Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Entropy production at electroweak bubble walls from scalar field fluctuations

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Electroweak bubble walls generate entropy even when the scalar friction coefficient is zero, so the local-thermal-equilibrium upper bound on the wall velocity cannot be saturated.

desk verdict A careful, self-contained calculation showing entropy production at electroweak bubble walls is nonzero even at zero friction; the main caveat is the plausibility of the scale hierarchy in realistic models. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07755 v2 pith:ZH2SQXFD submitted 2025-07-10 hep-ph

M. Eriksson , M. Laine This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords electroweakphasetransitionbubblewallvelocityentropyproductionlocalthermalequilibriumLangevindynamicsscalarfieldfluctuationsfirst-ordergravitationalwaves
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 targets a standard shortcut in cosmological phase-transition studies: assuming the plasma around an electroweak bubble wall is in local thermal equilibrium, so that the entropy current is continuous across the wall. The authors argue that this shortcut cannot be realized: even when the friction coefficient acting on the scalar order parameter is sent to zero, scalar-field fluctuations produce a finite entropy discontinuity across the wall, eq. (3.46). The argument runs through a Langevin description of the scalar field valid between hydrodynamic and kinetic scales, and the same discontinuity is recovered from collisionless kinetic theory as a 1 to 1 "ballistic" force. If the claim is right, LTE-based upper bounds on the bubble wall velocity are strict upper bounds and cannot be saturated; actual hydrodynamic matching must include the fluctuation-generated entropy term.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the retarded Green's function $G_R$ of the linearized Langevin operator for the scalar fluctuation $\delta h$, with the noise autocorrelator fixed by the fluctuation-dissipation relation $\Omega = 2T\Upsilon$. In a planar wall geometry $G_R$ is partially Fourier transformed in time and transverse space, and the entropy source is written as an integral over $G_R$ and its derivatives, eq. (3.34). After the boundary terms are shown to cancel, the remaining contribution comes from the integral over the wall of $(\partial_z m^2)$ times the fluctuation "tadpole" $\int_q n_B(\varepsilon_q)/(2\varepsilon_q)$, which produces eq. (3.46). The same expression is then rederived in kinetic theory, where the force on particles traversing the wall is $-\frac12(\partial_z m^2)\partial_{k_z}$, so the entropy production is identified as the 1 to 1 ballistic force.

What would settle it

Run the Langevin equation (2.14) across a planar wall with the white-noise autocorrelator $\Omega = 2T\Upsilon$, extract $\Delta s_{uz}$ for a decreasing sequence of $\Upsilon$, and look at the limit; the paper predicts the finite value (3.46) with the sign set by $(m^2)_- - (m^2)_+$, while LTE saturation would require zero. If the extracted limit is zero, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the entropy discontinuity $\Delta s_{uz}$ across a planar electroweak bubble wall is nonvanishing in the limit of zero friction coefficient, with the explicit value $$\$\Delta$ s_{uz} \approx \gamma v\,[($m^{2}$)_- - ($m^{2}$)_+]\, T \int_q \frac{n_B(\varepsilon_q)}{2\varepsilon_q},$$ where the subscript signs denote values on the two sides of the wall and $\int_q n_B(\varepsilon_q)/(2\varepsilon_q)$ is the thermal tadpole integral. The authors derive this by solving the linearized Langevin equation for the fluctuation $\delta h$, computing the second-order source of the entropy current $T(su^\mu)_{,\mu}$, and integrating it across the wall; boundary terms cancel and the surviving contribution is proportional to the spatial variation of the scalar mass. They confirm eq. (3.46) from the Liouville equation in the collisionless limit, matching the 1 to 1 force known from kinetic theory, and conclude that the entropy production cannot be switched off by taking $\Upsilon \to 0$.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's result rests on treating the scalar field between the hydrodynamic and kinetic scales by a Langevin equation with white noise whose strength is fixed by $\Omega = 2T\Upsilon$; if that effective description fails, the zero-friction entropy discontinuity does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An LTE-based upper bound on the bubble wall velocity cannot be saturated; the true steady-state velocity is strictly below the bound for a given nucleation temperature.
  • Hydrodynamic matching across the wall must include a nonzero $\Delta s_{uz}$, which supplies the missing information that ideal hydrodynamics leaves undetermined.
  • Effective descriptions that add a scalar field to fluctuating hydrodynamics should retain the fluctuation contribution to the entropy current even when the friction coefficient is small.
  • The size of the effect is set by the jump in the scalar thermal mass across the wall and by the thermal tadpole integral, so it is present for any first-order electroweak transition with a light scalar degree of freedom.
  • Predictions that rely on the wall velocity, such as gravitational-wave spectra from first-order electroweak transitions, shift relative to LTE-based estimates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A numerical check not reported in the paper would be to evolve the Langevin equation (2.14) for a planar wall with $\Omega = 2T\Upsilon$ and extract $\Delta s_{uz}$ as $\Upsilon$ is decreased; the paper's formula predicts a finite limit, and seeing zero would overturn the claim.
  • The same mechanism should apply to any first-order cosmological phase transition with a light scalar order parameter, not just the electroweak case, since the derivation only uses the scale hierarchy and the fluctuation-dissipation relation.
  • The Rayleigh-Jeans UV divergence of the intermediate classical description in eq. (3.20) means that quantitative values of $\Delta s_{uz}$ depend on the regularization of the tadpole; the paper notes the issue but does not resolve it, so a full quantum computation or lattice simulation would be the next step.
  • At finite friction the entropy production may not be simply additive in the friction and fluctuation terms, so the zero-friction result should be treated as a benchmark rather than the full answer; the paper does not derive the finite-$\Upsilon$ form.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript addresses the missing information left by ideal-hydrodynamics matching across an electroweak bubble wall, parametrized by the entropy discontinuity Δs_uz. Treating the scalar order parameter as a fluctuating Langevin field with friction Υ and noise autocorrelator Ω=2TΥ, valid between the hydrodynamic and kinetic-theory scales (eq. (2.13)), the authors compute the fluctuation contribution to the entropy-current source (eqs. (3.24)–(3.26)). The boundary terms cancel (eq. (3.44)), while a mass-gradient term survives, giving the central result, eq. (3.46): Δs_uz ≈ γv[(m²)_- − (m²)_+] T ∫_q n_B(ε_q)/(2ε_q), which remains non-vanishing in the limit Υ→0. Section 3.6 reproduces the same expression from the collisionless Boltzmann (Liouville) equation with f approximated by the equilibrium distribution f0, identifying the effect with the 1→1 'ballistic' force of ref. [62]. The paper concludes that LTE-based upper bounds on the bubble-wall velocity are strict and cannot be saturated.

Significance. If the result holds, it settles a conceptual point in the bubble-wall literature: even with vanishing friction the scalar fluctuations generate a positive entropy discontinuity, so the LTE solution with Δs=0 is not realized and LTE-based upper bounds on v_w cannot be attained. The paper's strengths are the explicit and self-contained Langevin calculation, including the careful boundary-term analysis in §3.5 and the closed contour integrals in (3.19); the independent kinetic-theory cross-check in §3.6 that ties the result to the known ballistic 1→1 force of ref. [62]; and the transparent statement of the postulates (2.13)–(2.15). The result is in principle falsifiable through direct kinetic-theory or lattice computations of wall propagation. As printed, however, the main equation carries an apparent dimensional inconsistency (major comment 1), and the numerical coefficient is fixed only by an a posteriori UV matching to kinetic theory and by the validity of the postulated scale hierarchy; these issues need to be resolved before the quantitative claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.5, eq. (3.46); §3.6, eq. (3.53)] Equations (3.46) and (3.53), as printed, appear to contain a spurious factor of T in the main result: Δs_uz must have mass dimension 3, whereas γv[(m²)_- − (m²)_+] T ∫_q n_B(ε_q)/(2ε_q) has mass dimension 5. Working through the displayed chain, (3.45) gives Δ(iii/b)_suz = (u_z/2)[(m²)_+ − (m²)_-] ∫^(Λ)_q 1/ε²_q, and with the regulator (3.23) this equals u_z/(2T)[(m²)_+ − (m²)_-]∫_q n_B(ε_q)/ε_q, i.e., the factor T in (3.46) should be 1/T (equivalently, the integral should read ∫_q n_B(ε_q)/(2Tε_q)). The same correction applies to (3.53), whose direct derivation from (3.52) with f≈f0 gives u^z/(2T)[(m²)_+ − (m²)_-]∫_q n_B(ε)/ε. The sentence after (3.53) corroborates this: 'eq. (3.46), multiplied by T, agrees with the force per area ... [62, eq. (3.7)]' is dimensionally consistent only with the corrected expression, which gives γv times the known 1→1 force, whereas the printed expression would disagree by a factor T². Please check the source file for a T ↔ 1/T typo and update the abstract and conclusions if the numerical coefficient is affected.
  2. [§3.2, eqs. (3.20)–(3.23)] The UV-finite coefficient of the main result is not determined by the classical Langevin dynamics alone. As eqs. (3.20)–(3.23) show, the spatial momentum integral in (3.20) is UV divergent (Rayleigh–Jeans), and the regulator (3.23) is imposed a posteriori by matching to the quantum Bose–Einstein expression (3.22). Thus the quantitative content of (3.46), namely the factor n_B and the overall normalization, is imported from kinetic theory, while the Langevin equation with the classical fluctuation–dissipation relation (2.15) supplies only the ε_q n_B(ε_q)/T ≈ 1 (equipartition) form. The qualitative conclusion (positive Δs in the Υ→0 limit) is independent of the regulator, but the abstract's claim of determining the entropy production 'within a framework of Langevin dynamics' should be qualified: the coefficient follows from the kinetic-theory matching, not from the effective theory itself.
  3. [§2.3, eq. (2.13)] The Langevin description (2.14)–(2.15) is only as controlled as the scale hierarchy (2.13), which is explicitly postulated in §2.3 and requires in particular m_h ≪ gT. For typical strongly first-order electroweak transitions the thermal Higgs mass at the transition is of order gT, so the hierarchy is marginal at best. If it fails, the noise is non-Markovian and Υ and Ω become frequency- and momentum-dependent; the simple pole structure used in (3.15) and (3.19), and the cancellations leading to (3.44)–(3.46), would then receive O(1) corrections within the Langevin approach. The kinetic-theory derivation of §3.6 is independent of the hierarchy and supports the result, but this robustness argument is never made in the paper. The text should state explicitly that (3.46) is expected to survive via the kinetic-theory route even when (2.13) is not well satisfied, and should discuss the magnitude of possible corrections.
  4. [§3.6, eqs. (3.21), (3.52)–(3.53)] In the kinetic-theory confirmation, the distribution function is replaced by the equilibrium Bose distribution f0 of eq. (3.21) even though the calculation is performed in the strict collisionless limit (3.47), in which the actual solution of the Liouville equation is a free-streaming, non-thermal distribution. The approximation is introduced only in passing ('By approximating f with f0...') and is uncontrolled except insofar as the final expression agrees with ref. [62]. Together with the single-species restriction noted in the final paragraph of §3.6, this should be presented as an explicit limitation of the cross-check, especially because the cross-check carries part of the evidential weight for the main result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3–§3.5, eqs. (3.25)–(3.29), (3.45)] The symbol O1 is used inconsistently: in (3.25) the overbrace '≡ O1(X)' covers the full friction-renormalization brace, while (3.27)–(3.29) compute only the fluctuation-induced correction, and the step labeled '(3.25)' in (3.45) uses O1 ≡ ¯Ω∫G_R². Please define O1 unambiguously and fix the cross-references.
  2. [§3.5, eqs. (3.34)–(3.36)] The mapping of (3.34) onto the grouped terms (i)–(iii) in (3.36) is hard to follow, in particular the treatment of the contact term δ(z−y³) from the equation of motion and the struck-through cancellations; a brief explanatory sentence would improve readability.
  3. [Abstract; §2.3, eq. (2.13)] The abstract quotes the hydrodynamic scale as k ∼ g⁴T/π³, whereas eq. (2.13) states it as α²T; please clarify the correspondence between the two notations.
  4. [§3.5–§4] The paper does not quantify the size of (3.46) relative to the entropy flux sγv; a representative numerical estimate (e.g., Δs_uz/(sγv) for a two-step model) would help the reader assess the practical impact on wall-velocity bounds.
  5. [Throughout] Please proofread for typos and rendering artifacts, e.g., 'tach yonic' in §2.3 and 'cf. fi g. 1' in §2.2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the entropy discontinuity is derived within the paper's Langevin+FDR framework, the Υ→0 limit is an honest cancellation, and the final result is independently cross-checked against collisionless kinetic theory and the external ref. [62].

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: the entropy-current source (3.7) follows algebraically from energy-momentum conservation plus the Langevin equation (2.14), and no quantity entering eqs. (3.24)-(3.46) is defined in terms of the target Δs_uz. The zero-friction limit is obtained by an explicit cancellation—eq. (3.19) supplies factors 1/(2Υε_q^2) and 1/(2Υ), which multiply the 2TΥ fluctuation-dissipation factor from eq. (2.15), leaving a Υ-independent result. Eq. (3.46) is an explicit formula containing only the mass difference (m^2)_- - (m^2)_+ and a standard thermal integral; no parameters are fitted to any data or to the target quantity. The independent Boltzmann derivation in Sec. 3.6 (collisionless Liouville equation with f approximated by f0) reproduces eq. (3.46) and is matched to the external ref. [62], so the central claim is benchmarked outside the paper's own framework. Self-citations appear ([47], [57], [60], [61]) but only as background or technical support (e.g., the shear viscosity induced by Υ), and they are not used to forbid alternatives or to import the final formula. The scale hierarchy (2.13) is explicitly 'postulated'; if it fails, the effective Langevin description would need revision, but that is a robustness caveat rather than a circular reduction. None of the enumerated circularity patterns is exhibited with a specific equation-level reduction.

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

The calculation introduces no fitted parameters. It relies on physical inputs (mass profile, temperature) and on the effective-theory assumptions listed as axioms. The most fragile is the Langevin description itself, which is stated but not derived.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The scale hierarchy H ≪ α^2 T ≪ α T ≪ m_h ≪ gT ≪ πT holds during the electroweak phase transition.
    Postulated in eq. (2.13) and used to justify the Langevin description and to treat h as a long-distance mode from kinetic theory but short-distance from hydrodynamics.
  • domain assumption The scalar field is described by the Langevin equation (2.14) with white noise and fluctuation-dissipation relation Ω ≈ 2TΥ.
    Assumed as the effective description in the intermediate regime; noise whiteness and the local FDT are needed for the calculation of O1 and O2.
  • domain assumption The fluctuation δh is small and perturbative, with ⟨δh⟩=0, allowing a second-order expansion of the entropy source (eq. (3.24)).
    Required to separate background and fluctuation contributions.
  • ad hoc to paper In the kinetic theory check, the distribution function is approximated by the equilibrium Bose distribution f0 (eq. (3.21)) even in the collisionless limit.
    Used in eq. (3.53); justified only as the leading-order approximation, not rigorously derived for the ballistic regime.
  • domain assumption Hydrodynamic variables T and v are constant on the scale over which the wall profile varies.
    Stated in section 3.5; used to treat u0 and uz as constants when integrating the entropy source.
  • domain assumption The UV-divergent momentum integrals are regularized by matching to kinetic theory (eq. (3.23)).
    The classical-field Rayleigh-Jeans divergence is cut off by the matching with the Bose distribution; the result depends on this prescription.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Entropy production at electroweak bubble walls from scalar field fluctuations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZH2SQXFD

@misc{pith2026250707755,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Entropy production at electroweak bubble walls from scalar field fluctuations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZH2SQXFD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07755}
}
abstract

The real-time dynamics of an electroweak phase transition involves large time and distance scales, the domain of hydrodynamics. However, the matching conditions of ideal hydrodynamics across a bubble wall do not fix the fluid profile completely, with the remaining degree of freedom parametrizable through entropy production. Within a framework of Langevin dynamics, viewed as an effective description valid between the hydrodynamic ($k \sim g^4_{ } T/\pi^3_{ }$) and soft momentum scales ($k \sim gT$), we determine the entropy production originating from scalar field fluctuations. The entropy discontinuity is shown to remain non-vanishing when the friction coefficient is sent to zero, in apparent violation of the ``local thermal equilibrium'' (LTE) framework. To confirm the finding, we identify its origin within Boltzmann equations, as being part of the $1\to 1$ force associated with the ``ballistic'' regime. The result implies that LTE-based upper bounds on the wall velocity cannot be saturated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07755 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the background solution, h¯(z), in a planar wall rest frame. With respect to the wall, the plasma moves to the left; with respect to the plasma, the wall moves to the right. The wall profile is narrow compared with hydrodynamic scales (cf. eq. (2.13)). We treat the γ-factor associated with the velocity as being of O(1), however it could be numerically largish. to their proper values at distance scale… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Bubble velocities in local equilibrium from a pseudopotential

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Terminal bubble-wall velocities in local equilibrium can be found by requiring degenerate minima of a field-only pseudopotential, avoiding scalar equations of motion and profile or equation-of-state assumptions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [62]

    B¨ odeker and G.D

    D. B¨ odeker and G.D. Moore, Can electroweak bubble walls run away?, JCAP 05 (2009) 009 [0903.4099]. 22

    arXiv 2009

  2. [1]

    Caprini et al, Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase tra nsitions with LISA: an update, JCAP 03 (2020) 024 [1910.13125]

    C. Caprini et al, Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase tra nsitions with LISA: an update, JCAP 03 (2020) 024 [1910.13125]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [2]

    B¨ odeker and W

    D. B¨ odeker and W. Buchm¨ uller,Baryogenesis from the weak scale to the grand unification sca le, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93 (2021) 035004 [2009.07294]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [3]

    Hindmarsh, M

    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]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [4]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen and M.E. Shaposhnikov, Is there a hot electroweak phase transition at mH >∼ mW ?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 2887 [hep-ph/9605288]

    arXiv 1996

  6. [5]

    Land and E.D

    D. Land and E.D. Carlson, Two stage phase transition in two Higgs models, Phys. Lett. B 292 (1992) 107 [hep-ph/9208227]

    arXiv 1992

  7. [6]

    B¨ odeker, P

    D. B¨ odeker, P. John, M. Laine and M.G. Schmidt,The 2-loop MSSM finite temperature effective potential with stop condensation, Nucl. Phys. B 497 (1997) 387 [hep-ph/9612364]

    arXiv 1997

  8. [7]

    Cline, G.D

    J.M. Cline, G.D. Moore and G. Servant, Was the electroweak phase transition preceded by a color broken phase?, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 105035 [hep-ph/9902220]

    arXiv 1999

Show all 62 references
  1. [8]

    Profumo, M.J

    S. Profumo, M.J. Ramsey-Musolf and G. Shaughnessy, Singlet Higgs phenomenology and the electroweak phase transition, JHEP 08 (2007) 010 [0705.2425]

    2007 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Espinosa, T

    J.R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin and F. Riva, Strong electroweak phase transitions in the Standard Model with a singlet, Nucl. Phys. B 854 (2012) 592 [1107.5441]

    2012 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Landau and E.M

    L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Statistical Physics, Part 1 , §162 (Butterworth-Heinemann, Ox- ford). 19

  4. [11]

    Enqvist, J

    K. Enqvist, J. Ignatius, K. Kajantie and K. Rummukainen, Nucleation and bubble growth in a first-order cosmological electroweak phase transition, Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 3415

    1992

  5. [12]

    Landau and E.M

    L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics, §132 (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford)

  6. [13]

    Ignatius, K

    J. Ignatius, K. Kajantie, H. Kurki-Suonio and M. Laine, Growth of bubbles in cosmological phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 3854 [astro-ph/9309059]

    1994 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Hindmarsh, S.J

    M. Hindmarsh, S.J. Huber, K. Rummukainen and D.J. Weir, Shape of the acoustic gravitational wave power spectrum from a first order phase transition, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 103520; ibid. 101 (2020) 089902 (erratum) [1704.05871]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [15]

    J. Dahl, M. Hindmarsh, K. Rummukainen and D.J. Weir, Primordial acoustic turbulence: Three- dimensional simulations and gravitational wave predictio ns, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 103512 [2407.05826]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Kurki-Suonio and M

    H. Kurki-Suonio and M. Laine, Real-Time History of the Cosmological Electroweak Phase Tr an- sition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 3951 [hep-ph/9607382]

    1996 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Kurki-Suonio, Deflagration bubbles in the quark-hadron phase transition, Nucl

    H. Kurki-Suonio, Deflagration bubbles in the quark-hadron phase transition, Nucl. Phys. B 255 (1985) 231

    1985

  11. [18]

    Laine, Bubble growth as a detonation, Phys

    M. Laine, Bubble growth as a detonation, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 3847 [hep-ph/9309242]

    1994 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Kurki-Suonio and M

    H. Kurki-Suonio and M. Laine, Supersonic deflagrations in cosmological phase transition s, Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 5431 [hep-ph/9501216]

    1995 arXiv

  13. [20]

    B¨ odeker and G.D

    D. B¨ odeker and G.D. Moore, Electroweak bubble wall speed limit, JCAP 05 (2017) 025 [1703.08215]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [21]

    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

  15. [22]

    Azatov and M

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

    2021 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Wang, F.P

    X. Wang, F.P. Huang and X. Zhang, Bubble wall velocity beyond leading-log approximation in electroweak phase transition, [2011.12903]

    2011 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Gouttenoire, R

    Y. Gouttenoire, R. Jinno and F. Sala, Friction pressure on relativistic bubble walls, JHEP 05 (2022) 004 [2112.07686]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Laurent and J.M

    B. Laurent and J.M. Cline, First principles determination of bubble wall velocity, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 023501 [2204.13120]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Ai, Logarithmic divergent friction on ultrarelativistic bubb le walls, JCAP 10 (2023) 052 [2308.10679]

    W.-Y. Ai, Logarithmic divergent friction on ultrarelativistic bubb le walls, JCAP 10 (2023) 052 [2308.10679]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Azatov, G

    A. Azatov, G. Barni, R. Petrossian-Byrne and M. Vanvlasselaer, Quantisation across bubble walls and friction, JHEP 05 (2024) 294 [2310.06972]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [28]

    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]. 20

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Long and J

    A.J. Long and J. Turner, Thermal pressure on ultrarelativistic bubbles from a semic lassical for- malism, JCAP 11 (2024) 024 [2407.18196]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Ekstedt, O

    A. Ekstedt, O. Gould, J. Hirvonen, B. Laurent, L. Niemi, P. Sch icho and J. van de Vis, How fast does the WallGo? A package for computing wall velocities in fi rst-order phase transitions, JHEP 04 (2025) 101 [2411.04970]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Ramsey-Musolf and J

    M.J. Ramsey-Musolf and J. Zhu, Bubble wall velocity from Kadanoff-Baym equations: fluid dy- namics and microscopic interactions, [2504.13724]

    arXiv

  25. [32]

    W.-Y. Ai, M. Carosi, B. Garbrecht, C. Tamarit and M. Vanvlasselaer, Bubble wall dynamics from nonequilibrium quantum field theory, JHEP 08 (2025) 077 [2504.13725]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Konstandin and J.M

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

    2011 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Barroso Mancha, T

    M. Barroso Mancha, T. Prokopec and B. Swiezewska, Field-theoretic derivation of bubble-wall force, JHEP 01 (2021) 070 [2005.10875]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Balaji, M

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

    2021 arXiv

  29. [36]

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

    2022 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Wang and Z.Y

    S.J. Wang and Z.Y. Yuwen, Hydrodynamic backreaction force of cosmological bubble ex pansion, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 023501 [2205.02492]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [38]

    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

  32. [39]

    Krajewski, M

    T. Krajewski, M. Lewicki and M. Zych, Hydrodynamical constraints on the bubble wall velocity, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 103523 [2303.18216]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [40]

    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]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [41]

    W.-Y. Ai, B. Laurent and J. van de Vis, Bounds on the bubble wall velocity, JHEP 02 (2025) 119 [2411.13641]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Krajewski, M

    T. Krajewski, M. Lewicki, I. Na/suppress lecz and M. Zych,Steady-state bubbles beyond local thermal equilibrium, JHEP 06 (2025) 118 [2411.16580]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Carena, A

    M. Carena, A. Ireland, T. Ou and I.R. Wang, The Discriminant Power of Bubble Wall Velocities: Gravitational Waves and Electroweak Baryogenesis, [2504.17841]

    arXiv

  37. [44]

    Branchina, A

    C. Branchina, A. Conaci, S. De Curtis and L. Delle Rose, Electroweak Phase Transition and Bubble Wall Velocity in Local Thermal Equilibrium, [2504.21213]

    arXiv

  38. [45]

    Z. Si, H. Wang, L. Wang, Y. Xiao and Y. Zhang, The Bubble Wall Velocity in Local Thermal Equilibrium with Full Effective Potential, [2505.19584]. 21

    arXiv

  39. [46]

    Lifshitz and L.P

    E.M. Lifshitz and L.P. Pitaevskii, Statistical Physics, Part 2 , §88-89 (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford)

  40. [47]

    Jackson and M

    G. Jackson and M. Laine, Hydrodynamic fluctuations from a weakly coupled scalar field , Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 304 [1803.01871]

    2018 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Kovtun, G.D

    P. Kovtun, G.D. Moore and P. Romatschke, Stickiness of sound: An absolute lower limit on viscosity and the breakdown of second-order relativistic h ydrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 025006 [1104.1586]

    2011 arXiv

  42. [49]

    P.Y. Huet, K. Kajantie, R.G. Leigh, B.H. Liu and L.D. McLerran, Hydrodynamic stability analysis of burning bubbles in electroweak theory and in QCD , Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 2477 [hep-ph/9212224]

    1993 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Ekstedt, Bubble nucleation to all orders, JHEP 08 (2022) 115 [2201.07331]

    A. Ekstedt, Bubble nucleation to all orders, JHEP 08 (2022) 115 [2201.07331]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Dashko and A

    A. Dashko and A. Ekstedt, Bubble-wall speed with loop corrections, JHEP 03 (2025) 024 [2411.05075]

    2025 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Laine, S

    M. Laine, S. Procacci and A. Rogelj, Evolution of coupled scalar perturbations through smooth reheating. Part I. Dissipative regime, JCAP 10 (2024) 040 [2407.17074]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Carrington, Effective potential at finite temperature in the Standard Mod el, Phys

    M.E. Carrington, Effective potential at finite temperature in the Standard Mod el, Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 2933

    1992

  47. [54]

    Arnold, Phase transition temperatures at next-to-leading order, Phys

    P.B. Arnold, Phase transition temperatures at next-to-leading order, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 2628 [hep-ph/9204228]

    1992 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Linde, Infrared problem in thermodynamics of the Yang-Mills gas, Phys

    A.D. Linde, Infrared problem in thermodynamics of the Yang-Mills gas, Phys. Lett. B 96 (1980) 289

    1980

  49. [56]

    Gynther and M

    A. Gynther and M. Veps¨ al¨ ainen,Pressure of the Standard Model near the electroweak phase transition, JHEP 03 (2006) 011 [hep-ph/0512177]

    2006 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Laine and M

    M. Laine and M. Meyer, Standard Model thermodynamics across the electroweak cros sover, JCAP 07 (2015) 035 [1503.04935]

    2015 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Gould and T.V.I

    O. Gould and T.V.I. Tenkanen, Perturbative effective field theory expansions for cosmolog ical phase transitions, JHEP 01 (2024) 048 [2309.01672]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Bir´ o and M.H

    T.S. Bir´ o and M.H. Thoma, Damping rate and Lyapunov exponent of a Higgs field at high tem - perature, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 3465 [hep-ph/9603339]

    1996 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Eriksson and M

    M. Eriksson and M. Laine, Soft contributions to the thermal Higgs width across an elec troweak phase transition, JCAP 06 (2024) 016 [2404.06116]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Klose, M

    P. Klose, M. Laine and S. Procacci, Gravitational wave background from vacuum and thermal fluctuations during axion-like inflation, JCAP 12 (2022) 020 [2210.11710]

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.