Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

206 submissions , 164 unreviewed
5,103 questions , 2,249 unanswered
5,355 answers , 22,798 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
820 active unimported users
More ...

  How to evaluate this sum of coupling coefficients?

+ 7 like - 0 dislike
1489 views

I would like to evaluate the following summation of Clebsch-Gordan and Wigner 6-j symbols in closed form:

$$\sum_{l,m} C_{l_2,m_2,l_1,m_1}^{l,m} C_{\lambda_2,\mu_2,\lambda_1,\mu_1}^{l,m} \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc} l & l_2 & l_1 \\ n/2 & n/2 & n/2 \end{array}\right\} \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc} l & \lambda_2 & \lambda_1 \\ n/2 & n/2 & n/2 \end{array}\right\}$$

with $n \in \left[0,\infty\right)$, $l,l_1,l_2,\lambda_1,\lambda_2 \in \left[0,n\right]$, $m \in \left[-l,l\right]$, $m_1 \in \left[-l_1,l_1\right]$, $m_2 \in \left[-l_2,l_2\right]$, $\mu_1 \in \left[-\lambda_1,\lambda_1\right]$ and $\mu_2 \in \left[-\lambda_2,\lambda_2\right]$. All indices are integers and n must be also even.

I have been using Varshalovich's Book, but can't find any identities that have been useful to simplify this. I am hoping that the result is something like $\delta_{l_2,\lambda_2}\delta_{m_2,\mu_2}\delta_{l_1,\lambda_1}\delta_{m_1,\mu_1}$, but I'm not sure that that will be the case. Any ideas of how to evaluate this?


This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-06-26 11:15 (UTC), posted by SE-user okj

asked Jun 25, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by okj (60 points) [ revision history ]
recategorized Jun 26, 2015 by Dilaton
Is $n$ any integer?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-06-26 11:15 (UTC), posted by SE-user Vibert
Well Mathematica has ClebschGordan and SixJSymbol functions but I can't get it to simplify your expression. Even evaluating simple cases is taking me a long time. Maybe somebody with more Mathematica and/or combinatorics knowledge than me can find a trick.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-06-26 11:15 (UTC), posted by SE-user Michael Brown
@Vibert: $n \geq 0$ is an even integer, $0 \leq l \leq n$ is an integer, all other indices take integer values and their limits follow from the definition of the CG coefficients and 6j symbols. Sorry about not stating that before.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-06-26 11:15 (UTC), posted by SE-user okj
Specifically: $$n \in \left[0,\infty\right)$$ $$l,l_1,l_2,\lambda_1,\lambda_2 \in \left[0,n\right]$$ $$m \in \left[-l,l\right]$$ $$m_1 \in \left[-l_1,l_1\right]$$ $$m_2 \in \left[-l_2,l_2\right]$$ $$\mu_1 \in \left[-\lambda_1,\lambda_1\right]$$ $$\mu_2 \in \left[-\lambda_2,\lambda_2\right]$$ ($n$ is an even integer, all other indices are integers)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-06-26 11:15 (UTC), posted by SE-user okj

1 Answer

+ 0 like - 0 dislike

Well this is pretty similar to the calculations I have done to find the spectra of the quantum geometric volume operator in Loop Quantum Gravity. Given that I don't think that you will be able to find a closed analytical expression for this summation. I would be reasonably straightforward to write a numerical routine to calculate this.

Here is the link to the interactive Sage math routines I wrote to calculate operator spectra. You could probably adapt it to your purpose. If you would like any help with this just let me know.

http://wiki.sagemath.org/interact/Loop%20Quantum%20Gravity

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-06-26 11:15 (UTC), posted by SE-user David Horgan
answered Feb 14, 2015 by David Horgan (0 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysics$\varnothing$verflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...