Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Exact hydrodynamic attractor of an ultrarelativistic gas of hard spheres

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a hard-sphere gas under Bjorken flow, the hydrodynamic attractor is exact and its gradient expansion converges.

desk verdict The Israel-Stewart convergence result is solid and novel; the full-Boltzmann attractor claim is supported only for a single equilibrium initial condition, so the abstract overstates it. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09957 v2 pith:7FIJZ3XM submitted 2019-08-26 nucl-th hep-ph

Gabriel S. Denicol , Jorge Noronha This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-ph
keywords hydrodynamicattractorBjorkenflowIsrael-StewarttheoryBoltzmannequationhard-spheregasKnudsennumbergradientexpansionheavy-ioncollisions
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

This paper shows that an ultrarelativistic gas of hard spheres expanding in the boost-invariant Bjorken flow has an exact hydrodynamic attractor, and that its gradient expansion converges over a finite range of Knudsen numbers. Because particle number is conserved in binary collisions, the density falls as $1/\tau$ and the mean free path grows linearly with $\tau$, so $Kn = 1/(n_0 \tau_0 \sigma_T)$ is constant. That constancy reduces the Israel-Stewart equations to an autonomous ordinary differential equation that can be solved in closed form, giving an attractor $\chi_{\rm att}$; the same attractor, computed from the full nonlinear Boltzmann equation, agrees within 20% even at large Knudsen numbers. If correct, this overturns the expectation that gradient expansions always diverge in rapidly expanding systems and supports the practical use of hydrodynamics far from equilibrium.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Knudsen number of the hard-sphere gas. Binary collisions conserve particle number, so $n(\tau)=n_0\tau_0/\tau$ exactly, and with a constant total cross section the mean free path $l_{\rm mfp}=1/(n\sigma_T)$ grows linearly with $\tau$; because the macroscopic gradient scale in Bjorken flow is also $\tau$, $Kn$ is a constant fixed by initial conditions. This converts the Israel-Stewart equation for the shear correction into an autonomous ODE in $\chi$ alone, solvable in closed form, and the late-time fixed point is the exact attractor whose power series in $Kn$ is the convergent gradient expansion. For the microscopic comparison, the same attractor is obtained by solving the full nonlinear Boltzmann equation numerically in Milne coordinates until all dimensionless moments saturate, since a constant Knudsen number forces the attractor to be constant.

What would settle it

Run a high-precision numerical solution of the full nonlinear Boltzmann equation for the same hard-sphere gas at a fixed Knudsen number but with initial times spread over a wide range, adjusting the initial density and cross section to keep $Kn = 1/(n_0\tau_0\sigma_T)$ fixed, and read off the late-time value of $\pi/(\epsilon+P)$; if that value depends on $\tau_0$, the claimed attractor is not a function of $Kn$ alone.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that particle-number conservation in a hard-sphere gas under Bjorken flow makes the Knudsen number constant, $Kn = l_{\rm mfp}/\tau = 1/(n_0 \tau_0 \sigma_T)$, rather than time dependent as in previously studied conformal systems. With the shear viscosity and relaxation time written as $\eta = a T/\sigma_T$, $\tau_\pi = b\eta/(4P)$, and $\tau_{\pi\pi}=3\lambda\tau_\pi$, the Israel-Stewart equation for $\chi=\pi/(4P)$ becomes an autonomous first-order ODE whose general solution is analytic, and whose late-time fixed point, $\chi_{\rm att}=A - \frac{3}{8}\frac{4+ab\lambda Kn}{ab Kn}$ with $A$ the square root in Eq. (11), is the attractor. The gradient expansion of $\chi_{\rm att}$ in powers of $Kn$ converges absolutely for $|Kn| < 3/(2a\sqrt{b})$ (with the 14-moment values $a=4/3$, $b=5$ giving radius $\approx 0.5$), the first proven convergence in an expanding system. The paper then extracts the same attractor from a numerical solution of the full nonlinear Boltzmann equation and shows that the Israel-Stewart and Boltzmann attractors agree to within 20% even when the Knudsen number is large.

Load-bearing premise

The construction rests on the modeling assumption that the collision cross section is independent of energy, so the mean free path is set by the particle density and the Knudsen number stays constant; if the cross section depends on energy, as in conformal or QCD-like matter, the Knudsen number becomes time dependent and the exact solution and convergence proof no longer apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In this hard-sphere gas the gradient expansion converges absolutely for $|Kn| < 3/(2a\sqrt{b})$, so a convergent hydrodynamic series is possible even in a rapidly expanding system.
  • The exact attractor of the full nonlinear Boltzmann equation is a function of the Knudsen number alone and is independent of the initial preparation, extending attractor results beyond the relaxation-time approximation.
  • Israel-Stewart theory reproduces the exact Boltzmann attractor to within 20% even at large Knudsen numbers, supporting the use of viscous hydrodynamics far from equilibrium in heavy-ion collision modeling.
  • The zeroth-order slow-roll approximation gives the exact attractor in this system, so the closed form replaces the need for higher-order gradient corrections.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An immediate extension the authors do not make: for an energy-dependent cross section the Knudsen number varies with time, so the exact ODE reduction is lost; this paper therefore predicts that conformal-like gases should retain the previously seen divergent gradient behavior under Bjorken flow.
  • Because the closed-form attractor depends only on $Kn$, it can serve as a benchmark: any approximate hydrodynamic closure aiming at far-from-equilibrium validity should reproduce Eq. (12) for this system rather than only the Navier-Stokes limit.
  • One could probe the analytic structure of $\chi_{\rm att}$ as a function of complex $Kn$; the finite convergence radius suggests singularities at complex values, and locating the analogous singularities in the Boltzmann attractor might diagnose the onset of non-hydrodynamic transient modes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies an ultrarelativistic gas of hard spheres undergoing Bjorken flow, with particle number conservation and a constant total cross section. It shows that the Knudsen number is constant, which makes the Israel-Stewart viscous hydrodynamic equations analytically solvable. The resulting late-time attractor for the shear-stress ratio chi (Eq. 12) is shown to have a gradient expansion that converges absolutely in a finite range of Knudsen numbers (Eq. 14, with radius |Kn| < 3/(2 a sqrt(b)) for lambda = 0). The paper also extracts a late-time constant value of chi from numerical solutions of the full nonlinear Boltzmann equation for several cross sections, identifies this as the exact Boltzmann attractor, and compares it with the Israel-Stewart attractor, finding agreement within 20% even at large Knudsen numbers.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a significant contribution: it provides the first example of a convergent gradient expansion in a relativistically expanding system and an exact analytical attractor for an Israel-Stewart theory, which is a valuable benchmark for far-from-equilibrium hydrodynamics. The analytical derivation is transparent and the convergence radius is correctly identified from the branch points of the solution. The comparison with the full Boltzmann equation, if the attractor claim is justified, would be an important test of hydrodynamic attractor universality. However, as discussed below, the Boltzmann-side claim currently lacks a basin-of-attraction test, so the significance is somewhat contingent.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2] The claim that the late-time constant chi extracted from the Boltzmann equation is the 'exact hydrodynamic attractor' is not supported by the numerical evidence. All simulations shown in Fig. 1 start from the same equilibrium distribution (tau0 = 0.1 fm, T = 0.5 GeV, vanishing chemical potential); the only variation is the total cross section, and the scaling check with tau0 = 1 fm and a smaller cross section preserves the same equilibrium initial conditions. These runs show that the late-time value depends only on Kn for this particular family of initial conditions, but they do not establish that the limit is independent of the initial momentum-space distribution. The argument in the text that 'any dimensionless quantity constructed using moments of the Boltzmann distribution must asymptote to a constant' only shows approach to a fixed point along a trajectory, not uniqueness across initial conditions. Because Kn is constant, the collision rate is a fixed fraction of the expansion rate, so there is no automatic mechanism that erases the memory of the initial momentum-space anisotropy at large Kn. To support the headline claim, the authors should either perform additional numerical experiments with different initial momentum-space distributions (e.g., anisotropic distributions, different chemical potentials) and demonstrate the same late-time chi, or explicitly soften the claim to a late-time fixed point for equilibrium initial conditions.
  2. [Abstract and Section 1] The abstract states that 'in this example the gradient expansion converges' without qualification, but the convergence proof in Section 3 applies only to the Israel-Stewart truncation of the gradient expansion, specifically to the solution of Eq. (9). Section 4 correctly notes that the gradient expansion for the full nonlinear Boltzmann equation remains an open question and even demonstrates divergence in the relaxation-time-approximation toy model. The abstract should be reworded to attribute the convergent series to the Israel-Stewart theory, otherwise it overstates the scope of the result and could mislead readers into thinking the convergence holds for the full Boltzmann equation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, numerical method] The numerical Boltzmann solver is described only by reference to Ref. [53]; no resolution checks (grid size, particle number, time-step convergence) or numerical error estimates are provided. Since the 'exact Boltzmann attractor' rests entirely on these numerics, a brief convergence test or a statement of numerical uncertainty would strengthen the presentation.
  2. [Eq. (18) and surrounding text] The spelling 'Mandelstan' should be 'Mandelstam'.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption says the dashed curves indicate the asymptotic values that determine the attractor; it would be clearer to state explicitly that these runs all use equilibrium initial conditions, since that is the basis of the attractor extraction.
  4. [Conclusions] The phrase 'deviations ... remain 20% at best' is ambiguous; 'never exceed 20%' would be clearer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the Israel-Stewart attractor is an exact solution of the stated equations and the Boltzmann comparison is an independent numerical benchmark.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. Equation (9) is the Israel-Stewart dynamical equation with transport coefficients (8); because the Knudsen number is constant, Eq. (10) is obtained by direct analytic solution, and Eq. (12) is the late-time fixed point of that equation. No parameter in Eq. (12) is fitted to the target late-time value of chi: the constants a, b, and lambda are inputs from the 14-moment approximation, and the convergence radius quoted after Eq. (14) follows from explicit evaluation of the series coefficients. The Boltzmann-equation attractor is extracted from a numerical solution of the full nonlinear Boltzmann equation (16)-(18), with an independent benchmark against previous RTA/Boltzmann calculations, and the reported 20% agreement between the Israel-Stewart and Boltzmann attractors is a comparison of two independently computed curves rather than a fit. The main limitations are that the numerical Boltzmann runs all start from the same equilibrium initial distribution, so initial-condition independence and basin-of-attraction are not demonstrated, and that the gradient-series divergence shown in the RTA model is explicitly acknowledged not to prove divergence for the full collision kernel. These are evidential gaps in the strength of the 'exact attractor' claim, not reductions of the claimed result to its own inputs. The self-citations that appear, such as Refs. [42-44] for transport coefficients and Ref. [7] for the RTA method, are not load-bearing circularity because the cited results are independently derived kinetic-theory results or are used only for an illustrative side remark.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on four inputs from prior literature or modeling assumptions: the hard-sphere collision model with constant cross section and conserved particle number, the Israel-Stewart truncation of the Boltzmann equation with 14-moment transport coefficients, the numerical Boltzmann solver of Xu-Greiner, and standard mathematics. No parameters were fitted to the attractor data.

free parameters (3)
  • a (shear viscosity coefficient) = 4/3
    Coefficient in eta = a T/sigma_T, computed via the 14-moment approximation from the Boltzmann equation and taken as an input; not fitted to the attractor. It sets the linear slope of the attractor and the convergence radius.
  • b (relaxation time coefficient) = 5
    Coefficient in tau_pi = b eta/(4P), from the 14-moment approximation; input, not fitted. Affects the convergence radius 3/(2a sqrt(b)).
  • lambda (tau_pi_pi coefficient) = 10/21
    Coefficient entering through tau_pi_pi = 3 lambda tau_pi, from the 14-moment approximation; input, not fitted. The convergence radius for lambda != 0 is a stated generalization.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The gas consists of classical ultrarelativistic hard spheres with binary collisions and conserved particle number, giving n(τ)τ = const and l_mfp = 1/(n σ_T) with σ_T constant.
    Section 2 (General properties), after Eq. (4). This assumption makes the Knudsen number constant, the linchpin of the entire derivation.
  • domain assumption The Israel-Stewart-like second-order equation (7), with transport coefficients (8), is a valid hydrodynamic description of this gas.
    Section 3. The analytical attractor and the convergent gradient series are derived from this equation, not directly from the Boltzmann equation.
  • domain assumption The numerical particle method of Xu and Greiner (Ref. [53]) provides a sufficiently accurate solution of the nonlinear Boltzmann equation (16).
    Section 4. The 'exact' Boltzmann attractor is extracted from this solver; no convergence tests or error bars are reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exact hydrodynamic attractor of an ultrarelativistic gas of hard spheres." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7FIJZ3XM

@misc{pith2026190809957,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exact hydrodynamic attractor of an ultrarelativistic gas of hard spheres},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7FIJZ3XM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09957}
}
read the original abstract

We derive the general analytical solution of the viscous hydrodynamic equations for an ultrarelativistic gas of hard spheres undergoing Bjorken expansion, taking into account effects from particle number conservation, and use it to analytically determine its attractor at late times. Differently than all the cases considered before involving rapidly expanding fluids, in this example the gradient expansion converges. We exactly determine the hydrodynamic attractor of this system when its microscopic dynamics is modeled by the Boltzmann equation with a fully nonlinear collision kernel. The exact late time attractor of this system can be reasonably described by hydrodynamics even when the gradients are large.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09957 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. , where the dynamical evolution of χ, computed using the Boltzmann equation, is shown for different values of total cross section. We show several simulations that start in equilibrium at τ0 = 0.1 fm and T(τ0) = 0.5 GeV (at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Attractor solutions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Constraint on initial conditions of one-dimensional expanding fluids from nonlinear causality

    nucl-th 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Nonlinear causality constrains one-dimensional Bjorken-expanding viscous fluids to small inverse Reynolds numbers, giving minimum initial times of about 0.5 to 1 fm and maximum initial energy densities of about 5 to 3...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Hydrodynamics is an effective theory describing the dynamics of a many-body system at times and distances that are considerably larger than any microscopic scale

    Introduction. Hydrodynamics is an effective theory describing the dynamics of a many-body system at times and distances that are considerably larger than any microscopic scale. Such a separation of scales is commonly characterized by a dimensionless quantity called the Knudsen number, Kn = 𝓁/L, where 𝓁 is the relevant microscopic scale, and L is a macrosco...

    work page

  2. [2]

    General properties. We consider a homogeneous ultrarelativistic gas of hard spheres in Milne coordinates xµ = arXiv:1908.09957v2 [nucl-th] 8 Apr 2020 2 (τ,x,y,ς ) with line element (we set ℏ =c =kB = 1) ds2 =gµνdxµdxν =dτ 2− ( dx2 +dy2 +τ 2dς 2) , (1) whereτ = √ t2−z2 andς = tanh−1(z/t). We further assume that the system is invariant under reflections arou...

    arXiv 1908

  3. [3]

    We start our analysis by investigating the hydrodynamic regime of Israel-Stewart-like theories [40–42] derived from the Boltzmann equation

    Analytical solution of viscous hydrodynamics. We start our analysis by investigating the hydrodynamic regime of Israel-Stewart-like theories [40–42] derived from the Boltzmann equation. In Bjorken flow, energy and momentum conservation,∇µTµν = 0, is encoded in a single equation for the energy density, 1 ε dε dτ + 4 3τ = 4χ 3τ, (6) 1 We remark in passing th...

    work page

  4. [4]

    In this section we obtain the attractor of an ultrarelativistic gas of hard spheres now from a microscopic perspective using the Boltzmann equation [50]

    Hydrodynamic attractor of the Boltzmann equation. In this section we obtain the attractor of an ultrarelativistic gas of hard spheres now from a microscopic perspective using the Boltzmann equation [50]. For Bjorken flow described in Milne coordinates (1), the contribution from the Christoffel symbols cancel exactly, and the Boltzmann equation becomes [38, ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Conclusions. In this work we provided a comprehensive analysis of the far-from-equilibrium dynamics of an ultra- relativistic gas of hard spheres, described by the full Boltzmann equation, undergoing Bjorken flow. We demonstrated that the Israel-Stewart hydrodynamic equations, derived from the Boltzmann equation, can be solved analytically in this case. We...

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Chapman and T

    S. Chapman and T. G. Cowling, The mathematical theory of non-uniform gases, 3rd edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1970)

    work page 1970

  7. [7]

    Cercignani, Mathematical Methods in Kinetic Theory (Springer, US, 1990)

    C. Cercignani, Mathematical Methods in Kinetic Theory (Springer, US, 1990). 7

    work page 1990

  8. [8]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics - Volume 6 (Corse of Theoretical Physics) (Pergamon Press, 1987)

    work page 1987

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    M. P. Heller, R. A. Janik, and P. Witaszczyk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 211602 (2013), 1302.0697

    2013 arXiv

  2. [10]

    M. P. Heller and M. Spalinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 072501 (2015), 1503.07514

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Buchel, M

    A. Buchel, M. P. Heller, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D94, 106011 (2016), 1603.05344

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    G. S. Denicol and J. Noronha (2016), 1608.07869

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    M. P. Heller, A. Kurkela, M. Spaliski, and V. Svensson, Phys. Rev. D97, 091503 (2018), 1609.04803

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Romatschke, Phys

    P. Romatschke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 012301 (2018), 1704.08699

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Spaliski, Phys

    M. Spaliski, Phys. Lett. B776, 468 (2018), 1708.01921

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Strickland, J

    M. Strickland, J. Noronha, and G. Denicol, Phys. Rev. D97, 036020 (2018), 1709.06644

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Romatschke, JHEP 12, 079 (2017), 1710.03234

    P. Romatschke, JHEP 12, 079 (2017), 1710.03234

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Florkowski, M

    W. Florkowski, M. P. Heller, and M. Spalinski, Rept. Prog. Phys. 81, 046001 (2018), 1707.02282

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    F. S. Bemfica, M. M. Disconzi, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D98, 104064 (2018), 1708.06255

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    G. S. Denicol and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D97, 056021 (2018), 1711.01657

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Behtash, C

    A. Behtash, C. N. Cruz-Camacho, and M. Martinez, Phys. Rev. D97, 044041 (2018), 1711.01745

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Blaizot and L

    J.-P. Blaizot and L. Yan, Phys. Lett. B780, 283 (2018), 1712.03856

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Casalderrey-Solana, N

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, N. I. Gushterov, and B. Meiring, JHEP 04, 042 (2018), 1712.02772

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    M. P. Heller and V. Svensson, Phys. Rev. D98, 054016 (2018), 1802.08225

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Almaalol and M

    D. Almaalol and M. Strickland, Phys. Rev. C97, 044911 (2018), 1801.10173

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    G. S. Denicol and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D99, 116004 (2019), 1804.04771

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Casalderrey-Solana, C

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, C. P. Herzog, and B. Meiring, JHEP 01, 181 (2019), 1810.02314

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Behtash, C

    A. Behtash, C. N. Cruz-Camacho, S. Kamata, and M. Martinez (2018), 1805.07881

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Behtash, S

    A. Behtash, S. Kamata, M. Martinez, and H. Shi, Phys. Rev. D99, 116012 (2019), 1901.08632

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Strickland, JHEP 12, 128 (2018), 1809.01200

    M. Strickland, JHEP 12, 128 (2018), 1809.01200

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Strickland and U

    M. Strickland and U. Tantary (2019), 1903.03145

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Jaiswal, C

    S. Jaiswal, C. Chattopadhyay, A. Jaiswal, S. Pal, and U. Heinz (2019), 1907.07965

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Kurkela, U

    A. Kurkela, U. A. Wiedemann, and B. Wu (2019), 1907.08101

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J. D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev. D27, 140 (1983)

    1983

  27. [35]

    S. S. Gubser, Phys. Rev. D82, 085027 (2010), 1006.0006

    2010 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Niemi and G

    H. Niemi and G. S. Denicol (2014), 1404.7327

    2014 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Noronha-Hostler, J

    J. Noronha-Hostler, J. Noronha, and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. C93, 024909 (2016), 1508.02455

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Bozek, Phys

    P. Bozek, Phys. Rev. C85, 014911 (2012), 1112.0915

    2012 arXiv

  31. [39]

    R. D. Weller and P. Romatschke, Phys. Lett. B774, 351 (2017), 1701.07145

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Aidala et al

    C. Aidala et al. (PHENIX), Nature Phys. 15, 214 (2019), 1805.02973

    2019

  33. [41]

    Baier, P

    R. Baier, P. Romatschke, D. T. Son, A. O. Starinets, and M. A. Stephanov, JHEP 04, 100 (2008), 0712.2451

    2008 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Marrochio, J

    H. Marrochio, J. Noronha, G. S. Denicol, M. Luzum, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C91, 014903 (2015), 1307.6130

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    G. S. Denicol, U. W. Heinz, M. Martinez, J. Noronha, and M. Strickland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 202301 (2014), 1408.5646

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    G. S. Denicol, U. W. Heinz, M. Martinez, J. Noronha, and M. Strickland, Phys. Rev. D90, 125026 (2014), 1408.7048

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Israel and J

    W. Israel and J. M. Stewart, Ann. Phys. 118, 341 (1979)

    1979

  38. [46]

    Muronga, Phys

    A. Muronga, Phys. Rev. C69, 034903 (2004), nucl-th/0309055

    2004 arXiv

  39. [47]

    G. S. Denicol, H. Niemi, E. Molnar, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D85, 114047 (2012), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D91,no.3,039902(2015)], 1202.4551

    2012 arXiv

  40. [48]

    G. S. Denicol, E. Molnar, H. Niemi, and D. H. Rischke, Eur. Phys. J. A48, 170 (2012), 1206.1554

    2012 arXiv

  41. [49]

    G. S. Denicol, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C90, 024912 (2014), 1403.0962

    2014 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Withers, JHEP 06, 059 (2018), 1803.08058

    B. Withers, JHEP 06, 059 (2018), 1803.08058

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Grozdanov, P

    S. Grozdanov, P. K. Kovtun, A. O. Starinets, and P. Tadi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 251601 (2019), 1904.01018

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Grozdanov, P

    S. Grozdanov, P. K. Kovtun, A. O. Starinets, and P. Tadic (2019), 1904.12862

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    J. A. McLennan, Physics of Fluids 8, 1580 (1965)

    1965

  46. [54]

    Santos, J

    A. Santos, J. J. Brey, and J. W. Dufty, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1571 (1986), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.56.1571

    1986

  47. [55]

    S. R. D. Groot, Relativistic Kinetic Theory. Principles and Applications (Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-holland ( 1980) 417p, 1980)

    1980

  48. [56]

    Bazow, G

    D. Bazow, G. S. Denicol, U. Heinz, M. Martinez, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 022301 (2016), 1507.07834

    2016 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Bazow, G

    D. Bazow, G. S. Denicol, U. Heinz, M. Martinez, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D94, 125006 (2016), 1607.05245

    2016 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Xu and C

    Z. Xu and C. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C71, 064901 (2005), hep-ph/0406278

    2005 arXiv

  51. [59]

    A. El, Z. Xu, and C. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C81, 041901 (2010), 0907.4500

    2010 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Romatschke and U

    P. Romatschke and U. Romatschke, Relativistic Fluid Dynamics In and Out of Equilibrium , Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2019), ISBN 9781108483681, 9781108750028, 1712.05815, URL https://www.cambridge.org/academic/subjects/physics/theo...

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.