English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Active nematics undergo spontaneous symmetry breaking and show phaseseparation instability. Within the prevailing notion that macroscopicproperties depend only on symmetries and conservation laws, differentmicroscopic models are used out of convenience. Here, we test this notioncarefully by analyzing three different microscopic models of apolar activenematics. They share the same symmetry but differ in implementing reciprocal ornon-reciprocal interactions, including a Vicsek-like implementation. We showhow such subtle differences in microscopic realization determine if theordering transition is continuous or first order. Despite the difference in thetype of phase transition, all three models exhibit fluctuation-dominated phaseseparation and quasi-long-range order in the nematic phase.

How reciprocity impacts ordering and phase separation in active nematics?