7
$\begingroup$

I'm not too familiar with quasi-crystals, but I was recently playing around with a particular discrete function and I got the following neat pattern:

crystal

This is just a small segment, but as far as I could tell it does not become periodic. So I am wondering whether this is a quasi-crystal. More exactly:

  1. How would I go about figuring out whether or not this is a quasi-crystal?
  2. Does anyone recognize this pattern?

Knowing of the peculiar diffraction patterns of quasi-crystals, I took the Fourier transform of the above and obtained the following (again just showing a segment):

fourier transformation

(Details: this is in log-scale, with bright colors denoting high values, dark low values)

I find this quite beautiful and hence I'd love to have a better understanding of what's going on. In particular it seems to me that this might be a fractal. Again I am wondering how to formalize this and/or what the best way would be to advance if I want to 'understand' either of these patterns. Basically I'm not sure what to 'look for', which also makes it hard to make my question very concrete.

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ it seems your diffraction pattern has four-fold symmetry, which is not what one would expect for a quasicrystal; I also do not see the self-similarity at different scales I would expect for a fractal; you could just have some pattern with short-range order but without any long-range order. $\endgroup$ – Carlo Beenakker Nov 8 '16 at 20:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CarloBeenakker Thank you for your comment! Today I stumbled upon an interesting article about quasicrystals and fourfold symmetry, and I thought you might be interested. Ron Lifshitz ( tau.ac.il/~ronlif/pubs/JAlCom342-186-2002.pdf ) has constructed a 2D Fibonacci tiling which has most properties one would assign to a quasi-crystal (e.g. non-periodic but repetitive, can be built as a cut-and-project from a higher dimensional lattice, Fourier spectrum is a set of Dirac deltas, etc) but it has a fourfold symmetry. In particular he says: [cont] $\endgroup$ – Ruben Verresen Dec 4 '16 at 18:35
  • $\begingroup$ "According to the prevailing (though unofficial) definition, a quasicrystal is required to have some ‘forbidden’ symmetry, incompatible with periodicity—at least one axis of n-fold symmetry with n = 5 or n > 6. I have argued elsewhere that this requirement should officially be removed from the definition of quasicrystals. The existence of the square Fibonacci tiling supports this argument." I would certainly be interested in any thoughts on this. (As for the fractal issue: I agree the lattice doesn't look fractal, but I do think the Fourier spectrum displays a kind of self-similarity.) $\endgroup$ – Ruben Verresen Dec 4 '16 at 18:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CarloBeenakker I think that the chair tiling has 4 fold symmetry, but a dense set of Bragg peaks which is not compatible with periodic crystals. Sphynx tiling is similar in the sense that it is aperiodic but has 6 fold symmetry. This is the reason why mathematicians try to avoid calling things "quasicrystals", we say instead aperiodic order... $\endgroup$ – Nick S Sep 20 '18 at 21:37
2
$\begingroup$

You will need to provide some more information, but your pattern has a resemblance with the Penrose tiling, that is indeed a quasi-crystal.

A quasi-crystal is a non-periodic pattern, but any finite pattern is guaranteed to exist in any sufficiently large region. Your picture seem to indicate this. Furthermore, the fact that your pattern is generated by a mathematical function strongly indicate that it is also a fractal, generated by some sort of geometric substitution rule, see e.g., Barnsleys fresh article that was put on arxiv today.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

It is not because a quasicrystal has a five-fold axis of rotational symmetry - pentagonal - while yours has four. This is the Penrose tiling and Wang tiling which is the representation of the PHI fractal geometry of atomic arrangements in organic molecules. (https://i.stack.imgur.com/nDmNA.jpg

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The poster has addressed this in a sequence of comments, including this one. $\endgroup$ – LSpice Jan 2 at 0:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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