3
$\begingroup$

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?

enter image description here

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 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. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 23, 2019 at 19:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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