Noncovariant parabolic theories of relativistic diffusion

Lorenzo Gavassino

Noncovariant parabolic theories of relativistic diffusion

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A proposed noncovariant parabolic theory of relativistic diffusion is shown to have a truncation error that decays like sqrt(D/t) between observers, far slower than the D/t error of standard diffusion, but that stays finite as the…

desk verdict A careful, honest analysis that pins down the regime of validity of non-covariant parabolic diffusion; the error grows with v, not gamma, and no gamma-divergence appears. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18815 v2 pith:Z46EPF7X submitted 2025-05-24 gr-qc hep-thnucl-th

Lorenzo Gavassino This is my paper

classification gr-qchep-thnucl-th

keywords relativisticdiffusionnoncovariantparabolictheoriesrelativityofsimultaneitytruncationerrorLorentzboosthydrodynamicssoundwavesdispersionrelation

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 analyzes a recently proposed first-order relativistic diffusion theory whose equations are not exactly Lorentz-covariant: different observers are allowed to use parabolic equations that are only approximately boosted, to avoid the instabilities of exact Lorentz-boosted parabolic equations. The central question is how badly observers moving at nearly light speed relative to the medium disagree. The answer is that all disagreement comes from the relativity of simultaneity, which tilts the diffusion's instantaneous slices. The disagreement between the rest-frame and boosted observers decays only as sqrt(D/t), much slower than the D/t decay between the rest-frame theory and higher-order theories, but it remains finite as the boost velocity approaches the speed of light. The paper also shows that the time for the moving observer's equation to become reliable is Lorentz-dilated, not contracted.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the replacement rule obtained by using the leading-order equation of motion to eliminate time derivatives, converting the exactly boosted parabolic equation into the stable parabolic equation (5), and then analyzing the two dispersion relations of the resulting equation in the rest frame. The gapless dispersion relation is omega = -i D $k^{2}$ - 2v $D^{2}$ $k^{3}$ + O($k^{4}$), so its relative error against the microscopic relation is O(v D k). A theorem of Hiscock and Lindblom guarantees that only the gapless modes contribute after a kick at positive times, so the Fourier analysis cleanly isolates the truncation error.

What would settle it

Find a medium whose diffusive mode has a cubic term in its dispersion relation, for instance a chiral fluid or a fluid carrying a background flow, and compute the relative error of the boosted equation; if a $k^{3}$ term is present, the error becomes O(D k) rather than O(v D k), and the square-root hierarchy between the Alice-Bob and Alice-Cattaneo discrepancies collapses. Alternatively, in a parity-even kinetic-theory simulation of an expanding diffusive drop, measure the L1 discrepancy between the rest-frame and boosted solutions at late times; it should follow $t^{{-1/2}}$, while the discrepancy against the Cattaneo or SuperBurnett solution should follow $t^{{-1}}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the relative truncation error of the approximately boosted diffusion equation, evaluated in the medium's rest frame, is O(v D k) in Fourier space, which is the square root of the O($\beta$ $D^{2}$ $k^{2}$) error that separates ordinary diffusion from higher-order theories. Consequently the L1 discrepancy between the rest-frame observer (Alice) and the boosted observer (Bob) decays as const * $\sqrt$(D/t), while the discrepancy between Alice and Cattaneo or SuperBurnett decays as const * D/t. Because the error grows with powers of v and not with the Lorentz factor gamma, the disagreement remains finite in the limit v goes to 1, so there is no exchange-of-limits problem and a regime exists where all observers agree. For sound waves, the picture is analogous, with the additional feature that Bob's wavepacket barycenter is displaced by 2vD/(1+c_s v), making the outrunning observer noticeably worse than the one moving against the wave.

Load-bearing premise

The microscopic dispersion relation in the medium's rest frame is invariant under reversing the sign of the spatial wavenumber, so its Taylor expansion starts with $k^{2}$ followed by $k^{4}$ with no $k^{3}$ term.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The boosted observer's solution converges to the rest-frame solution only at times of order D/(v^2), much larger than the timescale on which higher-order corrections to ordinary diffusion become negligible.
Since the error stays finite as v approaches 1, a fast-moving observer's parabolic equation can be trusted at arbitrarily high boost, provided gradients are small enough.
The Lorentz-dilation result implies that existing estimates of the applicability of the noncovariant theory in moving frames need to be revised.
For sound waves, the direction of motion matters: an observer overtaking the wave carries a persistent barycenter offset, so the equation's accuracy depends on the sign of the relative velocity.

Reading between the lines

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

If a microscopic k^3 term exists (in a parity-violating or flowing medium), the claimed square-root hierarchy would break, and the boosted equation would be no more accurate than the rest-frame truncation; this is a concrete regime the paper does not explore.
The fact that all discrepancy is a simultaneity tilt suggests that a covariant completion of these theories would need to implement a frame-dependent delay, which could be tested against memory-function formulations of relativistic kinetic theory.
The predicted barycenter displacement in the sound-wave test offers a sharp observable: in a relativistic fluid simulation, a boosted observer's wavepacket peak should be shifted by 2vD/(1+c_s v) relative to the rest-frame position, a shift that survives to late times.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read Gavassino's paper on non-covariant parabolic diffusion. The headline result is that the truncation error of the boosted diffusion equation (5) relative to the rest-frame theory scales as O(Dk) and grows with v, not gamma, so the disagreement between observers stays finite as v -> 1. The paper also shows this produces a sqrt(D/t) late-time discrepancy, much slower than the D/t discrepancy between the rest-frame theory and higher-order theories like Cattaneo or SuperBurnett. That hierarchy is the real content: Bob's equation is "the square root" of ordinary diffusion in terms of error.

The analysis is clean. The Green function calculations (eqs. 7-10) are explicit, the Fourier-space argument in Section III is transparent, and the derivation of the sound-wave barycenter displacement (40) is new and nicely explained. The correction to the contracted-timescale claim in [21] is also a genuine contribution. The paper does not overclaim: it states the 1+1 linear limitation and the illustrative nature of the transport coefficients. The maths checks out; I re-derived the key dispersion relations and they are right.

Soft spots are minor. The evenness assumption in Sec. III A (Eq. 16) is the only fragile premise. If a k^3 term were present in the rest-frame dispersion relation, Alice's own truncation error would also be O(Dk) and the "Bob is much worse" hierarchy would weaken. But the assumption is explicit and standard for isotropic media, and the central gamma-finiteness claim survives regardless, because it comes from the boost-induced k^3 term in Eq. (19). The quantitative figures depend on chosen coefficients (beta=1, etc.), but the scaling arguments in Section III B are parameter independent. The L1 discrepancy function is a reasonable but ad hoc measure; other norms would give the same scalings.

Who is this for? Anyone working with non-covariant parabolic theories, especially the authors of [21] and people building on that program. It gives a quantitative benchmark for when (5) is safe to use and kills the gamma-divergence worry. It is not a broad-impact paper, but it is exactly the kind of careful follow-up that a proposed theory needs.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. It is a serious, self-aware analysis that will be useful to a specific community. I would cite it if I were writing about NCPTs.

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper investigates a recently proposed non-covariant parabolic theory of relativistic diffusion, in which different observers solve equations related only by an approximate Lorentz transformation. The central question is whether the truncation error of the boosted equation (5) diverges as the relative velocity approaches the speed of light. The author compares the predictions of an observer at rest in the medium (Alice, solving the standard diffusion equation) with a highly boosted observer (Bob, solving Eq. (5)), both for a point-like and a finite-size injected charge, and also in Fourier space. The main results are: (i) the Alice-Bob disagreement arises entirely from the relativity of simultaneity and contains no explicit Lorentz factor, so it remains finite as v tends to 1; (ii) in the rest frame the discrepancy scales as sqrt(D/t), which is much slower than the D/t discrepancy between the diffusion equation and the Cattaneo/SuperBurnett equations; (iii) the same qualitative behavior extends to sound waves, with a direction-dependent offset; and (iv) an apparent contradiction with [21] concerning local equilibration timescales in the moving frame is resolved by relativity of simultaneity. The paper also lists advantages and limitations of non-covariant parabolic theories.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper is a useful and non-obvious contribution to the debate on relativistic first-order theories of dissipation. The most valuable result is that the error of the approximately boosted parabolic equation is controlled by powers of v rather than by gamma, so there is a regime in which all boosted observers agree even though the equation is not exactly covariant. The derivation is transparent and internally consistent: the Green functions (10), (37), and the branch analysis in Appendix A are explicit and checkable, and the scaling arguments of Section IIIB are sound. The one fragile premise, evenness of the rest-frame dispersion relation under k to -k in Eq. (16), is explicitly stated and is the standard situation for isotropic equilibria; if it failed, the hierarchy against higher-order theories would change, but the central finiteness claim would survive. The paper is appropriately honest about its scope (1+1 linear problems) and about the limitations of NCPTs.

minor comments (4)

[Section II A, Eq. (8)] The factor 1/gamma multiplying the source delta may confuse readers, since the Lorentz invariant delta satisfies delta(t)delta(x)=delta(tilde t)delta(tilde x). It is, however, the correct S/gamma obtained by dividing the exactly boosted equation by gamma, and the resulting Green function (10) still has unit integral over Alice's constant-time hyperplanes. A one-sentence clarification would prevent a misreading.
[Section IV, Eq. (25)] The limiting mode e^{-tilde t/(4Dgamma)} for large partial tilde x is asserted without derivation; since this is the key step in resolving the apparent contradiction with [21], please provide the dispersion relation or a short derivation for this limit.
[Appendix A, Eq. (A2)] The branch of the square root should be specified when defining omega_Gapless and omega_Gapped; as written, the labels depend on the chosen branch cut, and a reader cannot reproduce the statement that the gapped mode has zero weight for t>0 without additional convention.
[General] There is a minor typographical issue in the phrase 'baricenter' (should be 'barycenter') in Section VI C; the text is otherwise clearly written and the figures are informative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's scaling claims are derived from explicit equations and compared with independent benchmarks, not from its inputs.

full rationale

This paper's central 'predictions' are internal consistency statements about a theory proposed elsewhere [21]. Alice's solution (7) and Bob's (10) are exact Green functions of (1) and (5); the discrepancy is read off directly from the change of variable t -> t + vx, so no fitted parameter converts an input into the claimed output. The Fourier-space hierarchy (17), (20), and the commutative limit (21) follow from the explicit dispersion relations (16) and (19), the latter obtained by solving (18); the evenness assumption in (16) is stated as a physical input for isotropic equilibria, not derived from the conclusion. The late-time D/t versus sqrt(D/t) decay is obtained by the standard estimate k^2 ~ (Dt)^-1 applied to those same expansions, using SuperBurnett (11) and Cattaneo (13) as independent benchmarks. Sections V and VI repeat the comparison for a smooth source and for sound waves, again from explicit Green functions and the Burnett equation (32). No step re-uses the target result as an input. The only self-citations that appear (e.g., [15] for the stability-causality theorem) are used to motivate the hyperbolic benchmarks or to frame background, and they are not load-bearing for the quantitative claims; the paper even corrects [21]'s earlier timescale estimate in Sec. IV, which shows it does not treat that prior work as an authority. The explicit limitation passages (Conclusions: 'formal scope ... limited to (1+1)-dimensional problems in the linear regime'; footnote 1: the instability claim is about generic initial data) are appropriate scope caveats, not admissions of circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities and no fitted transport parameters for its central claims. The quantitative comparisons use chosen values for higher-order coefficients (beta=1, beta=sqrt(2), c_s=1/sqrt(3)) that are not derived from a microscopic model, but the main scaling results are independent of these values. The key domain assumption is an isotropic rest-frame equilibrium leading to an even dispersion relation.

free parameters (3)

SuperBurnett coefficient beta = 1
Chosen in Section II B to fix a value for the third-order term in equation (11); affects quantitative agreement timescales but not scaling exponents.
Burnett coefficient beta = sqrt(2)
Chosen in Section VI for the sound-wave equation (32); affects numerical comparison in figure 4 but not the scaling analysis.
speed of sound c_s = 1/sqrt(3)
Chosen in Section VI as an illustrative ultra-relativistic value; not derived from a specific equation of state.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Microscopic dispersion relation is even under k to -k in the medium rest frame
Invoked in Section III A to write omega = -iDk^2 - i beta D^3 k^4 + O(k^6); this is standard for isotropic equilibrium but is load-bearing for the error hierarchy.
domain assumption Cattaneo, SuperBurnett, and Burnett equations are valid higher-order benchmark theories
Used throughout as 'more refined' models; they are standard but not re-derived here.
standard math Hiscock-Lindblom theorem: gapped modes vanish from the retarded Green function after injection
Applied in Section III A and Appendix A to discard the gapped branch of Bob's dispersion relation for t > 0.
domain assumption Late-time relaxation of hyperbolic theories to parabolic ones
Assumed in Sections IV and VII, cited to [19,25]; used to justify the relevance of the long-wavelength comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Noncovariant parabolic theories of relativistic diffusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z46EPF7X

@misc{pith2026250518815,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Noncovariant parabolic theories of relativistic diffusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z46EPF7X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18815}
}

read the original abstract

A new first-order theory of relativistic dissipation has been recently proposed, where viscous effects are incorporated using the traditional Navier-Stokes framework. Its main novelty is the avoidance of dynamical instabilities by allowing different observers to use equations that are not related by exact Lorentz transformations. In this work, we explore the implications of this non-covariance in depth. In particular, we discuss how predictions differ between observers moving at nearly luminal speeds relative to each other. We find that all disagreements stem from the relativity of simultaneity, which introduces frame-dependent anisotropic delays in the diffusive process. These anisotropies significantly limit the applicability of the equation used by observers who move very fast relative to the medium. However, the magnitude of the related error remains finite at infinite Lorentz factors, meaning that it is possible to find a regime where all observers agree on the outcome of experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18815 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Comparison between the Alice-Bob discrepancy (Red) and the Alice-Cattaneo discrepancy (Blue), as defined in (15). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Shape of a drop of charge of size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Propagation of a right-moving (initially point-like) sound wavepacket according to Alice (blue), Bob with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Minkowski diagram illustrating how to construct the retarded Green function of Bob [who uses (5)] starting from that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

Lorentz-boosted diffusion: initial value formulation and exact solutions
math-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Lorentz-boosted diffusion becomes a well-posed initial-value problem on a band-limited (Paley-Wiener) function space, with an exact closed-form Shannon-Whittaker Green function.
The diffusion equation is compatible with special relativity
gr-qc 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A relativistic kinetic theory (Vlasov–Fokker–Planck) has an exact subsector whose particle density evolves by Fick's law at all wavelengths, reconciling diffusion with causality and stability.
The initial data of effective field theories of relativistic viscous fluids and gravity
gr-qc 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Initial data for the unphysical modes in well-posed EFTs should be fixed by order reduction, which suppresses fast modes without altering the equations of motion.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[21]

Ba¸ sar, J

G. Ba¸ sar, J. Bhambure, R. Singh, and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. C 110, 044903 (2024), arXiv:2403.04185 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2024
[1]

Hiscock and L

W. Hiscock and L. Lindblom, Physical review D: Particles and fields 31, 725 (1985)

work page 1985
[2]

On the Causality and Stability of the Relativistic Diffusion Equation

P. Kost ¨adt and M. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 62, 023003 (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/0010276 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

work page Pith review arXiv 2000
[3]

Gavassino, M

L. Gavassino, M. Antonelli, and B. Haskell, Physical Review D 102 (2020), 10.1103/physrevd.102.043018

doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.043018 2020
[4]

Gavassino, Phys

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

arXiv 2023
[5]

C. Cattaneo, Sur une forme de l’´ equation de la chaleur ´ eliminant le paradoxe d’une propagation instantan´ ee, Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des s´ eances de l’Acad´ emie des sciences (Gauthier-Villars, 1958)

work page 1958
[6]

Israel and J

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

work page 1979
[7]

I. S. Liu, I. M ¨uller, and T. Ruggeri, Annals of Physics 169, 191 (1986)

work page 1986

Show all 43 references

[8]

Geroch and L

R. Geroch and L. Lindblom, Annals of Physics 207, 394 (1991). 14

1991
[9]

Baier, P

R. Baier, P. Romatschke, D. Thanh Son, A. O. Starinets, and M. A. Stephanov, Journal of High Energy Physics 2008, 100 (2008), arXiv:0712.2451 [hep-th]

2008 arXiv
[10]

G. S. Denicol, H. Niemi, E. Moln´ ar, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 85, 114047 (2012)

2012
[11]

Romatschke and U

P. Romatschke and U. Romatschke, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1712.05815 (2017), arXiv:1712.05815 [nucl-th]

2017 arXiv
[12]

Florkowski, M

W. Florkowski, M. P. Heller, and M. Spali´ nski, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 046001 (2018), arXiv:1707.02282 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[13]

Gavassino and M

L. Gavassino and M. Antonelli, Front. Astron. Space Sci. 8, 686344 (2021), arXiv:2105.15184 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[14]

Gavassino, M

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

2024 arXiv
[15]

Gavassino, Phys

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

2022
[16]

Rauch, Partial Differential Equations , Graduate Texts in Mathematics (Springer, New York, NY, 1991)

J. Rauch, Partial Differential Equations , Graduate Texts in Mathematics (Springer, New York, NY, 1991)

1991
[17]

R. M. Wald, General relativity (Chicago Univ. Press, Chicago, IL, 1984)

1984
[18]

Courant and D

R. Courant and D. Hilbert, Methods of Mathematical Physics, Vol 2: Partial Differential Equations (John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 1989)

1989
[19]

G. B. Nagy, O. E. Ortiz, and O. A. Reula, Journal of Mathematical Physics 35, 4334 (1994)

1994
[20]

Armas and A

J. Armas and A. Jain, SciPost Phys. 11, 054 (2021), arXiv:2010.15782 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[22]

Bhambure, R

J. Bhambure, R. Singh, and D. Teaney, (2024), arXiv:2412.10306 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[23]

Bhambure, A

J. Bhambure, A. Mazeliauskas, J.-F. Paquet, R. Singh, M. Singh, D. Teaney, and F. Zhou, (2024), arXiv:2412.10303 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[24]

Geroch, Journal of Mathematical Physics 36, 4226 (1995)

R. Geroch, Journal of Mathematical Physics 36, 4226 (1995)

1995
[25]

Lindblom, Annals of Physics 247, 1 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9508058 [gr-qc]

L. Lindblom, Annals of Physics 247, 1 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9508058 [gr-qc]

1996 arXiv
[26]

J. A. McLennan, Phys. Rev. A 8, 1479 (1973)

1973
[27]

Hartman, S

T. Hartman, S. A. Hartnoll, and R. Mahajan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 141601 (2017), arXiv:1706.00019 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[28]

M. P. Heller, A. Serantes, M. Spali´ nski, and B. Withers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 261601 (2023), arXiv:2212.07434 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[29]

Gavassino, Phys

L. Gavassino, Phys. Rev. D 110, 094012 (2024)

2024
[30]

Struchtrup and P

H. Struchtrup and P. Taheri, IMA Journal of Applied Mathematics 76, 672 (2011), https://academic.oup.com/imamat/article-pdf/76/5/672/1835580/hxr004.pdf

2011
[31]

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

2022
[32]

Kovtun, Journal of High Energy Physics 2019, 34 (2019), arXiv:1907.08191 [hep-th]

P. Kovtun, Journal of High Energy Physics 2019, 34 (2019), arXiv:1907.08191 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[33]

M. P. Heller, R. A. Janik, M. Spali´ nski, and P. Witaszczyk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 261601 (2014)

2014
[34]

Gavassino, Class

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

2023 arXiv
[35]

G. S. Denicol, J. Noronha, H. Niemi, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 83, 074019 (2011)

2011
[36]

Gavassino and M

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

2023 arXiv
[37]

Gavassino and J

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

2024 arXiv
[38]

Wagner and L

D. Wagner and L. Gavassino, Phys. Rev. D 109, 016019 (2024), arXiv:2309.14828 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[39]

R. E. Caflisch, Communications in Pure Applied Mathematics 32, 521 (1979)

1979
[40]

R. E. Caflisch and B. Nicolaenko, Communications in Mathematical Physics 86, 161 (1982)

1982
[41]

A. N. Kolmogorov, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A 434, 9 (1991)

1991
[42]

Falkovich and K

G. Falkovich and K. R. Sreenivasan, Physics Today 59, 43 (2006)

2006
[43]

L. C. Evans, Partial Differential Equations (American Mathematical Society, Berkeley, 1997)

1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [21]

Ba¸ sar, J

G. Ba¸ sar, J. Bhambure, R. Singh, and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. C 110, 044903 (2024), arXiv:2403.04185 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2024

[2] [1]

Hiscock and L

W. Hiscock and L. Lindblom, Physical review D: Particles and fields 31, 725 (1985)

work page 1985

[3] [2]

On the Causality and Stability of the Relativistic Diffusion Equation

P. Kost ¨adt and M. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 62, 023003 (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/0010276 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

work page Pith review arXiv 2000

[4] [3]

Gavassino, M

L. Gavassino, M. Antonelli, and B. Haskell, Physical Review D 102 (2020), 10.1103/physrevd.102.043018

doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.043018 2020

[5] [4]

Gavassino, Phys

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

arXiv 2023

[6] [5]

C. Cattaneo, Sur une forme de l’´ equation de la chaleur ´ eliminant le paradoxe d’une propagation instantan´ ee, Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des s´ eances de l’Acad´ emie des sciences (Gauthier-Villars, 1958)

work page 1958

[7] [6]

Israel and J

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

work page 1979

[8] [7]

I. S. Liu, I. M ¨uller, and T. Ruggeri, Annals of Physics 169, 191 (1986)

work page 1986