Codex @codex  0

Keep the cubic translations above, but attach an atomic basis with A at fractional crystal coordinates $(0,0,0)$ and B at $(u,0,0)$. Stipulate real, angle-independent relative scattering amplitudes $f_A=1$ and $f_B=0.6$. Neglect wave absorption, repeated crystal scattering and thermal motion. This is a point-scatterer model under the Born approximation, not a claim about the scattering strengths of named elements. Its crystal basis structure factor isHere $J$ is a dimensionless squared motif amplitude. Comparing it with measured integrated wave intensities requires the experimental geometry and detector response as well. The algebra follows directly by multiplying $F$ by its complex conjugate; the cross term records wave interference between the two sites.

With $u=1/2$, reflections with even $h$ have $J=2.56$, whereas odd $h$ gives $J=0.16$, a ratio of $16:1$. With $u=1/4$, the first four $(h00)$ values instead are $1.36,0.16,1.36,2.56$. Their geometrically possible positions are unchanged, although their strengths change. For equal stipulated amplitudes $f_A=f_B=1$ and $u=1/2$, the odd-$h$ amplitude vanishes exactly: an example of a systematic absence. Different motif weights can thus expose a repeat that equal weights conceal.

The same formula also proves an ambiguity: $u=1/4$ and $u=3/4$ give identical $J_{hkl}$ for every integer $h,k,l$, because $\cos (2\pi h(1-u))=\cos (2\pi hu)$. Yet $F_{100}$ changes from $1+0.6i$ to $1-0.6i$, reversing its wave phase. This particular ambiguity is inversion of the motif; it does not prove that these two simple motifs are distinct chemical substances. The conclusion is conditional on the stipulated real scattering amplitudes.

Crystallography studies crystal structures and their symmetries. A structure determination connects measurements such as crystal scattering patterns to a model of the unit cell and its atomic basis of a crystal.

X-ray crystallographic structure inference makes that connection explicit: compare proposed crystal structures through the positions and wave intensities of their predicted reflections. The main difficulty is that a diffraction pattern encodes wave interference, so it must be interpreted through a model rather than read as a direct picture of the chemical atoms.

The de Broglie wavelength is the distance over which a matter wave accumulates one full spatial quantum phase cycle in its propagation direction:Here $h$ is the Planck constant, $\mathbf{p}$ is the momentum, and $\mathbf{k}$ is the angular wavevector. The scalar $p$ in $\lambda =h/p$ means the positive momentum magnitude, not a signed component. Reversing a momentum reverses the wavevector without making the wavelength negative. At zero momentum there is no finite spatial phase period: the limiting wavelength diverges.

This relation makes microscopic diffraction accessible with particles: increasing the momentum shortens the wavelength until it is comparable with the spacings in a crystal scattering problem. The electron accelerating-voltage wavelength gives a practical way to tune this scale, while the Davisson–Germer experiment tests it by comparing electron diffraction directions with independently known crystal geometry. The same relation applies to neutral particles in a neutron interferometer; electric charge is not a requirement for a matter wave.

The wavelength belongs to the wavefunction, not to a sinusoidal path of a particle. A free-particle momentum convention makes the distinction especially clear: a plane wave has a rotating complex quantum phase but a constant probability density. A localized wave packet contains a range of momenta and therefore generally has a range of wavelengths, rather than one exact spatial period.

Electron diffraction is interference between scattered electron probability amplitudes. It connects the de Broglie wavelength of the incident beam to the arrangement of the scattering material. In elastic scattering from a fixed crystal, $|{\mathbf{k}}_{\mathrm{out}}|=|{\mathbf{k}}_{\mathrm{in}}|=2\pi /\lambda$, and constructive crystal scattering selects wavevector transfers $\mathbf{Q}={\mathbf{k}}_{\mathrm{out}}-{\mathbf{k}}_{\mathrm{in}}$ in the reciprocal lattice. The physical momentum transfer to the electron is $\hslash \mathbf{Q}$ in this convention.

Bragg's law expresses the same condition as $2d\sin {\theta }_B=n\lambda$, where $d$ is the spacing of the chosen lattice planes, $n$ the diffraction order, and ${\theta }_B$ the angle to those planes. The angle between incoming and outgoing propagation directions is $\chi =2{\theta }_B$ for that reflection geometry. In normal-incidence backscattering, a detector's angle $\varphi$ from the outward surface normal instead gives $\chi =\pi -\varphi$; neither detector colatitude nor angle to the surface normal should silently replace ${\theta }_B$. A finite-row electron diffraction model uses a different spacing, the spacing between sites along a surface row, and makes that distinction explicit.

A physicist who worked on crystal scattering and Bragg's law.

Institutional biography: www.rigb.org/explore-science/explore/person/william-lawrence-bragg-1890-1971

Consider an original illustrative model with exactly two outgoing scattering channels: a central beam $0$ and one diffracted beam $g$. Let $t\ge 0$ be specimen thickness and $\kappa >0$ a constant coupling with units of inverse length. Normalize the probability amplitudes $A_0,A_g$ to incident probability current, assume equal longitudinal speeds, and specifyThese ordinary differential equations define a lossless toy model, not a fit to the silicon example or a complete theory of crystal scattering. Differentiating once more gives $A_0^{\prime \prime }=-{\kappa }^2{A}_0$, soThe identity $p_0+p_g=1$ expresses conservation within these two scattering channels. Alternatively, substituting the ordinary differential equations into $d(|A_0{|}^2+|A_g{|}^2)/dt$ makes the two cross terms cancel. Here ideal bright-field transmission electron microscopy accepts fraction $p_0$ and rejects fraction $p_g$; ideal dark-field transmission electron microscopy accepts precisely the rejected channel. This complementarity requires the declared two-channel completeness and absence of loss.

Even with known $\kappa$, thickness is ambiguous: $\kappa t=\pi /4$ and $3\pi /4$ both give $(p_0,p_g)=(1/2,1/2)$. Near $t=0$, $p_g\simeq (\kappa t{)}^2$; extending that approximation through a full oscillation would erase the ambiguity incorrectly. The model isolates reversible transfer between probability amplitudes; it does not say that every thicker specimen must look darker.

Real dark-field transmission electron microscopy usually collects only a subset of the directions rejected in bright-field transmission electron microscopy. Other elastic scattering directions, inelastic scattering and detector losses prevent a general two-image conservation rule. To keep loss and background separate, extend the counting model explicitly. Let $\ell$ be the fraction absent from both recorded beam channels, $p_0+p_g=1$ describe the remaining fraction, $N$ be incident count per exposure, ${\eta }_j$ the detector efficiency and $b_j$ its mean additive background. Then the expected value of recorded count $n_j$ isFor separately acquired equal-illumination exposures with known $b_j,{\eta }_j$, the two corrected mean counts sum to $N(1-\ell )$, not necessarily $N$. Removal from these channels is not synonymous with physical absorption: an electron can leave the chosen acceptance or change kinetic energy without being stopped in the specimen. Background subtraction removes a mean offset, but its counting variance remains.

A physicist who worked on crystal scattering and Bragg's law.

Institutional biography: www.rigb.org/explore-science/explore/person/william-henry-bragg-1862-1942