Associated Legendre polynomials: complex vs real argument

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
1 replies · 4K views
avikarto
Messages
56
Reaction score
9
I am having trouble understanding the relationship between complex- and real-argument associated Legendre polynomials. According to Abramowitz & Stegun, EQ 8.6.6,
$$P^\mu_\nu(z)=(z^2-1)^{\mu/2}\cdot\frac{d^\mu P_\nu(z)}{dz^\mu}$$
$$P^\mu_\nu(x)=(-1)^\mu(1-x^2)^{\mu/2}\cdot\frac{d^\mu P_\nu(x)}{dx^\mu}$$

Since the Legendre polynomials P_v(z) and P_v(x) don't differ by overall imaginary factors (EQ 8.6.18, Rodrigues' formula), it would seem that one could write
$$P^\mu_\nu(z)=\frac{P^\mu_\nu(x)}{i\,^\mu}$$

However, calculating the complex-argument polynomial from the real-argument polynomial this way gives numerically different values than using the complex formula directly. What am I missing in the relationship between these definitions? Thanks!
 
Some more info for clarification - from different sources, these expressions can be written (for ##\nu=\mu=m##) as...

According to Abramowitz & Stegun, EQ 8.6.6,
$$P^m_m(z)=\frac{(z^2-1)^{m/2}}{2^m m!}\cdot\frac{d^{2m} (z^2-1)^m}{dz^{2m}}$$
According to Arfken 85, Section 12.5,
$$P^m_m(z)=\frac{(1-z^2)^{m/2}}{2^m m!}\cdot\frac{d^{2m} (z^2-1)^m}{dz^{2m}}$$
According to Wolfram MathWorld,
$$P^m_m(z)=(-1)^m\frac{(1-z^2)^{m/2}}{2^m m!}\cdot\frac{d^{2m} (z^2-1)^m}{dz^{2m}}$$

Testing some calculations arbitrarily for m=3, these come out to be...

Abram: ##P^m_m(Cos(z))=-15\,i\,Sin^3(z)##
Arfken: ##P^m_m(Cos(z))=15\,Sin^3(z)##
Wolfram: ##P^m_m(Cos(z))=-15\,Sin^3(z)##
(note, Wolfram's appears to be real valued. Dividing by ##i^m## as in the OP would bring this one in line with Abramowitz.)

Clearly, all of these can't simultaneously be right. Something about the general state of the definition for ##P^m_m(z)## seems to have serious issues. Does anyone know what is going on here?

Supposedly, the ##(-1)^m## in Wolfram's definition is a phase which makes it differ from Arfken, but why is a phase included at all in something that is purely mathematical and not at all physical? Aren't the polynomials just solutions to a mathematical equation with no physical meaning?