Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Non-Newtonian corrections to radiative viscosity: Israel-Stewart theory as a viscosity limiter

T0 review · 1 major / 4 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 For incompressible flows, every radiative shear-viscosity coefficient follows from one exact integral, and Israel-Stewart theory with a specific coupling reproduces the non-Newtonian stress.

desk verdict Exact analytic radiative shear viscosity — a strong, careful paper whose "universal" claim needs narrowing to isotropic scattering kernels. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12929 v2 pith:VRB34J45 submitted 2024-11-19 astro-ph.HE gr-qcnucl-th

Lorenzo Gavassino This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qcnucl-th
keywords radiativeshearviscositynon-NewtoniancorrectionsIsrael-StewarttheoryChapman-Enskogexpansionradiationhydrodynamicskineticneutrinoflavouroscillationslimiter
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

Radiation moving between fluid layers that slide past each other drags the layers together, creating shear viscosity. This paper claims that for incompressible (transversal) flows the linearized radiative-transfer problem can be solved exactly, for any fluid composition, any type of radiation (photons, neutrinos, even gravitons), and nearly any radiative process. The solution yields an exact dispersion relation for shear waves and a closed formula for every coefficient $\eta_{(2a-1)}$ in the infinite Chapman-Enskog gradient series, the expansion of the stress in powers of velocity gradients. It further claims that a non-Newtonian, viscosity-limited constitutive relation, and therefore Israel-Stewart theory (a standard relativistic viscous-fluid theory) with a specific shear-heat coupling, reproduces the exact kinetic-theory stress far better than Navier-Stokes at gradient scales of order one radiation mean free path. A reader should care because radiative shear viscosity is presently neglected in many simulations of supernovae, accretion disks, and neutron-star mergers, and this paper offers a rigorous analytic basis for restoring it.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the odd-parity constraint on shear perturbations, $\delta f^A_{p_1,p_2,p_3}=-\delta f^A_{p_1,-p_2,-p_3}$, which makes isotropic angular integrals of $\delta f$ vanish and compresses every common radiative process into the universal two-term collision operator (7b). The second piece is the spectral decomposition of the relaxation matrix, $M=\sum_n \tau_n^{-1} P_n$, followed by an analytically solvable angular integral, producing the exact dispersion relation (9) and, by formal expansion in $k$, the coefficient formula (13). The third piece is the viscosity-limited constitutive relation (3), $\Pi_{13} = \frac{1}{2}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} e^{-|\xi|}\,\Pi^{\rm NS}_{13}\big(x_1+\xi\sqrt{\eta_{(1)}/\eta_{(-1)}}\big)\,d\xi$, which suppresses friction when the gradient length is shorter than the mean free path; the paper shows the Israel-Stewart system (18) generates exactly this relation with $\alpha_1=\pm(T\kappa_q\eta_{(-1)})^{-1/2}$ and therefore acts as a viscosity limiter.

What would settle it

Solve the linearized Boltzmann equation numerically for a sinusoidal shear wave in a medium with strongly anisotropic scattering kernels, e.g. Rayleigh or Mie scattering, and compare the damping rate $-\mathrm{Im}\,\omega(k)$ with Eq. (9) at $k\tau\sim 1$; any systematic deviation at the angle-resolved level would falsify the claimed universality. Alternatively, for a grey isotropic medium, prepare the sliding-layer initial data and measure the early-time velocity profile: the paper's model predicts the velocity jump at $x_1=0$ decays as $e^{-\eta_{(-1)}t/W}$, whereas Navier-Stokes predicts immediate diffusive smoothing, so the absence of the predicted jump would falsify the viscosity-limited model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is that shear perturbations have a universal kinetic-theory structure. On a transversal flow, the distribution perturbation $\delta f^A_p$ is odd under a 180-degree rotation about the flow axis, so every isotropic collision integral involving $\delta f$ vanishes; absorption, emission, isotropic scattering, pair processes, and flavour oscillations all reduce to the same two-term collision operator with an energy-dependent source $S^A(E)$ and a relaxation matrix $M^A_B(E)$. Diagonalizing $M$ with lifetimes $\tau_n(E)$ and projectors $P_n$, the momentum-conservation equation becomes the exact implicit shear-wave dispersion relation (9). Expanding in wavenumber gives the paper's master formula, $\eta_{(2a-1)} = \frac{2}{(1+2a)(3+2a)}\int_0^\infty \sum_n \rho_n(E)\,\tau_n(E)^{2a}\,dE$, valid for every positive integer $a$, with $\eta_{(-1)}$ given by formally setting $a=0$. In grey media the first coefficient reproduces the classic radiative-viscosity results. The author then shows that the non-Newtonian model (3), a Fourier-space viscosity limiter in which the shear stress is a smoothed, nonlocal functional of the Navier-Stokes stress, matches the exact solution well at all times (Fig. 2), and that this model is exactly the large-inertia limit of Israel-Stewart theory once the shear-heat coupling is set to $\alpha_1=\pm (T\kappa_q \eta_{(-1)})^{-1/2}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that on a shear flow the linearized distribution perturbation is odd under a 180-degree rotation about the flow axis and that the scattering and pair kernels are isotropic, so every common radiative process collapses to the two-term collision operator (7b); if anisotropic scattering such as Rayleigh or Mie scattering is present, additional angular terms appear and the exact dispersion relation (9) and the coefficients (13) need not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At wavenumbers beyond the inverse radiation mean free path the damping rate saturates at $\eta_{(-1)}/W$, so sliding fluid layers decelerate exponentially instead of feeling the unbounded stress that Navier-Stokes predicts near a discontinuity.
  • All transport coefficients in the Chapman-Enskog series are obtained from one integral over the radiation-mode lifetimes $\tau_n(E)$ and emissivities $\rho_n(E)$, and the series converges only up to the non-hydrodynamic gap $1/\sup|\tau_n(E)|$.
  • The viscosity-limited model (3)/(16) captures the early-time evolution of a velocity discontinuity, including the jump that survives for a time of order $W/\eta_{(-1)}$, whereas Navier-Stokes incorrectly smooths it instantly.
  • Israel-Stewart theory with shear-heat coupling $\alpha_1=\pm(T\kappa_q\eta_{(-1)})^{-1/2}$ has the same matter-dominated shear dispersion relation as the exact kinetic theory, giving a first-principles calibration of a standard relativistic viscous theory.
  • M1-closure radiation hydrodynamics, in both grey and multi-frequency forms, has identically zero radiative shear viscosity: stationary shear waves are exact solutions of the moment equations and never decay (proved in the Supplementary Material).

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the universality argument relies on isotropy of scattering kernels, anisotropic processes such as Rayleigh or Mie scattering are a natural boundary of the result; testing Eq. (9) against phase-space solvers for such kernels would quantify how wide the window 'nearly any process' actually is.
  • A practical closure recipe follows immediately from the paper's formulas: compute $\tau_n(E)$ and $\rho_n(E)$ from opacities and emission data, evaluate Eq. (13) for $a=1$ and $a=0$, and use the results to set $\eta_{(1)}$ and $\eta_{(-1)}$ in a hydrodynamic code; the paper derives the formulas but does not spell out this implementation workflow.
  • The zero-radiative-shear property of M1 closure suggests that adding the Fourier-space limiter (3) as a stress correction to existing M1 codes could restore shear damping without evolving the full distribution function; this is an extension beyond the paper's explicit proposals.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies linearized radiative shear viscosity in a matter-dominated fluid coupled to a radiation gas, with the goal of going beyond Navier-Stokes. It derives an implicit dispersion relation for shear waves (Eq. 9) from a kinetic description, an exact closed-form formula for all Chapman-Enskog transport coefficients (Eq. 13), and a viscosity-limited constitutive relation (Eq. 3) that is shown to match a specific Israel-Stewart theory with shear-heat coupling (Eq. 20). The paper also proves in the Supplementary Material that M1 closure schemes have identically zero radiative shear viscosity, both in the linear and nonlinear regimes. The derivation is supported by a detailed supplementary treatment of absorption/emission, isoenergetic scattering, general isotropic scattering, pair processes, and neutrino flavor oscillations.

Significance. If the results are correct, this is the first exact analytic computation of the full Chapman-Enskog gradient series for radiative shear viscosity in a kinetic setting, and it provides a concrete, parameter-light prescription for non-Newtonian viscosity limiting that is directly usable in radiation-hydrodynamics simulations. The Israel-Stewart mapping is a valuable practical result, and the M1-closure critique is an important caution for numerical astrophysics. The main limitation is that the 'universal' collision-integral form (7b)/(S3) is proven only for isotropic interaction kernels; the advertised applicability to 'nearly any type of radiative process' is broader than the supplied derivation supports. Within the isotropic class, the results are a genuine and significant advance.

major comments (1)
  1. [Main text Eq. (7b); Supplementary Secs. I.B–I.D] The universality claims (i) and (ii) rest on the two-term collision form (7b)/(S3), which the supplementary material derives only for absorption/emission and for scattering and pair kernels that are isotropic in angle (SM Secs. I.B, I.C, I.D). For an angle-dependent kernel, such as Thomson or Rayleigh scattering or forward-peaked neutrino scattering, the linearized collision term contains an integral of the form ∫ dΩ′ K(Ω·Ω′) δf(p0Ω′), which is not generally proportional to δf_p and is not annihilated by the 180°-rotation oddness of δf. For example, for K = |Ω·Ω′| and δf = p3 g(E), the angular integral does not vanish; higher angular harmonics (e.g., p1^2 p3) are thereby excited, so the matrix inversion leading to Eq. (8), the angular integration producing Eq. (9), and the coefficient formula (13) no longer follow. The internal derivation is consistent for isotropic processes, and the two applications (photons with isotropic scattering; neutrino oscillations with isotropic absorption/emission) fall in that class, but the abstract and introduction claim applicability to 'nearly any type of radiative process', which is overbroad as stated. The manuscript should either restrict the universality claims to isotropic kernels or extend the proof to anisotropic scattering; this is load-bearing for the central claims (i) and (ii).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Application 2, Eq. (24)] The expression for η(2a−1) in the neutrino-oscillation example has a pole at φ = 1, where the factor 1−φ² vanishes. Since the derivation of Eq. (8) assumes that the matrix M is diagonalizable, the degenerate-eigenvalue case φ = 1 may require a separate treatment; please state the domain of validity of Eq. (24) or show that the limit is regular.
  2. [Effective viscous theory, after Eq. (12)] The sentence stating that the radius of convergence of the gradient series 'coincides with the magnitude of the non-hydrodynamic gap' is not proved. For energy-dependent τ_n(E), the analytic structure of the implicit dispersion relation (9)/(11) is more complex than in the grey case; a brief justification or a precise definition of the 'gap' would strengthen this claim.
  3. [Non-Newtonian model, around Eq. (17)] The Fourier representation (17) assumes that the full linearized Boltzmann solution for a step-function initial condition can be written as a superposition of the discrete modes with the dispersion relation ω(k). Since the linearized Boltzmann equation also possesses a continuous spectrum, the decomposition (17) should be justified (or its use explicitly limited to the late-time/large-scale regime) to make the 'exact solution' comparison in Fig. 2 fully rigorous.
  4. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrases 'nearly any type of radiative process' and 'almost any type of radiation-matter interaction process' are stronger than what the supplementary material proves, since the derivations in SM Secs. I.B–I.D explicitly assume isotropic scattering and pair kernels. Please harmonize the wording in the abstract and introduction with the proven scope, e.g., by saying 'for isotropic scattering and pair processes'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: transport coefficients follow from microphysical inputs, and the Israel-Stewart coupling is a post-hoc calibration rather than a derived input.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained: equation (7b) is a linearized Boltzmann equation whose coefficients (opacities, emissivities, scattering kernels) are external inputs, equations (8)-(9) solve it in Fourier space, and equation (13) follows by expanding the resulting dispersion relation and comparing with the gradient expansion. No coefficient is fitted to the quantity it is said to predict. The Israel-Stewart mapping is explicitly conditional: equation (20) matches the kinetic result (15) only "provided that alpha_1^{-2} = eta(-1) T kappa_q", so alpha_1 is a calibrated parameter, not an input. The linearized Israel-Stewart equations are quoted from the author's prior work [53], but they are standard Israel-Stewart equations and are used only in the final mapping; no load-bearing self-cited uniqueness theorem or ansatz is invoked. The abstract's "nearly any type of radiative process" is broader than the Supplementary Material's proof, which explicitly restricts the scattering and pair kernels to isotropic ones (Secs. I.B-I.D); that is a validity/scope limitation, not a circularity.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; transport coefficients are expressed in terms of microphysical opacities, emissivities, and mean free paths. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The only calibrated quantity is the Israel-Stewart coefficient alpha1, which is derived from kinetic theory, not fitted.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The composite system is an ideal fluid (negligible mean free path, local kinetic equilibrium) plus a kinetic radiation gas in Minkowski spacetime.
    Stated in 'Geometric considerations'; excludes non-ideal fluid effects and curved spacetime.
  • domain assumption For transversal flows, the linearized collision operator for absorption, emission, isotropic scattering, pair processes, and flavor oscillations reduces to the two-term form (S3): delta[C_A^p]/p0 = S^A(p0) p3 delta-u3 - sum_B M^A_B(p0) delta-f^B_p.
    Proven in Supplementary Secs. I.A-I.E under isotropy of kernels and odd parity of delta-f; anisotropic kernels would break the universality.
  • domain assumption The perturbed distribution delta-f is odd under the rotation (p1,p2,p3) -> (p1,-p2,-p3) for shear-wave geometry.
    Used in Eq. (6b) and throughout to make several collision integrals vanish; depends on the incompressible transversal flow assumption.
  • domain assumption The collision matrix M(E) is diagonalizable and invertible with bounded eigenvalues (mean free paths) tau_n(E), and the fluid inertia W is large enough for the first-order implicit-function-theorem expansion in W^{-1}.
    Required for Eqs. (9)-(11); the boundedness assumption limits validity if opacities allow arbitrarily long mean free paths.
  • domain assumption The Israel-Stewart equations are taken in the linearized form of [53] (Eq. 18).
    Used for the mapping in Eqs. (18)-(20); this is the author's own prior formulation but is a published standard framework.
  • domain assumption Neutrino example uses a two-flavor toy Hamiltonian H = omega0 sigma_x / 4 and vanishing chemical potential.
    Illustrative application, stated explicitly in the paper; restricts that example.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-Newtonian corrections to radiative viscosity: Israel-Stewart theory as a viscosity limiter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VRB34J45

@misc{pith2026241112929,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-Newtonian corrections to radiative viscosity: Israel-Stewart theory as a viscosity limiter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VRB34J45}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12929}
}
read the original abstract

Radiation is a universal friction-increasing agent. When two fluid layers are in relative motion, the inevitable exchange of radiation between such layers gives rise to an effective force, which tries to prevent the layers from sliding. This friction is often modeled as a Navier-Stokes shear viscosity. However, non-Newtonian corrections are expected to appear at distances of about one optical depth from the layers' interface. Such corrections prevent the viscous stress from becoming too large. Here, we set the foundations of a rigorous theory for these corrections, valid along incompressible flows. We show that, in the linear regime, the infinite Chapman-Enskog series can be computed analytically, leading to universal formulas for all transport coefficients, which apply to any fluid, with any composition, with radiation of any type (also neutrinos), and with nearly any type of radiative process. We then show that, with an appropriate shear-heat coupling coefficient, Israel-Stewart theory can correctly describe most non-Newtonian features of radiative shear stresses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12929 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Microscopic origin of radiative shear viscosity. Consider a fluid that moves along the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Radiative friction between two fluid layers of a grey material, with initial data (dashed black) as in figure 1. Each panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Effective field theory of quasi-hydrodynamics from kinetic theory

    nucl-th 2026-08 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Linear quasi-hydrodynamics from any causal kinetic-like theory reduces, at leading order in the fast timescale, to transient hydrodynamics (Israel-Stewart or Cattaneo), with systematic higher-order corrections.

  2. Dispersion relations of relativistic radiation hydrodynamics

    astro-ph.HE 2024-11 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    The paper derives analytic formulas for the damping and propagation of shear, heat, and sound waves in relativistic matter-plus-grey-radiation fluids, including a new sound-wave formula.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [59]

    Gavassino, (2024), arXiv:2412.00275 [astro-ph.HE]

    L. Gavassino, (2024), arXiv:2412.00275 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    S. W. Bruenn, ApJS 58, 771 (1985)

    work page 1985

  3. [2]

    Rampp, Radiation Hydrodynamics with Neutrinos: Stellar Core Collapse and the Explosion Mechanism of Type II Supernovae, Ph.D

    M. Rampp, Radiation Hydrodynamics with Neutrinos: Stellar Core Collapse and the Explosion Mechanism of Type II Supernovae, Ph.D. thesis, Max-Planck-Institut fur Astrophysik (2002)

    work page 2002

  4. [3]

    Rampp and H

    M. Rampp and H. T. Janka, Astron. Astrophys. 396, 361 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0203101

    arXiv 2002

  5. [4]

    B. D. Farris, T. K. Li, Y. T. Liu, and S. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D 78, 024023 (2008), arXiv:0802.3210 [astro-ph]. 7

    arXiv 2008

  6. [5]

    Radiative hydrodynamics simulations of red supergiant stars. IV gray versus non-gray opacities

    A. Chiavassa, B. Freytag, T. Masseron, and B. Plez, A&A 535, A22 (2011), arXiv:1109.3619 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  7. [6]

    P. C. Fragile, A. Olejar, and P. Anninos, Astrophys. J. 796, 22 (2014), arXiv:1408.4460 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2014

  8. [7]

    Mirizzi, I

    A. Mirizzi, I. Tamborra, H.-T. Janka, N. Saviano, K. Scholberg, R. Bollig, L. Hudepohl, and S. Chakraborty, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 39, 1 (2016), arXiv:1508.00785 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 65 references
  1. [8]

    Radice, F

    D. Radice, F. Galeazzi, J. Lippuner, L. F. Roberts, C. D. Ott, and L. Rezzolla, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 460, 3255 (2016), arXiv:1601.02426 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [9]

    L. M. Murchikova, E. Abdikamalov, and T. Urbatsch, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 469, 1725 (2017), arXiv:1701.07027 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [10]

    P. C. Fragile, S. M. Etheridge, P. Anninos, B. Mishra, and W. Kluzniak, Astrophys. J. 857, 1 (2018), arXiv:1803.06423 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Lanˇ cov´ a, D

    D. Lanˇ cov´ a, D. Abarca, W. Klu´ zniak, M. Wielgus, A. S,adowski, R. Narayan, J. Schee, G. T ¨or¨ok, and M. Abramowicz, Astrophys. J. Lett. 884, L37 (2019), arXiv:1908.08396 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Perego, S

    A. Perego, S. Bernuzzi, and D. Radice, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 124 (2019), arXiv:1903.07898 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Anninos and P

    P. Anninos and P. C. Fragile, ApJ 900, 71 (2020), arXiv:2007.12195 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Fukushima and H

    H. Fukushima and H. Yajima, MNRAS 506, 5512 (2021), arXiv:2104.10892 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Foucart, Liv

    F. Foucart, Liv. Rev. Comput. Astrophys. 9, 1 (2023), arXiv:2209.02538 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Radice, S

    D. Radice, S. Bernuzzi, A. Perego, and R. Haas, MNRAS 512, 1499 (2022), arXiv:2111.14858 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Wang and A

    T. Wang and A. Burrows, Astrophys. J. 943, 78 (2023), arXiv:2210.01824 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [18]

    G. C. Pomraning, The equations of radiation hydrodynamics(Dover Publications, Mineola, 1973)

    1973

  12. [19]

    Mihalas and B

    D. Mihalas and B. Weibel Mihalas, Foundations of radiation hydrodynamics(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984)

    1984

  13. [20]

    J. I. Castor, Radiation Hydrodynamics(Cambridge University Press, 2004)

    2004

  14. [21]

    I. D. Novikov and K. S. Thorne, in Black Holes (Les Astres Occlus), edited by C. Dewitt and B. S. Dewitt (1973) pp. 343–450

    1973

  15. [22]

    Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol

    S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. 1 (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    1995

  16. [23]

    Udey and W

    N. Udey and W. Israel, MNRAS 199, 1137 (1982)

    1982

  17. [24]

    G. N. Minerbo, J. Quant. Spec. Radiat. Transf. 20, 541 (1978)

    1978

  18. [25]

    C. D. Levermore, J. Quant. Spec. Radiat. Transf. 31, 149 (1984)

    1984

  19. [26]

    Gavassino, M

    L. Gavassino, M. Antonelli, and B. Haskell, Symmetry 12, 1543 (2020)

    2020

  20. [27]

    Shibata, K

    M. Shibata, K. Kiuchi, Y.-i. Sekiguchi, and Y. Suwa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 125, 1255 (2011), arXiv:1104.3937 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Sadowski, R

    A. Sadowski, R. Narayan, A. Tchekhovskoy, and Y. Zhu, MNRAS 429, 3533 (2013), arXiv:1212.5050 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  22. [29]

    L. H. Thomas, The Quarterly Journal of Mathematics 1, 239 (1930)

    1930

  23. [30]

    C. W. Misner, ApJ 151, 431 (1968)

    1968

  24. [31]

    Weinberg, ApJ 168, 175 (1971)

    S. Weinberg, ApJ 168, 175 (1971)

    1971

  25. [32]

    Israel and J

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

    1979

  26. [33]

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

    1983

  27. [34]

    Wagner and L

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

    2024 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Hiscock and L

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

    1985

  29. [36]

    S. Pu, T. Koide, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 81, 114039 (2010), arXiv:0907.3906 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Gavassino, M

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

    2020 doi

  31. [38]

    Gavassino, Phys

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

    2022

  32. [39]

    O’Connor, Astrophys

    E. O’Connor, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 219, 24 (2015), arXiv:1411.7058 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [40]

    K.-C. Pan, C. Mattes, E. P. O’Connor, S. M. Couch, A. Perego, and A. Arcones, J. Phys. G 46, 014001 (2019), arXiv:1806.10030 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Bloch, P

    H. Bloch, P. Tremblin, M. Gonz´ alez, T. Padioleau, and E. Audit, A&A646, A123 (2021), arXiv:2011.13926 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Bloch, P

    H. Bloch, P. Tremblin, M. Gonz´ alez, and E. Audit, Journal of Computational Physics470, 111574 (2022), arXiv:2208.14703 [math.NA]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Schianchi, H

    F. Schianchi, H. Gieg, V. Nedora, A. Neuweiler, M. Ujevic, M. Bulla, and T. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. D 109, 044012 (2024), arXiv:2307.04572 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Sumiyoshi and S

    K. Sumiyoshi and S. Yamada, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 199, 17 (2012), arXiv:1201.2244 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Nagakura, W

    H. Nagakura, W. Iwakami, S. Furusawa, H. Okawa, A. Harada, K. Sumiyoshi, S. Yamada, H. Matsufuru, and A. Imakura, Astrophys. J. 854, 136 (2018), arXiv:1702.01752 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [46]

    M. K. Bhattacharyya and D. Radice, (2022), 10.1016/j.jcp.2023.112365, arXiv:2212.01409 [math.NA]

    2022

  40. [47]

    Malkin and A

    A. Malkin and A. Isayev, RHEOLOGY: Concepts, Methods, and Applications(ChemTec Publishing, Toronto, 2012)

    2012

  41. [48]

    Steffe, Rheological Methods in Food Process Engineering, second edition(Freeman Press, 1996)

    J. Steffe, Rheological Methods in Food Process Engineering, second edition(Freeman Press, 1996)

    1996

  42. [49]

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

    1965

  43. [50]

    Dudy´ nski, Journal of Statistical Physics57, 199 (1989)

    M. Dudy´ nski, Journal of Statistical Physics57, 199 (1989)

    1989

  44. [51]

    Struchtrup, Phys

    H. Struchtrup, Phys. Fluids 16, 3921 (2004)

    2004

  45. [52]

    Gavassino, Phys

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

    2024

  46. [53]

    Gavassino, M

    L. Gavassino, M. Antonelli, and B. Haskell, Phys. Rev. D 106, 056010 (2022)

    2022

  47. [54]

    Landau and E

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

    1987

  48. [55]

    Gavassino, M

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

    2021

  49. [56]

    Stephanov and Y

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

    2018 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Gavassino and J

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

    2024 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Gavassino, Class

    L. Gavassino, Class. Quant. Grav. 40, 165008 (2023), arXiv:2304.05455 [nucl-th]. 8

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    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

  53. [61]

    Vlasenko, G

    A. Vlasenko, G. M. Fuller, and V. Cirigliano, Phys. Rev. D 89, 105004 (2014), arXiv:1309.2628 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  54. [62]

    S. A. Richers, G. C. McLaughlin, J. P. Kneller, and A. Vlasenko, Phys. Rev. D 99, 123014 (2019), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 109, 129902 (2024)], arXiv:1903.00022 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Vartanyan, A

    D. Vartanyan, A. Burrows, D. Radice, A. M. Skinner, and J. Dolence, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 482, 351 (2019), arXiv:1809.05106 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    N. M. H. Vaytet, E. Audit, B. Dubroca, and F. Delahaye, J. Quant. Spec. Radiat. Transf.112, 1323 (2011), arXiv:1101.4955 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  57. [65]

    processes

    P. Romatschke, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 352 (2016), arXiv:1512.02641 [hep-th]. 1 Non-Newtonian corrections to radiative viscosity: Israel-Stewart theory as a viscosity limiter Supplementary Material L. Gavassino Department of Mathematics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA (...

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

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