1
$\begingroup$

The symmetry of clebsch-gordan coefficients $\left< j_1j_2;m_1m_2 \middle| j_1j_2;JM \right>$ under exchange of $j_1,m_1$ and $j_2,m_2$ is \begin{equation} \left< j_1j_2;m_1m_2 \middle| j_1j_2;JM \right>=(-1)^{j_1+j_2-J}\left< j_2j_1;m_2m_1 \middle| j_2j_1;JM \right> \end{equation} Now consider the case in which $j_1=2$, $j_2=1$, $J=2$, $m_1=m_2=1$ and $M=2$.

Applying the above formula to this we get \begin{equation} \left< 21;11 \middle| 21;22 \right>=-\left< 12;11 \middle| 12;22 \right> \end{equation} I think this should mean $\left< 21;11 \middle| 21;22 \right>=0$ as the order of $j_1$ and $j_2$ shouldn't matter and $\left< 21;11 \middle| 21;22 \right>$ and $\left< 12;11 \middle| 12;22 \right>$ must be the same state. But it is non-zero.

The same logic works for $m_1=m_2=0$ though and $\left< 21;00 \middle| 21;20 \right>=0$, but it might just be a coincidence. It seems I have not fully understood what the symmetry relation means. Why must there be a phase factor at all?

In many places the $j_1$ and $j_2$ are omitted and a blind application of the symmetry equation will give $\left<11 \middle| 22 \right>=-\left<11 \middle| 22 \right>$, and hence we might conclude that $\left<11 \middle| 22 \right>=0$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ "The order of $j_1$ and $j_2$ shouldn't matter"?? You want a demonstration that $A\otimes B \neq B\otimes A$ ? Have you done composition of a spin 1/2 with a spin 1 explicitly to appreciate your imagined equality does not hold? $\endgroup$ – Cosmas Zachos May 23 '18 at 15:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hint: if J=3, you'd have a symmetric composition of the two js and their order wouldn't matter. So the composition to J=2 must be orthogonal to it, so, then, antisymmetric. $\endgroup$ – Cosmas Zachos May 23 '18 at 15:44
0
$\begingroup$

The CG coefficients are usually determined by first constructing the highest state in each irrep, i.e. the state for which $m=j$. This state is determined by the requirement that it must be killed by $L_+$, i.e. if $$ \vert j,j\rangle = \sum_{m_1,_2}\vert \ell_1m_1\rangle \vert \ell_2m_2 \rangle \langle \ell_1 m_1; \ell_2 m_2\vert jj\rangle $$ with $ \langle \ell_1 m_1; \ell_2 m_2\vert jj\rangle$ a Clebsch-Gordan coefficient, then $$ L_+\vert j,j\rangle=0 $$ generates are recursion relation between coefficients, and this relation can be solved in terms of a "seed" coefficient.

The recursion alone is not enough to fix the CGs. In the well-known example of $\ell=1/2$ and $\ell_2=1/2$, the states $$ \vert 00\rangle_\pm=\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left( \vert \textstyle\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2}\rangle \vert \frac{1}{2} ,-\frac{1}{2}\rangle -\vert \frac{1}{2} ,-\frac{1}{2}\rangle \vert \frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2}\rangle \right)\, . \tag{1} $$ are both killed by $L_+=L_+^{(1)}+L_+^{(2)}$. Both states differ by an overall sign and are legitimate singlet states.

The usual Condon-Shortley phase convention is to choose the sign of the coefficient $$ \langle \ell_1 \ell_1; \ell_2 m_2\vert jj\rangle > 0\, ,\qquad m_2=j-\ell_1\, . $$ Obviously this choice is not symmetric under the exchange of $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$: there is no guarantee that if $\langle \ell_1 \ell_1; \ell_2 m_2\vert jj\rangle > 0$ then $\langle \ell_1 m_1; \ell_2 \ell_2\vert jj\rangle > 0$ . If indeed $\langle \ell_1 \ell_1; \ell_2 m_2\vert jj\rangle > 0$ and $\langle \ell_1 m_1; \ell_2 \ell_2\vert jj\rangle > 0$, then all CGs will not depend on the order of $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$.

The recursion relations for CGs however are symmetric under the interchange of $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$, with consequence that this interchange cannot affect the magnitude of the CGs. Note that the general relation is $$ \langle \ell_2 m_2; \ell_1 m_1\vert jm_j\rangle =(-1)^{\ell_1+\ell_2-j} \langle \ell_1 m_1; \ell_2 m_2\vert jm_j\rangle $$

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.