Skip to main content
16 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Aug 5 at 13:04 comment added eriugena Assuming this holds nevertheless, do you happen to know (or remember) if the above sum has a similarly nice form for general $j_3$? What I get by using identities for $m_1 = j_1$ is very ugly.
Aug 3 at 4:58 comment added Carlo Beenakker It’s been a while, I don’t recall having a proof.
Aug 2 at 18:21 comment added eriugena @CarloBeenakker How do the restrictions you name (which are really the "built-in" conditions vor a non-vanishing CGC, as you say) imply that the sum is independent of $m_1$?
Jul 9, 2023 at 20:57 comment added onamoonlessnight @CarloBeenakker Thank you, this is exactly what I was looking for.
Jul 9, 2023 at 20:56 vote accept onamoonlessnight
Jul 9, 2023 at 19:36 comment added LSpice Re, thanks!
Jul 9, 2023 at 19:36 comment added Carlo Beenakker there is not much code to post, actually; the orthogonality relation is Sum[(ClebschGordan[{j1, m1}, {j2, m3 - m1}, {j3, m3}])^2, {j3, Abs[j1 - j2], j1 + j2, 1}, {m3, -j3, j3}] For the evaluation of $J$ I omit the sum over $j_3$.
Jul 9, 2023 at 18:22 comment added LSpice You mention that you used Mathematica. Would you be willing to post the code? (Or a link to a gist, as I believe you have sometimes done.)
Jul 9, 2023 at 17:33 history edited Carlo Beenakker CC BY-SA 4.0
edited body
Jul 9, 2023 at 16:50 history edited Carlo Beenakker CC BY-SA 4.0
added 54 characters in body
Jul 9, 2023 at 16:45 history edited Carlo Beenakker CC BY-SA 4.0
added 54 characters in body
Jul 9, 2023 at 16:30 history edited Carlo Beenakker CC BY-SA 4.0
added 19 characters in body
Jul 9, 2023 at 16:24 history edited Carlo Beenakker CC BY-SA 4.0
deleted 479 characters in body
Jul 9, 2023 at 15:07 history edited Carlo Beenakker CC BY-SA 4.0
added 99 characters in body
Jul 9, 2023 at 14:48 history edited Carlo Beenakker CC BY-SA 4.0
added 185 characters in body
Jul 9, 2023 at 14:42 history answered Carlo Beenakker CC BY-SA 4.0