MHB Spherical Harmonics: Showing $\delta_{m,0}\sqrt{\frac{2\ell + 1}{4\pi}}$

Dustinsfl
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
5
I am trying to show that
\[
Y_{\ell}^m(0,\varphi) = \delta_{m,0}\sqrt{\frac{2\ell + 1}{4\pi}}.
\]
When \(m = 0\), I obtain \(\sqrt{\frac{2\ell + 1}{4\pi}}\).

However, I am not getting 0 for other \(m\). Plus, to show this is true, I can't methodically go through each \(m\).

How can I do this?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
dwsmith said:
I am trying to show that
\[
Y_{\ell}^m(0,\varphi) = \delta_{m,0}\sqrt{\frac{2\ell + 1}{4\pi}}.
\]
When \(m = 0\), I obtain \(\sqrt{\frac{2\ell + 1}{4\pi}}\).

However, I am not getting 0 for other \(m\). Plus, to show this is true, I can't methodically go through each \(m\).

How can I do this?
The [math]\delta _{m, 0} [/math] forces the expression to be 0 unless m = 0. There is no other m to compute with. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with the "other" m values?

-Dan
 
topsquark said:
The [math]\delta _{m, 0} [/math] forces the expression to be 0 unless m = 0. There is no other m to compute with. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with the "other" m values?

-Dan

I understand the kronecker delta. I am trying to show the identity is true.
 
dwsmith said:
I understand the kronecker delta. I am trying to show the identity is true.
Oh! I see the problem now. Yes, the expression is not correct.
[math]Y_l^m( \theta, \phi ) = (-1)^m \sqrt{ \frac{2l + 1}{4 \pi} \frac{(l - m)!}{(l + m)!}} P_l^m( cos ( \theta ) ) e^{i m \phi }[/math]

Gah! I can't get the LaTeX to code the second line. Anyway, the only term that drops out for theta = 0 is the associated Legendre polynomial. Not much of a simplification. Are you perhaps adding some together?

-Dan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
topsquark said:
Oh! I see the problem now. Yes, the expression is not correct.
[math]Y_l^m( \theta, \phi ) = (-1)^m \sqrt{ \frac{2l + 1}{4 \pi} \frac{(l - m)!}{(l + m)!}} P_l^m( cos ( \theta ) ) e^{i m \phi }[/math]

Gah! I can't get the LaTeX to code the second line. Anyway, the only term that drops out for theta = 0 is the associated Legendre polynomial. Not much of a simplification. Are you perhaps adding some together?

-Dan

No but I am pretty sure it is correct. I have Mathematica so I have entered in SphericalY[l,m,0,\phi] and tried different l's and m's, but every time m is nonzero, I do get zero back.
 
dwsmith said:
No but I am pretty sure it is correct. I have Mathematica so I have entered in SphericalY[l,m,0,\phi] and tried different l's and m's, but every time m is nonzero, I do get zero back.
Okay, yes you are correct. I had been thinking that [math]P_l^m(1) = 1[/math] but that's only true for m = 0. When theta = 0 [math]P_l^m(1) = 0[/math] for non-zero m as all the non-zero m are proportional to sin(theta).

-Dan
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top