On the Collision of Relativistic Shock Waves and the Large Scale Structure of the Universe
Michael D. Smith
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is not clear what the purpose of the paper is. the abstract and conclusions have little to so with each other and the conclusions do not seem to really say anything. the heart of the paper is in a great deal of mathematics involving a large number of parameters, making verifications very time consuming.
the authors need to explain what is important or different and what this appies to. the paper looks promising but ends up inpenetratable. I have worked on shock waves for many decades but have never heard of gaps and the parameter D which appears to be a size but cannot be deciphered because with c omitted, one can never work out if a speed or distance or something else is being referred to. I hope the authors can correct and make the paper assessing to the general theioretical astrophysicist at least. Note the error at 2.a:
where is the tensor of energy-momentum is equal to …
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we thank you a lot for inaccuracies noted and valuable comments!
We tried to correct all the shortcomings and describe in the article the possible application of our ideas in astrophysics (gas compaction in the collision of shock waves as a mechanism for the formation of «walls»). We have tried to translate all the terms more accurately into English and explain all the symbols used in the text.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper has a good mathematical approach to
the shocks without any astrophysical application.
The insertion of some astrophysical numbers is requested
in order to cover this gap.
The following modifications are requested.
1) The English should be checked by a native speaker , as an example
at page 4 "areset" is a typo
2) Similarities and differences between your approach
and that of Sedov1959 should be outlined
3) The astrophysical applications are absent.
The starting point can be the first catalog of cosmic voids
where the effective radius of the voids
is Reff = 18.23/h Mpc,
h =H/100 , H being the numerical value
of Hubble constant, see Vogeley2012.
@BOOK{Sedov1959,
author = {{Sedov}, L.~I.},
title = "{Similarity and Dimensional Methods in Mechanics}",
publisher = {Academic Press},
address= "New York",
year = 1959,
}
@ARTICLE{Vogeley2012,
author = {{Pan}, D.~C. and {Vogeley}, M.~S. and {Hoyle}, F. and {Choi},
Y.-Y
{Park}, C.},
title = "{Cosmic voids in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7}",
journal = {\mnras},
archivePrefix = "arXiv",
eprint = {1103.4156},
primaryClass = "astro-ph.CO",
keywords = {catalogues, large-scale structure of Universe},
year = 2012,
volume = 421,
pages = {926-934},
doi = {10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20197.x},
adsurl = {http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.421..926P},
adsnote = {Provided by the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System}
}
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you a lot for your valuable comments! We tried to improve the English language of our article, correct all the shortcomings and describe in the article the possible application of our ideas in astrophysics (gas compaction in the collision of shock waves as a mechanism for the formation of «walls»). We also mentioned L. I. Sedov in the introduction and referred to the density of cosmic walls to discuss the compaction coefficient.
Reviewer 3 Report
See attached pdf file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we thank you a lot for inaccuracies noted and valuable comments!
We tried to correct all the shortcomings and describe in the article the possible application of our ideas (gas compaction in the collision of shock waves as a mechanism for the formation of «walls»). We have tried to translate all the terms more accurately into English and explain all the symbols used in the text.
In particular we have corrected typos and unexplained terms (1-9) and we tried to answer your questions (10, 12) in the text. Unfortunately, we couldn't make a useful and understandable visualization (11) in the allotted time.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Revised version is acceptable.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been accepted.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have properly addressed most of the issues I pointed out on my first report and produced an improved version 2. On the other hand, I think that the absence of real evidence contrast or numerical simulations is the most important weaknesses of the article, however this is something it could be undertaken in the future.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
