What would be the Wigner-Seitz cell of this lattice?

Click For Summary
The Wigner-Seitz (WS) cell contains only one lattice point, requiring the tracing of bisectors to form an irregular shape. The discussion confirms that a fictitious point at the center of a non-primitive unit cell, represented by a hexagon, is valid. The dotted square is identified as a primitive unit cell, while the hexagon represents a non-primitive unit cell composed of multiple primitive cells. The irregular shape derived from bisectors is indeed the WS cell, which is the smallest unit cell encapsulating a single lattice point. Understanding these concepts is crucial for correctly identifying unit cells in lattice structures.
pepediaz
Messages
49
Reaction score
5
Homework Statement
Given the lattice shown in attempt to a solution, consider white circles are atoms (of the same type). What would be the Wigner-Seitz cell of this lattice?
Relevant Equations
Not actually
I know WS cell only contains one lattice point, so we would have to trace bisectors, and obtain some kind of irregular shape.

Anyways, I wanted to check if what I did is okay. It is considering a fictitious point as the center of the (non-primitive) unit cell, which would be one of those hexagons. I don't know if the dotted square would be a WS, or if I should obtain an irregular shape.
1644104300165.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, what you have done is okay. The dotted square would be considered a primitive unit cell, while the hexagon would be a non-primitive unit cell. The non-primitive unit cell is made up of multiple primitive unit cells. The irregular shape you obtain when tracing bisectors is a Wigner Seitz cell and it is the smallest unit cell that contains only one lattice point.
 
At first, I derived that: $$\nabla \frac 1{\mu}=-\frac 1{{\mu}^3}\left((1-\beta^2)+\frac{\dot{\vec\beta}\cdot\vec R}c\right)\vec R$$ (dot means differentiation with respect to ##t'##). I assume this result is true because it gives valid result for magnetic field. To find electric field one should also derive partial derivative of ##\vec A## with respect to ##t##. I've used chain rule, substituted ##\vec A## and used derivative of product formula. $$\frac {\partial \vec A}{\partial t}=\frac...