Clebsch-Gordan coeffs, special cases

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jesssa
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Clebsch-gordan
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on deriving Clebsch-Gordan coefficients (CGC) without relying on the general CGC formula. The participants explore the J=0 case and the significance of the term (-1)^{j_1 - m_1}, questioning its intuitive origin. The conversation highlights the use of spinors and binomial expansions as potential methods for derivation, while also addressing the parity of integers j_1 and m_1. The need for a clearer understanding of these coefficients is emphasized, particularly in relation to their normalization factors.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Clebsch-Gordan coefficients (CGC)
  • Familiarity with Wigner 3-j symbols
  • Basic knowledge of quantum mechanics and angular momentum
  • Concepts of parity in integers
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the derivation of Clebsch-Gordan coefficients using binomial expansions
  • Study the properties and applications of Wigner 3-j symbols
  • Explore the role of spinors in quantum mechanics
  • Investigate the significance of parity in quantum states
USEFUL FOR

Quantum mechanics students, physicists specializing in angular momentum, and researchers interested in the mathematical foundations of quantum theory.

Jesssa
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I'm not sure whether I should have posted this in main Quantum mechanics thread because it's not really regarding homework, but I posted it in here just to be safe.

I was wondering, is there a way to derive the expression for these coefficients without the use of the general CGC formula?

For example, the J=0 case (this is taken from wikipedia)

65a3e02b0a4b4e80f8d539efb5c908aa.png


The 1/sqrt term is clear but the (-1)^.. term not so much, is there a way to find this coefficient?

I have read it requires the use of spinors and so on but I was wondering if there was a more simple way?

I found only a derivation of the CGC using only binomial expansions, but it was difficult to see exactly how they saw the starting point, it seemed like it must have been educated guesses until worked.

Thanks,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Perhaps I am misreading this, since you mention spinors, but aren't j_1 and m_1 simply integers? If so then (-1)^{j_1- m_2) is +1 if [iterx]j_1[/itex] and m_1 have the same parity (both even or both odd) and +1 if they have different parity.
 
Thanks for replying HallsofIvy,

I understand what you have posted, but do you know how you get the (-1)^{j_1- m_1} term in the expression? I know, if you consider the formula it comes from the Wigner 3-j but I'm interested in finding out where it comes from (intuitively, if it is possible).

When I first saw the state, intuitively I saw the normalization factor 1/sqrt.. but I didn't expect/understand where the (-1)^{j_1- m_1} was coming from.
 

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K