Confusing on Bravais lattice and base vectors

KFC
Messages
477
Reaction score
4
Hi there,
I know that primitive cell is not unique and there are more than one way to define the primitive vectors but my question is when we said "primitive vectors" do we have to construct the Bravais lattice with choosing a proper basis first? My reasoning is suppose the crystal consist of different type of atoms such that the atoms might not be arranged in a way of translational invariance, it seems not making sense to define primitive cell in that case, is that correct? Please point it out if I am wrong, thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I find you're question confusing. But I think the following will suffice:

(i) A glass has no long-range positional ordering.
(ii) A quasi-crystal has long-range positional ordering, but you can't define a unit cell.
(iii) A disordered alloy (like 50/50 CuAu) consists of well-defined site positions, but randomly (or maybe short-range correlated) atomic occupations on each site. If you ignore the site occupancies, you can still talk of a unit cell.

and ..

(iv) A true crystal; in which case there is a definite, periodically repeated unit cell. In this case all the atoms in the unit cell define the basis, and you can choose any point in one of the unit cells to define the Bravais lattice. If you choose the smallest unit cell possible, then you have a primitive cell and primitive Bravais vectors.

sam bell
 
Hi. I have got question as in title. How can idea of instantaneous dipole moment for atoms like, for example hydrogen be consistent with idea of orbitals? At my level of knowledge London dispersion forces are derived taking into account Bohr model of atom. But we know today that this model is not correct. If it would be correct I understand that at each time electron is at some point at radius at some angle and there is dipole moment at this time from nucleus to electron at orbit. But how...
Back
Top