Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 44 references

Disturbances locked to a moving interface are fixed by where the medium’s spectrum crosses the line iω = v ik.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 03:28 UTC pith:IO4I4Z2Z

load-bearing objection Clean geometric rule for moving-interface solutions in Onsager-form relativistic transport; theorems and explicit hydro/kinetic examples check out.

arxiv 2607.28569 v1 pith:IO4I4Z2Z submitted 2026-07-30 nucl-th hep-thmath-phmath.MP

Relativistic transport near moving interfaces

Lorenzo Gavassino This is my paper
classification nucl-th hep-thmath-phmath.MP
keywords relativistic transportmoving interfacesboundary layersshock-wave tailsLaplace propagatortransient hydrodynamicskinetic theoryOnsager form
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper gives a single geometric rule for linear wakes, boundary layers, and shock tails next to a planar surface that moves at constant speed v through a relativistic medium. The solution is built from a Laplace-transform propagator whose only allowed exponential pieces sit at the intersections of the medium’s excitation spectrum with the half-line iω = v ik (ik ≤ 0) in the real frequency–wavenumber plane. As v changes, that line sweeps the left Rindler wedge and therefore selects every admissible decay length without solving a new boundary-value problem each time. The construction covers transient hydrodynamics and kinetic theory under the same Onsager form, and it explains why some theories can smooth arbitrarily strong shocks while others cannot. A sympathetic reader cares because the same picture unifies stationary Couette layers, bow waves, and the asymptotic viscous tails of relativistic shocks.

Core claim

The interface solution Ψ(x − vt) equals K(x − vt)Ψ(0), where the propagator K is the contour integral of the resolvent G(s)−1(E − v) around the non-positive real singularities of G(s) = σσ + (E − v)s. Those singularities are exactly the intersections of the real spectrum with the line iω = v ik, ik ≤ 0; hence every exponential factor that appears in a boundary layer, wake, or shock tail is read off the geometry of that intersection.

What carries the argument

The Laplace propagator K(x − vt) defined by the contour integral (5) around the non-positive singularities of G(s)−1. It projects admissible boundary data onto the subspace of polynomially bounded solutions and isolates each exponential mode e^{s_n(x−vt)} whose s_n is fixed by the spectral intersection iω = v ik.

Load-bearing premise

The linearized dynamics must be writable in the Onsager form ∂tΨ = −(σσ + E ∂x)Ψ with σσ self-adjoint and non-negative, E self-adjoint and causal, and no common kernel between σσ and E − v.

What would settle it

Solve the linear interface problem for a concrete model (Cattaneo, Israel–Stewart, or RTA kinetic theory) at several fixed v and check whether the observed exponential decay rates equal the ik-coordinates of the intersections of the known spectrum with iω = v ik; any mismatch falsifies the geometric claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Decay lengths of bow waves and wakes are read directly from spectral intersections; no new differential equation need be solved for each v.
  • Israel–Stewart and any theory with characteristic speed w < 1 cannot support exponentially localized tails for super-characteristic shocks, while kinetic theory (w = 1) can.
  • In the weak-shock limit the leading tail length depends only on the Navier–Stokes viscosity and becomes independent of microscopic relaxation times.
  • Near-luminal wakes (v → −1) are Lorentz-dilated and can become macroscopically long even when the underlying mode is non-hydrodynamic.
  • The same geometric construction applies to any linear theory that admits the Onsager canonical form, including multi-channel Cattaneo models and infinite-dimensional kinetic theory with a spectral gap.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same line-sweep picture should classify interface solutions in radiative transfer and linear viscoelasticity once they are cast in Onsager form.
  • Measuring the comoving decay length of a near-luminal wake could extract the microscopic relaxation time even when the wake itself looks hydrodynamic.
  • If a holographic dual possesses a continuous spectrum reaching the light cone, the construction predicts that arbitrarily strong shocks remain smoothable—offering a concrete check against the bulk geometry.
  • Polynomial growth at sonic points (v = ±cs) is the geometric signature of a mode coalescence at the origin and should appear in any theory whose sound branch meets the equilibrium point.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies linear, interface-localized disturbances of the form Ψ(x−vt) in relativistic media whose linearized dynamics admit the Onsager form ∂tΨ=−(σσ+E∂x)Ψ. Using a Laplace transform in the half-space x−vt≥0, it constructs a propagator K(x−vt) as a contour integral of G(s)−1(E−v) around the non-positive real singularities of the resolvent G(s)=σσ+(E−v)s. Theorems 1–2 establish invertibility off the real axis, holomorphy of K, the projector property of K(0), and the residue decomposition into modes e^{sn(x−vt)}. The admissible sn are identified geometrically as the intersections of the real spectrum in the {iω,ik} plane with the half-line iω=vik, ik≤0. Explicit closed-form propagators are obtained for Cattaneo heat conduction and Israel–Stewart hydrodynamics across all velocity regimes, and the construction is extended to multi-channel Cattaneo, RTA kinetic theory, and an exactly solvable 1D kinetic model; an infinite-dimensional spectral representation is given in Appendix A under a spectral-gap assumption.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper supplies a unified, parameter-free geometric characterization of relativistic boundary layers, wakes, and linear shock tails that applies to any theory in Onsager form. The explicit propagators recover standard limits (Fourier layer, weak-shock Navier–Stokes tails independent of τ, absence of super-characteristic Israel–Stewart tails, Lorentz-dilated non-hydrodynamic wakes) and make the role of the characteristic cone transparent. The finite-dimensional theorems are elementary but carefully proved; the residue projector analysis and the geometric selection rule are new in this interface setting and immediately usable. The work therefore offers both a practical computational tool and a conceptual organizing principle for a broad class of relativistic transport problems.

minor comments (6)
  1. [§II.A] In §II.A the notation σσ for the dissipation operator is visually dense and easily confused with a product; a single bold or calligraphic symbol (e.g. Σ or 𝒞) would improve readability throughout.
  2. [Figs. 3–6] Figures 3–6 would benefit from an explicit legend distinguishing hydrodynamic, non-hydrodynamic, and continuous-spectrum branches, and from marking the characteristic cone |iω|=w|ik| when w<1.
  3. [§II.B, Theorem 1] The condition ker(σσ)∩ker(E−v)={0} is used as a standing hypothesis of Theorems 1–5; a short remark on what fails when it is violated (e.g. free-streaming characteristics parallel to the interface) would help readers diagnose applicability.
  4. [Appendix A, Theorem 5] In Appendix A the assumption that a compact contour Γ encloses the entire non-positive singular set is stated after the continuous-spectrum case has already been introduced; cross-referencing the spectral-density representation (A5) earlier would clarify that the compact-contour hypothesis is only a technical convenience for the operator-valued statement.
  5. [§III.A.2] Equation (14) and the subsequent length L′=γ(w²−v²)τ/v are written in the lab frame and then re-expressed in the comoving frame; a single consistent convention (or an explicit boost formula) would avoid momentary confusion when comparing Cattaneo and Israel–Stewart results.
  6. [§I] The reference list cites the author’s companion work [8] heavily for the spectral geometry; a one-sentence statement in the introduction clarifying which geometric facts are imported versus proved here would help independent reading.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: propagator and geometric selection rule are derived from the Onsager form via Laplace analysis; self-citation to [8] supplies spectrum language/bounds but is not load-bearing for the central claim.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [§I (intro) and §II.D; also supercharacteristic corollary in §III.B.5 citing [8]]
    "the admissible exponential contributions are selected by the intersections of the linear excitation spectrum with the line iω=vik in the real {iω, ik} plane [8]. ... As the interface velocity varies, this line sweeps across the entire region ik≤−|iω|, namely the left Rindler wedge of the {iω, ik} plane (see also [8]) ... it was shown in [8] that, for every system of the form (1), the graph of the spectrum in the {iω, ik} plane has slope everywhere bounded by w=||E||"

    The geometric plane and the slope bound ‖E‖ are imported from the author’s concurrent work [8]. This is a genuine self-citation on supporting infrastructure. It is not load-bearing for the central propagator claim: Theorems 1–2, the contour integral (5), and the selection rule ik=s_n, iω=vs_n are proved here from self-adjointness alone. The [8] bound only sharpens one corollary (no supercharacteristic tails). Hence minor, not circular in the strong sense.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing chain is self-contained. From the stated Onsager ansatz (1), the Laplace transform yields G(s)=σσ+(E−v)s; Theorem 1 proves singularities lie on the real axis from self-adjointness and ker(σσ)∩ker(E−v)={0}; the Bromwich contour is deformed to Γ enclosing non-positive singularities, defining the propagator K in (5); Theorems 2 and residue calculus then identify the exponential factors e^{s_n(x−vt)}. The geometric rule (intersect the real spectrum with iω=vik, ik≤0) follows immediately from matching e^{ikx−iωt}=e^{s_n(x−vt)} and is derived in §II.D, not assumed. Explicit Cattaneo/Israel–Stewart/RTA propagators are algebraic evaluations of those residues. No parameters are fitted; no target decay length is inserted as input. Citation [8] (same author) supplies the {iω,ik}-plane language and the slope bound ‖E‖ used for the supercharacteristic-shock corollary, but the interface problem, contour construction, and Theorems 1–5 stand without it. Onsager-form citations [9–11] are scoping assumptions, not uniqueness theorems that force the interface result. Score 1 reflects only that minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Onsager canonical form of linear relativistic transport, standard functional-analytic facts about self-adjoint operators, and a spectral-gap assumption for the infinite-dimensional extension. No free parameters are fitted. The propagator K and the ‘relaxation-plane’ geometric construction are derived objects, not postulated entities.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Linearized dynamics admit the Onsager form ∂tΨ=−(σσ+E∂x)Ψ with σσ self-adjoint ≥0 and E self-adjoint, ‖E‖≤1.
    Stated in §II.A; required for the Laplace equation G(s)=σσ+(E−v)s and for all subsequent theorems. Standard for kinetic theory and transient hydrodynamics but excludes non-symmetric or non-relaxational models.
  • domain assumption ker(σσ)∩ker(E−v)={0} for the interface velocity under study.
    Hypothesis of Theorems 1–5; guarantees invertibility of G(s) off the real axis and removes algebraic constraints that would make the ODE ill-posed.
  • domain assumption Interface solutions grow at most polynomially as x−vt→+∞, so the Laplace transform exists and is holomorphic for Re s>0.
    Part of the problem statement in §I and used to justify removable singularities on the positive real axis and the Bromwich contour.
  • domain assumption In infinite dimensions the non-hydrodynamic spectrum of σσ is gapped (Spectrum(σσ)⊆{0}∪[1/τ,∞)) and a compact contour encloses all non-positive singularities.
    Appendix A, Theorems 3–5; needed to define the bounded propagator and the spectral density ρ(s).
  • standard math Standard residue theorem and holomorphic functional calculus for finite- and infinite-dimensional operators (Kato).
    Used throughout §II and Appendix A to convert the Bromwich integral into a sum/integral over spectral singularities.
invented entities (1)
  • Interface propagator K(x−vt) no independent evidence
    purpose: Maps admissible boundary data to the unique polynomially-bounded solution of the interface problem.
    Defined by the contour integral (5); not a new physical degree of freedom but a derived operator. Independent evidence is internal (it satisfies the PDE and the projector property by construction).

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 26855 in / 3147 out tokens · 61766 ms · 2026-07-31T03:28:15.152264+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study linear disturbances localized near planar surfaces moving at constant velocity $v$ in relativistic media. Depending on the physical setting, the surface may represent a moving obstacle, a thermal boundary, or an external source, providing a unified description of boundary layers, wakes, and the asymptotic tails of shock waves. The central result is a propagator representation of the interface solution that yields a geometric characterization of these phenomena. Using a Laplace-transform formulation, we show that the solution is a superposition of modes with purely imaginary frequency and wavenumber. For a given interface velocity, the admissible modes are selected by the line $i\omega=vik$ in the $\{i\omega,ik\}$ plane. As $v$ varies, this line sweeps across the spectrum, providing a unified geometric description of interface-localized solutions for arbitrary interface velocities. We illustrate the formalism with applications to relativistic hydrodynamics and kinetic theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28569 by Lorenzo Gavassino.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Minkowski diagram illustrating the interface problem, shown in the rest frame of the background medium. The solution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Contour deformation in the Laplace plane. The matrix-valued function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Spectrum of Cattaneo’s theory in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Spectrum of Israel-Stewart theory with bulk viscosity in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Dispersion relations of the generalized Cattaneo theory with five relaxation channels. The relaxation times and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Spectrum of RTA kinetic theory in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Bow wave in a one-dimensional ultrarelativistic gas of probe particles in a Markovian bath with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 10 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Hence, the residue formula (11) gives K(x) = 1− x wτ 0 1 .(15) We see that a nonzero heat flux induces a linear temperature profile

    Stationary boundary layer (v= 0) When the interface is at rest (v= 0), the only singularity is the equilibrium mode ats= 0. Hence, the residue formula (11) gives K(x) = 1− x wτ 0 1 .(15) We see that a nonzero heat flux induces a linear temperature profile. This is the familiar stationary solution of Fourier’s law: when a conducting medium is placed betwee...

  2. [2]

    if 0< v < w), then there are two singularities, ats= 0 and ats=s c <0

    Subsonic bow wave (0< v < w) If the interface moves towards positivexat a speed smaller than the speed of second sound (i.e. if 0< v < w), then there are two singularities, ats= 0 and ats=s c <0. The residue formula (11) then gives K(x−vt) = 1− w v 0 0 +e v(x−vt) (v2 −w2 )τ 0 w v 0 1 .(16) The first term simply shifts the asymptotic temperature and is the...

  3. [3]

    if v≥w), then the only singularity iss= 0, and we obtain K(x−vt) = 1− w v 0 0 .(18) This time there is no exponentially localized boundary layer

    Supersonic bow wave (v≥w) If the interface moves towards positivexat a speed greater than or equal to the speed of second sound (i.e. if v≥w), then the only singularity iss= 0, and we obtain K(x−vt) = 1− w v 0 0 .(18) This time there is no exponentially localized boundary layer. The source moves faster than the medium can transport heat, so that, if the m...

  4. [4]

    if−w < v <0), the only singularity is agains= 0, and the propagator is still given by (18)

    Subsonic wake (−w≤v <0) If the interface moves towards negativexat a speed smaller than the speed of second sound (i.e. if−w < v <0), the only singularity is agains= 0, and the propagator is still given by (18). Thus, a slowly moving heat source leaves behind no localized wake according to Cattaneo’s theory. At first sight, this may seem surprising: shoul...

  5. [5]

    ifv <−w), then there are two singularities, ats= 0 and ats=s c <0, and we recover (16)

    Supersonic wake (v <−w) If the interface moves towards negativexat a speed greater than or equal to the speed of second sound (i.e. ifv <−w), then there are two singularities, ats= 0 and ats=s c <0, and we recover (16). The previous argument still applies: there is no diffusive wake. However, the source now moves sufficiently fast to generate a non- hydro...

  6. [6]

    By contrast, fluids at finite chemical potential can exhibit stationary thermal gradients, with a temperature that varies linearly inx, as illustrated by the Cattaneo solution (15)

    Stationary boundary layer (v= 0) When the interface is at rest (v= 0), the only singularity is ats= 0, and we obtain K(x) =   1 0 ca cs 0 1 0 0 0 0   .(22) This shows that a fluid at zero chemical potential cannot sustain a nontrivial longitudinal boundary layer in the hydrodynamic regime: the general solutionK(x)Φ is independent ofx. By contrast, flu...

  7. [7]

    Physically, the interface moves more slowly than the speed of sound, so any sound wave generated at the interface propagates away faster than the interface itself

    Subsonic bow wave (0< v < c s) When the interface moves subsonically to the right (0< v < cs),s= 0 is still the only singularity, and we find K(x−vt) =   1 0 csca c2s−v2 0 1 vca c2s−v2 0 0 0   .(23) Again, the fluid cannot sustain any stationary localized gradient, nor any viscous correction: the general solution K(x−vt)Φ is independent ofx−vt, and ha...

  8. [8]

    However, this time we have K(x−vt) =   1 0− x−vt τ ca 0 1− x−vt τ ca 0 0 1   .(24) Unlike the previous case,K(0) is now the identity, so every boundary datum is admissible

    Sonic bow wave (v=c s) When the interface moves to the right exactly at the speed of sound (v=c s),s= 0 is again the only singularity. However, this time we have K(x−vt) =   1 0− x−vt τ ca 0 1− x−vt τ ca 0 0 1   .(24) Unlike the previous case,K(0) is now the identity, so every boundary datum is admissible. Moreover, a nonzero viscous pressure generate...

  9. [9]

    Supersonic subcharacteristic bow wave (c s < v < w) Once the interface velocity exceeds the speed of sound, but remains below the characteristic speedw, the additional singularity (21) crosses the origin and becomes negative. As a result, the propagator acquires two contributions: K(x−vt) =   1 0 csca c2s−v2 0 1 vca c2s−v2 0 0 0   +e − (v2 −c2 s )(x−v...

  10. [10]

    Forv > w, it reappears on the positive real axis, where it is excluded from the contour integral

    Supercharacteristic bow wave (v≥w) When the interface velocity reaches the characteristic speedw, the singularitys c escapes to−∞. Forv > w, it reappears on the positive real axis, where it is excluded from the contour integral. Hence, the propagator reduces again to (23): the fluid can no longer sustain stationary localized gradients or viscous correctio...

  11. [11]

    The exponentially decaying contribution now corresponds to the left-moving sound wave

    Subsonic wake (−c s < v <0) When the interface moves to the left at a speed smaller than the speed of sound (−c s < v <0), the additional singularity again lies on the negative real axis, so the propagator is still given by (25). The exponentially decaying contribution now corresponds to the left-moving sound wave. 10 This solution naturally describes the...

  12. [12]

    Sonic wake (v=−c s) Asv→ −c+ s , the singularitys c approaches the origin and merges with the equilibrium singularity ats= 0. At the sonic point, the exponentially decaying wake is therefore replaced by a linearly varying profile, and the propagator becomes K(x−vt) =   1 0 x−vt τ ca 0 1− x−vt τ ca 0 0 1   .(29) In particular,K(0) = 1, so every boundar...

  13. [13]

    It is therefore excluded from the contour integral, and the propagator reduces again to (23)

    Supersonic subcharacteristic wake (−w≤v <−c s) When the interface velocity decreases below−c s, the additional singularitys c crosses the origin and becomes positive. It is therefore excluded from the contour integral, and the propagator reduces again to (23). Thus, although the interface remains subcharacteristic, no additional exponentially decaying mod...

  14. [14]

    Discrete part

    Supercharacteristic wake (v <−w) Once the interface velocity exceeds the characteristic speed, the additional singularity re-enters the negative real axis, so the propagator is again given by (25). This time, however, the singularitys c belongs to the non-hydrodynamic branch, so the exponentially decaying contribution represents a non-hydrodynamic wake tr...

  15. [15]

    Linearization of RTA We consider an ideal gas of massless bosons characterized by a kinetic distribution functionf(x µ, pα), which gives the occupation number of the single-particle state with four-momentump α at spacetime pointx µ (withp αpα = 0). Working in the Relaxation-Time Approximation (RTA), the nonlinear equation of motion is pµ∂µf=− uµpµ τ [feq(...

  16. [16]

    Indeed, substituting (B6) into (B4), all dependence onp t cancels, which is only possible because the relaxation timeτis independent of the particle energy

    A useful simplification It is immediate to verify that perturbations of the form δf= s 2β3 cv feq(1 +f eq)ptΨ(Ω) (B6) constitute an invariant sector of the linearized equation of motion. Indeed, substituting (B6) into (B4), all dependence onp t cancels, which is only possible because the relaxation timeτis independent of the particle energy. The ansatz al...

  17. [17]

    Case, Annals of Physics9, 1 (1960)

    K. Case, Annals of Physics9, 1 (1960)

    1960

  18. [18]

    Y. B. Zel’dovich and Y. P. Raizer,Physics of Shock Waves and High-Temperature Hydrodynamic Phenomena, edited by W. D. Hayes and R. F. Probstein (Academic Press, New York, 1967)

    1967

  19. [19]

    Mihalas and B

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

    1984

  20. [20]

    General principles of neutron transport,

    A. K. Prinja and E. W. Larsen, “General principles of neutron transport,” inHandbook of Nuclear Engineering, edited by D. G. Cacuci (Springer US, Boston, MA, 2010) pp. 427–542

    2010

  21. [21]

    Schlichting and K

    H. Schlichting and K. Gersten,Boundary-Layer Theory, 9th ed. (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2017)

    2017

  22. [22]

    Novak, J

    I. Novak, J. Sonner, and B. Withers, Phys. Rev. D98, 086023 (2018), arXiv:1806.08655 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [23]

    E. I. Kiselev and J. Schmalian, Phys. Rev. B99, 035430 (2019)

    2019

  24. [24]

    Gavassino, (2026), arXiv:2607.10148 [nucl-th]

    L. Gavassino, (2026), arXiv:2607.10148 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    Gavassino, M

    L. Gavassino, M. M. Disconzi, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 222302 (2024), arXiv:2302.03478 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Gavassino, Phys

    L. Gavassino, Phys. Rev. D110, 094012 (2024), arXiv:2408.14316 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Gavassino, Phys

    L. Gavassino, Phys. Rev. Lett.137, 022301 (2026), arXiv:2601.03081 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    Kato,Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators, 2nd ed., Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Vol

    T. Kato,Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators, 2nd ed., Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Vol. 132 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1980) corrected printing of the second edition

    1980

  29. [29]

    C. Cattaneo,Sur une forme de l’´ equation de la chaleur ´ eliminant le paradoxe d’une propagation instantan´ ee, Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des s´ eances de l’Acad´ emie des sciences (Gauthier-Villars, 1958)

    1958

  30. [30]

    D. Jou, J. Casas-V´ azquez, and G. Lebon, Reports on Progress in Physics51, 1105 (1999)

    1999

  31. [31]

    Gavassino, M

    L. Gavassino, M. Antonelli, and B. Haskell, Phys. Rev. D106, 056010 (2022), arXiv:2207.14778 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    W. A. Hiscock and L. Lindblom, Annals of Physics151, 466 (1983)

    1983

  33. [33]

    Rezzolla and O

    L. Rezzolla and O. Zanotti,Relativistic Hydrodynamics(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013)

    2013

  34. [34]

    Gavassino, M

    L. Gavassino, M. Antonelli, and B. Haskell, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 010606 (2022), arXiv:2105.14621 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    Israel and J

    W. Israel and J. Stewart, Annals of Physics118, 341 (1979)

    1979

  36. [36]

    S. Pu, T. Koide, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D81, 114039 (2010), arXiv:0907.3906 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  37. [37]

    Mullins, M

    N. Mullins, M. Hippert, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D108, 076013 (2023), arXiv:2306.08635 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    T. S. Olson and W. A. Hiscock, Annals of Physics204, 331 (1990)

    1990

  39. [39]

    F. S. Bemfica, Phys. Rev. E112, 065105 (2025), arXiv:2508.04717 [physics.gen-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    J. L. Anderson and H. R. Witting, Physica74, 466 (1974)

    1974

  41. [41]

    Cercignani and G

    C. Cercignani and G. M. Kremer,The relativistic Boltzmann equation: theory and applications(2002)

    2002

  42. [42]

    Becattini, Acta Physica Polonica B47, 1819 (2016), arXiv:1606.06605 [gr-qc]

    F. Becattini, Acta Physica Polonica B47, 1819 (2016), arXiv:1606.06605 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  43. [43]

    Gavassino, Found

    L. Gavassino, Found. Phys.50, 1554 (2020), arXiv:2005.06396 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    T. S. Olson, Annals of Physics199, 18 (1990)

    1990