Optical manipulation of defects in a lyotropic lamellar phase

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 90, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 455011-455014

  Iwashita, Yasutaka ^a   Tanaka, Hajime ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL SCIENCE   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADHESION; DEFECTS; ELASTIC MODULI; LASERS; METALS; OPTICAL MICROSCOPY; RHEOLOGY; SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS; VISCOSITY;

LASER TRAPPING METHODS; LYOTROPIC LAMELLAR PHASES;

LIQUID CRYSTALS;

EID: 0037473897     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. P. M. Chaikin and T. C. Lubensky, Principles of Condensed Matter Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995).
2. See, e.g., Soft Matter Physics, edited by M. Daoud and C. E. Williams (Springer, Berlin, 1999).
3. M. Zapotocky et al., Science 283, 209 (1999).
4. We call a linelike defect created by the motion of a bead a line defect, although, strictly speaking, it should be called, e.g., a defect loop.
5. R. Strey et al., J. Chem. Soc. 86, 2253 (1990).
6. H. Tanaka et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 168303 (2002).
7. P. Boltenhagen et al., J. Phys. II (France) 1, 1233 (1991).
8. C. Blanc et al., Eur. Phys. J. E 4, 241 (2001).
9. A. Ashkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 24, 156 (1970).
10. M. Miwa et al., Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 39, 1930 (2000).
11. G. Basappa et al., Eur. Phys. J. B 12, 269 (1999).
12. P. Boltenhagen et al., Phys. Rev. A 46, R1743 (1992).
13. See, e.g., M. Kléman, Points, Lines and Walls (Wiley, Chichester, 1983).
14. L. Golubović, Phys. Rev. E 50, R2419 (1994).
15. If we try to move a bead across the line defect formed by itself, we always fail This is again because we can never break up membranes (or induce topological change of membranes) with our limited optical trapping power. Since the membranes between the bead and the line defect are on the same height, the motion of a bead across the line defect formed by itself inevitably requires the reorganization of membranes accompanying the topological change, which is energetically prohibited.
16. This value of κ was estimated by our independent experiment for the same system.
17. T and the theoretical prediction in Fig. 2 suggests the validity of our assumptions; for example, (i) the singular parts in Fig. l(b) may be avoided without costing large elastic energy, and (ii) the resulting layer-compression energy is also considerably smaller than the bending one. This may be a unique feature of lyotropic smectics having an extra degree of freedom, concentration. Although the above assumptions may be valid for a single isolated line defect, the layer-compression energy is important when we consider the interaction between line defects (see [18]), and it may also play a significant role around the bead.
18. -1.
19. r < 0.5 μm, which is consistent with the observed sharp kink at the detached point of an adhered line defect [see Fig. 4(a)].