Hyperbolic Interfaces

Luca GiomiSchool of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

(Dated: August 29, 2018)

Fluid interfaces, such as soap films, liquid droplets or lipid membranes, are known to give riseto several special geometries, whose complexity and beauty continue to fascinate us, as observersof the natural world, and challenge us as scientists. Here I show that a special class of surfaces ofconstant negative Gaussian curvature can be obtained in fluid interfaces equipped with an orien-tational ordered phase. These arise in various soft and biological materials, such as nematic liquidcrystals, cytoskeletal assemblies, or hexatic colloidal suspensions. The purely hyperbolic morphol-ogy originates from the competition between surface tension, that reduces the area of the interfaceat the expense of increasing its Gaussian curvature, and the orientational elasticity of the orderedphase, that in turn suffers for the distortion induced by the underlying curvature.

Understanding the origin of shape in structures at var-ious length scales is a central goal across many areas ofscience and engineering. Often, the shape is dictated bythe balance of competing forces simultaneously acting ona system, or by the interplay between spontaneous geom-etry and the residual stresses accumulated during fabri-cation and growth [1]. A standard problem consists offinding the optimal shape of a system given its mechan-ical energy and the constraints the system is subject to.Conversely, given a target shape with specific geometri-cal properties, one could ask what is the simplest physicalsystem in which this will occur as a result of mechanicalequilibrium and kinetics. Such an inverse problem repre-sents a crucial step in several aspects of modern technol-ogy, ranging from robotics [2] to medicine [3]. In the caseof soft elastic solids, such as thin sheets of polymer gels,controlling the amount of local growth or swelling wasdemonstrated to be a powerful technique to produce var-ious three-dimensional shapes of both positive and nega-tive Gaussian curvature [4]. Fluid interfaces also bear agreat potential for designing surfaces with special or tun-able geometric properties. Soap films, droplets, vesicles,micelles and membranes are examples of this potential aswell as of the intrinsic beauty of these fragile objects.

When endowed with in-plane orientational order, therichness of shapes that can be attained by fluid inter-faces becomes enormous. In a recent article Xing et al.[5] have shown that nematic and smectic vesicles formedfrom block copolymers with liquid-crystalline side chains,self-assemble in a great variety of morphologies due to thecompetition between in-plane liquid-crystalline order andbending elasticity. In a spectacular experimental work,Gibaud et al. [6] have reported the formation of severalcomplex structures in colloidal membranes, arising fromthe interplay between chiral order and interfacial tension.The morphogenetic force in these systems originates fromthe fact that orientational order is frustrated by the Gaus-sian curvature of the underlying surface [7–9]. When par-allel transported on a surface of non-zero Gaussian curva-ture, a tangent vector rotates with respect to its originalorientation and the amount of rotation is proportional to

the Gaussian curvature experienced along the path. Forthis reason, local orientational order, whether nematic,smectic or chiral, is inevitably hindered in presence ofGaussian curvature.

In this Letter I show that a special class of surfaces ofconstant negative Gaussian curvature, can be obtainedin fluid interfaces equipped with an orientational orderedphase. This remarkable phenomenon originates from thecompetition between surface tension, that reduces thearea of the interface at the expense of increasing its Gaus-sian curvature, and the orientational elasticity of the or-dered phase, that in turn suffers for the distortion in-duced by the underlying Gaussian curvature. Hints ofthis behavior were observed by Frank and Kardar [10],who reported an example of defect-induced buckling ofa nematic membrane into the pseudosphere. The lattercan be considered a particular manifestation of a moregeneral phenomenon that, as we will see in the follow-ing, does not require defects nor any specific rotationalsymmetry of the ordered phase.

Let us consider a two-dimensional interface M of sur-face tension σ, equipped with an orientationally orderedphase. This can arise in various soft materials, such asnematic liquid crystals, tilted molecular chains, or hex-atic suspensions. Orientational order on a surface canbe described via a unit vector n in the tangent plane ofthe surface. The total energy of the system can then beexpressed in the form:

E =

∫dA (σ + κ |∇n|2) , (1)

where ∇ indicates the covariant derivative in the metricof M , and κ is an orientational stiffness constant with di-mensions of energy. The orientational contribution in Eq.(1) describes, the one elastic constant approximation, ageneric p−atic phase, where local orientations are definedmodulo 2π/p [7]. p = 1 represents polar order, p = 2corresponds to a nematic phase and p = 6 characterizeshexatic interfaces. The energy has a characteristic lengthscale, in addition to that set by the boundary, given by` =

√κ/σ. Thus we might expect the bulk Gaussian cur-

arX

iv:1

207.

1088

v2 [

cond

-mat

.sof

t] 2

5 Se

p 20

12

2

vature of the interface to be of order K = −`−2, with thenegative sign due to the natural hyperbolicity of fluid in-terfaces. Remarkably, this simple estimate is exact withina range of material and geometrical parameters, resultingin an interface of constant negative Gaussian curvature,whose intrinsic geometry is that of the hyperbolic plane.The remainder of this paper will be devoted to prove thisresult and explore its consequences in the special case oftubular interfaces.

As a starting point, we express the vector field n in alocal orthonormal frame of tangent vectors eα (α = 1, 2),so that: n = cos θ e1 + sin θ e2. Using standard manipu-lations [7, 11], the gradient terms in Eq. (1) can be thenexpressed as ∇in = (∂iθ − Ai)n⊥, where Ai = e1 · ∂ie2is the spin connection that accounts for the rotation ofthe local frame eα as we move along the surface andn⊥ = cos θ e2 − sin θ e1. The Gaussian curvature ofthe surface is given by the curl of the spin connection:K = εij∇iAj , with εij the antisymmetric Levi-Civitatensor. As a consequence, the orientational contributionto the energy (1) cannot vanish everywhere because Acannot equate the curl-free vector field ∇θ on a surfacehaving non-zero Gaussian curvature [8]. Orientationalorder is therefore geometrically frustrated.

Minimization of Eq. (1) with respect to the orientationfield θ, leads to the well known equation [12]:

∇ · (∇θ −A) = 0 , (2)

subject to the constraint:

εij∇i(∂jθ −Aj) = η −K , (3)

where η is the topological charge density, should topolog-ical defects be present in the configuration of n [7]. Theorientation at the boundary ∂M can either be prescribed,in which case θ = θ(s) at ∂M (with s the arc-length ofthe boundary curve), or free. In the latter case energyminimization further demands ν · (∇θ − A) = 0 at theboundary. Here ν is the outward directed tangent vectornormal to the boundary curve ∂M . A classic strategy tosolve Eq. (2) under the constraint (3), is to express thevector field ∇θ−A through the antisymmetrized deriva-tives of a scalar field ϕ: ∂iθ − Ai = εki ∂kϕ. With thischoice, Eq. (2) is automatically satisfied, while Eq. (3)implies:

∆gϕ = η −K , (4)

where ∆g = ∇i∇i is the Laplace-Beltrami operator inthe metric of M . As it was observed by Vitelli and Nel-son [12], the scalar field ϕ plays the role of a geomet-ric potential expressing the amount of non-uniformity inthe vector field n caused by the presence of topologicalcharge, whether localized in the defects or distributed inthe form of Gaussian curvature. In terms of ϕ, the en-ergy (1) of the interface can be rewritten in the simple

form:

E =

∫dA (σ + κ |∇ϕ|2) . (5)

In the case of free orientation at the boundary, t · ∇ϕ =−ν·(∇θ−A) = 0, hence ϕ is constant along the boundarycurve and can, in particular, be set to zero as the energy(5) only depends on the gradient of ϕ. Analogously, if nis everywhere tangent to ∂M , ν · ∇ϕ = t · (∇θ −A) =κg, where κg is the geodesic curvature of the boundary[13]. With the help of the Gauss-Bonnet theorem [13,14], however, one can prove that this latter condition isautomatically satisfied by any solution of Eq. (5), thuswe can again take ϕ = 0 at ∂M .

Next, we calculate the energy variation correspondingto a displacement of the interface along the normal di-rection: r → r + εN , with R the position vector and εa small displacement along the normal vector N . Thevariation of the area element is a classic result of differ-ential geometry: δ(dA) = −2HεdA with H the surfacemean curvature [14]. In order to calculate the variationof the orientation energy, we make the assumption thatthe system is defect free, so that η = 0 and the secondterm in (5) can be expressed as:

W =

∫dA |∇ϕ|2 = −

∫dAdA′G(r, r′)K(r)K(r′) ,

where G(r, r′) is the Laplacian Green function, withG(r, · ) = G( · , r) = 0 for r ∈ ∂M . Next, we intro-duce a system of conformal coordinates (u1, u2), so thatthe metric is locally Euclidean up to a space dependentscaling factor: ds2 = w[(du1)2 +(du2)2] [7]. In conformalcoordinates, the area element is given by dA = w du1du2

and the Gaussian curvature can be expressed in the sim-ple form:

K = −∆ logw

2w, (6)

where ∆ = w∆g = ∂2u1+ ∂2u2

is the Euclidean Laplacian.In the new coordinates the functional W becomes:

W = −1

4

∫d2u∆ logw(u)

∫d2u′G(u,u′) ∆ logw(u′) ,

where d2u = du1du2. With these simplifications, allthe geometrical structure of the interface is embodiedin the conformal weight w and the expression of W isnow suitable to calculate the normal variation. Consis-tently with the area variation given above, one has thatδw = −2wHε and δ(logw) = −2Hε. Thus, after somemanipulations, we find:

δW =

∫d2u∆(Hε)

∫d2u′G(u,u′) ∆ logw(u′) .

Now, the integral over u′ is a function of u that vanisheswhen u ∈ ∂M . Thus, using Green’s identities and taking

3

FIG. 1: A portion of catenoid (orange) superimposed by aportion of the pseudospherical hyperboloid described in text(green). Both surface are bounded by a pair of rims of radiusR held at a distance 2h from each other.

into account that ε = 0 at the boundary, we find:

δW =

∫d2uHε∆ logw(u) = −2

∫dAKHε .

Combining this with the area variation we finally obtainan expression for the normal variation of the total energy:

δE =

∫dA (σ + κK)(−2Hε) . (7)

Evidently, the variational equation δE = 0 has two so-lutions: H = 0 and, as anticipated, K = −σ/κ. Thisimplies that, in order for the interface to have minimalenergy, it can either form a surface of zero mean cur-vature, such as a classic soap film, or a surface of con-stant negative Gaussian curvature. In presence of topo-logical defects, the Gaussian curvature in Eq. (7) is re-placed by K−η and energy is again minimized by settingK = −σ/κ outside of the defect-core [10]. As we ob-served in the introduction, this behavior originates fromthe competition between surface tension, that acts to re-duce the area of the interface with a consequent increasein curvature, and the orientational elasticity of the or-der phase, that in turn is subject to a stronger distortionas the Gaussian curvature is increased. For this reason,we might also expect that the stability of the purely hy-perbolic shape would be lost for small values of κ, whenthe distortion induced by the curvature of the interfaceis energetically inexpensive. In the remainder of the pa-per, we will consider the example of a tubular interfaceto clarify these assertions.

Let us consider an interface bounded by two circularrims of radius R held at distance 2h from each other (Fig.1). In absence of any orientational order, the shape of theinterface is given by the classic catenoid, parametrized as:

x = a cosh(ua

)cosφ , y = a cosh

(ua

)sinφ , z = u ,

where 0 ≤ φ < 2π is the usual polar angle and −h ≤u ≤ h. The mean curvature is everywhere zero while the

Gaussian curvature is given by K = − sech4 (u/a) /a2.The length a is obtained by setting the polar radius toR when z = ±h. This yields R = a cosh(h/a). It is wellknown that the solution of this transcendental equationexists only if h ≤ R/minx{cosh(x)/x} ' 0.663R, whilefor h/R > 0.663 the catenoid does not exist. In the (u, φ)coordinates the spin connection has components: Au = 0and Aφ = − tanh(u/a).

For large orientational stiffness we expect the inter-face bounded by the two circular rims to be a surface ofrevolution of constant negative Gaussian curvature. Asurface with this properties can be identified in the pseu-dospherical hyperboloid [14], whose parametric form isgiven by:

x = b cosh(ua

)cosφ , y = b cosh

(ua

)sinφ ,

z = −iaE(iu

a

∣∣∣∣− b2

a2

),

with 0 ≤ φ < 2π and −U ≤ u ≤ U . Here E(φ|m) =∫ φ0dt (1 − m sin2 t)1/2, with |m| ≤ 1, is the incomplete

elliptic integral of second kind. The coordinate u is lim-ited in magnitude |u| ≤ a asinh(a/b) and the surface hasconstant negative Gaussian curvature K = −1/a2. Thisimmediately fixes the value of the constant a = (κ/σ)1/2.The length b, on the other hand, is found by requestingz = ±h, when u = ±U = ±a acosh(R/b). This gives:

h = −iaE(i acosh

R

b

∣∣∣∣− b2

a2

). (8)

The solution of this equation must satisfy a ≥ b, R ≥ band R2 ≤ a2 + b2 as the consequence of the boundson the coordinate u and the elliptic modulus. Thecomponents of the spin connection are: Au = 0 andAφ = −(b/a) sinh(u/a).

Now, because both the catenoid and the pseudospher-ical hyperboloid are azimuthally symmetric, all the rel-evant quantities will be independent on φ, in particu-lar θ = θ(u) and ϕ = ϕ(u). This latter property im-plies that θ is constant throughout the interface since:∂uθ = Au + εφu∂φϕ = 0. Thus the orientational energydensity simplifies to |A|2 = gφφA2

φ (gij being the metrictensor). The total energies can be readily calculated inthe form:

Ecat

2πκ= 2

(h

a− tanh

h

a

)+σa

κ

(h+

a

2sinh

2h

a

), (9a)

Ehyp

2πκ=

2b

a(χ− atanχ) +

2σabχ

κ, (9b)

where χ =√

(R/b)2 − 1. As a consistency check, onecould also verify that the geometric potential ϕ is givenfor both surfaces by the simple function: ϕ = log(r/R),with r the usual polar distance in the xy−plane. Sub-stituting in Eq. (5) and integrating, promptly gives Eqs.

4

FIG. 2: Phase-diagram obtained by comparing the energies inEqs. (9). For σR2/κ > 1 the equilibrium shape is a catenoid.σR2/κ < 1, on the other hand, the energy balance is domi-nated by the orientational stiffness of the ordered phase andthe interface is a surface of constant negative Gaussian cur-vature K = −σ/κ.

(9). A comparison of the energies (9) leads to the dia-gram of Fig. 2 in the plane (σR2/κ, h/R). As expectedfor σR2/κ > 1, surface tension dominates and the inter-face has the classic shape of a catenoid. For σR2/κ < 1,on the other hand, the energy balance is dominated bythe orientational stiffness of the ordered phase and theinterface adapts to the in-plane orientational order byforming a surface of constant negative curvature. Thestability of this purely hyperbolic interface is enhancedwhen the aspect ratio h/R is closer to the upper boundh/R ∼ 0.663.

A check of the orders magnitude is inevitable at thispoint. Standard liquid crystals have κ ∼ kBT ∼ 10−14

erg at room temperature, whereas the typical surface ten-sion of liquid crystal interface is of order σ ∼ 10 erg/cm2.Thus, having σR2/κ ∼ 1 would require a rim of radiusR < 1 nm, which is smaller than a typical film thick-ness. Block copolymer membranes, as those considered inRef. [5], are more suitable candidates to observe the hy-perbolic morphology described here, as the orientationalstiffness is of order 60 kBT . In actomyosin compounds,the contractile forces generated by the molecular motorshave been recently demonstrated to give rise to an effec-tive surface tension [15]. Due to their elongated shapeas well as the cross-linking operated by the myosin mo-tors and, possibly, by other actin-binding-proteins, actinfilaments can form a nematic phase at room tempera-ture. Since the forces exerted by the motors, of order ofpico-Newtons, are in this case responsible for both thesurface tension and the alignment, one can expect theireffect to be comparable in magnitude so that the balanceσR2/κ ∼ 1 could be achieved for reasonable system sizes.

Hexatic suspensions obtained by trapping colloidal

particles at the interface between two liquids, representan especially promising candidate for an experimental re-alization the phenomenon discussed in this Letter. Inthis case the orientational stiffness can be finely con-trolled by moving across the liquid/hexatic/solid phasediagram. As predicted in the theory of two-dimensionalmelting [16] the orientational stiffness has a universalvalue κ/kBT = 72/π at the liquid/hexatic transitionand diverges exponentially at the hexatic/solid transi-tion. This was brilliantly verified by Keim et al. [17] inexperiments with superparamagnetic colloidal particleswith tunable interaction strength at the water/air inter-face. Thus, by approaching the hexatic/solid transition,one could in principle make the orientational stiffness ar-bitrarily large (∼ 103 kBT in practice). In turn, theinterfacial tension between two immiscible liquid phasescan be made arbitrarily small as the critical point forphase separation is approached.

In conclusion, I showed that surfaces of constant nega-tive Gaussian curvature can be realized in fluid interfacesequipped by an orientational ordered phase as a conse-quence of the interplay between surface tension and ori-entational elasticity. A simple example of this behaviorwas presented in the case of defect-free tubular interfaces.An experimental realization of this phenomenon could beachieved in hexatic colloidal suspensions and remains achallenge for the future.

This work is partially supported by the NSF HarvardMRSEC, the Harvard Kavli Institute for Nanobio Science& Technology and the Wyss Institute. I am grateful toAlessandra Silvestri for useful suggestions.

[1] H. Liang and L. Mahadevan, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA108, 5516 (2011). L. Giomi and L. Mahadevan, Proc. R.Soc. A 468, 1851 (2012).

[2] G. Kofod et al, Appl. Phys. Lett. 90, 081916 (2007).[3] L. E. Euliss et al, Chem. Soc. Rev. 35, 1095 (2006).[4] Y. Klein, E. Efrati and E. Sharon, Science 315, 1116

(2007). J. Kim et al, Science 335, 1201 (2012).[5] X Xing et al, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 109, 5202

(2012).[6] T. Gibaud et al., Nature 481, 348 (2012).[7] M. J. Bowick and L. Giomi, Adv. Phys. 58, 449 (2009).[8] A. M. Turner, V. Vitelli and D. R. Nelson, Rev. Mod.

Phys. 82, 1301 (2010).[9] B. L. Mbanga, G. M. Grason and C. D. Santangelo, Phys.

Rev. Lett. 108, 017801 (2012).[10] J. R. Frank and M. Kardar, Phys. Rev. E 77, 041705

(2008).[11] F. David, in Statistical Mechanics of Membranes and Sur-

faces, edited by D. R. Nelson et al., (World Scientic, Sin-gapore, 1989).

[12] V. Vitelli and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. E 70, 051105(2004).

[13] R. D. Kamien, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 953 (2002).[14] A. Gray, Modern Differential Geometry of Curves and

5

Surfaces with Mathematica, 2nd ed., (CRC-Press, BocaRaton, FL, 1997).

[15] A. F. Mertz et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 198101 (2012).[16] D. R. Nelson, Defects and Geometry in Condensed Mat-

ter Physics, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

2002).[17] P. Keim, G. Maret and H. H. von Grunberg, Phys. Rev.

E 75, 031402 (2007).