text:
# Multifragmentation process for different mass asymmetry in the entrance channel around the Fermi energy

## 1 Introduction

The characterization of the equation of state of nuclear matter can be carried out by the study of the fragmentation process in heavy-ion induced reactions . In the Fermi energy range, the interplay between the attractive mean-field interaction and the individual nucleon-nucleon scattering is reached and the time scales of the collision become comparable to the deexcitation times . In this case, one could expect to observe some deviations to the simplistic scenario consisting in the formation and de-excitation of a hot and equilibrated nucleus and the role of the dynamics of the collision could then be probed and quantified. The multifragmentation process, occuring in very dissipative reactions and successfully described as a statistical process , can be studied in order to shed light on this issue.

In this work, we have isolated and studied the characteristics of multifragmentation samples of central events for the 58Ni + 197Au system, ranging from $`32A`$ to $`90A`$MeV, and for the $`{}_{}{}^{129}Xe+^{nat}Sn`$ system at $`50A`$ MeV111Experiments performed at GANIL, both registered with the INDRA $`4\pi `$ array. Both theoretical and experimental comparisons were performed and have allowed to address the issue of the fragmentation process and its relationship to the dynamics of the collision. The article is organised as follows. The second section presents the experimental details about the studied systems. The third section is devoted to the presentation of a new event selection method of the most violent collisions (called central collisions hereafter for the sake of simplicity). This method will allow us to carefully isolate in a second stage multifragmentation event samples. The gross features of the selected events is presented in the fourth section and the comparison protocol is detailed. The fifth section presents the comparison of the selected samples with a statistical model (SMM) in order to evaluate their degree of equilibration and will discuss in what extent a statistical approach can account for the deexcitation process. At last, the sixth section compares systems with different entrance channel characteristics (mass asymmetry and incident energy), in order to give an experimental answer to the question of the influence of the dynamics upon the deexcitation process of hot composite systems formed in heavy-ion induced reactions in the Fermi energy domain.

## 2 Experimental details

The Nickel beam was accelerated through the two coupled-cyclotrons at $`74A`$ and $`90A`$ MeV and then degraded in order to cover the incident energy range between $`32A`$ and $`90A`$ MeV. The beam intensity was below $`10^8`$ ion/s in order to keep the random coincidences as low as possible ($`<10^4`$). The projectiles were impiged on a $`200\mu g/cm^2`$ self-supported $`Au`$ target. The experimental setup was constituted by the INDRA $`4\pi `$ array . It is composed by $`336`$ two- or three-layers telescopes, depending on the polar angle, disposed in a cylindrical geometry along the beam direction into $`17`$ rings from $`2`$ to $`176^o`$ covering $`90\%`$ of $`4\pi `$. The first ring ($`2<\theta <3^o`$) was made of $`12`$ phoswich plastic scintillators ($`NE115`$/$`NE102`$). The forward part (from $`3`$ to $`45^o`$) is constituted by 180 modules ($`48`$ ionisation chambers filled with $`C_3F_8`$ gas at low pressure, $`180`$ silicon detectors ($`300\mu m`$-thick) coupled to CsI(Tl) scintillators read out by photomultipliers). The backward part (above $`45^o`$) is formed by telescopes made of $`48`$ ionization chambers associated to $`144`$ CsI(Tl) scintillators. The energy range extends from $`1A`$ MeV to $`250A`$ MeV and corresponds to a large dynamics with a good energy resolution thanks to the $`2`$ simultaneous amplification levels implemented in the $`12`$ bits-QDC modules for the ionization chambers and the silicon diodes (about $`70`$ / $`1000`$ keV per channel respectively). Isotope identification is achieved for light charged particles (from $`Hydrogen`$ up to $`Beryllium`$ isotopes) for energies larger than $`6A`$ MeV. Charge identification is obtained over the whole energy range from $`Z=1`$ up to $`Z=79`$ with a resolution better than one charge unit for the forward part while it overcomes slightly this value for $`Z>20`$ at backward angles ($`13`$ units). The overall energy resolution has been estimated to be better than $`5\%`$, depending on the particle and the polar angle . Events were registered when at least four telescopes ($`M>=4`$) were fired and the overall acquisition dead time was kept below $`20\%`$. More details about the performances of INDRA and its related electronics can be found in Refs. .

## 3 Principal Component Analysis

Numerous event selection methods have been already used in order to select multifragmentation events . These methods are mostly based on cuts in global variables distributions. One of the most difficult task is here to select high excitation energy events (where multifragmentation is supposed to be the dominant de-excitation process) associated with low reaction cross-sections. Moreover, a complete study of the multifragmentation process needs to achieve exclusive measurements with a $`4\pi `$ array and so to deal with well-detected events, where all or almost all the reaction products have been measured. These conditions make the event selection one of the crucial part of the analysis in heavy-ion induced reactions and this section is exclusively devoted to this issue.

### 3.1 Standard event selection

For the $`Ni+Au`$ system, the usual methods based on the selection of well-detected events are not applicable because of their very small number; indeed, for this asymmetrical system, central events are not fully measured due to the energy thresholds of the experimental apparatus. This is illustrated by Fig. 1 for the $`3`$ incident energies. It displays the correlation between the total detected charge $`Z_{tot}`$ and the total parallel pseudo-momentum $`P_z^{tot}`$ (defined as : $`P_z^{tot}=_{i=1}^NZ_iV_i^{//}`$ where $`Z_i`$ and $`V_i^{//}`$ are respectively the atomic number and the parallel velocity with respect to the beam axis of the $`i^{th}`$ particule), both normalized to the incident values. The dashed lines represent the requirement of more than $`80\%`$ of the collected charge and pseudo-momentum usually used by the INDRA collaboration to define complete events (zone A of Fig. 1).

The criterion applied for this system retains indeed too few events (less than $`0.1\%`$ ) for being reasonably considered. Obviously, we can slightly release the condition on the total detected charge to increase the number of retained events, but it turns to be somewhat arbitrary since no singularities appears in the $`Z_{tot}`$ distribution. Other selections have been also considered (light charged particles multiplicity or tranverse energy) but the conclusions remain unchanged.

Therefore, we have prefered to develop a new method which takes advantage of the exclusive measurements by requiring the overall information given by the experimental apparatus, without asking a priori any criterion for the detection completeness. This method is based upon the features of multidimensional analyses. Many kinds of multidimensional analyses can be employed and some of them have been already used successfully in the heavy-ion induced reactions domain . Among them, we have chosen the Principal Component Analysis ($`PCA`$) for its simplicity, and because it is closely related to more conventional selection methods using global variables.

### 3.2 Basics

We start from a set of global variables, commonly used in heavy-ion physics such as multiplicities (light charged particles - LCP, $`0<Z<3`$ \- and intermediate mass fragments - IMF, $`Z>2`$ \- ), transverse energy, event shape in momentum space (eigenvalues of the kinetic flow tensor, flow angle), detection observables (total detected charge, parallel momentum, etc … ). The total number of global variables used in this study is $`M=24`$ and has been set in order to cover all the experimental information that can be accessed from the data after different tries. We then build the covariance matrix $`V`$ of these global variables which matrix elements $`V_{ij}`$ are defined as :

$$V_{ij}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k=1}^N\widehat{X}_{ik}\widehat{X}_{jk}$$
(1)
where the indexes $`i`$ and $`j`$ run over the number of global variables ($`M`$) (squared $`M\times M`$ matrix), $`k`$ is the event number, $`N`$ is the total number of events and $`\widehat{X}_{ik}`$ is the reduced value of the $`i^{th}`$ global variable for the event $`k`$. $`\widehat{X}_{ik}`$ is built upon the original value $`X_{ik}`$ by applying the following linear transformation in order to get centred and reduced values :

$$\widehat{X}_{ik}=\frac{X_{ik}\overline{X}_i}{\sigma _i}$$
(2)
where $`X_{ik}`$ is the value of the $`i^{th}`$ global variable for event $`k`$, $`\overline{X}_i`$ its mean value and $`\sigma _i`$ its standard deviation over the total number of events $`N`$.

By diagonalizing the covariance matrix $`V`$, we obtain the eigenvalues and the associated eigenvectors, defining then linear combinations of these variables, called hereafter principal components . These are ordered and define new planes - principal planes - where the data are projected. Since we use global variables, an event is then represented by only one point in this $`M`$-dimensional space.

### 3.3 Application to the data

The normalized eigenvalues give the statistical information carried by the associated eigenvectors and the combination of the highest eigenvalues define principal planes where the data exhaust the maximum of information . Fig. 2, top row gives the spectra obtained by diagonalization of the covariance matrix for the $`Ni+Au`$ data at $`32A`$, $`52A`$ and $`90A`$ MeV. Typically, we get better than $`2/3`$ of the total statistical information, called explained inertia, by projecting in the first principal plane ($`Pc_{max}Pc_{max1}`$), which means that we have access to a fairly large amount of information compared to simple mono- or even bi-dimensional plots.

Therefore, we expect to gain selectivity, compared to usual monodimensional event selection methods. Moreover, the $`PCA`$ gathers in a natural way events with the same features (i. e. same values of the global variables), defining thus naturally event classes as it is clearly seen on Fig. 2. The three bottom rows of Fig. 2 displays the projection obtained by combining the planes defined with the 3 highest principal components. We observe that the second row ($`Pc_{max}Pc_{max1}`$) shows the best separation between the $`4`$ different event classes, as compared to the other planes, except for the $`32A`$ MeV $`Ni+Au`$ system (left panel). This correlates the information brought by the normalized eigenvalues and shows that the selection in the first principal plane is sufficient enough at this level to disentangle between the observed event classes.

Figure 3, top row shows again the projection of the $`Ni+Au`$ data on the principal plane. The inertia values, defined as the sum of the two eigenvalues, are also reported and give the amount of information carried by the projection in this plane; as already mentioned, we get around $`2/3`$ of the total available information. The relationship between the principal components and the global variables are given on Fig. 3 (bottom row) by the so-called correlation plot. It explains in an easy way how the data are shared out in the principal plane. For example, by looking at the total detected momentum along the beam axis ($`Pz_{tot}`$), we see that this quantity gets higher when we follow the direction pointed by the associated vector on the correlation plot (upper left). The corresponding direction gives then the location of the well-detected events in momentum; they corresponds to the most peripheral events (upper-left branch called $`C`$ on Fig. 3) and are associated with low values of the total detected charge $`Z_{tot}`$ since the corresponding two axes are perpendicular. Conversely, the high-multiplicity events are located almost in the opposite direction (see $`M_{lcp}`$ on Fig. 3) and are then practically anticorrelated with the total detected charge. The complete events (defined as the event class with the higher values of the total detected charge $`Z_{tot}`$) are clearly located at the rightmost part of the plot on Fig. 3 (called zone $`A`$). By selecting the different zones as presented on Fig. 3, we are then able to naturally separate and study the different event classes from peripheral (incomplete events) to the most dissipative collisions (pseudo-complete events).

We have checked that the rightmost zone, called $`A`$, is here associated to the highest values of the total detected charge and light charged particle multiplicity while the zones $`B`$, $`C`$ and $`D`$ are associated to smaller values as shown in table 1 for the $`52A`$ MeV $`Ni+Au`$ system. Table 1 gives the mean multiplicities (light charged particles and intermediate mass fragment) and the total detected charge per event. As already observed before from the correlation plot, zone $`A`$ corresponds to the highest values (the mean IMF multiplicity is equal to $`4.0`$), and groups the best-detected (total charge) and most dissipative (high multiplicity) events. In the following, we will only retain this zone because it contains the multifragmentation events (among other dissipative events) coming from a composite system formed in very central collisions.

Furthermore, a detailed study of the other classes  -not presented here- has shown that Zone $`B`$ is associated to incomplete fusion events where the fused system undergoes fission (mid-peripheral collisions), Zone $`C`$ to peripheral collisions where the quasi-projectile is close to the projectile (Nickel) and Zone $`D`$ to binary dissipative collisions where a (damped) quasi-projectile still survives in the exit channel.

### 3.4 Multifragmentation selection

The events belonging to zone $`A`$ of Fig. 3 (best detected and dissipative events) are kept and a second $`PCA`$ is applied on this sample in order to refine the selection on central events. This second $`PCA`$ allows a more precise ordering of the events of zone $`A`$ by enlarging the selectivity. In this way, we only need to work on the first principal plane ($`Pc_{max}Pc_{max1}`$), and we do not need to look at the other principal planes.

The result of this second $`PCA`$ is displayed on Fig. 4 (top row) and the corresponding correlation plot is given in the bottom row. We see that the events are grouped together in an elongated shape along $`Pc_{max}`$ and there is no more any separation between event classes, showing thus that the primary selection (first $`PCA`$) was sufficient to get the gross features of this selected event sample. Nevertheless, we can define a ridge line from the mean values represented by the symbols (displayed as the thick curve on Fig. 4, top row ) and then cut perpendicularly as represented by the vertical dashed line on the left of the panels of Fig. 4. If we now look at the correlation plots, we see that the leftmost zone is associated to the best detected events ($`Z_{tot}`$), the highest LCP multiplicity $`M_{lcp}`$ and the most compact shape in momentum space (represented by the sphericity $`S_{pher}`$). At the opposite, the rightmost zone is characterized by events with an elongated shape in momentum space, as represented by the highest $`H_2`$ values . It is interesting to note that the maximum IMF multiplicity ($`M_{imf}`$) is obtained for events on the right part of the projection plot for the $`32A`$ MeV $`Ni+Au`$ system and is associated to peripheral (elongated) and not central events. This surprising result is very well explained by the detection response of INDRA; in the $`32A`$ MeV case, the small value of the recoil velocity of the composite system in central collisions does not allow to overcome the energy thresholds of INDRA for the heavy products, so the IMF multiplicity does not reflect the true multiplicity for the central collisions and the experimental apparatus miss more likely the heavy and slow fragments in this case.

The ridge line displayed on Fig. 4 defines a new curvilinear abscissa called geodesic $`g`$ and allows a refined event sorting. Figure 5 presents the evolution of the geodesic (top row), the LCP multiplicity (middle row) and the total detected charge (bottom row) as a function of this curvilinear abscissa which is dimensionless : the origin of the curve is set at the location of the dashed line on Fig. 4, top row so that events with negative $`g`$ values correspond to the selection we are going to apply on the data. The number of retained events has been chosen in order to get the same amount of data for the different incident energies and to keep homogeneous values for the global variables (multiplicities, tranverse energy). It corresponds to a measured cross-section of $`100mb`$ ($`b<1.7fm`$).

By selecting events with negative $`g`$ values as presented on Fig. 5, top row by the hatched area, we get the highest LCP multiplicities and the best charge detection (around and above $`80\%`$ the initial total charge). The selection operated by the cut along the geodesic retains only events with the highest multiplicities, compacity and detection efficiency, providing thus multifragmentation event samples which are extensively studied in the following sections.

### 3.5 Generic features

Figure 6 displays the LCP and IMF multiplicities, and the atomic number vs. parallel c.m. velocity plot (along the beam direction). The multiplicities are quite large and correspond a priori to what we expect from multifragmentation event features. At $`32A`$ MeV, the IMF multiplicity is dominated by the 3-IMF channel while it goes to $`56`$ IMFs for $`52A`$ and $`90A`$ MeV. It is interesting to note that the IMF production saturates above $`50A`$ MeV (see the IMF mean values on Fig. 6). The only change between $`52A`$ and $`90A`$ MeV is then the IMF size, which decreases.

The correlation between the parallel c.m. velocity and the atomic number (Fig. 6, bottom row) shows a symmetric emission of the products around the center of mass of the reaction (represented by the dashed line), except for the light charged particles ($`Z<5`$) where a forward-peaked contribution is visible. The energy thresholds of the experimental apparatus appears at backward angles in the c.m. and truncate the velocity distribution of the backward area, showing the difficulty to get fully detected events for this asymmetrical system with INDRA (and justify the use of the multidimensional analysis). We will come back to this point in section 4.

### 3.6 Fragmentation pattern for central collisions

Figure 7 presents the correlation between the two heaviest fragments in the event for the $`32A`$ MeV(a) , $`52A`$ MeV(b) and $`90A`$ MeV(c) $`Ni+Au`$ system respectively. We can see clearly two zones for the first two panels (a) and (b) : an asymmetrical fragmentation pattern (a heavy fragment with Z around 35 is emitted co ncidentally with a small one, Z $``$ 5 ), called zone $`1`$ and a symmetric fragmentation pattern (the atomic number of the two heaviest fragments is around $`1520`$) called zone $`2`$, while only the zone corresponding to the symmetric channel is present on panel (c).

The separation between these zones depends on the incident energy because of the different IMF yields. This is shown on the bottom row of figure 7 by the ”$`\mathrm{\Delta }Z`$” distribution (built with the the three largest atomic numbers $`Z_1,Z_2`$ and $`Z_3`$) where the panel (d) and (e) exhibits a shoulder which corresponds respectively to zone 2 (at $`32A`$ MeV) and 1 (at $`52A`$ MeV). The definition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }Z=Z_13(Z_2+Z_3)`$ is here arbitrary and only reflects the best separation we can found between the two zones.

In order to check that the two fragmentation channels determined from Fig. 7 are not an artifact of the experimental setup (via a different detection response of INDRA), we have plotted on Fig. 8 the LCP multiplicity and the total detected charge for the $`2`$ zones of Fig. 7 for the $`52A`$ MeV $`Ni+Au`$ system. If we assume that the LCP multiplicity is related to the event dissipation, we can then conclude from Fig. 8a that the events belonging to both zones are associated to the same class of dissipation. Indeed, the $`PCA`$ selection insures us that the selected central collision samples present homogeneous properties with respect to every global variable used to build the $`PCA`$, as already explained in section 3. The total detected charge distributions (b) are comparable, and show that the event classes have the same detection features, despite their different fragmentation patterns. It demonstrates that experimental biases can not account for the difference in the fragmentation pattern and corresponds indeed to the coexistence of two different decay channels in the multifragmentation data.

In the following, we will restrain the study to the events of zone $`2`$ (symmetric channel), which are considered as true (simultaneous) multifragmentation events, while the other channel is likely related to a residue-evaporation/fission process and is rather ascribable to a sequential fragment production mechanism. This statement is also supported by the $`\gamma `$-IMF correlation analyses made for the same system at $`30A`$ and $`45A`$ MeV by the MEDEA collaboration  where a change from sequential to simultaneous IMF production is observed for central collisions. Anyway, the separation between these two patterns is cleaner at $`52A`$ MeV and $`90A`$ MeV (where only Zone $`2`$ is present), while it is difficult to define it at $`32A`$ MeV because of the continuity of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }Z`$ distribution. Therefore we will only consider the events of Zone $`2`$ coming from the central collisions isolated at $`52A`$ and $`90A`$ MeV. Nevertheless, it is important to note the coexistence of these two decay channels for the central collisions of the $`Ni+Au`$ system at $`32A`$ and $`52A`$ MeV, which have been already reported  and will be discussed in the framework of phase transition in a forthcoming paper .

## 4 Multifragmentation and equilibration

### 4.1 Comparison protocol

In order to check the degree of equilibration of the multifragmentation events (defined as Zone $`2`$ in the previous section), we need to compare the experimental data to the predictions of a model based upon the statistical equilibrium hypothesis. Therefore we have used the well-known Statistical Multifragmentation Model (SMM) of Bondorf et al  and applied it to the $`Ni+Au`$ multifragmentation events.

From previous studies, it has been shown that central collisions in the Fermi energy domain can be affected by a pre-equilibrium component, even for IMFs . This component is forward-peaked for the $`Ni+Au`$ system as illustrated on Fig. 9. The light fragments and particles are more affected by this effect. The heavy fragments have a flatter distribution along the overall angular range despite the lack of them for the most backward angles as already mentioned for Fig. 6. As a matter of fact, central collisions emit products with low velocities in the laboratory, and the determination of the recoil velocity becomes rather difficult because of the energy thresholds imposed by the experimental setup . These two limitations have to be taken into account if we want to compare the data with models. Therefore, we have decided to make the comparisons in a restricted angular domain in the center of mass (c.m.). This domain is located around the transverse direction for two reasons; firstly to minimize the effect of a bad determination of the recoil velocity (because of the lack of detection for slow fragments), and secondly to exclude in a large extent the pre-equilibrium component. The angular range intervals have been set to the same values at $`52A`$ and $`90A`$ MeV and are defined as $`60120^o`$ (hatched area on the left column of Fig. 9) in order to get reasonably flat angular distributions. In the following, all the presented data will be selected in this c.m. angular range.

Figure 9 presents also the excitation energy obtained by calorimetry  calculated in an event-by-event basis; the light charged particles and light IMFs (up to $`Z=4`$) have been taken in the restricted c.m. angular range ($`60120^o`$) and their contribution has been multiplied by 2. The evaporated neutron contribution has been estimated from the $`N/Z`$ ratio of the initial system and their kinetic energy is deduced from the temperature determined by the kinetic equation of state as precised in ref. . The distributions are quite broad and do not only reflect the fluctuations in the energy deposition but also the uncertainties brought by the experimental determination (neutrons, pre-equilibrium component not completely removed, detection). Nevertheless, we can note the mean values ($`4.2`$,$`6.4`$,$`8.3A`$ MeV for respectively $`32`$,$`52`$,$`90A`$ MeV) and use them as starting points for the following model comparisons.

Table 2 gives the available c.m. energy (total and per nucleon) for the studied systems and by comparing with the extracted excitation energy values we have an estimation of the percentage of deposited energy as a function of the asymmetry of the system (when comparing $`Ni+Au`$ to $`Xe+Sn`$) or the incident energy ($`Ni+Au`$). The value for the $`Xe+Sn`$ system ($`9.3A`$ MeV) has been obtained by using the same prescription .

The ratio between the deposited energy (estimated by calorimetry) and the c.m. available energy decreases as a function of the incident energy from $`0.8`$ at $`32A`$ MeV to $`0.5`$ at $`90A`$ MeV for the $`Ni+Au`$ system; it shows the ever increasing part of the preequilibrium component when going from Fermi energy toward the relativistic regime. Moreover, we do not observe any dependence of the ratio ($`0.7`$) as a function of the mass asymmetry of the entrance channel for a given incident energy (here $`50A`$ MeV). Thus, no transparency effects are evidenced at that incident energy.

### 4.2 Partitions

Figure 10 presents the results obtained for the comparison between the experimental data (here $`52A`$ MeV $`Ni+Au`$) and the simulation (SMM) for the best set of input parameters we have found; it corresponds to a source size of $`A=215`$ ($`Z=86`$) with an thermal excitation energy of $`E^{}/A=6.5MeV`$. This latter value is close to the one obtained experimentally by calorimetry ($`<E^{}/A>=6.4`$ MeV)  and fig. \[article9\] right. Several attempts have been made in order to determine the optimal freeze-out volume in the model but due to the comparison in a rather small angular range, no sensitivity to this parameter has been found and we have taken the usual value of $`3V_0`$ for the freeze-out configuration.

The data (symbols) for the $`52A`$MeV $`Ni+Au`$ system are fairly reproduced by the model (histogram) as far as partitions are concerned. The atomic number distribution (Fig. 10a) exhibits some discrepancies for charges between $`20`$ and $`35`$ but the global trend of the distribution is reproduced. It has to be mentioned that the spectra of Fig. 10a are normalized to the number of events. The LCP multiplicity (Fig. 10b) and the fragment multiplicity ($`Z>5`$, Fig. 10c) are slightly overestimated by the model while the charge of the heaviest fragment (Fig. 10d) gets the same agreement as the inclusive charge distribution. The events generated by SMM have been passed through a software replica of the INDRA array and the comparisons are made into a restricted angular range domain in the center of mass (here between $`60`$ and $`120`$ degrees) in order to minimize the threshold biases and pre-equilibrium effects , as already explained in section 4.1.

Some attempts have been made in order to get a more quantitative comparison between the data and the model predictions, such as it is preconized in  by the backtracing method. The results show that the confidence intervals where the data are reasonably reproduced are $`0.5A`$ MeV for the excitation energy and $`5`$ charge units for the source size. This agreement has been numerically evaluated by the calculation of a $`\chi ^2`$ upon the $`4`$ distributions presented on Fig. 10. The confidence intervals given here refer to minimal $`\chi ^2`$ values which do not differ from more than $`10\%`$, and the values reported for the model corresponds to the central points of these intervals.

The same comparison has been made for the $`90A`$MeV $`Ni+Au`$ system and is presented on Fig. 11. The input parameters of SMM are now $`A=215`$ ($`Z=86\pm 5`$) and $`E^{}/A=7.5\pm 0.5`$ MeV. The agreement is satisfactory between the model and the data, showing then that the fragment partitions are also consistent with a statistical exploration of the available phase space as it is suggested in the SMM model.

### 4.3 Kinetic properties

Figure 12 shows the correlation between the mean kinetic energy (in the c.m.) and the atomic number for the data (solid circles) and the model (open symbols). An agreement is accounted for the heaviest atomic number ($`Z>15`$) as displayed on Fig. 12 (left panel for $`52A`$MeV and right for $`90A`$MeV). However, the model underestimates in a large extent the mean kinetic energies for light charged particles and IMFs ($`Z<10`$). If we assume an extra collective energy (radial flow) of $`0.5A`$MeV in the model (open triangles) , then the mean kinetic energies are slightly better reproduced for $`Z<10`$ but the agreement fails totally for the heavier products.

We can therefore conclude that no radial flow has to be put in SMM calculations to reproduce the kinetic properties of fragments while strong out-of-equilibrium features appear for light charged particles and light IMFs ($`Z<10`$). This result is somehow consistent with the conclusions made from the $`Ar+Au`$ analysis in the same incident energy range  where is evidenced an expansion energy component; indeed, in this case, only kinetic energy distribution for light IMFs ($`Z<10`$) have been analysed and give the same mean values as our analysis. This important point will be furthermore developed in the next section by the direct comparison between experimental data.

## 5 Experimental comparisons

At this point, we have shown that the multifragmentation events are compatible with a scenario of statistical partitions as predicted by SMM. We will now go further by systematically comparing data coming from systems with different entrance channels. To do so, we will use the same $`{}_{}{}^{58}Ni+^{197}Au`$ multifragmentation events as before (at $`52A`$ and $`90A`$ MeV) but also a new one obtained by the same selection method ($`PCA`$) onto the $`50A`$ MeV $`{}_{}{}^{129}Xe+^{nat}Sn`$ system . We will have then 2 systems with different mass asymmetries in the entrance channel ($`Xe+Sn`$, $`Ni+Au`$), and two incident velocities ($`50A/52A`$, $`90A`$MeV) and will present in the following the cross-comparisons between them.

### 5.1 Same incident energy

The comparison between two systems ($`52A`$ MeV $`Ni+Au`$ and $`50A`$ MeV $`Xe+Sn`$) of nearly the same incident velocity and the same total size ($`250`$ nucleons) is presented on Fig. 13. The data correspond to multifragmentation samples (using the $`PCA`$ selection), and have been characterized by almost the same source size ($`<Z>=85`$ for the $`50A`$ MeV $`Xe+Sn`$ system) but different thermal excitation energies ($`7.5A`$ MeV compared to $`6.4A`$ MeV for $`Ni+Au`$ once substracted the radial energy component) . We see clearly that the charge distribution (13a) or the LCP (13b) multiplicities (multiplied by 2 in order to get integrated values) extend higher for the $`50A`$MeV $`Xe+Sn`$ system as expected by the thermal excitation energy difference of about $`1A`$ MeV. Conversely, the IMF multiplicities (13b) are similar but only reflect the counterbalance between the higher IMF ($`3<Z<15`$) and the smaller heavy fragment ($`Z>15`$) yields for the $`Xe+Sn`$ system.

Figure 13d shows the mean c.m. kinetic energies as a function of the atomic number. We see here that the light charged particles (up to Lithium) are superimposed (insert of Fig.13 d) while a major discrepancy appears for heavier fragments. Indeed, in the $`Xe+Sn`$ system case, a radial energy component has to be invoked as shown in . This is not the case for the $`Ni+Au`$ system for which one does not observe the linear increase of the mean kinetic energy as a function of the fragment charge, as expected if there is a radial flow component.

### 5.2 Same thermal excitation energy

The comparison is now made between the $`50A`$ MeV $`Xe+Sn`$ and $`90A`$ MeV $`Ni+Au`$ systems (Fig. 14). Here, the mean thermal excitation energy components, determined experimentally and by comparison with the SMM model, are nearly equivalent  and are around $`7.58A`$ MeV. Nevertheless, we decide to present the data with a condition on the (thermal) excitation energy because of the broadness of the excitation energy distribution (more than $`7A`$ MeV for the $`Ni+Au`$ system); to do so, we have gated around the most probable excitation energy value (see the dashed area on Fig. 9, bottom panel of the right column), and it corresponds here to $`7.7\pm 1.5A`$ MeV. In this way, the excitation energy domain is similar for both systems.

From Figure 14a, we see that the atomic number distributions are nearly identical, and that the LCP and IMF multiplicities (14b and 14c) are comparable, showing that the fragmentation pattern is equivalent between these two systems, and is governed by the thermal excitation energy stored into the system. This result means that the partitions are similar whatever the radial flow is. Figure 14d, displaying the mean c.m. kinetic energy as a function of the charge shows a disagreement for fragments ($`Z>3`$), while the situation is different for light charged particles ($`Z<4`$) as seen in the insert. For these particles, the mean kinetic energies are higher for the $`Ni+Au`$ system, as expected for pre-equilibrium emission, mainly sensitive to the incident energy. The large disagreement observed for fragments is attributed to the existence of an additionnal collective energy in the $`Xe+Sn`$ system of $`2A`$MeV . Putting together these obsevations, it demonstrates the decoupling between the thermal and the radial flow components of the excitation energy. This statement seems to be valid in the limit of a small ratio between the collective and the thermal component because large deviations to the decoupling have been found at higher incident energies .

### 5.3 Excitation function of the $`Ni+Au`$ system

At last, comparisons for the same system ($`Ni+Au`$) at different incident energies ($`52A`$ and $`90A`$ MeV) are presented in Fig. 15. The fragmentation pattern is different as illustrated on Fig. 15 (atomic number (a) and LCP multiplicity (b) distributions). Figure 15c presents the IMF multiplicities which are surprisingly equivalent. It means that the maximum number of fragments has been already reached for the central collisions of the $`Ni+Au`$ system between $`52A`$ and $`90A`$ MeV, while the LCP multiplicity continues to increase (Fig. 15b); in fact, this is the size of the fragments which decreases when going from $`52A`$ to $`90A`$ MeV but not their yield. Systematic studies of IMF production for symmetric systems  have shown that a maximum was reached at incident energies increasing with the mass of the system and was located around $`100A`$ MeV, while it has been found at smaller incident energies \- around $`50A`$ MeV - for the $`Xe+Sn`$ systems measured by the INDRA collaboration . For the (asymmetrical) $`Ni+Au`$ system, we also come to the same conclusions (maximum around $`50A`$ MeV) and it can therefore be related to a common behavior of fused systems .

The kinetic properties, displayed by Fig. 15d, are also similar, and substantiate the inexistence of any radial flow energy in the data. The light charged particles, shown in the insert, are systematically higher for the $`90A`$ MeV system (open circles) as expected both from pre-equilibrium and thermal effects.

At this point, we must recall that the source sizes, determined both from SMM comparisons and experimentally, are comparable ; the difference in the thermal component of the excitation energy between the two systems is roughly compensated by the difference between the Coulomb energies at the freeze-out stage, leading to the same kinetic energy profiles. This suggests that we need to compare both static and kinetic observables to get relevant information about the characteristics of fused systems formed in central collisions.

## 6 Conclusions

We have presented a new technique in order to carefully isolate the most violent collisions by using a multidimensional analysis named the Principal component Analysis ($`PCA`$). We have shown that this method can be applied for all studied systems over a large domain of incident energy (i.e. between $`32A`$ and $`90A`$MeV) and is perfectly suited for $`4\pi `$ devices. This provides a powerful tool to select event classes in the domain of heavy-ion induced reactions. The method have then been used to select multifragmentation data among the most dissipative collisions. The selected samples have been found to be highly dissipative and to present two different fragmentation patterns (at $`32A`$ and $`52A`$ MeV) which coexists at the same excitation energy. The first one is associated to residue-evaporation or fission-evaporation mechanism and is characterized by a big residue ($`Z35`$) while the second mechanism is associated to a more copious IMF production and can be related to the multifragmentation of a single source.

We have analysed the multifragmentation events from the $`Ni+Au`$ system at $`52A`$ and $`90A`$MeV. From the comparisons with the SMM model and between experimental data, we have evidenced that fragment partitions are mainly governed by the thermal part of the excitation energy. Conversely, for light charged particles and light IMFs, we have seen that their kinetic properties are closely related to the incident energy and mass asymmetry, enlightening thus the different emission time scales between these products and the heavier ones, showing then that only a full treatment of the dynamics of the collision can provide relevant comparison with data. No evidence for a sizeable radial flow energy has been found for the $`Ni+Au`$ system between $`52A`$ and $`90A`$MeV nor any dependence as a function of the incident energy. The fragmentation pattern are very similar for the $`90A`$ MeV $`Ni+Au`$ and the $`50A`$ MeV $`Xe+Sn`$ systems while the kinetic features are found to be completely different. This fact shows clearly that a decoupling between the thermal and the radial flow part of the excitation energy is achieved in this incident energy domain where the radial component is quite small as compared to the thermal one.

By comparing the observed difference in the energy deposition (thermal + expansion), we find that it is maximal for the symmetric system (conversely the pre-equilibrium component is minimised) and constitutes then the most efficient way to dissipate energy into nuclear systems. As a final conclusion, we would say that nuclei cannot be produced with thermal excitation energies greater than the value given by the average binding energy ($`8A`$ MeV). This means that the extra energy dissipated into the system ($`50A`$ MeV $`Xe+Sn`$ case) is then entirely converted into collective degrees of freedom such as the radial flow of particles.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The spectacular advances of astronomical instrumentation in the last decade has stimulated a great deal of activity on ”old” questions of relativistic astrophysics. Among the latter we find the internal structure of compact stars, which is not only interesting per se, but also important for a through knowledge of the QCD diagram in the low-$`T`$ , high $`\mu `$ region.

One of the most simple forms of (indirectly) investigating the nature of high-density matter, more precisely of the EOS is by obtaining accurate determinations of masses and radii. In fact, leaving aside the possibility of differences due to extreme rotation, and adopting General Relativity as a framework, a comparison of the static models generated by integration of the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations with observed data should reveal a great deal of information about the equation of state. Only recently we have achieved sufficient accuracy to attempt some key tests on selected objects, although it should be acknowledged that three decades of compact star astrophysics had produced quite clever arguments to determine masses and radii, even in the cases in which they proved to be wrong.

A paradigmatic example of the above assertions is the celebrated determination of the binary pulsar mass PSR 1913+16, believed to be accurate to the fourth decimal place ?. Other methods based on combinations of spectroscopic and photometric techniques have been recently perfectioned, and have confirmed that at least one X-ray source is significantly above the ”canonical” 1.44 $`M_{}`$; namely Vela X-1 for which a value of $`1.87_{0.17}^{+0.23}M_{}`$ has been obtained ?. Some works on compact stars have attracted the attention recently because not only the masses have been determined, but also indications of the radii are available, suggesting a very compact structure.

On the other hand, from a particle physics point of view it is fairly well established that at high temperatures and/or high baryon number densities confinement is effectively disabled. The old question of whether the deconfined matter takes place inside ”neutron stars” is not yet settled, although a great deal of interest in this issue emerged from recent calculation of superconducting QCD phases (two-flavor superconducting (2SC) and ”color flavor locking” (CFL), see ? for a review). In fact, there is growing evidence that paired states or diquarks (e. g. a spin-0, color-antitriplet bound state of two quarks) might occur as a component in the QCD plasma. This is important for understanding hadron structure and high energy particle reactions. Of course, at extremely high densities diquarks are expected to lose their identity and dissolve into quarks. In the intermediate phase diquarks would be expected to be favored.

Diquark correlations were originally thought to arise in part from spin-dependent interactions between two quarks. Later the non-perturbative interactions were claimed to produce a gap substantially greater than in the ’80s, possibly as large as $`100MeV`$. Although there is no consensus about diquark details, it seems certain that a $`(ud)`$ quark pair experiences some attraction when in total spin-0 and colour-3\* states. Many works assume that the diquark correlation is similar to the one experienced by electrons in a superconductor, with diquarks being the Cooper pairs of QCD ?. However, we shall not be concerned with the details of the binding of the diquark itself in this work. This is because for compact star astrophysics it is perhaps more important to look for the full free energy (per baryon) behavior in bulk rather than the mass of the diquark individually.

## 2 The equation of state

The quark mass-density-dependent model (QMDD model) is a phenomenological description that attempts to incorporate the confinement and asymptotic freedom of quarks as a function of the baryonic density of matter. According to lattice calculations ? and string model investigations ?, the quark-quark interaction is proportional to the distance so that $`mn_B^{1/3}`$ may be assumed ?. Therefore, it is reasonable to adopt the following parametrizations of the particle masses. For the quarks $`u`$ and $`d`$ we define as usual ?,?,?,?,?,?

$$m_u=m_d=\frac{C}{n_B^{1/3}}.$$
(1)
For diquarks, we introduce here the mass parameter $`m_{D0}`$ and write the diquark mass $`m_D`$ as

$$m_D=m_{D0}+m_u+m_d=m_{D0}+\frac{2C}{n_B^{1/3}}.$$
(2)
The non-perturbative character of the interactions between quarks and diquarks is included through this particular mass parametrization with the baryon number density.

Before describing the equation of state in detail we would like to make a number of qualitative remarks: To make contact with current calculations we must determine to which extent the model describes the expected diquark physics. The diquark pairing gap that arises from current calculations ? clearly depends on the chemical potential (or on the baryon number density). Qualitatively the gap is zero at low densities, reaches a maximum value in the 10-100 MeV range at intermediate densities and goes to zero at high densities. To mimic this behaviour the parameter $`m_{D0}`$ should have the same shape (but with negative sign) as a function of, for example, the baryon number density, even though in QMDD models it is introduced to simulate confinement only. We shall consider only constant values for $`m_{D0}`$ in this work. As we shall see below this approximation is a reasonable starting point for the physics of interest to us here. On the other hand we must note that recent lattice simulations show that the diquark could be unbound ? The latter situation can be described by the present model with positive values of $`m_{D0}`$, which are also included in the analysis (see below). We must remark that for negative values of $`m_{D0}`$ the diquark mass becomes negative (as expected) for some baryon number density beyond which the model is no longer valid. However, this $`n_B`$ is very high for typical values of $`m_{D0}`$ (for example, $`m_{D0}`$ = -100 MeV gives $`n_{B,lim}`$ greater than $`12\times n_0`$, with $`n_0=0.16`$ fm-3 the nuclear saturation density. We note that our quark-diquark phase may be directly associated to the phase explicitely addressed by Rapp et al. ? and termed QDQ, as a state intermediate between hadrons and 2SC, but an identification with the 2SC may also be possible when the masses go to zero at high density. Although strictly speaking this QDQ and 2SC with zero net strangeness would be ustable against weak interaction decays in neutron stars, the number of strange quarks that is produced in the mixture can be neglected in a first approximation. The finite mass $`m_s150`$ MeV suppress the ocupation of the corresponding Fermi sea, while the occupation of the bosonic QDQ or 2SC ground state is strongly favoured energetically. We must note that a similar mass parametrization ( $`m_s=m_{s0}+C/n_B^{1/3}`$) has been employed to describe strange quark matter within the QMDD model. Also note the slightly different parametrization than the one employed in Ref. ? motivated by an intuitive construction of the mass formula.

In view of the above, we shall proceed to model the quark - diquark plasma as a gas of $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks, and $`(ud)`$ diquarks. Non-perturbative effects are accounted for using the quark mass-density-dependent model of confinement to derive the properties of the equation of state.

The expression for the thermodynamic potential density of particles of mass $`m_i`$, chemical potential $`\mu _i`$ and degeneracy factor $`g_i`$ in the large volume limit of a free gas is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i=\frac{g_iT}{2\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{ln}(1\pm e^{(\mu _i(p^2+m_i^2)^{1/2})/T)})p^2𝑑p$$
(3)
Because of the dependence of the mass with density $`n_B`$ in the QMDD model the standard relation $`P=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is no longer valid. ?,?,?,? The pressure is actually given by

$$P=\frac{(V\mathrm{\Omega })}{V}=\underset{i}{}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_i+n_B\frac{m_i}{n_B}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_i}{m_i}\right).$$
(4)
For the other thermodynamical quantities we write (see Ref.)

$$E=\mathrm{\Omega }+\underset{i}{}\mu _in_iT\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{T}$$
(5)
$$n_i=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mu _i}|_{T,m_k}$$
(6)
with $`E`$ the energy density and $`n_i`$ the particle number density of the $`i`$-species.

As it has been stressed before ?,?, for the fermionic component the term $`n_B\frac{m_i}{n_B}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_i}{m_i}`$ forces the pressure to be zero at finite baryon number, playing the role of the bag constant $`B`$ of the MIT Bag Model. Needless to say, this is a property related to the mass parametrization only, and has no relation with the statistics of the particles themselves (Bose or Fermi). However, it happens that in the case of bosons this extra term does not contribute at zero temperature. Thus, as in the standard case, for massive bosons at $`T=0`$ the energy density reduces to $`E=_in_im_i`$.

As we mentioned above we shall model the quark - diquark plasma at zero temperature as a mixture of a Fermi relativistic gas of $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks, and a Bose condensate of $`(ud)`$ diquarks. We neglect the contribution of antiparticles and that of a leptonic component such as electrons, muons or neutrinos. This mixture is then described by ?,?

$$P=\underset{i=u,d}{}m_in_ix_i^2G(x_i)\underset{i=u,d}{}m_in_if(x_i)$$
(7)
Diquarks do not contribute to the pressure in this approximation, since they are all in the ground state, but do contribute to the energy density

$$E=\underset{i=u,d}{}m_in_iF(x_i)+m_Dn_D.$$
(8)
The number density of quarks $`u`$ and $`d`$ is given by

$$n_i=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}m_i^3x_i^3.$$
(9)
where the functions $`F,G`$ and $`f`$ are given by ?,?

$$F(x_i)=\frac{3}{8}\left[x_i(x_i^2+1)^{1/2}(2x_i^2+1)\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{sinh}(x_i)\right]/x_i^3$$
(10)
$$G(x_i)=\frac{1}{8}\left[x_i(x_i^2+1)^{1/2}(2x_i^23)+3\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{sinh}(x_i)\right]/x_i^5$$
(11)
$$f(x_i)=\frac{3}{2}\frac{n_B}{m_i}\frac{dm_i}{dn_B}\left[x_i(x_i^2+1)^{1/2}\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{sinh}(x_i)\right]/x_i^3$$
(12)
being $`x=p_F/m_i=(\mu _i^2m_i^2)^{1/2}/m_i`$, $`\mu _i`$ the chemical potential and $`m_i`$ the mass of the particle, which in our case depends on the baryon density.

These equations must be complemented with the following conditions:

1) Chemical equilibrium: $`Du+d`$ requires $`\mu _D=\mu _u+\mu _d`$. If we use the fact that at $`T=0`$ the condensed diquarks all have zero kinetic energy we have ($`\mu _D=m_D`$)

$$m_D=\mu _u+\mu _d.$$
(13)
Then, using the fact that, $`\mu =(x^2+1)^{1/2}m`$, $`m_u=m_d`$, and $`m_D=m_{D0}+2m_u`$, we can write the chemical equilibrium as

$$\frac{m_{D0}}{m_u}+2=(x_u^2+1)^{1/2}+(x_d^2+1)^{1/2}.$$
(14)
2) Electrical charge neutrality implies $`1/3n_D+2/3n_u1/3n_d=0`$, therefore, the diquark number density is given by

$$n_D=n_d2n_u=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}m_u^3(x_d^32x_u^3).$$
(15)
3) Baryon number is given by $`n_B=2/3n_D+1/3(n_u+n_d)`$, thus

$$n_B=n_dn_u=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}m_u^3(x_d^3x_u^3).$$
(16)
The equation of state can be solved numerically for each $`n_B`$ once the parameters $`(C,m_{D0})`$ are given (see Figs 1 and 2).

As the baryon density increases the EOS tends to a pure ”quark d-diquark” composition since the number density of quarks $`u`$ goes to zero and the abundances of quarks $`d`$ and diquarks $`D`$ become equal. The same behaviour arises for smaller enough values of the mass $`m_{D0}`$ (see below). In these cases the EOS takes a very simple form: $`x_u=0`$, $`n_u=0`$, $`n_B=n_D=n_d=(m_u^3x_d^3)/\pi ^2`$.

As expected from simple physical considerations, we find that the EOS of the quark-diquark is quite soft, especially at relatively high densities, because of diquark condensation. The EOS becomes somewhat stiffer at low densities when compared to the MIT-inspired EOS developed in Ref., at least for a large region of the parameter space. The same effect is found if we compare the MIT and the QMDD model EOS for strange quark matter ?,?.

## 3 Stability of the quark - diquark matter

In order to determine the allowed values for $`C`$ and $`m_{D0}`$ we impose the following stability criteria for quark-diquark matter.

1) Instability of two flavor quark matter: The energy per baryon of two flavor quark matter (at $`P=0`$ and $`T=0`$) must be higher than 939 MeV (the neutron mass). Assuming that the current mass of quarks $`u`$ and $`d`$ is zero this results in the condition $`C>(159.3MeV)^2`$.

The energy per baryon of pure $`udd`$ matter at $`P=0`$ and $`T=0`$ is, for a given $`C`$

$$\frac{E}{n_B}|_{udd}=m_u^{^{}}[F(x_{u0})+2F(x_{d0})]$$
(17)
where $`m_u^{^{}}`$ is the mass of quark $`u`$ in two flavor quark matter at zero $`P`$ and $`T`$,

$$m_u^{^{}}=\frac{C}{n_B^{1/3}}=\frac{C}{n_u^{1/3}}=\frac{C^{1/2}\pi ^{1/3}}{x_{u0}^{1/2}}$$
(18)
and $`x_{d0}=2^{1/3}x_{u0}`$, where $`x_{u0}=1.13173096`$ is the value that produces a zero-point pressure, $`P_{udd}=0`$. This criterion has already been used in previous papers ?,?,?,?.

2) Relative stability of quark-diquark matter: The energy per baryon of quark - diquark matter (hereafter ud-D matter) must be lower than that of pure two flavor quark matter (at $`P=0`$, $`T=0`$).

The zero pressure condition for quark - diquark matter at $`T=0`$ reads

$$x_u^5G(x_u)x_u^3f(x_u)+x_d^5G(x_d)x_d^3f(x_d)=0.$$
(19)
The energy per baryon is given by

$$\frac{E}{n_B}|_{udD}=m_u\frac{x_u^3F(x_u)+x_d^3F(x_d)+(\frac{m_{D0}}{m_u}+2)(x_d^32x_u^3)}{x_d^3x_u^3}$$
(20)
Note that the mass $`m_u`$ of quark $`u`$ in $`udD`$ matter is in fact a function of $`C`$, $`x_u`$ and $`x_d`$ given by $`m_u=C/n_B^{1/3}=C/(n_dn_u)^{1/3}`$, from which we derive

$$m_u=\frac{C^{1/2}\pi ^{1/3}}{(x_d^3x_u^3)^{1/6}}.$$
(21)
Also, the factor $`(m_{D0}/m_u+2)`$ in Eq. (20) is a function of $`x_u`$ and $`x_d`$ given by Eq. (14).

The fundamental relation for this stability requirement is

$$\frac{E}{n_B}|_{udD}<\frac{E}{n_B}|_{udd}$$
(22)
therefore, from eqs. (20) and (17) we obtain

$$\frac{x_u^3F(x_u)+x_d^3F(x_d)+(\frac{m_{D0}}{m_u}+2)(x_d^32x_u^3)}{(x_d^3x_u^3)^{7/6}}<\kappa _0$$
(23)
where

$$\kappa _0=\frac{[F(x_{u0})+2F(x_{d0})]}{x_{u0}^{1/2}}.$$
(24)
From eqs. (23) and (19) we find numerically the set of values $`x_{u1}`$ and $`x_{d1}`$ that satisfy the imposed stability conditions.

Using chemical equilibrium alone (eq. (14)) we find a very simple relation between $`m_{D0}`$ and $`C`$

$$m_{D0}=KC^{1/2}$$
(25)
with

$$K=\pi ^{1/3}\frac{(x_{u1}^2+1)^{1/2}+(x_{d1}^2+1)^{1/2}2}{(x_{d1}^3x_{u1}^3)^{1/6}}.$$
(26)
This is an ”isochemical” straight line along which the energy per baryon increases with $`C`$. The condition $`(E/n_B)|_{udD}<(E/n_B)|_{udd}`$ is fullfilled for $`K<1.723`$ (the upper limit is given by the full straight line in Figure 3). Also, we find that for $`K<0.8417`$ there are no quarks $`u`$ in the mixture and the composition is always a pure ”quark d-diquark” mixture (see dashed line in Figure 3).

3) Absolute stability condition: we have also looked for a region inside which quark - diquark matter could have even a lower energy per baryon than the neutron mass

$$\frac{E}{n_B}|_{udD}<939MeV,$$
(27)
being though absolutely stable. In the $`(C^{1/2},m_{D0})`$ parameter space this region is ”triangle-like”. The same shape has been obtained for strange quark matter in the QMDD model ?. On the right side boundary of this ”triangle-like” region the energy per baryon of quark-diquark matter at zero pressure is exactly 939 MeV. The region is shown in Fig. 3 and labeled with $`A`$ and $`A^{^{}}`$. It is interesting to note that negative values of $`m_{D0}`$ are allowed (see Fig. 3) and so the diquark may be bound in this model, that is, its mass will be smaller than the sum of the masses of its constituent particles.

## 4 Quark-diquark stars

The exploration of the mass-radius relation for compact stars is in fact a potentially powerful tool in testing the existence of different phases of matter inside NSs, and their composition. On the other hand the observational data of the mass-radius relation imposes severe constaints on high density equations of state.

Almost all of the meassured masses of ”neutron stars” lie within a narrow range around 1.4 $`M_{}`$. This mass scale may be due to the fact that neutron stars are formed in the gravitational collapse of supernovae and come just from the iron cores of core collapse supernovae. However, we may wonder whether smaller neutron stars could exist and whether there exist some mechanism capable of create them because these are not expected in core collapse models and hold the potential for discriminating among possible equations of state. This question becomes more significant in view of the recent claim of very low-mass/low-radii objects. At least two objects, Her X-1 and RX J1856-37 are candidates to high compactness. They have been claimed to have radii $`7km`$ and a masses around $`1M_{}`$ ?,?.

If quark- diquark matter has a lower energy per baryon than normal nuclear matter we may expect the existence of stable stars made up entirely by this phase. By solving the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations of stellar structure, we explored the mass- radius relation for quark-diquark stars assuming a parameter set inside the window of absolute stability.

In Figs. 4 and 5 we see that for particular values of the parameters $`(C^{1/2},m_{D0})`$ the obtained values of $`M`$ and $`R`$ are compatible with present determinations of the above sources. We also find that the effect of increasing $`m_{D0}`$ for a fixed $`C`$ is to lower both the maximum radius and the maximum mass of the stellar configurations. Similarly, increasing $`C`$ at fixed $`m_{D0}`$ allows configurations with smaller maximum radius and mass. The $`(C^{1/2},m_{D0})`$ values selected for the sequences shown in Figs. 4 and 5 match naturally the observed compactness of Her X-1 and RX J1856-37.

## 5 Conclusions

We derived an equation of state for quark diquark-matter in a self-consistent phenomenological model where the mass of quarks and diquarks is parametrized with the baryon number density. The confining forces are included via a dependence of the mass with $`n_B^{1/3}`$ . The model depends on two free parameters $`(C^{1/2},m_{D0})`$ whose values can be limited invoking stability criteria and allows the existence of a stable state of the quark-diquark gas at zero pressure, for densities of the order of few times the nuclear saturation density (see Figs 1 and 2). The free parameter $`m_{D0}`$ is introduced in order to describe in a simple form the unknown binding of the diquark. Negative values of $`m_{D0}`$ should mimic the behaviour of bound color superconducting quark matter while positive values are considered in view of recent results ? claiming a diquark mass of $`700`$ MeV which suggest that this particle is unbound. The mixture contains a Bose condensate of $`(ud)`$ diquarks so that, the resulting equation of state is in fact very soft, as it can be seen in Figure 1 where we have depicted $`P`$ versus $`E`$ for different parameters . The here described quark-diquark phase has always a non-zero fermionic pressure, since due to the excess of quarks $`d`$ over quarks $`u`$ there will always exist a free Fermi gas of quarks $`d`$ to satisfy the equilibrium conditions. When compared with the equation of state for quark-diquark matter presented in ? we found that independently of the value of the parameters, the latter is considerably stiffer at low densities. However, in some cases (c,d, e and f of Fig. 1) there is a limiting density beyond which the new equations of state are softer than the previous one. This is relevant for compact star structure because it allows the existence of stable compact stars with even smaller radius than those calculated in previous models ?. It has been argued that the few percent effects ($`𝒪`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }/\mu )^2`$) from the condensation are impossible to disentangle from other uncertainties, but the fact is that, for example, the whole strange matter theory is also subject to this caveat, and in this respect the models here presented open a qualitatively similar scenario for compact stars.

We have found the regions in the parameter space $`(C^{1/2},m_{D0})`$ where quark-diquark matter in bulk is stable against decaying to pure two flavor quark matter and to a neutron gas (see Fig. 3). The region of absolute stability allows the existence of pure quark-diquark stars. It is important to note that the existence of self-bound compact stars is possible for both bound and $`unbound`$ diquarks, since the assumed bosonic character of the diquark favors the transition of free quarks at the Fermi surface to the bosonic ground state and ensures a global energy decrease, more specifically a lower value of the energy per baryon, for the appropiate choice of parameters. That is, since typical Fermi energies in a two flavor quark mixture is $``$ 300 MeV, the energy gained by condensing bosons and sending them to the ground state is in fact more relevant for stellar structure than the hypothetically gained energy of the pair gap. Moreover, even in the case of unbound diquarks a lower energy state is reached by the system as a whole. Therefore, although the parameter that mimics the pair gap may be not only negative but also zero or positive, energy is gained in all cases due to the assumed bosonic character of the superconducting pair. A slightly different parametrization used in ? produced different results. In particular the resulting stellar models were not so compact, a feature due to a larger stifness of that equation of state for all the parameter range. This gauges the sensitivity of the models to the assumptions on the basic physics.

Finally, we must note that, strictly speaking, quark-diquark matter is unstable against weak interactions producing strangeness. In this sense, the present study may be considered as a simplification analogous to pure neutron matter models of neutron stars. A more general study should include the possibility of strangeness production, the appeareance of leptons in the mixture, as well as 2SC and color flavor locking (CFL). We can expect that the opening of the weak channel will produce an even softer equation of state and so higher compactness of these stars. These improvements will be presented in future work.

Acknowledgements

G. Lugones acknowledges the Instituto Astronómico y Geofisico de São Paulo and the financial support received from the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo. J.E. Horvath wishes to acknowledge the CNPq Agency (Brazil) for partial financial support.

References


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently some natural interest has been shown to the study of field configurations that describe interacting black holes coupled to some matter fields, both in the framework of General Relativity  and string theory . One of the reasons for such an interest is the development reached in the statistical approach to physics of single black holes (for a review, see for instance, ) and its possible generalization to more complicated systems of interacting black holes coupled to matter.

In this paper we construct a charged field configuration that consists of a pair of interacting sources of black hole type coupled to an anti–symmetric Kalb–Ramond tensor field and a set of Abelian gauge fields in the framework of the truncated five–dimensional Einstein–Maxwell–Kalb–Ramond (EMKR) theory. The construction is carried out by applying the normalized Harrison charging symmetry, which acts on the target space of the effective three–dimensional heterotic string theory and preserves the asymptotic properties of the starting field configurations, on a seed solution that corresponds to a double Ernst system in the framework of the toroidally reduced five–dimensional Einstein–Kalb–Ramond (EKR) theory. Several interesting results have been achieved regarding the physical properties of five–dimensional black objects ; it turns out that the BPS bound of rotating black holes is saturated precisely in five or more dimensions.

The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 we briefly review the matrix Ernst potential (MEP) formalism for the effective field theory of the heterotic string (for an arbitrary number of dimensions) and its formal analogy to the stationary Einstein–Maxwell (EM) system. It turns out that after setting to zero the dilaton and all $`U(1)`$ vector fields, and considering the compactification of this theory on a two–torus, the resulting three–dimensional subsystem admits a Kähler representation which is defined by two vacuum Ernst potentials.

In Section 3 the parametrization which gives rise to this double Ernst system is pointed out and a discrete transformation between the metric and Kalb–Ramond degrees of freedom is established. In Section 4 we recall the normalized Harrison transformation (NHT) and apply it on a generic seed solution of the EKR theory which corresponds to two complex Ernst potentials in order to get a charged field configuration and recover, in this way, the $`U(1)`$ vector field sector of the EMKR theory.

Further, in Section 5 we reduce the system to two effective dimensions (dependence of just two dynamical coordinates) in order to be able to consider as seed solution a pair of Ernst potentials which correspond to interacting Kerr black holes. In this case, the $`5`$–dimensional line element explicitly depends on the Ernst potentials and the resulting field configuration contains a Kalb–Ramond dipole hidden inside a horizon. In Section 6 we explicitly compute the generated charged solution, study its asymptotical behaviour and give an interpretation of the field configuration. Finally, we sketch our conclusions and discuss on the further development of the present work.

## 2 Matrix Ernst Potential Formalism

In this Section we review the MEP formalism for the $`D`$–dimensional effective field theory of the heterotic string and indicate an algorithm for generating a charged solution of the double Ernst system starting from a neutral one by making use of a matrix Lie–Bäcklund transformation of Harrison type.

We consider the effective action of the heterotic string theory at tree level

$`S^{(D)}={\displaystyle d^{(D)}xG^{(D)}^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{\varphi ^{(D)}}(R^{(D)}+\varphi _{;M}^{(D)}\varphi ^{(D);M}\frac{1}{12}H_{MNP}^{(D)}H^{(D)MNP}\frac{1}{4}F_{MN}^{(D)I}F^{(D)IMN})},`$ (1)
where

$`F_{MN}^{(D)I}=_MA_N^{(D)I}_NA_M^{(D)I},H_{MNP}^{(D)}=_MB_{NP}^{(D)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_M^{(D)I}F_{NP}^{(D)I}+\text{ cycl \hspace{0.17em} perms \hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em} of \hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em} M,\hspace{0.17em}N,\hspace{0.17em}P.}`$
Here $`G_{MN}^{(D)}`$ is the metric, $`B_{MN}^{(D)}`$ is the anti–symmetric Kalb-Ramond field, $`\varphi ^{(D)}`$ is the dilaton, $`A_M^{(D)I}`$ is a set of $`U(1)`$ vector fields ($`I=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{},n`$), $`D`$ is the original number of space–time dimensions; capital letters $`M,N,\mathrm{},P`$ are related to the whole set of space–time coordinates, lowercase letters $`m,n`$ label the extra dimensions, whereas Greek letters $`\mu ,\nu `$ stand for the non–compactified coordinates. In the consistent critical case $`D=10`$ and $`n=16`$, but we shall leave these parameters arbitrary for the time being and will fix them later in Section 3. In  it was shown that after the compactification of this model on a $`D3=d`$–torus, the resulting three–dimensional theory possesses the $`SO(d+1,d+n+1)`$ symmetry group that later was identified as $`U`$–duality  and describes gravity through the metric tensor

$`g_{\mu \nu }=e^{2\varphi }\left(G_{\mu \nu }^{(D)}G_{m+3,\mu }^{(D)}G_{n+3,\nu }^{(D)}G^{mn}\right),`$
coupled to the following set of three–dimensional fields:

a) scalar fields

$`GG_{mn}=G_{m+3,n+3}^{(D)},BB_{mn}=B_{m+3,n+3}^{(D)},AA_m^I=A_{m+3}^{(D)I},\varphi =\varphi ^{(D)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}|\mathrm{det}G|,`$ (2)
b)tensor field

$`B_{\mu \nu }=B_{\mu \nu }^{(D)}4B_{mn}A_\mu ^mA_\nu ^n2\left(A_\mu ^mA_\nu ^{m+d}A_\nu ^mA_\mu ^{m+d}\right),`$ (3)
c)vector fields $`A_\mu ^{(a)}=((A_1)_\mu ^m,(A_2)_\mu ^{m+d},(A_3)_\mu ^{2d+I})`$

$`(A_1)_\mu ^m={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^{mn}G_{n+3,\mu }^{(D)},(A_3)_\mu ^{I+2d}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_\mu ^{(D)I}+A_n^IA_\mu ^n,(A_2)_\mu ^{m+d}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_{m+3,\mu }^{(D)}B_{mn}A_\mu ^n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_m^IA_\mu ^{I+2d}`$ (4)
where the subscripts $`m,n=1,2,\mathrm{},d`$; and $`a=1,\mathrm{},2d+n`$. In this letter we set $`B_{\mu \nu }=0`$ since an anti–symmetric tensor has no dynamical degrees of freedom in three dimensions; this is equivalent to removing the effective cosmological constant which, in general, is included in the spectrum of the three–dimensional effective theory.

We dualize all vector fields on–shell with the aid of the pseudoscalar fields $`u`$, $`v`$ and $`s`$ as follows:

$`\times \stackrel{}{A_1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2\varphi }G^1\left(u+(B+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}AA^T)v+As\right),`$
$`\times \stackrel{}{A_3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2\varphi }(s+A^Tv)+A^T\times \stackrel{}{A_1},`$ (5)
$`\times \stackrel{}{A_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2\varphi }Gv(B+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}AA^T)\times \stackrel{}{A_1}+A\times \stackrel{}{A_3}.`$
Thus, the effective three–dimensional theory describes gravity $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ coupled to the scalars $`G`$, $`B`$, $`A`$, $`\varphi `$ and pseudoscalars $`u`$, $`v`$, $`s`$. In  it was shown that all these matter fields can be arranged in the following pair of MEP

$`𝒳=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{2\varphi }+v^TXv+v^TAs+\frac{1}{2}s^Ts& v^TXu^T\\ Xv+u+As& X\end{array}\right),𝒜=\left(\begin{array}{c}s^T+v^TA\\ A\end{array}\right),`$ (10)
where $`X=G+B+\frac{1}{2}AA^T`$, in such a way that they reproduce the field equations of the three–dimensional theory. These matrices have dimensions $`(d+1)\times (d+1)`$ and $`(d+1)\times n`$, respectively.

In terms of the MEP the effective three–dimensional theory adopts the form

$`{}_{}{}^{3}S={\displaystyle d^3xg^{\frac{1}{2}}\{R+\mathrm{Tr}[\frac{1}{4}(𝒳𝒜𝒜^T)𝒢^1(𝒳^T𝒜𝒜^T)𝒢^1+\frac{1}{2}𝒜^T𝒢^1𝒜]\}},`$ (11)
where $`𝒳=𝒢++\frac{1}{2}𝒜𝒜^T`$, then $`𝒢=\frac{1}{2}\left(𝒳+𝒳^T𝒜𝒜^T\right)`$ and

$`𝒢=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{2\varphi }+v^TGv& v^TG\\ Gv& G\end{array}\right),=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& v^TBu^T\\ Bv+u& B\end{array}\right).`$ (16)
In  it also was shown that there exist a map between the stationary actions of the heterotic string and EM theories. The map reads

$`𝒳E,𝒜F,`$
$`\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥}\mathrm{𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛}\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑥}\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛},`$ (17)
where $`E`$ and $`F`$ are the conventional complex Ernst potentials of the stationary EM theory . This map allows us to extrapolate the results obtained in the EM theory to the heterotic string realm using the MEP formulation.

### 2.1 The normalized Harrison transformation

In the language of the MEP the three–dimensional action (7) possesses a set of symmetries which has been classified according to their charging properties in . Among them one finds the matrix Ehlers and Harrison transformations , which are symmetries that change the properties of the spacetime in a non–trivial way; they represent the matrix counterpart of the Bäcklund transformation of the sine–Gordon equation in the realm of the stationary heterotic string theory. For instance, the so–called normalized Harrison transformation allows us to construct charged string vacua from neutral ones preserving the asymptotical values of the three–dimensional seed fields. Namely, the matrix transformation

$`𝒜\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }\lambda \lambda ^T\right)\left(1𝒜_0\lambda ^T+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒳_0\lambda \lambda ^T\right)^1\left(A_0𝒳_0\lambda \right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }\lambda ,`$ (18)
$`𝒳\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }\lambda \lambda ^T\right)\left(1𝒜_0\lambda ^T+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒳_0\lambda \lambda ^T\right)^1\left[𝒳_0+\left(𝒜_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒳_0\lambda \right)\lambda ^T\mathrm{\Sigma }\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }\lambda \lambda ^T\mathrm{\Sigma },`$
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$ stands for the signature that the MEP $`𝒳`$ adopts at spatial infinity and $`\lambda `$ is an arbitrary constant $`(d+1)\times n`$–matrix, generates charged string solutions (with non–zero potential $`𝒜`$) from neutral ones if we start from the seed potentials

$`𝒳_00,𝒜_0=0.`$
The parameters that enter the matrix $`\lambda `$ can be interpreted as electromagnetic charges that couple to the original seed object. It is precisely with the aid of this Bäcklund transformation that we shall charge the double 5D Ernst system in the next Section.

## 3 5D Einstein-Kalb-Ramond vs double Ernst system

In this Section we present a formulation of the resulting three–dimensional model, upon toroidal compactification of the 5D EKR theory, as a double Ernst system by means of a complete parametrization of the matrices $`𝒢`$ and $``$ in terms of the real and imaginary parts of a pair of complex Ernst potentials.

Let us begin by setting to zero all the $`U(1)`$ gauge fields which correspond to the winding modes of the three–dimensional theory (this is equivalent to dropping the matrix $`𝒜`$ in (7)). Thus, we obtain the following action in terms of the MEP $`𝒳`$

$`{}_{}{}^{3}S={\displaystyle d^3xg^{\frac{1}{2}}\left\{R+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{Tr}\left[𝒳𝒢^1𝒳^T𝒢^1\right]\right\}}={\displaystyle d^3xg^{\frac{1}{2}}\left\{R+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{Tr}\left(J^𝒳J^{𝒳^T}\right)\right\}}`$ (19)
where now $`𝒳=𝒢+`$, $`𝒢=\frac{1}{2}\left(𝒳+𝒳^T\right)`$ and $`J^𝒳=𝒳𝒢^1`$.

There are two physically different effective theories that can be expressed by the action (19), and hence admit a double Ernst formulation. On the one hand we have the $`D=5`$ EKR model, where the dilaton field is set to zero as well . On the other hand we have the $`D=4`$ bosonic string theory, for which a charged pair of rotating interacting black holes coupled to dilaton and Kalb–Ramond fields was constructed in  and its charged dual string vacua were studied in . Here we will consider again the 5D EKR theory in order to apply the NHT on a neutral family of field configurations that correspond to the double Ernst system.

Thus, we start with the five–dimensional truncated action

$`{}_{}{}^{5}S={\displaystyle }d^5x^5G^{\frac{1}{2}}({}_{}{}^{5}R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}^5H^2),`$ (20)
where $`{}_{}{}^{5}R`$ is the Ricci scalar constructed on the $`5`$–dimensional metric $`{}_{}{}^{5}G_{MN}^{}`$ and

$${}_{}{}^{5}H_{MNP}^{}=_{M}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}B_{NP}+\mathrm{cyc}.\mathrm{perms}.\mathrm{of}\mathrm{M},\mathrm{N},\mathrm{P}.$$
(21)
It is worth noticing that we are considering a truncation which imposes the following condition on the Kaluza–Klein and Kalb–Ramond vector fields

$${}_{}{}^{5}G_{\mu ,n+2}^{}=^5B_{\mu ,n+2}=0;$$
(22)
this implies that the vector fields $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ must vanish identically, and hence, the pseudoscalar fields $`u`$ and $`v`$ also vanish (see (5)). Such a restriction does not provide any constraint on the remaining dynamical variables and can be considered as a consistent non–trivial ansatz for the EKR theory.

After the Kaluza–Klein reduction on $`T^2`$ we get the stationary effective action (19) (see, for instance, , ) with the matter field spectrum of the theory encoded in the $`(2\times 2)`$–matrices $`𝒢G`$ and $`B`$ which can be parametrized in the following form

$`𝒢={\displaystyle \frac{p_1}{p_2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& q_2\\ q_2& p_2^2+q_2^2\end{array}\right),=q_1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& & 1\\ 1& & 0\end{array}\right)=q_1\sigma _2,`$ (27)
where $`\sigma _2`$ is the Pauli matrix. Under such assumptions, the five–dimensional interval reads

$$ds_5^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +𝒢_{mn}dx^mdx^n.$$
(28)
By substituting (27) into (19) the action of the “matter fields” adopts the form

$`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{m}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3xg^{\frac{1}{2}}\left\{p_1^2\left[(p_1)^2+(q_1)^2\right]+p_2^2\left[(p_2)^2+(q_2)^2\right]\right\}},`$ (29)
which allows us to introduce two independent Ernst potentials

$$ϵ_1=p_1+iq_1,ϵ_2=p_2+iq_2.$$
(30)
In terms of these field variables, the action of the system can be rewritten as a double Ernst system in the Kähler form :

$`{}_{}{}^{3}S={\displaystyle d^3xg^{\frac{1}{2}}\left\{^3R+2\left(J^{ϵ_1}J^{\overline{ϵ}_1}+J^{ϵ_2}J^{\overline{ϵ}_2}\right)\right\}},`$ (31)
where $`J^{ϵ_1}=ϵ_1(ϵ_1+\overline{ϵ}_1)^1`$ and $`J^{ϵ_2}=ϵ_2(ϵ_2+\overline{ϵ}_2)^1`$.

A mathematically equivalent, but physically different $`2\times 2`$–matrix representation arises from (12) by making use of the discrete symmetry $`p_1p_2`$, $`q_1q_2`$. This fact allows us to define new matrices

$`𝒢^{}={\displaystyle \frac{p_2}{p_1}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& & q_1\\ q_1& & p_1^2+q_1^2\end{array}\right),^{}=q_2\sigma _2`$ (34)
and, hence, $`𝒳^{}=𝒢^{}+^{}`$ and to write down the action that corresponds to these magnitudes:

$`{}_{}{}^{3}S={\displaystyle d^3xg^{\frac{1}{2}}\left\{R+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{Tr}\left(J^𝒳^{}J^{𝒳^T}\right)\right\}}={\displaystyle d^3xg^{\frac{1}{2}}\left\{R+2\left(J^{ϵ_1^{}}J^{\overline{ϵ}_1^{}}+J^{ϵ_2^{}}J^{\overline{ϵ}_2^{}}\right)\right\}},`$ (35)
where similarly $`J^𝒳^{}=𝒳^{}𝒢^1`$, $`J^{ϵ_1^{}}=ϵ_1^{}(ϵ_1^{}+\overline{ϵ}_1^{})^1`$, $`J^{ϵ_2^{}}=ϵ_2^{}(ϵ_2^{}+\overline{ϵ}_2^{})^1`$, $`ϵ_1^{}=p_2+iq_2`$ and $`ϵ_2^{}=p_1+iq_1`$.

In terms of the MEP the above–mentioned discrete transformation reads

$`𝒳𝒳^{};`$ (36)
thus, the matrices $`𝒢^{}`$ and $`^{}`$ must be interpreted as new Kaluza–Klein and Kalb–Ramond fields, respectively. This symmetry mixes the gravitational and matter degrees of freedom of the theory. It recalls the Bonnor transformation of the EM theory , but in the bosonic string realm. It can be used to generate new solutions starting, for instance, from pure Kaluza–Klein string vacua (see  as well).

## 4 Applying the NHT on the Double Ernst System

Let us now proceed to apply the NHT on the neutral double Ernst system. This will generate a non–zero electromagnetic potential $`𝒜`$ which accounts for non–trivial Abelian $`U(1)`$ gauge fields. In order to achieve this aim, we must consider the following seed MEP

$`𝒳_0=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{p_1}{p_2}& & \frac{p_1q_2q_1p_2}{p_2}\\ & & \\ \frac{p_1q_2+q_1p_2}{p_2}& & \frac{p_1}{p_2}(p_2^2+q_2^2)\end{array}\right),𝒜_0=0.`$ (40)
In this case, the charge matrix $`\lambda `$ that parametrizes the NHT has the form

$`\lambda =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\lambda _{11}& \lambda _{12}& \mathrm{}& \lambda _{1n}\\ \lambda _{21}& \lambda _{22}& \mathrm{}& \lambda _{2n}\end{array}\right),`$ (43)
where $`n2`$ for consistency. Thus after applying the NHT on this double Ernst seed solution, the transformed MEP read

$`𝒳_{11}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Xi }}}\left[\left(4+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2|ϵ_2|^2\right)Reϵ_1+2\left(\lambda _{1j}^2+\lambda _{2j}^2|ϵ_1|^2\right)Reϵ_2+4\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}Reϵ_2Imϵ_1\right],`$ (44)
$`𝒳_{12}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Xi }}}\left\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\left(Reϵ_1Imϵ_2Reϵ_2Imϵ_1\right)+2\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}\left[(1|ϵ_1|^2)Reϵ_2(1|ϵ_2|^2)Reϵ_1\right]\right\},`$ (45)
$`𝒳_{21}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Xi }}}\left\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\left(Reϵ_1Imϵ_2+Reϵ_2Imϵ_1\right)+2\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}\left[(1|ϵ_2|^2)Reϵ_1+(1|ϵ_1|^2)Reϵ_2\right]\right\},`$ (46)
$`𝒳_{22}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Xi }}}\left[\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+4|ϵ_2|^2\right)Reϵ_1+2\left(\lambda _{2j}^2+\lambda _{1j}^2|ϵ_1|^2\right)Reϵ_24\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}Reϵ_2Imϵ_1\right],`$ (47)
$`𝒜_{1j}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{\Xi }}}\{[(2\lambda _{2j}^2|ϵ_1|^2)Reϵ_2(2\lambda _{2j}^2|ϵ_2|^2)Reϵ_1+\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}(Reϵ_1Imϵ_2Reϵ_2Imϵ_1)]\lambda _{1j}`$
$`[(2+\lambda _{1j}^2)(Reϵ_1Imϵ_2Reϵ_2Imϵ_1)+\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}(|ϵ_2|^2Reϵ_1|ϵ_1|^2Reϵ_2)]\lambda _{2j}\},`$ (48)
$`𝒜_{2j}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{\Xi }}}\{[(2+\lambda _{2j}^2)(Reϵ_1Imϵ_2+Reϵ_2Imϵ_1)+\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}(Reϵ_1|ϵ_1|^2Reϵ_2)]\lambda _{1j}`$
$`[(\lambda _{1j}^22|ϵ_2|^2)Reϵ_1+(2\lambda _{1j}^2|ϵ_1|^2)Reϵ_2+\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}(Reϵ_1Imϵ_2+Reϵ_2Imϵ_1)]\lambda _{2j}\},`$ (49)
$`\mathrm{\Xi }=2\left(\lambda _{1j}^2+\lambda _{2j}^2|ϵ_2|^2\right)Reϵ_1+\left(4+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2|ϵ_1|^2\right)Reϵ_2+4\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}Reϵ_1Imϵ_2,`$ (50)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=\lambda _{1j}^2\lambda _{2j}^2\left(\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}\right)^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+=4+2\lambda _{1j}^22\lambda _{2j}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}=42\lambda _{1j}^2+2\lambda _{2j}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ and the non–trivial character of the matrix $`𝒜`$ is evident. The fields configurations corresponding to these potentials live now in the 5D EMKR theory since we have recovered the $`U(1)`$ vector fields of the system.

## 5 Double Kerr seed solution

In this section, following  we impose one more symmetry on the fields of the three–dimensional effective theory under consideration in order to use as seed solution a pair of Kerr black holes. Thus, we can write the line element in the Lewis–Papapetrou form making use of the Weyl coordinates as follows

$`{}_{}{}^{5}ds^2=𝒢_{mn}dx^mdx^n+e^{2\gamma }\left(d\rho ^2+dz^2\right)\rho ^2d\tau ^2`$ (51)
where $`𝒢_{mn}`$ and $`\gamma `$ are $`\tau `$–independent. Thus, a solution of our system can be constructed using the solutions of the double vacuum Einstein equations written in the Ernst form in terms of $`ϵ_k`$ and $`\gamma ^{ϵ_k}`$ ($`k=1,2`$)

$`(\rho J^{ϵ_k})`$ $`=`$ $`\rho J^{ϵ_k}(J^{ϵ_k}J^{\overline{ϵ}_k}),`$
$`_z\gamma ^{ϵ_k}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho \left[(J^{ϵ_k})_z(J^{\overline{ϵ}_k})_\rho +(J^{\overline{ϵ}_k})_z(J^{ϵ_k})_\rho \right],`$ (52)
$`_\rho \gamma ^{ϵ_k}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho \left[|(J^{ϵ_k})_\rho |^2|(J^{ϵ_k})_z|^2\right],`$
if one identifies the function $`\gamma `$ that accounts for the general relativistic interaction between de black holes, in the following way $`\gamma \gamma ^{ϵ_1}+\gamma ^{ϵ_2}`$.

For instance, we can take as seed solution a double Kerr system consisting of a pair of rotating interacting black holes. In the framework of General Relativity, the Ernst potentials corresponding to two Kerr solutions with sources in different points of the symmetry axis read:

$`ϵ_k=1{\displaystyle \frac{2m_k}{r_k+i\alpha _k\mathrm{cos}\theta _k}}.`$ (53)
where $`m_k`$ and $`\alpha _k`$ are constant parameters which define the masses and rotations of the sources of the Kerr field configurations. Weyl and Boyer–Lindquist coordinates are related through

$`\rho =[(r_km_k)^2\zeta _k^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _k,z=z_k+(r_km_k)\mathrm{cos}\theta _k,`$ (54)
where the sources are located at $`z_k`$ and $`\zeta _k^2=m_k^2a_k^2`$. Thus, for the function $`\gamma _k`$ we have

$$e^{2\gamma _k}=\frac{P_k}{Q_k},$$
(55)
where $`P_k=\mathrm{\Delta }_k\alpha _k^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _k`$, $`Q_k=\mathrm{\Delta }_k+\zeta _k^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k=r_k^22m_kr_k+\alpha _k^2`$.

We would like to make a remark at this point: when parameterizing the 5D interval (51) in the Lewis–Papapetrou form, one could choose a completely spatial (Euclidean) three–dimensional interval and require that the signature of the matrix $`𝒢`$ to be negative definite, i.e., $`𝒢|_{\mathrm{}}=I_2`$ (the same signature holds for the matrix $`𝒳|_{\mathrm{}}`$). Thus, the five–dimensional metric would possess a signature with two time–like coordinates. Such kind of models have been studied in  and represent another line of investigation within this approach. It is clear that in order to fulfill this condition either $`ϵ_1`$ or $`ϵ_2`$ must adopt the asymptotic value $`1`$, since when both potentials have the same asymptotic behaviour (with the same sign) the signature of the matrix $`𝒢`$ is positive definite.

Thus, in the language of the complex Ernst potentials the field configuration adopt the form

$`ds_5^2=e^{2\gamma }(d\rho ^2+dz^2)\rho ^2d\tau ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1+\overline{ϵ}_1}{ϵ_2+\overline{ϵ}_2}}\left|du+i\overline{ϵ}_2dv\right|^2,`$ (56)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1\overline{ϵ}_1}{2i}}\sigma _2,`$ (57)
where $`u=x^4`$, $`v=x^5`$ and $`\gamma =\gamma ^{ϵ_1}+\gamma ^{ϵ_2}`$ as it was pointed out above.

In the case when the Ernst potentials correspond to two interacting Kerr black holes, the symmetric matrix $`𝒢`$ is determined by the following relations

$`𝒢_{uu}={\displaystyle \frac{(r_1^22m_1r_1+\alpha _1^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1)(r_2^2+\alpha _2^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2)}{(r_2^22m_2r_2+\alpha _2^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2)(r_1^2+\alpha _1^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1)}},`$
$`𝒢_{uv}={\displaystyle \frac{2m_2\alpha _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2(r_1^22m_1r_1+\alpha _1^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1)}{(r_2^22m_2r_2+\alpha _2^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2)(r_1^2+\alpha _1^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1)}},`$ (58)
$`𝒢_{vv}={\displaystyle \frac{(r_1^22m_1r_1+\alpha _1^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1)(r_2^24m_2r_2+4m_2^2+\alpha _2^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2)}{(r_2^22m_2r_2+\alpha _2^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2)(r_1^2+\alpha _1^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1)}},`$
the factor $`e^{2\gamma }`$ reads

$`e^{2\gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{(r_1^22m_1r_1+\alpha _1^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1)(r_2^22m_2r_2+\alpha _2^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2)}{(r_1^22m_1r_1+\alpha _1^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1+m_1^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2)(r_2^22m_2r_2+\alpha _2^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2+m_2^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2)}},`$ (59)
and the Kalb–Ramond matrix $``$ is defined as

$`={\displaystyle \frac{2m_1\alpha _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _1}{r_1^2+\alpha _1^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1}}\sigma _2`$ (60)
and can be interpreted as a matrix Kalb–Ramond dipole configuration with momentum $`m_1\alpha _1`$ located at $`z_1`$ and hidden inside the horizon $`r_1=m_1+\sqrt{m_1^2\alpha _1^2}`$ of the metric (56). Simultaneously, the $`𝒢_{uv}`$ metric component also constitutes a dipole configuration but possesses momentum $`m_2\alpha _2`$ and is located at $`z_2`$, hidden inside the horizon $`r_2=m_2+\sqrt{m_2^2\alpha _2^2}`$.

## 6 Charged Field Configurations in 5D EMKR Theory

After applying the NHT on the double Ernst seed solution we get the following field configurations:

$`𝒢_{uu}=𝒳_{11}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒜_{1j}^2,𝒢_{uv}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(𝒳_{12}+𝒳_{21}𝒜_{1j}𝒜_{2j}\right),𝒢_{vv}=𝒳_{22}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒜_{2j}^2,`$ (61)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(𝒳_{21}𝒳_{12}\right)\sigma _2,𝒜A=\left(\begin{array}{c}𝒜_{1j}\\ 𝒜_{2j}\end{array}\right),`$ (64)
where the appearance of the electromagnetic potential is obvious. By substituting the Ernst potentials $`ϵ_k`$ by the corresponding double Kerr black hole system we obtain the following charged field configuration

$`𝒢_{uu}={\displaystyle \frac{DQ\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2+4m_1(L^2r_1+2m_1\lambda _{2j}^2+2\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}\alpha _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _1)\mathrm{\Delta }_2+2m_2[(4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)r_2+2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m_2]\mathrm{\Delta }_1}{DQ\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2+4m_2(L^2r_2+2m_2\lambda _{2j}^2+2\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}\alpha _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)\mathrm{\Delta }_1+2m_1[(4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)r_1+2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m_1]\mathrm{\Delta }_2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8\left(h_1\lambda _{1j}h_2\lambda _{2j}\right)^2+2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\left(h_2\lambda _{1j}h_3\lambda _{2j}\right)^28\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\left(h_1h_3h_2^2\right)}{\left[DQ\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2+4m_2(L^2r_2+2m_2\lambda _{2j}^2+2\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}\alpha _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)\mathrm{\Delta }_1+2m_1[(4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)r_1+2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m_1]\mathrm{\Delta }_2\right]^2}},`$ (65)
$`𝒢_{uv}={\displaystyle \frac{4m_1\left[2\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}(r_1m_1)L^2\alpha _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\right]\mathrm{\Delta }_2+2(4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)m_2\alpha _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{\Delta }_1}{DQ\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2+4m_2(L^2r_2+2m_2\lambda _{2j}^2+2\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}\alpha _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)\mathrm{\Delta }_1+2m_1[(4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)r_1+2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m_1]\mathrm{\Delta }_2}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4(l_1^2h_1h_4+l_2^2h_2h_6)+2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2[(2+\lambda _{1j}^2)h_2h_5(2+\lambda _{2j}^2)h_3h_4]2\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}\left[4h_1h_6+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2h_3h_5+(4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)h_2h_4\right]}{\left[DQ\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2+4m_2(L^2r_2+2m_2\lambda _{2j}^2+2\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}\alpha _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)\mathrm{\Delta }_1+2m_1[(4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)r_1+2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m_1]\mathrm{\Delta }_2\right]^2}},`$ (66)
$`𝒢_{vv}={\displaystyle \frac{DQ\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_22m_2[(4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)r_28m_2]\mathrm{\Delta }_14m_1(L^2r_12m_1\lambda _{1j}^2+2\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}\alpha _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _1)\mathrm{\Delta }_2}{DQ\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2+4m_2(L^2r_2+2m_2\lambda _{2j}^2+2\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}\alpha _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)\mathrm{\Delta }_1+2m_1[(4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)r_1+2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m_1]\mathrm{\Delta }_2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8(h_4\lambda _{1j}h_6\lambda _{2j})^2+2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\left(h_5\lambda _{1j}+h_4\lambda _{2j}\right)^2+8\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\left(h_5h_6+h_4^2\right)}{\left[DQ\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2+4m_2(L^2r_2+2m_2\lambda _{2j}^2+2\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}\alpha _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)\mathrm{\Delta }_1+2m_1[(4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)r_1+2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m_1]\mathrm{\Delta }_2\right]^2}},`$ (67)
$`_{uv}={\displaystyle \frac{2\left(4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)m_1\alpha _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{\Delta }_2+4m_2\left[2\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}(r_2m_2)L^2\alpha _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\right]\mathrm{\Delta }_1}{DQ\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2+4m_2(L^2r_2+2m_2\lambda _{2j}^2+2\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}\alpha _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)\mathrm{\Delta }_1+2m_1[(4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)r_1+2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m_1]\mathrm{\Delta }_2}},`$ (68)
$`𝒜_{1j}={\displaystyle \frac{2\left[2h_1\lambda _{2i}^2h_3+\lambda _{1i}\lambda _{2i}h_2\right]\lambda _{1j}+2\left[\lambda _{1i}\lambda _{2i}h_3\left(2+\lambda _{1i}^2\right)h_2\right]\lambda _{2j}}{DQ\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2+4m_2(L^2r_2+2m_2\lambda _{2j}^2+2\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}\alpha _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)\mathrm{\Delta }_1+2m_1[(4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)r_1+2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m_1]\mathrm{\Delta }_2}},`$ (69)
$`𝒜_{2j}={\displaystyle \frac{2\left[\left(2+\lambda _{2i}^2\right)h_4+\lambda _{1i}\lambda _{2i}h_5\right]\lambda _{1j}+2\left[\lambda _{1i}^2h_5+\lambda _{1i}\lambda _{2i}h_4+2h_6\right]\lambda _{2j}}{DQ\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2+4m_2(L^2r_2+2m_2\lambda _{2j}^2+2\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}\alpha _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)\mathrm{\Delta }_1+2m_1[(4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)r_1+2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m_1]\mathrm{\Delta }_2}},`$ (70)
where

$`h_1=2\left(m_1r_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2m_2r_2\mathrm{\Delta }_1\right),h_2=2\left(m_2\alpha _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{\Delta }_1m_1\alpha _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{\Delta }_2\right),`$
$`h_3=4\left(m_1^2\mathrm{\Delta }_2m_2^2\mathrm{\Delta }_1\right)h_1,h_4=2\left(m_1\alpha _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{\Delta }_2+m_2\alpha _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{\Delta }_1\right),`$ (71)
$`h_5=2\left[m_1(r_12m_1)\mathrm{\Delta }_2+m_2r_2\mathrm{\Delta }_1\right],h_6=2\left[m_1r_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2+m_2(r_22m_2)\mathrm{\Delta }_1\right],`$
$`L^2=\lambda _{1j}^2\lambda _{2j}^2`$, $`l_k^2=2\lambda _{kj}^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k=r_k^22m_kr_k+\alpha _k^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _k`$, $`(k=1,2)`$ and, finally, $`DQ=4+2\lambda _{1j}^2+2\lambda _{2j}^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$.

A consistency checking of the generated solution consists of setting the parameters $`\lambda _{1j}`$ and $`\lambda _{2j}`$ to zero in order to recover the starting field configuration (58)–(60). It is straightforward to verify that this is indeed the case.

The asymptotical behaviour of the generated three–dimensional field configurations read

$`𝒢_{uu}|_{\mathrm{}}1{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(m_1m_2)}{DQr}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}\left(m_1\alpha _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _1m_2\alpha _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\right)}{DQr^2}}+𝒪(r^2),`$ (72)
$`𝒢_{uv}|_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{8\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}m_1}{DQr}}{\displaystyle \frac{4L^2m_1\alpha _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _12\left(4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)m_2\alpha _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}{DQr^2}}+𝒪(r^2),`$ (73)
$`𝒢_{vv}|_{\mathrm{}}1{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(m_1+m_2)}{DQr}}{\displaystyle \frac{8\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}\left(m_1\alpha _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _1+m_2\alpha _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\right)}{DQr^2}}+𝒪(r^2),`$ (74)
$`_{uv}|_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{8\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}m_2}{DQr}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\left(4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)m_1\alpha _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _14L^2m_2\alpha _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}{DQr^2}}+𝒪(r^2),`$ (75)
$`𝒜_{1j}|_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\left[(2+\lambda _{2i}^2)\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{1i}\lambda _{2i}\lambda _{2j}\right](m_1m_2)}{DQr}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4\left[\lambda _{1i}\lambda _{2i}\lambda _{1j}(2+\lambda _{1i}^2)\lambda _{2j}\right]\left(m_1\alpha _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _1m_2\alpha _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\right)}{DQr^2}}+𝒪(r^2),`$ (76)
$`𝒜_{2j}|_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\left[\lambda _{1i}\lambda _{2i}\lambda _{1j}(2+\lambda _{1i}^2)\lambda _{2j}\right](m_1+m_2)}{DQr}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4\left[(2+\lambda _{2i}^2)\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{1i}\lambda _{2i}\lambda _{2j}\right]\left(m_1\alpha _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _1+m_2\alpha _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\right)}{DQr^2}}+𝒪(r^2).`$ (77)
From this analysis it is clear that under the NHT, all the generated fields (gravitational, Kalb–Ramond and electromagnetic) effectively develop both Coulomb and dipole terms. Thus, from one side, the $`𝒢_{uu}`$ component of the constructed metric possesses mass terms defined by $`M_{uu_1}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}m_1/DQ`$ at $`z_1`$ and $`M_{uu_2}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}m_2/DQ`$ at $`z_2`$, and from the other side, it acquires dipole sources with masses $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{uu_1}=8\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}m_1/DQ`$, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{uu_2}=8\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}m_2/DQ`$, and their corresponding momenta $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{uu_1}\alpha _1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{uu_2}\alpha _2`$, located at $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$, respectively. In a similar way the $`𝒢_{vv}`$ component of the metric has masses $`M_{vv_1}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_+m_1/DQ`$ at $`z_1`$ and $`M_{vv_2}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_+m_2/DQ`$ at $`z_2`$; indeed, it possesses as well the massive dipole terms defined by $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{vv_1}=8\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}m_1/DQ`$ at $`z_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{uu_2}=8\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}m_2/DQ`$ at $`z_2`$ with the momenta $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{vv_1}\alpha _1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{vv_2}\alpha _2`$, respectively.

The transformed Kalb–Ramond tensor field also acquires a Coulomb term determined by the charge $`M_B=8\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}m_2/DQ`$ located at $`z_2`$ and now possesses two dipole sources with masses $`M_{B_1}=\left(4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)m_1/DQ`$, $`M_{B_2}=4L^2m_2/DQ`$ and momenta $`M_{B_1}\alpha _1`$, $`M_{B_2}\alpha _2`$, located at $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$, respectively. The same situation exactly takes place for the $`𝒢_{uv}`$ component of the metric, which usually corresponds to the rotation of the gravitational field. Thus, the generated gravitational potential $`𝒢_{uv}`$ has a Coulomb source with mass $`M_{uv}=8\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{2j}m_1/DQ`$ located at $`z_1`$ and dipole sources with masses $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{uv_1}=2L^2m_1/DQ`$, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{uv_2}=\left(4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)m_2/DQ`$ and momenta $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{uv_1}\alpha _1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{uv_2}\alpha _2`$, located at $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$, respectively.

At this point we would like to point out that the discrete symmetry (36) which relates gravitational and Kalb–Ramond degrees of freedom is still present asymptotically and is quite evident in the language of the masses and charges of the components $`𝒢_{uv}`$ and $`_{uv}`$, since one can clearly see that these components transform into each other under the interchange of the respective masses and charges, even after the implementation of the nonlinear NHT.

Finally, the generated field configuration possesses an evidently non–trivial electromagnetic sector and its asymptotic structure reveals its usual Coulomb form, defining in this way the effective electromagnetic charges of the system. These fields also have effective dipole sources. Thus, the electromagnetic fields $`𝒜_{1j}`$ possess momenta defined by the expressions $`4\left[\lambda _{1i}\lambda _{2i}\lambda _{1j}(2+\lambda _{1i}^2)\lambda _{2j}\right]m_1\alpha _1/DQ`$ and $`4\left[\lambda _{1i}\lambda _{2i}\lambda _{1j}(2+\lambda _{1i}^2)\lambda _{2j}\right]m_2\alpha _2/DQ`$, whereas the respective momenta for the electromagnetic fields $`𝒜_{2j}`$ read $`4\left[(2+\lambda _{2i}^2)\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{1i}\lambda _{2i}\lambda _{2j}\right]m_1\alpha _1/DQ`$ and $`4\left[(2+\lambda _{2i}^2)\lambda _{1j}\lambda _{1i}\lambda _{2i}\lambda _{2j}\right]m_2\alpha _2/DQ`$.

Thus, under the NHT, the double Kerr seed solution does not acquire just the electromagnetic charges, but it develops as well effective Coulomb and dipole terms for all the fields of the field configuration: gravitational, Kalb–Ramond and electromagnetic fields.

## 7 Conclusion and Discussion

In this paper we have obtained a charged field configuration of the five–dimensional EMKR theory starting from a neutral one that corresponds to a double Ernst (double Kerr, in particular) system. The generation of the new charged solution was carried out via a matrix Lie–Bäcklund transformation of Harrison type that preserves the asymptotical values of the seed fields.

An interesting novel feature of the generated exact solution is that all the fields of the field configuration develop effective Coulomb and dipole terms asymptotically. Thus, after applying the NHT, the 5D double Kerr seed solution acquires effective Coulomb terms and dipole sources with momenta. This is in contrast with the effect that the NHT produces on a neutral seed solution in the framework of the general theory of relativity where it just endows the initial field configuration with a set of electromagnetic charges.

The statistical analysis of such a configuration is an appealing direction to conduct the present research. The equilibrium properties of the generated solution is of interest as well and would generalize to the 5D case some previous results obtained in the framework of the four–dimensional general relativity , . These issues are under current investigation.

## 8 Acknowledgements

One of the authors (AHA) is really grateful to the Theoretical Physics Department of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and, specially, to Prof. J.E. Paschalis for useful discussions and for providing a stimulating atmosphere while part of this work was being done. AHA is also really grateful to S. Kousidou for her support while this research was in progress and acknowledges a grant for postdoctoral studies provided by the Greek Government. Both authors thank IMATE–UNAM campus Morelia and CINVESTAV–IPN for library facilities provided during this investigation. RB’s work was supported by grant CIC-UMSNH-4.11, while AHA’s research by grants CONACYT-J34245-E, CONACYT-42064-F and CIC-UMSNH-4.16.