Ygthkb

Is it possible to narrate a novel in a faux-historical style without alienating the reader?

What is wrong with my use of "find -print0"?

How do I avoid the "chosen hero" feeling?

Is having explosions as a go-to solution considered bad table manners?

Coworker is trying to get me to sign his petition to run for office. How to decline politely?

Buying a "Used" Router

filecontents: select rows of group to display

User input happy birthday program

Why Ylvis used go instead of say in phrases like Dog goes "woof"?

What is an efficient way to digitize a family photo collection?

Performance and power usage for Raspberry Pi in the Stratosphere

Why does my printer create notches on the Y surface?

Why don't you get burned by the wood benches in a sauna?

Is the Maximum Use License for Everybody (MULE) a FOSS license?

Why is it that Bernie Sanders is always called a "socialist"?

Are all power cords made equal?

Minimum Viable Product for RTS game?

How do I fight with Heavy Armor as a Wizard with Tenser's Transformation?

Alternate timeline nomenclature

How many diagrams is too much in a research article?

Taking an academic pseudonym?

Linearity Assumption

How can guns be countered by melee combat without raw-ability or exceptional explanations?

Can you help me solve this algebra problem?

Inversion applicable to three-dimensional lattices only

Reciprocal LatticesHow to define the mirror symmetry operator for Kane-Mele model?Regarding Bravais latticesQuasicrystals - Projections from higher dimensional regular crystal latticesCrystal lattices in solid stateFCC lattice as a stack of triangular latticesHow does the surface of a material always break inversion symmetry?Honeycomb Bravais Lattice with BasisWhat exactly is a basis in the context of crystalline solids?What is the symmetry element for translational symmetry operation?

2

$begingroup$

I have just started my first course in solid state physics and while studying symmetries, Inversion is defined as "A point operation which is applicable to three-dimensional lattices only. This symmetry implies that each point located at r relative to a lattice point has an identical point located at -r relative to same lattice point."
Now if I have a two dimensional lattice with a square as the unit cell and a single atom as a basis, relative to a fixed point O(taken as origin in the fig attached), i can find a point B and B'; C and C' at x ,-x and y,-y respectively.
So, is there an additional criteria for inversion? Where I am getting it wrong?

solid-state-physics symmetry crystals

share|cite|improve this question

asked 3 hours ago

Harshdeep SinghHarshdeep Singh

767

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

2

$begingroup$

I have just started my first course in solid state physics and while studying symmetries, Inversion is defined as "A point operation which is applicable to three-dimensional lattices only. This symmetry implies that each point located at r relative to a lattice point has an identical point located at -r relative to same lattice point."
Now if I have a two dimensional lattice with a square as the unit cell and a single atom as a basis, relative to a fixed point O(taken as origin in the fig attached), i can find a point B and B'; C and C' at x ,-x and y,-y respectively.
So, is there an additional criteria for inversion? Where I am getting it wrong?

solid-state-physics symmetry crystals

share|cite|improve this question

asked 3 hours ago

Harshdeep SinghHarshdeep Singh

767

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

I have just started my first course in solid state physics and while studying symmetries, Inversion is defined as "A point operation which is applicable to three-dimensional lattices only. This symmetry implies that each point located at r relative to a lattice point has an identical point located at -r relative to same lattice point."
Now if I have a two dimensional lattice with a square as the unit cell and a single atom as a basis, relative to a fixed point O(taken as origin in the fig attached), i can find a point B and B'; C and C' at x ,-x and y,-y respectively.
So, is there an additional criteria for inversion? Where I am getting it wrong?

solid-state-physics symmetry crystals

share|cite|improve this question

asked 3 hours ago

Harshdeep SinghHarshdeep Singh

767

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this question

asked 3 hours ago

Harshdeep SinghHarshdeep Singh

767

share|cite|improve this question

asked 3 hours ago

Harshdeep SinghHarshdeep Singh

767

asked 3 hours ago

Harshdeep SinghHarshdeep Singh

767

asked 3 hours ago

Harshdeep SinghHarshdeep Singh

767

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

4

$begingroup$

I've actually never seen inversion symmetry defined to only apply to three dimensional lattices before. It's usually nothing more than the operation taking $mathbf{r}$ to $-mathbf{r}$, when $mathbf{r}$ is measured relative to some center of inversion - regardless of dimension. (It's convenient to choose this point as the origin, but not necessary.)

However, there is a clear and crucial difference between inversion in 2D and 3D one should keep in mind. In two spatial dimensions, inversion about the origin is simply equivalent to a $180^circ$ rotation about an axis going through the origin. In three dimensions the inversion operation involves both a $180^circ$ rotation and a reflection. This additional reflection actually changes the orientation. To see this, draw the usual $x$, $y$, $z$ coordinate axes, and then draw what you'd get after an inversion operation: the $-x$, $-y$, and $-z$ axes. One of the coordinate system will be right-handed, and the other left-handed. Perhaps the book you're using considers this orientation change a crucial part of inversion symmetry, or perhaps its authors wanted to avoid the redundancy between $C_2$ rotation and inversion in 2D.

Side note: The above distinction generalizes to odd- or even-dimensional lattices, see Wikipedia.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

AnyonAnyon

48939

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Excellent point about the inversions playing a different role in 2D and 3D. If you view the symmetries of the lattice as a transformation group, this distinction becomes quite important.
  $endgroup$
  – Michael Seifert
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f462510%2finversion-applicable-to-three-dimensional-lattices-only%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

4

$begingroup$

I've actually never seen inversion symmetry defined to only apply to three dimensional lattices before. It's usually nothing more than the operation taking $mathbf{r}$ to $-mathbf{r}$, when $mathbf{r}$ is measured relative to some center of inversion - regardless of dimension. (It's convenient to choose this point as the origin, but not necessary.)

However, there is a clear and crucial difference between inversion in 2D and 3D one should keep in mind. In two spatial dimensions, inversion about the origin is simply equivalent to a $180^circ$ rotation about an axis going through the origin. In three dimensions the inversion operation involves both a $180^circ$ rotation and a reflection. This additional reflection actually changes the orientation. To see this, draw the usual $x$, $y$, $z$ coordinate axes, and then draw what you'd get after an inversion operation: the $-x$, $-y$, and $-z$ axes. One of the coordinate system will be right-handed, and the other left-handed. Perhaps the book you're using considers this orientation change a crucial part of inversion symmetry, or perhaps its authors wanted to avoid the redundancy between $C_2$ rotation and inversion in 2D.

Side note: The above distinction generalizes to odd- or even-dimensional lattices, see Wikipedia.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

AnyonAnyon

48939

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Excellent point about the inversions playing a different role in 2D and 3D. If you view the symmetries of the lattice as a transformation group, this distinction becomes quite important.
  $endgroup$
  – Michael Seifert
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

4

$begingroup$

I've actually never seen inversion symmetry defined to only apply to three dimensional lattices before. It's usually nothing more than the operation taking $mathbf{r}$ to $-mathbf{r}$, when $mathbf{r}$ is measured relative to some center of inversion - regardless of dimension. (It's convenient to choose this point as the origin, but not necessary.)

However, there is a clear and crucial difference between inversion in 2D and 3D one should keep in mind. In two spatial dimensions, inversion about the origin is simply equivalent to a $180^circ$ rotation about an axis going through the origin. In three dimensions the inversion operation involves both a $180^circ$ rotation and a reflection. This additional reflection actually changes the orientation. To see this, draw the usual $x$, $y$, $z$ coordinate axes, and then draw what you'd get after an inversion operation: the $-x$, $-y$, and $-z$ axes. One of the coordinate system will be right-handed, and the other left-handed. Perhaps the book you're using considers this orientation change a crucial part of inversion symmetry, or perhaps its authors wanted to avoid the redundancy between $C_2$ rotation and inversion in 2D.

Side note: The above distinction generalizes to odd- or even-dimensional lattices, see Wikipedia.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

AnyonAnyon

48939

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Excellent point about the inversions playing a different role in 2D and 3D. If you view the symmetries of the lattice as a transformation group, this distinction becomes quite important.
  $endgroup$
  – Michael Seifert
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

I've actually never seen inversion symmetry defined to only apply to three dimensional lattices before. It's usually nothing more than the operation taking $mathbf{r}$ to $-mathbf{r}$, when $mathbf{r}$ is measured relative to some center of inversion - regardless of dimension. (It's convenient to choose this point as the origin, but not necessary.)

However, there is a clear and crucial difference between inversion in 2D and 3D one should keep in mind. In two spatial dimensions, inversion about the origin is simply equivalent to a $180^circ$ rotation about an axis going through the origin. In three dimensions the inversion operation involves both a $180^circ$ rotation and a reflection. This additional reflection actually changes the orientation. To see this, draw the usual $x$, $y$, $z$ coordinate axes, and then draw what you'd get after an inversion operation: the $-x$, $-y$, and $-z$ axes. One of the coordinate system will be right-handed, and the other left-handed. Perhaps the book you're using considers this orientation change a crucial part of inversion symmetry, or perhaps its authors wanted to avoid the redundancy between $C_2$ rotation and inversion in 2D.

Side note: The above distinction generalizes to odd- or even-dimensional lattices, see Wikipedia.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

AnyonAnyon

48939

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

AnyonAnyon

48939

answered 2 hours ago

AnyonAnyon

48939

answered 2 hours ago

AnyonAnyon

48939