Superstructure theory

Both theories predicted similar resolution for the images of the superstructures of the Au(llO) surfaces. 

This expression coincides with the Stoll formula, Eq. (1.25), within a constant factor. Therefore, both theories provide an adequate explanation of the topographic STM images of the superstructures on Au(llO) surfaces. 

In many theories, nevertheless, the (1 — 0) law has been used as the foundation on which to build elaborate superstructures, which must necessarily fall if the (1 — 0) law is invalid. Even from a theoretical analysis of what should happen when an incoming molecule strikes a surface which is partially covered, one should become suspicious of the (1 — 0) law. Should one not expect that an incoming molecule, which collides with an adsorbed atom (or molecule), is deflected by this atom and strikes a near-by bare spot where it can be adsorbed The view that the incoming molecule bounces off the surface if it collides with an adsorbed atom is in our opinion far too naive. 

Conceptually, the representation of alternative process flowsheet(s) is based on elementary graph theory ideas. By representing each unit of the superstructure as a node, each input and output as a node, the interconnections among the process units as two-way arcs, the interconnections between the inputs and the process units as one-way arcs, the interconnections between the process units and the outputs as one-way arcs, and the interconnections between the inputs and the outputs as one-way arcs, then we have a bipartite planar graph that represents all options of the superstructure. 

The method for selecting the principal cycle eliminates dependence on concepts that not only are antiquated, but also not expandable to all of the historical subdivisions of chemistry. The distinct, and uncoordinated, protocols in use today in "organic" vs. "inorganic" chemistry nomenclature are replaced by a common, graph theory based, superstructure. In doing so,... 

In an electron microscope, the electron beam is produced by an electron gun, in which the electrons are boiled off a heated filament and then accelerated by a highly stabilized electrical potential difference of some hundreds of kilovolts. An electron beam produced in this way is not coherent, but its degree of coherence can be understood in terms of the concepts of optical coherence theory. Later chapters will show that the nature of electron diffraction patterns from crystals that exhibit long-period superstructures (which are not uncommon in many important rockforming minerals) depends critically on the degree of spatial coherence of the incident electron beam. Therefore, it is important to conclude this chapter with a brief review of the basic ideas of optical coherence. A detailed account of the theory is given by Born and Wolf (1965). 

What thus really makes one dimension so peculiar resides in the fact that the symmetry of the spectrum for the Cooper and Peierls instabilities refer to the same phase space of electronic states [108]. The two different kinds of pairing act as independent and simultaneous processes of the electron-electron scattering amplitude which interfere with and distort each other at all order of perturbation theory. What comes out of this interference is neither a BCS superconductor nor a Peierls/density-wave superstructure but a different instability of the Fermi liquid called a Luttinger liquid. 

The systematic development of superstructures for heterogeneous systems is, in principle, a more difficult task. Consider, for instance a process flowsheet that is composed of reaction, separation, and heat integration subsystems. In theory, one could develop a superstructure by combining the superstructures for each subsystem. However, this approach could lead to a very large MINLP optimization problem. 

Did Marx practise functional explanation If so, was he successful if not, could his explanations be improved In this section I shall mainly explore the first two questions, with only brief references to the third, which I have pursued more fully elsewhere. 1 begin by spelling out the structure of functional explanation as commonly employed, and my objections to it. I then survey the main instances of functional explanation in Marx, including his philosophy of history, the theory of the development of the productive forces, the theory of the political and ideological superstructure and miscellaneous other matters. Most of these are also more fully discussed in later chapters. 

---