Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 60 references

Extending Israel-Stewart theory: Causal bulk viscosity at large gradients

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A class of bulk-viscous relativistic fluids keeps its equations causal and well-posed even under arbitrarily strong expansion, by forcing the total pressure to stay positive.

desk verdict Eq. (3) is misprinted and doesn't match its own derivative, but the intended Q is obvious and the core construction is worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12543 v2 pith:JAMOHGNW submitted 2025-01-21 gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-phnucl-th

Lorenzo Gavassino This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEhep-phnucl-th MSC 35L6076Y0583C55
keywords bulkviscosityrelativistichydrodynamicscausalitysymmetrichyperbolicityIsrael-Stewarttheorypolytropicfluiddominantenergyconditionlargegradients
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 constructs a four-parameter family of relativistic fluids with bulk viscosity that reduce to Israel-Stewart theory near equilibrium but remain symmetric hyperbolic and causal for arbitrarily large viscous stresses. The author proves that for all states with positive entropy, baryon density, and total pressure $P+\Pi$, the equations of motion preserve positivity, obey the dominant energy condition, have subluminal characteristic speeds, and are locally well-posed. This matters because standard Israel-Stewart theory becomes acausal when the bulk stress approaches minus the energy density, a regime that appears in violent flows such as early-time heavy-ion collisions, neutron-star mergers, and cosmological singularities. If the construction is correct, these models are safe for numerical simulation under exactly the extreme conditions that break other theories.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the constitutive identity linking the bulk viscosity to the function $Q$: the same parameter $a$ enters $\zeta = [a+(a+\Gamma)\Pi/P]P\tau$ and the differential equation $a(1+x)Q'(x)+(\Gamma-1)Q(x)-x=0$, whose solution is the explicit function (3). This function is non-negative, vanishes only at $\Pi=0$, and diverges as $\Pi\to -P$, which is the energy barrier that 'refuses' to let the total pressure become negative. The characteristic determinant (20) then yields the explicit speed formula (21), which is the quantitative expression of causality.

What would settle it

Take parameters inside the allowed triangle, set up smooth initial data with $\tilde\Pi = \Pi/P$ very close to $-1$ (e.g. $-0.999$) in a Bjorken or Hubble flow, and solve (4) numerically; if $P+\Pi$ ever crosses zero from above, or if the characteristic speed from (21) exceeds 1 at any finite time, the central claim is false. The same test can be done analytically for the Bjorken and Hubble solutions given in the paper, where the explicit solutions show $\tilde\Pi>-1$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the class of models defined by the constitutive relations (2) and the equations of motion (4), with parameters in the allowed triangle of figure 1, has fully nonlinear equations that are symmetric hyperbolic and causal for every state with $s>0$, $n>0$, and $P+\Pi>0$. The proof rests on Theorem 2: for the chosen bulk viscosity $\zeta = [a+(a+\Gamma)\Pi/P]P\tau$, the combination $P+\Pi$ satisfies $d(P+\Pi)/dt = -\Pi/\tau - (a+\Gamma)(P+\Pi)\nabla_\mu u^\mu$, so at the boundary $P+\Pi=0$ the derivative is $P/\tau>0$; the boundary can only be crossed from below. The energy density contains the non-equilibrium term $P Q(\Pi/P)$, where $Q(x)$ diverges as $x\to -1^+$, an infinite energy barrier that makes the region $P+\Pi>0$ an invariant set. From this, the dominant energy condition and the characteristic speed $w^2 = (a+\Gamma)(1+\tilde\Pi)/(1+\tilde\Pi+\tilde\rho)$ are shown to stay subluminal, and the reduced system is found to be symmetric hyperbolic. The author also shows the near-equilibrium limit reproduces Israel-Stewart theory, so the new models are an extrapolation rather than a replacement.

Load-bearing premise

The global theorems depend on the specific choice $\zeta = [a+(a+\Gamma)\Pi/P]P\tau$; with a different $\Pi$-dependence of the bulk viscosity, such as the constant $\zeta$ of standard Israel-Stewart theory, the boundary $P+\Pi=0$ is not repulsive and the positivity, causality, and hyperbolicity results can fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Numerical codes using these models can run Bjorken or Hubble-type flows to arbitrarily early times or large expansion rates without encountering acausal behavior, since $P+\Pi$ is repelled from zero.
  • The initial value problem is locally well-posed for all admissible states, including coupling to Einstein's equations, so the models can be used in relativistic hydrodynamic simulations of mergers and cosmology.
  • The second law of thermodynamics holds exactly along every flow, not just near equilibrium, because the entropy evolution is driven by the non-negative quantity $\tilde\Pi Q'(\tilde\Pi)$.
  • Near equilibrium the bulk viscosity coefficient can be matched to an arbitrarily complicated function $\zeta(s,n)$ by choosing $\tau(s,n)$, so the model can reproduce kinetic-theory transport coefficients while remaining well-behaved far from equilibrium.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same barrier construction might generalize to other dissipative channels: choosing a non-negative 'out-of-equilibrium free energy' that diverges at the admissible boundary, and a transport coefficient designed so the boundary is repulsive, could make shear viscosity and heat conduction also well-posed at large gradients.
  • The author's announced extension to 'hot' matter at zero chemical potential is a natural test: the proofs here rely only on the algebraic structure of $Q$ and $\zeta$, so a temperature-dependent pressure version will likely need a new $Q$ satisfying a similar differential equation.
  • Since the causality proof depends on the dominant energy condition, a numerical experiment that drives a flow very close to $P+\Pi=0$ and monitors the sound-channel speed would provide a direct check of the bound $w^2<1$.
  • If one wanted to model substances with negative total pressure (metastable states), the barrier would need to be shifted to a negative threshold; the current model forbids such states by construction.
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 constructs a class of relativistic bulk-viscous polytropic fluids designed to remain causal and symmetric hyperbolic even when the viscous stress Π becomes comparable to the equilibrium pressure P. The constitutive relations assign a non-equilibrium energy density P Q(Π/P) whose purported role is to make the region Π → −P energetically prohibitive. The equations of motion are shown, in Sections IV and V, to preserve positivity of s, n, and P+Π, to satisfy the dominant energy condition, to have subluminal characteristic speeds, and to be symmetric hyperbolic throughout the state space s>0, n>0, P+Π>0. Closed-form solution tests are provided for Bjorken expansion, Hubble expansion, and a Big-Rip singularity. The central claim is that this class of models is safe for numerical simulation under arbitrarily large gradients, where standard Israel-Stewart theory becomes acausal.

Significance. If the constitutive relations were correctly specified, the paper would provide a genuinely useful class of bulk-viscous fluid models for numerical relativity, heavy-ion collisions, and cosmology, with explicit proofs of positivity, energy conditions, causality, and well-posedness. The proofs in Section IV are largely self-contained, with explicit Sylvester checks and a clean zero-crossing argument. The closed-form solutions in Section V give falsifiable predictions that can be tested in simulations. However, the central constitutive function Q in Eq. (3) is not real-valued on the claimed domain, so as printed the model is not defined and the theorems are not established. This is a load-bearing defect, though it appears to be repairable if the intended Q is the unique solution of the stated ODE.

major comments (2)
  1. [II.A, Eq. (3)] As printed, the function Q is not real-valued on (−1, +∞). For x>0, the base (1+x)^(−(Γ−1)/a) − 1 is negative, and raising a negative number to the fractional exponent a+Γ−1 ∈ (0,1) does not give a real number. For example, Γ=4/3, a=1/3, x=1 gives a non-real value, contradicting the requirement that Q map into [0, +∞) and the plot in Fig. 2. Moreover, the displayed expression for Q′ is not the derivative of the displayed Q. The unique solution of the differential equation a(1+x)Q′ + (Γ−1)Q − x = 0 with Q(0)=0 is Q(x) = (1+x)/(a+Γ−1) − 1/(Γ−1) + a(1+x)^(−(Γ−1)/a)/[(Γ−1)(a+Γ−1)]. Since Q enters the energy density (2), the entropy-production equation (16), the dominant-energy-condition proof, and the definition of the model, Eq. (3) must be corrected and all subsequent identities re-verified.
  2. [IV.B, Eq. (18)] Eq. (18) is stated to follow from Eq. (3) by rearrangement. With the printed Q this is not the case, because the printed Q does not satisfy the identities used. Once Q is corrected to the unique solution of the ODE, the factorization of F must be recomputed. Until this is done, the proof of Theorem 3 is incomplete. This is not a cosmetic issue, because Theorem 3 is used in the causality bound (21) and in the positive-definiteness check in Appendix C.
minor comments (4)
  1. [IV.C, Eq. (20)] The characteristic determinant is asserted without derivation. Since it is the central ingredient of Theorem 4, please include the computation or give a precise reference to where this determinant is evaluated.
  2. [Fig. 2] After correcting Eq. (3), please verify that the plotted curves are generated from the corrected formula; the current plot cannot correspond to the printed Q.
  3. [Eq. (3)] The typographical presentation of Eq. (3) is ambiguous and should be clarified, especially the placement of the exponent and denominator.
  4. [V.C, Eq. (29)] In the Big-Rip solution, please specify the branch of the exponential integral Ei used so that the solution is unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the constitutive relations are explicitly constructed, and the central theorems are proven within the paper rather than imported from self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are Theorems 2-5, all proven in Sections IV.A-D from the explicitly stated constitutive relations (2)-(4). The choice of ζ is transparently designed so that the combined evolution equation (15) has d(P+Π)/dt = P/τ > 0 at P+Π=0, making a positive-total-pressure invariant region; the paper itself says this was 'the end goal that guided us towards equations (2) and (3) in the first place.' That is model construction, not a hidden fit: no parameter is adjusted to a data subset and no 'prediction' is renamed as an output. The causality proof (Theorem 4) follows from the chosen constitutive relations via the characteristic determinant, and the symmetric-hyperbolicity proof (Theorem 5) is self-contained; neither step reduces to a self-citation. Self-citations appear in Section III.B, where the information current and linear stability statements are imported from references [43,44,48,49,51-53], but these concern linearized stability and stochastic extensions, not the paper's load-bearing nonlinear existence claims; even if those citations were set aside, Theorems 2-5 remain established by the in-paper computations. The paper is therefore self-contained against its own stated premises. The alleged inconsistency of Eq. (3) raised by an external comment, if valid, is a mathematical-correctness issue, not a circularity issue, and does not change the circularity assessment.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical fields or particles beyond the bulk viscous stress Pi already present in Israel-Stewart theory. The non-equilibrium energy correction P Q(Pi/P) is a new constitutive function, not an entity. The central claim rests on six free constants/functions that define the model family and on seven background assumptions: the polytropic EOS, minimum-energy thermodynamics, the standard flux forms, the Israel-Stewart relaxation dynamics, the entropy production ansatz, the thermodynamic consistency constraint on Q, and imported linear-stability theorems.

free parameters (6)
  • m
    Constituent mass, positive constant. Sets the rest-mass energy scale; not fitted to data.
  • K
    Polytropic constant, positive. Sets the pressure scale; not fitted.
  • Gamma
    Adiabatic index constrained to (1,2). Exponent in P=K n^Gamma; chosen within the allowed triangle for the theorems.
  • a
    Viscosity parameter constrained to (0,1) with a+Gamma-1 in (0,1). Controls the strength of the non-equilibrium barrier and the sound speed; not fitted.
  • e_th(s)
    Thermal energy function, arbitrary positive C^1 with e_th' and e_th'' positive. Free function storing heat; constrained by convexity.
  • tau(s,n,Pi)
    Relaxation time, arbitrary positive C^1 function. Controls the bulk viscosity near equilibrium; must be positive.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Polytropic equilibrium equation of state P=K n^Gamma
    Defines the equilibrium pressure in terms of baryon density only, appropriate for cold matter (Section II.A).
  • standard math Local equilibrium minimizes energy density at constant n and s (Callen's minimum energy principle)
    Used to require Q(x)>=0 with a minimum at x=0 (Section II.B).
  • domain assumption Stress-energy tensor, baryon current, and entropy current take the standard bulk-viscous form T^{mu nu}=rho u^mu u^nu+(P+Pi)Delta^{mu nu}, J^mu=n u^mu, s^mu=s n u^mu
    Defines the relativistic fluid description (Section II.C).
  • ad hoc to paper The relaxation equation for Pi is the Israel-Stewart equation with zeta chosen as in (2)
    This is the model's postulated dynamics, not derived from a microscopic theory.
  • ad hoc to paper Entropy production is assigned to the s-field via u^mu grad_mu s = Pi Q'(Pi/P)/(n T tau)
    Chosen to enforce the second law exactly; the form is model-specific.
  • domain assumption The consistency condition a(1+x)Q'+(Gamma-1)Q-x=0, derived from requiring the first law u^mu grad_mu rho=-(rho+P+Pi) grad_mu u^mu
    Thermodynamic consistency requirement that constrains the form of Q (Section II.B).
  • domain assumption The linear stability theorems of Gavassino et al. (universality class results) are imported
    Used in Section III.B to conclude stability and linear causality; not proven in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extending Israel-Stewart theory: Causal bulk viscosity at large gradients." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JAMOHGNW

@misc{pith2026250112543,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extending Israel-Stewart theory: Causal bulk viscosity at large gradients},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JAMOHGNW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12543}
}
abstract

We present a class of relativistic fluid models for cold and dense matter with bulk viscosity, whose equilibrium equation of state is polytropic. These models reduce to Israel-Stewart theory for small values of the viscous stress $\Pi$. However, when $\Pi$ becomes comparable to the equilibrium pressure $P$, the evolution equations "adjust" to prevent the onset of far-from-equilibrium pathologies that would otherwise plague Israel-Stewart. Specifically, the equations of motion remain symmetric hyperbolic and causal at all times along any continuously differentiable flow, and across the whole thermodynamic state space. This means that, no matter how fast the fluid expands or contracts, the hydrodynamic equations are always well-behaved (away from singularities). The second law of thermodynamics is enforced exactly. Near equilibrium, these models can accommodate an arbitrarily complicated dependence of the bulk viscosity coefficient $\zeta$ on both density and temperature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12543 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Values of the parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Graph of the function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Evolution of the bulk pressure ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Evolution of the bulk pressure ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Evolution of the bulk pressure ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Evolution of pressure and energy along a violent cycle of compression and expansion, according to equation (31). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. High-density speed of information [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Landau and E

    L. Landau and E. Lifshitz, Statistical Physics, v. 5, Third Edition (Pergamon Press, 1980)

    work page 1980

  2. [2]

    Tisza, Phys

    L. Tisza, Phys. Rev. 61, 531 (1942)

    work page 1942

  3. [3]

    Landau and E

    L. Landau and E. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics, v. 6, Second Edition (Pergamon Press, 1987)

    work page 1987

  4. [4]

    Huang, T

    X.-G. Huang, T. Kodama, T. Koide, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. C 83, 024906 (2011), arXiv:1010.4359 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    Gavassino, M

    L. Gavassino, M. Antonelli, and B. Haskell, Classical and Quantum Gravity 38, 075001 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    General-relativistic hydrodynamics of non-perfect fluids: 3+1 conservative formulation and application to viscous black-hole accretion

    M. Chabanov, L. Rezzolla, and D. H. Rischke, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 505, 5910 (2021), arXiv:2102.10419 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Camelio, L

    G. Camelio, L. Gavassino, M. Antonelli, S. Bernuzzi, and B. Haskell, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103031 (2023), arXiv:2204.11809 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Camelio, L

    G. Camelio, L. Gavassino, M. Antonelli, S. Bernuzzi, and B. Haskell, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103032 (2023), arXiv:2204.11810 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Celora, I

    T. Celora, I. Hawke, P. C. Hammond, N. Andersson, and G. L. Comer, Phys. Rev. D 105, 103016 (2022), arXiv:2202.01576 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Gavassino, Class

    L. Gavassino, Class. Quant. Grav. 40, 165008 (2023), arXiv:2304.05455 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Gavassino and J

    L. Gavassino and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D 109, 096040 (2024), arXiv:2305.04119 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    R. F. Sawyer, Phys. Rev. D39, 3804 (1989)

    1989

  5. [13]

    M. G. Alford, S. Mahmoodifar, and K. Schwenzer, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics 37, 125202 (2010), arXiv:1005.3769 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  6. [14]

    M. G. Alford, M. Braby, and A. Schmitt, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics 35, 115007 (2008), arXiv:0806.0285 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  7. [15]

    M. G. Alford, L. Bovard, M. Hanauske, L. Rezzolla, and K. Schwenzer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 041101 (2018), arXiv:1707.09475 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    E. R. Most, S. P. Harris, C. Plumberg, M. G. Alford, J. Noronha, J. Noronha-Hostler, F. Pretorius, H. Witek, and N. Yunes, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 509, 1096 (2021), arXiv:2107.05094 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Y. Yang, M. Hippert, E. Speranza, and J. Noronha, EPJ Web Conf. 296, 03003 (2024), arXiv:2312.09364 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Weinberg, ApJ 168, 175 (1971)

    S. Weinberg, ApJ 168, 175 (1971)

    1971

  11. [19]

    W. A. Hiscock and J. Salmonson, Phys. Rev. D 43, 3249 (1991)

    1991

  12. [20]

    Ilg and H

    P. Ilg and H. C. ¨Ottinger, Phys. Rev. D 61, 023510 (1999)

    1999

  13. [21]

    Maartens, Classical and Quantum Gravity 12, 1455 (1995)

    R. Maartens, Classical and Quantum Gravity 12, 1455 (1995)

    1995

  14. [22]

    Zimdahl, Phys

    W. Zimdahl, Phys. Rev. D 53, 5483 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9601189 [astro-ph]

    1996 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J. C. Fabris, S. V. B. Gon¸ calves, and R. D. S. Ribeiro, General Relativity and Gravitation 38, 495 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0503362 [astro-ph]

    2006

  16. [24]

    Colistete, R., J

    J. Colistete, R., J. C. Fabris, J. Tossa, and W. Zimdahl, Phys. Rev. D 76, 103516 (2007), arXiv:0706.4086 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Song and U

    H. Song and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 81, 024905 (2010), arXiv:0909.1549 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Dusling and T

    K. Dusling and T. Sch ¨afer, Phys. Rev. C 85, 044909 (2012), arXiv:1109.5181 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Ryu, J.-F

    S. Ryu, J.-F. Paquet, C. Shen, G. S. Denicol, B. Schenke, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 132301 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Stephanov and Y

    M. Stephanov and Y. Yin, Phys. Rev. D 98, 036006 (2018), arXiv:1712.10305 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Israel and J

    W. Israel and J. Stewart, Annals of Physics 118, 341 (1979)

    1979

  22. [30]

    W. A. Hiscock and L. Lindblom, Annals of Physics 151, 466 (1983)

    1983

  23. [31]

    F. S. Bemfica, M. M. Disconzi, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 221602 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Plumberg, D

    C. Plumberg, D. Almaalol, T. Dore, J. Noronha, and J. Noronha-Hostler, Phys. Rev. C 105, L061901 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    F. S. Bemfica, M. M. Disconzi, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. X 12, 021044 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    F. S. Bemfica, M. M. Disconzi, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D 98, 104064 (2018), arXiv:1708.06255 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Gavassino, Phys

    L. Gavassino, Phys. Rev. X 12, 041001 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Maartens and V

    R. Maartens and V. Mendez, Phys. Rev. D 55, 1937 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9611205

    1997 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Christodoulou, arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.00828 (2017)

    D. Christodoulou, arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.00828 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Merle, P

    F. Merle, P. Rapha ¨el, I. Rodnianski, and J. Szeftel, Annals of Mathematics 196, 567 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    M. M. Disconzi, Living Rev. Rel. 27, 6 (2024), arXiv:2308.09844 [math.AP]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    M. M. Disconzi, V. Hoang, and M. Radosz, (2020), 10.1007/s11005-023-01677-9, arXiv:2008.03841 [math.AP]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Rezzolla and O

    L. Rezzolla and O. Zanotti, Relativistic Hydrodynamics, by L. Rezzolla and O. Zanotti. Oxford University Press,

  34. [42]

    H. B. Callen, Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics; 2nd ed.(Wiley, New York, NY, 1985)

    1985

  35. [43]

    Gavassino, Classical and Quantum Gravity 38, 21LT02 (2021), arXiv:2104.09142 [gr-qc]

    L. Gavassino, Classical and Quantum Gravity 38, 21LT02 (2021), arXiv:2104.09142 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Gavassino, M

    L. Gavassino, M. Antonelli, and B. Haskell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 010606 (2022), arXiv:2105.14621 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Gavassino and M

    L. Gavassino and M. Antonelli, Classical and Quantum Gravity 40, 075012 (2023), arXiv:2209.12865 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Gavassino, Classical and Quantum Gravity 39, 185008 (2022), arXiv:2202.06760 [gr-qc]

    L. Gavassino, Classical and Quantum Gravity 39, 185008 (2022), arXiv:2202.06760 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Gavassino, Phys

    L. Gavassino, Phys. Lett. B 840, 137854 (2023), arXiv:2301.06651 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Gavassino, M

    L. Gavassino, M. M. Disconzi, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 222302 (2024), arXiv:2302.03478 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Gavassino, M

    L. Gavassino, M. M. Disconzi, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D 109, 096041 (2024), arXiv:2302.05332 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis (Cambridge University Press, 1985)

    1985

  43. [51]

    Gavassino, Phys

    L. Gavassino, Phys. Rev. D 107, 065013 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Mullins, M

    N. Mullins, M. Hippert, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D 108, 076013 (2023), arXiv:2306.08635 [nucl-th]. 14

    2023

  45. [53]

    Gavassino, N

    L. Gavassino, N. Mullins, and M. Hippert, Phys. Rev. D 109, 125002 (2024), arXiv:2402.06776 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Rajagopal and N

    K. Rajagopal and N. Tripuraneni, JHEP 03, 018 (2010), arXiv:0908.1785 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Habich and P

    M. Habich and P. Romatschke, JHEP 12, 054 (2014), arXiv:1405.1978 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Byres, S

    M. Byres, S. H. Lim, C. McGinn, J. Ouellette, and J. L. Nagle, Phys. Rev. C 101, 044902 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    J. D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev. D 27, 140 (1983)

    1983

  51. [59]

    Becattini, Acta Physica Polonica B 47, 1819 (2016), arXiv:1606.06605 [gr-qc]

    F. Becattini, Acta Physica Polonica B 47, 1819 (2016), arXiv:1606.06605 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  52. [2013]

    ISBN-10: 0198528906; ISBN-13: 978-0198528906(2013)

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.