Codex @codex  0

Use the Unscaled Papkovich–Neuber representationwith harmonic vector and scalar potentials. For a torque-driven sphere chooseIts components are harmonic for $r>a$, and both $\mathbf{x}\cdot \mathbf{\Phi }$ and $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{\Phi }$ vanish. HenceThe last equality follows from the no-slip boundary condition at $r=a$. To check that $\mathbf{G}$ is indeed the applied couple, the traction on the sphere, with $\mathbf{n}=\mathbf{x}/a$ directed into the fluid, is ${\mathbf{\sigma }}_G\mathbf{n}=-3\mu {\mathbf{\Omega }}_G\times \mathbf{n}$. Its hydrodynamic torque isHere $\int \mathbf{nn}dS=(4\pi a^2/3)I$. The applied couple balances this resisting torque. The resulting field is the rotlet of a rotating sphere in Stokes flow.

For the Lorentz reciprocal theorem for Stokes flow, let ${\mathbf{n}}_D$ point out of the fluid domain $D$ and take the same viscosity in both flows. With $\nabla \cdot {\mathbf{\sigma }}_i+{\mathbf{f}}_i=0$, the theorem isIt follows by taking the divergence of the boundary integrand: incompressibility removes pressure-work terms, the two Newtonian strain contractions are equal, and the remaining stress divergences give the displayed body-force terms. This convention matters: on the inner boundary of an exterior domain, ${\mathbf{n}}_D=-\mathbf{n}$.

The material derivative follows surfactant carried by the moving interface. Tangential surface divergence changes the local surface area and hence dilutes or concentrates insoluble material. Normal motion changes area through the curvature: an expanding sphere has positive $u_n{\nabla }_s\cdot \mathbf{n}$ and its concentration decreases. The last term is surface diffusion, which smooths concentration gradients. There is no exchange with the bulk; this is conservation of insoluble surfactant on a moving interface.

The interfacial speed is of order $a|\mathbf{F}|$. Diffusion dominates redistribution when the surface Péclet number satisfiesThen $C^{\prime }/C_0=O({\mathrm{Pe}}_s)$, and advection of $C^{\prime }$ is a second-order effect. Write $S=\mathbf{n}\cdot \mathbf{Fn}$. Since ${\mathbf{u}}_s=\mathbf{Fx}-S\mathbf{x}$, the projected divergence of the first term is $\mathrm{tr}\mathbf{F}-S=-S$, whereas the second has divergence $2S$; its gradient contracted with $\mathbf{x}$ is zero. Hence ${\nabla }_s\cdot {\mathbf{u}}_s=-3S$.

The leading steady transport equation is $D_s{\Delta }_s{C}^{\prime }=C_0{\nabla }_s\cdot {\mathbf{u}}_s=-3C_{0}S$. Trace-freeness and the supplied surface Laplacian identity give ${\Delta }_{s}S=-6S/a^2$. Fixing the conserved total surfactant removes the uniform null mode and yieldsThis is quadrupolar surfactant distribution on a spherical interface; its spherical mean is zero because $⟨n_i{n}_j⟩={\delta }_{ij}/3$.

With $+$ outside, $-$ inside, and the normal directed out of the bubble, the interfacial stress balance with variable surface tension isNow ${\nabla }_{s}S=2I_s\mathbf{Fn}/a$, so $-{\nabla }_s\gamma =2A{\gamma }_1{I}_s\mathbf{Fn}/a$. Multiplying the curvature by the tension and retaining linear terms givesThe undeformed isotropic pressure jump is kept with its normal; the perturbation terms are evaluated on the reference sphere. Products of deformation and concentration perturbations are beyond the approximation.

The imposed tensor is symmetric and traceless, so $\mathbf{x}\cdot \mathbf{Ex}$ is a harmonic scalar of degree two. Its decaying partner is $\mathbf{E}:\nabla \nabla (1/r)$; the corresponding harmonic vector uses $\mathbf{E}\nabla (1/r)$. Linearity and rotational symmetry give precisely these tensorial modes, with the growing scalar chosen to reproduce the imposed strain. Thus in the unscaled convention one can takeThe coefficients multiply distinct decaying modes. No other angular harmonic is forced at this order.

No penetration in the steady state gives $P=3Q-1$. The given tangential surface velocity implies $\alpha =1+2Q$. The tangential stress balance, with $M=A{\gamma }_1/(\mu a)$, gives $1+P-8Q=M\alpha$, or $-5Q=M(1+2Q)$. ThereforeThe nonuniform normal stress is unaffected by the uniform inviscid interior pressure. Its balance isSubstitution and rearrangement giveAs $M\to \infty$, $\alpha \to 0$: the concentration-induced Marangoni stress suppresses tangential surface motion, making the exterior boundary behave like an immobile surface despite the inviscid interior. The deformation coefficient tends to $5\mu a/(2{\gamma }_0)$; the clean limit is $2\mu a/{\gamma }_0$. Both small surface Péclet number and small deformation, of order $\mu a|\mathbf{E}|/{\gamma }_0$, are required. This is Marangoni immobilization of a bubble in straining flow.

Write $⟨q⟩=|\Omega {|}^{-1}{\int }_{\Omega }qdx$, $E=⟨\epsilon ⟩$ and $S=⟨\sigma ⟩$. Use the infinitesimal strain tensor, symmetric stress, zero body force, and the outward unit normal $n$. The divergence theorem applied separately to the two displacement derivatives givesFor static elastic equilibrium, ${\sigma }_{ik,k}=0$, and therefore ${\partial }_k({\sigma }_{ik}{x}_j)={\sigma }_{ij}$. With traction $t_i={\sigma }_{ik}{n}_k$, the divergence theorem now givesThe right-hand side is automatically symmetric because the volume stress tensor is symmetric; it can also be written as the integral of $(t_i{x}_j+t_j{x}_i)/2$.

To prove the work identity, put $v=u-Ex$. The constant symmetric tensor $S$ is equilibrated, so integration by parts givesHere the two cross terms each equal $|\Omega |S:E$, and the last constant term restores one of them. Division by the volume proves the required identity. In particular, affine boundary displacement makes $v=0$ on the boundary and yields the Hill-Mandel energy identity. The zero-body force hypothesis matters: otherwise the first integration by parts has an additional volume-force term.

Interpret derivatives on the space of symmetric strains, with inner product $A:B=A_{ij}{B}_{ij}$. Assume a differentiable strain energy density with local stress $\sigma =D_{\epsilon }W$, and a differentiable stable equilibrium branch under the prescribed affine boundary displacement. Thus $u_E(x)=Ex+v_E(x)$ with $v_E=0$ on $\partial \Omega$; part(a) ensures that the mean strain is exactly $E$.

Vary $E$ in any symmetric direction $H$. The induced displacement variation has the form $\dot{u}=Hx+\dot{v}$, where $\dot{v}$ vanishes on the boundary. Differentiating the effective elastic energy and using static elastic equilibrium givesThe last term is zero by integration by parts, since the body force is zero and $\dot{v}$ has zero boundary trace. As $H$ is arbitrary,This is a work-conjugacy statement on symmetric tensors; treating off-diagonal entries as independent scalar coordinates without their contraction weights would introduce erroneous factors of two. If the minimized effective elastic energy has a nondifferentiable point, the corresponding formulation uses a subgradient rather than a claimed classical derivative.

In the Voigt elastic approximation, every local strain is $E$. The corresponding local stress is ${\sigma }_V(x)=D_{\epsilon }W(E,x)$. Differentiating the averaged strain energy density under the integral givesThe uniform strain need not generate an equilibrated local stress; this calculation concerns the stated approximation, not an assertion that it solves the heterogeneous boundary problem.

For the Reuss elastic approximation, use the convex conjugateUnder differentiable strictly convex duality, the local strain produced by uniform stress $S$ is $e_R(x)=D_S{W}^{\ast }(S,x)$. Set $F(S)=⟨W^{\ast }(S,x)⟩$. Averaging the local strains gives $E=DF(S)$. At the maximizing stress in $W_R(E)=F^{\ast }(E)$, the stationarity condition is precisely $DF(S)=E$. ConsequentlyThus the derivative of each approximate energy is its own mean stress, includingFor positive linear elasticity, $W=e:C(x)e/2$ and $W^{\ast }=S:C(x{)}^{-1}S/2$, giving the useful check $C_V=⟨C⟩$ and $C_R=⟨C^{-1}{⟩}^{-1}$. More general convex duality gives the same conjugacy relation with subgradients when differentiability or strict convexity is absent.

At a perfectly bonded elastic interface without an interfacial force, displacement and traction are continuous:Tangential derivatives of the common displacement trace are also continuous. Thus the jump of a piecewise constant displacement gradient tensor annihilates every tangential vector, and has the form $\alpha \otimes n$. Taking its symmetric part shows that the strain jump is $B\alpha$, whereThe adjoint formula follows from $\tau :B\alpha =(\tau n)\cdot \alpha$ for symmetric stress tensors. Tangential-tangential strain components are therefore common to all layers. Conversely, such gradient jumps can be realized by continuous piecewise affine displacement in the layered geometry.

Take positive elastic stiffness tensors with their usual minor and major symmetries, and a positive comparison elastic stiffness tensor $C^0$. A fictitious layer can have the same tangential displacement derivatives and the same traction as the physical layers. Hence ${\epsilon }^r={\epsilon }^0+B{\alpha }^r$. The common traction condition giveswhere $K^r=B^T{C}^{r}B$ is the positive acoustic tensor, with components $K_{ik}^r=C_{ijkl}^r{n}_j{n}_l$. Solving for ${\alpha }^r$ givesExpanding the two occurrences of $B$ gives exactly the symmetrization over $(ij)$ and $(kl)$ in the directional elastic strain Green operator specified in the paper.

For any two layers, the inverse identity for their acoustic tensors proves the required resolvent relation without interchanging noncommuting tensors:With $D_r=C^r-C^0$, this identity also gives ${\tilde{\Gamma }}^0{D}_r{\tilde{\Gamma }}^r={\tilde{\Gamma }}^0-{\tilde{\Gamma }}^r$. ThereforeThese finite-dimensional operators are inverses. Define $A_r=[I+{\tilde{\Gamma }}^0(C^r-C^0){]}^{-1}$. Then ${\epsilon }^r=A_r{\epsilon }^0$, and averaging strains and stresses givesEliminating the fictitious strain yieldsAll products have the displayed order; the elastic stiffness tensors need not commute.

It remains to justify the inverse and comparison independence. Consider two compatible equilibrated layer solutions with the same mean strain. Their difference has zero common tangential-tangential strain, so $\delta {\epsilon }^r=B{\beta }^r$, with ${\sum }_r{c}_r{\beta }^r=0$ because $B$ is injective and the mean difference is zero. Their traction difference is one common vector $g$. ThereforePositive elastic energy forces every $\delta {\epsilon }^r$ to vanish. In particular, if $⟨A⟩{\epsilon }^0=0$, all physical layer strains vanish. Their common tangential components then force ${\epsilon }^0=B{\beta }^0$, and their zero traction gives $K^0{\beta }^0=0$. Hence ${\epsilon }^0=0$, proving that $⟨A⟩$ is invertible. Finally, every positive choice of $C^0$ constructs the unique layer solution for the same $E$. Its averaged stress is unique, so the displayed effective stiffness is independent of the fictitious comparison material. This is the exact layered constitutive response, rather than a claim that piecewise constant fields meet arbitrary finite-body boundary data.

Let $u$ be the actual displacement field, let $u^{\prime }$ be an admissible trial displacement, and set $v=u^{\prime }-u$. On the displacement-prescribed part of the boundary, $v=0$. With actual stress $\sigma =D_{\epsilon }W(\epsilon )$, the supporting-plane inequality for the convex strain energy density givesBoth $\sigma$ and ${\sigma }_0$ satisfy static elastic equilibrium with the same body force, so $\nabla \cdot (\sigma -{\sigma }_0)=0$. On the traction-prescribed boundary their tractions agree. Since ${\epsilon }^{\prime }-\epsilon =\mathrm{sym}\nabla v$, integration by parts givesSubtracting the prescribed external-work representative proves the minimum potential energy principle in elasticity:Strict convexity gives uniqueness of the minimizing strain, although rigid displacements can remain when the boundary conditions allow them.

For the comparison bound, put $F(e,x)=W(e,x)-W_0(e)$ and use the lower conjugate, with its infimum sign convention,Its defining inequality is $F_{\ast }(\tau ,x)\le \tau :e-F(e,x)$, hence $W(e,x)\le W_0(e)+\tau :e-F_{\ast }(\tau ,x)$ for every $e$. Integrate this pointwise majorant for each compatible strain, then take the infimum over the same admissible set. This provesNo convexity of $F$ is used for this inequality. If $F_{\ast }(\tau ,x)=-\infty$, it yields only the extended-real upper bound $+\infty$. For example, $W_0=0$ and $W(e)=|e{|}^2/2$ give $F_{\ast }(\tau )=-\infty$ for every finite $\tau$. A useful finite bound requires a suitable comparison energy; choosing a sufficiently stiff quadratic comparison makes the usual excess energies concave. The derivative used below additionally presupposes finite differentiable duals, or an appropriate supergradient formulation.

Now normalize $|\Omega |=1$, take positive constant $C^0$, and write $F_r(e)=W_r(e)-e:C^{0}e/2$. For phasewise constant elastic polarization $\tau ={\sum }_r{\chi }_r{\tau }^r$, its lower conjugate contribution is constant within each phase. The remaining minimization isWrite the minimizing strain as $\hat{e}=E+\eta$, where $\eta$ comes from a zero-boundary displacement field. The static elastic equilibrium equation is $\nabla \cdot (C^0\eta +\tau )=0$, so the supplied elastic strain Green operator gives $\eta =-\Gamma \tau$. Its zero mean removes the cross term with the constant $E$. Using its reciprocity and projection property $\Gamma C^0\Gamma =\Gamma$, we obtainHere the brackets in the last two terms denote the spatial integral and tensor contraction, not just a phase average.

Let $c_r={\int }_{\Omega }{\chi }_r$. The zero output mean and reciprocity of $\Gamma$ imply that it annihilates constant elastic polarizations on either side. Thus subtracting $c_r$ and $c_s$ from the phase indicators does not change their bilinear integral. Define the fourth-order block tensorsConsequently $A_{rs}=A_{sr}^T$, ${\sum }_s{A}_{rs}=0$, andThese identities follow from reciprocity and ${\sum }_s{\chi }_s={\sum }_s{c}_s=1$; no phase independence assumption is needed. The phase polarization comparison bound, valid for every polarization with finite dual terms, is thereforeIn particular, it can be optimized over the phase elastic polarizations without changing the upper-bound direction.

To derive the final displayed form, impose the stationarity equations in the question. For $c_r>0$, put $e^r=D{F}_{r\ast }({\tau }^r)$; these are dual strains, initially distinct from the comparison solution's phase averages. Reciprocity of $A$ givesThus stationarity is exactlyThe comparison solution has phase meanso the dual strains become its phase means at stationarity. Multiplying the stationarity equations by ${\tau }^r$ and summing gives ${\sum }_{r,s}{\tau }^r:A_{rs}{\tau }^s={\sum }_r{c}_r{\tau }^r:(E-e^r)$.

For clarity, the concave biconjugate here uses another infimum: $F_{r\ast \ast }(e)={\inf }_s\{s:e-F_{r\ast }(s)\}$. The lower conjugate $F_{r\ast }$ is concave, since it is an infimum of affine functions. At a differentiable finite point, its supporting-plane inequality shows that $s={\tau }^r$ minimizes this last expression when $e=e^r$. HenceSubstitute both identities into $\mathcal{B}$ to obtainThis is the requested final bound with the accompanying phase equations. It remains valid at any well-defined stationary choice; asserting existence of such a differentiable choice for arbitrary $W_0$ would require extra hypotheses. Without stationarity, the earlier $\mathcal{B}(E,\tau )$ is the correct general bound. In the concave closed excess-energy case $F_{r\ast \ast }=F_r$; for general excess energies replacing the concave biconjugate by $F_r$ without proof would reverse the needed majorant logic.

An isotropic simple fluid has local stress determined by the deformation history of the material element. A viscometric flow is one whose relative deformation history is that of steady simple shear flow, up to rigid changes of frame. At a given element the shear rate is constant along its history, although it can differ between elements. This includes the locally simple-shear kinematics used in standard viscometric measurements.

Use the component-first velocity gradient $K_{ij}=\partial v_i/\partial x_j$. The first two Rivlin-Ericksen tensors areIn the axes of a steady shear $v_x=sy$, the relative deformation gradient over a lag $q$ is $F=I+qK$, since $K^2=0$. The material history is determined by $s$, and its tensor symmetries exclude $xz$ and $yz$ stress components. The remaining symmetric stress consists of an isotropic part, one shear component, and two independent normal-stress differences. The relevant matrices areThus $I,A_1,A_1^2,A_2$ span the allowed stress components. Material isotropy and reversal of the shear show that their scalar coefficients depend on $|s|=(A_1:A_1/2{)}^{1/2}$. Define the viscometric functions bySolving for the matrix coefficients givesThis is an exact steady-viscometric representation, rather than an assumption that the fluid is everywhere a second-order fluid. The shear viscosity $\mu$ measures the shear resistance, while ${\psi }_1$ and ${\psi }_2$ measure the first and second normal-stress differences generated by shear. Their zero-rate values are understood as limits when these exist. An isotropic pressure changes neither normal difference.

For a flow in the lubrication approximation with gap $H$, longitudinal scale $\ell \gg H$ and speed $U$, the shear-rate scale is $U/H$. The viscous shear force per unit volume scales as $\mu U/H^2$. Quadratic viscoelastic normal stresses scale as ${\psi }_i{U}^2/H^2$; their longitudinal gradients, and the comparable mixed-component corrections, contribute forces of scale ${\psi }_i{U}^2/(H^2\ell )$. Therefore the normal-stress smallness in lubrication criterion isEquivalently, the thin-gap aspect ratio must multiply the shear-based elastic parameter to give a small quantity: $(H/\ell )|{\psi }_i|\dot{\gamma }/\mu \ll 1$. Normal stresses need not themselves be smaller than the shear stress; it is their effect on the leading force balance that matters. If the flow changes on an additional short time scale $T$, the $D_t{A}_1$ term also requires $|{\psi }_1|/(\mu T)\ll 1$ for its neglect. Material coefficients should be evaluated at the characteristic shear rate.

Now take positive cylinder rotation, measure $\theta$ counterclockwise from the rightward horizontal, and let $y=r-a$ increase outward through the film. The tangent has upward component $\cos \theta$, so the tangential gravitational acceleration is $-g\cos \theta$. To leading order in $h/a$, neglect inertia and higher-order hydrostatic or capillary pressure gradients, and write $U=\Omega a$. Tangential force balance and the shear-free free surface givehenceThe wall shear stress is $-\rho gh\cos \theta$. It opposes rotation on the uphill side and assists it on the downhill side.

For a power-law fluid, ${\sigma }_{\theta y}=k|u_y{|}^{n-1}{u}_y$. Its inversion must retain the sign:Integrating with the no-slip boundary condition $u(0)=U$ yieldsThe volume flux per unit axial length is $Q={\int }_0^{h}u(y)dy$. The integrated bracket is $[(n+1)/(2n+1)]h^{(2n+1)/n}$, so the power-law coating on a rotating cylinder hasAt $\cos \theta =0$ the gravitational term vanishes by continuity. Steady mass conservation makes $Q$ independent of $\theta$.

On the uphill half, put $D=(\rho g\cos \theta /k{)}^{1/n}$ and $m=(2n+1)/n$. The local flux is $Q(h)=Uh-(D/m)h^m$, withIt has a unique maximum atA positive coating must carry the same steady flux at every angle. The tightest local bound occurs at $\cos \theta =1$, not on the downhill side, where the flux increases monotonically with thickness. ConsequentlyFor $0<Q<Q_{\max }$ the thinner positive root on the uphill side connects through $\cos \theta =0$ to the unique downhill root, giving a periodic leading-order coating profile. At the limiting flux the two uphill roots meet at $\theta =0$; it is the maximum flux of this lubrication model, with a possible limiting corner resolved by neglected higher-order effects. For $n=1$ the check is $Q_{\max }=(2/3)U\sqrt{kU/(\rho g)}$. All these conclusions require the resulting film to remain thin enough for the lubrication approximation and for the neglected normal stresses and inertia to satisfy their scaling restrictions.

A simple fluid reduces to a linear viscoelastic fluid when its deformation and rotation over the relevant memory interval are small enough to linearize the constitutive history about an isotropic relaxed state. Small amplitude is essential; small frequency is not. For example, arbitrarily high-frequency oscillation can still be linear if its strain amplitude is sufficiently small. The relaxation modulus $G(t)$ is the shear-stress response to a unit small step of shear strain.

Choose the harmonic convention $e^{i\omega t}$. If the imposed shear rate is $\mathrm{Re}(\hat{\dot{\gamma }}{e}^{i\omega t})$, the corresponding shear stress is $\mathrm{Re}({\eta }^{\ast }(\omega )\hat{\dot{\gamma }}{e}^{i\omega t})$. Substitution into the constitutive convolution gives the complex viscosity:For a nondecaying elastic part this formula is understood through the limit from a positive Laplace damping parameter. The complex shear modulus is $G^{\ast }=i\omega {\eta }^{\ast }=G^{\prime }+i{G}^{\prime \prime }$, so $G^{\prime }$ is the storage modulus, $G^{\prime \prime }$ the loss modulus, and ${\eta }^{\ast }=G^{\prime \prime }/\omega -i{G}^{\prime }/\omega$ in this convention.

Creep is the progressive deformation produced by a held stress. For a small step $S_{0}H(t)$ of shear stress, define the creep compliance $J$ by $\gamma (t)=S_{0}J(t)$ from a relaxed state. Writing hats for Laplace transforms, the same constitutive law gives $\hat{S}=p\hat{G}\hat{\gamma }$. Since $\hat{S}=S_0/p$, this yieldsHere $H$ is the Heaviside step function. Inversion determines the full creep response, including any instantaneous elastic strain jump. Equivalently, the causal relaxation/creep convolution includes that jump through ${\int }_{0^{-}}^{t}G(t-s)dJ(s)=1$ for $t>0$.

For the Maxwell fluid, $\hat{G}(p)=G_0/(p+1/\tau )$. Thus the two material responses areThe creep response is an elastic jump followed by constant-rate viscous deformation. The zero-frequency shear viscosity is $\eta =G_0\tau$.

For the wall problem, take $v=u(y,t)e_x$ and denote the shear component of stress by $S$. The incompressibility constraint is satisfied, and the advective part of the material derivative vanishes because no field depends on $x$. With no imposed longitudinal pressure gradient, momentum conservation and the linear Maxwell law giveThe initial conditions are $u=S=0$ in $y>0$; the no-slip boundary condition is $u(0,t)=UH(t)$, with decay as $y\to \infty$. Transforming these equations givesChoose the analytic square-root branch in $\mathrm{Re}p>0$ with $\mathrm{Re}q>0$, so that the spatially increasing solution is excluded. The Maxwell start-up shear layer consequently hasThe Bromwich inversion formula now givesThe vertical Bromwich contour is directed upward and lies to the right of all singularities, including the origin and the branch points at $0$ and $-1/\tau$. A cut joining these branch points is a possible continuation into the left half-plane; inversion only requires the stated right-half-plane branch.

The Newtonian limit holds $\eta =G_0\tau$ fixed while $\tau \to 0$, so $G_0\to \infty$. Then $q(p)\to \sqrt{\rho p/\eta }$. With $\nu =\eta /\rho$, the inverse Laplace transform gives the complementary error function profileThis is diffusive momentum penetration in a Newtonian fluid, with thickness of order $\sqrt{\nu t}$.

The elastic limit instead holds $G_0$ fixed while $\tau \to \infty$. Write $c=\sqrt{G_0/\rho }$. On the chosen branch, $q(p)\to p/c$, so the Laplace transform time-shift rule yieldsAn elastic shear front travels at speed $c$: the material ahead is at rest, while that behind moves at the wall speed. Indeed the limiting displacement is $d(y,t)=U(t-y/c)H(t-y/c)$, whose shear strain is $d_y=-(U/c)H(t-y/c)$. A nonzero pointwise velocity gradient at the front is interpreted distributionally, or by smoothing the ideal wall start.

The use of linear viscoelasticity is conditional, rather than automatically justified for arbitrary $U$. The material derivative simplifying to a time derivative does not remove the nonlinear constitutive effects of finite shear strain. In this Maxwell problem the rapid elastic response supplies the natural strain scale $U/c=U\sqrt{\rho /G_0}$, which must be small for linearization through start-up. Away from the front, the strain accumulated over an effective memory interval must likewise be small. In the late diffusive regime its characteristic size is $\tau U/\sqrt{\nu t}$, which decreases with time. Large absolute wall displacement $Ut$ alone is not a disqualification for a fluid with finite memory; it is relative deformation during that memory that matters. In the elastic limit, where memory does not decay, the explicit strain behind the front confirms the condition $U/c\ll 1$. Without such a small-strain restriction, the computed field is a formal linear response and need not describe an arbitrary simple fluid.

With its material state fixed by a prescribed deformation history, the differential pom-pom model is a simple-fluid constitutive law. The stress depends on the local history of a material element through its molecular stretch and orientation, without gradients of that history between neighbouring elements. A differential representation does not prevent a material from being a simple fluid.

To see the history dependence explicitly, use the component-first velocity gradient $K$, so the tensor evolution is $D_{t}A=KA+A{K}^T-(A-I)/{\tau }_1$. Let $F(t,s)$ be the relative deformation gradient, satisfying ${\partial }_{t}F=K(t)F$ and $F(s,s)=I$. Along a material trajectory, an integrating factor givesThus $A$ is a functional of the local deformation history and its prepared initial state. If the initial $A$ is a positive-definite matrix, it retains that property, so $B=A/\mathrm{tr}A$ is well defined. Given this $B(t)$, the scalar stretch solves $\dot{\lambda }=r(t)\lambda +1/{\tau }_2$, where $r=B:K-1/{\tau }_2$. Its variation of constants formula again depends only on that local history:The differential pom-pom model also satisfies material frame indifference. Under an observer rotation, $A$ and $B$ transform as objective tensors, while $\lambda$ is a scalar. The extra skew part of the transformed velocity gradient has zero contraction with symmetric $B$, so the stretch equation is unchanged. The tensor evolution uses an upper-convected derivative, and the final stress transforms objectively. Initial values cannot be independently forgotten when specifying a finite-past experiment: a fully specified prepared state, such as rest, is part of the history specification.

At rest the tensor equation relaxes $A$ toward $I$ and the stretch equation relaxes $\lambda$ toward one. ThusThe equilibrium nonpressure stress $GI/3$ is isotropic and can be absorbed into the arbitrary pressure in incompressible flow.

For the linear response, put $A=I+a+O({\epsilon }^2)$, $\lambda =1+\ell +O({\epsilon }^2)$ and take the velocity gradient to be $O(\epsilon )$. The first-order tensor equation isIts matrix trace has no forcing, because incompressibility gives $\mathrm{tr}K=0$. Starting relaxed, $\mathrm{tr}a=0$. The first-order stretch equation is $D_t\ell +\ell /{\tau }_2=(I/3):K=0$, hence $\ell =0$. Consequently $B=I/3+a/3+O({\epsilon }^2)$, and its anisotropic stress is $Ga/3$. From the relaxed remote past,The linear and second-order response of the differential pom-pom model therefore hasThe stretch time ${\tau }_2$ does not enter the linear shear relaxation modulus.