I Why Do Different Primitive Unit Cells for Diamond Look So Different?

Porkaborg
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Primitive unit cell of diamond, great confusion.
Hi guys , I want to construct a primitive unit cell for diamond, which is made of a fcc lattice and a basis of 2 carbons atoms. I know that a primitive unit cell isn't unique but the two variants I get are drastically different . As far as I can see they both include 2 whole atoms/points in the lattice, however one of them occupies 1/4 of the conventional-cell volume, and the other occupies 1/8 of the conventional-cell volume.

When I couldn't get further in reasoning, I tried googling it and found both versions listed as primitive unit cells for diamond. But I am still confused why they look so very different.
(The left picture doesn't include rest of the atoms for some reason but they are there before creating the primitive unit cell)

Skærmbillede 2019-10-04 kl. 22.48.17.png
Skærmbillede 2019-10-04 kl. 22.45.25.png


I hope someone can point out the difference , or pinpoint why I may be confused, please comment if I need to add some additional info.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How do you want to fill space with only translated copies of a tetrahedron?
 
  • Like
Likes Porkaborg
I guess I can't , which is needed to fulfill the definition of a unitcell. Thanks a lot DrDu!. Upon looking some more at it , the tetrahedron also doesn't include a single lattice point which it is supposed to do to be a primitive unit cell.
 
From the BCS theory of superconductivity is well known that the superfluid density smoothly decreases with increasing temperature. Annihilated superfluid carriers become normal and lose their momenta on lattice atoms. So if we induce a persistent supercurrent in a ring below Tc and after that slowly increase the temperature, we must observe a decrease in the actual supercurrent, because the density of electron pairs and total supercurrent momentum decrease. However, this supercurrent...
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