MHB Spherical Harmonics easy question

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the normalization of spherical harmonics, specifically for the case where both $\ell$ and $m$ equal 1. The user calculates the spherical harmonic $Y_1^1$ and arrives at a result of $\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{3}{2\pi}}e^{i\varphi}\sin \theta$, while Mathematica provides a solution of $-\frac{1}{2} e^{i\varphi} \sqrt{\frac{3}{2\pi}} \sin\theta$. The discrepancy arises from differences in normalization conventions used in various texts. One participant suggests that their book incorporates a factor of $(-1)^m$ in the definition, which could explain the negative sign in Mathematica's output. Understanding these normalization differences is crucial for consistent results in spherical harmonics calculations.
Dustinsfl
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
5
$$
Y_{\ell}^m = \sqrt{\frac{(2\ell + 1)(\ell - m)!}{4\pi(\ell + m)!}}P^m_{\ell}(\cos\theta)e^{im\varphi}
$$

For $\ell = m = 1$, we have
$$
\sqrt{\frac{(2 + 1)(0)!}{4\pi(2)!}}P^1_{1}(\cos\theta)e^{i\varphi} = \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{3}{2\pi}}e^{i\varphi}\sin \theta
$$

But Mathematica is telling me the solution is
$$
-\frac{1}{2} e^{i\varphi} \sqrt{\frac{3}{2\pi}} \sin\theta
$$

What is going wrong?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
dwsmith said:
$$
Y_{\ell}^m = \sqrt{\frac{(2\ell + 1)(\ell - m)!}{4\pi(\ell + m)!}}P^m_{\ell}(\cos\theta)e^{im\varphi}
$$

For $\ell = m = 1$, we have
$$
\sqrt{\frac{(2 + 1)(0)!}{4\pi(2)!}}P^1_{1}(\cos\theta)e^{i\varphi} = \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{3}{2\pi}}e^{i\varphi}\sin \theta
$$

But Mathematica is telling me the solution is
$$
-\frac{1}{2} e^{i\varphi} \sqrt{\frac{3}{2\pi}} \sin\theta
$$

What is going wrong?
I'm not sure about how your book normalizes spherical harmonics, but mine has
Y_l^m (\theta, \phi) = (-1)^m \sqrt{\frac{(2l+1)(l-m)!}{4 \pi (l+ m)!}} P_l^m(cos(\theta)) e^{im \phi}

-Dan
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top