International
Tables for Crystallography Volume B Reciprocal space Edited by U. Shmueli © International Union of Crystallography 2006 |
International Tables for Crystallography (2006). Vol. B. ch. 1.3, pp. 64-71
|
The description of a crystal given so far has dealt only with its invariance under the action of the (discrete Abelian) group of translations by vectors of its period lattice Λ.
Let the crystal now be embedded in Euclidean 3-space, so that it may be acted upon by the group of rigid (i.e. distance-preserving) motions of that space. The group contains a normal subgroup of translations, and the quotient group may be identified with the 3-dimensional orthogonal group . The period lattice Λ of a crystal is a discrete uniform subgroup of .
The possible invariance properties of a crystal under the action of are captured by the following definition: a crystallographic group is a subgroup Γ of if
The two properties are not independent: by a theorem of Bieberbach (1911), they follow from the assumption that Λ is a discrete subgroup of which operates without accumulation point and with a compact fundamental domain (see Auslander, 1965). These two assumptions imply that G acts on Λ through an integral representation, and this observation leads to a complete enumeration of all distinct Γ's. The mathematical theory of these groups is still an active research topic (see, for instance, Farkas, 1981), and has applications to Riemannian geometry (Wolf, 1967).
This classification of crystallographic groups is described elsewhere in these Tables (Wondratschek, 2005), but it will be surveyed briefly in Section 1.3.4.2.2.3 for the purpose of establishing further terminology and notation, after recalling basic notions and results concerning groups and group actions in Section 1.3.4.2.2.2.
The books by Hall (1959) and Scott (1964) are recommended as reference works on group theory.
Let Γ be a crystallographic group, Λ the normal subgroup of its lattice translations, and G the finite factor group . Then G acts on Λ by conjugation [Section 1.3.4.2.2.2(d)] and this action, being a mapping of a lattice into itself, is representable by matrices with integer entries.
The classification of crystallographic groups proceeds from this observation in the following three steps:
|
Step 1 leads to the following groups, listed in association with the crystal system to which they later give rise: and the extension of these groups by a centre of inversion. In this list ⋉ denotes a semi-direct product [Section 1.3.4.2.2.2(d)], α denotes the automorphism , and (the group of permutations on three letters) operates by permuting the copies of (using the subgroup of cyclic permutations gives the tetrahedral subsystem).
Step 2 leads to a list of 73 equivalence classes called arithmetic classes of representations , where is a integer matrix, with and . This enumeration is more familiar if equivalence is relaxed so as to allow conjugation by rational matrices with determinant ± 1: this leads to the 32 crystal classes. The difference between an arithmetic class and its rational class resides in the choice of a lattice mode . Arithmetic classes always refer to a primitive lattice, but may use inequivalent integral representations for a given geometric symmetry element; while crystallographers prefer to change over to a non-primitive lattice, if necessary, in order to preserve the same integral representation for a given geometric symmetry element. The matrices P and describing the changes of basis between primitive and centred lattices are listed in Table 5.1.3.1 and illustrated in Figs. 5.1.3.2 to 5.1.3.8 , pp. 80–85, of Volume A of International Tables (Arnold, 2005).
Step 3 gives rise to a system of congruences for the systems of non-primitive translations which may be associated to the matrices of a given arithmetic class, namely: first derived by Frobenius (1911). If equivalence under the action of is taken into account, 219 classes are found. If equivalence is defined with respect to the action of the subgroup of consisting only of transformations with determinant +1, then 230 classes called space-group types are obtained. In particular, associating to each of the 73 arithmetic classes a trivial set of non-primitive translations yields the 73 symmorphic space groups. This third step may also be treated as an abstract problem concerning group extensions, using cohomological methods [Ascher & Janner (1965); see Janssen (1973) for a summary]; the connection with Frobenius's approach, as generalized by Zassenhaus (1948), is examined in Ascher & Janner (1968).
The finiteness of the number of space-group types in dimension 3 was shown by Bieberbach (1912) to be the case in arbitrary dimension. The reader interested in N-dimensional space-group theory for may consult Brown (1969), Brown et al. (1978), Schwarzenberger (1980), and Engel (1986). The standard reference for integral representation theory is Curtis & Reiner (1962).
All three-dimensional space groups G have the property of being solvable, i.e. that there exists a chain of subgroups where each is a normal subgroup of and the factor group is a cyclic group of some order . This property may be established by inspection, or deduced from a famous theorem of Burnside [see Burnside (1911), pp. 322–323] according to which any group G such that , with p and q distinct primes, is solvable; in the case at hand, and . The whole classification of 3D space groups can be performed swiftly by a judicious use of the solvability property (L. Auslander, personal communication).
Solvability facilitates the indexing of elements of G in terms of generators and relations (Coxeter & Moser, 1972; Magnus et al., 1976) for the purpose of calculation. By definition of solvability, elements may be chosen in such a way that the cyclic factor group is generated by the coset . The set is then a system of generators for G such that the defining relations [see Brown et al. (1978), pp. 26–27] have the particularly simple form with and . Each element g of G may then be obtained uniquely as an `ordered word': with , using the algorithm of Jürgensen (1970). Such generating sets and defining relations are tabulated in Brown et al. (1978, pp. 61–76). An alternative list is given in Janssen (1973, Table 4.3, pp. 121–123, and Appendix D, pp. 262–271).
The action of a crystallographic group Γ may be written in terms of standard coordinates in as with
An important characteristic of the representation is its reducibility, i.e. whether or not it has invariant subspaces other than and the whole of . For triclinic, monoclinic and orthorhombic space groups, θ is reducible to a direct sum of three one-dimensional representations: for trigonal, tetragonal and hexagonal groups, it is reducible to a direct sum of two representations, of dimension 2 and 1, respectively; while for tetrahedral and cubic groups, it is irreducible.
By Schur's lemma (see e.g. Ledermann, 1987), any matrix which commutes with all the matrices for must be a scalar multiple of the identity in each invariant subspace.
In the reducible cases, the reductions involve changes of basis which will be rational, not integral, for those arithmetic classes corresponding to non-primitive lattices. Thus the simplification of having maximally reduced representation has as its counterpart the use of non-primitive lattices.
The notions of orbit, isotropy subgroup and fundamental domain (or asymmetric unit) for the action of G on are inherited directly from the general setting of Section 1.3.4.2.2.2. Points x for which are called special positions, and the various types of isotropy subgroups which may be encountered in crystallographic groups have been labelled by means of Wyckoff symbols. The representation operators in have the form: The operators associated to the purely rotational part of each transformation will also be used. Note the relation:
Let a crystal structure be described by the list of the atoms in its unit cell, indexed by . Let the electron-density distribution about the centre of mass of atom k be described by with respect to the standard coordinates x. Then the motif may be written as a sum of translates: and the crystal electron density is .
Suppose that is invariant under Γ. If and are in the same orbit, say , then Therefore if is a special position and thus , then This identity implies that (the special position condition), and that i.e. that must be invariant by the pure rotational part of . Trueblood (1956) investigated the consequences of this invariance on the thermal vibration tensor of an atom in a special position (see Section 1.3.4.2.2.6 below).
Let J be a subset of K such that contains exactly one atom from each orbit. An orbit decomposition yields an expression for in terms of symmetry-unique atoms: or equivalently If the atoms are assumed to be Gaussian, write where is the total number of electrons, and where the matrix combines the Gaussian spread of the electrons in atom j at rest with the covariance matrix of the random positional fluctuations of atom j caused by thermal agitation.
In crystallographic coordinates:
If atom k is in a special position , then the matrix must satisfy the identity for all g in the isotropy subgroup of . This condition may also be written in Cartesian coordinates as where This is a condensed form of the symmetry properties derived by Trueblood (1956).
An elementary discussion of this topic may be found in Chapter 1.4 of this volume.
Having established that the symmetry of a crystal may be most conveniently stated and handled via the left representation of G given by its action on electron-density distributions, it is natural to transpose this action by the identity of Section 1.3.2.5.5: for any tempered distribution T, i.e. whenever the transforms are functions.
Putting , a -periodic distribution, this relation defines a left action of G on given by which is conjugate to the action in the sense that The identity expressing the G-invariance of is then equivalent to the identity between its structure factors, i.e. (Waser, 1955a)
If G is made to act on via the usual notions of orbit, isotropy subgroup (denoted ) and fundamental domain may be attached to this action. The above relation then shows that the spectrum is entirely known if it is specified on a fundamental domain containing one reciprocal-lattice point from each orbit of this action.
A reflection h is called special if . Then for any we have , and hence implying that unless . Special reflections h for which for some are thus systematically absent. This phenomenon is an instance of the duality between periodization and decimation of Section 1.3.2.7.2: if , the projection of on the direction of h has period , hence its transform (which is the portion of F supported by the central line through h) will be decimated, giving rise to the above condition.
A reflection h is called centric if , i.e. if the orbit of h contains . Then for some coset γ in , so that the following relation must hold: In the absence of dispersion, Friedel's law gives rise to the phase restriction: The value of the restricted phase is independent of the choice of coset representative γ. Indeed, if is another choice, then with and by the Frobenius congruences , so that Since , and if h is not a systematic absence: thus
The treatment of centred lattices may be viewed as another instance of the duality between periodization and decimation (Section 1.3.2.7.2): the periodization of the electron density by the non-primitive lattice translations has as its counterpart in reciprocal space the decimation of the transform by the `reflection conditions' describing the allowed reflections, the decimation and periodization matrices being each other's contragredient.
The reader may consult the papers by Bienenstock & Ewald (1962) and Wells (1965) for earlier approaches to this material.
Structure factors may be calculated from a list of symmetry-unique atoms by Fourier transformation of the orbit decomposition formula for the motif given in Section 1.3.4.2.2.4: i.e. finally:
In the case of Gaussian atoms, the atomic transforms are or equivalently
Two common forms of equivalent temperature factors (incorporating both atomic form and thermal motion) are
In the first case, does not depend on , and therefore: In the second case, however, no such simplification can occur: These formulae, or special cases of them, were derived by Rollett & Davies (1955), Waser (1955b), and Trueblood (1956).
The computation of structure factors by applying the discrete Fourier transform to a set of electron-density values calculated on a grid will be examined in Section 1.3.4.4.5.
A formula for the Fourier synthesis of electron-density maps from symmetry-unique structure factors is readily obtained by orbit decomposition: where L is a subset of such that contains exactly one point of each orbit for the action of G on . The physical electron density per cubic ångström is then with V in Å3.
In the absence of anomalous scatterers in the crystal and of a centre of inversion −I in Γ, the spectrum has an extra symmetry, namely the Hermitian symmetry expressing Friedel's law (Section 1.3.4.2.1.4). The action of a centre of inversion may be added to that of Γ to obtain further simplification in the above formula: under this extra action, an orbit with is either mapped into itself or into the disjoint orbit ; the terms corresponding to and may then be grouped within the common orbit in the first case, and between the two orbits in the second case.
|
The general statement of Parseval's theorem given in Section 1.3.4.2.1.5 may be rewritten in terms of symmetry-unique structure factors and electron densities by means of orbit decomposition.
In reciprocal space, for each l, the summands corresponding to the various are equal, so that the left-hand side is equal to
In real space, the triple integral may be rewritten as (where D is the asymmetric unit) if and are smooth densities, since the set of special positions has measure zero. If, however, the integral is approximated as a sum over a G-invariant grid defined by decimation matrix N, special positions on this grid must be taken into account: where the discrete asymmetric unit D contains exactly one point in each orbit of G in .
The standard convolution theorems derived in the absence of symmetry are readily seen to follow from simple properties of functions (denoted simply e in formulae which are valid for both signs), namely: These relations imply that the families of functions both generate an algebra of functions, i.e. a vector space endowed with an internal multiplication, since (i) and (ii) show how to `linearize products'.
Friedel's law (when applicable) on the one hand, and the Fourier relation between intensities and the Patterson function on the other hand, both follow from the property
When crystallographic symmetry is present, the convolution theorems remain valid in their original form if written out in terms of `expanded' data, but acquire a different form when rewritten in terms of symmetry-unique data only. This rewriting is made possible by the extra relation (Section 1.3.4.2.2.5) or equivalently
The kernels of symmetrized Fourier transforms are not the functions e but rather the symmetrized sums for which the linearization formulae are readily obtained using (i), (ii) and (iv) as where the choice of sign in ± must be the same throughout each formula.
Formulae defining the `structure-factor algebra' associated to G were derived by Bertaut (1955c, 1956b,c, 1959a,b) and Bertaut & Waser (1957) in another context.
The forward convolution theorem (in discrete form) then follows. Let then with
The backward convolution theorem is derived similarly. Let then with Both formulae are simply orbit decompositions of their symmetry-free counterparts.
Consider two model electron densities and with the same period lattice and the same space group G. Write their motifs in terms of atomic electron densities (Section 1.3.4.2.2.4) as where and label the symmetry-unique atoms placed at positions and , respectively.
To calculate the correlation between and we need the following preliminary formulae, which are easily established: if and f is an arbitrary function on , then hence and
The cross correlation between motifs is therefore which contains a peak of shape at the interatomic vector for each , , , .
The cross-correlation between the original electron densities is then obtained by further periodizing by .
Note that these expressions are valid for any choice of `atomic' density functions and , which may be taken as molecular fragments if desired (see Section 1.3.4.4.8).
If G contains elements g such that has an eigenspace with eigenvalue 1 and an invariant complementary subspace , while has a non-zero component in , then the Patterson function will contain Harker peaks (Harker, 1936) of the form [where represent the action of g in ] in the translate of by .
References
Arnold, H. (2005). Transformations in crystallography. In International Tables for Crystallography, Vol. A. Space-group symmetry, edited by Th. Hahn, Chapter 5.1. Heidelberg: Springer.Google ScholarAscher, E. & Janner, A. (1965). Algebraic aspects of crystallography. I. Space groups as extensions. Helv. Phys. Acta, 38, 551–572.Google Scholar
Ascher, E. & Janner, A. (1968). Algebraic aspects of crystallography. II. Non-primitive translations in space groups. Commun. Math. Phys. 11, 138–167.Google Scholar
Auslander, L. (1965). An account of the theory of crystallographic groups. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 16, 1230–1236.Google Scholar
Bertaut, E. F. (1955c). Fonction de répartition: application à l'approache directe des structures. Acta Cryst. 8, 823–832.Google Scholar
Bertaut, E. F. (1956b). Tables de linéarisation des produits et puissances des facteurs de structure. Acta Cryst. 9, 322–323.Google Scholar
Bertaut, E. F. (1956c). Algèbre des facteurs de structure. Acta Cryst. 9, 769–770.Google Scholar
Bertaut, E. F. (1959a). IV. Algèbre des facteurs de structure. Acta Cryst. 12, 541–549.Google Scholar
Bertaut, E. F. (1959b). V. Algèbre des facteurs de structure. Acta Cryst. 12, 570–574.Google Scholar
Bertaut, E. F. & Waser, J. (1957). Structure factor algebra. II. Acta Cryst. 10, 606–607.Google Scholar
Bieberbach, L. (1911). Über die Bewegungsgruppen der Euklidischen Raume I. Math. Ann. 70, 297–336.Google Scholar
Bieberbach, L. (1912). Über die Bewegungsgruppen der Euklidischen Raume II. Math. Ann. 72, 400–412.Google Scholar
Bienenstock, A. & Ewald, P. P. (1962). Symmetry of Fourier space. Acta Cryst. 15, 1253–1261.Google Scholar
Brown, H. (1969). An algorithm for the determination of space groups. Math. Comput. 23, 499–514.Google Scholar
Brown, H., Bülow, R., Neubüser, J., Wondratschek, H. & Zassenhaus, H. (1978). Crystallographic groups of four-dimensional space. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Burnside, W. (1911). Theory of groups of finite order, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coxeter, H. S. M. & Moser, W. O. J. (1972). Generators and relations for discrete groups, 3rd ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Curtis, C. W. & Reiner, I. (1962). Representation theory of finite groups and associative algebras. New York: Wiley–Interscience.Google Scholar
Engel, P. (1986). Geometric crystallography. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Farkas, D. R. (1981). Crystallographic groups and their mathematics. Rocky Mountain J. Math. 11, 511–551.Google Scholar
Frobenius, G. (1911). Über die unzerlegbaren diskreten Bewegungsgruppen. Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 29, 654–665.Google Scholar
Hall, M. (1959). The theory of groups. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Harker, D. (1936). The application of the three-dimensional Patterson method and the crystal structures of proustite, Ag3AsS3, and pyrargyrite, Ag3SbS3. J. Chem. Phys. 4, 381–390.Google Scholar
Janssen, T. (1973). Crystallographic groups. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Jürgensen, H. (1970). Calculation with the elements of a finite group given by generators and defining relations. In Computational problems in abstract algebra, edited by J. Leech, pp. 47–57. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Ledermann, W. (1987). Introduction to group characters, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Magnus, W., Karrass, A. & Solitar, D. (1976). Combinatorial group theory: presentations of groups in terms of generators and relations, 2nd revised ed. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Rollett, J. S. & Davies, D. R. (1955). The calculation of structure factors for centrosymmetric monoclinic systems with anisotropic atomic vibration. Acta Cryst. 8, 125–128.Google Scholar
Schwarzenberger, R. L. E. (1980). N-dimensional crystallography. Research notes in mathematics, Vol. 41. London: Pitman.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R. (1964). Group theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. [Reprinted by Dover, New York, 1987.]Google Scholar
Shenefelt, M. (1988). Group invariant finite Fourier transforms. PhD thesis, Graduate Centre of the City University of New York.Google Scholar
Trueblood, K. N. (1956). Symmetry transformations of general anisotropic temperature factors. Acta Cryst. 9, 359–361.Google Scholar
Waser, J. (1955a). Symmetry relations between structure factors. Acta Cryst. 8, 595.Google Scholar
Waser, J. (1955b). The anisotropic temperature factor in triclinic coordinates. Acta Cryst. 8, 731.Google Scholar
Wells, M. (1965). Computational aspects of space-group symmetry. Acta Cryst. 19, 173–179.Google Scholar
Wolf, J. A. (1967). Spaces of constant curvature. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Wondratschek, H. (2005). Introduction to space-group symmetry. In International tables for crystallography, Vol. A. Space-group symmetry, edited by Th. Hahn, Part 8. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Zassenhaus, H. (1948). Über eine Algorithmus zur Bestimmung der Raumgruppen. Commun. Helv. Math. 21, 117–141.Google Scholar