What is the equivalence of the Bragg condition in vectorial form?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter thefireman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bragg Condition
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the equivalence of the Bragg condition in its traditional form and its vectorial representation. Participants are exploring the relationship between the two formulations, particularly in the context of crystallography and diffraction theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes the traditional Bragg condition as 2dSin θ = nλ and questions how it relates to the vectorial form (\vec{k}+\vec{G})^{2} = k.
  • Another participant suggests that understanding the definitions of k and G can clarify the relationship, referring to the Laue equation as a relevant framework.
  • A third participant points to Kittel's book, indicating that it explicitly discusses the equivalence of the two formulas.
  • A later reply reiterates the suggestion to consult Kittel's book for further clarification on the equivalence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the equivalence of the two forms, as the discussion remains exploratory with differing levels of understanding regarding the definitions involved.

Contextual Notes

There is an assumption that participants are familiar with the terms and concepts of crystallography, such as the definitions of k and G, which may not be universally understood. The discussion does not resolve the mathematical steps or the implications of the equivalence.

thefireman
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hello, I have a quick question regarding the bragg condition.

I know that it is most often stated as 2dSin \theta=n\lambda

But I have come across a case (Kittel chp9 pg 255, where it is written as (\vec{k}+\vec{G})^{2} = k

I cannot really see how the vectorial case is the same as the simpler former one.
Could someone elucidate?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Or look in the same book (Kittel -Chapter 2) where the equivalence of the two formulas is discussed explicitly.
 
nasu said:
Or look in the same book (Kittel -Chapter 2) where the equivalence of the two formulas is discussed explicitly.

good call!
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K