5
$\begingroup$

In constructing the total angular momentum operator, that is the sum of 4 independent angular momentum operators:

$$J=J_1+J_2+J_3+J_4 $$ one has the following set of commuting operators and eigenvectors in case of the uncoupled configuration:

$$ {\textbf{J}_1^2,J_{1z},\textbf{J}_2^2,J_{2z},\textbf{J}_3^2,J_{3z},\textbf{J}_4^2,J_{4z}},$$

$$|j_1m_1\rangle|j_2m_2\rangle|j_3m_3\rangle|j_4m_4\rangle.$$

Now in the coupled representation, if one couple pairwise there are different choices. Most commons I have seen in books are:

$$|(j_1j_2)J_{12}(j_3j_4)J_{34};J\rangle \ and\ |(j_1j_3)J_{13}(j_2j_4)J_{24};J\rangle $$

Now the Wigner 9j symbols are within a constant the coefficients that allow us to go from one basis to another, thus

$$\langle (j_1j_2)J_{12}(j_3j_4)J_{34};J|{(j_1j_3)J_{13}(j_2j_4)J_{24};J}\rangle \propto \Bigg\{ \begin{matrix} j_1 & j_2 & J_{12}\\ j_3 & j_4 & J_{34}\\ J_{13} & J_{24} & J\\ \end{matrix} \Bigg\}.$$

I am more interested in

extend coupling to n angular momenta by successive coupling of an extra angular momentum to the former n - 1 system [1]

In this case we have [2,3]

$$\langle [(j_1j_2)J_{12},j_3]J_{123},j_4;J|{[(j_4j_2)J_{42},j_3]J_{423},j_1;J}\rangle \propto \Bigg\{ \begin{matrix} j_2 & J_{12} & j_{1}\\ J_{42} & j_3 & J_{423}\\ j_{4} & J_{123} & J\\ \end{matrix} \Bigg\}.$$

and here my question and my doubt:

Is it possible to relate the following coupling scheme through a Wigner symbol ?

  1. $$\langle [(j_1j_2)J_{12},j_3]J_{123},j_4;J|{[(j_2j_3)J_{23},j_4]J_{234},j_1;J}\rangle $$
  2. $$\langle [(j_1j_2)J_{12},j_3]J_{123},j_4;J|{[(j_1j_2)J_{12},j_4]J_{124},j_3;J}\rangle $$

If yes, how can I build the Wigner 9j symbol (i.e. the positions of the $j$)? Is there any symbolic calculator or table where I can look for? It will really help me since I would like to extend the same also to the Wigner 12j and so on.

References

[1] Professor Dr. Kris L. G. Heyde - The Nuclear Shell Model - Study Edition (1994). pp 26

[2] Edmonds - Angular momentum in quantum mechanics-Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press (1957). pp 104

[3] Albert Messiah - Quantum Mechanics. 2 - John Wiley and Sons, Inc. (1961). pp 1067

[4] A. P. Yutsis - Mathematical Apparatus of the Theory of Angular Momentum.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I think that since this can be seen as a recoupling of three of the four angular momentum (where two terms are of the type $j$ and one of the type $J_{i,k}$), the wigner's coefficient between these two coupling schemes reduces to Wigner's 6-j symbol. $\endgroup$
    – 081N
    Jun 29 '20 at 13:39
  • $\begingroup$ what do you mean by "relate the scheme"? Are you asking if 1. and 2. can be expressed in terms of standard 9-j symbols or are you asking if one can define this overlap, compute from the get-go, and figure out if the resulting symbols as 9-j-like properties? $\endgroup$ Jun 29 '20 at 16:38
  • $\begingroup$ I'm asking if 1. and 2. (each one separately) can be expressed in terms of 9-j symbols. Looking to Yutsis' graphs I think 1. and 2. can be expressed as 6-j symbols as they can be seen as recoupling of three angular momentum (I'll post a more detailed description). As you said you have some contrains in building the 9-j coefficient and at first glance it seems not possible with the coupling chosen. $\endgroup$
    – 081N
    Jun 29 '20 at 18:00
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah I don' have Jutsis with me but it's an extremely good reference, and I would not be surprised if you could express your overlap as a sum of 6j's. $\endgroup$ Jun 29 '20 at 18:11
2
$\begingroup$

I do not think your overlaps reduce to the usual 9j symbols through symmetry operations.

In your first coupling scheme, you are forced by the scheme on the left to have $j_1,j_2$ and $J_{12}$ on the same row, and then $J_{12}, j_3$ and $J_{123}$ in the same column, and then $J_{123}, j_4$ and $J$ on the same row, i.e something like \begin{align} \left\{\begin{array}{ccc} j_1&j_2&J_{12}\\ &&j_3\\ J&j_4&J_{123}\\ \end{array}\right\} \tag{1} \end{align} But then for your scheme on the right you have $j_2,j_3\to J_{23}$ so $j_2,j_3$ and $J_{23}$ must be either on the same row or column. However, you can see this is not possible since $j_3$ must already be in the same column as $J_{12}$ and $J_{123}$, and cannot be in the same row as $j_2$ by your left coupling.

The same logic applies to your second coupling scheme, where from the left you'd have again (1) but this time you need to fit $J_{12}$ on the same line or column as $j_4$ when it's already in a given full line or column.

There are calculators but I don't think they will be useful since I don't think what you want is equivalent to a $9j$. You probably have to build a custom function using the same idea of writing the standard 9j as a sum of 6j's. Moreover, in your second scheme, you can probably reorganize \begin{align} [J_{12}j_4]J_{124}j_3 \to [J_{12}j_3]J_{123}j_4 \end{align} using a $6j$ symbol and make mileage there but again you'd have to do this as a custom function.

Note that it should not come as a surprise to get a negative answer. Historically the 9j was introduced to deal with the undoing of $jj$ coupling back to an LS coupling to compute matrix elements of - say - the spin-orbit coupling or some tensor operator acting on angular momenta only. Hence by design it is not constructed for recursive coupling of the type you want.

$\endgroup$

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.