Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 66 references

1+1 dimensional relativistic viscous non-resistive magnetohydrodynamics with longitudinal boost invariance

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives analytic temperature solutions for a 1+1 dimensional, longitudinally boost-invariant viscous magnetohydrodynamic flow and shows that a decaying magnetic field and shear viscosity both heat the quark-gluon plasma…

desk verdict First perturbative solution (NS-1) is a solid new benchmark; the second (NS-2) violates its initial condition and needs fixing before use. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11398 v1 pith:AXTBLENA submitted 2024-11-18 nucl-th hep-ph

Ze-Fang Jiang , Shuo-Yan Liu , Tian-Yu Hu , Huang-Jing Zheng , Duan She This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-ph
keywords relativisticmagnetohydrodynamicsBjorkenflowshearviscosityboostinvariancequark-gluonplasmaheavy-ioncollisionsanalyticalsolutions
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 asks how a quark-gluon fluid cools when it is stretched along one spatial direction, carries a decaying transverse magnetic field, and resists shearing. It derives analytic formulas for the fluid temperature as a function of proper time in 1+1 dimensional, longitudinally boost-invariant relativistic magnetohydrodynamics with a conformal equation of state. The two new perturbative solutions for the first-order Navier-Stokes limit show that both the magnetic field and shear viscosity deposit energy into the fluid, producing an early temperature peak. In the second-order Israel-Stewart theory the paper's numerical solutions show the same heating effect and a slower cooling when the initial shear stress is larger. These formulas give a simple benchmark for how magnetic-field and viscous effects modify the standard Bjorken cooling law in heavy-ion collisions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ordinary differential equation for the normalized temperature $\tilde T$, Eq. (28), which combines ideal Bjorken cooling $-\tilde T/(3\tau)$, magnetic heating $\epsilon_1 \tilde T^3 (\tau_0/\tau)^{2a}/\tau$, and viscous heating $\epsilon_2/\tau^2$. The first perturbative solution follows the nonconserved-charge method of rewriting the equation as $d\tilde T/d\tau + \tilde T/(3\tau) = \tilde T\, d\lambda/d\tau$, then solving the auxiliary function $x(\tau)=\exp[\lambda(\tau)-\lambda(\tau_0)]$ order by order in $\epsilon_1$, which introduces hypergeometric functions. The second solution instead writes $\tilde T = \tilde T_0 + \epsilon_1 \tilde T_1$ and replaces $\tilde T_0^3(1+3\epsilon_1 \tilde T_1/\tilde T_0)$ with $\tilde T_0^3 \approx \tau_0/\tau$; that replacement is the step that limits its range of validity. The Israel-Stewart treatment adds a relaxation equation for the normalized shear stress $\tilde\pi$, making the system two coupled differential equations that are solved numerically.

What would settle it

Numerically integrate Eq. (53) with $a=2$, $\tau_0=0.6$ fm/c, $T_0=0.65$ GeV, $\epsilon_2=1$, and $\epsilon_1 = 0.02$, $0.05$, $0.1$, and $0.5$, then compare the output with Eq. (50) and Eq. (40). The paper itself reports a five-percent gap for Eq. (50) at $\epsilon_1=0.05$; observing that the gap grows faster than linearly with $\epsilon_1$, or that Eq. (40) departs from numerics at small $\epsilon_1$, would show how much of the claimed early heating is an artifact of the perturbative truncation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the energy-conservation equation for a boost-invariant, non-resistive viscous fluid in a transverse power-law magnetic field reduces to the single first-order ordinary differential equation $$\partial_\tau \tilde T + \frac{\tilde T}{3\tau} - \epsilon_1 \frac{\tilde $T^{3}$}{\tau}\left(\frac{\tau_0}{\tau}\right)^{2a} - \frac{\epsilon_2}{\$tau^{2}$} = 0,$$ where $\tilde T = T/T_0$, $\epsilon_1 = (a-1)\sigma/(12a_1)$ packages the initial field strength and the power-law decay exponent $a$, and $\epsilon_2$ packages shear viscosity. The paper constructs two perturbative analytic solutions of this equation. The first, Eq. (40), is obtained through the nonconserved-charge method and tracks the numerical solution closely for small $\epsilon_1$ even when the shear viscosity is not tiny; the second, Eq. (50), is a linear-in-$\epsilon_1$ expansion that matches numerics only for very small magnetic fields and runs about five percent high at $\epsilon_1 = 0.05$. Both solutions interpolate among the Bjorken, Victor-Bjorken, and Azwinndini-Bjorken limits, and the Israel-Stewart numerical solutions show that a stronger initial shear stress slows the temperature drop.

Load-bearing premise

The calculations go through only if the magnetic-field parameter $\epsilon_1$ is small enough that the perturbative series can be truncated at first order; for the second analytic solution the additional replacement $\tilde T_0^3(1+3\epsilon_1 \tilde T_1/\tilde T_0) \approx \tilde T_0^3 \approx \tau_0/\tau$ is an even cruder assumption, and the paper itself labels its limitations as very significant.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For small magnetic fields with decay exponent $a > 1$, the fluid temperature declines more slowly than ideal Bjorken cooling and develops an early peak whose height grows with both $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$.
  • The two perturbative solutions reduce to the Bjorken, Victor-Bjorken, and Azwinndini-Bjorken limits, so they serve as interpolation formulas connecting ideal MHD, purely viscous flow, and combined viscous magnetohydrodynamics.
  • The first Navier-Stokes solution, Eq. (40), remains close to the numerical solution for $\epsilon_1$ up to at least $0.1$ when $\epsilon_2 = 1$, giving a practical analytic benchmark for code comparisons in the boost-invariant setting.
  • In the Israel-Stewart theory, increasing the initial shear stress from $0.1 p_0$ to $2 p_0$ visibly lowers the cooling rate, meaning the initial viscous stress is a controlling input for the temperature history.
  • Adding the magnetic field to a viscous flow produces slower cooling than viscosity alone, so neglecting the field in dissipative flow models would misestimate the temperature evolution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The early temperature peak occurs for proper times below the initial time $\tau_0 = 0.6$ fm/c, outside the plotted window, so the formulas make a concrete prediction about the pre-thermal regime that a full 3+1 dimensional MHD code could check.
  • A direct testable extension would replace the power-law magnetic decay with a decay driven by temperature-dependent electrical conductivity; the same reduction to a single ODE would show whether the heating peak survives a more realistic field evolution.
  • Because the second solution loses accuracy for $\epsilon_1 > 0.05$, a resummed or matched-asymptotic version of Eq. (50) could extend the analytic description toward the paper's stated stability bound $B_0^2 < 6 a_1 T_0^4$.
  • The same perturbative machinery could be applied to anomalous magnetohydrodynamics with a chiral magnetic current, where the field and the chiral transport coefficient couple in an additional term.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies 1+1 dimensional relativistic non-resistive magnetohydrodynamics with longitudinal boost invariance, a power-law decaying transverse magnetic field, and shear viscosity. It derives analytical solutions for the ideal MHD (Victor-Bjorken) case, the first-order Navier-Stokes viscous case with and without a magnetic field, and presents two perturbative analytical solutions for the combined case (Eq. (40) and Eq. (50)). These are compared with direct numerical integration of the energy-conservation equation. The paper also solves the second-order Israel-Stewart equations numerically and studies the effects of initial shear stress on the temperature evolution. The central physical claims are that both the magnetic field and shear viscosity heat the fluid, producing an early temperature peak, and that in the Israel-Stewart theory the initial shear stress significantly affects the cooling rate.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper provides useful closed-form benchmarks for validating numerical codes in a simplified setting relevant to heavy-ion collisions. The derivations are mostly explicit and the numerical comparisons are straightforward, which makes the paper valuable as a pedagogical or reference contribution. However, the significance is moderated by two issues: the second perturbative solution Eq. (50) does not satisfy the stated initial condition, and the Israel-Stewart energy-conservation equation (59) contains an algebraic error in its shear-stress coupling. The first perturbative solution Eq. (40) is the strongest result: it appears correct, reduces properly to known limits, and agrees well with numerics for small magnetic-field parameters. The paper also honestly documents the limited accuracy of Eq. (50), though the root cause (an initialization artifact rather than purely truncation error) is not diagnosed.

major comments (2)
  1. [§III D, Eq. (50)] The second perturbative solution does not satisfy the initial condition T̃(τ0)=1. The general solution of Eq. (48) is T̃1 = 3/(4−6a) u^{2a−1} + C u^{1/3} with u = τ0/τ. Requiring T̃1(τ0)=0 fixes C = −3/(4−6a), whereas Eq. (49) uses C = (1−6a)/(4−6a), giving T̃1(τ0)=1 and hence T̃NS-2(τ0)=1+ϵ1. The difference is exactly the unsourced homogeneous term ϵ1(τ0/τ)^{1/3}. This is not a truncation error: the deviation at τ=τ0 is exactly ϵ1, independent of τ, so the 5% discrepancy at ϵ1=0.05 in Fig. 5(b) is partly an initialization artifact. The derivation of Eq. (47) also mixes orders by retaining ϵ1T̃1 in the denominator and then approximating it away; a consistent first-order truncation would give the corrected T̃1 = 3/(4−6a)[(τ0/τ)^{2a−1} − (τ0/τ)^{1/3}]. Please correct Eq. (50) and the limits in Eqs. (51)–(52) accordingly, or explicitly state that this solution does not obey the initial condition.
  2. [§IV B, Eq. (59)] The energy-conservation equation for the Israel-Stewart case is inconsistent with the preceding derivation. Starting from Eq. (54), using ε=3p, p=a1T^4, B²=σT0^4(τ0/τ)^{2a}, and π=a1b3T0^4π̃, one obtains after dividing by 12a1T0^4T̃^3: ∂T̃/∂τ = −T̃/(3τ) + ϵ1/T̃³(τ0/τ)^{2a}/τ + b3π̃/(12τT̃³). Equation (59) prints the last term as + b3π̃T̃/(12τ), which is a different dynamical term. Since Eqs. (59)–(60) are the basis of the numerical IS results in Figs. 6 and 7, either the printed equation is misprinted or the numerics solved a different equation; please state which and correct the equation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III C, §IV A] The text after Eq. (40) states "this solution is stable where ϵ1 is small. We will prove this in the next section IV A," but Sec. IV A supplies only a numerical comparison, not a stability proof. The stability claim in the abstract and conclusions is therefore supported by numerics, not by a formal analysis; please rephrase to avoid the word "prove" or add a genuine perturbative stability argument.
  2. [§III D, Eq. (47)] The derivation of Eq. (47) is not a systematic first-order expansion: the denominator (T̃0³+3ϵ1T̃0²T̃1) is kept before being approximated away, which obscures the order counting. The final result is equivalent to the standard first-order truncation, but the presentation should be made more transparent.
  3. [§III A, Eq. (19)] For a < 2/3 the exponent 2a−4/3 is negative, so the factor (τ0/τ)^{2a−4/3} grows with time; the solution may develop a negative argument in the fourth root for sufficiently large τ. The paper should state the domain of validity of Eq. (19) for these parameter values, which are used in Fig. 1.
  4. [§III C, Eq. (39)] The expression for x1 in Eq. (39) is very long and involves hypergeometric functions, making it difficult to verify. Since the figures only use a=2, reporting the simplified a=2 limit would improve readability and facilitate checks.
  5. [Throughout] There are several language and typographical errors, e.g., "quluon" for "gluon" in Sec. I, "fouce" for "focus" in Sec. II, "follow" for "follows", "regress" for "revert" in Case-C of §III D, and "consistented" for "consistent" in Sec. V. A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analytical solutions are derived from the stated ODE with no fitted parameters, and the numerical benchmarks are independent integrations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The input is the energy-conservation ODE, Eq. (28), together with the second-order system, Eqs. (59)-(60); the parameters ϵ1, ϵ2, a, and τ0 are defined from the physical inputs in Eq. (14) and are not adjusted to the plotted curves. The first perturbative solution, Eq. (40), is obtained by the nonconserved-charge rewriting, Eqs. (31)-(35), followed by a small-ϵ1 expansion: x0 is the known ϵ1=0 solution, and the first-order correction is an integral over that x0; no later result is fed back into the derivation. The second perturbative solution, Eq. (50), is obtained by expanding Eq. (41) in ϵ1, solving the zeroth-order equation (46), and then solving Eq. (48) for T~1; it is then compared against independent numerical integration of Eq. (53). Thus the comparison in Figs. 3-5 is a genuine benchmark, not a fit. The self-citations (e.g., Refs. [53-55]) supply the power-law magnetic-field ansatz and earlier 1+1D MHD models, but these are stated assumptions or background, not uniqueness theorems and not constraints used to force the new solutions. The paper itself discloses the limitation of the second perturbative branch in Sec. III D: 'we note that such an approximation has very significant limitations.' The known initial-condition defect of Eq. (50), which gives T~NS-2(τ0)=1+ϵ1 rather than 1, is a correctness and approximation issue, not a circular one, because the offending homogeneous term is not fitted to the numerical output. No step reduces an output to an input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard hydrodynamic modeling assumptions and on two hand-chosen model parameters, the magnetic decay exponent a and the initial shear stress fraction b3. No new physical entities are introduced. The main structural assumption is the externally imposed power-law magnetic field, which is an input rather than a solved quantity.

free parameters (3)
  • a = 2 in most figures, generally a > 0
    Exponent in the assumed power-law decay of the external magnetic field B = B0 (tau0/tau)^a. Chosen by hand as a modeling input, not derived from Maxwell equations.
  • b3 = 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 (Fig. 7)
    Ratio of initial shear stress to initial pressure, pi0 = b3 p0. Chosen to explore sensitivity of the Israel-Stewart solutions to initial conditions.
  • sigma = epsilon1 = (a-1) sigma/(12 a1); values correspond to B0^2 up to about 6 a1 T0^4
    Dimensionless initial magnetic field strength, sigma = B0^2/T0^4. Treated as an external input and varied through epsilon1 in the figures.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Conformal equation of state epsilon = 3p (c_s^2 = 1/3)
    Used throughout to close the hydrodynamic equations; standard for ultrarelativistic QGP in the high-temperature limit.
  • domain assumption Non-resistive limit with vanishing electric field in the fluid rest frame (infinite electrical conductivity)
    Adopted from prior MHD studies; allows energy-momentum tensor to be written in the reduced form of Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption Longitudinal boost invariance and transverse homogeneity of the fluid
    Reduces the problem to a single variable, proper time tau; underlies the Bjorken flow ansatz in Eq. (5).
  • ad hoc to paper External transverse magnetic field with power-law decay, B = B0 (tau0/tau)^a
    The field is imposed rather than derived from the induction equation. It is not generally consistent with flux freezing unless a = 1.
  • domain assumption Neglect of fluid magnetization
    Magnetization is omitted so that the equation of state is unaffected by the magnetic field, simplifying the derivations.
  • standard math Israel-Stewart second-order transport equations from Refs. [57,64]
    The relaxation-type equations for bulk and shear stress are taken as the starting point for the second-order analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper Perturbative expansion in small epsilon1 and the approximation T~_0^3 (1+3 epsilon1 T~_1/T~_0) approximately T~_0^3 approximately (tau0/tau)
    Section III D uses this simplification to obtain Eq. (48); the paper itself flags it as having very significant limitations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 1+1 dimensional relativistic viscous non-resistive magnetohydrodynamics with longitudinal boost invariance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AXTBLENA

@misc{pith2026241111398,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 1+1 dimensional relativistic viscous non-resistive magnetohydrodynamics with longitudinal boost invariance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AXTBLENA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11398}
}
abstract

We study 1+1 dimensional relativistic non-resistive magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) with longitudinal boost invariance and shear stress tensor. Several analytical solutions that describe the fluid temperature evolution under the equation of state (EoS) $\varepsilon=3p$ are derived, relevant to relativistic heavy-ion collisions. Extending the Victor-Bjorken ideal MHD flow to include non-zero shear viscosity, two perturbative analytical solutions for the first-order (Navier-Stokes) approximation are obtained. For small, power-law evolving external magnetic fields, our solutions are stable and show that both magnetic field and shear viscosity cause fluid heating with an early temperature peak, align with the numerical results. In the second-order (Israel-Stewart) theory, our findings show that the combined presence of magnetic field and shear viscosity leads to a slow cooling rate of fluid temperature, with initial shear stress significantly affecting temperature evolution of QGP.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11398 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (Color online) Evolution of normalized temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (Color online) Evolution of normalized temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (Color online) Evolution of normalized temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (Color online) Evolution of normalized temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (Color online) Evolution of normalized temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: (Color online) Evolution of normalized temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (Color online) Evolution of normalized temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    smaller than 6 a1T 4 0 and for proper time τ > 0.6 fm/c, our analytical solution is stable. We ob- serve that larger magnetic fields ( ϵ1) with decay parameter a >1 result in fluid heating, manifesting as an early temper- ature peak whose magnitude depends on the magnetic field strength and shear viscosity. However, at late times, its tem- perature asympt...

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Experimental and theoretical challenges in the search for the quark gluon plasma: The STAR Collabora- tion’s critical assessment of the evidence from RHIC collisions

    John Adams et al. Experimental and theoretical challenges in the search for the quark gluon plasma: The STAR Collabora- tion’s critical assessment of the evidence from RHIC collisions. Nucl. Phys. A, 757:102–183, 2005

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Aamodt et al

    K. Aamodt et al. The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC. JINST, 3:S08002, 2008

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Event-by-event gener- ation of electromagnetic fields in heavy-ion collisions

    Wei-Tian Deng and Xu-Guang Huang. Event-by-event gener- ation of electromagnetic fields in heavy-ion collisions. Phys. Rev. C, 85:044907, 2012

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Electromagnetic fields with electric and chiral magnetic conductivities in heavy ion collisions

    Hui Li, Xin-li Sheng, and Qun Wang. Electromagnetic fields with electric and chiral magnetic conductivities in heavy ion collisions. Phys. Rev. C, 94(4):044903, 2016. 11

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Gursoy, D

    U. Gursoy, D. E. Kharzeev, and K. Rajagopal. Magnetohy- drodynamics, charged currents and directed flow in heavy ion collisions. Phys. Rev. C, 89(5):054905, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Santosh K. Das, S. Plumari, S. Chatterjee, J. Alam, F. Scardina, and V . Greco. Directed Flow of Charm Quarks as a Witness of the Initial Strong Magnetic Field in Ultra-Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions. Phys. Lett. B, 768:260–264, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    G ¨ursoy, D

    U. G ¨ursoy, D. E. Kharzeev, E. Marcus, K. Rajagopal, and Chun Shen. Charge-dependent Flow Induced by Magnetic and Elec- tric Fields in Heavy Ion Collisions.Phys. Rev. C, 98(5):055201, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Interplay of drag by hot matter and electromagnetic force on the directed flow of heavy quarks

    Sandeep Chatterjee and Piotr Bozek. Interplay of drag by hot matter and electromagnetic force on the directed flow of heavy quarks. Phys. Lett. B, 798:134955, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Plumari, and V

    Lucia Oliva, S. Plumari, and V . Greco. Directed flow of D mesons at RHIC and LHC: non-perturbative dynamics, longitu- dinal bulk matter asymmetry and electromagnetic fields.JHEP, 05:034, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Plumari, and V

    Yifeng Sun, S. Plumari, and V . Greco. Probing the electromag- netic fields in ultrarelativistic collisions with leptons from Z 0 decay and charmed mesons. Phys. Lett. B, 816:136271, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Ze-Fang Jiang, Shanshan Cao, Wen-Jing Xing, Xiang-Yu Wu, C. B. Yang, and Ben-Wei Zhang. Probing the initial longi- tudinal density profile and electromagnetic field in ultrarela- tivistic heavy-ion collisions with heavy quarks. Phys. Rev. C , 105(5):054907, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Kharzeev, Larry D

    Dmitri E. Kharzeev, Larry D. McLerran, and Harmen J. War- ringa. The Effects of topological charge change in heavy ion collisions: ’Event by event P and CP violation’. Nucl. Phys. A, 803:227–253, 2008

    2008

  6. [14]

    Kharzeev, and Harmen J

    Kenji Fukushima, Dmitri E. Kharzeev, and Harmen J. Warringa. The Chiral Magnetic Effect. Phys. Rev. D, 78:074033, 2008

    2008

  7. [15]

    D. E. Kharzeev, J. Liao, S. A. V oloshin, and G. Wang. Chi- ral magnetic and vortical effects in high-energy nuclear colli- sions—A status report. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 88:1–28, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    Kharzeev, Jinfeng Liao, and Prithwish Tribedy

    Dmitri E. Kharzeev, Jinfeng Liao, and Prithwish Tribedy. Chi- ral Magnetic Effect in Heavy Ion Collisions: The Present and Future. arXiv: 2405.05427, 5 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Axial Current Generation from Electric Field: Chiral Electric Separation Effect

    Xu-Guang Huang and Jinfeng Liao. Axial Current Generation from Electric Field: Chiral Electric Separation Effect. Phys. Rev. Lett., 110(23):232302, 2013

    2013

  10. [18]

    Holographic Chiral Electric Separation Effect

    Shi Pu, Shang-Yu Wu, and Di-Lun Yang. Holographic Chiral Electric Separation Effect. Phys. Rev. D, 89(8):085024, 2014

    2014

  11. [19]

    Kharzeev and Ho-Ung Yee

    Dmitri E. Kharzeev and Ho-Ung Yee. Chiral Magnetic Wave. Phys. Rev. D, 83:085007, 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. Observation of charge asymmetry depen- dence of pion elliptic flow and the possible chiral magnetic wave in heavy-ion collisions. Phys. Rev. Lett., 114(25):252302, 2015

    2015

  13. [21]

    Constraints on the chiral magnetic ef- fect using charge-dependent azimuthal correlations in pPb and PbPb collisions at the CERN Large Hadron Collider.Phys

    Albert M Sirunyan et al. Constraints on the chiral magnetic ef- fect using charge-dependent azimuthal correlations in pPb and PbPb collisions at the CERN Large Hadron Collider.Phys. Rev. C, 97(4):044912, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Search for the chiral magnetic effect with isobar collisions at √sN N=200 GeV by the STAR Collab- oration at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider

    Mohamed Abdallah et al. Search for the chiral magnetic effect with isobar collisions at √sN N=200 GeV by the STAR Collab- oration at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. Phys. Rev. C, 105(1):014901, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    M. S. Abdallah et al. Search for the Chiral Magnetic Effect via Charge-Dependent Azimuthal Correlations Relative to Specta- tor and Participant Planes in Au+Au Collisions at √sN N= 200 GeV. Phys. Rev. Lett., 128(9):092301, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. First Observation of the Directed Flow of D0 and D0 in Au+Au Collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV. Phys. Rev. Lett., 123(16):162301, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. Probing the effects of strong electromagnetic fields with charge-dependent directed flow in Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC. Phys. Rev. Lett., 125(2):022301, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    M. I. Abdulhamid et al. Observation of the electromagnetic field effect via charge-dependent directed flow in heavy-ion col- lisions at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. Phys. Rev. X , 14(1):011028, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Bass, Ulrich Heinz, Tetsufumi Hi- rano, and Chun Shen

    Huichao Song, Steffen A. Bass, Ulrich Heinz, Tetsufumi Hi- rano, and Chun Shen. 200 A GeV Au+Au collisions serve a nearly perfect quark-gluon liquid. Phys. Rev. Lett., 106:192301,

  20. [28]

    Hydrody- namic Modeling of Heavy-Ion Collisions

    Charles Gale, Sangyong Jeon, and Bjoern Schenke. Hydrody- namic Modeling of Heavy-Ion Collisions. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A , 28:1340011, 2013

    2013

  21. [29]

    Heinz and R

    U. Heinz and R. Snellings. Collective flow and viscosity in rela- tivistic heavy-ion collisions. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 63:123– 151, 2013

    2013

  22. [30]

    Introduction to Hydrodynam- ics

    Sangyong Jeon and Ulrich Heinz. Introduction to Hydrodynam- ics. Int. J. Mod. Phys. E , 24(10):1530010, 2015

    2015

  23. [31]

    Karpenko, P

    Iu. Karpenko, P. Huovinen, and M. Bleicher. A 3+1 dimen- sional viscous hydrodynamic code for relativistic heavy ion col- lisions. Comput. Phys. Commun., 185:3016–3027, 2014

    2014

  24. [32]

    Francesco Becattini and Michael A. Lisa. Polarization and V or- ticity in the Quark–Gluon Plasma. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. , 70:395–423, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Becattini and Iu

    F. Becattini and Iu. Karpenko. Collective Longitudinal Polar- ization in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions at Very High En- ergy. Phys. Rev. Lett., 120(1):012302, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Jiang Ze-Fang, Yang Chun-Bin, Mate Csanad, and Tamas Csorgo. Accelerating hydrodynamic description of pseudo- rapidity density and the initial energy density in p+p , Cu + Cu, Au + Au, and Pb + Pb collisions at energies available at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and ...

    2018

  27. [35]

    Initial energy density of √s = 7 and 8 TeV p+p col- lisions at the LHC

    M ´at´e Csan ´ad, Tam ´as Cs ¨org˝o, Ze-Fang Jiang, and Chun-Bin Yang. Initial energy density of √s = 7 and 8 TeV p+p col- lisions at the LHC. Universe, 3(1):9, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Probing the Partonic Degrees of Freedom in High-Multiplicity p−P bcollisions at √sN N= 5.02 TeV.Phys

    Wenbin Zhao, Che Ming Ko, Yu-Xin Liu, Guang-You Qin, and Huichao Song. Probing the Partonic Degrees of Freedom in High-Multiplicity p−P bcollisions at √sN N= 5.02 TeV.Phys. Rev. Lett., 125(7):072301, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Collectivity in Ultraperipheral Pb+Pb Collisions at the Large Hadron Collider

    Wenbin Zhao, Chun Shen, and Bj ¨orn Schenke. Collectivity in Ultraperipheral Pb+Pb Collisions at the Large Hadron Collider. Phys. Rev. Lett., 129(25):252302, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Xiang-Yu Wu, Guang-You Qin, Long-Gang Pang, and Xin- Nian Wang. (3+1)-D viscous hydrodynamics at finite net baryon density: Identified particle spectra, anisotropic flows, and flow fluctuations across energies relevant to the beam- energy scan at RHIC. Phys. Rev. C, 105(3):034...

    2022

  31. [39]

    Ze-Fang Jiang, Shanshan Cao, Xiang-Yu Wu, C. B. Yang, and Ben-Wei Zhang. Longitudinal distribution of initial energy den- sity and directed flow of charged particles in relativistic heavy- ion collisions. Phys. Rev. C, 105(3):034901, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Numerical magneto-hydrodynamics for relativis- tic nuclear collisions

    Gabriele Inghirami, Luca Del Zanna, Andrea Beraudo, Mohsen Haddadi Moghaddam, Francesco Becattini, and Mar- cus Bleicher. Numerical magneto-hydrodynamics for relativis- tic nuclear collisions. Eur . Phys. J. C, 76(12):659, 2016

    2016

  33. [41]

    Modified Trento initial condition and its impact on collective flows and global polarization in Cu+Au collisions

    Ze-Fang Jiang, Shanshan Cao, and Ben-Wei Zhang. Modified Trento initial condition and its impact on collective flows and global polarization in Cu+Au collisions. arXiv:2408.05774, 8 2024

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Markus Mayer, Ashutosh Dash, Gabriele Inghirami, Hannah Elfner, Luciano Rezzolla, and Dirk H. Rischke. BHAC- QGP: three-dimensional MHD simulations of relativistic heavy-ion collisions, II. Application to Au-Au collisions. arXiv: 2403.08669, 3 2024

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Takahashi

    Kouki Nakamura, Takahiro Miyoshi, Chiho Nonaka, and Hi- royuki R. Takahashi. Directed flow in relativistic resistive magneto-hydrodynamic expansion for symmetric and asym- 12 metric collision systems. Phys. Rev. C, 107(1):014901, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Ther- mal dilepton rates and electrical conductivity of the QGP from the lattice

    Heng-Tong Ding, Olaf Kaczmarek, and Florian Meyer. Ther- mal dilepton rates and electrical conductivity of the QGP from the lattice. Phys. Rev. D, 94(3):034504, 2016

    2016

  37. [45]

    H. T. Ding, A. Francis, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, and W. Soeldner. Thermal dilepton rate and electrical conduc- tivity: An analysis of vector current correlation functions in quenched lattice QCD. Phys. Rev. D, 83:034504, 2011

    2011

  38. [46]

    Endr ˝odi, and H

    Long-Gang Pang, G. Endr ˝odi, and H. Petersen. Magnetic-field- induced squeezing effect at energies available at the BNL Rel- ativistic Heavy Ion Collider and at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. Phys. Rev. C, 93(4):044919, 2016

    2016

  39. [47]

    G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi, and A. Schafer. Param- agnetic squeezing of QCD matter.Phys. Rev. Lett., 112:042301, 2014

    2014

  40. [48]

    The effect of vorticity on the dynamical magnetic fields in heavy-ion colli- sions

    Anping Huang, Xiang-Yu Wu, and Mei Huang. The effect of vorticity on the dynamical magnetic fields in heavy-ion colli- sions. 2408.14077, 8 2024

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    External-magnetic-field-induced paramagnetic squeez- ing effect in heavy-ion collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider

    Ze-Fang Jiang, Zi-Han Zhang, Xue-Fei Yuan, and Ben-Wei Zhang. External-magnetic-field-induced paramagnetic squeez- ing effect in heavy-ion collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. Phys. Rev. C , 110(1):014902, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Shi Pu, Victor Roy, Luciano Rezzolla, and Dirk H. Rischke. Bjorken flow in one-dimensional relativistic magnetohydrody- namics with magnetization. Phys. Rev. D, 93(7):074022, 2016

    2016

  43. [51]

    An- alytic Bjorken flow in one-dimensional relativistic magnetohy- drodynamics

    Victor Roy, Shi Pu, Luciano Rezzolla, and Dirk Rischke. An- alytic Bjorken flow in one-dimensional relativistic magnetohy- drodynamics. Phys. Lett. B, 750:45–52, 2015

    2015

  44. [52]

    Pre- ponderant Orbital Polarization in Relativistic Magnetovortical Matter

    Kenji Fukushima, Koichi Hattori, and Kazuya Mameda. Pre- ponderant Orbital Polarization in Relativistic Magnetovortical Matter. arXiv: 2409.18652, 9 2024

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Anoma- lous magnetohydrodynamics with longitudinal boost invariance and chiral magnetic effect

    Irfan Siddique, Ren-jie Wang, Shi Pu, and Qun Wang. Anoma- lous magnetohydrodynamics with longitudinal boost invariance and chiral magnetic effect. Phys. Rev. D, 99(11):114029, 2019

    2019

  46. [54]

    Duan She, Ze Fang Jiang, Defu Hou, and C.B. Yang. 1+1 di- mensional relativistic magnetohydrodynamics with longitudi- nal acceleration. Phys. Rev. D, 100(11):116014, 2019

    2019

  47. [55]

    Anomalous magnetohydrodynamics with temperature- dependent electric conductivity and application to the global polarization

    Hao-Hao Peng, Sihao Wu, Ren-jie Wang, Duan She, and Shi Pu. Anomalous magnetohydrodynamics with temperature- dependent electric conductivity and application to the global polarization. Phys. Rev. D, 107(9):096010, 2023

    2023

  48. [56]

    Shokri and N

    M. Shokri and N. Sadooghi. Evolution of magnetic fields from the 3 + 1 dimensional self-similar and Gubser flows in ideal relativistic magnetohydrodynamics. JHEP, 11:181, 2018

    2018

  49. [57]

    Haddadi Moghaddam, W

    M. Haddadi Moghaddam, W. M. Alberico, Duan She, A. F. Kord, and B. Azadegan. Accelerating longitudinal expansion of resistive relativistic magnetohydrodynamics in heavy ion colli- sions. Phys. Rev. D, 102(1):014017, 2020

    2020

  50. [58]

    Bem- fica, and Jorge Noronha

    Ian Cordeiro, Enrico Speranza, Kevin Ingles, F ´abio S. Bem- fica, and Jorge Noronha. Causality Bounds on Dissipative General-Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett., 133(9):091401, 2024

    2024

  51. [59]

    Causality and stability in relativistic viscous non- resistive magneto-fluid dynamics

    Rajesh Biswas, Ashutosh Dash, Najmul Haque, Shi Pu, and Victor Roy. Causality and stability in relativistic viscous non- resistive magneto-fluid dynamics. JHEP, 10:171, 2020

    2020

  52. [60]

    Rocha, David Wagner, Gabriel S

    Gabriel S. Rocha, David Wagner, Gabriel S. Denicol, Jorge Noronha, and Dirk H. Rischke. Theories of Relativistic Dis- sipative Fluid Dynamics. Entropy, 26(3):189, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Analytic solutions for the linearized first-order magnetohydrodynamics and implications for causality and stability

    Zhe Fang, Koichi Hattori, and Jin Hu. Analytic solutions for the linearized first-order magnetohydrodynamics and implications for causality and stability. Phys. Rev. D, 110(5):056049, 2024

    2024

  54. [62]

    Second order dissipative fluid dynam- ics for ultrarelativistic nuclear collisions

    Azwinndini Muronga. Second order dissipative fluid dynam- ics for ultrarelativistic nuclear collisions. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 88:062302, 2002. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 89, 159901 (2002)]

    2002

  55. [63]

    Most and Jorge Noronha

    Elias R. Most and Jorge Noronha. Dissipative magnetohy- drodynamics for nonresistive relativistic plasmas: An implicit second-order flux-conservative formulation with stiff relax- ation. Phys. Rev. D, 104(10):103028, 2021

    2021

  56. [64]

    Denicol, Xu-Guang Huang, Etele Moln ´ar, Gus- tavo M

    Gabriel S. Denicol, Xu-Guang Huang, Etele Moln ´ar, Gus- tavo M. Monteiro, Harri Niemi, Jorge Noronha, Dirk H. Rischke, and Qun Wang. Nonresistive dissipative magnetohy- drodynamics from the Boltzmann equation in the 14-moment approximation. Phys. Rev. D, 98(7):076009, 2018

    2018

  57. [65]

    Causal theories of dissipative relativistic fluid dynamics for nuclear collisions

    Azwinndini Muronga. Causal theories of dissipative relativistic fluid dynamics for nuclear collisions. Phys. Rev. C, 69:034903, 2004

    2004

  58. [2011]

    109, 139904 (2012)]

    [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 109, 139904 (2012)]

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.