format: text

text:
# Fluctuating Nematic Elastomer Membranes: a New Universality Class

## I Introduction

The ubiquity and importance of membrane realizations in nature, as cellular walls, and in laboratories, as self-assembled bilayers of lipid amphiphils, has fueled considerable scientific activitiesJWS . These nearly tensionlesstensionless  lipid sheets are highly flexible, with elastic moduli often comparable to thermal energies. Consequently, on long length scales, their conformational properties are strongly affected by thermal fluctuations. This, together with early successes in understanding a variety of puzzling phenomena (such as for example red blood cells’ flickerBouchaudLennon , biconcave shape of eurythrocitesHelfrich , and period of lyotropics) in terms of continuum models of fluctuating elastic sheets, has attracted the attention of the physics community. Consequently, significant progress has been made in understanding the statistical mechanics of fluctuating membranesJWS

It is by now well-appreciated that the nature of a membrane’s in-plane order, with three (heretofore studied) universality classes, the isotropic, hexatic and solid (i.e., tethered or polymerized), crucially affects its conformational properties. The most striking effect of in-plane orders is the stabilization in solid membranes of a “flat” phaseNP , with long-range orientational order in the local membrane normalsAGL , that is favored at low-temperature over the entropically preferred high-temperature crumpled state. Therefore, in marked contrast to liquid membranes and one-dimensional polymer analogs, which are always crumpled (beyond a persistence length)persistent\_length , tethered membranes, despite of being two-dimensionalMerminWagner  are predictedNP  to undergo a thermodynamically sharp crumpled-to-flat phase transitionKKN ; PKN . The ordering is made possible by a subtle interplay of thermal fluctuations with nonlinear membrane elasticity, which, at long scales infinitely enhances a membrane’s bending rigidity, thereby stabilizing the orientational order against these very fluctuations. This novel “order from disorder” phenomenon, and the universal “anomalous elasticity”, namely, length-scale dependent elastic moduli, non-Hookean stress-strain relation, and a universal negative Poisson ratioNP ; AGL ; GD ; LR , are now known to be quite commonly exhibited by many other “soft” systems subjected to fluctuations.

In this paper we introduce and explore a new universality class of solid membranes, that spontaneously develop an in-plane orientational nematic order. Our motivation is two-fold. Firstly, our interest is driven by experimental progress in the synthesis of nematic liquid crystal elastomersreview\_exp , statistically isotropic and homogeneous gels of crosslinked polymers (rubber), with main- or side-chain mesogens, that can spontaneously develop nematic orientational order. Even in the absence of fluctuations, they were predictedGL  and later observed to display an array of fascinating phenomenareview\_theory , the most striking of which is the vanishing of stress for a range of strain, applied transversely to the nematic direction. This striking softness is generic, stemming from the spontaneous orientational symmetry breaking by the nematic stateGL ; elast\_us  that ensures the presence of a zero-energy Goldstone mode, corresponding to the observedstress\_strainExps  soft distortion and strain-induced director reorientation. The hidden rotational symmetry also guarantees a vanishing of one of the five elastic constantselast\_us  that usually characterize harmonic deformations of a three-dimensional uniaxial solidLandauLifshitz . Thermal fluctuations lead to Grinstein-Pelcovits-likeGrinPel  renormalization of elastic constantsGL  in bulk systems with dimensions below $`3`$ in pure systemsXing-Radz1 ; StenLub  and below $`5`$ when effects of the random network heterogeneity is taken into accountXing-Radz2 . It is, therefore, likely, and indeed we find, that the elastic properties of a two-dimensional fluctuating tensionless sheet of such nematic elastomer differ qualitatively from those of previously studied crystalline membranesJWS . Our aim here is to explore the effects of thermal fluctuations on this new universality class of solid membranes.

Our other motivation for exploring the physics of nematic elastomer membranes comes from earlier discovery by Toner and one of usRTtubule , that any amount of any kind of in-plane anisotropy, a seemingly innocuous generalization, significantly enriches the phase diagram of polymerized membranes. Most dramatically, it was predictedRTtubule  that an entire new phase of membranes, called the “tubule” phase, always intervenes between the high-temperature crumpled and low-temperature “flat” phases. The defining property of the tubule phase is that it is crumpled in one of the two membranes directions but “flat” (i.e., extended) in the other, with its thickness, roughness, and anomalous elasticity displaying universal behaviors controlled by a nontrivial, infrared stable fixed pointRTtubule . The tubule phase has since been observed in Monte Carlo simulationsBFT  of non-self-avoiding (i.e., phantom) anisotropic membranes with properties (the thickness, roughness, and Poisson ratio) in close qualitative and quantitative accord with the predictions of Radzihovsky and TonerRTtubule .

Although it was an explicit rotational symmetry breaking (anisotropy) that was considered by the authors of Ref. RTtubule, , we expect a similar, but qualitatively distinct tubule phase to be also displayed by the spontaneously anisotropic elastomer membranes considered in this paper. However, we leave the subject of the global phase diagram, the elastomer tubule phase, and the phase transitions between it and the flat and crumpled phases for a future publicationtubule\_unpublished . Here we instead focus on the formulation of models of nematically-ordered elastomer membranes and the study of long-length-scale properties of its flat phase.

Past extensive investigations, both in the context of defected crystalline membranesRadzihovskyNelson ; MorseLubensky  and liquid crystals confined in rigid gels (e.g., aerogels and aerosils)RTaerogel , demonstrated that arbitrarily weak heterogeneity qualitatively modifies the long-scale nature of liquid-crystal orders, membranes morphologies and elasticities. We, therefore, expect that local heterogeneity in an elastomer network will also become qualitatively important on sufficiently long scales and will likely dominate over the thermal fluctuation effects that are the subject of this paper. However, here we consider the idealized limit of elastomer membranes in which the effective quenched disorder is sufficiently weak that its effects are unimportant on scales shorter than some very long disorder-determined length scale. We leave the study of these heterogeneity effects for a future investigationfuture\_disorder .

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we develop two models for $`D`$-dimensional nematically-ordered flat phase of elastomer membranes fluctuating in $`d`$-dimensions with $`d>D`$, one with uniaxial nematic order, the other with $`D`$-axial nematic order. They are referred as uniaxial model and $`D`$-axial model respectively in this paper. For the physical case of interest $`D=2`$, they reduce to the same model, which we study in more detail in Sec. IV. In Sec. III, we investigate harmonic fluctuations of both models and show, in particular, that in-plane phonon fluctuations in $`D3`$ have parts that are equivalent to those of smectic liquid crystal, a columnar liquid crystal, and a crystalline solid. In Sec. IV, we investigate mean-field theory and harmonic fluctuations in physically realizable two-dimensional membranes embedded in a three-dimensional space. We find that harmonic fluctuations in these membranes do not destroy long-range in-plane nematic order in spite of enhanced fluctuations relative to an isotropic system arising from the soft Goldstone mode. In Sec. V we consider the effects of anharmonicities and develop an $`ϵ=(4D)`$-expansion about the upper critical dimension, $`D_c=4`$, for two model systems that have well-defined analytic continuations to $`D=2`$. In both models, we find similar flow equation for coupling constants and an infrared-stable fixed point in which the bending modulus $`\kappa `$ is unrenmormalized and in-plane elastic moduli $`\lambda _{ij}`$ vanish with wavenumber $`q`$ as $`q^ϵ`$.

## II Models

### II.1 Notation: Reference and Target Spaces

Although physical membranes are two-dimensional manifolds in a three-dimensional space, it is often useful to consider generalizations to $`D`$-dimensional manifolds embedded in a $`d`$-dimensional space with $`d>D`$. Our interest is in solid membranes, which, unlike fluid membranes, have a non-vanishing shear modulus at least in their isotropic state.

To describe the geometry and fluctuations of these membranes, we need to introduce a certain amount of notation. First, we define the reference space $`S_R`$. This is the $`D`$-dimensional space occupied by the membrane in its quiescent flat reference state. We denote $`D`$-dimensional vectors in this space in bold and their components with Roman subscripts $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},D`$ . In particular, we denote intrinsic coordinates on the membrane by the vector

$$𝐫=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_D)$$
(1)
with components $`x_i`$. The positions, $`𝐫`$ index mass points in a Lagrangian description of the membrane. The membrane fluctuates in a $`d`$-dimensional target space $`S_T`$. We denote vectors in the embedding space with arrows and components of these vectors with Greek subscripts $`\mu ,\nu =1,\mathrm{},d`$. In particular, we describe the position in $`S_T`$ of the mass point labeled by $`𝐫`$ with the embedding vector

$$\stackrel{}{R}(𝐫)=(R_1(𝐫),\mathrm{},R_d(𝐫))$$
(2)
with components $`R_\mu (𝐫)`$.

The reference space $`S_R`$ is identified as a subspace of $`S_T`$. The use of orthonormal basis vectors will simplify some of our discussion, and we introduce $`d`$ vectors $`\widehat{e}_\mu `$ in $`S_T`$ with components $`\widehat{e}_{\mu \nu }=\delta _{\mu \nu }`$ satisfying

$$\widehat{e}_\mu \widehat{e}_\nu =\delta _{\mu \nu }.$$
(3)
Any vector in $`S_T`$ can be decomposed into its components along these vectors. For example $`\stackrel{}{R}=R_\mu \widehat{e}_\mu `$, where the summation convention on repeated indices is understood. We choose the set $`\{\widehat{e}_\mu \}`$ so that the subset of vectors $`\widehat{e}_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},D`$ lie in $`S_R`$, which we represent as a subspace of $`S_T`$. Thus

$`\widehat{e}_i\widehat{e}_i`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}`$ (4)
$`\widehat{e}_\mu \widehat{e}_i`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\mu i}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }i=\mu D\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }\mu =D+1,\mathrm{},d\text{.}\hfill \end{array}`$ (5)
We choose length scales such that the position in $`S_T`$ of the point $`𝐫`$ in the reference membrane is

$$\stackrel{}{R}_{\mathrm{ref}}=x_i\widehat{e}_i,$$
(6)
describing a perfectly flat membrane configuration. Positions $`\stackrel{}{R}(𝐫)`$ of the distorted membrane can be described by a $`D`$-dimensional in-plane phonon field $`𝐮(𝐫)`$ and a $`dDd_c`$-dimensional out-plane undulation (height) field $`\stackrel{}{h}(𝐫)`$:

$$\stackrel{}{R}(𝐫)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{D}{}}(x_i+u_i(𝐫))\widehat{e}_i+\underset{k=1}{\overset{d_c}{}}h_k(𝐫)\widehat{e}_{k+D}.$$
(7)
Local distortions of the membrane can be expressed in terms of the $`d\times D`$-dimensional deformation tensor $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ 222It has to satisfy certain condition of integrability. We will ignore this subtlety in the remaining of this paper. with components

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu i}=\frac{R_\mu }{x_i}_iR_\mu .$$
(8)
In the flat reference state,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu i}^{\mathrm{ref}}=\frac{R_{\mathrm{ref},\mu }}{x_i}=\delta _{\mu i}.$$
(9)
Under independent rotations in the target and reference spaces, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu i}`$ transforms as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu i}𝒪_{T\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\nu j}𝒪_{Rji}^1$$
(10)
where $`𝒪_{T\mu \nu }`$ is a $`d\times d`$ rotation matrix in $`S_T`$ and $`𝒪_{Rij}`$ a $`D\times D`$ rotation matrix in $`S_R`$.

Since $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ is a Euclidean vector, the metric tensor, which measures distances between neighboring points via $`dR^2=g_{ij}dx_idx_j`$, for a membrane is

$$g_{ij}=\frac{\stackrel{}{R}(𝐫)}{x_i}\frac{\stackrel{}{R}(𝐫)}{x_j}.$$
(11)
In the reference flat phase, $`g_{ij}=g_{ij}^{\mathrm{ref}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu i}^{\mathrm{ref}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu j}^{\mathrm{ref}}=\delta _{ij}`$. We will denote tensors in $`S_R`$ with a double underscore. Thus the metric tensor is $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{g}}`$. The Lagrangian strain tensor $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}`$, with components $`u_{ij}=g_{ij}g_{ij}^{\mathrm{ref}}`$, measures the local change in separations of nearby points in distorted states characterized by $`\stackrel{}{R}(𝐫)`$ relative to those of the undistorted, flat state characterized by $`\stackrel{}{R}_{\mathrm{ref}}`$:

$$dR^2dR_{\mathrm{ref}}^2=2u_{ij}dx_idx_j.$$
(12)
Using Eq. (7), the strain can be expressed in terms of the phonon and height fields as

$`u_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g_{ij}g_{ij}^{\mathrm{ref}})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{R}}{x_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{R}}{x_j}}\delta _{ij}\right)`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_iu_j+_ju_i+_i𝐮_j𝐮+_i\stackrel{}{h}_j\stackrel{}{h}).`$
### II.2 The Model Hamiltonian

As discussed in the Introduction, internally isotropic solid membranes have been extensively studiedJWS . In contrast to liquid membranes and one-dimensional polymer analogs, they admit a flat phase, characterized by an infinite orientational (in embedding space) persistence length that is stable to thermal fluctuations. The long-wavelength free-energy density for distortions of such spontaneously flat phase is given by

$$_I=_{\mathrm{bend}}+_{\mathrm{stretch}},$$
(14)
where

$$_{\mathrm{bend}}=\frac{\kappa }{2}(^2\stackrel{}{h})^2$$
(15)
and

$`_{\mathrm{stretch}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}(\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}})^2+\mu (\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}^2)`$ (16a)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}(\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}})^2+\mu (\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}^2),`$ (16b)
where $`\kappa `$ is membrane’s bending rigiditytensionless , $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ are the Lamé coefficients characterizing in-plane elasticity, $`B=\lambda +2\mu /D`$ is the bulk elastic modulus, and

$$\stackrel{~}{u}_{ij}=u_{ij}\frac{1}{D}(\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}})\delta _{ij}$$
(17)
is the symmetric-traceless part of the strain tensor with $`\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}=0`$. Earlier studies of non-liquid crystalline polymerized membranesNP ; AGL ; LR  have demonstrated that thermal fluctuations produce wild undulations about the flat state $`\stackrel{}{R}_{ref}`$ that make elastic nonlinearities in the height field $`\stackrel{}{h}`$ (but not in the in-plane phonon fields $`𝐮`$) in $`u_{ij}`$ Eq. (13) important on long length scales and lead to universal length-scale-dependent elastic moduli: $`\kappa (𝐪)q^{\eta _\kappa }`$, $`\lambda (𝐪)q^{\eta _\mu }`$, and $`\mu (𝐪)q^{\eta _\mu }`$. One of the most important consequences of this is that the thermally-driven upward renormalization of the bending rigidity $`\kappa `$ stabilizes the low-temperature flat phase of two dimensional MerminWagner  membranes against these very same fluctuationsNP ; AGL ; LR .

The free energy density of Eq. (14) provides a correct description of elastic and height fluctuations of a membrane so long as the equilibrium phase is truly an isotropic flat phase. If, however, the shear modulus $`\mu `$ becomes sufficiently small, the membrane becomes unstable to spontaneous in-plane distortions that break rotational symmetry of $`S_R`$GL ; elast\_us ; tubule\_unpublished . In the presence of such instability the distortion is stabilized by a non-linear strain energy $`_{NL}`$ and an in-plane curvature energy $`_{\mathrm{curv}}`$, neglected in $`_I`$, Eqs.14-16b. The in-plane curvature energy, which stabilizes the system against spatially nonuniform distortions is simply

$$_{\mathrm{curv}}=\frac{1}{2}K(^2𝐮)^2.$$
(18)
The important low-order contributions to non-linear strain energy are

$$_{NL}=\beta \mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}^2C\mathrm{Tr}(\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}})^3+\gamma (\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}^2)^2.$$
(19)
Terms of order $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}^5`$ or higher and terms proportional to $`(\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}})^3`$ and $`(\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}})^2\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}^2`$ could also be added but are qualitatively unessential for our current discussion.

### II.3 Spontaneously Anisotropic Phases

When $`\mu `$ becomes sufficiently small in the presence of $`_{NL}`$, a membrane will undergo a transitionGL ; elast\_us ; tubule\_unpublished  to a new anisotropic, spontaneously stretched equilibrium state with a non-vanishing equilibrium strain $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}_0`$, an anisotropic deformation tensor $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu i}^0`$ that differs from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu i}^{\mathrm{ref}}=\delta _{\mu i}`$, and position vectors $`R_{0,\mu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu i}^0x_i`$. The most general form of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu i}^0`$ can be obtained via target- and reference-space rotations Eq. (10) of the deformation tensor

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu j}^0=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^0\hfill & \text{if }\mu =i=1,\mathrm{},D\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }\mu =D+1,\mathrm{},d\text{ ,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
resulting from a distortion without rotation in the $`S_R`$ subspace of $`S_T`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^0`$ are the components of the a $`D\times D`$ matrix $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}^0`$ restricted to the plane of the original reference space $`S_R`$. The new equilibrium $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}^0`$ yields a new metric tensor $`g_{ij}^0=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu i}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu j}^0`$ and a non-vanishing equilibrium strain relative to the original isotropic flat membrane:

$$u_{ij}^0=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu i}^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu j}^0\delta _{ij}\right).$$
(21)
The simplest anisotropic state that can form is the uniaxial one in which the original isotropic membrane is stretched (compressed) along a single direction in $`S_R`$ and compressed (stretched) along the others. Because the reference state is isotropic, the direction of stretching, specified by a unit vector $`𝐧^0`$ with components $`n_i^0`$, is arbitrary in the plane $`S_R`$, and we could take it without loss of generality to be along one of the basis vectors, say $`\widehat{e}_1`$. The vector $`𝐧^0`$ also exists in the target space $`S_T`$. It has components $`n_\mu ^0`$ that are equal to $`n_i^0`$ for $`\mu =i=1,\mathrm{},D`$ and zero for $`\mu >D`$. Thus, in the uniaxial case,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^0=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0||}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)n_{0i}n_{0j}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\delta _{ij}.$$
(22)
Under rotations in $`S_T`$ and $`S_R`$, this becomes

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu i}^0=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0||}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)n_\mu ^Tn_i^R+\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\widehat{e}_\mu ^T\widehat{e}_i^R,$$
(23)
where we used $`\delta _{ij}=\widehat{e}_{\nu i}\widehat{e}_{\nu j}`$ and where $`n_\mu ^T=𝒪_{T\mu \nu }n_{0\nu }`$, $`\widehat{e}_{\nu \mu }^T=𝒪_{T\mu i}\widehat{e}_{\nu i}`$, $`\widehat{e}_{\nu i}^R=𝒪_{ij}^R\widehat{e}_{\nu j}`$, and $`n_i^R=𝒪_{ij}^Rn_{0j}`$.

The opposite limit of the uniaxial anisotropic state is the full $`D`$-axial state in which there is unequal stretching in all $`D`$ directions in the plane. In this case,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^0=\underset{k=1}{\overset{D}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0k}e_{ki}e_{kj}$$
(24)
with all $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0k}`$ different.

As discussed in detail in Ref. elast\_us , the spontaneous broken symmetry described by the above deformation tensors leads to vanishing of certain shear moduli of the distorted solid. Distortions relative to the new anisotropic state are measured by the displacement and height vectors, $`𝐮^{}(𝐫^{})`$ and $`\stackrel{}{h}(𝐫^{})`$ defined via

$$\stackrel{}{R}^{}(𝐫^{})=𝐫^{}+𝐮^{}(𝐫^{})+\stackrel{}{h}(𝐫^{})\stackrel{}{R}(𝐫),$$
(25)
where by definition, $`𝐫^{}=\stackrel{}{R}_0`$, $`𝐮^{}(𝐫^{})`$ is the the $`D`$-dimensional in-plane displacement vector, and $`\stackrel{}{h}(𝐫)`$ is the $`d_c`$-dimensional ($`d_c=Dd`$) height variable orthogonal to $`𝐮^{}`$. The strain tensor relative to the new state,

$$u_{ij}^{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{R_\mu }{x_i^{}}\frac{R_\mu }{x_j^{}}\delta _{ij}\right)$$
(26)
expressed in terms of the strain tensor $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}`$ relative to the original state is

$$\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}=\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}_0+\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}_0^T\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u^{}}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}_0.$$
(27)
The strain Hamiltonian density to harmonic order for the uniaxial case

$$_{\mathrm{strain}}^{\mathrm{uni}}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij}{}\lambda _{ij}^{\mathrm{uni}}u_{ii}^{}u_{jj}^{}+\mu _{}u_{ij}^{}u_{ij}^{}$$
(28)
where the Einstein convention is not used in the first term on the right hand side (but is in the second),

$$u_{ij}^{}=\delta _{ik}^Tu_{kl}^{}\delta _{lj}^T,$$
(29)
$$\delta _{ij}^T=\delta _{ij}n_{0i}n_{0j},$$
(30)
and

$`\lambda _{ij}^{\mathrm{uni}}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _1\delta _{i1}\delta _{j1}+\lambda _3(1\delta _{i1})(1\delta _{j1})`$ (31)
$`+\lambda _2[\delta _{i1}(1\delta _{j1})+\delta _{j1}(1\delta _{i1})],`$
where the values of $`\lambda _1`$, $`\lambda _2`$ and $`\lambda _3`$ depend on the potentials of the original Hamiltonian and $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}`$. This form makes it clear that $`\lambda _{ij}`$ is actually a subset of a fourth rank tensor and not a true second-rank tensor. The bending and curvature energies become anisotropic with

$`_{\mathrm{bend}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa _{ij}_i^2\stackrel{}{h}_j^2\stackrel{}{h}`$ (32)
$`_{\mathrm{curv}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K_{ij}_i^2𝐮^{}_j^2𝐮^{}`$ (33)
where the anisotropic bending and curvature moduli can be expressed, respectively, as $`\kappa _{ij}=\kappa A_{ij}^{\mathrm{uni}}`$ and $`K_{ij}=KA_{ij}^{\mathrm{uni}}`$ where

$`A_{ij}^{\mathrm{uni}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0||}^4\delta _{i1}\delta _{j1}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^4(1\delta _{i1})(1\delta _{j1})`$
$`+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0||}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2[\delta _{i1}(1\delta _{j1})+\delta _{j1}(1\delta _{i1})].`$
In the full $`D`$-axial case, there is no residual plane that can support shears and the harmonic free-energy density depends only on the diagonal parts of the strain:

$$_{\mathrm{strain}}^{\mathrm{D}\mathrm{axial}}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij}{}\lambda _{ij}u_{ii}^{}u_{jj}^{}$$
(35)
with $`\lambda _{ij}`$ a symmetric matrix with all $`D(D+1)/2`$ independent entries different. Again, the Einstein convention is suspended in this equation. The bend and curvature energies have the same form as Eqs. (33) but $`A_{ij}^{\mathrm{uni}}`$ is replaced by

$$A_{ij}^{\mathrm{D}\mathrm{axial}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0i}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0j}^2.$$
(36)
We note that in the most general case that is compatible with D-axial symmetry, all $`D(D+1)/2`$ components of $`A_{ij}^{\mathrm{D}\mathrm{axial}}`$ are independent of each other.

The total Hamiltonian density for a nematic elastomeric membrane is

$$=_{\mathrm{strain}}+_{\mathrm{bend}}+_{\mathrm{curv}}.$$
(37)
We have expressed $`_{\mathrm{strain}}`$ only to harmonic order in the nonlinear strain $`u_{ij}`$ even though nonlinear terms in the original isotropic energy are essential to stabilize the system after nematic order developselast\_us . As we shall see in Sec. V, near four dimensions anharmonic terms in the nonlinear strains associated with in-plane phonons are subdominant (irrelevant in RG sense) to nonlinearities in the height undulations $`\stackrel{}{h}`$ and we will ignore them in what follows. This is in strong contrast to bulk nematic elastomers, where such phonon nonlinearities cannot be ignored and must be treated non-perturbativelyXing-Radz1 ; StenLub .

In two dimensions, which we consider in more detail in the Sec. IV, there is only one direction, say the $`y`$ direction, perpendicular to the direction of order, and $`u_{ij}^{}=\delta _{iy}\delta _{jy}u_{yy}^{}`$. Thus the second term in Eq. (28) can be absorbed into the first term, which depends only on diagonal components of $`u_{ij}`$. Thus, in $`2D`$, the free energy density has the same form as Eq. (35), and is most naturally analytically continued from $`D`$-axial generalization of a nematic elastomer membrane.

## III Harmonic theory

The two (uniaxial and D-axial) nematic membrane Hamiltonians introduced in the preceding section has complicated anisotropies, associated with spontaneous in-plane nematic order, that lead to membrane’s highly anisotropic conformational correlations. In this section, we will investigate fluctuations in the harmonic approximation to these models. These harmonic results will be necessary in our subsequent discussions in Sec. V of the important effects of nonlinearities in the presence of fluctuations. To simplify the notation, in this section we will drop primes appearing in the strain and phonon fields $`u_{ij}^{}`$ and $`𝐮^{}`$ measured relative to the nematic state and denote them by $`u_{ij}`$ and $`𝐮`$, not to be confused with physically distinct unprimed quantities of the previous section.

The harmonic Hamiltonians for the uniaxial and $`D`$-axial models have a longitudinal-strain and height elastic parts describing the cost of simple shear modes:

$`_L^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^Dq}{(2\pi )^D}}[{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{D}{}}}[\lambda _{ij}q_iq_j+\delta _{ij}K(\widehat{q})q^4]u_iu_j`$ (38)
$`+\kappa (\widehat{q})q^4{\displaystyle \underset{i=D+1}{\overset{d}{}}}h_ih_i]`$
where

$`K(\widehat{q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}K_{ij}\widehat{q}_i^2\widehat{q}_j^2`$ (39)
$`\kappa (\widehat{q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\kappa _{ij}\widehat{q}_i^2\widehat{q}_j^2`$ (40)
with $`\widehat{q}_i=q_i/q`$. In uniaxial systems, there is in addition a shear part in the $`(D1)`$ dimensional plane perpendicular to the unique direction $`𝐧_0`$.

$`_T^0`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _{}{\displaystyle d^Dxu_{ij}^{}u_{ij}^{}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu _{}{\displaystyle \frac{d^Dq}{(2\pi )^D}[q_{}^2u_i^{}u_i^{}+q_iq_ju_i^{}u_j^{}]},`$
where $`𝐮^{}`$ is the part of the vector $`𝐮`$ in the plane perpendicular to $`𝐧_0`$. $`𝐮^{}`$ has $`D1`$ components. Thus in $`D=2`$, $`𝐮^{}`$ has only one component, say $`u_y`$, $`u_{ij}^{}=u_{yy}`$ and two models are equivalent.

In both models, at harmonic level, height and phonon variables decouple, and the height correlation function is simply

$$G_{h_ih_j}=\delta _{ij}^P\frac{1}{\kappa (\widehat{q})q^4},$$
(42)
where $`\delta _{ij}^P`$ is the projection operator onto the $`d_c`$ dimensional subspace perpendicular to the reference membrane.

### III.1 Uniaxial Case

In the uniaxial case, $`𝐮`$ can be decomposed into components along the uniaxial direction $`𝐧_0`$ and along directions parallel and transverse to the wave-vector $`𝐪_{}`$ in the plane perpendicular to $`𝐧_0`$:

$$u_i=u_nn_{0i}+u_L\widehat{q}_i+u_{ti},$$
(43)
where $`𝐧_0𝐮_t=0`$ and $`𝐪_{}𝐮_t=0`$. We will represent this decomposition as $`u_i=(u_n,u_l,𝐮_t)`$. The $`𝐮`$-correlation function can then be decomposed as

$`G_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`G_{nn}n_{0i}n_{0j}+G_{LL}\widehat{q}_i\widehat{q}_j+G_{nL}(n_{0i}\widehat{q}_j+n_{0j}\widehat{q}_i)`$ (44)
$`+G_t(\delta _{ij}^T\widehat{q}_i\widehat{q}_j).`$
The transverse part of $`G_{ij}`$ decouples from the others and is easily calculated

$$G_t=\frac{1}{\mu _{}q_{}^2}.$$
(45)
The Hamiltonian for the $`u_n`$ and $`u_L`$ components can be written as

$$=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^Dq}{(2\pi )^D}\stackrel{~}{u}_aG_{ab}^1\stackrel{~}{u}_b,$$
(46)
where $`\stackrel{~}{u}=(u_n,u_L)`$ and

$$G^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\lambda _1q_{||}^2+K(\widehat{q})q^4& \lambda _2q_{||}q_{}\\ \lambda _2q_{||}q_{}& \overline{\lambda }_3q_{}^2+K(\widehat{q})q^4\end{array}\right),$$
(47)
where $`\overline{\lambda }_3=\lambda _3+\mu _{}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ defined in Eq. (31). In the long-wavelength limit, terms of order $`q_{||}^4`$ and $`q_{||}^2q_{}^2`$ can be neglected relative to $`q_{||}^2`$ , and the $`nn`$ entry in $`G^1`$ is effectively $`\lambda _1q_{||}^2+K_{}q_{}^4`$, which is the inverse of the propagator for fluctuations in a smectic liquid crystal. Similarly, in the long-wavelength limit, the $`LL`$ part of $`G^1`$ is effectively $`\overline{\lambda }_3q_{}^2+K_{||}q_{||}^4`$, which is the inverse propagator for one component of displacement fluctuations in a columnar liquid crystal. Thus, when $`\lambda _2=0`$, $`G^1`$ decomposes into two independent parts, one of which is identical to the inverse propagator of a smectic liquid crystal and the other of which is identical to one component of the propagator of a columnar liquid crystal. We will find below that this property survives the turning on of $`\lambda _2`$ though with different coefficients.

Equation (47) is easily inverted to yield

$$G=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\lambda }_3q_{}^2+K(\widehat{q})q^4& \lambda _2q_{||}q_{}\\ \lambda _2q_{||}q_{}& \lambda _1q_{||}^2+K(\widehat{q})q^4\end{array}\right),$$
(48)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=detG^1=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\overline{\lambda }}q_{}^2q_{||}^2+(\lambda _1q_{||}^2+\overline{\lambda }_3q_{}^2)K(\widehat{q})q^4+\mathrm{}$$
(49)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\overline{\lambda }}=\lambda _1\overline{\lambda }_3\lambda _2^2`$. It is can be shown (See Appendix A for discussion in two dimension) that $`G_{nn}`$ is dominated at small $`𝐪`$ by the region with $`q_{||}q_{}^2`$ so that

$$G_{nn}=\frac{\overline{\lambda }_3q_{}^2+K(\widehat{q})q^4}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{1}{\lambda _1^{}q_{||}^2+K_{}q_{}^4},$$
(50)
where $`\lambda _1^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\overline{\lambda }}/\overline{\lambda }_3=\lambda _1\lambda _2^2/\overline{\lambda }_3`$, $`K_{}=L(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)^4`$. Similarly, $`G_{LL}`$ is dominated by $`q_{}q_{||}^2`$ at small $`𝐪`$ and

$$G_{LL}=\frac{\lambda _1q_{||}^2+K(\widehat{q})q^4}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{1}{\lambda _3^{}q_{}^2+K_{||}q_{||}^4},$$
(51)
where $`\lambda _3^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\overline{\lambda }}/\lambda _1`$, $`K_{||}=K(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0||})^4`$.

Thus we find, that, within the harmonic approximation, the translational lower critical dimension is determined by the dominant smectic-like fluctuations of $`u_n`$ modes and is equal by $`D=3`$. The subdominant columnar-like modes $`u_L`$ become important only below $`D=5/2`$, while the transverse fluctuations $`𝐮_t`$ only grow with length scale for $`D2`$.

### III.2 $`D`$-axial systems

In $`D`$-axial systems, the strain energy is given by Eq. (35) with $`D(D+1)/2`$ independent components for $`\lambda _{ij}`$. The harmonic Hamiltonian is then given by Eq. (38) with no transverse contributions. The height fluctuations are the same as in the uniaxial case with the appropriate expression for $`\kappa (\widehat{q})`$. The inverse phonon propagator is

$$G^1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _1q_1^2+K(\widehat{q})q^4& \mathrm{}& \lambda _{1D}q_1q_D\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \lambda _{1D}q_1q_D& \mathrm{}& \lambda _Dq_D^2+K(\widehat{q})q^4\end{array}\right).$$
(52)
$`G`$ can be obtained by inverting $`G^1`$ using minors: $`G_{ij}=(1)^{i+j}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{ji}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=detG^1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{ij}`$ is the determinant of the minor of $`G^1`$ obtained by deleting row $`i`$ and column $`j`$. The results for the long-wavelength diagonal and off-diagonal components of $`G_{ij}`$ are, respectively,

$`G_{ii}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _{ii}^{}q_i^2+K(\widehat{q})q^4}},`$ (53a)
$`G_{ij}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{i+j}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\lambda ^{ji}q_iq_j}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda q_i^2q_j^2+K(\widehat{q})q^4(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\lambda ^{ii}q_j^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda ^{jj}q_i^2)}},`$ (53b)
where, as before, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$ is the determinant of $`\lambda `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\lambda ^{ij}`$ is the determinant of the $`ij`$-minor of $`\lambda `$, and $`\lambda _{ii}^{}=det\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda /\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\lambda ^{ij}`$. Thus, the diagonal components $`G_{ii}`$ have the structure of a smectic propagator, with all terms involving $`q_i`$ in $`K(\widehat{q})q^4`$ subdominant in the long wavelength limit.

## IV Two-Dimensional Membranes

As discussed in the Introduction, real membranes are two-dimensional manifolds, with reference-space coordinates $`𝐫=(x_1,x_2)`$, fluctuating in a three-dimensional space with coordinates $`\stackrel{}{R}=(R_1,R_2,R_3)`$. Because of their low dimensionality, these membranes have a number of special properties, some of which we will investigate in this section. In particular, we will study the transition from an isotropic to a nematically-ordered membrane, which, because of the absence of a third-order invariant for two-dimensional symmetric-traceless tensors is of second order in mean-field theory. Our treatment will review in a two-dimensional context the mechanism for the emergence of soft elasticity in the nematic phase. We will also consider harmonic fluctuations about the flat nematic state in some detail and show that they lead to short-ranged positional correlations, but allow for a stable long-range orientational (nematic) in-plane order of the membrane.

### IV.1 The Two-Dimensional Hamiltonian

Our starting point is the elastic energy of an isotropic two-dimensional membrane augmented by nonlinear elastic terms necessary to stabilize the nematic state that develops when the shear modulus becomes negative. A simplifying feature special to two dimensions is that the strain tensor $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ matrix with no independent cubic invariant. The corresponding Hamiltonian is

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}(^2\stackrel{}{h})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2}}(^2𝐮)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}(\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}})^2+\mu \mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}^2`$
$`+`$ $`\beta \mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}^2+\gamma (\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}^2)^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}(^2\stackrel{}{h})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2}}(^2𝐮)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}(\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{B}}\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}^2)^2`$
$`+`$ $`(\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{2B}})\left(\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu /2}{\gamma \beta ^2/(2B)}}\right)^2.`$ (54b)
To simplify our discussion, we have left out the cubic and quartic terms, $`(\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}})^3`$, $`(\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}})^4`$ and $`(\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}})^2(\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}^2)`$, as well as higher order nonlinearities in $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}`$. The inclusion of these terms, which are quantitatively smaller than the terms we keep in the nearly incompressible (large $`B`$) limit, will not qualitatively modify our results.

The nonlinear strain tensor $`u_{ij}^0`$ Eq. (21) associated with the spontaneous deformation in the nematic state can easily be found by minimizing the effective energy Eq. (54). Since $`\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}_0^2`$ is greater than or equal to zero, its value $`\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}_0^2`$ at equilibrium is zero so long as $`\mu >0`$. In this case, $`\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}_0`$ is also zero. When $`\mu <0`$, $`\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}_0^2`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}_0`$ become nonzero with values

$`\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}_0^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B|\mu |}{2B\gamma \beta ^2}},`$ (55a)
$`\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{B}}\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}_0^2,`$ (55b)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta |\mu |}{2B\gamma \beta ^2}}.`$
By choosing axes so that the anisotropic stretching is along the $`x`$-axis, we can express $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}_0`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}_0`$ in terms of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0x}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0y}`$ as

$`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0x}^21& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Lambda }_{0y}^21\end{array}\right),`$ (56c)
$`\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0x}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0y}^2)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (56f)
From this and

$`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}_0)\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{I}}+\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}_0`$ (57a)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}_0)\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{I}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}_0^2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (57d)
we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0x}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}_0+\sqrt{2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}_0^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (58)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0y}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}_0\sqrt{2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}_0^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (59)
where $`\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}_0`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}_0^2`$ are given in Eq. (55).

We can now massage the free energy $``$, Eq. (54), into a more convenient form,

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}(^2h)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2}}(^2𝐮)^2`$ (60)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}(\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}_0)^2+\gamma (\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}^2\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}_0^2)^2`$
$`+`$ $`\beta (\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}_0)(\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}^2\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}_0^2),`$
that makes it transparent that $``$ is minimized by $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}=\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}_0`$ and that permits a straightforward expansion about the ground state.

Using Eq. (27), we can now easily express the free-energy density of Eq. (60) in terms of the strain $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}^{}`$ relative to the new stretched equilibrium state. First we observe

$`\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}_0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}_0^2u^{},`$ (61a)
$`\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}^2\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}_0^2`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}(\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\underset{¯}{u}}}_0\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}_0^2\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}^{})+\mathrm{Tr}(\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}_0^2\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}^{})^2`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{Tr}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}_0^2\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}^{})^2`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ox}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0y}^2)(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0x}^2u_{xx}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0y}^2u_{yy}^{}).`$
The final expression, valid to linear order in $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}^{}`$, does not depend on $`u_{xy}^{}`$ – a property, whose origin is the spontaneous broken rotational symmetry of the nematic phase, that is responsible for the vanishing of the membrane shear modulus. Using Eq. (61) in Eq. (60), replacing $`_i`$ by $`_i^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0ij}_j`$, and retaining only the dominant terms in $`_i𝐮`$, we obtain

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa _{xx}(_x^2\stackrel{}{h})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa _{yy}(_y^2\stackrel{}{h})^2+\kappa _{xy}(_x^2\stackrel{}{h})(_y^2\stackrel{}{h})`$ (62)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K_y(_y^2u_x)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K_x(_x^2u_y)^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _xu_{xx}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _yu_{yy}^2+\lambda _{xy}u_{xx}u_{yy},`$
where to streamline our notation we again dropped primes, by replacing $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}^{}`$ with $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{u}}`$ and $`_i^{}`$ with $`_i`$ . The strains are the usual nonlinear strains relative to the new reference state, which to linear order are simply $`u_{xx}=_xu_x`$ and $`u_{yy}=_yu_y`$. The bare elastic coefficients $`\kappa `$’s, $`K^{}s`$, and $`\lambda `$’s are determined by the parameters of the original Hamiltonian and $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}_0`$:

$`\kappa _{xx}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0x}^4\kappa ,`$
$`\kappa _{xy}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0x}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0y}^2\kappa ,`$
$`\kappa _{yy}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0y}^4\kappa ,`$
$`K_x`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0y}^4K,`$
$`K_y`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0x}^4K,`$
$`\lambda _x`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0x}^4(B+\beta (\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0x}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0y}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma (\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0x}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0y}^2)^2),`$
$`\lambda _y`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0y}^4(B\beta (\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0x}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0y}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma (\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0x}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0y}^2)^2),`$
$`\lambda _{xy}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0x}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0y}^2(B\gamma (\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0x}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0y}^2)^2).`$ (63)
### IV.2 Fluctuations and Correlations of the Harmonic Model

We study fluctuations of nematically-ordered elastomer membranes within a harmonic approximation, for the physically realizable case of $`D=2`$ and $`d=3`$. In this case, the displacement vector $`𝐮`$ has two components, and the height has a single component $`h`$. Within this approximation all correlation functions are related to the harmonic two-point correlation functionsCL

$`G_h^0(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`h(𝐫)h(0)_0`$ (64a)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}e^{i𝐪𝐫}G_h^0(𝐪)},`$
$`G_{ij}^0(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`u_i(𝐫)u_j(0)_0`$ (64b)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}e^{i𝐪𝐫}G_{ij}^0(𝐪)},`$
expressed in terms of corresponding “propagators” $`G_h^0(𝐪)`$ and $`G_{ij}^0(𝐪)`$. As usual, the averages are computed using a Boltzmann weight $`Z_0^1e^{_0[\stackrel{}{h},𝐮]}`$ (for convenience using $`k_BT`$ as the energy unit), by integrating over phonon $`𝐮`$ and height undulation $`\stackrel{}{h}`$ fields, with $`Z_0=D\stackrel{}{h}D𝐮e^_0`$ the partition function and $`_0`$ the harmonic effective Hamiltonian $`_0=d^2x_0[\stackrel{}{h},𝐮]`$ obtained from effective Hamiltonian, $`=d^2x[\stackrel{}{h},𝐮]`$ by neglecting all elastic nonlinearities appearing in Eq. (13).

The height propagator $`G_h^0(𝐪)`$ is given by Eq. (42) and the phonon propagator $`G_{ij}^0(𝐪)`$ by Eq. (53) specialized to two dimensions:

$`G_{xx}^0(𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _x^{}q_x^2+K_yq_y^4}},`$ (65a)
$`G_{yy}^0(𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _y^{}q_y^2+K_xq_x^4}},`$ (65b)
$`G_{xy}^0(𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{xy}q_xq_y}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda q_x^2q_y^2+K(\widehat{q})q^4(\lambda _yq_y^2+\lambda _xq_x^2)}},`$ (65c)
where

$`\lambda _{x,y}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{x,y}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{xy}^2}{\lambda _x\lambda _y}}\right).`$ (66)
Stability requires $`\lambda _x>0`$, $`\lambda _y>0`$, and $`\lambda _x\lambda _y\lambda _{xy}^2>0`$. $`\lambda _x^{}`$ and $`\lambda _y^{}`$ both go to zero linearly in $`\lambda _x\lambda _y\lambda _{xy}^2`$. The dominant parts of the $`u_x`$ and $`u_y`$ correlation functions are identical in form to the displacement correlation functions of a two-dimensional smectic, which have been extensively studiedsalditt . Both $`u_x^2`$ and $`u_y^2`$ diverge with system size:

$`u_x^2`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle _{2\pi /L_x}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{2\pi /L_y}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dq_xdq_y}{(2\pi )^2}}G_{xx}^0(𝐪)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _x^{}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{L_x}{2\pi a_x}}}\psi _u(2\pi a_xL_x/L_y^2)`$
$`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi \lambda _x^{}}\sqrt{\frac{L_x}{2\pi a_x}},\hfill & \text{if }L_y^22\pi a_xL_x\text{}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{\lambda _x^{}}\frac{L_y}{a_x},\hfill & \text{if }L_y^22\pi a_xL_x\text{ ,}\hfill \end{array}`$
where $`\psi _u(z)`$ is a crossover function. The expression for $`u_y^2`$ is obtained by interchanging $`x`$ and $`y`$ in the equation for $`u_x^2`$. The anisotropy lengths $`a_x`$ and $`a_y`$ defined as:

$`a_x=(K_x/\lambda _x^{})^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (68a)
$`a_y=(K_y/\lambda _y^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (68b)
They diverge as the stability limit $`\lambda _x\lambda _y=\lambda _{xy}^2`$ is approached.

The connected phonon correlation functions at two spatially separated points is

$$C_{ij}^0(𝐫)=(u_i(𝐫)u_i(0))(u_j(𝐫)u_j(0))_0$$
(69)
For an infinite membrane

$`C_{xx}^0(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{dq_xdq_y}{(2\pi )^2}G_{xx}^0(𝐪)(1e^{i𝐪𝐫})}`$ (70)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _x^{}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{|x|}{\pi a_x}}}e^{y^2/(4a_x|x|)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\lambda _x^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|y|}{a_x}}\mathrm{erf}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|y|}{2\sqrt{a_x|x|}}}\right),`$
$``$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\lambda _x^{}}\sqrt{\frac{|x|}{\pi a_x}}\hfill & \text{if }|y|2\sqrt{a_x|x|}\text{,}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{\lambda _x^{}}\frac{|y|}{a_x}\hfill & \text{if }|y|2\sqrt{a_x|x|}\text{.}\hfill \end{array}`$
where $`\mathrm{erf}(x)`$ is the error function. The strong power-law growth of $`G_{ii}^0(𝐫)`$ indicates that thermal fluctuations lead to arbitrarily large relative displacements of two points distant on the membrane, again contrasting with the usual logarithmic growth with $`r`$ in two-dimensional ordered $`xy`$-like systems.

The stability of the spontaneous nematic (uniaxial) order can be analyzed by examining the rms fluctuations of the nematic director field $`\delta 𝐧(𝐫)`$. Since in the nematic state, the director is “massively” tied to the antisymmetric part of the displacement gradient tensor $`\eta _{ij}=_ju_i`$elast\_us , orientational fluctuations can be computed from those of phonon fluctuations. To linear order in rotations of the director $`𝐧`$ away from its preferred orientation along the $`x`$-axis, $`\delta n_y=\theta =\frac{1}{2}(_xu_y_yu_x)`$. The angle correlation function is then

$$G_{\theta \theta }(𝐪)=\frac{1}{4}\left[q_y^2G_{xx}^0(𝐪)+q_x^2G_{xx}^0(𝐪)2q_xq_yG_{xy}^0(𝐪)\right].$$
(71)
It is clear from Eqs. (65a)-(65c) that within the harmonic approximation in-plane orientational fluctuations are finite.

Turning to membrane out-of-plane fluctuations, we find that at harmonic level local rms undulations $`\stackrel{}{h}(𝐫)^2_0`$ behave the same as those of polymerized membranes with

$`h(𝐫)^2_0`$ $`=`$ $`d_c{\displaystyle _{\frac{2\pi }{L_x}}}{\displaystyle _{\frac{2\pi }{L_y}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dq_xdq_y}{2\pi }}G_h^0(𝐪)`$ (72)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d_c(2\pi L_x)^2}{\kappa }}\psi _h({\displaystyle \frac{L_x}{L_y}}),`$
where for simplicity we specialized the case of isotropic bending rigidity $`\kappa `$ and defined scaling function

$$\psi _h(z)=4_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_z^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y\frac{1}{(x^2+y^2)^2},$$
(73)
with crossover property

$$\psi _h(z)\{\begin{array}{cc}2\pi \hfill & z0\hfill \\ \frac{2\pi }{z^2}\hfill & z\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(74)
As in crystalline membranes, the strong $`L^2`$ growth implies instability of the flat phase to thermal fluctuations, as well as the importance of anharmonic elasticities, which (as in polymerized membranes) can stabilize the flat phase. Furthermore, in contrast to polymerized membranes, here the power-law divergent smectic-like in-plane phonon correlations that we found above, Eq. (70), suggest that phonon elastic nonlinearities in Eq. (13) may be important as well. We turn to these questions in the next two sections.

## V Anharmonicities and the $`ϵ`$-Expansion

As discussed in Sec. II, rotational invariance in the target space requires the elastic free energy to be expressed in terms of nonlinear rather than linear strains. The result is that there are anharmonic couplings in the elastic energy both among phonon fields and between phonon and height fields. The violent power-law fluctuations of these fields, the height field in particular, leads as in other membranes systemsKKN -LR  to divergences with system size $`L`$ of perturbations in anharmonic couplings for membranes with spatial dimension $`D`$ less than a critical value $`D_c`$. In this section, we consider the interplay between fluctuations and anharmonic couplings in $`D`$-dimensional nematic elastomer membranes embedded in a $`d`$-dimensional space and show that perturbation theory breaks down below $`D_c=4`$. We then study the anomalous elasticity of these membranes in an $`ϵ`$-expansion about $`D=4`$. Our interest is in developing insight into properties of real two-dimensional membranes. We, therefore, consider only models that have a straightforward analytic continuation to $`D=2`$. The two models we consider are the fully anisotropic $`D`$-axial elastomer, which has no surviving shear modulus, and the uniaxial model in which we set the shear modulus $`\mu _{}`$ Eq. (28) for shears in the plane perpendicular to the nematic direction to zero. These two models are equivalent in the physical limit of $`D=2`$.

### V.1 Perturbative analysis of elastic nonlinearities

The elastic free energy $``$, Eq. (37) contains nonlinearities associated with membrane undulations (involving $`\stackrel{}{h}`$ field) and in-plane phonon nonlinearities. The importance of undulation nonlinearities is a consequence of membrane’s vanishing tension (softness of out-of-plane undulations, controlled by curvature, rather than surface tension energy). As in an isotropic polymerized membraneNP ; AGL ; LR , undulation nonlinearities become relevant when the dimension of the reference space is lower than 4. To illustrate this point, we calculate the perturbative corrections to elastic constants $`\lambda _{ij}`$ from undulation nonlinearities which are represented by diagram (a) shown in Fig. 1,

$`\delta \lambda _{ij}^h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{\overset{D}{}}}\lambda _{ik}\lambda _{jl}{\displaystyle \frac{d^Dq}{(2\pi )^D}q_k^2q_l^2(G_h^0(𝐪))^2}`$ (75)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d_cL^{4D}}{2(4D)}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{\overset{D}{}}}\lambda _{ik}\lambda _{jl}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_D}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{\widehat{q}_k^2\widehat{q}_l^2}{\kappa ^2(\widehat{q})}},`$
where we assumed that the system has an equilibrium configuration of $`D`$ dimensional sphere (disk in two dimensional case) with radius $`L`$. $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_D`$ is the differential surface element of the $`D`$ dimensional unit sphere. Quite clearly, for $`D<4`$, the fluctuation corrections $`\delta \lambda _{ij}`$ diverge with system size $`L`$. The associated nonlinear length scale, beyond which these corrections become comparable to $`\lambda _{ij}`$, and perturbation method breaks down is given by

$$L_{NL}^h\left(\frac{(4D)\overline{\kappa }^2}{\lambda }\right)^{\frac{1}{4D}},$$
(76)
where $`\lambda `$ is the typical value of $`\lambda _{ij}`$ and $`1/\overline{\kappa }^2`$ is defined as the angular integral in Eq. (75).

If the modulus $`\mu _{}`$ for shears in the direction perpendicular to the anisotropy axis in the uniaxial model is zero, then fluctuations in $`𝐮_t`$ Eq. (43) have the same $`q^4`$ harmonic-theory divergence as height fluctuations, but with $`K(\widehat{q})`$ replacing $`\kappa (\widehat{q})`$. Thus, when $`\mu _{}=0`$, both $`\stackrel{}{h}`$ and $`𝐮_t`$ contribute to divergences in $`\lambda _{ij}`$ below $`D=4`$. This point was missed in the analysis of the fixed connectivity fluid fixed point in Ref. AGL, .

As discussed in the Introduction, the spontaneously broken in-plane rotational symmetry of the nematic elastomer membrane leads to soft in-plane elasticity. As a result, in strong contrast to isotropic or crystalline membranes, in-plane nonlinearities in $``$, Eq. (37), also correct elastic moduli $`\lambda _{ij}`$. Its contribution $`\delta \lambda _{ij}^u`$, as represented by diagram (c) in Fig. 1, is given by

$$\delta \lambda _{ij}^u=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k,l}{\overset{D}{}}\lambda _{ik}\lambda _{jl}\frac{d^Dq}{(2\pi )^D}q_k^2q_l^2\underset{mn}{\overset{D}{}}|G_{mn}^0(𝐪)|^2.$$
(77)
In the $`D`$-axial model, the dominant fluctuations in $`G_{nm}^0`$ are smectic-like, and it is straightforward to show that they cause the above correction to $`\lambda _{ij}^u`$ to diverge as $`L^{(3D)/2}`$ below $`D=3`$ if the phonon fluctuations retained their harmonic character down to $`D=3`$. In contrast in the uniaxial (analytical continuation) model, the contributions to $`\delta \lambda _{ij}^u`$ due to $`𝐮_t`$ fluctuations diverge below $`D=4`$, when $`\mu _{}=0`$ as discussed above. The $`nn`$ part of $`G_{nm}^0`$ is, however, smectic-like and diverges more weakly as $`L^{(3D)/2}`$.

Similar calculation shows that the perturbative correction to in-plane elastic constants $`K_{ij}`$ is dominated by in-plane nonlinearities and also diverges below three dimensions. Thus the upper critical dimension for undulation nonlinearities is 4, while in-plane nonlinearities become relevant below $`D=3`$. For $`3<D<4`$, in-plane nonlinearities are irrelevant, consequently in-plane curvature energy moduli $`K_{ij}`$ are only renormalized finitely.

Undulation nonlinearities renormalize bending rigidities $`\kappa _{ij}`$ as well as in-plane elastic constants $`\lambda _{ij}`$. One would expect that as in the case of isotropic polymerized membranes, the perturbative corrections to $`\kappa _{ij}`$ also diverge as $`L^{4D}`$. This is, however, not true, as one can see from the following argument. Note that if we neglect in-plane nonlinear terms (which is legitimate above 3 dimension) in Eq. (37), and set $`K_{ij}`$ to be zero, we can integrate out the phonon fields completely and what is left is only the bending energy $`_{ij}\kappa _{ij}(_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{}{h}_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{}{h})`$ without any nonlinearities. Thus there should be no anomalous elasticity for bending rigidity $`\kappa _{ij}`$, were there no in-plane curvature rigidities $`K_{ij}`$. This implies that, with the presence of $`K_{ij}`$, the renormalization of bending rigidities $`\kappa _{ij}`$ is dominated by anisotropic, smectic-like modes, for which in-plane curvature rigidities $`K_{ij}`$ are important, and the critical dimension below which $`\kappa _{ij}`$ is infinitely renormalized is 3, as in smectic liquid crystals.

The upshot of above discussion is that near $`D=4`$ in the $`D`$-axial model all in-plane nonlinearities in $`𝐮`$ are irrelevant, and in the uniaxial model nonlinearities in $`u_n`$ and $`u_L`$ are irrelevant. Consequently, to capture the long-wavelength behavior we can use simplified expressions for the full non-linear strain tensors given by

$`D\mathrm{axial}:`$
$`u_{ij}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_iu_j+_ju_i+_i\stackrel{}{h}_j\stackrel{}{h}),`$ (78a)
$`\mathrm{uniaxial}:`$
$`u_{ij}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_iu_j+_ju_i+_i\stackrel{}{h}_j\stackrel{}{h}+_i𝐮_t_j𝐮_t).`$ (78b)
The effective Hamiltonian for studying membranes without a shear modulus is the $``$ Eq. (37) with $`\mu _{}=0`$ and one of the above reduced strains.

The difference between this model free energy and that of isotropic polymerized membranesNP ; AGL , as well as that of fixed-connectivity fluid membranesAGL , should be stressed. First, the bare elastic constants, $`\kappa _{ij}`$ and $`\lambda _{ij}`$ are anisotropic rather than isotropic, and the anisotropy in $`\lambda _{ij}`$ cannot be eliminated by a simple rescaling of lengths. Second and more importantly, the energy cost for shear in the planes of anisotropy is zero because of the spontaneous broken symmetry of the nematic state. Thus, our model free energy, Eq. (37), is not a simple anisotropically scaled generalization of fixed-connectivity fluidAGL . The matrix of coupling constants $`\lambda _{ij}`$ is such the elastic energy can not be reduced to that of density variation alone.

### V.2 Renormalization Group and $`4D`$-expansion

In isotropic membranes below $`D=4`$, height fluctuations lead to anomalous elasticityKKN -LR  with bending modulus and elastic modulus, respectively, diverging and vanishing with wavenumber as

$$\kappa (𝐪)q^{\eta _\kappa },\lambda (𝐪)q^{\eta _\lambda },$$
(79)
where the exponents $`\eta _\kappa `$ and $`\eta _\lambda `$ are related via the Ward identityAGL

$$2\eta _\kappa +\eta _\lambda =ϵ=4D.$$
(80)
We have just argued that $`\kappa `$ is not renormalized for dimensions near 4 in the models without shear moduli that we are considering. Thus $`\eta _\kappa =0`$, and $`\eta _\lambda =ϵ`$. In this section, we will show explicitly within an RG calculation that this is indeed the case in both models we consider.

We use standard momentum-shell renormalization-group procedures, integrating out a shell in momentum space with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/e^l<q<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the ultraviolet cutoff, to produce fields $`𝐮^<(𝐫)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{h}^<(𝐫)`$ with wave-numbers with magnitude $`q<e^l\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We then rescale lengths and fields according to

$`𝐫`$ $`=`$ $`𝐫^{}e^l,`$ (81)
$`u_i^<(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\chi _il}u_i^{}(𝐫^{}),`$ (82)
$`\stackrel{}{h}^<(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\varphi l}\stackrel{}{h}^{}(𝐫^{}),`$ (83)
so as to restore the ultraviolet cutoff to its original value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In the uniaxial case, we decompose $`𝐮`$ as in Eq. (43) and choose $`\chi _n=\chi _L=\chi `$ and $`\chi _t`$ different from $`\chi `$. In the $`D`$-axial case, we can chose all of the $`\chi _i`$ to be equal to $`\chi `$. It is convenient to choose the rescaling so as to preserve the nonlinear form of the strain $`u_{ij}`$ Eq. (78). This requires

$$\chi =2\varphi 1=2\chi _t1$$
(84)
The integration over the high wave-vector components of $`𝐮`$ and $`\stackrel{}{h}`$ can be performed perturbatively in nonlinearities of Hamiltonian, in a procedure very similar to that of perturbative analysis. The Feynman graph giving the 1-loop corrections to $`\lambda _{ij}`$ is shown in Fig. 1, diagram (a).

After performing the rescaling and calculating the graphic corrections, we obtain the following RG flow equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _{ij}}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`(D2+2\chi )\lambda _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}\lambda _{ik}M_{kl}\lambda _{lj},`$ (85a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\kappa _{ij}}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`(D4+2\varphi )\kappa _{ij},`$ (85b)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dK_{ij}^n}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`(D4+2\chi )K_{ij}^n,`$ (85c)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dK_{ij}^t}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`(D4+2\chi _t)K_{ij}^t,`$ (85d)
where, for simplicity, we have set the ultra-violet cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$. The components of the in-plane bending coefficient, $`K_{ij}^n`$, coupling to $`u_n`$ and $`u_L`$ scale with $`\chi `$, whereas those, $`K_{ij}^t`$, coupling to $`𝐮_t`$ scale with $`\chi _t`$. The matrix $`M_{kl}`$ has similar but different forms for the uniaxial and $`D`$-axial models. In the $`D`$-axial model, $`M_{kl}=d_cM_{kl}^\kappa `$, and in the uniaxial model $`M_{kl}=d_cM_{kl}^\kappa +(D2)M_{kl}^K`$, where

$`M_{kl}^\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_D}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{\widehat{q}_k^2\widehat{q}_l^2}{\kappa ^2(\widehat{q})}}`$ (86a)
$`M_{kl}^K`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_D}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{\widehat{q}_k^2\widehat{q}_l^2}{K^2(\widehat{q})}}.`$ (86b)
Note that $`M_{kl}`$, like $`\lambda _{ij}`$ and $`A_{ij}`$ defined in Sec. II, is really a subset of the components constructed from the fourth-rank tensor

$$M_{ijkl}^\kappa =\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_D}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{\widehat{q}_i\widehat{q}_j\widehat{q}_k\widehat{q}_l}{\kappa ^2(\widehat{q})q^4}$$
(87)
and $`M_{ijkl}^K`$ defined in a similar way. $`M_{kl}`$ does not transform like nor have the symmetries of a second-rank tensor. The $`D`$-axial and the uniaxial model differ mostly in their respective forms of $`\lambda _{ij}`$ and $`M_{ij}`$. These different forms require slightly different fixed-point analysis, and we will now treat the two cases separately.

Regardless of the model, we can choose $`\varphi =(4D)/2`$ and $`\chi _t=(4D)/2`$ to keep $`\kappa _{ij}`$ and $`K_{ij}^t`$ fixed. Then, $`\chi =3D`$, and the inverse correlation function for the parts of $`𝐮`$ not in the anisotropy planes (i.e., not $`𝐮_t`$) scales as

$`G_{ij}^1(𝐪,\lambda _{ij},K_{ij})`$ $`=`$ $`e^{(D6)l}G_{ij}^1(e^l𝐪,\lambda _{ij}(l),K_{ij}(l))`$ (88)
$`=`$ $`e^{ϵl}\lambda _{ij}(l)q_iq_j+K(\widehat{q})q^4.`$
Thus, if $`\lambda _{ij}`$ has a non-zero fixed point value $`\lambda _{ij}^{}`$, then, choosing $`e^lq=1`$, we have

$$\lambda _{ij}(q)=\lambda _{ij}^{}q^ϵ.$$
(89)
Both $`\kappa _{ij}`$ and $`K_{ij}^t`$ remain constant.

### V.3 The Uniaxial Model

In the uniaxial model, both $`\lambda _{ij}`$ Eq. (31) and $`M_{ij}`$ are uniaxial. $`M_{ij}`$ is easily calculated by taking the appropriate components of the full fourth-rank tensor $`M_{ijkl}`$ Eq. (87)

$`M_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{||}\delta _{i1}\delta _{j1}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(D1)}}M_{||}[\delta _{i1}(1\delta _{j1})+(1\delta _{i1})\delta _{j1}]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(D1)(D+1)}}M_{}(1+2\delta _{ij})(1\delta _{i1})(1\delta _{j1}).`$
The components of $`M_{ij}^\kappa `$ and $`M_{ij}^K`$ of $`M_{ij}`$ have simple expressions in terms of integrals over angle:

$`M_{||}^\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_D}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{\mathrm{cos}^4\theta }{\kappa ^2(\widehat{q})}}`$ (91a)
$`M_{||}^\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_D}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\kappa ^2(\widehat{q})}}`$ (91b)
$`M_{}^\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_D}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{\mathrm{sin}^4\theta }{\kappa ^2(\widehat{q})}},`$ (91c)
where $`\theta `$ is the angle $`\widehat{q}`$ makes with the uniaxial axis ($`1`$-axis). A similar set of expressions applies to the components of $`M_{ij}^K`$ with $`K(\widehat{q})`$ replacing $`\kappa (\widehat{q})`$. Note that $`M_{23}=M_{}/[(D1)(D+1)]`$ and $`M_{12}=M_{13}=M_{||}/(D1)`$, whereas the components of the true second rank uniaxial tensor $`T_{ij}`$ satisfies $`T_{23}=T_{12}=T_{13}=0`$.

With these definitions, the recursion relations for the components of $`\lambda _{ij}`$ become

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _1}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\lambda _1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\lambda _1^2M_{||}+2\lambda _1\lambda _2M_{||}+\lambda _2^2M_{}),`$ (92a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _2}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\lambda _2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\lambda _1\lambda _2M_{||}+\lambda _2^2M_{||}`$ (92b)
$`+\lambda _1\lambda _3M_{||}+\lambda _2\lambda _3M_{}),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _3}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\lambda _3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\lambda _3^2M_{}+2\lambda _2\lambda _3M_{||}+\lambda _2^2M_{||}),`$ (92c)
where $`\lambda _1`$, $`\lambda _2`$, and $`\lambda _3`$ were defined in Eq. (31). These equations have an unusual fixed-point structure as shown in Fig. 2. In appropriate two-dimensional planes in the three-dimensional space of $`\lambda _1`$, $`\lambda _2`$, and $`\lambda _3`$, they exhibit the familiar four-fixed-point structure of systems with two coupled potentials in which there is one unstable Gaussian fixed point, one globally stable fixed point, and two fixed points that are stable in one direction and unstable in the other. The full three-dimensional structure is topologically equivalent to what would be obtained if the two-dimensional structure is rotated about the axis connecting the Gaussian and globally stable fixed point and subsequently stretched anisotropically. In this process, the two mixed-stability fixed points become an elliptical ring with stability exponent of zero for displacements along the ring and one positive and one negative exponent for displacements perpendicular to the ring. The fixed points and their stability exponents $`\omega _1`$, $`\omega _2`$, and $`\omega _3`$ are

1. Gaussian

$`\lambda _1`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _2=\lambda _3=0,`$ (93)
$`\omega _1`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _2=\omega _3=ϵ.`$
2. Uniaxial nematic elastomer

$`\lambda _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2ϵM_{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_M}},\lambda _2={\displaystyle \frac{2ϵM_{||}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_M}},\lambda _3={\displaystyle \frac{2ϵM_{||}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_M}},`$
$`\omega _1`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ,\omega _2=ϵ,\omega _3=ϵ,`$ (94)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M=M_{||}M_{}M_{||}^2`$.
3. Fixed Ring

$`\lambda _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2ϵ}{M_{||}+2\alpha M_{||}+\alpha ^2M_{}}},`$
$`\lambda _2`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \lambda _1,\lambda _3=\alpha ^2\lambda _1`$ (95)
$`\omega _1`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ,\omega _2=0,\omega _3=ϵ,`$
for $`\mathrm{}\alpha <\mathrm{}`$. For every point on the ring, $`\lambda _1\lambda _3=\lambda _2^2`$. The fixed ring includes various interesting points:

1. $`\alpha =1`$, $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2=\lambda _3`$. This is the fully isotropic fixed-connectivity-fluid fixed point of isotropic membranesAGL .
    2. $`\alpha =1`$, $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2=\lambda _3`$.
    3. $`\alpha =\pm \mathrm{}`$, $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2=0`$, $`\lambda _3=2ϵ/M_{}`$.
    4. $`\alpha =0`$, $`\lambda _1=2ϵ/M_{||}`$, $`\lambda _2=\lambda _3=0`$.

### V.4 The $`D`$-Axial Model

The analysis of the $`D`$-axial model is complicated by the fact that $`\lambda _{ij}`$ has a large number ($`D(D+2)/2=10`$ in $`D=4`$) of independent components. To simplify our presentation, we will first consider flows in a restricted subspace in which $`\lambda _{ij}`$ is parameterized by only two parameters. Thus we will first find 4 fixed points with particular structure and show that one of them is globally stable and describes $`D`$-axial nematic elastomer membrane. We then give a general solution for all fixed points and show that it actually contains both the fixed point Eq. (94) and the fixed ring we found for uniaxial model. Furthermore, we show that if anisotropy of $`\lambda _{ij}`$ is turned on in the $`(D1)`$-dimensional plane, the uniaxial fixed point Eq. (94) become unstable and the system flows to the globally stable D-axial one.

Our recursion relations are still given by Eq. (85d) without $`K_{ij}`$. Choosing $`\varphi `$ to keep $`\kappa _{ij}`$ constant, we obtain

$$\frac{d\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}}{dl}=ϵ\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}\frac{1}{2}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{M}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\lambda }},$$
(96)
where $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{M}}`$ are, respectively, matrices with entries $`\lambda _{ij}`$ and $`M_{ij}`$. As in the uniaxial case, this equation should have an isotropic fixed point will all $`\lambda _{ij}`$ equal, i.e., with $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{1}}`$ where $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{1}}`$ is the matrix with all entries equal to one. It is also clear that this equation has fixed point with $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{M}}^1`$ provided the symmetries of $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{M}}`$ are compatible. In the uniaxial case, $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{M}}`$ has more unequal components than $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}`$, thus the solution $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{M}}^1`$ is not permitted there. In the $`D`$-axial case, $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{M}}`$ has the same number of independent components as a $`D`$-axial second-rank tensor, and $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{M}}^1`$ is permitted. We thus begin by seeking fixed points in the $`2D`$ subspace defined by

$$\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}=\lambda _a\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{M}}^1+\lambda _b\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{1}}.$$
(97)
The recursion relations for $`\lambda _a`$ and $`\lambda _b`$ are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _a}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\lambda _a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _a^2`$ (98a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _b}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\lambda _b{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _b(2\lambda _a+\lambda _b{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1,}{\overset{D}{}}}M_{ij}),`$ (98b)
where we used $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{1}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{M}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{1}}=_{ij}^DM_{ij}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{1}}`$. The fixed points and their stability exponents for these equations are

1. Gaussian

$`\lambda _a`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _b=0`$ (99)
$`\omega _a`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _b=ϵ.`$ (100)
2. Fixed-connectivity fluid

$`\lambda _a`$ $`=`$ $`0,\lambda _b={\displaystyle \frac{2ϵ}{_{ij}^DM_{ij}}}`$ (101)
$`\omega _a`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ,\omega _b=ϵ.`$ (102)
This fixed point is in fact the isotropic fixed-connectivity fluid fixed point found in Ref. AGL  for isotropic membranes.
3. Mixed

$`\lambda _a`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ,\lambda _b={\displaystyle \frac{2ϵ}{_{ij}^DM_{ij}}}`$ (103)
$`\omega _a`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ,\omega _b=ϵ.`$ (104)
We call this fixed point mixed because its coupling constant matrix $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}`$ has components characteristic of both the fixed connectivity fluid and the $`D`$-axial membrane fixed points.
4. $`D`$-axial nematic elastomer

$`\lambda _a`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ,\lambda _b=0,`$ (105)
$`\omega _a`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _b=ϵ.`$ (106)
This fixed point is in fact globally stable, i.e., it is stable in all directions. Plugging $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}=\lambda _a\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{M}}^1`$ into the recursion relation Eq. (96) and linearizing, we obtain $`d\delta \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}/dl=ϵ\delta \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}`$. Thus, the stability exponent is $`ϵ`$ for all directions.

We have thus identified one globally stable fixed point, the nematic elastomer fixed point, and two others. The full fixed point structure of the flow equation Eq. (96) is actually not difficult to determine. Since $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{M}}`$ is generically positive definite, we can define a new (symmetric) coupling constant matrix $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}=\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{M}}^{\frac{1}{2}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{M}}^{\frac{1}{2}}/(2ϵ)`$, whose flow equation given by:

$$\frac{d}{dl}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}=\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}^2.$$
(107)
One immediately see that every projection matrix333A projection matrix is a symmetric matrix which equals to the square of itself. is a fixed point for $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}`$ and vice versa. This means that the general solution for the flow equation Eq. (96) is given by:

$$\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}=2ϵ\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{M}}^{\frac{1}{2}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{M}}^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(108)
with $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}`$ an arbitrary projection matrix.

We can classify fixed points, or more generally fixed subspaces, by the dimension $`D_P`$ of the space that $`P`$ projects onto. Of course, $`\mathrm{Tr}P=D_P`$. If the dimension $`D`$ of the elastic manifold is an integer, then $`P`$ can project onto all subspaces with dimensions $`D_P=0,1,\mathrm{},D`$. When $`D`$ is not an integer, the classification is less clear. A convenient set, however, is the set with dimensionalities $`D_P=0,1,\mathrm{},[D]`$, and $`D_P=D,D1,\mathrm{},D[D]`$, where $`[D]`$ is the greatest integer less than or equal to $`D`$. If $`D_P=D`$, $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}^D=\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{I}}`$ is the unit matrix, where the superscript indicates the dimension of $`P`$. If $`D_P=1`$, $`P_{ij}^1=e_ie_j`$ for any unit vector $`\widehat{e}`$. A $`(D1)`$-dimensional operator $`P_{ij}^{(D1)}=\delta _{ij}e_ie_j`$ can also be constructed from the unit vector $`\widehat{e}`$. Similarly, $`k`$\- and $`(Dk)`$-dimensional projection operators can be defined via $`P_{ij}^k=_{l=1}^ke_{li}e_{lj}`$ and $`P_{ij}^{(Dk)}=\delta _{ij}P_{ij}^k`$, where $`\widehat{e}_k\widehat{e}_l=\delta _{kl}`$.

To study stability of the flow equation, Eq. (107), for $`P`$ for a given fixed-point projection matrix, $`P_0^{D_0}`$, we express deviations of $`P`$ from $`P_0^{D_0}`$ as

$$\delta \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}=\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_0^{D_0}=\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_1+\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_2+\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_3,$$
(109)
where

$`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_1`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_0^{D_0}\delta \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_0^{D_0},`$ (110)
$`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_2`$ $`=`$ $`(\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{I}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_0^{D_0})\delta \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}(\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{I}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_0^{D_0}),`$ (111)
$`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_3`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_0^{D_0}\delta \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}(\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{I}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_0^{D_0})+(\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{I}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_0^{D_0})\delta \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_0^{D_0}.`$ (112)
Recall that $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}`$ is a $`D`$-dimensional symmetric matrix with $`D(D+1)/2`$ independent components. $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_1`$ is the projection of $`\delta P`$ onto the $`D_0`$-dimensional subspace defined by $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_0^{D_0}`$, and it has $`D_0(D_0+1)/2`$ independent components. Similarly, $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_2`$ is the projection of $`\delta \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}`$ onto the $`DD_0`$ dimensional subspace defined by $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{I}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_0^{D_0}`$ with $`(DD_0)(DD_0+1)/2`$ independent components. Finally, $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_3`$ represents the $`D_0(DD_0)`$ components of $`\delta \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}`$ that couple the subspaces defined by $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_0^{D_0}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{I}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_0^{D_0}`$. To linear order, the flow equations for $`\delta P`$ are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dl}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_1`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_1,`$ (113)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dl}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_2`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_2,`$ (114)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dl}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_3`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (115)
Thus, $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_1`$ is stable, $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_2`$ is unstable, and $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_3`$ is marginally stable. This means that the $`D_0`$-dimensional fixed-point projection matrix is stable with respect to any change in $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}`$ in the $`D_0(D_0+1)/2`$ dimensional space of $`D_0\times D_0`$ matrices that operate in the space defined by $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_0^{D_0}`$; it is unstable with respect to any changes in $`P`$ in the $`(DD_0)(DD_0+1)/2`$-dimensional space of $`(DD_0)\times (DD_0)`$ matrices that operate in defined by $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{I}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_0^{D_0}`$; and it is marginally stable with respect to changes in $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}`$ in the $`D_0(DD_0)`$-dimensional space of matrices that couple $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_0^{D_0}`$ to $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_0^{D_0}`$. These results imply that the set of fixed points defined by all $`D_0`$-dimensional projections matrices is a $`D_0(DD_0)`$-dimensional surface in the space of all possible symmetric matrices $`P`$ or, equivalently in the space of coupling constants $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}`$. This space is necessarily compact since the subspaces defined by $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_0^{D_0}`$ are parameterized by unit vectors.

There is only one projection operator with $`D_0=D`$. This is the operator $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_0^D=\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{I}}`$ that projects onto the whole space. For this case, $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P_2}}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P_3}}`$ are both zero, and the fixed point is stable in all directions. It is the globally stable fixed point with $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}=2ϵ\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{M}}^1`$, which is identical to the stable $`D`$-axial fixed point of the restricted set class of couplings defined by Eq. (97). The other fixed points for the restricted set of couplings must correspond to some $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_0^{D_0}`$ with $`D_0<D`$. It is straightforward to show that the fixed-connectivity-fluid fixed point corresponds to $`P_{0ij}^1=e_ie_j`$ with

$$e_i=\frac{\underset{k=1}{\overset{D}{}}M_{ik}^{\frac{1}{2}}}{(_{i,j=1}^DM_{ij})^{\frac{1}{2}}},$$
(116)
where $`M_{ij}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ is the $`ij`$ component of the matrix $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{M}}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Thus, this fixed point is actually a single point in a $`(D1)=(3ϵ)`$-dimensional fixed manifold. Similarly, the mixed fixed point corresponds to $`P_{0ij}^{D1}=\delta _{ij}e_ie_j`$. There are other unstable fixed points for $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}`$ not described by the restricted set defined by Eq. (97), in particular those with $`D_0=2`$ or $`D2`$.

We have identified all of the fixed point manifolds of the $`D`$-dimensional coupling matrix $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}`$. These must include the fixed points of the uniaxial model discussed in the preceding subsection. When uniaxial constraints are applied, it is natural to construct unit vectors and projection matrices from the components of $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{M}}`$ parallel and perpendicular to the anisotropy axis. It is not difficult to show that the stable uniaxial fixed point corresponds to a two-dimensional projection operator

$$P_{0ij}^2=e_{1i}e_{1j}+e_{2i}e_{2j},$$
(117)
where

$`e_{1i}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{i1}^{\frac{1}{2}}/M_{||}^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (118)
$`e_{2i}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{M_{||}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_M}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{D}{}}}M_{ik}^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{||}}{M_{||}}}M_{1i}^{\frac{1}{2}}\right).`$ (119)
Thus, the uniaxial fixed point is a point, satisfying uniaxial constraints, in a $`2(D2)`$-dimensional fixed manifold of all possible couplings. A point on the uniaxial fixed ring parameterized by $`\alpha `$ corresponds to a one-dimensional projection operator $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{P}}_0^1`$ defined by the unit vector

$$e_i(\alpha )=\frac{M_{i1}^{\frac{1}{2}}+\alpha \underset{k=2}{\overset{D}{}}M_{ik}^{\frac{1}{2}}}{(M_{||}+2\alpha M_{||}+\alpha ^2M_{})^{\frac{1}{2}}}.$$
(120)
The set of vectors $`\widehat{e}(\alpha )`$ defined by all $`\alpha `$ define a one-dimensional loop in a $`(D1)`$-dimensional fixed manifold in the space of all possible $`D`$-dimensional couplings.

## VI Discussion and Conclusion

In this paper we studied thermal fluctuation and nonlinear elasticity of nematically-ordered elastomer membranes in their flat phase. For the physical case of two-dimensional membranes, we found that at harmonic level in-plane phonon correlations are short-ranged but the in-plane orientational order remains long-range, in spite of violent thermal fluctuations. A generalization of a nematic elastomer membrane to an arbitrary $`D`$-dimensional membrane with either uniaxial or $`D`$-axial nematic order, allowed us to study the effects of out-of-plane undulation and in-plane phonon nonlinearities. We found that undulation nonlinearities are relevant $`D<4`$ and dominate over the in-plane nonlinearities that only become important $`D<3`$. Focusing on the dominant undulation nonlinearities (and neglecting in-plane nonlinearities) we performed an RG calculation combined with an expansion about $`D=4`$ and found that for $`3<D<4`$, bending rigidities are only finitely renormalized, while in-plane elastic moduli become singular functions of a wavevector (i.e., exhibit anomalous elasticity), vanishing with a universal power-law. This power-law is controlled by an infrared stable fixed point whose stability we analyzed in detail for the uniaxial and $`D`$-axial analytic continuations, finding agreement in fixed point structure. This analysis also allowed us to make contact and recover some of the results previously obtained in the studies of (crystalline) polymerized membranes. In particular we found that the so-called connected fluid is realized as a fixed point of a nematically-ordered elastomer membrane that is unstable to the globally stable nematic-elastomer fixed point.

Despite of some of the success in our understanding of the behavior of nematic elastomer membranes, there are obvious limitations of our analysis, most notably in the application of our work to the physical case of $`D=2`$ elastomer membranes. This shortcoming primarily has to do with the neglect of in-plane elastic nonlinearities, which, near the Gaussian fixed point become relevant for $`D<3`$. While it is very likely that the subdominance of these in-plane nonlinearities relative to the undulation ones will persist some amount below $`D=3`$ phi4comment , we expect that in the physical case of $`D=2`$ all three nonlinearities need to be treated on equal footing. Doing this remains an open and challenging problem.

We conclude with a discussion of the global conformational phase behavior of nematic elastomer membranes. As with ordinary polymerized membranes we expect, upon cooling, isotropic elastomer membranes to undergo a crumpling (flattening) transition from the crumpled to flat-isotropic phase. Upon further cooling, an in-plane (flat) isotropic to (flat) nematic transition can take place. As shown by Toner and one of usRTtubule , polymerized membranes with arbitrary small amount of in-plane anisotropy inevitably exhibit the so-called tubule phase whose properties and location in the phase diagram are intermediate between the high-temperature crumpled and low-temperature flat phases. Thus we expect that for nematically-ordered elastomer membranes there is a similar nematically-ordered tubule phase. Since in such a state the in-plane rotation symmetry is spontaneously (as opposed to explicitly) broken, we expect qualitatively distinct in-plane elasticity distinguished by the presence of a new in-plane soft phonon mode. Consequently a nematic tubule should be qualitatively distinct phase of elastic membranes. This discussion is summarized by a schematic phase diagram for a nematic elastomer membranes, illustrated in Fig.3. A detailed analysis of the nematic tubule phase and phase transitions between it and other phases will appear in a separate publicationtubule\_unpublished .

###### Acknowledgements.

LR and XX acknowledge the hospitality of Harvard Physics Department, where part of this work was done. The authors thank John Toner and Jennifer Schwarz for useful discussion. The authors acknowledge generous financial support for this work from the National Science Foundation under grants DMR 00-96531 (TCL and RM), MRSEC DMR98-09555 (LR and XX), from the A. P. Sloan and David and Lucile Packard Foundations (LR) and from KITP Graduate Fellowship through NSF PHY99-07949(XX).

## Appendix A Scaling of Harmonic Fluctuations at 2 Dimension

In this appendix, we show detailed calculation to justify the approximate form of harmonic phonon propagators in 2 dimensions, as presented in Sec. 65.

The propagators $`G_{ij}^0(𝐪)`$ are easily found through equipartition or by a Gaussian integration

$`G_{xx}^0(𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _xq_x^2+K_xq_y^4}}\mathrm{\Phi }_0({\displaystyle \frac{a_xq_y^2}{q_x}},{\displaystyle \frac{a_yq_x^2}{q_y}}),`$
$`G_{yy}^0(𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _yq_y^2+K_yq_x^4}}\mathrm{\Phi }_0({\displaystyle \frac{a_xq_y^2}{q_x}},{\displaystyle \frac{a_yq_x^2}{q_y}}),`$
$`G_{xy}^0(𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{xy}\varphi _0(\frac{a_xq_y^2}{q_x})\varphi _0(\frac{a_yq_x^2}{q_y})}{\lambda _x\lambda _yq_xq_y}}\mathrm{\Phi }_0({\displaystyle \frac{a_xq_y^2}{q_x}},{\displaystyle \frac{a_yq_x^2}{q_y}}),`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{xy}q_xq_y\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\frac{a_xq_y^2}{q_x},\frac{a_yq_x^2}{q_y})}{(\lambda _xq_x^2+K_xq_y^4)(\lambda _yq_y^2+K_yq_x^4)}},`$
with anisotropy lengths $`a_x`$ and $`a_y`$ defined as:

$`a_x=(K_x/\lambda _x)^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (122a)
$`a_y=(K_y/\lambda _y)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (122b)
Because of the anisotropy of the nematic state the propagators are highly nontrivial even at the harmonic level. Their angular dependence is encoded by the crossover functions

$`\varphi _0(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+z^2}},`$ (123a)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(z,w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\rho ^2\varphi _0(z)\varphi _0(w)}},`$ (123b)
illustrated in Fig.4 and with asymptotics of the double-crossover function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(z,w)`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0(z,w)\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{1\rho ^2},\hfill & \text{if }z0\text{ and }w0\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \text{if }z\mathrm{}\text{ or }w\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(124)
with the ratio

$$\rho ^2=\frac{\lambda _{xy}^2}{\lambda _x\lambda _y},$$
(125)
required by stability to be less than $`1`$.

As can be seen from the asymptotic form given in Eq. (124), the scaling function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(a_xq_y^2/q_x,a_yq_x^2/q_y)`$ is finite for all $`𝐪`$ and therefore simply provides an angular modulation to the phonon correlation functions $`G_{ij}^0(𝐪)`$. Its value ranges between the “decoupled” and “coupled” values of $`1`$ and $`1/(1\rho ^2)`$, with decoupled regime defined by a union of $`|q_y|a_yq_x^2`$ and $`|q_x|a_xq_y^2`$ regions in $`𝐪`$. The coupled regime is the complement of the decoupled regime $`a_xq_y^2|q_x|a_y^{\frac{1}{2}}|q_y|^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, as illustrated in Fig.4. As a result, self-correlation (diagonal) functions $`G_{xx}^0(𝐪)`$ and $`G_{yy}^0(𝐪)`$ are essentially those of two independent 2D smectics with $`x`$ and $`y`$directed layer-normals and corresponding phonons $`u_x`$ and $`u_y`$, respectively. The only effect of the cross-coupling $`\lambda _{xy}`$ on these phonon self-correlation functions is to finitely enhance their amplitude in the coupled regime, without modifying their long-wavelength pole structure. Thus in order to study the fluctuation of $`u_x`$ field, we only have to concentrate in wave vector region $`q_x^2a_x^2q_y^4`$. For $`q_x^2a_x^2q_y^4`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(a_xq_y^2/q_x,a_yq_x^2/q_y)1`$, and $`G_x^0(𝐪)1/K_xq_y^4`$, while for $`|q_y|q_x^2a_x^2q_y^4`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(a_xq_y^2/q_x,a_yq_x^2/q_y)1/(1\rho ^2)`$, and $`G_x^0(𝐪)1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_x^{}q_x^2`$. This is exactly the same as the asymptotic behaviors of Eq. (65a). Thus we see that Eq. (65a) is a good approximation for $`G_x^0`$ in wave vector region $`q_x^2a_x^2q_y^4`$. Of course for $`q_x^4q_y^2`$, the ratio between Eq. ( 65a) and $`G_x^0`$ is approximately $`1/(1\rho ^2)`$, but this region is not important for fluctuation of $`u_x`$ phonon anyway. This analysis also applies to $`G_y^0`$ if we exchange label $`x`$ with $`y`$ in every place. Thus Eq. ( 65b) is also a good approximation for $`G_y^0`$.

In contrast, the phonon cross-correlation (off-diagonal) function $`G_{xy}^0(𝐪)`$ depends strongly on whether $`𝐪`$ is in decoupled (union of $`|q_y|a_yq_x^2`$ and $`|q_x|a_xq_y^2`$ regions) or coupled ($`a_xq_y^2|q_x||q_y/a_y|^{\frac{1}{2}}`$) regimes. At long scales, near the two dominant $`x`$ and $`y`$ smectic regions of $`𝐪`$, it is strongly subdominant to the self-correlation functions $`G_{xx}^0(𝐪)`$ and $`G_{yy}^0(𝐪)`$, down by a factor of $`q_y`$ and $`q_x`$, respectively.

The subdominance of the cross-correlations relative to the self-correlations can also be seen by analyzing the behavior of the cross-correlation ratio of $`u_x`$ and $`u_y`$

$$\rho _{xy}(𝐪)=\frac{G_{xy}^0(𝐪)}{\sqrt{G_{xx}^0(𝐪)G_{yy}^0(𝐪)}}.$$
(126)
Simple analysis shows that in the decoupled regime

$$\rho _{xy}(𝐪)\{\begin{array}{cc}\rho \frac{|q_x|}{a_xq_y^2}\rho ,\hfill & \text{for }|q_x|a_xq_y^2\text{ }\hfill \\ \rho \frac{|q_y|}{a_yq_x^2}\rho ,\hfill & \text{for }|q_y|a_yq_x^2\text{ },\hfill \end{array}$$
(127)
suggesting that thermal fluctuations of $`u_x`$ and $`u_y`$ are nearly independent. On the other hand, in the coupled regime

$$\rho _{xy}(𝐪)\rho ,\text{for }a_xq_y^2|q_x||q_y/a_y|^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(128)
$`u_x`$ and $`u_y`$ are strongly correlated. In this region, we have

$$G_{xy}^0\frac{\lambda _{xy}}{\lambda _x\lambda _yq_xq_y}.$$
(129)