Director-layer dynamics in the antiferroelectric smectic-ZA phase of a ferroelectric nematic liquid crystal

Alan Baldwin; Antal Jakli; Arjun Ghimire; Bijaya Basnet; Hao Wang; James Gleeson; Oleg Lavrentovich; Parikshit Guragain; Robert Twieg; Samuel Sprunt

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Director-layer dynamics in the antiferroelectric smectic-ZA phase of a ferroelectric nematic liquid crystal

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Dynamic light scattering establishes that in the smectic-ZA phase of the ferroelectric nematic DIO, the smectic layers run parallel to the director; a smectic-C-based model with chevron corrections fits the relaxation-rate dispersion…

desk verdict First DLS study of the smectic-ZA phase; the layer-parallel-to-director conclusion is solid, but the ~100x lower B is a model-dependent estimate, not an independent measurement. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12541 v3 pith:YZUAJEO6 submitted 2025-01-21 cond-mat.soft

Arjun Ghimire , Bijaya Basnet , Hao Wang , Parikshit Guragain , Alan Baldwin , Robert Twieg , Oleg Lavrentovich , James Gleeson

show 2 more authors

Antal Jakli Samuel Sprunt

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.soft PACS 61.30.-v64.70.M78.35.+c

keywords smectic-ZAferroelectricnematicliquidcrystalDIOdynamiclightscatteringlayercompressionelasticconstantchevronstructuredirectorfluctuationsantiferroelectricordering

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the antiferroelectric smectic-ZA phase of the ferroelectric nematic liquid crystal DIO has its smectic layers oriented parallel to the director (the axis of molecular orientational order), a structure distinct from ordinary smectics in which layers are perpendicular to the director. Using dynamic light scattering on director and layer fluctuations in the smectic-ZA phase, the authors measure relaxation-rate dispersions that confirm the parallel-layer geometry and that a model based on the elasticity of a 90-degree-tilted smectic-C phase, with a chevron layer deformation, reproduces quantitatively. The central quantitative result is a layer compression elastic constant $B \approx 4.2\times10^4\ \mathrm{N/m^2}$, about two orders of magnitude smaller than in a typical calamitic smectic-A. The work matters because it tests competing structural models of the antiferroelectric phase preceding the ferroelectric nematic and gives the first dynamical characterization of this new layer geometry.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Hatwalne-Lubensky elastic free energy density of a smectic-C phase specialized to a 90 degree director tilt ($\Phi_0 = \pi/2$). In that limit the layer-compression/director-tilt coupling coefficient $c$ vanishes by symmetry, leaving a term $(D/2)(n_y - \partial_z u)^2$ plus Frank elasticity and layer compression $B(\partial_y u)^2/2$. Chevron layer structure enters by rotating the layer coordinates by the angle $\delta$ relative to the lab frame, which makes the layer compression term appear as $\frac{1}{2}B\delta^2 Q_x^2 |u|^2$ and produces the additional couplings needed to reproduce the dispersion data. This object determines all the fitted relaxation rates, Eqs. (4), (5), (8)-(10).

What would settle it

An independent measurement of the layer compression constant—for instance by X-ray photon correlation spectroscopy or a mechanical strain experiment on aligned DIO films—would settle the estimate; if B comes out comparable to ordinary smectic-A values, or if the chevron angle differs from the assumed 10 degrees, the fitted model parameters lose support. Likewise, a direct rheological measurement showing $\eta_{\rm twist}/\eta_{\rm splay} \ge 1$ would falsify the uniaxial dissipative-stress approximation that the quantitative fits rely on.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the smectic-ZA phase of DIO the layering planes are parallel to the director, and the coupled director-layer fluctuation dynamics are governed by a smectic-C elastic energy specialized to a 90 degree director tilt, with the layer compression term active only through the small chevron angle $\delta$ that develops in planar cells. The paper shows that bend fluctuations with wavevector along the director are essentially unaffected by the transition, whereas splay and twist fluctuations stiffen greatly, consistent with layers parallel to the director. Fitting the relaxation-rate dispersion in two scattering geometries yields $B\delta^2/K_3$ and hence, using the X-ray chevron angle $\delta \approx 10^\circ$, an estimated layer compression constant $B = 4.2 \times 10^4\ \mathrm{N/m^2}$, roughly 100 times smaller than in an ordinary smectic-A. The paper also reports a twist-to-splay viscosity ratio $\approx 0.1$ from the fits, which it notes is inconsistent with standard uniaxial-fluid theory, indicating the approximation to the dissipative stress is incomplete, and describes an anisotropic splay elasticity attributed to polarization-charge screening.

Load-bearing premise

The model's quantitative conclusions rest on treating the dissipative stress of the smectic-ZA phase as that of an incompressible uniaxial fluid and neglecting permeation, even though the fitted twist-to-splay viscosity ratio falls below the uniaxial bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The equilibrium director in the smectic-ZA phase of DIO is parallel to the layer planes; bend fluctuations are nearly unperturbed at the nematic-to-smectic-ZA transition while splay and twist stiffen sharply.
The layer compression constant $B \approx 4.2\times10^4\ \mathrm{N/m^2}$ is about two orders of magnitude smaller than in a typical calamitic smectic-A, indicating unusually soft layers.
The chevron structure with angle $\delta$ is essential: with an ideal bookshelf geometry the model fails, because the fast mode's dispersion and the intense small-angle scattering from the slow mode cannot be reproduced.
Twist and splay fluctuations are coupled through the layer-tilt term $D(n_y - \partial_z u)^2$, so the two independent director modes of the nematic become mixed modes in the smectic-ZA phase.
The anisotropic splay energy (with $K'_1/K_1$ growing from 0.77 to 4.6 on cooling) indicates that polarization-charge screening makes splay with wavevector parallel to the layers stiffen more than splay normal to them.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A direct measurement of $\eta_{\rm twist}/\eta_{\rm splay}$ by rheology or by a second optical technique would either validate or rule out the uniaxial dissipative stress assumption; if ruled out, the fitted $B$ may need revision.
Because DLS only constrains $B\delta^2$, the 100x estimate is hostage to the X-ray chevron angle; X-ray photon correlation spectroscopy on the same cells could determine $B$ independently.
The anisotropic screening picture predicts that adding ionic dopants or using thinner cells (shorter screening length $\xi$) should suppress the $K'_1$ enhancement; this is testable in DIO and in mixtures.
The same 90-degree-tilt smectic-C hydrodynamics should apply to the splay-modulated antiferroelectric phases proposed in RM734-based materials; comparative DLS there would determine whether the parallel-layer motif is universal.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing you should know: this is the first dynamic light scattering study of the smectic-ZA phase, and its central structural claim—that the director lies parallel to the smectic layers—is well supported by the data. The bend scattering is continuous across the transition, and splay and twist stiffen sharply, exactly what you would expect if layers form parallel to the director. The paper also does something genuinely useful: it adapts the Hatwalne-Lubensky smectic-C elasticity to the 90-degree tilt limit, includes chevron layer reorientation, and shows this can account for the measured dispersion of relaxation rates. That is a real step forward for the field, and the authors are candid about the model's limits.

Where it gets soft is the quantitative layer compression constant. B is not independently measured; the fitted quantity is B*delta^2, which is then divided by delta from a prior X-ray study. The authors say this themselves, so there is no deception, but the headline value is a derived fit. More seriously, the hydrodynamic analysis assumes a uniaxial incompressible fluid for the dissipative stress, but the fits give eta_twist/eta_splay around 0.1, which the paper concedes is inconsistent with standard uniaxial theory. Since the same uniaxial approximation feeds the equations used to extract B, that number inherits the inconsistency. The added anisotropic splay term (K1') improves the fits but feels ad hoc, and there are several fitted parameters per temperature with no reported error bars. None of this undermines the qualitative geometry conclusion, which rests on the scattering intensities, but it does mean the 'B about 100 times smaller' phrase should be treated as a model-dependent estimate, not a measured constant.

All that said, this is a serious experimental paper. The measurements are careful, the modeling is transparent, and the limitations are acknowledged in the text. It deserves real peer review. I would send it to a referee, with the expectation that the quantitative model will need validation—direct chevron angle measurement, independent viscosity coefficients, and error bars—before the B value can be trusted. The paper will be useful to anyone working on ferroelectric nematic and antiferroelectric smectic phases.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a dynamic light scattering study of the ferroelectric nematic compound DIO in its paraelectric nematic and antiferroelectric smectic-ZA phases. The authors present intensity and relaxation-rate data in two scattering geometries that isolate bend, splay, and twist fluctuations. They argue that the near-continuity of bend scattering and the strong suppression of splay and twist scattering across the nematic–smectic-ZA transition confirm that the smectic layers form parallel to the director. They then develop a hydrodynamic model based on the smectic-C elastic free energy specialized to a 90-degree director tilt, a uniaxial incompressible-fluid viscous stress, and a chevron layer deformation. Using this model they fit the dispersion of the measured relaxation rates and extract a layer compression constant B ≈ 4.2×10^4 N/m^2, about two orders of magnitude smaller than in a typical calamitic smectic-A. The paper also reports the temperature dependences of the splay, twist, and bend elastic constants and associated viscosities in the nematic phase.

Significance. The qualitative structural conclusion—that the smectic-ZA layers are parallel to the director—is well supported by the scattering intensities and is an important confirmation of the smectic-ZA motif. The study is also valuable for providing the first dynamic light scattering data in this new antiferroelectric phase and for documenting pretransitional elastic and viscous behavior in a ferroelectric nematic precursor. The quantitative model is ambitious and the authors are transparent about its approximations, but the specific claim that B is about 100 times smaller than in smectic-A is not yet supported by a self-consistent analysis, as detailed in the major comments. The qualitative result is likely to be the paper’s lasting contribution.

major comments (3)

[§IV.B, Eqs. (9)–(10) and surrounding text] The fitted ratio η_twist/η_splay ≈ 0.1 is inconsistent with the uniaxial-fluid hydrodynamic theory that the paper itself uses to derive the dynamical equations. The text states that standard theory for a uniaxial fluid predicts η_twist/η_splay >~ 1. Since Eqs. (3)–(7) and Appendix A all rely on the uniaxial dissipative stress, the Bδ² values in Table I, obtained from Eq. (8), inherit this inconsistency. The paper acknowledges the issue but does not implement a remedy such as retaining biaxial or layer-polarity terms in the viscous stress. As a result, the quantitative model is internally inconsistent at the level of its constitutive assumptions, and the extracted B is not a reliable parameter estimate.
[Table I and the paragraph after it] B is not independently measured. The fitted quantity is Bδ²/η_b; the layer compression constant is then obtained by dividing by δ² taken from a prior X-ray study, and the uncertainty in δ (including its temperature variation) is not propagated. Since B depends on δ as δ^{-2}, the quoted B = 4.2×10^4 N/m^2 and the claim that B is ~100 times smaller than in a typical smectic-A are highly sensitive to the assumed chevron angle. Additionally, the constraint K3/η_b = K3/η_bend assumes η_b = η_bend, which is another unexamined assumption. The abstract and conclusion present this B value without the necessary caveats.
[§IV.B, Eq. (10) and fits in Fig. 8] The anisotropic splay energy model, introduced through the screening-length ansatz ξ(φ)^2 = ξ_x² sin²φ + ξ_y² cos²φ, adds one more adjustable parameter (K'_1/η_splay) to absorb the low-angle discrepancy in Geometry 2. The resulting K'_1/K_1 values range from 0.77 to 4.6 and are not independently constrained or verified. The authors reasonably describe this as a suggestion needing further investigation, but as presented it weakens the claim that the model quantitatively describes the dispersion without ad hoc ingredients. A more cautious framing of the quantitative conclusions is needed.

minor comments (4)

[Section V] The phrase 'anti-feroelectric' should be corrected to 'antiferroelectric'.
[Eq. (5)] The bracketed structure of the equation is difficult to follow; consider introducing line breaks or defining the coefficients to improve readability.
[Figures 7 and 8] The figure captions would benefit from explicitly stating which fitted parameters are shown and which are fixed; the current captions refer to equations but not to the parameter values listed in Table I.
[Appendix A] The notation σ′ is used for the dissipative stress tensor, but the connection to the Leslie coefficients α_i is only implicit; a brief summary of this connection would help readers who are not specialists.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: B is a transparently labeled fit result combined with an external chevron-angle input; the qualitative ZA layer geometry rests on independent scattering evidence.

full rationale

The paper does not present a circular derivation. The central model quantity Bδ²/ηb and ηa/ηb are free parameters fitted to the measured relaxation dispersions (Eq. (8)); the layer compression constant B is then obtained by dividing the fitted Bδ² by the externally measured chevron angle δ≈10° from ref. [19]. The paper explicitly states this dependence: 'This estimate is obtained from the quantity Bδ² and therefore depends strongly on the value of the chevron angle δ [19]' and 'Taking the chevron angle δ ≈ 10° ... gives B = 4.2×10^4 N m^-2.' This is a standard empirical estimate from a fit with an external calibration, not a prediction that is equivalent to its inputs by construction. The qualitative conclusion that layers form parallel to the director is supported by the independent observation that bend scattering and relaxation are continuous through the transition while splay and twist scattering drop ~100-fold, and by the explicit argument ruling out the alternative parallel-layer geometry. The elastic free energy is imported from Hatwalne and Lubensky (ref. [28]) and the uniaxial hydrodynamic equations from standard textbook theory (refs. [34,35]); these are external, not self-citations. The paper itself flags the main weaknesses: the uniaxial incompressible viscosity ansatz is stated to be unvalidated, and the fitted ratio ηtwist/ηsplay≈0.1 is explicitly acknowledged to contradict the standard uniaxial prediction ηtwist/ηsplay>~1 (ref. [35]). That is a correctness and model-adequacy concern, not a circularity: the contradiction is an honest concession that the constitutive model is incomplete, and the quoted limitation does not reduce any derived quantity to its own input. No load-bearing self-citation chain or renaming of a known result was found. The B estimate is fit-dependent and sensitive to δ, but this dependence is disclosed and does not make the claim circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative model rests on a standard smectic-C elasticity plus a chain of approximations (uniaxial viscosity, no permeation, no biaxiality) and several fitted parameters (B*delta^2, viscosity ratios, K'_1). The headline layer compression constant is not an independent measurement; it is a fitted combination divided by an externally assumed chevron angle.

free parameters (5)

B*delta^2 = 4.5e2 to 1.3e3 N/m^2 at four temperatures (Table I)
Fitted to the Geometry 1 relaxation dispersion via the ratio B*delta^2/eta_b; the resulting B*delta^2 values are tabulated. The headline B is obtained by dividing by delta^2 ~ 0.030.
eta_a/eta_b (Miesowicz viscosity ratio) = not stated explicitly
Varied at each temperature in fits to Eq. (8) for the Geometry 1 slow mode.
K1/eta_splay, K2/eta_splay, eta_twist/eta_splay = not stated explicitly
Three parameters varied at each temperature in fits to Eq. (9) for Geometry 2; resulting ratios such as K1/K2 = 3-5 and eta_twist/eta_splay ~ 0.1 are reported.
K'_1/eta_splay (anisotropic splay enhancement) = K'_1/K1 = 0.77 to 4.6
Additional parameter in Eq. (10) to improve low-angle fits; K'_1 is attributed to anisotropic screening of polarization charge and is not independently measured.
a, eta_bend/eta_splay, (K1+K'_1)/eta_splay = not stated
Parameters in the fit of the slow mode in Geometry 1 to the n1 relaxation rate.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Hydrodynamic theory for an incompressible uniaxial fluid (Leslie-Ericksen) applies to the smectic-ZA dissipative stress
Used in Appendix A and Sec. IV; the paper itself notes the resulting eta_twist/eta_splay ~ 0.1 is inconsistent with standard theory, indicating the assumption is questionable.
domain assumption Hatwalne-Lubensky smectic-C elastic free energy can be specialized to 90-degree director tilt
Basis for Eq. (2) and the fluctuation model; assumes the ZA phase is a 90-degree tilted smectic-C.
ad hoc to paper Biaxiality of the smectic-ZA phase can be neglected in the dissipative stress
Stated in Sec. IV: 'We assume that the impact of biaxiality on the form of the dissipative stress can be neglected.' Not validated by direct viscosity measurements.
domain assumption Permeation of molecules between layers is negligible
Stated in Sec. IV and Appendix A.
domain assumption The chevron angle delta ~ 10 degrees measured in thin cells by X-ray (ref. 19) applies to the 20 micrometer cell and at each temperature
Used to convert fitted B*delta^2 to B; the paper acknowledges the result depends strongly on delta.
ad hoc to paper D >> B*delta^2 and D >> Ki*q^2 for optical wavevectors
Used to derive simplified relaxation expressions (8) and (9); not directly verified.
ad hoc to paper Anisotropic screening length model for polarization charge with xi(phi)^2 = xi_x^2 sin^2(phi) + xi_y^2 cos^2(phi)
Introduced to justify K'_1; described as a possibility needing further investigation and justification.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Director-layer dynamics in the antiferroelectric smectic-ZA phase of a ferroelectric nematic liquid crystal." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YZUAJEO6

@misc{pith2026250112541,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Director-layer dynamics in the antiferroelectric smectic-ZA phase of a ferroelectric nematic liquid crystal},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YZUAJEO6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12541}
}

read the original abstract

A dynamic light scattering study of director-layer fluctuations in the antiferroelectric smectic-ZA phase of the ferroelectric nematic liquid crystal DIO is reported. The dynamics are consistent with the distinctive feature of the ZA phase that the smectic layers form parallel to the axis of molecular orientational order (director). A model is developed to describe quantitatively the dispersion of the fluctuation relaxation rates. The model is based on a specialization of the elastic free energy density of the smectic-C phase to the case of 90 degree director tilt, a "first-order" approximation of the viscous stresses by their form for an incompressible uniaxial fluid, and a treatment of the effect of chevron layer structure that develops in planar sample cells due to temperature-dependent layer shrinkage, as documented in previous studies on DIO. From the modeling, the layer compression elastic constant is estimated to be ~100 times lower in the smectic-ZA phase than in an ordinary smectic-A liquid crystal. Possible effects of the antiferroelectric layer polarization on the director splay elasticity and viscosity are described. The temperature dependencies of the splay, twist, and bend elastic constants and associated viscosities in the higher temperature nematic phase are also presented.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12541 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Normalized inverse scattered light intensity (see text) vs temperature contributed by bend, splay, and twist [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Bend (a), splay (b), and twist (c) director [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Dispersion of relaxation rates of the twist-bend [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: Ratio of relaxation rates to scattering wavenumber squared vs temperature measured in the same scattering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: Orientational viscosities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7: Dispersion of relaxation rates of overdamped fluctuation modes measured in the smectic- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8: Dispersion of the relaxation rates of the overdamped fluctuation mode measured in the smectic- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9: Schematic of chevron layer structure in a thin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

[1]

1, the scattering vector for Geometry 1 lies in the X-Z plane, and its Y compo- nent vanishes

Geometry 1: ˆn0 ∥ scattering plane In the coordinates of Fig. 1, the scattering vector for Geometry 1 lies in the X-Z plane, and its Y compo- nent vanishes. Then, assuming an ideal bookshelf layer orientation with layer normal along ˆY , the fluctuations producing the scattering have qy = Qy = 0, and the layer compression (B) term in Eq. (2) drops out. As...

work page
[2]

Geometry 2: ˆn0 ⊥ scattering plane In Geometry 2, qz = Qz = 0 and the coupling of n1, n2 to layer displacement u drops out in the elastic free en- ergy (Eq. (2)). Analysis of the hydrodynamic equations with qy = Qy, qx = Qx (to lowest order where δ → 0) 11 yields two coupled equations for the fluctuations n1, n2, ηsplay ∂n1 ∂t + K1Q2 ⊥ + D Q2 y Q2 ⊥ ! n1 ...

work page
[3]

R. J. Mandle, S. J. Cowling, and J. W. Goodby, Rational design of rod-like liquid crystals exhibiting two nematic phases, Chem. A Eur. J. 23, 14554 (2017)

work page 2017
[4]

X. Chen, E. Korblova, D. Dong, X. Wei, R. Shao, L. Radzihovsky, M. A. Glaser, J. E. Maclennan, D. Bedrov, D. M. Walba, and N. A. Clark, First- principles experimental demonstration of ferroelectricity in a thermotropic nematic liquid crystal: Polar domains and striking electro-optics , Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci 117, 14021 (2020)

work page 2020
[5]

molecular field

In the last expression on the right, a contribu- tion due to polarization splay has been absorbed into a redefinition of K1 and K ′ 1 = P 2 0 (ξ2 x−ξ2 y) ϵ0ϵ⊥ . Replacing K1Q2 ⊥ in Eq. (9) with K1Q2 ⊥ + K ′ 1Q2 x then yields Γ− n1,n2 = (K1Q2 x + K2Q2 y)Q2 ⊥ + K ′ 1Q4 x ηsplayQ2x + ηtwistQ2y (10) The solid blue lines in Fig. 8 are fits to Eq. (10). Al- tho...

work page
[6]

Nishikawa, K

H. Nishikawa, K. Shiroshita, H. Higuchi, Y. Okumura, Y. Haseba, S. I. Yamamato, K. Sago, and H. A. Kikuchi, A fluid liquid-crystal material with highly polar order , Adv. Mater. 29, 1702354 (2017)

2017
[7]

R. J. Mandle, S. J. Cowling, and J. W. Goodby, A nematic to nematic transformation exhibited by a rod- like liquid crystal , Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 19, 11429 (2017)

2017
[8]

X. Chen, Z. Zhu, M. J. Magrini, E. Korblova, C. S. Park, M. A. Glaser, J. E. Maclennan, D. M. Walba, and N. A. Clark, Ideal mixing of paraelectric and ferroelec- tric nematic phases in liquid crystals of distinct molecu- lar species, Liq. Cryst. 49, 1531 (2022)

work page 2022

Show all 43 references

[9]

R. Saha, P. Nepal, C. Feng, M. S. Hossain, M. Fukuto, R. Li, J. T. Gleeson, S. Sprunt, R. J. Twieg, and A. J´ akli, Multiple ferroelectric nematic phases of a highly polar liq- uid crystal compound , Liq. Cryst. 49, 1784 (2022)

2022
[10]

Born, Ueber anisotrope Fl¨ ussigkeiten: Versuch einer Theorie der fl¨ ussigen Kristalle und des elektrischen Kerr- Effekts in Fl¨ ussigkeiten, Sitzungsber

M. Born, Ueber anisotrope Fl¨ ussigkeiten: Versuch einer Theorie der fl¨ ussigen Kristalle und des elektrischen Kerr- Effekts in Fl¨ ussigkeiten, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad Wiss. 30, 614 (1916)

1916
[11]

Mandle, N

R. Mandle, N. Sebastian, J. Martinez-Perdiguero, and A. Mertelj, On the molecular origins of the ferroelectric splay nematic phase , Nat. Commun. 12, 4962 (2021)

2021
[12]

R. J. Mandle, A new order of liquids: polar order in ne- matic liquid crystals , Soft Matter 18, 5014 (2022)

2022
[13]

Manabe, M

A. Manabe, M. Bremer, and M. Kraska, Ferroelectric ne- matic phase at and below room temperature , Liq. Cryst. 48, 1079 (2021)

2021
[14]

Y. Song, J. Li, R. Xia, H. Xu, X. Zhang, H. Lei, W. Peng, S. Dai, S. Aya, and M. Huang, Development of emer- gent ferroelectric nematic liquid crystals with highly flu- orinated and rigid mesogens , Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 24, 11536 (2022)

2022
[15]

Cruikshank, The emergence of a polar nematic phase: A chemist’s insight into the ferroeelctric nematic phase , ChemPlusChem 89, e202300726 (2024)

E. Cruikshank, The emergence of a polar nematic phase: A chemist’s insight into the ferroeelctric nematic phase , ChemPlusChem 89, e202300726 (2024)

2024
[16]

Adaka, P

A. Adaka, P. Guragain, K. Perera, P. Nepal, B. Almatani, S. Sprunt, J. Gleeson, R. J. Twieg, and A. J´ akli, A fer- roelectric nematic liquid crystal vitrified at room temper- ature, Liq. Cryst. 51, 1140 (2024)

2024
[17]

J. Li, H. Nishikawa, J. Kougo, J. Zhou, S. Dai, W. Tang, X. Zhao, Y. Hisai, M. Huang, and S. Aya,Development of ferroelectric nematic fluids with giant- ϵ dielectricity and nonlinear optical properties, Sci. Adv. 7, eab5047 (2021)

2021
[18]

X. Chen, V. Martinez, P. Nacke, E. Korblova, A. Man- abe, M. Klasen-Memmer, G. Freychet, M. Zhernenkov, M. A. Glaser, L. Radzihovsky, J. E. Maclennan, D. M. Walba, M. Bremer, F. Giesselmann, and N. A. Clark, Observation of a uniaxial ferroelectric smectic A phase , Proc. Nat. ...

2022
[19]

bookshelf

reveal that in thin cells with parallel surface align- ment layers and in the absence of applied bulk fields, the smectic-ZA layers form in the “bookshelf” geometry on cooling from the paraelectric phase – i.e., the layer planes are orthogonal to the cell surfaces at the trans...
[20]

Arakawa, Q

Y. Arakawa, Q. Ning, S. Karthick, and S. Aya, Sulfur- based ferroelectric nematic liquid crystals , J. Mater. Chem C 12, 16206 (2024)

2024
[21]

Perera, R

K. Perera, R. Saha, P. Nepal, R. Dharmarathna, M. S. Hossain, M. Mostafa, A. Adaka, R. Waroquet, R. J. Twieg, and A. J´ akli, Ferroelectric nematic droplets in their isotropic melt , Soft Matter 19, 347 (2023)

2023
[22]

Brown, E

S. Brown, E. Cruickshank, J. M. D. Storey, C. T. Imrie, D. Pociecha, M. Majewska, A. Makal, and E. Gorecka, Multiple Polar and Non-polar Nematic Phases, Chemphyschem 22, 2506 (2021)

2021
[23]

G. J. Strachan, E. G´ orecka, J. Szyd lowska, A. Makal, and D. Pociecha, Nematic and Smectic Phases with Proper Ferroelectric Order, Advanced Science , 2409754 (2024)

2024
[24]

X. Chen, V. Martinez, E. Korblova, G. Freychet, M. Zh- ernenkov, M. A. Glaser, C. Wang, C. Zhu, L. Radzi- hovsky, J. E. Maclennan, D. M. Walba, and N. A. Clark, The smectic ZA phase: Antiferroelectric smectic order as a prelude to the ferroelectric nematic , Proc. Nat. Acad. S...

2023
[25]

Nacke, A

P. Nacke, A. Manabe, M. Klasen-Memmer, X. Chen, V. Martinez, G. Freychet, M. Zhernenkov, J. E. Maclen- nan, N. A. Clark, M. Bremer, and F. Giesselmann, New examples of ferroelectric nematic materials showing evi- dence for the antiferroelectric smectic-Z phase , Scientific Rep...

2024
[26]

Karcz, J

J. Karcz, J. Herman, N. Rych lowicz, P. Kula, E. Gorecka, J. Szydlowska, P. W. Majewski, and D. Pociecha,Sponta- neous chiral symmetry breaking in polar fluid–heliconical ferroelectric nematic phase, Science 384, 1096 (2024)

2024
[27]

Straight

H. Nishikawa, D. Okada, D. Kwaria, A. Nihonyanagi, M. Kuwayama, M. Hoshino, and F. Araoka, Emergent Ferroelectric Nematic and Heliconical Ferroelectric Ne- matic States in an Achiral “Straight” Polar Rod Mesogen, Advanced Science 11, 2405718 (2024)

2024
[28]

Hatwalne and T

Y. Hatwalne and T. C. Lubensky, Covariant elasticity and dislocations in smectic-C liquid crystals , Phys. Rev. E 52, 6240 (1995)

1995
[29]

Y. Song, S. Aya, and M. Huang, Updated view of new liquid-matter ferroelectrics with nematic and smectic or- ders, Giant 19, 100318 (2024)

2024
[30]

P. M. Rupnik, E. Hanˇ zel, M. Lovˇ sin, N. Osterman, C. J. Gibb, R. J. Mandle, N. Sebasti´ an, and A. Mertelj, An- tiferroelectric Order in Nematic Liquids: Flexoelectricity versus Electrostatics, Adv. Sci. , e2414818 (2025)

2025
[31]

Mertelj, L

A. Mertelj, L. Cmok, N. Sebastian, R. J. Mandle, R. R. Parker, A. C. Whitwood, J. W. Goodby, and M. Copic, Splay nematic phase , Phys. Rev. X 8, 041025 (2018)

2018
[32]

Z. Ma, M. Jiang, A. Sun, S. Yi, J. Yang, M. Huang, S. Aya, and Q.-H. Wei, Double Splay Nematic Order in Confined Polar Fluids , arXiv:arXiv:2411.12336

arXiv
[33]

bookshelf

show a significantly stronger pretransitional decrease than reported here, although the qualitative behavior (in- cluding the slight increase in K1 close to the transition) is similar. On cooling through the transition, the scattered inten- sity from bend fluctuations with wav...
[34]

T. P. Rieker, N. A. Clark, G. S. Smith, D. S. Par- mar, E. B. Sirota, and C. R. Safinya, ”Chevron” local layer structure in surface-stabilized ferroelectric smectic- C cells , Phys. Rev. Lett 59, 2658 (1987)

1987
[35]

N. A. Clark and T. P. Rieker, Smectic C ”chevron”, a planar liquid-crystal defect: Implications for the surface- stabilized ferroelectric liquid-crystal geometry, Phys. Rev. A Rapid Commun. 37, 1053 (1988)

1988
[36]

Kumari, B

P. Kumari, B. Basnet, M. O. Lavrentovich, and O. D. Lavrentovich, Chiral ground states of ferroelectric liquid 15 crystals, Science 383, 1364 (2024)

2024
[37]

Nishikawa, K

H. Nishikawa, K. Sano, S. Kurihara, G. Watanabe, A. Ni- honyanagi, B. Dhara, and F. Araoka, Nano-clustering mediates phase transitions in a diastereomerically- stabilized ferroelectric nematic system , Communications Materials 3, 89 (2022)

2022
[38]

J. Zhou, R. Xia, M. Huang, and S. Aya, Stereoisomer ef- fect on ferroelectric nematics: stabilization and phase be- havior diversification, J. Mater. Chem C 10, 8762 (2022)

2022
[39]

F. M. Leslie, Theory of flow phenomena in liquid crystals , Advances in Liquid Crystals 4, 1 (1979)

1979
[40]

P. G. de Gennnes and J. Prost, The Physics of Liq- uid Crystals , 2nd ed. (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1993) Chap. 5

1993
[41]

Benzekri, J

M. Benzekri, J. P. Marcerou, H. T. Nguyen, and J. C. Rouillon, Critical behavior of the layer compressional elastic constant B at the smectic-A–nematic phase tran- sition, Phys. Rev. B 41, 9032 (1990)

1990
[42]

Zavvou, M

E. Zavvou, M. Klasen-Memmer, A. Manabe, M. Bremer, and A. Eremin, Polarisation-driven magneto-optical and nonlinear-optical behaviour of a room temperature ferro- electric nematic phase , Soft Matter 18, 8804 (2022)

2022
[43]

d’Etude des Cristaux Liquides (Orsay), Dynamics of fluctuations in nematic liquid crystals , J

G. d’Etude des Cristaux Liquides (Orsay), Dynamics of fluctuations in nematic liquid crystals , J. Chem. Phys. 51, 816 (1969). 1 Supplementary Figures FIG. S1: Normalized time correlation functions of the scattered light intensity acquired at various scattering angles in Geome...

1969

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

1, the scattering vector for Geometry 1 lies in the X-Z plane, and its Y compo- nent vanishes

Geometry 1: ˆn0 ∥ scattering plane In the coordinates of Fig. 1, the scattering vector for Geometry 1 lies in the X-Z plane, and its Y compo- nent vanishes. Then, assuming an ideal bookshelf layer orientation with layer normal along ˆY , the fluctuations producing the scattering have qy = Qy = 0, and the layer compression (B) term in Eq. (2) drops out. As...

work page

[2] [2]

Geometry 2: ˆn0 ⊥ scattering plane In Geometry 2, qz = Qz = 0 and the coupling of n1, n2 to layer displacement u drops out in the elastic free en- ergy (Eq. (2)). Analysis of the hydrodynamic equations with qy = Qy, qx = Qx (to lowest order where δ → 0) 11 yields two coupled equations for the fluctuations n1, n2, ηsplay ∂n1 ∂t + K1Q2 ⊥ + D Q2 y Q2 ⊥ ! n1 ...

work page

[3] [3]

R. J. Mandle, S. J. Cowling, and J. W. Goodby, Rational design of rod-like liquid crystals exhibiting two nematic phases, Chem. A Eur. J. 23, 14554 (2017)

work page 2017

[4] [4]

X. Chen, E. Korblova, D. Dong, X. Wei, R. Shao, L. Radzihovsky, M. A. Glaser, J. E. Maclennan, D. Bedrov, D. M. Walba, and N. A. Clark, First- principles experimental demonstration of ferroelectricity in a thermotropic nematic liquid crystal: Polar domains and striking electro-optics , Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci 117, 14021 (2020)

work page 2020

[5] [5]

molecular field

In the last expression on the right, a contribu- tion due to polarization splay has been absorbed into a redefinition of K1 and K ′ 1 = P 2 0 (ξ2 x−ξ2 y) ϵ0ϵ⊥ . Replacing K1Q2 ⊥ in Eq. (9) with K1Q2 ⊥ + K ′ 1Q2 x then yields Γ− n1,n2 = (K1Q2 x + K2Q2 y)Q2 ⊥ + K ′ 1Q4 x ηsplayQ2x + ηtwistQ2y (10) The solid blue lines in Fig. 8 are fits to Eq. (10). Al- tho...

work page

[6] [6]

Nishikawa, K

H. Nishikawa, K. Shiroshita, H. Higuchi, Y. Okumura, Y. Haseba, S. I. Yamamato, K. Sago, and H. A. Kikuchi, A fluid liquid-crystal material with highly polar order , Adv. Mater. 29, 1702354 (2017)

2017

[7] [7]

R. J. Mandle, S. J. Cowling, and J. W. Goodby, A nematic to nematic transformation exhibited by a rod- like liquid crystal , Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 19, 11429 (2017)

2017

[8] [8]

X. Chen, Z. Zhu, M. J. Magrini, E. Korblova, C. S. Park, M. A. Glaser, J. E. Maclennan, D. M. Walba, and N. A. Clark, Ideal mixing of paraelectric and ferroelec- tric nematic phases in liquid crystals of distinct molecu- lar species, Liq. Cryst. 49, 1531 (2022)

work page 2022