity approaches the speed of sound. The authors promote the equilibrium background to a space-dependent Tbg(z), vbg(z) determined by nonlinear energy-momentum conservation, and include the resulting derivative terms in the linearized Boltzmann equations. They argue that the two moments representing total energy-momentum conservation then have vanishing sources, so the undamped combination that caused the singularity is no longer excited; they enforce S1=S2=0, eliminate the light fluctuations via an algebraic relation, and solve the Higgs equation of motion for vw and Lw. For the Standard Model with a low cutoff they find deflagrations for essentially all Λ in [600,800] GeV and non-runaway detonations only for Λ∈[625,635] GeV. They also quantify the out-of-equilibrium contribution to the wall pressure and find it non-negligible, giving corrections of 25–45% in vw relative to the equilibrium-only treatment.

Significance. If the method is valid, it provides a semi-analytic, physically interpretable route to bubble wall velocities without the cs singularity, while including heavy gauge bosons and light fluctuations, and it sharpens the current debate on whether equilibrium friction suffices for wall velocity estimates. The paper is unusually explicit about its approximations and provides an a posteriori check in Fig. 8, which is a strength. The main quantitative predictions—deflagrations for almost all Λ and detonations in a narrow Λ window—are concrete and falsifiable. However, the central singularity-removal claim rests on an enforced source cancellation whose on-shell residual is nonzero precisely for the detonation branch, so the current version does not fully establish that headline result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3 and Sec. 6.1, Eqs. (28)-(29), Fig. 8] The singularity removal is implemented by imposing S1 = S2 = 0 rather than by deriving these equations from the solved system. The authors state in Sec. 3: 'we will enforce these sources to vanish and then study their behavior a posteriori.' The a posteriori check in Sec. 6.1 shows that the cancellation is not exact in general, and for the detonation case 'the sources do not integrate to zero in this case.' This is not a peripheral failure: the detonation solutions in Fig. 7 exist only in the narrow window Λ ∈ [625, 635] GeV, and their computation uses the algebraic relation in App. C that is justified only when the energy-momentum moments are truly sourceless. If the residual sources are retained, the undamped combination is sourced again, and the detonation velocity and width can shift substantially. The manuscript should either include the residual sources in a controlled way and show that the detonation solutions survive, or explicitly limit the singularity-resolution claim to the deflagration/hybrid branches and present the detonation results as an illustration of the enforced-S1=S2=0 system rather than as a prediction.
  2. [Appendix B and Sec. 6.1] The on-shell argument in Appendix B demonstrates a cancellation at linear order in the fluctuations, but the exactness of S1 = S2 = 0 is broken by precisely the two approximations listed in Sec. 6.1: neglect of mass dependence in most Boltzmann moments and the tanh wall Ansatz of Eq. (35). The paper acknowledges this, saying 'Both of these effects will lead to the fact that the sources in (26) are not exactly zero.' Given this limitation, the abstract's statement that 'all terms that would give rise to a singularity now vanish' is stronger than what is established. What is established is that, under the enforced source condition and with the stated approximations, the singular source is absent at the order retained. Please rephrase the central claim so that this conditionality is visible, and state explicitly which of the two approximations is responsible for the residual visible in Fig. 8 for strong deflagrations.
  3. [Sec. 6, Figs. 6-7] The quantitative conclusion that out-of-equilibrium effects change vw by 25–45% is obtained by comparing the full solutions with 'equilibrium only' solutions obtained by dropping the ffl, flight, gfl, and glight terms in Eqs. (50)-(51). In Fig. 6 the wall width is fixed at LwT+ = 15 for all vw, whereas the actual full solutions in Fig. 7 have Lw varying between roughly 5 and 45. A sensitivity check in which the equilibrium-only case is solved with a self-consistently determined Lw would make the comparison more robust and would clarify how much of the claimed correction is an artifact of the fixed width used in the pressure curves.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5.2, Eq. (47)] The quantities δτf, δτb, and δτlight are used in Eq. (47) before being defined; please define δτ in terms of the fluctuation variables introduced in Eq. (4), including the sign convention.
  2. [Fig. 8] The caption says 'Source momentum' and labels curves as '1st old', '1st new', '1st tot', and '2nd tot', but the legend in the figure also uses line styles; please make explicit which line corresponds to S2 and whether any rescaling has been applied to make the curves comparable.
  3. [Sec. 2, footnote 2] The statement that a term from the Liouville operator cancels against a force term, ensuring that the remaining force term vanishes for zero wall velocity, is given without derivation; a short equation or reference would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. 3] The phrase 'non-singular solutions to the Boltzmann equation' in the title and abstract could be read as applying to the full nonlinear equation, whereas the paper solves the linearized system with a truncated fluid Ansatz; a qualifier such as 'linearized' would avoid overstatement.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Singularity removal is largely by construction: the background is defined by the same energy-momentum conservation whose linearized sources are then enforced to vanish, and the detonation branch relies on a cancellation the paper's own check shows to fail.

  1. self definitional [Section 3, Eqs. (26), (28)-(29)]
    "We define the background by imposing the conservation of its energy-momentum across the phase transition wall. ... These two equations encode the dynamics of the total energy-momentum tensor and hence should be equivalent to (26). This means that once we enforce the correct background, these sources will exactly vanish ... This should solve the issue with the singularity since the problematic equations without damping will not be sourced anymore."

    The sources S1 and S2 in Eqs. (28)-(29) are explicitly the projections of the background energy-momentum divergence, while the background is defined in Eq. (26) by setting that same divergence (together with the Higgs contribution) to zero. Thus S1 = S2 = 0 is an identity of the construction, not a derived result. The claim that the singular, undamped equations are no longer sourced is a restatement of the enforced background condition, so the disappearance of the singularity is built into the ansatz rather than being an independent prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3 and Section 6.1]
    "However, we will enforce these sources to vanish and then study their behavior a posteriori, see Sec. 6.1. ... This is why we enforce χ · A · q′ = 0 in the BE solver."

    The Boltzmann solver is run with the singular combination explicitly forced to be sourceless. The resulting non-singular friction and the disappearance of the singularity at the speed of sound are therefore guaranteed by the input constraint, not discovered from the equations. The paper's own a posteriori check (Fig. 8) is the only independent part of the argument, and it shows the cancellation is not exact; this confirms that the enforced condition, rather than a derived property of the dynamics, is what removes the singularity.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.1 and detonation results in Section 6]
    "Looking now into the detonation case in Fig. 8, we see that the cancellation is again rather incomplete. Differently from what happens with deflagrations, for this family of solutions the sources do not integrate to zero in this case."

    Detonation solutions are presented for Λ ∈ [625, 635] GeV using a solver that enforces S1 = S2 = 0, yet the paper's own on-shell check states that for detonations the integrated sources do not vanish. The detonation branch therefore exists only because the violated cancellation was imposed as an input. The 'prediction' of non-runaway detonations is not an independent consequence of the derivation but depends on enforcing a condition that the paper itself finds to be invalid in exactly that regime.

full rationale

The central result, that the friction singularity disappears when a z-dependent background is used, is partly circular because the background is defined by imposing energy-momentum conservation, and the linearized energy-momentum sources S1 and S2 are exactly the same conservation equations. Enforcing S1 = S2 = 0 is therefore not a first-principles prediction but a consistency condition of the construction. The paper is transparent about this: it states that the sources are enforced to vanish and are only checked a posteriori, and Appendix B derives the on-shell cancellation from the same equations of motion that define the background. The numerical check in Fig. 8 provides some independent support for deflagrations at small αn, but it also reveals that the cancellation fails for detonations, which are nevertheless reported using the enforced condition. The self-citations to [18,20,21] are methodological rather than load-bearing: the singularity is re-derived in Section 2, and the fluid Ansatz is openly adopted from earlier work. Because the singularity removal is imposed by the ansatz and the detonation prediction relies on a violated enforced cancellation, the paper has partial circularity rather than complete equivalence; the wall-velocity computation itself still contains independent dynamical content. Score 6 reflects that the main 'prediction' of non-singular friction reduces by construction, while the paper's explicit caveats and a posteriori check prevent a higher score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several modeling choices, the most important being the enforced vanishing of the sources S1 and S2, which is only approximately satisfied. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Cutoff scale Lambda = scanned over 600-800 GeV
    The effective scale of the phi^6 operator in the benchmark model. It is chosen by hand and scanned; the existence of detonation solutions depends on it.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Boltzmann equation in the WKB limit (Eq. 2)
    The starting point for plasma dynamics, valid when the wall width is much larger than inverse momenta, L_w >> 1/T.
  • domain assumption Fluid Ansatz truncated at O(p^1) (Eq. 4)
    The truncation to three fluctuations (chemical potential, temperature, velocity) is a modeling choice inherited from prior work.
  • domain assumption Background defined by non-linear energy-momentum conservation (Eq. 26)
    The background profiles T_bg(z) and v_bg(z) are determined by solving equilibrium conservation equations.
  • ad hoc to paper Enforcement of S1 = S2 = 0
    The sources of the linearized energy-momentum conservation are set to zero rather than derived; the paper checks this a posteriori in Sec. 6.1.
  • ad hoc to paper Wall shape Ansatz, tanh profile (Eq. 35)
    A specific two-parameter form for the Higgs field profile is assumed.
  • domain assumption High-temperature effective potential with only O(m^2T^2) terms (Eq. 53)
    The benchmark model uses a specific form of the potential, neglecting cubic thermal terms.
  • domain assumption Light species have zero chemical potential and equilibrate quickly
    Assumed to reduce the degrees of freedom for light particles.
  • ad hoc to paper Neglect of mass dependence in kinetic matrices
    The paper neglects mass dependence in most moments of the Boltzmann equation, which undermines the exact source cancellation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-singular solutions to the Boltzmann equation with a fluid Ansatz." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KWBOA7AJ

@misc{pith2026241209266,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-singular solutions to the Boltzmann equation with a fluid Ansatz},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KWBOA7AJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09266}
}
abstract

Cosmological phase transitions can give rise to intriguing phenomena, such as baryogenesis or a stochastic gravitational wave background, due to nucleation and percolation of vacuum bubbles in the primordial plasma. A key parameter for predicting these relics is the bubble wall velocity, whose computation relies on solving the Boltzmann equations of the various species along the bubble profile. Recently it has been shown that an unphysical singularity emerges if one assumes these local quantities to be described as small fluctuations over a constant equilibrium background. In this work we solve this issue by including the spatial dependence of the background into the fluid Ansatz. This leads to a modification of the Boltzmann equation, and all terms that would give rise to a singularity now vanish. We recalculate the different contributions to the counter-pressure of the plasma on the expanding wall, and discuss their relative importance. The Standard Model with a low cutoff is chosen as benchmark model and the results are shown for different values of the cutoff scale $\Lambda$. In this setup, deflagration solutions are found for almost all the values of $\Lambda$ considered, while detonations are found only for some restricted corner of the parameter space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09266 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Values of v+ as a function v− corresponding to solutions of the matching conditions, for different values of the transition strength parameter αn. This plots represents only the solutions where the right boundary condition has been taken into account. Solutions for vw < cs,b are deflagrations and have v+ < v−. For cs,b < vw < vJ the solutions are hybrids, corresponding to the vertical lines in the plot, since they h… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Solutions to the matching conditions for different thermodynamics quantities as a function of the wall velocity vw for a strength parameter αn ≃ 0.05. The left vertical line represents the speed of sound cs,b, the right one the Jouguet velocity vJ . Again the physical boundary conditions have been taken into account, this leading to continuity across cs,b and discontinuity across vJ . Boltzmann equations. We will so… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Velocity (left column) and temperature (right column) profiles obtained by solving the non-linear system of equations. The symmetric phase is on the left of the plots. The first row shows the case of a deflagration, the second one a hybrid and the last a detonation. When putting this together with the energy-momentum of the Higgs field, Eq. (19), one obtains ∂µT µν ϕ + ∂ νϕ X i dm2 i dϕ Z d 3p (2π) 3 1 2Ei fi(p µ , … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the out-of-equilibrium friction from the heavy particles in the plasma (fpl in the left panel and gpl in the right one) found with the new approach with respect to the one found with the old approach. The cutoff scale here is set to Λ = 625 GeV. Friction …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Pressure on the expanding wall coming from the out-of-equilibrium fluctuations of the light particles in the plasma as a function of the wall velocity vw. The values are for a cutoff scale Λ = 625 GeV (left) and Λ = 690 GeV (right), which correspond to a value of the s…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Equilibrium only and total pressure acting on the wall. On the left is represented the case for a cutoff Λ = 625 GeV, corresponding to αn = 0.04, for which we find both a deflagration and a detonation solution. On the right we show the case Λ = 690 GeV, with αn = 0.01,…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (Left panel) Wall velocities vw, together with the speed of sound cs,b (solid grey line) and the Jouguet velocity vJ (dash-dotted line), in terms of the cutoff scale Λ. The red line represents detonation solutions, the blue line deflagrations, while the green one shows…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Source momenta of the linearized energy momentum conservation for different solutions at different scales Λ. The plots are shown for decreasing values of αn. Notice how the source cancellation seems to work better when considering deflagration solutions and also when c…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Scalar damping in cosmological phase transitions

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The scalar damping coefficient in the hydrodynamic friction term is extracted from kinetic theory for SM-like plasmas, and the runaway-wall pressure is found to bound the local friction from above.

  2. Bubble wall dynamics from nonequilibrium quantum field theory

    hep-ph 2025-04 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The conventional kinetic equation of motion for bubble walls is incomplete, missing a condensate self-energy term that produces additional friction from particle production, mixing, and transition radiation.

  3. Benchmarking wall velocities in cosmological phase transitions: Fluid Ansatz and WallGo

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The fluid-Ansatz and WallGo methods agree for mild phase transitions but diverge by tens of percent for strong ones, where the semi-classical approximation itself may break down.

  4. Thermal Masses and Bubble-Wall Friction in Cosmological Phase Transitions

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Including thermal masses in both the Boltzmann source and collision terms removes the infrared gauge-boson enhancement, making W-boson friction subleading in the singlet-extended Standard Model.

  5. Electroweak Phase Transition and Bubble Wall Velocity in Local Thermal Equilibrium

    hep-ph 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Bubble wall velocities in local thermal equilibrium are computed for three BSM models and found to be nearly universal when expressed via the critical temperature and supercooling, with only deflagration solutions.

  6. Cosmological phase transitions from the functional measure

    hep-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In the minimal modified functional measure model, a logarithmic scalar-potential correction can make the electroweak transition strongly first order, and future gravitational-wave observatories could probe the Higgs t...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgocollaboration, Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger , Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 061102 [1602.03837]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgocollaboration, GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs , Phys. Rev. X 9 (2019) 031040 [1811.12907]

    arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    LIGO Scientific, VIRGOcollaboration, GWTC-2.1: Deep Extended Catalog of Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run , 2108.01045

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRAcollaboration, GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the Second Part of the Third Observing Run , 2111.03606

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    NANOGrav collaboration, The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-wave Background, Astrophys. J. Lett. 951 (2023) L8 [ 2306.16213]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Search for gravitational wave signals , Astron

    EPTA, InPTA:collaboration, The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - III. Search for gravitational wave signals , Astron. Astrophys. 678 (2023) A50 [ 2306.16214]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Caprini, M

    C. Caprini, M. Chala, G. C. Dorsch, M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, T. Konstandin et al., Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with lisa: an update, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2020 (2020) 024–024

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Arcadi, G

    G. Arcadi, G. C. Dorsch, J. P. Neto, F. S. Queiroz and Y. Oviedo-Torres, Probing a dark sector with collider physics, direct detection, and gravitational waves , Physics Letters B 848 (2024) 138382

    work page 2024

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Bodeker and G

    D. Bodeker and G. D. Moore, Can electroweak bubble walls run away? , JCAP 05 (2009) 009 [ 0903.4099]

    2009 arXiv

  2. [10]

    H¨ oche, J

    S. H¨ oche, J. Kozaczuk, A. J. Long, J. Turner and Y. Wang, Towards an all-orders calculation of the electroweak bubble wall velocity , JCAP 03 (2021) 009 [2007.10343]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Azatov and M

    A. Azatov and M. Vanvlasselaer, Bubble wall velocity: heavy physics effects , JCAP 01 (2021) 058 [ 2010.02590]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    W.-Y. Ai, X. Nagels and M. Vanvlasselaer, Criterion for ultra-fast bubble walls: the impact of hydrodynamic obstruction , JCAP 03 (2024) 037 [ 2401.05911]. 31

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A. J. Long and J. Turner, Thermal pressure on ultrarelativistic bubbles from a semiclassical formalism, 2407.18196

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    De Curtis, L

    S. De Curtis, L. D. Rose, A. Guiggiani, A. G. Muyor and G. Panico, Bubble wall dynamics at the electroweak phase transition , JHEP 03 (2022) 163 [ 2201.08220]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    De Curtis, L

    S. De Curtis, L. Delle Rose, A. Guiggiani, A. Gil Muyor and G. Panico, Collision integrals for cosmological phase transitions , JHEP 05 (2023) 194 [ 2303.05846]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    De Curtis, L

    S. De Curtis, L. Delle Rose, A. Guiggiani, A. Gil Muyor and G. Panico, Non-linearities in cosmological bubble wall dynamics , JHEP 05 (2024) 009 [2401.13522]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    G. D. Moore and T. Prokopec, How fast can the wall move? A Study of the electroweak phase transition dynamics , Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 7182 [hep-ph/9506475]

    1995 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Konstandin, G

    T. Konstandin, G. Nardini and I. Rues, From Boltzmann equations to steady wall velocities, JCAP 09 (2014) 028 [ 1407.3132]

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    G. C. Dorsch, S. J. Huber and T. Konstandin, On the wall velocity dependence of electroweak baryogenesis, JCAP 08 (2021) 020 [ 2106.06547]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    G. C. Dorsch, S. J. Huber and T. Konstandin, A sonic boom in bubble wall friction, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2022 (2022) 010

    2022

  13. [21]

    G. C. Dorsch and D. A. Pinto, Bubble wall velocities with an extended fluid Ansatz, Dec., 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    S. R. De Groot, W. A. Van Leeuwen and C. G. Van Weert, Relativistic Kinetic Theory. Principles and Applications . North-Holland Pub. Co. ; Sole distributors for the USA and Canada, Elsevier North-Holland., 1980

    1980

  15. [23]

    Laurent and J

    B. Laurent and J. M. Cline, First principles determination of bubble wall velocity , Physical Review D 106 (2022) 023501

    2022

  16. [24]

    Konstandin and J

    T. Konstandin and J. M. No, Hydrodynamic obstruction to bubble expansion , JCAP 02 (2011) 008 [ 1011.3735]

    2011 arXiv

  17. [25]

    W.-Y. Ai, B. Garbrecht and C. Tamarit, Bubble wall velocities in local equilibrium, JCAP 03 (2022) 015 [ 2109.13710]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    W.-Y. Ai, B. Laurent and J. van de Vis, Model-independent bubble wall velocities in local thermal equilibrium , JCAP 07 (2023) 002 [ 2303.10171]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Lewicki, M

    M. Lewicki, M. Merchand and M. Zych, Electroweak bubble wall expansion: gravitational waves and baryogenesis in Standard Model-like thermal plasma , JHEP 02 (2022) 017 [ 2111.02393]. 32

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    J. M. Cline, A. Friedlander, D.-M. He, K. Kainulainen, B. Laurent and D. Tucker-Smith, Baryogenesis and gravity waves from a UV-completed electroweak phase transition, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 123529 [ 2102.12490]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Konstandin, Quantum Transport and Electroweak Baryogenesis, Phys

    T. Konstandin, Quantum Transport and Electroweak Baryogenesis, Phys. Usp. 56 (2013) 747 [ 1302.6713]

    2013 arXiv

  22. [30]

    J. R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin, J. M. No and G. Servant, Energy Budget of Cosmological First-order Phase Transitions, JCAP 06 (2010) 028 [ 1004.4187]

    2010 arXiv

  23. [31]

    M. B. Hindmarsh, M. L¨ uben, J. Lumma and M. Pauly, Phase transitions in the early universe, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 24 (2021) 1 [ 2008.09136]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    S. R. Coleman, The Fate of the False Vacuum. 1. Semiclassical Theory , Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 2929

    1977

  25. [33]

    A. D. Linde, Decay of the False Vacuum at Finite Temperature , Nucl. Phys. B 216 (1983) 421

    1983

  26. [34]

    P. J. Steinhardt, Relativistic detonation waves and bubble growth in false vacuum decay, Phys. Rev. D 25 (1982) 2074

    1982

  27. [35]

    Giese, T

    F. Giese, T. Konstandin and J. v. de Vis, Model-independent energy budget of cosmological first-order phase transitions—a sound argument to go beyond the bag model, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2020 (2020) 057–057

    2020

  28. [36]

    Leitao and A

    L. Leitao and A. M´ egevand,Spherical and non-spherical bubbles in cosmological phase transitions, Nuclear Physics B 844 (2011) 450–470

    2011

  29. [37]

    Balaji, M

    S. Balaji, M. Spannowsky and C. Tamarit, Cosmological bubble friction in local equilibrium, JCAP 03 (2021) 051 [ 2010.08013]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Grojean, G

    C. Grojean, G. Servant and J. D. Wells, First-order electroweak phase transition in the standard model with a low cutoff , Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 036001 [hep-ph/0407019]

    2005 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J. M. Cline and K. Kainulainen, Electroweak baryogenesis at high bubble wall velocities, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 063525 [ 2001.00568]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ekstedt, O

    A. Ekstedt, O. Gould, J. Hirvonen, B. Laurent, L. Niemi, P. Schicho et al., How fast does the WallGo? A package for computing wall velocities in first-order phase transitions, 2411.04970. 33

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.