This will be a lengthy thread, but I made sure that all 3 questions are related to each other and related to the same topic. I currently encountered the W.E-theorem and while I do understand some things, when we consider tensor operators of order 1 (vector operators), I am confused about the several other things, when I try to understand the general formula. I will start with what I understand and then list some things for which I am not sure. First I will write down the formula and try explain what I understand and what I find confusing:

$$\langle k,j,m|T^{(r)}_q|k',j',m'\rangle=\langle j',r; m',q|j,m\rangle \frac{\langle k,j||T^{(r)}||k',j'\rangle}{\sqrt{2j +1}}$$

Because the Clebsch–Gordan coefficients are present: $\langle j',r; m',q|j,m\rangle$, this means that we have an angular momentum coupling, in this case of $j'$ and $r$ into $j$. The setup can be two particles with 2 different angular momenta, or 1 particle where we consider orbital and intrinsic angular momentum. For the Clebsch–Gordan coefficients in my lecture, the following notation was used: $\langle j_1,j_2; m_1,m_2|j,m\rangle$ when considering 2 particles each with angular momentum $\vec J_1$/$J_{1_z}$ and $\vec J_2$/$J_{2_z}$ and main angular quantum numbers $j_1$/$j_2$ and secondary angular quantum numbers $m_1$/$m_2$. Drawing conclusion from this simple case, in the W.E-Theorem I have:

$j_1=j'$, $j_2=r$, $m_1=m'$, $m_2=q$, $J=j$ (I wrote $J$ but I could have very well left it as $j$), $M=m$.

First question

One can have $j=\frac 1 2$ and $j_2=\frac 3 2$. I just said that in the W.E -Theorem we consider angular momentum coupling (because of the C.G Coef.) and also that $j_2=r$. Then for the 2 given values of $j_1$ and $j_2$, I get that $r= \frac 3 2$. Are there tensors operators of order $\frac 3 2$ or other similar values ? (I don't think there are though). If not, then does it mean that the W.E-Theorem is valid for certain values of $j_2$ ?

$|j,m\rangle$ is a joint eigenstate of the squared total angular momentum $\vec J^2$ and its z-component $J_z$, where:

$j=j_1 +j_2=j' + r$ the main total angular momentum quantum number.

$-j\le m \le j$ the secondary total angular momentum quantum number.

Second question

What exactly is the meaning of this: $\langle k,j,m|T^{(r)}_q|k',j',m'\rangle$?

I know it's a matrix component, but what confuses me are the bra and ket vectors over here. The bra is an eigenstate of $\vec J^2$ and $J_z$, a basis element of the total hilber space $H = H_1 \otimes H_2$, while the ket, as it can be seen is an eigenstate of $\vec J_1^2$ and $J_{1_z}$ or a basis element of $H_1$. The questions here are many: 1)What does it mean to have bra and ket of different hilbert spaces? Why is it considering an eigenstate of $\vec J_1^2$ and $J_{1_z}$ and not of $\vec J_2^2$ and $J_{2_z}$ instead. How does it make sense to find a matrix component using basis kets/bras of different hilbert spaces? As one can see I am very confused about this part.

I want to draw an analogy to when one considers a vector operator and we also have the total angular momentum $\vec J = \vec J_1 + \vec J_2$. In a sub-Hilbert space $H(k,j)$ according to the W.E-Theorem all vector operators are proportional to the angular momentum. For vector operators the theorem is:

$$\langle k,j,m|\vec V|k,j,m'\rangle= \alpha(k,j)\langle k,j,m|\vec J|k,j,m'\rangle$$ ($\alpha$ is some proportionality constant).

I will put both expressions close to each other in order to emphasize the difference there is, which confuses me:

$$\langle k,j,m|T^{(r)}_q|k',j',m'\rangle$$

$$\langle k,j,m|\vec V|k,j,m'\rangle$$

In the first we have a bra that is eigenstate of $\vec J^2$ and $J_z$ and ket that is eigenstate of $\vec J_1^2$ and $J_{1_z}$.

In the second we have a bra and a ket both eigenstates of $\vec J^2$ and $J_z$.

How can the eigenstate of one of the two angular momentum change into an eigenstate of the total angular momentum? Or said in general terms, how can a basis ket of one Hilbert space change so that it is a basis ket of another Hilbert space?

Third question

In our lecture it was said without proof or an explanation that

$\langle k,j,m|T^{(r)}_q|k',j',m'\rangle \neq 0$ only if:

$$q=m-m'$$ $$|j-j'|\le r \le j+j'$$

How did we end up with these 2 inequalities?


1 Answer 1

  1. In principle there exist tensor operators of arbitrary angular momentum/spin - if you consider that the angular momentum generators $L_i$ themselves are a vector operator, then e.g. $L_i$ in a spin-3/2 representation is a "tensor operator of order 3/2".

  2. Since you are confused about how the states here work, let's set the scene for the Wigner-Eckart theorem again:

    We have a space of states $H$ upon which we have a reducible representation of the rotation group $\mathrm{SO}(3)$, so that $H$ decomposes as $H = \bigoplus_l H_l^{c_l}$, where $H_l$ is the irreducible representation with spin $l$ and $c_l$ its multiplicity (i.e. how many copies of it there are). By the usual argument, this means that any state $\lvert \psi\rangle \in H$ can be decomposed as $\lvert \psi\rangle = \sum_{k,l,m} \psi_{klm}\lvert k,l,m\rangle$ where the $\lvert k,l,m\rangle \in H_l \subset H$ are eigenstates of $L^2,L_z$ and the $k$ is some label that distinguishes states with the same $l,m$ in different subrepresentations with the same $l$ (i.e. you don't need any $k$ if $c_l = 1$ for all $l$).

    So when you want to look at an operator $T$ on $H$, then since $\lvert k,l,m\rangle$ is a basis of $H$, the matrix elements $\langle k,l,m\vert T\vert k',l',m'\rangle$ tell you everything you need to know about the operator.

    The Wigner-Eckart theorem now says that when $T$ is a "nice" operator that itself transforms under rotations as having $r,q$ as total angular momentum and $q$ as the eigenvalue of $L_z$, then there these matrix elements have a particular (perhaps "simpler") form, namely $$\langle k,l,m\vert T\vert k',l',m'\rangle = C_{lmrql'm'} T_R(k,l,k',l'),$$ where $ C_{lmrql'm'}$ is the Clebsch-Gordan coefficient for these angular momentum values and $T_R$ is some term that does not depend on $m,m',q$ - the "reduced matrix element". Note that the only states that occur here are the $\lvert k,l,m\rangle$ that are eigenstates of the angular momentum $L$ on the full Hilbert space $H$. The usual notation with some strange $\lvert k,l\rangle$ or whatever is intended to be mnemonic but there isn't actually any single state like $\lvert k,l\rangle$ or $\lvert l,m\rangle$ inside $H$.

    If you have only looked at Clebsch-Gordan coefficients as "coupling different angular momentum operators", then a) this is a bit of a silly imposition of a particular physical interpretation on a purely mathematical way of decomposing the tensor product of $\mathrm{SO}(3)$ representations into the direct sum of irreducible $\mathrm{SO}(3)$ representations and b) the "different" angular momentum operators here are simply the restrictions of $L$ to the individual $H_l$ the states and the operator exist in. The Wigner-Eckart theorem is nothing more than decomposing $H_l\otimes H_r$ - the space in which $T\lvert k,l,m\rangle$ lives - and looking for a $H_{l'}$ in there because the matrix element needs to be a scalar under rotation and the only non-zero part of an inner product of $T\lvert k,l,m\rangle$ and $\lvert k',l',m'\rangle$ is the part where both sides have the same angular momentum.

    (By the way, this view in terms of representations shows that the Wigner-Eckart theorem is really just a special case of how representations in general work, and lets us generalize the theorem to operators and states in arbitrary representations, not just of $\mathrm{SO}(3)$, see this question and its answer)

  3. Lastly, your lecture did state the proof that this matrix element is non-vanishing only for certain values of the angular momenta involved: The proof is the Wigner-Eckart theorem - the Clebsch-Gordan coefficient on its right-hand side is zero for values outside these certain values.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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