skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Correspondence: Reply to ‘Phantom phonon localization in relaxors’

Abstract

The Correspondence by Gehring et al. mistakes Anderson phonon localization for the concept of an atomic-scale local mode. An atomic-scale local mode refers to a single atom vibrating on its own within a crystal. Such a local mode will have an almost flat intensity profile, but this is not the same as phonon localization. Anderson localization is a wave interference effect in a disordered system that results in waves becoming spatially localized. The length scale of the localized waves is set by the wavelength, which is approximately 2 nm in this case. This larger length scale in real space means narrower intensity profiles in reciprocal space. Here, we conclude that the claims in the Correspondence by Gehring et al. are incorrect because they mistakenly assume that the length scale for Anderson localization is atomic, and because the experimental observations rule out multiple scattering as the origin.

Authors:
ORCiD logo [1]; ORCiD logo [2]; ORCiD logo [1]
  1. Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States). Materials Science & Technology Division
  2. Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States). Quantum Condensed Matter Division
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Science (SC), Basic Energy Sciences (BES) (SC-22)
OSTI Identifier:
1414696
Grant/Contract Number:
AC05-00OR22725
Resource Type:
Journal Article: Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Nature Communications
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 8; Journal Issue: 1; Journal ID: ISSN 2041-1723
Publisher:
Nature Publishing Group
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
36 MATERIALS SCIENCE

Citation Formats

Manley, Michael E., Abernathy, Douglas L., and Budai, John D. Correspondence: Reply to ‘Phantom phonon localization in relaxors’. United States: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.1038/s41467-017-01396-5.
Manley, Michael E., Abernathy, Douglas L., & Budai, John D. Correspondence: Reply to ‘Phantom phonon localization in relaxors’. United States. doi:10.1038/s41467-017-01396-5.
Manley, Michael E., Abernathy, Douglas L., and Budai, John D. 2017. "Correspondence: Reply to ‘Phantom phonon localization in relaxors’". United States. doi:10.1038/s41467-017-01396-5. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1414696.
@article{osti_1414696,
title = {Correspondence: Reply to ‘Phantom phonon localization in relaxors’},
author = {Manley, Michael E. and Abernathy, Douglas L. and Budai, John D.},
abstractNote = {The Correspondence by Gehring et al. mistakes Anderson phonon localization for the concept of an atomic-scale local mode. An atomic-scale local mode refers to a single atom vibrating on its own within a crystal. Such a local mode will have an almost flat intensity profile, but this is not the same as phonon localization. Anderson localization is a wave interference effect in a disordered system that results in waves becoming spatially localized. The length scale of the localized waves is set by the wavelength, which is approximately 2 nm in this case. This larger length scale in real space means narrower intensity profiles in reciprocal space. Here, we conclude that the claims in the Correspondence by Gehring et al. are incorrect because they mistakenly assume that the length scale for Anderson localization is atomic, and because the experimental observations rule out multiple scattering as the origin.},
doi = {10.1038/s41467-017-01396-5},
journal = {Nature Communications},
number = 1,
volume = 8,
place = {United States},
year = 2017,
month =
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record

Save / Share:
  • We have measured the grain density - the number of grains per unit length - over the centromere and noncentromere regions of metaphase chromosomes in autoradiographs of human lymphocytes. When the chromosomes were labeled in G/sub 0/ by uv-induced unscheduled DNA synthesis, the grain density was two to four times larger over the centromere than over the noncentromere regions. When the labeling was done by scheduled DNA synthesis in S or unscheduled synthesis in M, the grain densities were approximately equal over both regions.
  • Purpose: To evaluate the positioning accuracies of two image-guided localization systems, ExacTrac and On-Board Imager (OBI), in a stereotactic treatment unit. Methods and Materials: An anthropomorphic pelvis phantom with eight internal metal markers (BBs) was used. The center of one BB was set as plan isocenter. The phantom was set up on a treatment table with various initial setup errors. Then, the errors were corrected using each of the investigated systems. The residual errors were measured with respect to the radiation isocenter using orthogonal portal images with field size 3 x 3 cm{sup 2}. The angular localization discrepancies of themore » two systems and the correction accuracy of the robotic couch were also studied. A pair of pre- and post-cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images was acquired for each angular correction. Then, the correction errors were estimated by using the internal BBs through fiducial marker-based registrations. Results: The isocenter localization errors ({mu} {+-}{sigma}) in the left/right, posterior/anterior, and superior/inferior directions were, respectively, -0.2 {+-} 0.2 mm, -0.8 {+-} 0.2 mm, and -0.8 {+-} 0.4 mm for ExacTrac, and 0.5 {+-} 0.7 mm, 0.6 {+-} 0.5 mm, and 0.0 {+-} 0.5 mm for OBI CBCT. The registration angular discrepancy was 0.1 {+-} 0.2{sup o} between the two systems, and the maximum angle correction error of the robotic couch was 0.2{sup o} about all axes. Conclusion: Both the ExacTrac and the OBI CBCT systems showed approximately 1 mm isocenter localization accuracies. The angular discrepancy of two systems was minimal, and the robotic couch angle correction was accurate. These positioning uncertainties should be taken as a lower bound because the results were based on a rigid dosimetry phantom.« less