The Clebsch-Gordan Theorem: Proving the Symmetric Spinor Tensors as IRR of SU(2)

Click For Summary
The Clebsch-Gordan theorem describes how to combine two representations of SU(2) through tensor products, resulting in a direct sum of irreducible representations. The discussion explores the possibility of proving the theorem by symmetrizing the tensor product of symmetric spinor tensors. It suggests that the highest spin representation arises from the completely symmetric part of the tensor product, followed by contraction of indices using an invariant symbol. The conversation also touches on the involvement of both symmetric and antisymmetric tensors in the proof. Overall, the theorem's proof appears complex, potentially requiring methods like Young tableaux.
sshaep
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Clebsch-Gordan Theorem??

symmetric spinor tensors are IRR of SU(2), i.e., T_{\undergroup{\alpha_1\cdots\alpha_r}}

The Clebsch-Gordan theorem says,

{\{j_1\}}\otimes{\{j_2\}}={\{j_1+j_2\}}\oplus{\{j_1+j_2-1\}}\oplus\cdots\oplus{\{|j_1-j_2|\}}.

Can I prove this theorem by symmetrizing the tensor product,

T_{\alpha_1\cdots\alpha_{2j_1}}\otimes T_{\beta_1\cdots\beta_{2j_2}}=(express sum of fully symmetric tensors) ??
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


My suspicion is yes, but it will be hard. Smells like something that you'd do with Young tableaux.

Edit: I think the CG theorem involves both symmetric and antisymmetric tensors. Do you know how to prove the theorem in the usual way (highest weight procedure)?
 


The completely symmetric part of the tensor product will give you the higest spin representation. After that, I would guess you contract indices using the invariant symbol:

\epsilon^{\alpha \beta} = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 &1 \\ -1 & 0 \end{array} \right)

In other words, to couple the rank n representation T with the rank m represenation S, define:

A_{\alpha_1 ... \alpha_{n+m-2}} = \epsilon^{\alpha \beta} T_{\alpha \alpha_1 ... \alpha_{n-1}} S_{\beta \alpha_n ... \alpha_{n+m-2}

B_{\alpha_1 ... \alpha_{n+m-4}} = \epsilon^{\alpha \beta} \epsilon^{\gamma \delta }T_{\alpha \gamma \alpha_1 ... \alpha_{n-2}} S_{\beta \delta \alpha_{n-1} ... \alpha_{n+m-4}

and so on, where you also symmetrize over the \alpha_i.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
3K