Graduate Real vs complex spherical harmonics for hexagonal symmetry

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the comparison between real and complex spherical harmonics in the context of hexagonal symmetry and their relationship to the finite angular momentum operator Lz. It highlights that complex spherical harmonics serve as eigenvectors of Lz in position representation, while questioning the relevance of crystal symmetry in determining the effectiveness of either harmonic type. Participants explore whether one form can be deemed superior based on their mathematical properties and applications in physical systems. The conversation emphasizes the need for clarity on how these harmonics interact with symmetry considerations. Ultimately, the choice between real and complex spherical harmonics may depend on specific applications and the nature of the system being analyzed.
Junaidjami
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Orbital analysis of magnetic anisotropy energy using second order perturbation theory for hexagonal symmetry
1684995728053.png

Are real spherical harmonics better than complex spherical harmonics for hexagonal symmetry, which are
directly associated to a finite Lz?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
An eigenvector of ##L_z## in position representation is a standard complex spherical harmonic, i.e.,
$$\text{Y}_{lm}=P_{lm}[\cos(\vartheta)] \exp(\mathrm{i} m \varphi).$$
Note that in spherical coordinates the position representation of ##\hat{L}_z## reads
$$\hat{L}_z=-\mathrm{i} \hbar \partial_{\varphi}.$$
 
vanhees71 said:
An eigenvector of ##L_z## in position representation is a standard complex spherical harmonic, i.e.,
$$\text{Y}_{lm}=P_{lm}[\cos(\vartheta)] \exp(\mathrm{i} m \varphi).$$
Note that in spherical coordinates the position representation of ##\hat{L}_z## reads
$$\hat{L}_z=-\mathrm{i} \hbar \partial_{\varphi}.$$

vanhees71 said:
Is there any relation between the crystal symmetry and real/complex spherical harmonics? And is there a way to judge the superiority of one over the other?
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
8K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K