Fining Clebsch-Gordan coeffs in special cases, alternate method

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Jesssa
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Clebsch-gordan Method
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving Clebsch-Gordan coefficients (CGC) in specific cases without relying on the general formula. Participants explore alternative methods, particularly focusing on the J=0 case and the implications of negative signs in coefficients.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about deriving CGC without the general formula, specifically questioning the origin of the (-1)^.. term in the J=0 case.
  • Another participant suggests using stepping operators as a common method for deriving CGC in special cases, providing a mathematical expression related to the J=0 state.
  • A later reply expresses confusion about how the negative sign of the coefficients is determined by j1 and m1, noting that while coefficients alternate in sign, the specific assignment of negativity remains unclear.
  • Another participant points out that the phase factors in angular momentum states and CGC are not uniquely determined and must be assigned arbitrarily, referencing the Condon and Shortley phase conventions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the derivation methods and the significance of negative signs in coefficients, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific dependence of these signs on j1 and m1.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the ambiguity in the assignment of phase factors and the potential reliance on conventions that may not be universally accepted.

Jesssa
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Hello,

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 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. Other derivations of the coefficients rely on the J=0 coefficients or more advanced mathematics.

Thanks,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The usual way to derive Clebsch-Gordan coefficients in special cases is to use stepping operators. For the example you give, if you let |0,0> = ∑ Cm|j,m>|j,-m>, you know that J+|0,0> = 0.

J+(∑ Cm|j,m>|j,-m>) = ∑ Cm√(j-m)(j+m+1) (|j,m+1>|j,-m> + |j,m>|j,-m+1>) = ∑√(j-m)(j+m+1)(Cm + Cm+1)|j,m+1>|j,-m>

In order for this sum to vanish, the Cm's must all have the same value and alternate in sign.
 
Oh I see,

Thanks for your answer!

However I am still having trouble figuring out how the negative sign of the coefficients depends on j1 and m1 in this example.

(-1)j1 + m1

From application of either of the ladder operators you get

Cm = -Cm+1

But from this it's not clear which coefficient is actually negative, only that they have opposite signs.

Is it possible to simply find things like this? What I mean is, in the case of this example, the dependence of the negative sign on j1 and m1?
 
Some of the phase factors involved in the definition of the angular momentum states and the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients are not uniquely determined, and must be arbitrarily assigned. For example the state with the highest m-value is conventionally chosen to have a plus sign. The standard choices are known as the Condon and Shortley phase conventions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K