text:
# Linear hydrodynamics and viscoelasticity of nematic elastomers

## 1 Introduction

The equilibrium mechanical response of liquid crystalline elastomers can be soft or hard depending on the relation between the imposed strains and the nematic director, in particular, if the director is able to respond by rotating. With such unusual equilibrium elasticity one might expect dynamical response to be equally unusual. If the elastic forces are small, then the return to equilibrium is driven more weakly than in conventional systems. How does the dynamics of internal director rotation, and the corresponding time-dependent softening of rubber-elastic response, determine the dynamic mechanical response of a nematic rubber to a small amplitude oscillatory shear?

In a dynamic-mechanical study of Gallani et al. hilliou96  a stress response to an imposed oscillating shear has been studied. Although a polydomain elastomer has been examined, the authors reached a conclusion that the response “is insensitive to the isotropic-nematic transition” and only obtained a non-trivial result in the smectic-A phase. Subsequent studies of aligned monodomain elastomers weileppEPL  also did not find any unusual effect in the nematic phase and went on to investigate the mechanical effects in the smectic-A phase. The elastic properties of smectic rubbers are very interesting on their own, with a number of spectacular effects even in equilibrium, see twA ; weileppA ; nishikawa ; osborne . However, here we would like to address a more basic and physically clear case of nematic elastomers, that is, rubbery networks with an aligned uniaxial anisotropy of their polymer strands.

Some of the reasons that no exceptional effects were found in the nematic phase by hilliou96 ; weileppEPL  could be that (i) the nematic region for the materials studied was only $`7^\mathrm{o}`$ and smectic pre-transitional effects were important, (ii) the authors aimed to plot the whole range of dynamic modulus, including very high glassy values at low temperatures, thus masking a subtle nematic region and (iii) they did not study low enough frequencies. More recently letter , it has been demonstrated, both theoretically and experimentally, that a dramatic reduction of storage modulus $`G^{}`$ and the associated increase in the loss factor $`\mathrm{tan}\delta `$ should be expected and indeed found in monodomain nematic elastomers sheared in certain geometries (cf. Fig. 2). This effect allows one to directly probe the basic equilibrium properties of nematic rubbers and also access the new kinetic parameters – viscous coefficients and relaxation times.

In order to study the dynamics of mechanical response, one needs to model viscoelastic properties, that is, describe viscous dissipation in a system moving towards its equilibrium. At present, there is no microscopic model that would even approximately describe the dynamics of anisotropic rubbery networks. However, as in the continuum theory of liquid crystals, much progress can be made on a phenomenological level, using the symmetries of variables contributing to the physical effects.

The continuum dynamics of anisotropic fluids describes macroscopic phenomena on the level of coarse-graining analogous to that of the nematic Frank elastic free energy. By movements of a “liquid particle” one understands bodily translations and also changes of local director orientation of a physically infinitesimal volume, generally of the correlation size $`\xi _\mathrm{N}10`$nm, including many molecules in thermal equilibrium with the reservoir, and characterised by the local nematic tensor order parameter $`Q_{\mathrm{ij}}(T)=Q(n_\mathrm{i}n_\mathrm{j}\frac{1}{3}\delta _{\mathrm{ij}})`$. Two physical fields describe the state of motion of nematic liquid: the local variation of director orientation $`\delta 𝒏(𝒓,t)=𝒏𝒏_0`$ with respect to the equilibrium $`𝒏_0`$ and the fluid velocity $`𝒗(𝒓,t)`$, the time derivative of the corresponding elastic displacement $`𝒖(𝒓,t)`$ in the description of elastic response. The original derivation of hydrodynamic equations for the nematic liquid, due to Ericksen and Leslie is presented in some detail in key monographs on liquid crystals, e.g. degenbook . Here we only discuss the matters relevant for the basic description of nematic elastomers, omitting many fine and subtle points of this complicated subject, e.g. TCL . We develop a formalism describing the linear viscoelasticity of an elastic medium with an independently relaxing director degree of freedom and make a connection between the (anisotropic) rubber-elastic and viscous coefficients in such a system. The nematic dynamics coupled to the underlying rubber elasticity leads to an expression for the entropy production density, the Rayleigh dissipation function in the Leslie-Ericksen form, determined by the fluxes: $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\overset{\mathbf{\dot{}}}{𝜺}}}`$ \- the symmetric strain rate and $`\frac{d}{dt}(𝛀𝝎)`$ \- the rate of relative rotation between the nematic director and the elastic matrix:

$`T\dot{s}`$ $`=`$ $`A_1(𝒏\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\overset{\mathbf{\dot{}}}{𝜺}}}𝒏)^2+2A_4[𝒏\times \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\overset{\mathbf{\dot{}}}{𝜺}}}\times 𝒏]^2+4A_5([𝒏\times \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\overset{\mathbf{\dot{}}}{𝜺}}}𝒏])^2`$
$`+`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\gamma _1[𝒏\times \frac{d}{dt}(𝛀𝝎)]^2+\gamma _2𝒏\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\overset{\mathbf{\dot{}}}{𝜺}}}[𝒏\times \frac{d}{dt}(𝛀𝝎)],`$
where the new linear viscous coefficients, $`A_\mathrm{i}`$, are linear combinations of the classical Leslie coefficients, which in elastomers can take extraordinarily high values letter  compared with simple nematics. $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ describe the same kind of losses involving the rotating director as they do in a conventional nematic liquid. We find a direct proportionality between the symmetry-related elastic and viscous constants, connected by the corresponding relaxation times for each deformation mode. One of the main results of our analysis is a new dimensionless number, which we call $`\mathrm{𝖭𝖾}=\eta v/(L\mu )`$, where $`\eta `$ is a viscosity, $`\mu `$ is a rubber shear modulus and $`L`$ is a characteristic length. $`\mathrm{𝖭𝖾}`$ determines the local balance between viscous and elastic torques in the material, in analogy with the Ericksen number $`Er`$ degenbook .

An essential part of description developed in this paper is the separation of time scales. We argue, on the basis of comparison with available experiments and qualitative arguments, that the characteristic relaxation time of director motion is much greater than the time scale of mechanical relaxation in an ideal polymer network. Accordingly, we only consider the low-frequency limit of rubber viscoelastic response, reflected in essentially linear frequency dependence of complex modulus $`G^{}=G_\mathrm{o}+\mathrm{i}\omega \eta `$. In contrast, the much slower director relaxation allows us to examine both its low- and high-frequency regimes.

This paper is organised as following. The next Section, continuing the introduction into the subject, briefly sketches the fundamentals of equilibrium nematic rubber elasticity, focusing on the linear continuum description rather than the full molecular theory valid to high deformations. Following this, in Section 3 we revisit the Leslie-Ericksen formulation of the continuum dissipation function $`T\dot{s}`$ and show that, as would be expected by symmetry, it is identical to the elastic energy density only with strains substituted by strain rates. We then discuss the fundamentals of nematic rubber viscoelasticity. In Section 4 the practical calculation of dynamic moduli $`G^{}(\omega )`$ is presented for three principal shear geometries, as an example of general theory implementation. The results indicate which combinations of elastic and viscous coefficients are relevant for the response and, therefore, directly measurable by experiment. We then conclude by discussing the role of soft elasticity in slowing the mechanical relaxation and make contact with new experimental data.

## 2 Nematic rubber elasticity

Equilibrium elastic properties of monodomain nematic rubbers are well-studied, both theoretically and experimentally and are described at some length in review articles lce ; review1 . A full molecular theory of ideal nematic networks gives the elastic free energy density

$$F=\frac{1}{2}c_\mathrm{x}k_\mathrm{B}T\mathrm{𝖳𝗋}(\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{𝝀}}^T\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathbf{}}}_\theta ^1\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{𝝀}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathbf{}}}_0)+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{B}\left(\mathrm{𝖣𝖾𝗍}[\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{𝝀}}]1\right)^2,$$
(1)
where $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{𝝀}}`$ is a Cauchy strain tensor, $`\lambda _{\mathrm{ik}}=R_\mathrm{i}/R_\mathrm{k}^0`$. In a nematic elastomer network, $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathbf{}}}`$ are the uniaxial matrices of chain step-lengths before ($`0`$) and after the director $`𝒏`$ has rotated by a certain angle $`\theta `$ during the deformation: $`\mathrm{}_{ij}=\mathrm{}_{}\delta _{ij}+[\mathrm{}_{}\mathrm{}_{}]n_in_j`$. The last term in (1), the bulk-modulus contribution independent of the configurational entropy of polymer chains, is determined by molecular forces resisting the compression of a molecular liquid, $`\stackrel{~}{B}10^9\text{J/m}^3`$, much greater than the typical value of rubber modulus $`\mu c_\mathrm{x}k_\mathrm{B}T`$, with $`c_\mathrm{x}`$ the effective crosslinking density, giving $`\mu 10^5\text{J/m}^3`$. This large bulk energy penalty constrains the value of the strain determinant, $`\mathrm{𝖣𝖾𝗍}[\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{𝝀}}]1`$ (which, in other words, means that the material is physically incompressible when subjected to all strains except hydrostatic compressions and dilations). Eq. (1) is only limited by the Gaussian network assumption and is valid up to very large strains where mechanical softness, rotational instabilities and optical effects occur - well beyond the limits of continuum theory.

Olmsted olm , in studying soft elasticity – shape changes in nematic elastomers without energy cost, has derived the small-deformation continuum limit of the full expression (1), when $`\lambda _{\mathrm{ij}}=\delta _{\mathrm{ij}}+_\mathrm{i}u_\mathrm{j}`$ and $`|𝒖|1`$. We shall use a slightly different notation, more suitable for the linear-elastic description because it better complies with the standard textbook formalism of uniaxial elasticity, e.g. landau . The small-deformation limit of (1) is

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`C_1(𝒏\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{𝜺}}}𝒏)^2+2C_2\mathrm{Tr}[\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{𝜺}}](𝒏\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{𝜺}}}𝒏)+C_3\left(\mathrm{Tr}[\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{𝜺}}]\right)^2`$
$`+`$ $`2C_4[𝒏\times \underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{𝜺}}}\times 𝒏]^2+4C_5([𝒏\times \underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{𝜺}}}𝒏])^2`$
$`+`$ $`\frac{1}{2}D_1[𝒏\times (𝛀𝝎)]^2+D_2𝒏\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{𝜺}}}[𝒏\times (𝛀𝝎)].`$
where $`𝒏`$ is the undistorted nematic director. $`\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_{\mathrm{ik}}=\epsilon _{\mathrm{ik}}\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{Tr}[\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{𝜺}}]\delta _{\mathrm{ik}}`$ is the traceless part of linear symmetric strain $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{ik}}=\frac{1}{2}(_\mathrm{k}u_\mathrm{i}+_\mathrm{i}u_\mathrm{k})`$, which is the only variable of classical continuum elasticity landau . In a system with an internal orientational degree of freedom, the nematic director with its own relaxation and dynamics, the antisymmetric part of strain expressed by the local rotation vector $`𝛀=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{curl}𝒖`$ may contribute to the physical properties. Analogously, the small vector $`𝝎`$ is a convenient measure of director rotations, $`𝝎=[𝒏\times \delta 𝒏]`$. In fact, it is the relative rotation, the difference $`𝒏\times (𝛀𝝎)`$, that causes the elastic response and a number of effects unique to nematic elastomers degenD .

One expects that in a rubber or dense polymer melt the bulk modulus $`C_3`$ is very large, $`C_3\stackrel{~}{B}`$. We, therefore, shall only consider deformations with no bulk compression: $`\mathrm{Tr}[\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{𝜺}}]=0`$. In general, all other constants in the expression (2) are of the same order of magnitude, similar to the rubber modulus $`\mu `$. The molecular model of ideal nematic elastomer review1  gives specific forms for these constants:

$`C_1`$ $`=`$ $`2C_4=c_\mathrm{x}k_\mathrm{B}T,C_5=\frac{1}{8}c_\mathrm{x}k_\mathrm{B}T{\displaystyle \frac{(r+1)^2}{r}},`$
$`D_1`$ $`=`$ $`c_\mathrm{x}k_\mathrm{B}T{\displaystyle \frac{(r1)^2}{r}},D_2=c_\mathrm{x}k_\mathrm{B}T{\displaystyle \frac{1r^2}{r}},`$ (3)
in which case the condition for ideal soft elasticity holds,

$$C_5^R=C_5\frac{D_2^2}{8D_1}=0.$$
(4)
Model expressions for elastic constants (3) depend, apart from the universal rubber-elastic energy scale $`\mu `$, on a single parameter $`r`$. In the molecular model (1) of ideal nematic polymer networks one finds that $`r=\mathrm{}_{}/\mathrm{}_{}`$, the ratio of the principal step lengths of the anisotropic polymer backbone (or equivalently $`r=(R_{}/R_{})^2`$ in terms of the principal values of gyration radii tensor). In non-ideal elastomers, this parameter is more complex, determined by a number of other factors, for instance when there are fluctuations in composition, see the Appendix. Nevertheless, it has to be a function of nematic order parameter $`Q(T)`$, satisfying a linear limit $`r1+\beta Q`$, at least at small $`Q`$. In the isotropic phase, at $`Q=0`$ and $`r=1`$, the elastic constants (3) become, as expected: $`C_1=2C_4=2C_5=\mu `$, $`D_1=D_2=0`$ and the elastic energy (2) reduces to a standard Lamé expression. See the Appendix for a discussion of non-ideality, that is where $`C_5^R0`$.

In an incompressible material, all deformations are essentially shears, albeit sometimes seen in a rotated frame. Figure 1 shows the character of these shears in the eq. (2) and their corresponding elastic constants. $`C_1`$ “lives” along the director, $`C_4`$ in the plane perpendicular to $`𝒏_0`$ in which properties are isotropic ($`\epsilon _{\mathrm{kk}}`$, $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{mm}}`$ and $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{mk}}`$ are of the same status since the solid is uniaxial). Most interesting are $`C_5`$, involving shears such as $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{nk}}`$, which span directions parallel and perpendicular to the initial director and which can induce it to rotate; $`D_1`$ which resists director rotations with respect to the solid matrix; and $`D_2`$ where the rotation is coupled to the symmetric shears also involved in $`C_5`$. The inter-relation between these three processes is what gives rise to the effect of soft elasticity – here shape change of the type $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{nk}}`$ without energy cost. If the director is allowed to react ideally and is regarded as a slave variable, then the renormalised resistance to deformations $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{nk}}`$, that is $`C_5^R`$, vanishes as we see in eq. (4). We shall see, in Section 4 for simple shear geometries, the mechanism by which this is achieved – at least at harmonic order (since these simple geometries do not allow the full shear and extensional freedom required for softness at all amplitudes).

## 3 Nematohydrodynamics of elastic solids

When nematic elastomers are strained, there is director rotation along with stresses – the latter yielding both body forces and torques. At finite strain and rotational rates there will be stresses of both elastic and viscous origin, the latter being conceptually parallel to those arising in classical liquid nematics. We shall accordingly review classical nematohydrodynamics, ignoring the subtleties that reside at the heart of the subject. There are important differences with liquids – if torques are induced by flow, they will be balanced in solids, on length scales longer than the nematic penetration depth, by torques generated by the matrix, that is, by $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ elastic terms that involve the anti-symmetric part of the strain $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{𝝀}}`$. The issue of possible director gradients and corresponding Frank elasticity in nematic elastomers has been extensively discussed in the literature lce ; review1 ; chol . It is known that, unless there are special reasons for a director singularity (such as in disclinations or narrow domain walls), Frank elastic effects play a minor role in the free energy balance and can be neglected. Instead, the rubber-elastic matrix generates the torques, which shape the final character of the dynamics. A new dimensionless number will be introduced to replace the Ericksen number describing a torque balance in ordinary nematics. There is another important difference – in liquids, as flow proceeds, the strain and the director rotation can increase without limit, whereas in solids both are constrained (and are coupled to each other) by the matrix. Elastomers are capable of huge distortions but we shall limit ourselves to linear theory. Nematohydrodynamics in the elastically highly non-linear regime is a subject of another study.

### 3.1 Leslie-Ericksen formulation of nematic viscosity

The equation of motion can be written in the usual form of local balance of forces: in vector components,

$$\frac{}{t}\left(\rho v_\mathrm{i}\right)=\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{ki}}}{x_\mathrm{k}},$$
(5)
where $`\rho `$ is the density and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{ki}}`$ the tensor of momentum flux density, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{ki}}=\rho v_\mathrm{k}v_\mathrm{i}\sigma _{\mathrm{ki}}+P\delta _{\mathrm{ki}}`$ with $`P`$ the local pressure and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{ki}}`$ the stress tensor. In an isotropic Newtonian liquid $`\sigma _{\mathrm{ki}}`$ is proportional to the symmetric strain rate, $`A_{\mathrm{ki}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(_\mathrm{k}v_\mathrm{i}+_\mathrm{i}v_\mathrm{k}\right)\dot{\epsilon }_{\mathrm{ki}}`$. In uniaxial nematic liquid crystals, the stress tensor depends not only on the fluid velocity gradients, but also on the components and the gradients of the local nematic order $`Q_{\mathrm{ki}}`$. Because rotations and corresponding torques are involved if the director changes differently from the local fluid rotation, the stress tensor is no longer symmetric and also depends on the relative rotation combinations $`𝑵=\frac{d}{dt}\delta 𝒏+\frac{1}{2}[𝒏\times \mathrm{curl}𝒗]`$ degenbook , which is nothing but a time derivative of the relative-rotation combination, that is $`𝑵=[𝒏\times \frac{d}{dt}(𝛀𝝎)]`$, cf. equation (2). As a result, Leslie writes the viscous stress tensor

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{ij}}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _1n_\mathrm{i}n_\mathrm{j}A_{\mathrm{km}}n_\mathrm{k}n_\mathrm{m}+\alpha _2n_\mathrm{i}N_\mathrm{j}+\alpha _3n_\mathrm{j}N_\mathrm{i}`$
$`+\alpha _4A_{\mathrm{ij}}+\alpha _5n_\mathrm{i}n_\mathrm{k}A_{\mathrm{kj}}+\alpha _6n_\mathrm{j}n_\mathrm{k}A_{\mathrm{ki}}`$
(assuming incompressible fluid, $`A_{\mathrm{kk}}=\mathrm{div}𝒗=0`$). Its antisymmetric part contributes to the local torque $`𝚪=[𝒏\times 𝒉]`$ (cf. degenbook ) where $`𝒉`$ is the molecular field. $`𝒉`$ derives also in part from Frank and external field terms. These contributions are balanced by the anti-symmetric terms deriving from viscous flow processes:

$`h_\mathrm{i}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_\mathrm{k}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta F}{\delta [_\mathrm{k}n_\mathrm{i}]}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{F}{n_\mathrm{i}}}=\gamma _1N_\mathrm{i}+\gamma _2n_\mathrm{k}A_{\mathrm{ki}}`$ (7)
with $`\gamma _1=\alpha _3\alpha _2`$ and $`\gamma _2=\alpha _3+\alpha _2=\alpha _6\alpha _5`$ (the Parodi relation, a representation of the Onsager principle of kinetic coefficient symmetry). Here the viscous coefficients $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _6`$ all depend on the magnitude of nematic order parameter $`Q(T)`$. One can show that in an ordinary nematic liquid crystal near the weak first order transition, as $`Q0`$, they should behave as imura289

$`\alpha _1Q^2,`$ $`(\alpha _2,\alpha _3,\alpha _5,\alpha _6)Q`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{also}`$ $`\gamma _1Q^2\mathrm{and}\gamma _2Q.`$
Thus, in the isotropic phase, only one of the Leslie coefficients survives: $`\alpha _42\eta `$. Molecular theory kuzuu ; OT  also shows that in a typical nematic liquid of rod-like molecules these coefficients may have very different magnitude and even sign: $`\alpha _2,\alpha _3,\alpha _6`$ – negative, $`\alpha _4,\alpha _5`$ – positive; $`(|\alpha _2|\alpha _5)|\alpha _3|,|\alpha _6|`$; $`\alpha _1`$ is generally small and may be positive or negative in different materials; far from the nematic transition (at $`Q1`$) the “isotropic coefficient” $`\alpha _4|\alpha _2|\alpha _5`$. De Gennes assembles the experimental values for Leslie coefficients in MBBA at $`25^\mathrm{o}C`$ degenbook , while the monograph by de Jeu dejeubook  provides the values for another classical nematic, PAA at $`122^\mathrm{o}C`$: in $`10^3`$ Pa.s

$`\begin{array}{ccccccccc}& \alpha _1& \alpha _2& \alpha _3& \alpha _4& \alpha _5& \alpha _6& \gamma _1& \gamma _2\\ \hfill \mathrm{MBBA}:& 6.5& 77.5& 1.2& 83.2& 46.3& 34.4& 76.3& 78.7\\ \hfill \mathrm{PAA}:& 4& 6.9& 0.2& 6.8& 5& 2& 6.8& 7.1\end{array}`$ (12)
### 3.2 Nematic elastomers

We now develop Leslie-Erickson theory for solid nematics by a direct analogy. The nematic dynamics is coupled to the underlying anisotropic elasticity described in its linear limit by eq. (2) and sketched in Fig. 1. It is thus natural to develop the dynamics using the same symmetry-grouping of terms as in (2), rather than as in (3.1) as is usual for classical nematics.

Two differential equations, (5) with the viscous stress given by eqs. (3.1), and (7), form the complete set describing the linear viscous effects in the nematic fluid. Neglecting the effects of heat convection, the total energy dissipation (the entropy production) in such anisotropic medium is expressed by the volume integral of the conjugate forces and fluxes:

$`T\dot{S}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑V\left(\sigma _{\mathrm{ij}}A_{\mathrm{ij}}+(𝒉\dot{𝒏})(𝚪𝛀)\right)}`$ (13)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑V\left(\sigma _{\mathrm{ij}}\dot{\epsilon }_{\mathrm{ij}}+(𝒉𝑵)\right)}.`$
We re-write the density of dissipation function in a form matching the elastic energy density (2):

$`T\dot{s}`$ $`=`$ $`A_1(𝒏\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\overset{\mathbf{\dot{}}}{𝜺}}}𝒏)^2+2A_4[𝒏\times \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\overset{\mathbf{\dot{}}}{𝜺}}}\times 𝒏]^2+4A_5([𝒏\times \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\overset{\mathbf{\dot{}}}{𝜺}}}𝒏])^2`$ (14)
$`+\frac{1}{2}\gamma _1𝑵^2+\gamma _2𝒏\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\overset{\mathbf{\dot{}}}{𝜺}}}𝑵`$
in the fully incompressible case. Thus, by differentiation of (14) respectively by the symmetric strain rate $`\dot{\epsilon _{ij}}`$ and by $`N_i`$, one obtains a representation of the symmetric viscous stress tensor and the nematic molecular field, contributing to the local torque, analogous to the parallel expressions (3.1) and (7) for simple nematics:

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{ij}}^s`$ $`=`$ $`2A_1\left(𝒏\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\overset{\mathbf{\dot{}}}{𝜺}}}𝒏\right)n_in_j+4A_4\left[𝒏\times \left(𝒏\times \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\overset{\mathbf{\dot{}}}{𝜺}}}\times 𝒏\right)\times 𝒏\right]_{ij}`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`4A_5\left(\left[\left(𝒏\times \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\overset{\mathbf{\dot{}}}{𝜺}}}𝒏\right)\times 𝒏\right]_in_j+\left[\left(𝒏\times \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\overset{\mathbf{\dot{}}}{𝜺}}}𝒏\right)\times 𝒏\right]_jn_i\right)`$
$`+`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\gamma _2\left(n_iN_j+N_in_j\right);`$
$`h_\mathrm{i}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _1N_i+\gamma _2n_j\dot{\epsilon }_{ij},`$
where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{ij}}^s`$ is the symmetric part of an expression like (3.1) which emerges naturally since we express $`T\dot{s}`$ in terms of symmetric and anti-symmetric variables separately. Here the constants are linear combinations of classical Leslie coefficients

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}(\alpha _1+\alpha _4+\alpha _5+\alpha _6),`$ (16)
$`A_4`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}\alpha _4,`$
$`A_5`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{8}(2\alpha _4+\alpha _5+\alpha _6).`$
In the isotropic limit, one finds $`A_1=2A_4=2A_5\eta `$, reminiscent of the isotropic Lamé limit of the corresponding elastic constants.

### 3.3 Relaxation times

The direct correspondence between the elastic constants of the energy density $`F`$, eqs. (2), and the viscous coefficients of the dissipation function $`T\dot{s}`$, eq. (14), gives:

$$A_\mathrm{i}C_\mathrm{i};\gamma _1D_1\mathrm{and}\gamma _2D_2.$$

Of course, this is not a surprise since the symmetry of an equilibrium elastic deformation and of a viscous flow in a uniaxial continuum is the same. Equally, there is a direct correspondence in the dependence of the various coefficients on nematic order parameter $`Q`$, see eq. (8) for viscosities and eq. (3) for elastic constants. We can equivalently, therefore, represent the viscous coefficients of a nematic elastomer by products of the corresponding rubber-elastic constant and an appropriate relaxation time, that is,

$$A_\mathrm{i}=C_\mathrm{i}\tau _\mathrm{R};\gamma _1=D_1\tau _1;\gamma _2=D_2\tau _2.$$
(17)
In principle, the relaxation times for the various $`A_i`$ will be different, and different from the $`\tau _i`$. However, one expects a significant separation between the two groups of characteristic time scales, that is between the $`\tau _\mathrm{R}`$s and the $`\tau _i`$s. The director rotation time, $`\tau _1=\gamma _1/D_1`$, has been used in a simplified, single-viscosity analysis letter , and then estimated experimentally as $`\tau _110^110^2`$s. In contrast, the characteristic time of rubber relaxation $`\tau _\mathrm{R}`$ is expected to be much shorter. A recent statistical theory explicitly calculated this time from the analysis of network strand relaxation within a tube model samjcp , showing this is of order of Rouse time. One could also confirm this by a following qualitative observation: The linear viscous stress (15) and the analogous corresponding expression for the elastic stress could be combined, producing the effective frequency-dependent moduli in a form $`(C_\mathrm{i}+\mathrm{i}\omega A_\mathrm{i})`$. This is the low-frequency limit of a general complex modulus $`G^{}(\omega )`$, showing the rubber plateau modulus $`G^{}=C_\mathrm{i}`$ and the initial rise in the loss modulus with frequency, describing a viscous flow. In the classical picture of polymer dynamics, e.g. DoiEd , the next characteristic regime is at a Rouse frequency, when the signal cannot propagate along the polymer chain length and mechanical response is provided by individual segments, thus causing a climb of $`G^{}(\omega )`$ towards the glass plateau. Therefore, the characteristic time scale $`\tau _\mathrm{R}`$ in the estimation relations (17) is of the order of the Rouse time, $`\tau _\mathrm{R}10^410^6`$s.

Could there be viscous softness analogously to the elastic softness of ideal elastomers, for instance in eq. (4)? Two related arguments suggest that this is not possible. The viscous combination $`A_5\gamma _2^2/8\gamma _1`$, analogous to the renormalised elastic constant $`C_5^R`$, can be rewritten with the benefit of timescales eq. (17) as:

$`A_5\gamma _2^2/8\gamma _1=\tau _\mathrm{R}\left(C_5{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _2^2}{\tau _\mathrm{R}\tau _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{D_2^2}{8D_1}}\right).`$ (18)
Even if we took the rotational relaxation times equal, $`\tau _1=\tau _2`$, the translational relaxation time $`\tau _\mathrm{R}`$ would appear to upset the possibility of renormalising (18) to zero, even if we had $`C_5^R0`$. Elastic softness arises because an anisotropic distribution of chains can be rotated undistorted and thus at constant entropy. However, individual chains will be distorted and there must reasonably be dissipation associated with their flow relative to the matrix. Thus elastically soft distortions should have associated dissipation, except perhaps accidentally if rates of $`\gamma _1`$, $`\gamma _2`$ and $`A_5`$ relaxations compensate to make (18) vanish.

### 3.4 Symmetries and order parameter

The ability to neglect complicated inertial effects in fluid dynamics is controlled by the small magnitude of Reynolds number, $`Re=\rho vL/\eta 1`$, with $`L`$ the characteristic length and $`\eta `$ the typical viscosity. In nematic liquids, another dimensional number is introduced to characterise the relative magnitude of hydrodynamic and Frank elastic torques contributing to eq. (7), where the left hand side is $`K^2n`$, while the right hand side is $`\gamma v`$, with the rotational viscosity $`\gamma \eta `$. Small Ericksen number $`Er=\eta vL/K1`$ means that the director orientation is mostly controlled by equilibrium elastic free energy, while at $`Er1`$ the director generally follows the local orientation provided by the flow. In elastomers we are concerned with the balance between flow-induced torques, again scaling as $`\eta v`$, and those of the rubbery matrix, expressed by $`F/\theta D_1\theta `$. This yields a new dimensionless group characterised by the number $`\mathrm{𝖭𝖾}=\eta v/(LD_1)`$. Note that the assumed domination of rubber-elastic over Frank effects essentially means that $`D_1K/L^2`$, that is, $`\mathrm{𝖭𝖾}Er`$. Our analysis of an example of simple shear deformation, in the next Section, spans the full range of small to large $`\mathrm{𝖭𝖾}`$, which we shall define more precisely for that geometry.

We have seen in Section 2, in the discussion of eqs. (3) and chain-anisotropy parameter $`r`$, how the anisotropic rubber moduli depend on the underlying nematic order parameter $`Q`$, usually a function of temperature or solvent concentration. In the isotropic phase, at $`Q=0`$ and $`r=1`$, the elastic constants return to the classical Lamé values $`C_1=2C_4=2C_5=\mu `$, $`D_1=D_2=0`$. The coupling constant $`D_2`$ depends on the linear power of $`Q`$. As a result, when there is anisotropy, $`Q0`$ and $`r1`$, the sign of the elastic constant $`D_2`$ depends on whether $`r>1`$ (prolate order, $`D_2<0`$) or $`r<1`$ (oblate order, $`D_2>0`$). The sign of director rotation relative to the matrix, $`𝝎𝛀`$, varies accordingly to whether chains are prolate (they align with the extension direction associated with the shear, see Fig. 1 for $`D_2`$) or oblate (alignment along the compression axis). In any event, a term such as $`D_2\epsilon _{\mathrm{nk}}\omega `$, bilinear in $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{nk}}\omega `$, always reduces the elastic energy, irrespective of the sign of $`D_2`$, and indeed this is the actual mechanism whereby a shape change can ideally be achieved with no energy cost olm ; JMPS . There is an appealing analogy between this behaviour and the Leslie coefficient $`\gamma _2`$ of discotic nematics. It is known volovik ; carlsson  that the different (disk- instead of rod-like) molecular shape leads to the opposite sign of $`\gamma _2`$, with the according consequences for the flow alignment properties.

Ideal rubber-elastic expressions (3) suggest that the coupling constant $`D_1`$ is proportional to $`(r1)^2Q^2`$. Continuing the analogy with liquid nematic viscosity, we should recall the estimates of Imura and Okano imura289 , but also a following qualitative consideration. The rotational viscosity $`\gamma _1`$ is determined by the antisymmetric part of viscous stress tensor $`\sigma _{\mathrm{ij}}^{}`$, which cannot be proportional to the linear power of the symmetric tensor nematic order parameter $`Q_{\mathrm{ij}}`$, but at least its square. However, there is a delicate problem arising in the analysis of soft elasticity. The renormalised shear modulus $`C_5^R=C_5D_2^2/8D_1`$ should reduce to the bare $`C_5\frac{1}{2}\mu `$ in the isotropic phase, at $`Q0`$. However, the ideal values of $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ result in a finite renormalisation in this limit. One must revise the conclusions of non-ideal, semi-soft theory review1 . Eq. (34) and the discussion in the Appendix suggest that, in fact, $`D_1`$ has a additional small (semi-soft) correction $`Q`$. This resolves the problem of making the renormalisation $`D_2^2/8D_1`$ vanish at $`Q0`$, but raises a question about the symmetry consideration that $`\gamma _1`$ (and $`D_1`$, by parallel) cannot be linear functions of $`Q_{\mathrm{ij}}`$. The paradox is safely resolved when one recognises that the semi-soft coefficient $`a_1`$ in eq. (34) is a linear function of $`Q_f`$, the order at network formation. Therefore, in fact, both $`D_1`$ and $`\gamma _1`$ in nematic elastomers depend on the bilinear combination $`Q_{\mathrm{ij}}^{\{f\}}Q_{\mathrm{ij}}`$, which means $`|Q|`$, and thus no symmetry problem arises. In an ordinary liquid nematic there is no issue of formation order being frozen by crosslinking, and $`\gamma _1Q^2`$ as expected.

### 3.5 Balance of forces and torques

To complete the general analysis of this Section, we briefly discuss the stresses and torques that follow from the combination of elastic and dissipation functions. In an overdamped system, traditionally ignoring inertial effects at low-frequency, we have two equations of motion: the balance of forces and torques. The first condition requires locally balancing the total symmetric stress tensor

$$\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{𝝈}}=\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{𝝈}}_{\mathrm{el}}+\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{𝝈}}_{\mathrm{visc}}=\frac{F}{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{𝜺}}}+\frac{(T\dot{s})}{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\overset{\mathbf{\dot{}}}{𝜺}}}}.$$
(19)
In the case when the relaxation time scales are separated, as in the discussion above, the viscous stress contribution to the force balance is minor. In contrast, the balance of torques, $`𝚪=[𝒏\times 𝒉]=0`$ in the absence of external fields, requires the full molecular field

$`𝒉=𝒉_{\mathrm{el}}+𝒉_{\mathrm{visc}}=`$ $`D_1`$ $`[𝒏\times (𝛀𝝎)]+D_2𝒏\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{𝜺}}+`$
$`+`$ $`\gamma _1[𝒏\times {\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}(𝛀𝝎)]+\gamma _2𝒏\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\overset{\mathbf{\dot{}}}{𝜺}}}.`$
Here both groups of terms are manifestly of the same order of magnitude in the regime of frequencies characterising director rotations. We shall see in the particular calculation of Section 4 that the condition of zero local torque allows one to obtain, for instance, the rate of director variation $`\dot{\theta }`$.

In the limit of isotropic rubber $`Q0`$ the only relevant equation is that for the stress, which in this case reduces to

$$\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{𝝈}}=C_4\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{𝜺}}+A_4\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\overset{\mathbf{\dot{}}}{𝜺}}},$$

which is a simplest viscoelastic approximation at lowest frequencies, or shear rates, of a general linear-response expression $`\sigma (t)=G(tt^{})\dot{\epsilon }(t^{})𝑑t^{}`$. Another known limiting case is that of an uncrosslinked nematic liquid crystal. In this case all equilibrium (zero-frequency) elastic moduli $`C_\mathrm{i}`$ and $`D_\mathrm{i}`$ are zero and the only contribution to the stress and torque balance are the Leslie-Ericksen eqs. (15). In a low molecular weight nematic, this is the full description of an anisotropic Newtonian liquid. In a polymer nematic, again, one expects a complex viscoelastic response function, $`G(tt^{})`$, with several characteristic time scales, from the shortest Rouse time, to the entanglement and diffusion times (if applicable) DoiEd . Equations (15) are thus the low-frequency limit of such complex nematic viscoelasticity.

The theory of elastomer nematohydrodynamics has 5 phenomenological viscous coefficients. In a simplified single-viscosity model letter  we have found remarkable effects the internal director relaxation has on the macroscopic dynamic-mechanical response of a nematic rubber. Here we follow the example of ordinary liquid crystals, where both the simplified and the full Leslie-Ericksen formalism have been used successfully over the years. In the practical calculation implementing the above ideas, we now move from the one-constant analysis of letter  to a full analysis.

## 4 Shear stress and its relaxation

### 4.1 Simple shear deformations

In a study of linear response, we shall first examine three principal simple shear geometries, as shown in Fig. 2. These are also the geometries that one achieves in a typical dynamic-mechanical experiment letter . A geometry of uniaxial extension, more commonly found in studies of equilibrium stress-strain in elastomers, is less appropriate for an oscillating regime because of possible slow relaxation relax  and incomplete sample recovery on each cycle. The simple shear $`\epsilon (t)`$, assumed externally applied to the sample (Fig. 2), is the single $`xz`$-component of the full Cauchy strain, the same for each director setup $`𝑮,𝑫`$ and $`𝑽`$. It also automatically satisfies the necessary incompressibility constraint. We have then the symmetric part $`\epsilon _{zx}^{(s)}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon `$ and the antisymmetric (body rotation) part expressed by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_y=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon `$.

Note that the three principal shear geometries in Fig. 2 are the same as in the classical setting for Miesovicz viscosity experiments. That is, if the director is kept immobile (e.g. by a strong external field, which incidentally would be hardly possible in elastomeric network under strain), then the orientations $`𝑽,𝑫`$ and $`𝑮`$ correspond to the Miesovicz viscosities $`\eta _\mathrm{a}`$, $`\eta _\mathrm{b}`$ and $`\eta _\mathrm{c}`$, respectively. Of course, the whole point of the present paper is to examine the effect the director freedom to rotate is having on the viscoelastic response.

We have argued above that Frank effects are subordinate in the overall balance of torques. Perhaps, this approximation needs to be reconsidered if a sheared sample is very thin in the $`z`$-direction: if the director is anchored on top and bottom surfaces (which are the plates in a shear-sandwich experiment), one expects a Frank energy density of the order $`K/d^2`$. The elastic energy density is set by $`\mu `$ and the two scales take on equal importance when $`d=\xi =\sqrt{K/\mu }`$, the nematic penetration depth. Taking typical values $`K10^{11}\mathrm{J}/\mathrm{m}^3`$ and $`\mu 10^5J/m^3`$ one has $`\xi 10^8\mathrm{m}`$. Thus in practical situations with a sheared sample thickness $`d100\mu `$m and more, ignoring the effect nematic director gradients seems to be a safe first approximation.

The remaining free energy density, eq. (2), takes the form, in the three cases of Fig. 2:

$`F_\mathrm{G}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(C_5+\frac{1}{8}[D_12D_2]\right)\epsilon ^2\frac{1}{2}(D_1D_2)\epsilon \theta +\frac{1}{2}D_1\theta ^2`$
$`F_\mathrm{D}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(C_5+\frac{1}{8}[D_1+2D_2]\right)\epsilon ^2\frac{1}{2}(D_1+D_2)\epsilon \theta +\frac{1}{2}D_1\theta ^2`$
$`F_\mathrm{V}`$ $`=`$ $`C_4\epsilon ^2,`$ (21)
where the small change in director orientation, $`\delta 𝒏`$, is taken equal to the angle $`\theta `$. Clearly, one does not expect director rotation to occur in the “log-rolling” geometry $`𝑽`$.

The bilinear term $`\epsilon \theta `$ clearly reduces the energy: if a strain $`\epsilon `$ is imposed then the director responds by adjusting $`\theta `$ to lower energy. Given sufficient time to reach equilibrium, $`\theta `$ adopts its optimal value for a given deformation $`\epsilon `$. Returning this minimised value $`\theta _{\mathrm{G},\mathrm{D}}`$ in (22) to (21), the free energy at a given strain is also optimal:

$`\theta _{\mathrm{G},\mathrm{D}}={\displaystyle \frac{D_1D_2}{2D_1}}\epsilon ,F_{\mathrm{G},\mathrm{D}}`$ $``$ $`\left(C_5{\displaystyle \frac{D_2^2}{8D_1}}\right)\epsilon ^2`$ (22)
Notice that if the nematic elastomer is ideal, then the free energies in the cases $`𝑮`$ and $`𝑫`$ vanish ($`C_5D_2^2/8D_1=0`$) because their geometry allows the director to respond to the shear and internally relax. Case $`𝑽`$ remains elastically hard. In fact, because of the chosen restricted strain geometry, Fig. 2, the response of even ideal elastomers is actually quartic, rather than completely soft (true softness requires some unconstrained extension as well as shear). The molecular model review1 ; JMPS  yields the quartic penalty $`F=\frac{1}{2}\mu \frac{r^2}{(r1)^2}\epsilon ^4`$, which we are neglecting in the present linear-response analysis.

The generalised force driving the director rotation angle $`\theta (t)`$ to equilibrium is in fact a torque, $`F/\theta `$. In $`F`$ it is the externally imposed shear $`\epsilon (t)`$, with its time variation, that is the ultimate driving agent. The flatness (softness) of the free energy $`F(\epsilon )`$ will make the resulting dynamical response characteristically slow in the geometries where director rotation is possible teixeira . Alternatively, if the imposed dynamics, e.g. $`\epsilon (t)`$, is fast compared with that of $`\theta (t)`$, then one will not attain the ideal states (22) and the moduli will become frequency-dependent and deviate, for dynamic reasons, away from softness. It is this rheological subtlety that we now wish to examine.

### 4.2 Viscoelastic response

Driving a nematic elastomer by imposing a component of strain, in general, leaves open the possibility of dynamical response of not only the director but also the other components of strain (and thus involving for instance the translational viscosities $`A_1`$, $`A_5`$ and $`A_5`$). Then there will be several coupled dynamical equations for the system, see for instance teixeira  where the response of a nematic elastomer to a step-extensional strain is calculated. Here we confine ourselves to the dynamical response to imposed simple shear with other components of strain clamped. An elastic torque acting on nematic director $`𝒏`$ in certain deformation geometries is resisted by a linear viscous torque. Describing the director rotation by a small angle $`\theta `$, cf. Fig. 2, and continuing to ignore inertial effects, the balance of torques and forces is expressed by

$$\frac{\delta F}{\delta \theta }+\frac{\delta (T\dot{s})}{\delta \dot{\theta }}=0.$$
(23)
The dynamical equation describing the evolution of the director approaching its equilibrium is given, for the two geometries where director rotation is present:

$`\mathbf{(}𝑮\mathbf{:}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\gamma _1\dot{\theta }=D_1\theta +\frac{1}{2}(D_1D_2)\epsilon (t)`$ (24)
$`+\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _1\gamma _2)\dot{\epsilon }(t)`$
$`\mathbf{(}𝑫\mathbf{:}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\gamma _1\dot{\theta }=D_1\theta +\frac{1}{2}(D_1+D_2)\epsilon (t)`$
$`+\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _1+\gamma _2)\dot{\epsilon }(t).`$
These linear, inhomogeneous differential equations are easily solved. After the transient relaxation $`\theta \theta _0e^{(D_1/\gamma _1)t}`$ associated with starting the strain oscillations has completely relaxed, the steady-state response is given by the particular solutions with $`\epsilon e^{\mathrm{i}\omega t}`$:

$`\theta _{\mathrm{G},\mathrm{D}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}𝑑t^{}e^{(D_1/\gamma _1[tt^{}])}`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{D_1D_2}{2\gamma _1}}\epsilon (t^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\gamma _2/\gamma _1)\dot{\epsilon }(t^{})\right),`$
where the signs $``$ or $`+`$ correspond to the $`𝑮`$ or $`𝑫`$ geometry, respectively. The solutions depend on a characteristic time for director relaxation, $`\tau _1=\gamma _1/D_1`$, or equivalently, the characteristic frequency of the response scales like $`D_1/\gamma _1`$. We can now give a more concrete expression for the new dimensionless number $`\mathrm{𝖭𝖾}=\gamma _1v/(D_1\theta )`$, since $`\theta \epsilon `$ and $`v\dot{\epsilon }\omega \epsilon `$, whence:

$`\mathrm{𝖭𝖾}=\gamma _1\omega /D_1=\tau _1\omega .`$ (26)
Below we shall see that all depends on $`\tau _1\omega `$ – when it is small, we have soft or semi-soft equilibrium elastic response, when it is large, we have hardening because director relaxation does not keep pace with changing strain.

The linear “nominal stress” in response to the imposed simple shear deformation $`\epsilon (t)`$ is given by the sum of elastic and viscous stress functions $`\sigma =\sigma _{\mathrm{el}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{visc}}^{}`$, that is

$$\sigma =\frac{F}{\epsilon }+\frac{(T\dot{s})}{\dot{\epsilon }}.$$
(27)
In the principal shear geometries, the stress expressions at a given frequency of imposed strain take the form

$`\sigma _\mathrm{G}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(C_5+\frac{1}{8}[D_12D_2]\right)\epsilon (\omega )\frac{1}{2}(D_1D_2)\theta (\omega )`$ (28)
$`+2\left(A_5+\frac{1}{8}[\gamma _12\gamma _2]\right)\dot{\epsilon }\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _1\gamma _2)\dot{\theta }`$
$`\sigma _\mathrm{D}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(C_5+\frac{1}{8}[D_1+2D_2]\right)\epsilon (\omega )\frac{1}{2}(D_1+D_2)\theta (\omega )`$ (29)
$`+2\left(A_5+\frac{1}{8}[\gamma _1+2\gamma _2]\right)\dot{\epsilon }\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _1+\gamma _2)\dot{\theta }`$
$`\sigma _\mathrm{V}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`2C_4\epsilon (\omega )+2A_4\dot{\epsilon }.`$ (30)
One finds two kinds of viscous stress terms, of different orders of magnitude. The contribution $`\gamma \dot{\theta }\gamma \dot{\epsilon }`$ is of the same order as the elastic terms, as indicated by the torque balance eq. (24). In contrast, the terms $`A_{4,5}\dot{\epsilon }`$ are of the order $`A\dot{\epsilon }C(\omega \tau _\mathrm{R})\epsilon C\epsilon `$ at frequencies below Rouse values. The linear viscoelastic theory we are considering is applicable at much lower frequencies, where the most interesting physics is due to director relaxation and mechanical softness.

The effective response modulus in the “log-rolling” geometry $`𝑽`$ is unchanged by the nematic director dynamics, $`G(\omega )=2C_4+2\mathrm{i}\omega A_4`$ (the loss modulus negligible, as discussed above). In two other geometries, where the director rotation does take place, the dynamic modulus is modified by the internal director relaxation. Substituting the Fourier transforms of equations (4.2) into the expressions (28) and (29), we obtain the nominal stress in the form $`\sigma (\omega )=G(\omega )\epsilon (\omega )`$. Remarkably, although perhaps predictably, the response in these two geometries is exactly the same: $`\sigma _\mathrm{G}=\sigma _\mathrm{D}`$, despite the difference in the rotations $`\theta _\mathrm{G}`$ and $`\theta _\mathrm{D}`$. The corresponding storage and loss moduli are given by the real and imaginary parts of the effective complex modulus $`G(\omega )`$. It has a single-relaxation time behaviour with a characteristic frequency $`\omega _1=D_1/\gamma _1`$ or the corresponding relaxation time $`\tau _1=1/\omega _1`$. The dynamic moduli, in both $`𝑮`$ and $`𝑫`$ geometries, can then be written in a universal form:

$`G^{}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`2(C_5D_2^2/8D_1)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\omega \tau _1\right)^2}{1+\left(\omega \tau _1\right)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(D_2\gamma _1D_1\gamma _2\right)^2}{4D_1\gamma _1^2}}`$
$`G^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \tau _1}{1+\left(\omega \tau _1\right)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(D_2\gamma _1D_1\gamma _2\right)^2}{4D_1\gamma _1^2}}`$
$`+`$ $`\omega \tau _1\left(\frac{1}{2}D_1(\gamma _2/\gamma _1)^22A_5/\tau _1\right).`$
Figure 3 shows the example of frequency dependence of eqs. (4.2) and (4.2). In order to plot these functions, we need to make several numerical assumptions about the parameters. We thus take, arbitrarily for illustration purposes, $`r=1+1.5Q`$ at a fixed temperature with values of the nematic order parameter corresponding to deep in a nematic phase, $`Q=0.58`$ (so that the chains are weakly prolate, $`r1.87`$), or corresponding to near a transition point, $`Q=0.35`$. The ratio $`\gamma _2/\gamma _11`$ and the viscous constant $`A_50.1\tau _1C_5`$. Finally, the semi-soft addition to the coupling constant $`D_1`$ (see the Appendix) is taken as $`a_1=0.1`$. For these values, plots of $`G^{}`$ and $`G^{\prime \prime }`$ reveal the expected single-relaxation behaviour. At zero frequency of imposed strain oscillations the real (storage) modulus in both shear geometries $`𝑮`$ and $`𝑫`$ is equal to

$$G_\mathrm{o}^{}2C_5^\mathrm{R}=2(C_5D_2^2/8D_1).$$

The measure of non-vanishing renormalised shear modulus $`C_5^\mathrm{R}0`$ is the characteristic parameter of semi-softness in non-ideal nematic elastomers. The high frequency response for $`\omega \tau _11`$ is

$`G_{\mathrm{}}^{}=2C_5\frac{1}{2}D_2(\gamma _2/\gamma _1)+\frac{1}{4}D_1(\gamma _2/\gamma _1)^2.`$ (33)
The characteristic single-relaxation time behaviour seen in fig. 3 is due to our assumption about separation of time scales, $`\tau _1\tau _\mathrm{R}`$. For that reason, we are able to distinguish the plateau in $`G^{}`$, the maximum and the “high-frequency” drop in $`G^{\prime \prime }`$ and a semicircular shape of Cole-Cole plot ferry . For the chosen value of $`A_5`$, one can begin to see the next rise in $`G^{\prime \prime }`$, when the frequency approaches the next characteristic point, the Rouse frequency, leading towards the glass plateau value $`G^{}10^{11}\text{Pa}`$ at high frequency. That transition would correspond to another semi-circular Cole-Cole plot at much higher values of $`G^{}`$; we can see the beginning of that graph segment in fig. 3(b). With the assumed separation of nematic and rubber relaxation time scales (and the assumed ideal polymer network, with no entanglements and free dangling ends, which are known to lead to slow relaxation), the mechanical losses at low frequencies are only through the lag in director rotation.

The initial expressions, eqs. (28) and (29), differ in sign of terms with $`D_2`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ constants. This reflects the tendency to align or repel the director by these terms, the roles being reversed when we interchange prolate and oblate symmetry ($`r>1`$ and $`r<1`$, the sign of both $`D_2`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ reversing on this exchange). However, when the director relaxation (4.2) is substituted back into the stress expressions, one only finds the products $`D_2\gamma _2`$, and a corresponding unique effective complex modulus. Another feature of $`G^{}(\omega )`$ is the non-dimensional ratio $`\gamma _2/\gamma _1`$, which is a familiar parameter in the dynamics of ordinary liquid crystals degenbook  in the context of director flow alignment or tumbling. As the brief discussion of modified torque balance in Section 3 indicates, one does not expect a steady-state tumbling in elastomers, where there is memory of the original director through the elastic energy. Tumbling and analogous effects may only be found in transient regimes or in non-linear elasticity, to which we return elsewhere.

Variation of dynamic complex moduli with temperature is very interesting to examine graphically, as well as analytically. Figure 4(a) shows the dependence of storage modulus $`G^{}`$ on the reduced temperature $`T/T_{\mathrm{ni}}`$, for a sequence of increasing frequency values. In order to produce these plots, we must take a further assumption about the variation of the order parameter $`Q(T)`$. We take, rather arbitrarily, $`Q(1T/T_{\mathrm{ni}})^{0.33}`$ simply because this was an approximate fit to the experimental measurement of $`Q(T)`$ in letter . We also take, following classical nematics, $`\gamma _1=g_1Q^2`$ and $`\gamma _2=g_2Q`$ and further fix $`g_2/g_1=\frac{1}{2}`$ to have $`\gamma _2\gamma _1`$ at $`Q0.5`$. These rather limiting assumptions nevertheless usefully illustrate the qualitative behaviour of the linear elastic response functions both deep in the nematic phase and near the assumed “critical point” $`T_{\mathrm{ni}}`$.

The characteristic time of director relaxation $`\tau _1=\gamma _1/D_1`$ is a function of temperature through its dependence on nematic order parameter. Both the coupling constant $`D_1`$ and the rotational viscous coefficient $`\gamma _1`$ are functions of $`Q(T)`$, as discussed in Section 3. Hence the relaxation time $`\tau _1`$ should have a weak $`Q`$-dependence in the nematic phase, which should change to $`\tau _1|Q|`$ in the vicinity of the nematic-isotropic transition point. We discuss subtle limit problems and the form of $`G(T,\omega )`$ as a function of $`T`$ for various fixed $`\omega `$ in the Appendix. The combination $`\omega \tau _1`$ can be rewritten as

$$\omega \tau _1\omega \frac{\gamma _1}{D_1}=\omega \left(\frac{g_1}{\mu }\right)\frac{Q^2}{a_1|Q|+(r1)^2/r},$$

where we recall that $`r1+\beta Q`$ (in practice, the linear relation holds to high values of $`Q`$ letter ; fgw ). We shall continue taking $`\beta =1.5`$ in our illustration. One can also scale $`\omega `$ by $`\mu /g_1`$ to give a dimensionless frequency $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$; thus $`\omega \tau _1=\stackrel{~}{\omega }f(Q)`$ where the non-dimensional function $`f(Q)`$ is clearly $`f|Q|`$ as $`Q0`$.

The cusps near $`T_{\mathrm{ni}}`$ seen in Fig. 4(a) are a consequence of our assumption of the critical form $`Q(T)(1T/T_{\mathrm{ni}})^{.33}`$. For a real, non-ideal monodomain nematic elastomer with of necessity a high-temperature paranematic state and a residual small $`Q`$ above $`T_{\mathrm{ni}}`$, the cusps are rounded off but the general form survives, including the non-monotonic variation $`G^{}(T)`$ at high frequencies. We note in passing, that the experimental result for $`G^{}(T)`$ letter  is very close to these predictions: although the very high frequency was not achieved, the gradual departure of $`G^{}(T)/\mu `$ from the universal low-frequency curve was clearly registered.

Figure 4(b) also shows the unusually high loss tangent arising from the real and imaginary parts of complex modulus. The new loss mechanism, due to internal director relaxation, is additional to all classical losses occurring in polymer systems – in particular those occurring near the glass transition. The information about the latter is, as before, contained in the essential frequency and temperature dependence of rubber-elastic constant $`\mu `$, of which the expressions for $`F`$ and $`T\dot{s}`$ are the low-frequency limit. There is a striking contrast between the fig. 4(b) with unusually high values of $`\mathrm{tan}\delta `$ over a broad temperature range and the traditional distinct loss peaks in classical polymers and rubbers. Physically, the maximal loss occurs where the the imposed strain frequency, $`\omega `$, matches the director relaxation rate $`1/\tau _1`$. We have a crossover from the director keeping up with strain and therefore allowing the the system to be very soft, to where the director fails to respond quickly enough and the system becomes hard. The large change of modulus when one crosses this frequency interval is manifested, by the Kramers-Krönig relations, in a very high loss peak.

## 5 Conclusions

We have developed a model of time-dependent response and rheology of nematic elastomers by coupling nematic rubber elasticity with nematohydrodynamics. The theory represents the low-frequency limit of general viscoelastic description of nematic polymer networks (which is not known). By making use of significant separation between the natural nematic relaxation time scale and that of a rubber network, we examine the dissipation at relatively low frequencies due to internal director relaxation in a deformed elastomer. Because of the lagging of director rotation in response to time-dependent imposed shears, soft or semi-soft response can only be partially achieved, the hardening depending on frequency and on temperature. The nemato-elastic-hydrodynamic equations are derived in generality and solved for the rheology of a particular, important example, that of simple oscillating shear, giving rise to unusual temperature dependence of response moduli and loss tangents ($`\mathrm{tan}\delta 1.52`$). Thus these results will be important for a wide variety of applications in damping, acoustics, frequency and directional dependent materials, and so on.

We have already reported on rheological experiments letter  that show the qualitative features of our theory. These and light scattering experiments stille ; Meyer\_light  give values of Frank constants, rubber constants $`C_5`$, $`D_1`$, $`D_2`$ and the rotational viscosity coefficient $`\gamma _1`$ for nematic elastomers (and the $`\gamma _1`$ also for the corresponding polymer melts). The $`C`$’s and $`D`$’s can also be deduced from several static measurements, in all cases giving typical rubber values $`10^310^5`$ Pa, modulated by the discussed $`Q`$-dependence. Frank constants take values typical of classical nematic liquids, $`K10^{11}`$ N. But the $`\gamma `$ values are enhanced by polymerisation. This is not surprising since on reorienting a chain one must translate it bodily. An extended object sweeps through space and the dynamics are complex. In a network this is even less straightforward because the chain is mechanically tied to a matrix and must resolve its motions with those of other chains. It turns out that the $`\gamma `$’s are further enhanced, reaching values of order $`10^3`$ Pa.s and more, leading to the mentioned separation of characteristic time scales.

We appreciate valuable discussions with S.M Clarke, H. Finkelmann, T.C. Lubensky, R.B. Meyer, P.D. Olmsted and W. Stille.

## Appendix A Semi-softness and rheology

At fixed temperature in the nematic state, Fig. 3 shows the rheological consequences of nematohydrodynamics in elastomers – as frequency drops and director relaxation had keep pace with imposed strains, the response gets ever softer. In the limit $`\omega \tau _10`$ it either vanishes (ideal softness) or becomes very small (semi-softness) as has been confirmed by many quasi-static experiments. We wish to comment on the mechanisms for softness and non-ideality and then how, at various fixed frequencies, one can see how $`G^{}`$ tends to conventional rubber elastic response as $`T`$ increases and $`Q0`$.

Soft shear response occurs because anisotropic network chains accommodate a macroscopic shape change by rotating their distribution of shapes at constant entropy. When chains tend to isotropy, $`Q0`$ and $`r1`$, shape change can only be accommodated by chains distorting their distribution, thereby decreasing their entropy and increasing their free energy. The modulus is then $`\mu `$. We must see how this classical limit is achieved; after all the cancellation $`C_5^R=C_5D_2^2/8D_1=0`$ appears to hold for all $`r`$ including $`r1`$.

Semi-softness is expected when there are fluctuations of composition, rod-like crosslinks, sources of random nematic field, and any other form of non-ideality that prohibits the finding of an isotropic reference state JMPS ; GL . Then there are additions to the Trace formula (1) which are of the form $`a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ for simple shears, see for instance TWV\_stripes . The degree of semi-softness, $`a`$, can be calculated directly from various models of non-ideality, or measured. For continuum theory such additions appear in the eqs. (3) for the $`C_i`$ and $`D_i`$, and upset the cancellations in (4), yielding a $`C_5^R0`$, which is the non zero limit at $`\omega \tau _10`$ in Fig. 3 for $`G^{}`$. However, the additions inspired by $`a`$ clearly must vanish as $`Q0`$ and $`r1`$ and the delicate limit question must still be resolved. In particular in (4) $`C_5^RC_5\frac{1}{2}\mu `$ as $`r1`$.

In the ideal case there is no high temperature order, softness is perfect and for $`T<T_{\mathrm{ni}}`$ the modulus $`C_5^R`$ is identically zero. Several systems, depending on their thermomechanical history, are close to this JMPS . Since ideally $`Q`$ jumps to zero at $`T=T_{\mathrm{ni}}`$, there is no limit problem. $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ cease to exist, the analysis (22) is invalid and $`C_5`$ is not renormalised.

In the semi-soft case, (4) places bounds on the form the non ideal additions to $`D_1`$ can take. Since $`D_1Q^2`$ and $`D_2Q`$, in the ideal case the limit $`D_2^2/D_1`$ is finite as $`Q0`$. If however $`D_1`$ has additions $`D_1(Q^2+a_1Q)`$, then the limit of $`D_2^2/D_1`$ vanishes as $`Q0`$, eliminating any renormalisation. Explicit calculations agree with symmetry arguments that the additions to $`D_1`$ are indeed $`Q`$ and reflect the thermomechanical history of the material. For instance fluctuations (due to compositional fluctuations in the polymers that make up the network) in the effective order felt by a chain, $`Q_{\mathrm{eff}}=(1+\delta )Q`$ (with $`\delta =0`$), yield for the modulus:

$`D_1=\mu ^{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(r1)^2}{r}}+a_1Q\right]`$ (34)
where $`\mu ^{}=\left(\frac{det\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathbf{}}}_f}{det\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathbf{}}}}\right)\mu `$ and

$$a_1=3\delta ^2\frac{Q_f(3+2Q_f)}{(1+2Q_f)(1Q_f)}.$$

Here formation conditions for the network are denoted by a subscript $`f`$: the step length tensor at formation is $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathbf{}}}_f`$ with order parameter $`Q_f`$. The determinant-factors reflect spontaneous shape changes since formation which can be very large (up to several hundred %). The sign of the coefficient $`a_1`$ is that of $`Q_f`$. It is the order at network formation that induces the residual order $`Q`$ at high temperatures and the sign of that order follows that of the formation order. Thus the combination $`a_1Q`$ is always positive and thus the non-ideal additions to $`D_1`$ in (34) are really of the form $`|Q|`$, which we have used in section 3.4.

Thus at sufficiently low frequencies one observes a rather small modulus $`G^{}=C_5^R0`$, which rises with increasing temperature to reach the classical value $`\mu `$ at $`Q0`$ at $`T_{\mathrm{ni}}`$. If, at fixed frequency, on dropping the temperature the combination $`\omega \tau _1`$ becomes appreciable (due to increasing $`\tau _1`$), the modulus $`G^{}(T)`$ will depart from the universal low-frequency form $`G_{\omega \tau _10}^{}`$, see Fig. 4.


format: text

text:
# References

hep-th/0101221

Black diholes with unbalanced magnetic charges
Y.C. Liang and Edward Teo

Department of Physics
National University of Singapore
Singapore 119260

Abstract

We present a technique that can be used to generate a static, axisymmetric solution of the Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton equations from a stationary, axisymmetric solution of the vacuum Einstein equations. Starting from the Kerr solution, Davidson and Gedalin have previously made use of this technique to obtain a pair of oppositely charged, extremal dilatonic black holes, known as a black dihole. In this paper, we shall instead start from the Kerr-NUT solution. It will be shown that the new solution can also be interpreted as a dihole, but with the black holes carrying unbalanced magnetic charges. The effect of the NUT-parameter is to introduce a net magnetic charge into the system. Finally, we uplift our solution to ten dimensions to describe a system consisting of $`D6`$ and anti-$`D6`$-branes with unbalanced charges. The limit in which they coincide agrees with a solution recently derived by Brax et al..

1. Introduction

In 1983, Gross and Perry  and Sorkin  derived solutions of Kaluza-Klein theory starting from existing solutions to the four-dimensional vacuum Einstein equations. These solutions were constructed by first analytically continuing the seed solutions to the Euclidean regime $`tix^5`$, and adding on an extra flat time direction. Solutions to the four-dimensional Kaluza-Klein equations can then be obtained by compactifying the five-dimensional spacetimes on $`x^5`$.

Using the self-dual Taub-NUT solution as seed, the authors  obtained a static solution whose Kaluza-Klein gauge field corresponds to that of a magnetic monopole. This gauge field originates from the $`g_{t\phi }`$ term of the Taub-NUT solution, with the NUT-parameter attributed the physical meaning of magnetic charge in the new solution.

Similarly, by using the Kerr solution as seed, a static solution whose gauge field describes that of a magnetic dipole was constructed . In this case, the angular momentum of the Kerr solution is converted into a parameter that characterizes the dipole moment of the new solution. The latter is the Kaluza-Klein analog of the Bonnor solution  which describes a magnetic dipole in general relativity.

Now, Kaluza-Klein theory is a special case of the more general Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton theory with arbitrary dilatonic coupling. In the former, the coupling constant $`\alpha `$, defined in (2.1), is taken to be $`\sqrt{3}`$. However, in this paper, we shall focus on the more general Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton theory where $`\alpha `$ can take on any real value.

In 1994, Davidson and Gedalin  generalized the solution-generating technique to one that is valid for arbitrary dilatonic coupling using a Ernst-type formalism. Starting from the Kerr solution, they obtained the dilatonic generalization of the Bonnor solution and interpreted the $`\alpha =1`$ case as one exhibiting a two-dimensional black and white dihole structure. However, Emparan  recently pointed out a flaw in this interpretation and demonstrated that the solution (for general $`\alpha `$) actually describes a static pair of oppositely charged, extremal dilatonic black holes, which he calls a black dihole.

We will start off in Sec. 2 by presenting the solution-generating technique that was first used by Davidson and Gedalin to obtain the dilatonic generalization of the Bonnor solution. Since this technique was only briefly described in their original article , we will provide details of it for completeness. To the best of our knowledge, these details cannot be found elsewhere in the literature.

In Sec. 3, we will make use of this technique to derive our dihole solution starting from the Kerr-NUT solution ; the latter is a generalization of the Kerr solution which includes an additional NUT-parameter. As such, our solution contains all the above-mentioned ones as special cases.

This will be followed by a standard analysis, that was first used by Emparan , to investigate the physical nature of the new solution. We will demonstrate that it describes a pair of extremal dilatonic black holes carrying unbalanced magnetic charges, i.e. each of the black holes carries a magnetic charge that is of different sign as well as magnitude. In contrast to a dipole, this system will have a non-trivial net magnetic charge. We will continue to refer to this solution as a dihole.

In Sec. 4, we will discuss the embedding of our solution in Type IIA superstring theory, in which it would describe a static configuration of $`D6`$ and anti-$`D6`$-branes with unbalanced charges. We will then show that the coincident limit agrees with a solution recently presented by Brax et al. .

2. Solution-generating technique

The idea of generating a solution of the Einstein-Maxwell equations starting from a solution of the vacuum Einstein equations is not a new one (see for example Kramer et al.  or Islam ). In this section, we will focus on a different technique which generates a static, axisymmetric solution of the Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton equations starting from a stationary, axisymmetric solution of the vacuum Einstein equations.

Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton theory in four dimensions has the following action integral:

$$\mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{g}\left(R2(\varphi )^2e^{2\alpha \varphi }F^2\right),$$
(2.1)
where $`R`$ is the Ricci scalar, $`\varphi `$ the dilaton field and $`F_{ab}`$ the electromagnetic field tensor. For the special case $`\alpha =0`$, we recover Einstein-Maxwell theory; for $`\alpha =1`$, the action describes the low energy dynamics of string theory; and for $`\alpha =\sqrt{3}`$, we have Kaluza-Klein theory as mentioned in the introduction. However, we shall keep $`\alpha `$ general in what follows. By varying this action with respect to the metric, gauge field and dilaton field, we obtain the respective field equations:

$`R_{ab}=2_a\varphi _b\varphi +e^{2\alpha \varphi }\left(2F_{ac}F_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{ab}F^2\right),`$ (2.2a)
$`_a(e^{2\alpha \varphi }F^{ab})=0,`$ (2.2b)
$`^2\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}e^{2\alpha \varphi }F^2=0.`$ (2.2c)
Now, we are looking for a static, axisymmetric solution to the field equations. Recall that any such spacetime can be cast in the Weyl-Papapetrou form :

$`\mathrm{d}s^2`$ $`=`$ $`f\mathrm{d}t^2+l\mathrm{d}\phi ^2+e^\mu (\mathrm{d}\rho ^2+\mathrm{d}z^2).`$ (2.3)
Furthermore, we choose a purely magnetic ansätz $`AA_\phi `$ with all other components of $`A_a`$ vanishing. It is also understood that $`f`$, $`l`$, $`\mu `$, $`A`$ and $`\varphi `$ are functions of $`\rho `$ and $`z`$ only.

With this ansätz, we can now evaluate the left- and right-hand sides of (LABEL:eqnmnR). Defining $`D^2fl`$, and by considering the combination $`e^\mu D^1(lR_{tt}fR_{\phi \phi })`$, we obtain

$$\frac{^2D}{\rho ^2}+\frac{^2D}{z^2}=0.$$

A simple solution to this equation is given by $`D=\rho `$ . With this choice, we may evaluate the $`R_{tt}`$ equation to arrive at

$$f(f_{\rho \rho }+f_{zz}+\rho ^1f_\rho )f_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}f_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=2\rho ^2f^3e^{2\alpha \varphi }(A_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+A_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}),$$
(2.4)
where subscripts $`\rho `$ and $`z`$ indicate partial derivatives of the corresponding function with respect to these variables. Similarly, by evaluating the Ricci components $`R_{\rho \rho }R_{zz}`$ and $`R_{\rho z}`$, we obtain respectively

$`\mu _\rho `$ $`=`$ $`f^1f_\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho f^2(f_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}f_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+2\rho (\varphi _{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\varphi _{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+2e^{2\alpha \varphi }\rho ^1f(A_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}A_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}),`$ (2.5a)
$`\mu _z`$ $`=`$ $`f^1f_z+\rho f^2f_\rho f_z+4\rho \varphi _\rho \varphi _z+4e^{2\alpha \varphi }\rho ^1fA_\rho A_z.`$ (2.5b)
Finally, we obtain from (2.2b) and (2.2c) the gauge field and dilaton equations respectively:

$`A_{\rho \rho }+A_{zz}\rho ^1A_\rho =2\alpha \left(A_\rho \varphi _\rho +A_z\varphi _z\right)f^1\left(A_\rho f_\rho +A_zf_z\right),`$ (2.6)
$`\varphi _{\rho \rho }+\varphi _{zz}+\rho ^1\varphi _\rho =\alpha \rho ^2fe^{2\alpha \varphi }\left(A_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+A_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right).`$ (2.7)
The crucial step now is to realize that if we set

$$\stackrel{~}{f}^2=fe^{2\alpha \varphi }\mathrm{and}w=i\sqrt{1+\alpha ^2}A,$$
(2.8)
then (2.4) and (LABEL:gauge\_eqn) respectively become

$`\stackrel{~}{f}(\stackrel{~}{f}_{\rho \rho }+\stackrel{~}{f}_{zz}+\rho ^1\stackrel{~}{f}_\rho )\stackrel{~}{f}_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{~}{f}_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\rho ^2\stackrel{~}{f}^4(w_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+w_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})=0,`$ (2.9)
$`\stackrel{~}{f}(w_{\rho \rho }+w_{zz}\rho ^1w_\rho )+2(w_\rho \stackrel{~}{f}_\rho +w_z\stackrel{~}{f}_z)=0.`$ (2.10)
These equations are precisely the same as those derived from the vacuum Einstein equations for a stationary, axisymmetric metric

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=\stackrel{~}{f}(\mathrm{d}tw\mathrm{d}\phi )^2+\rho ^2\stackrel{~}{f}^1\mathrm{d}\phi ^2+e^{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}(\mathrm{d}\rho ^2+\mathrm{d}z^2),$$
(2.11)
using a Ernst-type formalism (c.f. Eqn. (2.12a) and (2.12b) of Islam ). For every such solution to the vacuum Einstein equations, we can therefore find a corresponding solution to the Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton equations via (2.8). Nevertheless, one should be aware that this procedure would in general generate an imaginary gauge field. Thus, a real solution to the Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton equations can be generated via this method only if an analytic continuation of the parameter(s) in the seed solution is possible.

Finally, we see that the dilaton equation (2.7) can be written as

$$\varphi _{\rho \rho }+\varphi _{zz}+\rho ^1\varphi _\rho =\alpha \rho ^2\stackrel{~}{f}^2\left(A_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+A_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right),$$
(2.12)
which, using (LABEL:ff), admits the solution

$$\varphi =\frac{\alpha }{1+\alpha ^2}\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{f},$$
(2.13)
up to the addition of a harmonic function $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ satisfying $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\rho \rho }+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{zz}+\rho ^1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\rho =0`$. For the choice $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=0`$, we have

$$f=\stackrel{~}{f}^{\frac{2}{1+\alpha ^2}}.$$
(2.14)
These expressions, together with that for the gauge field obtained from (2.8), can then be used to deduce $`\mu `$ via (2.5a) and (2.5b). This completes our derivation of the static, axisymmetric solution to the field equations (LABEL:eqnmnR) – (2.2c).

We remark that this technique is just a dilatonic generalization of Theorem 30.8 in Kramer et al. , which Bonnor  used to generate (from the Kerr solution) the well-known magnetic dipole solution. Using the same solution as seed, Davidson and Gedalin  have made use of the above technique to generate the dilatonic generalization of the Bonnor solution. If we begin with the self-dual Taub-NUT solution instead, we would obtain a generalization of the Gross-Perry-Sorkin  monopole solution to arbitrary dilatonic coupling, which can also be interpreted as an extremal dilatonic black hole .

3. Dihole solution with unbalanced charges

3.1. Derivation of solution

In this paper, we will start from the Kerr-NUT (or Demiański-Newman) solution :

$`\mathrm{d}s^2`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\left(\mathrm{d}t+2{\displaystyle \frac{a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (mr+l^2)+l\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}\mathrm{d}\phi \right)^2`$ (3.1)
$`+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1\left[(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}r^2}{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}+\mathrm{d}\theta ^2\right)+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{d}\phi ^2\right],`$
where

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{r^2+(a\mathrm{cos}\theta +l)^2}\mathrm{and}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}r^22mr+a^2l^2.$$

In these expressions, $`a`$ is the angular momentum and $`l`$ is the NUT-parameter. Note that this solution contains both the Kerr and Taub-NUT solutions as special cases with $`l=0`$ and $`a=0`$ respectively.

By comparing the line element (3.1) with (2.11), we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{f}=\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{and}w=2\frac{a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (mr+l^2)+l\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }.$$
(3.2)
To ensure that the resulting gauge field is real, we perform the analytic continuation $`aia`$ and $`lil`$. Using (2.8), (2.13) and (2.14), we obtain

$`A_\phi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{1+\alpha ^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (mrl^2)+l\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{\Delta }+a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }},`$ (3.3)
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{1+\alpha ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }+a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\right],`$ (3.4)
$`f`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }+a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\right]^{\frac{2}{1+\alpha ^2}},`$ (3.5)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }r^22mra^2+l^2\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Sigma }r^2(a\mathrm{cos}\theta +l)^2.$$
(3.6)
Substituting (3.3) – (3.5) into (2.5a) and (2.5b), and by transforming from the Boyer-Lindquist-type coordinates ($`r`$, $`\theta `$) to cylindrical coordinates ($`\rho `$, $`z`$) via

$$\rho =\sqrt{r^22mra^2+l^2}\mathrm{sin}\theta ,z=(rm)\mathrm{cos}\theta ,$$

we obtain by quadrature***For practical reasons, the integration was actually performed after further transforming to prolate spheroidal coordinates :
$$x=\frac{rm}{\sqrt{m^2+a^2l^2}}\mathrm{and}y=\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
the expression for $`\mu `$. We finally arrive at the new solution

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{2}{1+\alpha ^2}}\left\{\mathrm{d}t^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\frac{4}{1+\alpha ^2}}}{\left[\mathrm{\Delta }+(m^2+a^2l^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \right]^{\frac{3\alpha ^2}{1+\alpha ^2}}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}r^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\mathrm{d}\theta ^2\right)\right\}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{2}{1+\alpha ^2}}}\mathrm{d}\phi ^2,$$
(3.7)
where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }+a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }},$$

with $`A_\phi `$ and $`\varphi `$ given in (3.3) and (3.4) respectively.

3.2. Physical properties of the solution

Recently, the special case ($`l=0`$) of the above solution was analyzed in detail by Emparan . In this section, we will perform a similar analysis on our solution and arrive at the conclusion that it describes a pair of extremal dilatonic black holes with unbalanced charges lying on the symmetry axis.

We begin by highlighting that, in addition to being static and axisymmetric, the solution is asymptotically flat. This is in contrast to our seed solution (3.1) whose $`g_{t\phi }`$ term does not vanish in the asymptotic limit. This unphysical nature of the Kerr-NUT solution has thus been removed in the new solution.

A study of the asymptotic behavior of $`g_{tt}`$ and $`A_\phi `$ also reveals that the total mass of the solution is $`M=\frac{2m}{1+\alpha ^2}`$ whereas the net magnetic charge of the solution is $`\overline{Q}=\frac{2l}{\sqrt{1+\alpha ^2}}`$. Thus the NUT-parameter $`l`$ governs the monopole field strength of the solution at far field. Without loss of generality, we shall restrict ourselves to non-negative $`l`$ corresponding to non-negative net magnetic charge.

We shall now examine the singularities of the metric. By evaluating the curvature invariant $`R_{abcd}R^{abcd}`$, it can be checked that for $`lm`$This range for $`l`$ will be justified below., the “outermost” curvature singularities are located at the two points:

$$r=r_+m+\sqrt{m^2+a^2l^2},\theta =0,\pi .$$
(3.8)
We can then follow a similar analysis as in  to show that the axis of symmetry consists of the three line segments $`\theta =0`$, $`r=r_+`$ and $`\theta =\pi `$, and the singularities given by (3.8) are merely the joints between these segments (c.f. Fig 1 of ).

In order to better understand the nature of these singularities, we first note that the proper distance between the two singularities increases as $`2a`$ when $`a\mathrm{}`$. It can also be shown that (for $`\alpha 0`$) the proper distance vanishes when $`a0`$.For $`\alpha =0`$ however, the proper distance remains infinite in this limit. It would be clear later that this is due to the well-known fact that extremal Reissner-Nordström black holes have throats of infinite length. Thus, the parameter $`a`$ serves as a measure of the distance between the two singularities.

Bearing these facts in mind, we may now further investigate the two singularities by adopting the following transformation :

$$r=r_++\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}}{2}(1+\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta })\mathrm{and}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}(1\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta })}{\sqrt{m^2+a^2l^2}},$$
(3.9)
on the metric (3.7), while taking the limit $`a\mathrm{}`$. Physically, this is tantamount to pushing one of the singularities to a large distance and studying the geometry of the remaining singularity. After carrying out the transformation, we obtain

$`\mathrm{d}s^2`$ $``$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|Q|}{\stackrel{~}{r}}}\right)^{\frac{2}{1+\alpha ^2}}\mathrm{d}t^2+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|Q|}{\stackrel{~}{r}}}\right)^{\frac{2}{1+\alpha ^2}}\left[\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{r}^2+\stackrel{~}{r}^2(\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }\mathrm{d}\phi ^2)\right],`$ (3.10a)
$`A_\phi `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }}{\sqrt{1+\alpha ^2}}},`$ (3.10b)
$`\varphi `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{1+\alpha ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|Q|}{\stackrel{~}{r}}}\right),`$ (3.10c)
where

$$Q|_{\theta =0}=ml\mathrm{and}Q|_{\theta =\pi }=ml.$$
(3.10d)
This limiting form is just that of an extremal dilatonic black hole, with the (singular) horizon located at $`\stackrel{~}{r}=0`$ ($`r=r_+`$.

We could also perform the transformation (3.9) on the metric (3.7) without taking the limit of large $`a`$. For small $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$, it enables us to investigate the geometry near to the two singularities. In this limit, the geometry reduces to the near-horizon limit of an extremal dilatonic black hole. However, the horizon will no longer be spherically symmetric due to the presence of the other black hole. One can readily calculate the relevant distortion factors following .

It can therefore be seen that at the ends of the segment $`r=r_+`$, there lie two extremal dilatonic black holes carrying unbalanced magnetic charges. With the aid of Gauss’s law, we may also deduce from (3.10b) that the black hole at ($`r`$, $`\theta `$)=($`r_+`$, 0) and ($`r_+`$, $`\pi `$) carries a magnetic charge of $`\frac{lm}{\sqrt{1+\alpha ^2}}`$ and $`\frac{l+m}{\sqrt{1+\alpha ^2}}`$ respectively. As expected, the sum of these magnetic charges matches exactly with the net charge of the solution obtained above.

The next step is to determine if there are any conical singularities along the different segments of the symmetry axis. Assuming that the coordinate $`\phi `$ has its usual periodicity along the symmetry axes $`\theta =0`$ or $`\pi `$, it can be checked that the conical excess along $`r=r_+`$ is given by

$$\delta _{(r_+)}=2\pi \left[\left(1+\frac{m^2l^2}{a^2}\right)^{\frac{2}{1+\alpha ^2}}1\right].$$
(3.11)
As was pointed out in , this conical excess can be understood physically as the presence of a strut along $`r=r_+`$, which provides the necessary internal stress to counterbalance the attraction between the unbalanced-charged black holes.

To an observer located at $`r>r_+`$, the only observable physical entities are thus the two black holes located at the ends of the segment $`r=r_+`$; when $`0<\theta <\pi `$, the region $`r<r_+`$ is inaccessible due to the presence of conical singularities; when $`\theta =0`$ or $`\pi `$, all other singularities are located at $`r<r_+`$, i.e. enclosed within the horizon.

Now, note from (3.10d) and (3.11) that the magnetic charge of the black hole at ($`r_+`$, 0), as well as the conical singularity along the segment $`r=r_+`$, vanishes when $`l=m`$. To understand the physical nature of this special case, we first note from (3.10a) that the masses of the black holes are $`m|_{\theta =0}=\frac{ml}{1+\alpha ^2}`$ and $`m|_{\theta =\pi }=\frac{m+l}{1+\alpha ^2}`$ respectively. When $`l=m`$, the mass of the black hole at $`\theta =0`$ vanishes whereas that of the one at $`\theta =\pi `$ becomes the total mass of the solution. Intuitively, we can thus think of the increase of $`l`$ (from zero) as a physical process whereby the mass§§§In the process of increasing the value of $`l`$, charge is being transferred as well since the black holes are extremal. of the first black hole is transferred adiabatically to the second.

Indeed, this can seen by performing the following transformation on the line element (3.7) when $`l=m`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{r}=rm+a\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{and}\mathrm{sin}^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }=\frac{(rm)^2a^2}{(rm+a\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta .$$

The resulting line element is

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=\left(1+\frac{2m}{\stackrel{~}{r}}\right)^{\frac{2}{1+\alpha ^2}}\mathrm{d}t^2+\left(1+\frac{2m}{\stackrel{~}{r}}\right)^{\frac{2}{1+\alpha ^2}}[\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{r}^2+\stackrel{~}{r}^2(\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }\mathrm{d}\phi ^2)],$$

which clearly describes the geometry of an extremal dilatonic black hole with mass $`2m`$ (c.f. (3.10a)). Note that although the transformation depends on $`a`$, the resulting line element does not; this is expected because $`a`$ no longer carries any physical meaning when there is only one black hole left in the system.The $`a=0`$ case, corresponding to the self-dual Taub-NUT solution, was precisely what Gross and Perry  and Sorkin  considered to obtain their Kaluza-Klein monopole solution. Notice that if we attempt to increase $`l`$ beyond $`m`$, the black hole located at ($`r_+`$, 0) would attain a negative mass and thus become a naked singularity; at the other end of the segment $`r=r_+`$, the mass of the black hole would exceed the total mass of the solution. This is clearly an unphysical situation; thus we shall restrict ourselves to values of $`l`$ that are less than or equal to $`m`$.

When $`l=0`$, it is well known  that the conical singularity along $`r=r_+`$ can also be removed by introducing an external magnetic field tuned to the appropriate strength; this was achieved by performing a dilatonic generalization of the Harrison transformation  on the $`l=0`$ case of our solution (3.7), (3.3) and (3.4). For general $`l`$, the transformation yields

$`\mathrm{d}s^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{2}{1+\alpha ^2}}\left\{\mathrm{d}t^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\frac{4}{1+\alpha ^2}}}{\left[\mathrm{\Delta }+(m^2+a^2l^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \right]^{\frac{3\alpha ^2}{1+\alpha ^2}}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}r^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}+\mathrm{d}\theta ^2\right)\right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{2}{1+\alpha ^2}}}}\mathrm{d}\phi ^2,`$
$`A_\phi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{1+\alpha ^2}}}[a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (mrl^2)+l\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\theta ]`$ (3.12b)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}[\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (r^2a^2l^2)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }(a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta 2l\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2]\},`$
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{1+\alpha ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},`$ (3.12c)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are the same as above,

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\{\mathrm{\Delta }+a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta 2B\sqrt{1+\alpha ^2}[a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (mrl^2)+l\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\theta ]`$ (3.13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}B^2(1+\alpha ^2)[\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (r^2a^2l^2)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }(a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta 2l\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2]\},`$
and $`B`$ is a new parameter governing the strength of the external magnetic field.

The values of $`B`$ that would remove the conical singularity along $`r=r_+`$ are now

$$B_\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\alpha ^2}}\frac{a\pm \sqrt{m^2+a^2l^2}}{mr_+l^2}.$$

Of these two possible values, $`B_+`$ is unphysical as it remains non-zero in the limit of large $`a`$ . Therefore, the only physically sensible $`B`$ that would remove the conical singularity along $`r=r_+`$ is given by $`B_{}`$.

However, in contrast to the $`l=0`$ case , the conical singularities at the other axes of symmetry no longer vanish for this choice of $`B`$. If we assume that the coordinate $`\phi `$ has its usual periodicity along the symmetry axis $`r=r_+`$, it can be shown that along the $`\theta =0`$ segment, there is a conical deficit of

$$\delta _{(0)}=2\pi \left\{1\left[1l\left(\frac{a\sqrt{m^2+a^2l^2}}{mr_+l^2}\right)\right]^{\frac{4}{1+\alpha ^2}}\right\},$$

corresponding to a cosmic string; whereas along the $`\theta =\pi `$ segment, there is a conical excess of

$$\delta _{(\pi )}=2\pi \left\{\left[1+l\left(\frac{a\sqrt{m^2+a^2l^2}}{mr_+l^2}\right)\right]^{\frac{4}{1+\alpha ^2}}1\right\},$$

corresponding to a strut. Hence, for an unbalanced dihole, it is impossible to remove the conical singularities along the segments $`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =\pi `$ simultaneously with that along $`r=r_+`$, by tuning the strength of the external magnetic field. Physically, this is expected due to the asymmetry in the distribution of charges among the two black holes.

Finally, we shall remark that instead of a magnetic dihole solution, an electric dihole solution can be obtained by dualizing the magnetic field strength tensor $`F_{ab}`$ via

$$\varphi ^{}=\varphi ,F_{}^{}{}_{ab}{}^{}=\frac{e^{2\alpha \varphi }}{2}ϵ_{abcd}F^{cd}.$$
(3.14)
Applying this transformation to the Harrison-transformed solution (LABEL:harrison\_metric) – (3.12c), we obtain a solution which describes an electrically charged dihole immersed in an external electric field. The corresponding gauge field is given by

$`A_t^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(r3m)B\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+\alpha ^2}}{2}}B^2\left[ma\mathrm{cos}\theta (2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )+l(r3m)(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )\right]`$ (3.15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{1+\alpha ^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ma\mathrm{cos}\theta l(rm)}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+\alpha ^2}}{2}}B(a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta 2l\mathrm{cos}\theta )\right]^2,`$
with all other components vanishing. In the special case $`l=0`$, the above expression reduces to that given by Chattaraputi et al. . Note that $`B`$ now governs the strength of the external electric field. When $`B=0`$, (3.15) reduces to

$$A_t^{}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{1+\alpha ^2}}\frac{ma\mathrm{cos}\theta l(rm)}{\mathrm{\Sigma }},$$
(3.16)
which clearly asymptotes to the gauge field generated by an electric point source, with charge $`\frac{2l}{\sqrt{1+\alpha ^2}}`$, located at the origin.

4. $`D6`$-anti-$`D6`$-brane configuration

Now, for certain values of $`\alpha `$, the action (2.1) emerges from string theory when compactified down to four dimensions. In such cases the four-dimensional dihole solutions can be reinterpreted in terms of brane-anti-brane configurations in ten dimensions. Perhaps the most important example is when the Kaluza-Klein dipole is uplifted to ten dimensions, to describe a $`D6`$-anti-$`D6`$-brane configuration in Type IIA superstring theory .

In the string frame, the solution describing a pair of $`D6`$-branes with opposite but unbalanced magnetic charges, immersed in a non-trivial magnetic field, is given by (in standard string theory conventions )

$`\mathrm{d}s^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}{}_{}{}^{\frac{1}{2}}\{\mathrm{d}t^2+\mathrm{d}x_1^2+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{d}x_6^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}r^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}+\mathrm{d}\theta ^2)\}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}^{\frac{1}{2}}}}\mathrm{d}\phi ^2,`$ (4.1a)
$`A_\phi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}}\{a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (mrl^2)+l\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (4.1b)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}[\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (r^2a^2l^2)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }(a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta 2l\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2]\},`$
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},`$ (4.1c)
where we now have,

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\{\mathrm{\Delta }+a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta 4B[a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (mrl^2)+l\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\theta ]`$
$`+B^2[\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (r^2a^2l^2)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }(a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta 2l\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2]\},`$
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ given in (3.6). The geometry of the individual $`D6`$-branes, located at $`(r,\theta )=(r_+,0)`$ and $`(r_+,\pi )`$, can be recovered by performing the coordinate transformation (3.9) on the above solution. This solution contains, as a special case, the solution considered by Sen in .

As in the four-dimensional situation, if the external magnetic field is switched off by setting $`B=0`$, the branes coincide when $`a=0`$. In this limit, the solution simplifies to

$`\mathrm{d}s^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{r^22mr+l^2}{r^2l^2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{d}t^2+\mathrm{d}x_1^2+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{d}x_6^2)`$ (4.2b)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{r^2l^2}{r^22mr+l^2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{d}r^2+(r^22mr+l^2)(\mathrm{d}\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{d}\phi ^2)],`$
$`A_\phi `$ $`=`$ $`2l\mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$ (4.2c)
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r^22mr+l^2}{r^2l^2}}\right),`$ (4.2d)
which describes a spherically symmetric***It is curious to note that the coincident limit of the four-dimensional dihole (3.7) solution is spherically symmetric only when $`\alpha =\sqrt{3}`$. six-brane source carrying a monopole charge $`l`$. Recently, Brax et al.  presented a supergravity solution that corresponds to $`N`$ $`Dp`$-branes coinciding with $`\overline{N}`$ anti-$`Dp`$-branes, with $`N\overline{N}`$ in general. We will now establish a correspondence between our solution and theirs when $`p=6`$.

The solution of , after transforming to the string frame, is given by

$`\mathrm{d}s^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{\varphi }{2}}\left\{e^{2A(\stackrel{~}{r})}(\mathrm{d}t^2+\mathrm{d}x_1^2+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{d}x_6^2)+e^{2B(\stackrel{~}{r})}[\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{r}^2+\stackrel{~}{r}^2(\mathrm{d}\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{d}\phi ^2)]\right\},`$ (4.3a)
$`A_{t1\mathrm{}6}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{c_2^21}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}kh(\stackrel{~}{r})}{\mathrm{cosh}kh(\stackrel{~}{r})c_2\mathrm{sinh}kh(\stackrel{~}{r})}},`$ (4.3b)
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7}{16}}c_1h(\stackrel{~}{r}){\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{ln}[\mathrm{cosh}kh(\stackrel{~}{r})c_2\mathrm{sinh}kh(\stackrel{~}{r})],`$ (4.3c)
where

$`A(\stackrel{~}{r})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{64}}c_1h(\stackrel{~}{r}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\mathrm{ln}[\mathrm{cosh}kh(\stackrel{~}{r})c_2\mathrm{sinh}kh(\stackrel{~}{r})],`$
$`B(\stackrel{~}{r})`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_0^2}{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{21}{64}}c_1h(\stackrel{~}{r})+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{16}}\mathrm{ln}[\mathrm{cosh}kh(\stackrel{~}{r})c_2\mathrm{sinh}kh(\stackrel{~}{r})],`$
$`h(\stackrel{~}{r})`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{r}r_0}{\stackrel{~}{r}+r_0}}\right),k\sqrt{4{\displaystyle \frac{7}{16}}c_1^2}.`$
In these expressions, $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$ and $`r_0`$ represent the three parameters of the solution, and the seven-form gauge field given by (4.3b) represents that of an electrically charged six-brane; for a magnetic six-brane, the corresponding dilaton field and gauge field can be obtained by performing an electromagnetic duality transformation on the above solution .

The parameter $`c_1`$ was argued in  to be related to the vacuum expectation value of the open string tachyon stretching between the $`D6`$\- and anti-$`D6`$-branes.However, the physical significance of this parameter in four dimensions is still unclear. To establish the correspondence with our solution, we will set this parameter to zero. In addition, the other parameters are taken to be

$$c_2=\frac{m}{\sqrt{m^2l^2}}\mathrm{and}r_0=\frac{\sqrt{m^2l^2}}{2}.$$

Defining a new radial coordinate $`r`$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{r}=\frac{1}{2}(rm+\sqrt{r^22mr+l^2}),$$

it can then be checked that the magnetic solution obtained by dualizing (4.3a) – (4.3c) is equivalent to (4.2b) – (4.2d). Thus, we see that our solution (4.1a) – (4.1c) contains, as a special case, the coincident $`D6`$-anti-$`D6`$-brane system of .

5. Conclusion

In this paper, we have presented a solution-generating technique which was first used by Davidson and Gedalin  to generate black dihole solutions carrying equal but opposite charges. For any stationary, axisymmetric solution to the vacuum Einstein equations, we can find a corresponding static, axisymmetric solution to the Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton equations via this technique.

As an application of the technique, we have constructed a new solution starting from the Kerr-NUT solution. A detailed analysis reveals that for $`lm`$, the solution describes a pair of extremal dilatonic black holes lying on the symmetry axis. They carry unbalanced magnetic charges, with the net charge governed by the NUT-parameter $`l`$.

There are a few avenues for future research. Chattaraputi et al.  have recently found oppositely charged dihole solutions in U(1)4 gauge theory—a generalization of Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton theory consisting of four abelian gauge fields and three scalar fields. When embedded in string or M-theory, these solutions describe a variety of intersecting brane-antibrane configurations. It would be worth finding the corresponding solutions with unbalanced electric and/or magnetic charges.

It would also be of interest to find dihole solutions describing non-extremal black holes, as well as diholes in de Sitter and anti-de Sitter space. Another challenging problem is the construction of diholes in higher-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton theory. When embedded in string theory, these solutions would describe $`Dp`$-anti-$`Dp`$-brane configurations for $`p5`$.

Acknowledgement

We thank Roberto Emparan for constructive criticisms on an earlier version of the manuscript.