Difference in phase convention for Wigner d-function

chafelix
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
I am looking for a way to connect the Condon-Shortley-Wigner to the Edmonds phase convention. Specifically I am writing a program to compute Wigner-d matrix coefficients

From tabulated values (e.g. even Wikipedia) d^1/2_{1/2,-1/2}=(-1)^{-1/2-1/2}d^1/2_{-1/2,1/2}=-sin(theta/2)

So d^1/2_{-1/2,1/2}=sin(theta/2)

But from Edmonds, eq. 4.1.27 with j=1/2,m=-1/2 this should have a - sign
e.g.
d^j_{mj}=(-1)^{j-m}[(2j)!/((j+m)!(j-m)!]^{1/2} [cos(theta/2)]^{j+m} [sin(theta/2)]^{j-m}

i.e. j=1/2, m=-1/2,j+m=0,j-m=1

- sqrt(1!/(0! 1!)) [cos(theta/2)]^0 [sin(theta/2)]^1, i.e. the sign is off


Is this an Edmonds typo or some different phase convention?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm sorry you are not generating any responses at the moment. Is there any additional information you can share with us? Any new findings?
 
Yes, Edmonds has a typo. There should be no (-1)**(j-m) there.
 
From the BCS theory of superconductivity is well known that the superfluid density smoothly decreases with increasing temperature. Annihilated superfluid carriers become normal and lose their momenta on lattice atoms. So if we induce a persistent supercurrent in a ring below Tc and after that slowly increase the temperature, we must observe a decrease in the actual supercurrent, because the density of electron pairs and total supercurrent momentum decrease. However, this supercurrent...
Hi. I have got question as in title. How can idea of instantaneous dipole moment for atoms like, for example hydrogen be consistent with idea of orbitals? At my level of knowledge London dispersion forces are derived taking into account Bohr model of atom. But we know today that this model is not correct. If it would be correct I understand that at each time electron is at some point at radius at some angle and there is dipole moment at this time from nucleus to electron at orbit. But how...
Back
Top