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

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on demonstrating the identity \(Y_{\ell}^m(0,\varphi) = \delta_{m,0}\sqrt{\frac{2\ell + 1}{4\pi}}\). The key point is that when \(m = 0\), the expression yields \(\sqrt{\frac{2\ell + 1}{4\pi}}\), while for other values of \(m\), the result should be zero. The confusion arises from the misunderstanding of the associated Legendre polynomial's behavior at \(\theta = 0\), where it is zero for non-zero \(m\). Ultimately, it is confirmed that the expression holds true, as non-zero \(m\) leads to zero due to the properties of the associated Legendre polynomial. The discussion concludes with the clarification that \(P_l^m(1) = 1\) is only valid for \(m = 0\).
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
 
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