Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 48 references

Thermodynamic parameters of fluids on conformally connected spacetimes

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under conformal rescaling of the spacetime metric, equilibrium fluid temperature and chemical potential scale as the inverse conformal factor.

desk verdict A plausible extension of conformal temperature scaling to BDNK fluids, but the central derivation leans on an unstated heat-flux ansatz and discards a branch that covers the motivating cosmological cases. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13084 v1 pith:6SRWKWHJ submitted 2025-05-19 gr-qc hep-th

Bhera Ram , Bibhas Ranjan Majhi This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th
keywords conformaltransformationsrelativisticfluidslocalthermalequilibriumheatfluxTolman-EhrenfestrelationKleinlawgeometrothermodynamics
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

Local thermal equilibrium usually means no heat flux. This paper asks how the equilibrium thermodynamic variables of a relativistic fluid change when the spacetime metric is multiplied by a conformal factor, $\tilde{g}_{ab} = \Omega^2 g_{ab}$, with both descriptions at thermal equilibrium. It argues that demanding the vanishing heat flux be preserved forces temperature and chemical potential to scale as $\tilde{T}=T/\Omega$ and $\tilde{\mu}=\mu/\Omega$, making the ratio $\mu/T$ invariant. This matters because it transfers equilibrium thermal data between conformally related backgrounds, such as static and cosmological spacetimes, and extends earlier results, which required static seed metrics and ideal-fluid equations of state, to arbitrary Einstein-equation backgrounds with viscous fluids.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the conformal transformation rule for the heat flux in the first-order relativistic fluid equations. In that formalism the heat current is a sum of two projections: one proportional to $\Delta \nabla(\mu/T)$ and one to $\Delta (\nabla \ln T + \text{acceleration})$. Imposing $q^{a}=0$ and $\tilde{q}^{a}=0$ while requiring $\tilde{q}^{a} = \Omega^{z_1} q^{a}$, together with $\tilde{u}^{a} = u^{a}/\Omega$, forces the undetermined exponents in the ansatz $\tilde{T}=T/\Omega^{z_2}$, $\tilde{\mu}=\mu/\Omega^{z_3}$ to be $z_2 = z_3 = 1$; the temperature and chemical potential scalings are then read off. The arbitrariness of the conformal factor and of the fluid four-velocity is what closes the argument: any other exponent would leave unmatched gradient terms.

What would settle it

Take any seed spacetime in which the heat flux vanishes and choose a conformal factor $\Omega$ whose gradient is not parallel to the fluid velocity. Evaluate the rescaled heat flux $\tilde{q}^{a}$ from the constitutive relation using $T$ and $\mu$, and test whether the condition $\tilde{q}^{a}=0$ is solved by $\tilde{T}=T/\Omega$, $\tilde{\mu}=\mu/\Omega$ alone; a counterexample with a different solution would falsify the paper's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a conformal dictionary for equilibrium fluids. If a fluid described by a causal first-order dissipative formalism is in local thermal equilibrium on both $g_{ab}$ and $\tilde{g}_{ab} = \Omega^2 g_{ab}$, with the same coordinates and with velocity and heat flux identified as $\tilde{u}^{a} = u^{a}/\Omega$ and $\tilde{q}^{a} = \Omega^{z_1} q^{a}$, then consistency of the heat-flux expressions forces $\tilde{T} = T/\Omega$ and $\tilde{\mu} = \mu/\Omega$. Consequently $\tilde{\mu}/\tilde{T} = \mu/T$. The same step yields scaling of densities ($\tilde{n} = n/\Omega^3$, $\tilde{\epsilon} = \epsilon/\Omega^4$, $\tilde{p} = p/\Omega^4$, $\tilde{s} = s/\Omega^3$), while total entropy and baryon number are unchanged; and the Legendre-invariant thermogeometric metrics of the two fluid descriptions are themselves conformally related with factor $\Omega^{-2}$. As a corollary, when the seed spacetime is static or stationary, the constancy of $\mu/T$ transfers to the rescaled spacetime even if the latter is neither static nor stationary.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the assumed rule that the heat flux simply rescales by a power of the conformal factor, $\tilde{q}^{a}=\Omega^{z_1}q^{a}$, with no extra derivative terms; a different conformal mapping of the heat flux would change the derived temperature and chemical potential scalings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a conformally rescaled spacetime, the equilibrium temperature and chemical potential change by the inverse conformal factor, so a fluid that is hot in one frame is cold in another by a known factor.
  • The ratio $\mu/T$ is conformally invariant: any equilibrium relation stated in terms of $\mu/T$ carries over unchanged to the rescaled spacetime, even when that spacetime is not static.
  • Densities of energy and pressure scale as $\Omega^{-4}$, number and entropy densities as $\Omega^{-3}$, so the total entropy and total baryon number are invariant under the conformal map.
  • A fluid that is in complete equilibrium (no shear, expansion, or heat flux) in the seed remains without heat flux in the rescaled spacetime but generically develops nonzero shear and expansion, so it becomes a dissipative fluid in thermal equilibrium there.
  • The Legendre-invariant thermodynamic metrics are conformally related by $\Omega^{-2}$, so the light-cone structure of the thermodynamic geometry maps to the other frame with the same slopes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test: apply the same covariance argument to the shear and bulk-viscous corrections; the paper fixes only the heat-flux rule, so other transport coefficients may rescale differently.
  • Because the argument rules out $\Delta^a_b \nabla_b \Omega = 0$ as restrictive, the uniqueness of the $T/\Omega$ scaling may fail for conformal factors that are constant on surfaces orthogonal to the flow; checking such cases would sharpen the theorem.
  • In cosmological settings, if the fluid is the CMB and the conformal factor is the scale factor, the relation $\tilde{T}=T/\Omega$ turns the paper's equilibrium statement into the standard $T \propto 1/a$ redshift law, giving a concrete observational handle.
  • The dictionary suggests a computational shortcut: compute equilibrium thermodynamics in a convenient conformal frame and import results via powers of $\Omega$; the paper shows the map is consistent but does not prove uniqueness beyond the chosen ansatz.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies BDNK dissipative fluids on two spacetimes related by a conformal factor Ω, assuming local thermal equilibrium (zero heat flux) in both backgrounds. With the velocity identification \tilde{u}^a = u^a/Ω and the heat-flux transformation \tilde{q}^a = Ω^{z1} q^a, the authors derive \tilde{T} = T/Ω and \tilde{μ} = μ/Ω, and hence preservation of μ/T. They extend the scaling to number density, energy density, pressure, and entropy, and show that the Legendre-invariant geometrothermodynamic metrics are conformally related. The paper claims to generalize earlier static-metric, ideal-fluid, Eckart-based results to arbitrary conformally connected spacetimes that are solutions of Einstein's equations.

Significance. If the derivation were fully justified, the result would be a significant generalization: a prediction (up to an arbitrary z1) for the temperature and chemical potential of a conformally rescaled fluid, consistent with Dicke's argument and the Faraoni-Vanderwee analysis, while using the causal, stable BDNK formalism and covering non-static, non-stationary backgrounds. The geometrothermodynamic consistency check is a valuable addition. However, the central derivation relies on an unproven covariance ansatz for the heat flux and on discarding the homogeneous branch, so the stated generality is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (17)] The transformation law \tilde{q}^a = Ω^{z1} q^a is asserted ('we must have') rather than derived. In the thermal-equilibrium regime considered, q^a = \tilde{q}^a = 0, so Eq. (17) is an identity 0=0 on-shell; all nontrivial content is an off-shell assumption about how the BDNK heat flux behaves under conformal rescaling. Since the derivation of Eqs. (18)-(19) in Appendix A proceeds by substituting Eq. (17) into Eq. (A4) and equating coefficients, the central scaling result is not a consequence of thermal equilibrium alone but rests on this additional covariance postulate. Please state this postulate explicitly and justify it, or derive it from an independent principle.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A8)] The authors discard the solution Δ∇Ω = 0 as a 'restriction,' but this branch is precisely the homogeneous/cosmological case in which the conformal factor depends only on time along the flow (e.g., FLRW with comoving four-velocity), a motivating example in the Introduction. In this branch Eq. (A9) is not forced, and the conclusion z2 = 1, z3 = 1 does not follow from the given argument. The claimed validity for 'any arbitrary conformally connected backgrounds' (Section I) is therefore not supported; please treat this branch explicitly or justify its exclusion.
  3. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A10)-(A11)] The step from Eq. (A10) to Eq. (A11) assumes that αμ/(βT) is not constant on the spacetime. If αμ/(βT) is constant, Eq. (A10) admits a one-parameter family of solutions (z2, z3) and the conclusion z2 = 1, z3 = z2 is not unique. The paper does not state or prove the required genericness condition. Please add the condition and discuss the degenerate case.
  4. [Sec. II.B, Eqs. (24)-(27)] The relation \tilde{J}^a = J^a/Ω^4 is not derived from conservation alone; demanding that conservation in one background implies conservation in the other determines this relation only up to addition of a divergence-free current. Similarly, the scaling relations for \tilde{ε}, \tilde{p}, and \tilde{s} in Eq. (27) are obtained by 'demanding' that each term in Eq. (26) scales as Ω^{-4}, which is an extra postulate rather than a consequence. These assumptions should be stated clearly, because they feed into the GTD consistency check in Sec. III.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, after Eq. (60)] The statement that the conformal connection between metrics 'effectively leads to (20) and vice versa' is stronger than what is shown; the conformal relation (51) was derived using (18)-(19), so it cannot independently establish (20).
  2. [Sec. II.A] The parameter z1 is introduced as 'some real number' and later called a 'non-vanishing arbitrary real number'; please clarify whether z1 = 0 is permitted, since Eq. (17) with z1 = 0 is also compatible with zero heat flux.
  3. [Throughout] There are typographical slips such as 'untilde' for 'untilded' in Sec. II and minor grammar issues in the discussion of Eq. (33); a careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity in the central T/Ω derivation; the GTD 'consistency check' restates the scaling relations it claims to verify.

  1. other [Section III (Geometrothermodynamics), around Eqs. (47)-(51)]
    "Now, given these relations among the thermodynamic parameters, it can be shown that the thermogeometric metrics describing the fluid given by g′ and ˜g′ corresponding to gab(x) and ˜gab(x) respectively are also conformally connected as explicitly shown below. ... This could be an alternative verification of the consistency of the relations among the equilibrium thermodynamic parameters."

    The claimed 'alternative verification' is not independent: Eq. (51), ˜g′ = Ω^{−2}g′, is obtained by substituting the scaling relations (18), (19), (25), and (27), together with ˜S=S, ˜N=N, d˜T=dT/Ω, and d˜μ=dμ/Ω, into the defining expression (48). The output is therefore equivalent to the input by construction. The GTD calculation can show internal consistency of the framework, but it cannot corroborate the thermodynamic scaling relations because those relations are precisely what is used to build the conformal relation between the thermogeometric metrics. This circularity is confined to the validation claim, not to the derivation of (18)-(19) itself.

full rationale

The central derivation of the temperature and chemical potential scalings is not circular. Appendix A starts from the explicit covariance assumption ˜q^a = Ω^{z1} q^a in Eq. (17) and the BDNK constitutive form, postulates power-law scalings ˜T = T/Ω^{z2} and ˜μ = μ/Ω^{z3} in Eq. (A1), and then determines z2=1 and z3=1 by coefficient matching. This is a derivation from stated assumptions rather than a fit or a self-referential reduction; the heat-flux ansatz is an unproven input, so the result is conditional, but it is not equivalent to the claimed output by construction. The discarded Δ∇Ω=0 branch and the genericness assumption on αμ/(βT) are limitations on the proof's scope, not circularities. Self-citations, including [21] and [45], are used for background or peripheral statements and are not load-bearing for the main scaling result. The one genuinely circular element is the GTD 'consistency check': the conformal relation between thermogeometric metrics is manufactured from the very thermodynamic scaling relations it is said to verify. Because this does not affect the central derivation, the overall circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on BDNK fluid theory, the restriction to Einstein spacetimes, and three conformal mapping choices: four-velocity, heat flux, and baryon current. The latter two are ad hoc assumptions not derived from thermal equilibrium.

free parameters (1)
  • z_1
    Arbitrary real exponent in the heat flux transformation ansatz \tilde{q}^a = \Omega^{z_1} q^a (Eq. 17). It remains undetermined and cancels out, so it does not affect the final scalings.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption BDNK first-order fluid theory correctly describes dissipative relativistic fluids with the given constitutive relations (Eqs. 1-6).
    The entire derivation of the heat flux expressions and their transformation relies on the validity of BDNK theory.
  • domain assumption Both spacetimes are solutions of Einstein's equations.
    The authors limit the validity to Einstein gravity because BDNK stability and causality have only been proved there; stated in the introduction and conclusions.
  • ad hoc to paper The fluid four-velocity identification \tilde{u}^a = u^a/\Omega preserves normalization.
    This choice (Eq. 15) maps observers between the two conformal frames; a different identification would change the derived relations.
  • ad hoc to paper The heat flux transforms as \tilde{q}^a = \Omega^{z_1} q^a.
    This covariance ansatz (Eq. 17) is asserted without derivation; it is the key premise that forces the temperature and chemical potential scalings.
  • ad hoc to paper The baryon current transforms as \tilde{J}^a = J^a/\Omega^4, so that conservation on one spacetime implies conservation on the other.
    This choice (Eq. 24) determines the number density scaling \tilde{n} = n/\Omega^3.
  • standard math Standard conformal transformation formulas for the covariant derivative, connection, and acceleration.
    Used to derive Eq. (16) and the tilde heat flux expression.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermodynamic parameters of fluids on conformally connected spacetimes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6SRWKWHJ

@misc{pith2026250513084,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermodynamic parameters of fluids on conformally connected spacetimes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6SRWKWHJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13084}
}
read the original abstract

Local thermal equilibrium generally implies the absence of heat flux within a fluid. We find the relations between a set of thermodynamic variables of a fluid on a general spacetime and those defined on a conformally connected spacetime, assuming both descriptions are at thermal equilibrium. The scaling relations appear to be consistent with Dicke's heuristic argument and the previous analysis done on the basis of various restrictions. Within the present framework, it is observed that the satisfaction of Klein's law on one of the spacetimes implies its validity on the other one. Moreover, our analysis bypasses some of the imposed restrictions and thereby reveals the generality of the earlier predictions. These relations are further shown to preserve the geometric structure of thermodynamics, known as geometrothermodynamics, such that the associated metrics on two conformally connected spacetimes are themselves conformally related. This provides an alternative consistency check as well as a distinct geometric interpretation of the relations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev.35, 904 (1930)

    work page 1930

  2. [2]

    Tolman and P

    R. Tolman and P. Ehrenfest, Phys. Rev.36, 1791 (1930)

    1930

  3. [3]

    H. A. Buchdahl, Phys. Rev.76, 427 (1949), URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.76.427.2

    doi:10.1103/physrev.76.427.2 1949

  4. [4]

    Santiago and M

    J. Santiago and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D98, 064001 (2018), 1807.02915

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Klein, Rev

    O. Klein, Rev. Mod. Phys.21, 531 (1949), URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.21.531

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.21.531 1949

  6. [6]

    W. J. Cocke, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincare2, 283 (1965)

    work page 1965

  7. [7]

    Katz and Y

    J. Katz and Y. Manor, Phys. Rev. D12, 956 (1975), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD. 12.956

    doi:10.1103/physrevd 1975

  8. [8]

    R. D. Sorkin, R. M. Wald, and Z. J. Zhang, Gen. Rel. Grav.13, 1127 (1981)

    work page 1981

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Gao, Phys

    S. Gao, Phys. Rev. D84, 104023 (2011), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 85, 027503 (2012)], 1109.2804

    2011 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Gao, Phys

    S. Gao, Phys. Rev. D85, 027503 (2012), URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.027503

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    S. R. Green, J. S. Schiffrin, and R. M. Wald, Class. Quant. Grav.31, 035023 (2014), 1309.0177

    2014 arXiv

  4. [12]

    K. Shi, Y. Tian, X. Wu, H. Zhang, and C. Zhu, Class. Quant. Grav.39, 085004 (2022), 2108.08729

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    K. Shi, Y. Tian, X. Wu, H. Zhang, and J. Zhang (2022), 2211.11574

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Roupas, Class

    Z. Roupas, Class. Quant. Grav.30, 115018 (2013), [Erra- tum: Class.Quant.Grav. 32, 119501 (2015)], 1411.0325

    2013 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Roupas, Class

    Z. Roupas, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 135023 (2015), 1411.4267

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Roupas, Symmetry11, 1435 (2019), 1809.04408

    Z. Roupas, Symmetry11, 1435 (2019), 1809.04408

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Roupas, Phys

    Z. Roupas, Phys. Rev. D91, 023001 (2015), 1411.5203

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Rovelli and M

    C. Rovelli and M. Smerlak, Class. Quant. Grav.28, 075007 (2011), 1005.2985

    2011 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J. A. S. Lima, A. Del Popolo, and A. R. Plastino, Phys. Rev. D100, 104042 (2019), 1911.09060

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    J. A. S. Lima and J. Santos, Phys. Rev. D104, 124089 (2021), 2112.12282

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Ram and B

    B. Ram and B. R. Majhi, Annals Phys.476, 169963 (2025), 2304.11843

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Miranda, M

    M. Miranda, M. Rinaldi, and V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. D 110, 104065 (2024), 2409.12861

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Ram and B

    B. Ram and B. R. Majhi, Phys. Rev. D (2025), 2412.02364

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Sultana and C

    J. Sultana and C. C. Dyer, Gen. Rel. Grav.37, 1347 (2005)

    2005

  17. [25]

    R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev.125, 2163 (1962), URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.125.2163

    1962 doi

  18. [26]

    Saida, T

    H. Saida, T. Harada, and H. Maeda, Class. Quant. Grav. 24, 4711 (2007), 0705.4012

    2007 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Faraoni and V

    V. Faraoni and V. Vitagliano, Phys. Rev. D89, 064015 (2014), 1401.1189

    2014 arXiv

  20. [28]

    B. R. Majhi, JCAP05, 014 (2014), 1403.4058

    2014 arXiv

  21. [29]

    B. R. Majhi, Phys. Rev. D90, 044020 (2014), 1404.6930

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    B. R. Majhi, Phys. Rev. D92, 064026 (2015), 1505.03310

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Prain, V

    A. Prain, V. Vitagliano, V. Faraoni, and M. Lapierre- L´ eonard, Class. Quant. Grav.33, 145008 (2016), 1501.02977

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bhattacharya and B

    K. Bhattacharya and B. R. Majhi, Phys. Rev. D94, 024033 (2016), 1602.07879

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Cˆ ot´ e, M

    J. Cˆ ot´ e, M. Lapierre-L´ eonard, and V. Faraoni, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 678 (2019), 1908.02595

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Faraoni and R

    V. Faraoni and R. Vanderwee, Phys. Rev. D107, 064072 (2023), 2301.09021

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Eckart, Phys

    C. Eckart, Phys. Rev.58, 919 (1940)

    1940

  28. [36]

    Landau and E

    L. Landau and E. Lifshitz, 2nd ed. (Butterworth- Heinemann, London)6, 552 (1987)

    1987

  29. [37]

    F. S. Bemfica, M. M. Disconzi, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. X12, 021044 (2022), URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.12.021044

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    F. S. Bemfica, M. M. Disconzi, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D98, 104064 (2018), URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.104064

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    F. S. Bemfica, M. M. Disconzi, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D100, 104020 (2019), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.104020

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    Kovtun, JHEP10, 034 (2019), 1907.08191

    P. Kovtun, JHEP10, 034 (2019), 1907.08191

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    R. E. Hoult and P. Kovtun, JHEP06, 067 (2020), 2004.04102

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Quevedo, Journal of Mathematical Physics48(2007), ISSN 1089-7658, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1

    H. Quevedo, Journal of Mathematical Physics48(2007), ISSN 1089-7658, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1. 2409524

    2007 doi

  35. [43]

    Quevedo and M

    H. Quevedo and M. N. Quevedo,Fundamentals of ge- ometrothermodynamics(2011), 1111.5056, URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/1111.5056

    2011 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Faraoni,Cosmology in scalar tensor gravity(2004), ISBN 978-1-4020-1988-3

    V. Faraoni,Cosmology in scalar tensor gravity(2004), ISBN 978-1-4020-1988-3

    2004

  37. [45]

    ∂S ∂T p,µ + S V ∂S ∂p T,µ # +pV

    related to the thermodynamics of horizons corre- sponding to two conformally connected gravitational the- ories. Additionally, an exactly similar calculation pro- vides ˜N=N. Further, it is important to note that the thermodynamic parameters—such as temperature—are related by ...

    2020

  38. [46]

    Bhattacharya, A

    K. Bhattacharya, A. Das, and B. R. Majhi, Phys. Rev. D97, 124013 (2018), 1803.03771

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Karolinski and V

    N. Karolinski and V. Faraoni, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1248 (2024), 2406.09251

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    BDNK theory is formalised by considering three components of velocity (asu a is constraint byu aua = −1),ϵandn[37]

    For a fluid description, one needs five independent vari- ables. BDNK theory is formalised by considering three components of velocity (asu a is constraint byu aua = −1),ϵandn[37]. However, using the relationTds= dϵ−µdnand the equation of state, one can show that ϵ(T,µ) andn(T...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.