Talk:Relativistic heat conduction

Notation is terrible... do we still use ict?????? Javirl (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there an HHC/RHC controversy?

Somehow the article gives the impression that HHC and RHC are two different approaches. Actually, it's the same equation (the telegrapher's equation). The difference seems to be in the interpretation, in particular one of the auxiliary vector fields.

The inclusion of "criticisms of HHC" in the middle of the article (before the terminology RHC is even introduced) contributes to this impression. It also makes the article look like a ping-pong argumentation that culminates in RHC. In addition, the inclusion of so much "criticism" makes it appear that RHC is a quasi-mystical proposal struggling for mainstream acceptance, rather than simply an interesting PDE. It might be better to move the controversies, if any, to the end of the article. 84.227.254.143 (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization / reverted edits

I noticed that my edits to write Relativistic Heat Conduction as relativistic heat conduction were reverted. However, I don't see the reason to capitalize them, as the expression is not a proper noun. Note also that in the first reference cited (Y.M. Ali, L.C. Zhang, Relativistic heat conduction, Int. J. Heat Mass Trans. 48 (2005) 2397. - see just before the defintion of eqn. 16), the words are written in lower case. Also, for reference, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) outlines the various cases where capitalization is generally appropriate, and this doesn't appear to be one of them. What is the reason for capitalizing them this way? Thanks! Dhollm (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe someone wants to make the article look like it's written by a slightly illiterate kook? Honestly, it's an interesting equation, why not write it in regular English? 89.217.30.136 (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It appears the original author of this page does not understand Wikipedia well. The history of the page is plagued with reverts on anything that differs from the original. As a result, I'd say there's currently no point in attempting to contribute to this page. EDIT: It also appears that this entire page might just be a tool in the promulgation of a pet theory. Indeed, there are many references to the same works of Ali & Zhang, Ali lists this very Wikipedia article as a publication, of which he claims to be the author: http://yasserali.org/?cat=13 . Evilmathninja (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

An article which constitutes self-promotion

Apart from the fact that this article violates the basic tenet of Wikipedia in that an author cannot indulge in self-promotion, it is completely wrong and should be removed without delay Bernhlav (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)Bernhlav.

I disagree. I think it should be transformed by MASSIVE editing into something decent. Of course, maybe it's easier simply to start over, given the presence of an unseen Author. 178.39.122.125 (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Pursuant to my comment from 21:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC), I completely agree here. This article serves no purpose but promulgate a pet theory of no value. Evilmathninja (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hyperbolic heat conduction

Admittedly I didn't look very hard, but I didn't find any Wikipedia article specifically about a dissipative wave equation, other than the "telegrapher's equation", as mentioned. But that article is about the one-dimensional case and is focused on the transmission line model. It might or might not be appropriate to dump the 3-D non-electric case into that article. Either way it would be nice to separate out some of this mathematics from the various other claims in this article. --God made the integers (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You have a good point that it is not very well-covered in other articles.

But I wouldn't recommend putting this stuff into the telegrapher's equation article. That article is well-focused in a defined area of engineering with a deep history, many players, and well-known applications. This article is still looking for its identity.

Usually, a dissipative wave equation is treated as a modified wave equation. This is quite natural, since microscopically, its behavior is dominated by the highest order symbol.

Yet I would love to see more information about the other perspective, namely the interpretation as a heat conduction equation that respects relativity. This sounds like a research project. Scholarly research or -- original research --? 178.39.122.125 (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternatives?

The (non-relativistic) heat equation wiki article says both a hyperbolic model as well as nonlinear models can impose a finite heat transmission speed (cf. Porous Medium Equation). This article might benefit from a compare/contrast of different competing models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.193.69 (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Yet if the parameters are chosen to correspond to a physically realistic application, the porous medium equation will have a maximum transmission speed that is much lower than the speed of light. Indeed, it covers "seeping" in the literal sense! I cannot imagine that goes very fast even if there is some kind of advance wicking. Also, the nonlinearity is not inserted purely in order to get finite propagation speed, or not only for this reason, but in order to capture various properties of the material and the medium. So the motivation is entirely different. The porous medium equation, unlike the relativistic heat equation, has a rich literature.

On the other hand, the relativistic heat equation (dissipative wave equation) is truly a hyperbolic equation without a true microscopic smoothing effect at the symbol level -- high Fourier modes do not decay fast like with parabolic. For this reason, I'd characterize the relativistic heat equation and the porous medium equation as being rather different, like apples and oranges. But this is probably the bird's eye comparison that's needed. 178.39.122.125 (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)