JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB Archives

CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB  November 2009

CCP4BB November 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: units of the B factor

From:

James Holton <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

James Holton <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:22:52 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (203 lines)

No No No!  This is not what I meant at all! 


I am not suggesting the creation of a new unit, but rather that we name 
a unit that is already in widespread use.  This unit is A^2/(8*pi^2) 
which has dimensions of length^2 and it IS the unit of B factor.  That 
is, every PDB file lists the B factor as a multiple of THIS fundamental 
quantity, not A^2.  If the unit were simply A^2, then the PDB file would 
be listing much smaller numbers (U, not B).  (Okay, there are a few PDBs 
that do that by mistake, but not many.)  As Marc pointed out, a unit and 
a dimension are not the same thing: millimeters and centimeters are 
different units, but they have the same dimension: length.  And, yes, 
dimensionless scale factors like "milli" and "centi" are useful.  The B 
factor has dimension length^2, but the unit of B factor is not A^2.  For 
example, if we change some atomic B factor by 1, then we are actually 
describing a change of 0.013 A^2, because this is equal to 1.0 
A^2/(8*pi^2).  What I am suggesting is that it would be easier to say 
that "the B factor changed by 1.0", and if you must quote the units, the 
units are "B", otherwise we have to say: "the B factor changed by 1.0 
A^2/(8*pi^2)".  Saying that a B factor changed by 1 A^2 when the actual 
change in A^2 is 0.013 is (formally) incorrect.


  The unfortunate situation however is that B factors have often been 
reported with "units" of A^2, and this is equivalent to describing the 
area of 80 football fields as "80" and then giving the dimension (m^2) 
as the units!  It is better to say that the area is "80 football 
fields", but this is invoking a unit: the "football field".  The unit of 
B factor, however does not have a name.  We could say 1.0 "B-factor 
units", but that is not the same as 1.0 A^2 which is ~80 "B-factor units".


Admittedly, using A^2 to describe a B factor by itself is not confusing 
because we all know what a B factor is.  It is that last column in the 
PDB file.  The potential for confusion arises in derived units.  How 
does one express a rate-of-change in B factor?  A^2/s?  What about 
rate-of-change in U?  A^2/s?  I realized that this could become a 
problem while comparing Kmetko et. al. Acta D (2006) and Borek et. al. 
JSR (2007).  Both very good and influential papers: the former describes 
damage rates in A^2/MGy (converting B to U first so that A^2 is the 
unit), and the latter relates damage to the B factor directly, and 
points out that the increase in B factor from radiation damage of most 
protein crystals is almost exactly 1.0 B/MGy.  This would be a great 
"rule of thumb" if one were allowed to use "B" as a unit.  Why not?


Interesting that the IUCr committee report that Ian pointed out stated 
"we recommend that the use of B be discouraged".  Hmm... Good luck with 
that!


I agree that I should have used "U" instead of u^2 in my original post.  
Actually, the "u" should have a subscript "x" to denote that it is along 
the direction perpendicular to the Bragg plane.  Movement within the 
plane does not change the spot intensity, and it also does not matter if 
the "x" displacements are "instantaneous", dynamic or static, as there 
is no way to tell the difference with x-ray diffraction.  It just 
matters how far the atoms are from their ideal lattice points (James 
1962, Ch 1).  I am not sure how to do a symbol with both superscripts 
and subscripts AND inside brackets <> that is legible in all email 
clients.  Here is a try: B = 8*pi*<u<sub>x</sub>^2>.  Did that work?


I did find it interesting that the 8*pi^2 arises from the fact that 
diffraction occurs in angle space, and so factors of 4*pi steradians pop 
up in the Fourier domain (spatial frequencies).  In the case of B it is 
(4*pi)^2/2 because the second coefficient of a Taylor series is 1/2.  
Along these lines, quoting B in A^2 is almost precisely analogous to 
quoting an "angular frequency" in Hz.  Yes, the dimensions are the same 
(s^-1), but how does one interpret the statement: "the angular frequency 
was 1 Hz".  Is that cycles per second or radians per second?

That's all I'm saying...

-James Holton
MAD Scientist


Marc SCHILTZ wrote:
> Frank von Delft wrote:
>> Hi Marc
>>
>> Not at all, one uses units that are convenient.  By your reasoning we 
>> should get rid of Å, atmospheres, AU, light years...  They exist not 
>> to be obnoxious, but because they're handy for a large number of 
>> people in their specific situations.
>
> Hi Frank,
>
> I think that you misunderstood me. Å and atmospheres are units which 
> really refer to physical quantities of different dimensions. So, of 
> course, there must be different units for them (by the way: atmosphere 
> is not an accepted unit in the SI system - not even a tolerated non SI 
> unit, so a conscientious editor of an IUCr journal would not let it go 
> through. On the other hand, the Å is a tolerated non SI unit).
>
> But in the case of B and U, the situation is different. These two 
> quantities have the same dimension (square of a length). They are 
> related by the dimensionless factor 8*pi^2. Why would one want to 
> incorporate this factor into the unit ? What advantage would it have ?
>
> The physics literature is full of quantities that are related by 
> multiples of pi. The frequency f of an oscillation (e.g. a sound wave) 
> can be expressed in s^-1 (or Hz). The same oscillation can also be 
> charcterized by its angular frequency \omega, which is related to the 
> former by a factor 2*pi. Yet, no one has ever come up to suggest that 
> this quantity should be given a new unit. Planck's constant h can be 
> expressed in J*s. The related (and often more useful) constant h-bar = 
> h/(2*pi) is also expressed in J*s. No one has ever suggested that this 
> should be given a different unit.
>
> The SI system (and other systems as well) has been specially crafted 
> to avoid the proliferation of units. So I don't think that we can 
> (should) invent new units whenever it appears "convenient". It would 
> bring us back to times anterior to the French revolution.
>
> Please note: I am not saying that the SI system is the definite choice 
> for every purpose. The nautical system of units (nautical mile, knot, 
> etc.) is used for navigation on sea and in the air and it works fine 
> for this purpose. However, within a system of units (whichever is 
> adopted), the number of different units should be kept reasonably small.
>
> Cheers
>
> Marc
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Sounds familiar...
>> phx
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Marc SCHILTZ wrote:
>>> Hi James,
>>>
>>> James Holton wrote:
>>>> Many textbooks describe the B factor as having units of square 
>>>> Angstrom (A^2), but then again, so does the mean square atomic 
>>>> displacement u^2, and B = 8*pi^2*u^2.  This can become confusing if 
>>>> one starts to look at derived units that have started to come out 
>>>> of the radiation damage field like A^2/MGy, which relates how much 
>>>> the B factor of a crystal changes after absorbing a given dose.  Or 
>>>> is it the atomic displacement after a given dose?  Depends on which 
>>>> paper you are looking at.
>>>
>>> There is nothing wrong with this. In the case of derived units, 
>>> there is almost never a univocal relation between the unit and the 
>>> physical quantity that it refers to. As an example: from the unit 
>>> kg/m^3, you can not tell what the physical quantity is that it 
>>> refers to: it could be the density of a material, but it could also 
>>> be the mass concentration of a compound in a solution. Therefore, 
>>> one always has to specify exactly what physical quantity one is 
>>> talking about, i.e. B/dose or u^2/dose, but this is not something 
>>> that should be packed into the unit (otherwise, we will need 
>>> hundreds of different units)
>>>
>>> It simply has to be made clear by the author of a paper whether the 
>>> quantity he is referring to is B or u^2.
>>>
>>>
>>>> It seems to me that the units of "B" and "u^2" cannot both be A^2 
>>>> any more than 1 radian can be equated to 1 degree.  You need a 
>>>> scale factor.  Kind of like trying to express something in terms of 
>>>> "1/100 cm^2" without the benefit of mm^2.  Yes, mm^2 have the 
>>>> "dimensions" of cm^2, but you can't just say 1 cm^2 when you really 
>>>> mean 1 mm^2! That would be silly.  However, we often say B = 80 
>>>> A^2", when we really mean is 1 A^2 of square atomic displacements. 
>>>
>>> This is like claiming that the radius and the circumference of a 
>>> circle would need different units because they are related by the 
>>> "scale factor" 2*pi.
>>>
>>> What matters is the dimension. Both radius and circumference have 
>>> the dimension of a length, and therefore have the same unit. Both B 
>>> and u^2 have the dimension of the square of a length and therefoire 
>>> have the same unit. The scalefactor 8*pi^2 is a dimensionless 
>>> quantity and does not change the unit.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The "B units", which are ~1/80th of a A^2, do not have a name.  So, 
>>>> I think we have a "new" unit?  It is "A^2/(8pi^2)" and it is the 
>>>> units of the "B factor" that we all know and love.  What should we 
>>>> call it?  I nominate the "Born" after Max Born who did so much 
>>>> fundamental and far-reaching work on the nature of disorder in 
>>>> crystal lattices.  The unit then has the symbol "B", which will 
>>>> make it easy to say that the B factor was "80 B".  This might be 
>>>> very handy indeed if, say, you had an editor who insists that all 
>>>> reported values have units?
>>>>
>>>> Anyone disagree or have a better name?
>>>
>>> Good luck in submitting your proposal to the General Conference on 
>>> Weights and Measures.
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager