Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Shear Viscosity of Collider-Produced QCD Matter II: Comparing a Multi-Component Chapman-Enskog Framework with AMPT in Full Equilibrium

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a three-species Chapman-Enskog treatment of the quark-gluon plasma, with gluons plus (anti-)quarks, running QCD parameters, and time-dependent cooling, yields shear viscosity and eta/s values that are higher than…

desk verdict A plausible extension of the author's own CE framework to QGP with running couplings, but the numbers rest on an unchecked screened-pole approximation and an internal gamma0 inconsistency; needs a careful referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15658 v1 pith:OVJZQXWN submitted 2025-01-26 nucl-th

Noah M. MacKay This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th PACS 12.38.Mh25.75.-q
keywords quark-gluonplasmashearviscosityeta/sChapman-EnskogDebyescreeningrunningcouplingAMPTheavy-ioncollisions
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 tries to establish that the shear viscosity $\eta$ and the ratio $\eta/s$ of a fully thermalized quark-gluon plasma are larger when quarks and antiquarks are treated as separate species alongside gluons, rather than folded into an effective gluon gas. It further claims that with a temperature-dependent running Debye mass and running strong coupling, plus an exponential cooling law, both quantities decrease over time as the plasma expands and cools, approaching the KSS lower bound $\eta/s = 1/(4\pi)$ from above. These results, obtained from an $N=3$ Chapman-Enskog formula, are presented as more consistent with perturbative QCD expectations than a constant-cross-section transport model whose one-component approximation shows trends that disagree with Bayesian analyses at later times. A sympathetic reader would care because transport coefficients like $\eta/s$ are the key link between QGP microscopic interactions and observable collective flow in heavy-ion collisions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the $N=3$ Chapman-Enskog viscosity expression Eq. (12), built from iterative $C_{0,k}$ coefficients and the linearized collision kernels $C''_{lk}$ of Eqs. (4)-(5). The kernels are linear in the differential cross sections $d\sigma_{lk}/d\hat t$, and the paper evaluates them using the screened-Coulomb approximation of Eq. (16): only the divergent $t$-channel survives, so $d\sigma_{lk}/d\hat t \simeq c_{lk}\,\alpha_s^2/(\hat t - m_D^2)^2$, with $m_D(T)$ from Eq. (15), $\alpha_s(T)$ from Eq. (14), and $\Lambda_T = 30\,\mathrm{MeV}$. The time evolution enters through the exponential cooling law $T(t)$, which carries the viscosity curves from early hot high-viscosity conditions toward the KSS bound as the plasma expands.

What would settle it

Recompute $\eta$ and $\eta/s$ with the same Chapman-Enskog kernels but using the full Standard Model amplitudes of Eqs. (7)-(10) with the same running $m_D(T)$ and $\alpha_s(T)$, at temperatures from 200 to 500 MeV; if the resulting values differ significantly from the screened-Coulomb-only results, or if the quark-on versus quark-off ordering reverses, the central claim fails. Alternatively, run a Green-Kubo or transport simulation with the full amplitudes under the same cooling law and compare the time-dependent $\eta/s$ curves.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a multi-component Chapman-Enskog method in full equilibrium, the paper derives an $N=3$ shear viscosity formula, Eq. (12), for a plasma of gluons, quarks, and antiquarks, built from iterative partial viscosities and linearized collision kernels $C''_{lk}$. Restricting all elastic $2\to 2$ parton scatterings to their divergent $t$-channel amplitudes, screened by a temperature-dependent Debye mass $m_D(T)$ with the QCD coupling $\alpha_s(T)$ running, the paper finds that switching on three quark flavors raises both $\eta$ and $\eta/s$ relative to the quark-off gluon-gas case. Substituting the cooling law $T(t) = 550\,\mathrm{MeV}\exp(-1.204\,t/\mathrm{fm})$ makes both quantities fall monotonically with time, with $\eta/s$ drifting toward the KSS bound. These trends are contrasted with calculations that use a constant cross section and a one-component gluon-gas viscosity, which the paper argues are oversimplified and disagree with pQCD expectations at lower temperatures.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical results rest on the assumption that in every elastic $2\to 2$ parton channel only the divergent $t$-channel survives, so all differential cross sections collapse to the screened-Coulomb form $d\sigma_{lk}/d\hat t \simeq c_{lk}\,\alpha_s^2/(\hat t - m_D^2)^2$; if the neglected non-divergent terms in the full amplitudes contribute substantially at these temperatures, every viscosity curve changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Including (anti-)quark partial viscosities raises $\eta$ and $\eta/s$ at every temperature considered, so single-species gluon-gas estimates likely underestimate the plasma's resistance to shear.
  • With running $m_D(T)$ and $\alpha_s(T)$, both $\eta$ and $\eta/s$ decrease as the QGP cools, moving toward the KSS lower bound and implying the plasma appears more nearly perfect at later times.
  • The $N=3$ framework with running parameters produces trends that are closer to perturbative QCD expectations than constant-cross-section one-component estimates, particularly at lower temperatures and later times.
  • At $N_f = 0$ the formalism reduces to the $N=1$ gluon-gas limit, providing a smooth interpolation between the multi-component and one-component descriptions.
  • If correct, the enhanced early-time $\eta/s$ implies that hydrodynamic modeling of heavy-ion collisions should incorporate flavor-resolved transport coefficients rather than a single effective gluon-gas viscosity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct numerical check using the full Standard Model amplitudes of Eqs. (7)-(10), rather than only the screened $t$-channel terms, would show whether the quark-induced enhancement survives when non-divergent momentum-dependent terms are included; the paper does not perform this check.
  • The same three-species Chapman-Enskog machinery could be extended to partial chemical equilibrium with quark fugacities, where the quark-to-gluon ratio changes over time and would likely alter the cooling trajectory of $\eta/s$.
  • Because the $t$-channel-only approximation emphasizes small-momentum-transfer forward scattering, the true $\eta$ could be lower than presented; a Green-Kubo or transport simulation with the full amplitudes at $T \sim 200$-$500$ MeV would quantify the difference.
  • The exponential cooling law with boundary temperatures 550 MeV at $t=0$ and 150 MeV at $t=10$ fm/$c$ is a strong modeling assumption; replacing it with a hydrodynamic cooling profile could shift the time-dependent curves even if the equilibrium transport coefficients are unchanged.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript (arXiv:2501.15658, nucl-th) proposes a multi-component Chapman-Enskog (CE) framework for the shear viscosity of a fully thermalized quark-gluon plasma (QGP), treating the system as a three-component mixture of gluons, quarks, and antiquarks. The authors use species-specific elastic 2→2 cross sections from the Standard Model, combine them with a running strong coupling g(T) and running Debye mass m_D(T), and then impose a time-dependent cooling law T(t) = 550 MeV exp(-1.204 t/fm). The central claims are that the inclusion of (anti-)quarks enhances both η and η/s relative to a gluon-only description, that η and η/s decrease over time as the plasma cools, and that these results align with perturbative QCD predictions. The CE results are compared with AMPT transport-model calculations, and the discrepancy is attributed to AMPT's constant cross-section assumption.

Significance. If the central claims were quantitatively established, this would be a useful analytical tool for estimating QGP transport coefficients with species-resolved degrees of freedom and temperature-dependent running parameters. The paper has notable strengths: it makes the multi-component CE approach explicit, includes a straightforward comparison with AMPT, and uses standard pQCD inputs rather than fitting to the target η values. However, the quantitative results rest on an unchecked approximation of the scattering amplitudes, and several internal inconsistencies make the plotted curves non-reproducible from the text. For these reasons, the significance of the claimed 'alignment with pQCD' and the quark-induced enhancement cannot yet be assessed with confidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Eq. (16); §2.2, Eqs. (7)–(10)] The central numerical results in Figs. 1–3 are produced with the screened t-channel-only cross sections in Eq. (16), but the manuscript gives no quantitative justification for discarding the remaining terms of the full 2→2 amplitudes in Eqs. (7)–(10). Because the collision kernel C''_lk in Eqs. (4)–(5) is linear in dσ/dt, every plotted curve is controlled by this approximation. In particular, Eq. (9) for gq scattering contains a 1/(s u) term, and the gg and identical-fermion amplitudes in Eqs. (10) and (8) have u-channel poles at u = 0 (t = -s), which are not regularized because the Debye mass in Eq. (13) screens only the t-channel. The integrals in Eq. (5) run over the full t ∈ [-s, 0] range, so the u-pole region is unscreened and is of the same logarithmic order as the kept forward pole at m_D/T ≈ 2 and α_s ≈ 0.2–0.34. Please provide a numerical comparison of η(T) computed from the complete amplitudes versus the approximation in Eq. (16), or a bound on the omitted contributions. Without such a test, the claimed quark-induced enhancement and the claimed quantitative agreement with pQCD are not established.
  2. [§2.1, Eqs. (3), (12); text after Eq. (1)] There is an internal inconsistency in the overall factor of γ0. Equation (3) reads η = T γ0/(10σ)(x1 C0,1 + x2 C0,2 + x3 C0,3), whereas the C0,i given in Eqs. (2) and (11) already contain one power of γ0; substituting them into Eq. (3) yields a factor γ0^2, as indeed appears in Eq. (12). Please clarify which formula is used to produce the figures. In addition, the stated small-z limit γ0 = 1600/z^2 is not the standard Bessel asymptotics for z→0, where K3(z)/K2(z) ~ 4/z and hence γ0 ~ -40/z; since z = m/T for massless partons, the finiteness and numerical value of the plotted η require an explicit explanation.
  3. [§2.1–§3, Eqs. (5), Figs. 1–3] The paper never reports the values of the integrals T_lk and J_lk in Eq. (5) or any other numerical intermediate, so the curves in Figs. 1–3 are not independently verifiable from the text. Please provide a table of η(T) and η/s(T) for representative temperatures, or a reproducible specification of the integration procedure, the cutoff or regularization details, and the parameter values used, so that the results can be checked by a reader.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, §1, §3, §4] The manuscript contains numerous typos, including 'incorpoartes' in the abstract, 'viscsoity' in the introduction, 'significally' in §3, 'adjustemtns' in §4, and 'T able 1' before Table 1; a careful proofread is needed.
  2. [§2.3, Eq. (15)] The sentence 'where g ∼ m_D/T is defined as (1/g^2(T))^{-1/2}' is circular and confusing; please define g(T) unambiguously, e.g., g(T) = sqrt(4π α_s(T)).
  3. [Fig. 2 caption, §4] The hybrid construction 'N = 1 AMPT viscosity and N = 3 entropy density' is unusual and should be explicitly justified, since the comparison in Fig. 2 mixes different model assumptions in a way that is not explained in the main text.
  4. [§4.1, Eq. (20)] The cooling law in Eq. (20) is introduced as an exponential fit without derivation, uncertainty, or comparison to hydrodynamic expansion models; the manuscript should clearly label this as a phenomenological input and discuss its sensitivity.
  5. [§2.1, Eq. (2), Ref. [27]] Because the N = 3 CE expansion in Eq. (2) is taken from Ref. [27], which is the author's own earlier preprint, the present paper should either reproduce the derivation in an appendix or explicitly state the dependence; the notation in Eq. (4) (δN,1, ΔN,1, and the ≃ symbol) is also under-specified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: the Chapman-Enskog expansion, cross sections, running parameters, and cooling law are all inputs, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is linear: Eq. (1) is the standard Chapman-Enskog viscosity; Eqs. (2) and (4) are taken from the author's prior work Ref. [27] as a parameter-free expansion whose stated assumptions (massless Maxwell-Boltzmann partons, anisotropic scatterings) do not include the target viscosity values; Eqs. (7)-(10) are standard-model cross sections from the PDG; Eq. (16) is an explicitly stated divergent-channel-only screening approximation; and Eqs. (14), (15), and (20) are literature running parameters and an exponential cooling law fixed by two boundary temperatures. No parameter is fitted to the computed eta(T) or eta/s(T) curves, and no equation is defined in terms of its own output. The time dependence in Fig. 3 is generated by substituting the assumed cooling law into the computed eta(T), so the statement that eta and eta/s decrease with time is a model consequence rather than a fitted-input prediction. The self-citations (Refs. [15], [18], [27]) are used as sources of the CE expansion and as an AMPT benchmark; they do not smuggle in the conclusion, because the cited CE derivation is parameter-free and does not assume the reported viscosity values. The explicit limitation that only divergent t-channel terms are kept in Eq. (16) is an uncontrolled approximation that affects the numerical results, but it is a physics-correctness concern, not circularity: eta is not defined by that approximation by construction. Accordingly the circularity score is 0.

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

The model depends on standard pQCD inputs (running coupling, Debye mass, cross sections), a self-cited N=3 CE framework, and a hand-picked cooling law. The main free choices are Lambda_T = 30 MeV, the cooling rate constant, and the boundary temperatures, none of which are varied in the paper. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Lambda_T (QCD scale parameter) = 30 MeV
    Scale parameter in the 2-loop running coupling, taken from Ref [32]; controls the magnitude of alpha_s(T) and hence all cross sections. Not fitted here, but the central results depend on its value.
  • Cooling rate constant k = 1.204 c/fm
    Exponential decay constant in T(t) = 550 MeV * exp(-1.204 t/fm). Chosen so the temperature drops from 550 MeV at t=0 to 150 MeV at t=10 fm/c; not derived from hydrodynamics or data.
  • Boundary temperatures T(0), T(10 fm/c) = 550 MeV, 150 MeV
    Ad hoc endpoints for the cooling model; no justification beyond typical QGP freeze-out range.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Partons are massless and obey Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics.
    Used throughout to define number densities (Eq. 17) and the collision kernel (Eq. 4).
  • domain assumption The QGP is fully thermalized and remains in full equilibrium.
    Stated in the title and Section 2; excludes chemical and kinetic non-equilibrium effects.
  • domain assumption The N=3 Chapman-Enskog partial-viscosity expansions (Eqs. 2 and 4) from Ref [27] are correct and applicable.
    The paper relies on these without re-deriving them; the central formula Eq. (12) depends on them.
  • domain assumption Only divergent t-channel scattering channels contribute, reducing all cross sections to the Yukawa form of Eq. (16).
    Introduced in Section 3 without quantitative justification against the full amplitudes in Eqs. (7)-(10).
  • standard math The Debye mass formula m_D^2 = (1/3)(3+N_f/2) g^2 T^2 from Ref [22] is valid.
    Standard hard-thermal-loop result, combined with the running g(T) from Eq. (14).
  • domain assumption Newton's cooling law T(t) = 550 MeV exp(-1.204 t/fm) approximates the QGP time evolution.
    Used in Section 4.1; the exponential profile is an ad hoc surrogate for hydrodynamic expansion.
  • standard math Entropy density of a massless classical gas is s = 4n.
    Used to compute eta/s; standard thermodynamic relation for a massless Maxwell-Boltzmann gas.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shear Viscosity of Collider-Produced QCD Matter II: Comparing a Multi-Component Chapman-Enskog Framework with AMPT in Full Equilibrium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OVJZQXWN

@misc{pith2026250115658,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shear Viscosity of Collider-Produced QCD Matter II: Comparing a Multi-Component Chapman-Enskog Framework with AMPT in Full Equilibrium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OVJZQXWN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15658}
}
abstract

Transport properties of the quark-gluon plasma are instrumental to testing perturbative quantum chromodynamics and understanding the extreme conditions of relativistic heavy-ion collisions. This study presents an analytical investigation of the shear viscosity $\eta$ and the shear viscosity-to-entropy density ratio $\eta/s$ of the QGP using a novel multi-component Chapman-Enskog framework assuming full thermalization. The approach incorporates species-specific contributions from gluons and (anti-)quarks into the plasma shear viscosity, temperature-dependent running parameters for the Debye mass and strong coupling, and a time-dependent cooling model. Our findings show that both $\eta$ and $\eta/s$ are enhanced by the inclusion of (anti-)quarks with gluons, and the parameters decrease over time due to the cooling and expansion of the QGP. These results align with perturbative QCD predictions, offering a more optimistic representation of QGP transport properties under dynamic conditions. This multi-component framework is compared with a multi-phase transport model that treats the QGP as a gluon gas with (anti-)quark augmentation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. [STAR], Nucl. Phys. A 757, 102 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.085

    doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.085 2005

  2. [2]

    Adcox et al

    K. Adcox et al. [PHENIX], Nucl. Phys. A 757, 184-283 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.086 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003 [nucl-ex]]. 11

    arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    Romatschke and U

    P. Romatschke and U. Romatschke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 172301 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.172301 [arXiv:0706.1522 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv 2007

  4. [4]

    Song and U

    H. Song and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 78, 024902 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.78.024902 [arXiv:0805.1756 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv 2008

  5. [5]

    Aamodt et al

    K. Aamodt et al. [ALICE], Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 252302 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.252302 [arXiv:1011.3914 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    Z. w. Lin and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 65, 034904 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.65.034904 [arXiv:nucl-th/0108039 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv 2002

  7. [7]

    Z. Xu, C. Greiner and H. Stocker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 082302 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.082302 [arXiv:0711.0961 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    Xu and C

    Z. Xu and C. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 79, 014904 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.79.014904 [arXiv:0811.2940 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2009

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Ferini, M

    G. Ferini, M. Colonna, M. Di Toro and V. Greco, Phys. Lett. B 670, 325-329 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.10.062 [arXiv:0805.4814 [nucl-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Kovtun, D

    P. Kovtun, D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 111601 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.111601 [arXiv:hep-th/0405231 [hep-th]]

    2005 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Ga´ zdzicki and M

    M. Ga´ zdzicki and M. I. Gorenstein, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17545-4 11 [arXiv:1502.07684 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Xu and C

    Z. Xu and C. Greiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 172301 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.172301 [arXiv:0710.5719 [nucl-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Xu and C

    J. Xu and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 83, 034904 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.83.034904 [arXiv:1101.2231 [nucl-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Plumari, A

    S. Plumari, A. Puglisi, F. Scardina and V. Greco, Phys. Rev. C 86, 054902 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.86.054902 [arXiv:1208.0481 [nucl-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  7. [15]

    N. M. MacKay and Z. W. Lin, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.10, 918 (2022) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10892-y [arXiv:2208.06027 [nucl-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Chapman, T.G

    S. Chapman, T.G. Cowling. The Mathematical Theory of Non-Uniform Gases (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995)

    1995

  9. [17]

    de Groot, W.A

    S.R. de Groot, W.A. van Leeuwen, Ch. G. van Weert.Relativistic Kinetic Theory: Principles and Applications(Amsterdam, 1980)

    1980

  10. [18]

    N. M. MacKay. The shear viscosity of quark-gluon plasma under anisotropic scatterings (Master’s Thesis, East Carolina University, 2022). 12

    2022

  11. [19]

    Zhang, Comput

    B. Zhang, Comput. Phys. Commun. 109, 193-206 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0010- 4655(98)00010-1 [arXiv:nucl-th/9709009 [nucl-th]]

    1998 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Z. W. Lin, Phys. Rev. C 90, no.1, 014904 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.90.014904 [arXiv:1403.6321 [nucl-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    H. S. Wang, G. L. Ma, Z. W. Lin and W. j. Fu, Phys. Rev. C 105, no.3, 034912 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.105.034912 [arXiv:2102.06937 [nucl-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP 05, 051 (2003) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/05/051 [arXiv:hep-ph/0302165 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A. El, I. Bouras, F. Lauciello, Z. Xu and C. Greiner, [arXiv:1103.4038 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    R. S. Brokaw. Viscosity of gas mixtures(NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, 1968)

    1968

  17. [25]

    Sutherland, Phil

    W. Sutherland, Phil. Mag. 40 (1895), pp. 421-431

  18. [26]

    Moroz, Comput

    O. Moroz, Comput. Fluids 90, 9 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2013.11.014 [arXiv:1402.2240 [physics.flu-dyn]]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    N. M. MacKay, [arXiv:2406.07764 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1343-1346 (1973) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.30.1343

    1973 doi

  21. [29]

    P. A. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020, 083C01 (2021) https://pdg.lbl.gov/2021/reviews/rpp2021-rev-cross-section-formulae.pdf

    2021

  22. [30]

    Molnar and M

    D. Molnar and M. Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys. A 697, 495-520 (2002) [erratum: Nucl. Phys. A 703, 893-894 (2002)] doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(01)01224-6 [arXiv:nucl- th/0104073 [nucl-th]]

    2002

  23. [31]

    Z. W. Lin, C. M. Ko, B. A. Li, B. Zhang and S. Pal, Phys. Rev. C 72, 064901 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.72.064901 [arXiv:nucl-th/0411110 [nucl-th]]

    2005 arXiv

  24. [32]

    L. P. Csernai, J. I. Kapusta and L. D. McLerran, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 152303 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.152303 [arXiv:nucl-th/0604032 [nucl-th]]. 13

    2006 arXiv

Pith tools

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