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!

No vote yet

1 vote

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...

$</code> ... <code>$</code>...<code>."> Easy Math Editor

`*italics*`

or`_italics_`

italics`**bold**`

or`__bold__`

boldNote: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctlyparagraph 1

paragraph 2

`[example link](https://brilliant.org)`

`> This is a quote`

Remember to wrap math in $</span> ... <span>$ or $</span> ... <span>$ 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

Sort by:

TopNewest2) 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.

Log in to reply

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

Log in to reply

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

$\ddot\smile$

Your understanding is, well, alright as always!Log in to reply

Log in to reply

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.

Log in to reply