Hello everyone.
We're doing 'The Solid State' in our school where I first went through the concept of Unit Cells Lattices. Can someone help me through with -
1) Why are there only 14 such lattices?
2) How can one give a rigorous proof about the non existence of unit cells of 'End-centered cubic lattice' and 'face centered tetragonal lattice'.
Thank you!
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
2) Even if you put particles on edge centers, it will again form same type of but smaller simple cubic unit cells. And same is the case of face centered tetragonal lattice.
Log in to reply
Indeed. This is what my teacher explained me. BTW what about the other cases? Do all of them have the same reasoning?
Log in to reply
May be they exist but , their properties may be similar to one of those 14. And this can be reason for having only 14 bravais lattice.
1 is a bit difficult to show.
For 2, the main idea is that if you did place lattice points at those places, you'd get smaller unit cells as repeating patterns.
I came to know about this from the coursera course on "Symmetry: Beauty, Form and Function"
To begin with, I suggest you look up the Wallpaper Symmetry Groups first.
(by the way, I do not have the full answer to your question)
Log in to reply
Hey, thanks for your views bro! :D
The answer to the first could be that only 14 bravais lattice are seen practically yet.
Log in to reply
Nope, they are mathematical structures - not empirically derived structures in chemistry.
Log in to reply
You both are somewhat right. They do are mathematical structures but we exclude the ones which are practically not possible.
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
⌣¨
Your understanding is, well, alright as always!See, both of the things you have asked are based on observations so there is actually no answer. The reason agnishom gave is what I don't know.