1
$\begingroup$

We had a disagreement regarding 2D Bravais lattices during a lecture. The lecturer told us that a centered rectangle forms a Bravais lattice in 2D, but a centered parallelogram isn't:

image of the proposed cells

We couldn't come up with a satisfying definition of a Bravais lattice though. It appears to be a lattice with certain periodic/translation/etc. symmetries; but intuitively, putting a dot in the center of a rectangle symmetry-wise has the same effect putting one in a parallelogram does. Why is the distinction then? So, our questions are:

  • Does a centered rectangle form a Bravais cell? (Wikipedia lists it as one.)
  • Does a centered parallelogram not? (Wikipedia doesn't list any.)
  • Why, and/or why not?

Edit: The question (Is the centered parallelogram a Bravais-cell?) was in a test we discussed, so an exact answer to this is encouraged.

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

A centred lattice is defined [1, section 1.3.2.4.] as a sublattice formed by the integral linear combinations of independent vectors ($\renewcommand{\vec}[1]{\boldsymbol{#1}}\vec{a}$ and $\vec{b}$ on your diagrams) plus the translation of this sublattice by a finite number of so-called centring vectors. In your case, we only need one, $(\vec{a}+\vec{b})/2$, which goes from the "starting point" of $\vec{a}$ and $\vec{b}$ on your diagram to the centre of either your rectangle or your parallelogram. So, yes, both of the cases you consider fit with the definition of a centred lattice.

However, in the parallelogram case, the centred and the non-centred cells belong to the same Bravais class because there is no geometrical difference between them: they both have an arbitrary angle, as opposed to the rectangular case where the primitive cell defined by $(\vec{a}+\vec{b})/2$ and $(\vec{a}-\vec{b})/2$ has a different geometry (no right angle). So the statement on your lecture notes is wrong: "not Bravais lattice" should be replaced by "not distinct Bravais lattice".

[1] International Tables for Crystallography (2016). Vol. A, [online access]

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

I think this is mainly a matter of convention If you take the monoclinic 2D lattice then you certainly can draw a centred unit cell on it:

Centred monoclinic

(image from Wikipedia)

but there is nothing to be gained by doing so because the primitive cell is just as useful.

As a general guide we tend to use a primitive cell as our first preference, but an exception is made where a rectangular cell can be used instead. Rectangular cells make the geometry a lot simpler so we choose them even when the resulting cell isn't a primitive one. That's we we choose a centred (non-primitive) cell for the orthorhombic lattice.

But when it comes to the monoclinic lattice choosing a centred cell offers no advantage since it doesn't give us a cell with right angles. That's why for the monoclinic lattice we stick with the primitive cell.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.