什么时候晶格不是晶格?晶格一词在晶体学和物理学中的变化意义

R. Palgrave, E. Tobin
{"title":"什么时候晶格不是晶格?晶格一词在晶体学和物理学中的变化意义","authors":"R. Palgrave, E. Tobin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3857643","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The concept of the lattice is central to the understanding of crystalline solids. However, usage of this word can very often differ between crystallographers, for whom a lattice is a mathematical object that describes the symmetry of a crystal, and physicists and chemists, for whom lattice is commonly used as a word for a regular array of particles. The similarity between the two definitions means they can easily be confused by students or inexperienced practitioners, but the fundamental differences can make the consequences of such confusion significant, an issue rarely tackled directly in popular textbooks. Here we examine the historical roots of this problem of context, and the changing understanding of the word ‘lattice’ over time. While the origins of the term lattice lie with the 19th century mathematical crystallographers, their usage, both in terms of the words used and their meanings, was fluid, and no strong distinction between the lattice and the physical components of a crystal was made. Leading crystallographers in the early 20th century regularly used the word lattice in a way that is unacceptable to some of their modern counterparts. We identify the decade after 1910 as the start of divergence between the physical and crystallographic meaning, catalysed by the discovery of X-ray diffraction and the development of lattice dynamics, although the current definitions did not become entrenched until the 1940s. While history has shown us that this classificatory issue is not just a matter of scientific disagreement and perhaps at its root is a disagreement in our understanding of classification itself. Lastly, we discuss possible resolutions to the matter.","PeriodicalId":18341,"journal":{"name":"Materials Science eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When is a Lattice Not a Lattice? The changing meaning of the term lattice in crystallography and physics\",\"authors\":\"R. Palgrave, E. Tobin\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3857643\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The concept of the lattice is central to the understanding of crystalline solids. However, usage of this word can very often differ between crystallographers, for whom a lattice is a mathematical object that describes the symmetry of a crystal, and physicists and chemists, for whom lattice is commonly used as a word for a regular array of particles. The similarity between the two definitions means they can easily be confused by students or inexperienced practitioners, but the fundamental differences can make the consequences of such confusion significant, an issue rarely tackled directly in popular textbooks. Here we examine the historical roots of this problem of context, and the changing understanding of the word ‘lattice’ over time. While the origins of the term lattice lie with the 19th century mathematical crystallographers, their usage, both in terms of the words used and their meanings, was fluid, and no strong distinction between the lattice and the physical components of a crystal was made. Leading crystallographers in the early 20th century regularly used the word lattice in a way that is unacceptable to some of their modern counterparts. We identify the decade after 1910 as the start of divergence between the physical and crystallographic meaning, catalysed by the discovery of X-ray diffraction and the development of lattice dynamics, although the current definitions did not become entrenched until the 1940s. While history has shown us that this classificatory issue is not just a matter of scientific disagreement and perhaps at its root is a disagreement in our understanding of classification itself. Lastly, we discuss possible resolutions to the matter.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18341,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Materials Science eJournal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Materials Science eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3857643\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Materials Science eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3857643","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

晶格的概念是理解结晶固体的核心。然而,在晶体学家和物理学家和化学家之间,这个词的用法经常不同,对他们来说,晶格是描述晶体对称性的数学对象,对他们来说,晶格通常被用作粒子的规则阵列。这两个定义之间的相似性意味着它们很容易被学生或没有经验的从业者混淆,但根本的差异会使这种混淆的后果变得严重,这是一个在流行教科书中很少直接解决的问题。在这里,我们研究了这个上下文问题的历史根源,以及随着时间的推移,对“格”这个词的理解发生了变化。虽然晶格一词起源于19世纪的数学晶体学家,但其用法,无论是所用的词还是其含义,都是不确定的,并且没有明确区分晶格和晶体的物理组成部分。20世纪早期的主要晶体学家经常使用晶格这个词,这是他们现代同行无法接受的。我们认为1910年之后的十年是物理和晶体学意义分歧的开始,这是由x射线衍射的发现和晶格动力学的发展所催化的,尽管目前的定义直到20世纪40年代才确立。虽然历史告诉我们,这个分类问题不仅仅是科学分歧的问题,也许其根源在于我们对分类本身的理解存在分歧。最后,我们讨论了解决这个问题的可能办法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
When is a Lattice Not a Lattice? The changing meaning of the term lattice in crystallography and physics
The concept of the lattice is central to the understanding of crystalline solids. However, usage of this word can very often differ between crystallographers, for whom a lattice is a mathematical object that describes the symmetry of a crystal, and physicists and chemists, for whom lattice is commonly used as a word for a regular array of particles. The similarity between the two definitions means they can easily be confused by students or inexperienced practitioners, but the fundamental differences can make the consequences of such confusion significant, an issue rarely tackled directly in popular textbooks. Here we examine the historical roots of this problem of context, and the changing understanding of the word ‘lattice’ over time. While the origins of the term lattice lie with the 19th century mathematical crystallographers, their usage, both in terms of the words used and their meanings, was fluid, and no strong distinction between the lattice and the physical components of a crystal was made. Leading crystallographers in the early 20th century regularly used the word lattice in a way that is unacceptable to some of their modern counterparts. We identify the decade after 1910 as the start of divergence between the physical and crystallographic meaning, catalysed by the discovery of X-ray diffraction and the development of lattice dynamics, although the current definitions did not become entrenched until the 1940s. While history has shown us that this classificatory issue is not just a matter of scientific disagreement and perhaps at its root is a disagreement in our understanding of classification itself. Lastly, we discuss possible resolutions to the matter.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信