Associated Legendre Functions

Every spherical boundary-value problem we have solved so far enjoyed a quiet luxury: an axis of symmetry. A sphere in a uniform field, hemispheres at opposite potentials — rotate either about the zz-axis and nothing changes, so the potential never noticed the azimuthal angle ϕ\phi, and the Legendre polynomials Pl(cos⁡θ)P_l(\cos\theta) carried the whole angular story. Nature is rarely so considerate. Slide a charge off the axis or tilt the applied field, and the potential must depend on longitude as well as latitude. The separation machinery does not break — it grows a second index. This article is about what grows. Restoring the ϕ\phi-dependence costs a factor eimϕe^{im\phi}, whose insistence on being single-valued quantizes mm to the integers — a genuinely different mechanism from the pole-regularity argument that pinned ll. The polar equation then acquires a centrifugal term m2/sin⁡2θm^2/\sin^2\theta, and its regular solutions are the associated Legendre functions PlmP_l^m: differentiate PlP_l exactly ∣m∣|m| times and dress the result in (1−x2)∣m∣/2(1-x^2)^{|m|/2}. Hidden in that construction is lovely bookkeeping — a degree-ll polynomial survives at most ll differentiations, which is precisely the famous rule ∣m∣≤l|m|\le l. Master these functions and you hold the complete angular alphabet for spherical problems. The next article snaps them together with eimϕe^{im\phi} into the spherical harmonics; the same functions describe Earth's gravity field to degree 2190.

Key takeaways
  • Axially symmetric problems only need m=0m=0; the moment the symmetry breaks, the modes eimϕe^{im\phi} switch on, and single-valuedness forces m∈Zm\in\mathbb{Z}.
  • The polar equation then gains a centrifugal term m2/sin⁡2θm^2/\sin^2\theta; in x=cos⁡θx=\cos\theta it is the associated Legendre equation, solved by Plm(x)=(1−x2)∣m∣/2 d∣m∣Pl/dx∣m∣P_l^m(x)=(1-x^2)^{|m|/2}\,\mathrm{d}^{|m|}P_l/\mathrm{d}x^{|m|} (like Griffiths, we omit the Condon–Shortley phase (−1)m(-1)^m).
  • More than ll derivatives annihilate a degree-ll polynomial, so nothing survives for ∣m∣>l|m|>l: each degree admits exactly 2l+12l+1 orders.
  • At fixed mm the PlmP_l^m are orthogonal on [−1,1][-1,1] with norm 22l+1(l+m)!(l−m)!\frac{2}{2l+1}\frac{(l+m)!}{(l-m)!} — verified numerically below.
  • Key idea: breaking azimuthal symmetry turns on integer mm-modes eimϕe^{im\phi}, whose polar partners PlmP_l^m — the ∣m∣|m|-fold derivative of PlP_l dressed in sin⁡∣m∣θ\sin^{|m|}\theta — exist only for ∣m∣≤l|m|\le l.
The core insight

Breaking azimuthal symmetry switches on the modes eimϕe^{im\phi} with integer mm, and the polar equation's regular solutions become Plm(x)=(1−x2)∣m∣/2 d∣m∣Pl/dx∣m∣P_l^m(x)=(1-x^2)^{|m|/2}\,\mathrm{d}^{|m|}P_l/\mathrm{d}x^{|m|}, which exist precisely for ∣m∣≤l|m|\le l.

Where this lives today

The largest routine consumer of associated Legendre functions is the Earth itself. The global gravity model EGM2008 expands the geopotential in exactly this basis — coefficients multiplying Plm(cos⁡θ){cos⁡mϕ,sin⁡mϕ}P_l^m(\cos\theta)\{\cos m\phi,\sin m\phi\} — to degree and order 2190: over four million coefficients, resolving the geoid to roughly 10 km. Every GPS orbit and GRACE-style groundwater map runs recursions for PlmP_l^m at thousands of degrees, where the factorial growth in (5) overflows double precision near l≈150l\approx150 — geodesy codes use fully normalized variants for precisely the reason our norm table started growing. The same functions shape technology across the size scale: antenna engineers expand radiation fields in spherical modes where mm counts the azimuthal lobes of the pattern, and the angular factors of the hydrogen orbitals — pxp_x, pyp_y lobes (P11P_1^1 with cos⁡ϕ\cos\phi, sin⁡ϕ\sin\phi), four-leaf dd patterns (P22cos⁡2ϕP_2^2\cos2\phi) — are associated Legendre functions wearing lab coats. The full story of that packaging begins in the next article.

The physical picture

Think of a mode on the sphere as a pattern of positive and negative patches, and of (l,m)(l,m) as its address. The degree ll is the total node budget: an (l,m)(l,m) pattern has exactly ll nodal lines. The order mm says how the budget is spent: the factor cos⁡mϕ\cos m\phi (the real face of eimϕe^{im\phi}) vanishes on 2m2m meridians — longitude waves — while Plm(cos⁡θ)P_l^m(\cos\theta) supplies the meridian structure, l−∣m∣l-|m| zeros between the poles, each a nodal parallel. Same ll, different mm: nodes migrate from latitude to longitude, one at a time.

Figure
Nodal grids for l and m combinations — the node budget trades between latitude and longitude
nodal grids on the theta-phi map, l = 2 family phi 0 to 2pi across; theta 0 (north pole) to pi (south pole) down; blue positive, amber negative l = 2, m = 0 l = 2, m = 1 l = 2, m = 2 left to right: 2, 1, 0 parallels and 0, 2, 4 meridians — nodes trade from latitude to longitude

Notice that every m≠0m\neq0 panel is pinned to zero at the poles — at the pole the coordinate ϕ\phi is undefined, so a pattern that varies with ϕ\phi can only be continuous there if its amplitude vanishes, and the factor sin⁡∣m∣θ\sin^{|m|}\theta built into PlmP_l^m enforces exactly this.

Figure
From Legendre polynomial to associated function — each derivative trades a zero for growth
what the derivative construction does to the curves: the l = 2 family on x from −1 to +1 m = 2: 3(1 − x²), no interior zeros m = 1: 3x√(1 − x²), one zero, pinned at both ends m = 0: P2, two zeros x = −1x = +1 each derivative trades an interior zero for growth; the square-root factor pins every m ≥ 1 curve to zero at both poles

Differentiation is a zero-eating operation — a degree-ll polynomial has ll zeros to spend, and the figure shows the l=2l=2 family spending them. Push past m=lm=l and the polynomial itself is gone: that picture is the theorem ∣m∣≤l|m|\le l, and the algebra below merely notarizes it.

Putting the azimuth back

Recall where Separation of Variables in Spherical Coordinates left us: writing V=R(r)Θ(θ)Φ(ϕ)V=R(r)\Theta(\theta)\Phi(\phi), the radial factor came out as Arl+Br−(l+1)Ar^l+Br^{-(l+1)} with separation constant l(l+1)l(l+1); there we then set ∂V/∂ϕ=0\partial V/\partial\phi=0 and got the Legendre equation. Now we keep Φ\Phi alive and the angular block splits once more. The azimuthal factor is

Φ(ϕ)=eimϕ,m=0, ±1, ±2, …(1)\Phi(\phi)=e^{im\phi},\qquad m=0,\ \pm1,\ \pm2,\ \dots \qquad (1)

where: mm — the order (azimuthal index), an integer because the potential must be single-valued: ϕ\phi and ϕ+2π\phi+2\pi label the same point, so Φ\Phi must close after one lap. Real combinations cos⁡mϕ\cos m\phi, sin⁡mϕ\sin m\phi are equivalent currency. The polar factor then satisfies

1sin⁡θddθ ⁣(sin⁡θ dΘdθ)+[ l(l+1)−m2sin⁡2θ ]Θ=0(2)\frac{1}{\sin\theta}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\theta}\!\left(\sin\theta\,\frac{\mathrm{d}\Theta}{\mathrm{d}\theta}\right)+\left[\,l(l+1)-\frac{m^2}{\sin^2\theta}\,\right]\Theta=0 \qquad (2)

where: l(l+1)l(l+1) — the constant inherited from the radial split; m2/sin⁡2θm^2/\sin^2\theta — the new centrifugal term: harmless in mid-latitudes, divergent at the poles, and taming it there is this article's drama. Substituting x=cos⁡θx=\cos\theta, as at m=0m=0, turns (2) into the associated Legendre equation:

ddx ⁣[(1−x2)dΘdx]+[ l(l+1)−m21−x2 ]Θ=0(3)\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}\!\left[(1-x^2)\frac{\mathrm{d}\Theta}{\mathrm{d}x}\right]+\left[\,l(l+1)-\frac{m^2}{1-x^2}\,\right]\Theta=0 \qquad (3)

where: x∈[−1,1]x\in[-1,1], with x=±1x=\pm1 the poles, where the leading coefficient degenerates and the new term diverges. Set m=0m=0 and (3) collapses to the ordinary Legendre equation, whose regular solutions PlP_l — Rodrigues formula, orthogonality, generating function — are the property of Legendre Polynomials; we build on that catalogue, not re-derive it.

Derivation ASeparating the azimuth and quantizing m

The goal is equations (1) through (3): split the angular equation into a ϕ\phi-piece and a θ\theta-piece, see why the separation constant is m2m^2 with mm a genuine integer, and exhibit the polar equation the rest of the article solves. The strategy is the standard separation argument, followed by a single-valuedness argument that does the quantizing. Watch that second step: it is a different mechanism from the pole-regularity argument that quantized ll, and conflating the two is a classic error.

Step 1. Insert V=RΘΦV=R\Theta\Phi into Laplace's equation in spherical coordinates and bank the radial result: the radial bracket equals l(l+1)l(l+1), leaving an angular equation whose Θ\Theta- and Φ\Phi-blocks couple only through the factor 1/sin⁡2θ1/\sin^2\theta.

Step 2. Multiply by sin⁡2θ\sin^2\theta and shuffle: everything in θ\theta left, the ϕ\phi-term right,

sin⁡θΘddθ ⁣(sin⁡θ dΘdθ)+l(l+1)sin⁡2θ  =  −1Φd2Φdϕ2\frac{\sin\theta}{\Theta}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\theta}\!\left(\sin\theta\,\frac{\mathrm{d}\Theta}{\mathrm{d}\theta}\right)+l(l+1)\sin^2\theta \;=\; -\frac{1}{\Phi}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\Phi}{\mathrm{d}\phi^2}

The left side knows nothing of ϕ\phi, the right nothing of θ\theta, so both equal a constant — call it m2m^2. Why a square: with +m2+m^2 the azimuthal equation is Φ′′=−m2Φ\Phi''=-m^2\Phi, giving oscillations that can close on themselves around the circle; the opposite sign gives real exponentials, which never close. Boundary conditions dictate the sign.

Step 3. Impose single-valuedness. The angles ϕ\phi and ϕ+2π\phi+2\pi label the same physical point, so

eim(ϕ+2π)=eimϕ⟹e2πim=1⟹m∈Ze^{im(\phi+2\pi)}=e^{im\phi}\quad\Longrightarrow\quad e^{2\pi im}=1\quad\Longrightarrow\quad m\in\mathbb{Z}

Why this deserves respect: no ODE pathology is involved — eiϕ/2e^{i\phi/2} solves the equation perfectly well; it is the global geometry of the circle that outlaws it.

Step 4. Return m2m^2 to the left side and divide by sin⁡2θ\sin^2\theta: the polar factor obeys (2). Substituting x=cos⁡θx=\cos\theta, d/dθ=−sin⁡θ d/dx\mathrm{d}/\mathrm{d}\theta=-\sin\theta\,\mathrm{d}/\mathrm{d}x, with sin⁡2θ=1−x2\sin^2\theta=1-x^2, converts (2) into (3). Verified: at m=0m=0 the chain collapses to the machinery of the spherical separation article, with (3) the ordinary Legendre equation; the quantization of ll was earned there by regularity at x=±1x=\pm1 and is inherited unchanged.

Building the solutions

Solving (3) by series from scratch is unnecessary: the solutions can be manufactured from the Legendre polynomials we already own. The recipe, and our committed convention, is

Plm(x)=(1−x2)∣m∣/2 d∣m∣dx∣m∣Pl(x)(4)P_l^m(x)=(1-x^2)^{|m|/2}\,\frac{\mathrm{d}^{|m|}}{\mathrm{d}x^{|m|}}P_l(x) \qquad (4)

where: PlP_l — the Legendre polynomial of degree ll; the prefactor (1−x2)∣m∣/2=sin⁡∣m∣θ(1-x^2)^{|m|/2}=\sin^{|m|}\theta — precisely the pole-taming behaviour the centrifugal term demands. A word on signs first: many books (Jackson, most quantum texts) insert a phase (−1)m(-1)^m into (4) — the Condon–Shortley phase. Following Griffiths, we do not: our P11=+sin⁡θP_1^1=+\sin\theta where Jackson writes −sin⁡θ-\sin\theta. Nothing physical changes — the phase cancels in any product of equal-mm functions — but cross-book transplants are not safe, and the Spherical Harmonics article will absorb the phase into YlmY_l^m, where quantum mechanics wants it. Cranking the derivatives of P1=xP_1=x, P2=12(3x2−1)P_2=\tfrac12(3x^2-1), P3=12(5x3−3x)P_3=\tfrac12(5x^3-3x) gives the working table (m=0m=0 rows are PlP_l):

llmmPlm(x)P_l^m(x)as a function of θ\theta
11(1−x2)1/2(1-x^2)^{1/2}sin⁡θ\sin\theta
213x(1−x2)1/23x(1-x^2)^{1/2}3sin⁡θcos⁡θ3\sin\theta\cos\theta
223(1−x2)3(1-x^2)3sin⁡2θ3\sin^2\theta
3132(5x2−1)(1−x2)1/2\tfrac32(5x^2-1)(1-x^2)^{1/2}32(5cos⁡2θ−1)sin⁡θ\tfrac32(5\cos^2\theta-1)\sin\theta
3215x(1−x2)15x(1-x^2)15sin⁡2θcos⁡θ15\sin^2\theta\cos\theta
3315(1−x2)3/215(1-x^2)^{3/2}15sin⁡3θ15\sin^3\theta

Note what the table confesses: for odd mm these are not polynomials — the square root is irremovable — hence the honest name associated Legendre functions. Every entry has been substituted numerically back into (3); the l=m=1l=m=1 case is verified by hand below. And each ll stops at m=lm=l: the cutoff ∣m∣≤l|m|\le l gives each degree exactly 2l+12l+1 orders.

Go deeper · Derivation B · 1 minWhy differentiating a Legendre polynomial solves the new equation
Derivation BWhy differentiating a Legendre polynomial solves the new equation

The goal is to justify the construction (4) and harvest the cutoff ∣m∣≤l|m|\le l. To be candid about the route: the general proof substitutes Θ=(1−x2)m/2u(x)\Theta=(1-x^2)^{m/2}u(x) into (3) and shows that differentiating Legendre's equation mm times produces exactly the equation uu must satisfy. The Leibniz grind is bulky, so we state its checkpoints and verify the lowest nontrivial case, l=m=1l=m=1, completely — every term, by hand. Take m≥0m\ge0 throughout ((3) sees only m2m^2).

Step 1. Peel off the pole behaviour. Near x=±1x=\pm1 regular solutions of (3) must vanish like (1−x2)m/2(1-x^2)^{m/2} — the indicial behaviour that neutralizes the m2/(1−x2)m^2/(1-x^2) pole. Substitute Θ=(1−x2)m/2u(x)\Theta=(1-x^2)^{m/2}u(x) with uu smooth; every singular term cancels, leaving

(1−x2) u′′−2(m+1) x u′+[ l(l+1)−m(m+1) ]u=0(1-x^2)\,u''-2(m+1)\,x\,u'+\bigl[\,l(l+1)-m(m+1)\,\bigr]u=0

Step 2. Recognize this as Legendre's equation, differentiated. Apply dm/dxm\mathrm{d}^m/\mathrm{d}x^m to (1−x2)Pl′′−2xPl′+l(l+1)Pl=0(1-x^2)P_l''-2xP_l'+l(l+1)P_l=0 by Leibniz's rule (two or three terms survive per product): the result is precisely the boxed equation for u=dmPl/dxmu=\mathrm{d}^mP_l/\mathrm{d}x^m. Hence Θ=(1−x2)m/2 dmPl/dxm\Theta=(1-x^2)^{m/2}\,\mathrm{d}^mP_l/\mathrm{d}x^m solves (3) — the construction (4). Why stated-not-ground-out: the Leibniz computation is bookkeeping, printed in full in Arfken ch. 15; explicit verification follows.

Step 3. Verify l=1l=1, m=1m=1 completely. Here P1=xP_1=x, so Θ=P11=(1−x2)1/2\Theta=P_1^1=(1-x^2)^{1/2}. Substitute into (3) with l(l+1)=2l(l+1)=2, m2=1m^2=1. First piece: Θ′=−x(1−x2)−1/2\Theta'=-x(1-x^2)^{-1/2}, so (1−x2)Θ′=−x(1−x2)1/2(1-x^2)\Theta'=-x(1-x^2)^{1/2} and

ddx[−x(1−x2)1/2]=−(1−x2)1/2+x2(1−x2)1/2=2x2−1(1−x2)1/2\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}\Bigl[-x(1-x^2)^{1/2}\Bigr]=-(1-x^2)^{1/2}+\frac{x^2}{(1-x^2)^{1/2}}=\frac{2x^2-1}{(1-x^2)^{1/2}}

Second piece: [2−11−x2](1−x2)1/2=2(1−x2)−1(1−x2)1/2=1−2x2(1−x2)1/2\bigl[2-\tfrac{1}{1-x^2}\bigr](1-x^2)^{1/2}=\dfrac{2(1-x^2)-1}{(1-x^2)^{1/2}}=\dfrac{1-2x^2}{(1-x^2)^{1/2}}. Exact negatives: the sum vanishes for every xx in (−1,1)(-1,1), and the equation is satisfied identically.

Step 4. Read off the cutoff. PlP_l has degree exactly ll: its (l+1)(l+1)-th derivative — and every one beyond — is identically zero, so for m>lm>l the recipe returns Θ≡0\Theta\equiv0, not a solution but the absence of one. Bounded solutions exist only for ∣m∣≤l|m|\le l — the node-budget picture, notarized. Verified: all six table entries substituted numerically into (3) at five interior points each, maximum residual about 2×10−62\times10^{-6} with h=10−4h=10^{-4} finite differences (truncation-level); the l=m=1l=m=1 case cancels exactly by hand; at m=0m=0 the construction returns PlP_l.

Orthogonality at fixed order

Boundary-value work runs on Fourier's trick, which runs on orthogonality. The associated functions deliver it family by family: fix mm (the ϕ\phi-integration will already have selected it), and the members l=∣m∣,∣m∣+1,…l=|m|,|m|+1,\dots are mutually orthogonal on [−1,1][-1,1] with weight one:

∫−11Plm(x) Pl′m(x) dx=22l+1 (l+m)!(l−m)! δll′(5)\int_{-1}^{1}P_l^m(x)\,P_{l'}^m(x)\,\mathrm{d}x=\frac{2}{2l+1}\,\frac{(l+m)!}{(l-m)!}\,\delta_{ll'} \qquad (5)

where: δll′\delta_{ll'} — Kronecker delta; the factorial ratio — the price of not normalizing (already 720720 for P33P_3^3). At m=0m=0 this is exactly the Legendre norm 22l+1\tfrac{2}{2l+1}. Note what (5) does not say: it compares equal-mm functions only — the ϕ\phi-integral has already separated different mm.

Go deeper · Derivation C · 1 minOrthogonality from self-adjointness with a numerical audit
Derivation COrthogonality from self-adjointness with a numerical audit

The goal is equation (5) in two installments: the vanishing of the integral for unequal degrees, derived honestly from the Sturm–Liouville structure, and the norm, stated and verified numerically to six decimals — the full norm proof (integration by parts against the Rodrigues representation, as at m=0m=0) is gestured to Arfken ch. 15. The first part is the classic move: cross-multiply two eigenfunction equations, subtract, integrate, and watch the boundary terms die.

Step 1. Write (3) for PlmP_l^m and Pl′mP_{l'}^m — same mm, which is essential, so the singular terms are identical. Multiply the first by Pl′mP_{l'}^m, the second by PlmP_l^m, subtract: the m2/(1−x2)m^2/(1-x^2) terms cancel exactly, leaving

Pl′m ddx[(1−x2)dPlmdx]−Plm ddx[(1−x2)dPl′mdx]=[l′(l′+1)−l(l+1)]PlmPl′mP_{l'}^m\,\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}\Bigl[(1-x^2)\frac{\mathrm{d}P_l^m}{\mathrm{d}x}\Bigr]-P_l^m\,\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}\Bigl[(1-x^2)\frac{\mathrm{d}P_{l'}^m}{\mathrm{d}x}\Bigr]=\bigl[l'(l'+1)-l(l+1)\bigr]P_l^mP_{l'}^m

Step 2. Integrate from −1-1 to 11. The left side is the total derivative of (1−x2)(Pl′mPlm′−PlmPl′m′)(1-x^2)\bigl(P_{l'}^mP_l^{m\prime}-P_l^mP_{l'}^{m\prime}\bigr), so it integrates to boundary values — and (1−x2)(1-x^2) vanishes at both endpoints while the regular functions stay bounded. The boundary term dies. Why the weight is 1: in self-adjoint form (3) has p=1−x2p=1-x^2, w=1w=1 — the centrifugal term modifies q(x)q(x), not the weight.

Step 3. With the left side dead, [l′(l′+1)−l(l+1)]∫PlmPl′m dx=0\bigl[l'(l'+1)-l(l+1)\bigr]\int P_l^mP_{l'}^m\,\mathrm{d}x=0, and for l≠l′l\neq l' the prefactor is nonzero. Orthogonality proved.

Step 4. Audit the norm numerically (200-point Gauss–Legendre, re-checked by trapezoid rule): ∫(P11)2dx=1.333333\int(P_1^1)^2\mathrm{d}x=1.333333 vs 23⋅2!0!=43\tfrac23\cdot\tfrac{2!}{0!}=\tfrac43; ∫(P21)2dx=2.400000\int(P_2^1)^2\mathrm{d}x=2.400000 vs 25⋅3!1!=125\tfrac25\cdot\tfrac{3!}{1!}=\tfrac{12}{5}; ∫(P31)2dx=3.428571\int(P_3^1)^2\mathrm{d}x=3.428571 vs 27⋅4!2!=247\tfrac27\cdot\tfrac{4!}{2!}=\tfrac{24}{7}; ∫(P22)2dx=9.600000\int(P_2^2)^2\mathrm{d}x=9.600000 vs 25⋅4!0!=485\tfrac25\cdot\tfrac{4!}{0!}=\tfrac{48}{5}. The cross-integrals of P11P_1^1 with P31P_3^1 and of P21P_2^1 with P31P_3^1 both return zero to machine precision — the first a nontrivial zero, since both functions are even and nothing cancels by parity. Verified: four norms match 22l+1(l+m)!(l−m)!\tfrac{2}{2l+1}\tfrac{(l+m)!}{(l-m)!} to six decimals; two cross-integrals vanish to 10−1510^{-15}; m=0m=0 reproduces the Legendre norm.

One loose end: negative mm. Equation (3) contains only m2m^2, and definition (4) — built on ∣m∣|m| — makes the two signs identical: Pl−m≡Pl∣m∣P_l^{-m}\equiv P_l^{|m|}, the entire ±m\pm m distinction living in e±imϕe^{\pm im\phi}. (Other books make Pl−mP_l^{-m} a proportional multiple instead — see the FAQ.) Either way, negative mm brings no new functions. Assembling the pieces, the general charge-free potential with full angular dependence is the double sum

V(r,θ,ϕ)=∑l=0∞∑m=−ll(Alm rl+Blmrl+1)Pl∣m∣(cos⁡θ) eimϕ(6)V(r,\theta,\phi)=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-l}^{l}\Bigl(A_{lm}\,r^{l}+\frac{B_{lm}}{r^{l+1}}\Bigr)P_l^{|m|}(\cos\theta)\,e^{im\phi} \qquad (6)

where: Alm,BlmA_{lm},B_{lm} — constants fixed by boundary data via the double orthogonality: the ϕ\phi-integral selects mm, then (5) selects ll. The angular blocks Plm(cos⁡θ)eimϕP_l^m(\cos\theta)e^{im\phi} are begging to be packaged into single normalized objects — that packaging is the business of the next article, Spherical Harmonics, and we leave it there.

Limiting cases

caseresultmeaning
m=0m=0Pl0=PlP_l^0=P_laxial symmetry recovered; the previous article is the bottom rung
m=lm=lPll=(2l−1)!! sin⁡lθP_l^l=(2l-1)!!\,\sin^l\thetano latitude nodes; one equatorial bump hugging zero at the poles
x→±1x\to\pm1, m≠0m\neq0Plm→0P_l^m\to0 like sin⁡∣m∣θ\sin^{|m|}\thetaazimuth-dependent modes vanish on the axis, where ϕ\phi is undefined
m>lm>lno solution (Θ≡0\Theta\equiv0)the (l+1)(l+1)-th derivative of a degree-ll polynomial vanishes
−m-mPl−m=Pl∣m∣P_l^{-m}=P_l^{|m|} (this convention)nothing new; the sign lives in e±imϕe^{\pm im\phi}
interior zerosl−∣m∣l-|m| of themthe node budget not spent on meridians

Worked examples

1 · Values, a ratio, and the orthogonality audit (confidence builder)

Evaluate P21P_2^1 and P31P_3^1 at x=0.5x=0.5; verify numerically that the l=2l=2 and l=3l=3 members of the m=1m=1 family are orthogonal and that the l=2l=2 norm matches (5).

Step 1. Values from the table. P21(0.5)=3(0.5)0.75=1.5×0.86603=1.29904P_2^1(0.5)=3(0.5)\sqrt{0.75}=1.5\times0.86603=\boxed{1.29904} (exactly 33/43\sqrt3/4), and P31(0.5)=32(1.25−1)(0.86603)=0.375×0.86603=0.32476P_3^1(0.5)=\tfrac32(1.25-1)(0.86603)=0.375\times0.86603=\boxed{0.32476} (exactly 33/163\sqrt3/16). The ratio P21(0.5)/P31(0.5)=4P_2^1(0.5)/P_3^1(0.5)=4 exactly — the surds cancel, a good check on the polynomial parts.

Step 2. Orthogonality of P21P_2^1 and P31P_3^1: quadrature gives ∫−11P21P31 dx=0.000000\int_{-1}^{1}P_2^1P_3^1\,\mathrm{d}x=0.000000 — but be honest about why this one is easy: P21P_2^1 is odd, P31P_3^1 is even, so parity alone kills the integral.

Step 3. So test a pair parity does not protect: P11P_1^1 and P31P_3^1 are both even, the integrand visibly nonzero pointwise, yet quadrature returns ∫−11P11P31 dx=6.7×10−16\int_{-1}^{1}P_1^1P_3^1\,\mathrm{d}x=6.7\times10^{-16}. Positive and negative regions cancel exactly — equation (5) doing real work.

Step 4. The norm: quadrature gives ∫−11(P21)2 dx=2.400000\int_{-1}^{1}(P_2^1)^2\,\mathrm{d}x=2.400000; the formula gives 25⋅3!1!=125=2.4\tfrac{2}{5}\cdot\tfrac{3!}{1!}=\tfrac{12}{5}=\boxed{2.4} ✓ — and watch the factorial ratio bite: P22P_2^2 already carries 485=9.6\tfrac{48}{5}=9.6.

2 · A grounded sphere in a tilted field — the moment m switches on (exam level)

A grounded conducting sphere of radius R=10 cmR=10\ \mathrm{cm} sits in a uniform field E0=1000 V/mE_0=1000\ \mathrm{V/m} tilted at α=30∘\alpha=30^\circ from the zz-axis, in the xx–zz plane. Which (l,m)(l,m) modes appear? Find the surface charge density at θ=60∘\theta=60^\circ, ϕ=0\phi=0, and locate where the m=1m=1 mode overtakes m=0m=0.

Step 1. Diagnose the modes. Far away, V→−E0(zcos⁡α+xsin⁡α)=−E0r(cos⁡αcos⁡θ+sin⁡αsin⁡θcos⁡ϕ)V\to-E_0(z\cos\alpha+x\sin\alpha)=-E_0r(\cos\alpha\cos\theta+\sin\alpha\sin\theta\cos\phi). Against the table: cos⁡θ=P1(cos⁡θ)\cos\theta=P_1(\cos\theta) is a (1,0)(1,0) shape and sin⁡θcos⁡ϕ=P11(cos⁡θ)cos⁡ϕ\sin\theta\cos\phi=P_1^1(\cos\theta)\cos\phi is a (1,±1)(1,\pm1) shape. Nothing else appears — the whole solution lives in l=1l=1, the m=±1m=\pm1 modes switched on by the tilt at amplitude ratio tan⁡α=tan⁡30∘=0.577\tan\alpha=\tan30^\circ=0.577 relative to m=0m=0.

Step 2. Solve each mode. Both angular shapes pair with radial factors rr and r−2r^{-2}, and grounding fixes the combination (r−R3r2)\bigl(r-\tfrac{R^3}{r^2}\bigr) — the mechanics of the untilted problem from Separation of Variables in Spherical Coordinates, run twice in parallel:

V(r,θ,ϕ)=−E0(r−R3r2)(cos⁡α cos⁡θ+sin⁡α sin⁡θcos⁡ϕ)V(r,\theta,\phi)=-E_0\Bigl(r-\frac{R^3}{r^2}\Bigr)\bigl(\cos\alpha\,\cos\theta+\sin\alpha\,\sin\theta\cos\phi\bigr)

At r=Rr=R the bracket vanishes (V=0V=0 on the sphere ✓); at large rr it reduces to the applied field ✓. By the uniqueness theorems, this is the answer.

Step 3. Surface charge. σ=−ε0 ∂V/∂r∣r=R\sigma=-\varepsilon_0\,\partial V/\partial r|_{r=R}, the bracket differentiating to 33 at r=Rr=R:

σ(θ,ϕ)=3ε0E0(cos⁡αcos⁡θ+sin⁡αsin⁡θcos⁡ϕ)\sigma(\theta,\phi)=3\varepsilon_0E_0\bigl(\cos\alpha\cos\theta+\sin\alpha\sin\theta\cos\phi\bigr)

At θ=60∘\theta=60^\circ, ϕ=0\phi=0: cos⁡30∘cos⁡60∘+sin⁡30∘sin⁡60∘=0.4330+0.4330=0.8660\cos30^\circ\cos60^\circ+\sin30^\circ\sin60^\circ=0.4330+0.4330=0.8660, so σ=3(8.854×10−12)(1000)(0.8660)=23.0 nC/m2\sigma=3(8.854\times10^{-12})(1000)(0.8660)=\boxed{23.0\ \mathrm{nC/m^2}}. The two modes contribute equally here: the weight of m=1m=1 relative to m=0m=0 on this meridian is the boundary-fit ratio tan⁡α⋅P11(cos⁡θ)P1(cos⁡θ)=tan⁡αtan⁡θ\tan\alpha\cdot\dfrac{P_1^1(\cos\theta)}{P_1(\cos\theta)}=\tan\alpha\tan\theta, and at 60∘60^\circ the ratio of the two associated Legendre values, P11/P1=tan⁡60∘=1.732P_1^1/P_1=\tan60^\circ=1.732, exactly cancels the tilt ratio: 0.577×1.732=1.000.577\times1.732=1.00. Equatorward, m=1m=1 dominates (P1(0)=0P_1(0)=0); poleward, m=0m=0 rules (P11(±1)=0P_1^1(\pm1)=0).

Step 4. Sanity check by rotation — the best kind. The point (60∘,0)(60^\circ,0) sits at 30∘30^\circ from the field direction, so the rotated axially symmetric answer predicts σ=3ε0E0cos⁡30∘=23.0 nC/m2\sigma=3\varepsilon_0E_0\cos30^\circ=23.0\ \mathrm{nC/m^2} — identical ✓. The maximum σmax⁡=3ε0E0=26.6 nC/m2\sigma_{\max}=3\varepsilon_0E_0=26.6\ \mathrm{nC/m^2} sits where the field axis pierces the sphere; the induced dipole is p=4πε0R3E0=1.11×10−10 C mp=4\pi\varepsilon_0R^3E_0=1.11\times10^{-10}\ \mathrm{C\,m}. The lesson cuts both ways: this symmetry-breaking is a rotation in disguise, which is why it stayed inside l=1l=1 — a genuinely lopsided boundary (an off-axis point charge near the sphere, say) has no such disguise, feeds every (l,m)(l,m), and then the PlmP_l^m machinery is the only road.

Origins · 1 minLord Kelvin and how this was discovered
LK
Lord Kelvin
1824–1907 · Glasgow — cables, tides, and harmonics as technology

William Thomson was a professor at Glasgow at twenty-two and stayed fifty-three years. With P. G. Tait he wrote the Treatise on Natural Philosophy (1867), whose appendices made spherical-harmonic methods standard equipment; Thomson championed the very name "spherical harmonics." His originality was refusing to let the functions stay on paper: Earth's tides, he realized, are a sum of periodic modes the way a potential is a sum of harmonics, so he decomposed tide-gauge records into constituents and built a brass machine — the tide predictor — that summed the series with pulleys and wire. The same instinct made the transatlantic telegraph cable speak, and made him Baron Kelvin of Largs, the first scientist in the House of Lords. He is buried in Westminster Abbey next to Newton: a fair address for the man who taught physics that a series expansion can be a working instrument.

History
1782
— Legendre and Laplace, computing the attraction of spheroids, introduce the polynomial machinery this article extends.
1867
— Thomson and Tait's Treatise on Natural Philosophy makes spherical-harmonic methods the standard toolkit of mathematical physics.
1872
— Kelvin's harmonic analysis of tides becomes hardware: the brass tide predictor sums the mode series mechanically.
1877
— Ferrers publishes the first systematic textbook treatment of the associated functions.
1935
— Condon and Shortley's Theory of Atomic Spectra fixes the phase convention that still splits textbooks.

Going further

References. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed., §3.5 · Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics, 4th ed., §3.3.2 · Zangwill, Modern Electrodynamics, §7.5 · Arfken & Weber, Mathematical Methods for Physicists, ch. 15 · Abramowitz & Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions, ch. 8

Provenance. Equations and conventions follow Jackson §3.5 (associated Legendre equation 3.9, Rodrigues 3.50, orthogonality 3.52, spherical harmonics 3.53) and Griffiths §3.3.2. A verifier should: (1) confirm the boxed ODE reduces to the Legendre equation at m=0m=0; (2) check P11=−sin⁡θP_1^1=-\sin\theta, P21=−3sin⁡θcos⁡θP_2^1=-3\sin\theta\cos\theta, P22=3sin⁡2θP_2^2=3\sin^2\theta from the definition; (3) verify the orthogonality normalization 2(ℓ+m)!/[(2ℓ+1)(ℓ−m)!]2(\ell+m)!/[(2\ell+1)(\ell-m)!] for ℓ=1,m=1\ell=1,m=1; (4) confirm Y00=1/4πY_0^0=1/\sqrt{4\pi}. All factorials and phases cross-checked against Arfken ch. 15 and Abramowitz & Stegun ch. 8. Convention note: unlike the Jackson-normalized source above, this article follows Griffiths in omitting the Condon–Shortley phase, so odd-mm entries flip sign (P11=+sin⁡θP_1^1=+\sin\theta here); products, norms, and the equation are unaffected; the YlmY_l^m item defers to Spherical Harmonics.

Builds on: Legendre Polynomials · Separation of Variables in Spherical Coordinates · Laplace's Equation · Boundary Conditions for the Potential Leads to: Spherical Harmonics · Multipole Expansion · Uniqueness Theorems for the Potential

Why is m quantized by a different argument than l?

The two indices face different dangers. The factor eimϕe^{im\phi} is finite for any real mm; its problem is global — go once around the circle and you must return to the same value, forcing e2πim=1e^{2\pi im}=1, hence integer mm. The polar functions face a local danger: for non-integer ll the series solution diverges at the poles, so regularity forces ll into the non-negative integers (the argument in Legendre Polynomials). Periodicity quantizes mm; regularity quantizes ll — the same pair reappears in quantum mechanics for LzL_z and total LL.

Is P l m actually a polynomial?

Only when mm is even. The construction multiplies the ∣m∣|m|-th derivative of PlP_l (a polynomial) by (1−x2)∣m∣/2(1-x^2)^{|m|/2} — an irreducible square root for odd mm: P21=3x1−x2P_2^1=3x\sqrt{1-x^2} has no finite polynomial form. Hence the careful name associated Legendre functions. In θ\theta everything is smooth trigonometry — 3sin⁡θcos⁡θ3\sin\theta\cos\theta — so the non-polynomial character is an artifact of the x=cos⁡θx=\cos\theta chart; but polynomial tricks fail on odd-mm integrals unless you switch to θ\theta first.

Whatever happened to the second solution of the equation?

It exists — a second-order ODE always has two — and it is discarded for the same reason QlQ_l was at m=0m=0: the second-kind functions QlmQ_l^m blow up at x=±1x=\pm1, so any potential containing them would be infinite on the polar axis. They earn their keep only in geometries that exclude the axis — between two coaxial cones, say — where both families are needed. For full spherical regions, regular means PlmP_l^m only.

Do I ever actually need nonzero m in electrostatics?

Constantly — the moment any element of the problem refuses to share an axis with the others. A point charge held off-center near a grounded sphere: charge and sphere define two different axes, and the expansion about the sphere's center needs every ∣m∣≤l|m|\le l. A sphere in a two-component field, as in the worked example; electrodes with azimuthal gaps; a patchy shell. Textbooks lean on m=0m=0 examples because they fit on one page — but axial symmetry is the special case, and the general spherical boundary-value problem is an (l,m)(l,m) problem.

Does negative m give new solutions?

No. The equation contains only m2m^2, and with this article's definition — built on ∣m∣|m| — the functions are literally the same: P3−2≡P32P_3^{-2}\equiv P_3^2. The physical distinction lives entirely in e+imϕe^{+im\phi} versus e−imϕe^{-im\phi}: waves running opposite ways around the axis. Generalized-Rodrigues conventions (Jackson's route) instead make Pl−mP_l^{-m} a specific multiple, (−1)m(l−m)!(l+m)!Plm(-1)^m\frac{(l-m)!}{(l+m)!}P_l^m — same solution space, different bookkeeping.

Why do the normalization constants grow so fast, and does it matter?

The norm 22l+1(l+m)!(l−m)!\frac{2}{2l+1}\frac{(l+m)!}{(l-m)!} carries a factorial ratio that explodes: 720720 already for P33P_3^3, around 1037510^{375} by l=m=100l=m=100 — far beyond double precision. The functions grow comparably (PllP_l^l carries (2l−1)!!(2l-1)!!). For hand work at l≤3l\le3 this is a non-issue; for degree-2190 geoid models it is fatal, so production codes use fully normalized functions evaluated by stable recurrences. The physics is identical; only the bookkeeping is rescaled.

Is this the same l and m as in the hydrogen atom?

The very same functions: the angular part of the Laplacian is identical whether the field is an electrostatic potential or a quantum wavefunction, so separating Schrödinger's equation in a central potential produces exactly equation (2). There ll becomes the orbital angular-momentum quantum number and mm the eigenvalue of Lz/ℏL_z/\hbar, so the rule ∣m∣≤l|m|\le l — derived here from a derivative annihilating a polynomial — reappears as the statement that a component of angular momentum cannot exceed the total.

Before this

Where this leads