Ah ok. That's bad. I don't want to imagine a lonely enginear sitting hours in front of his calculations and trying to find mistakes he never made, or even using wrong results. At least in one product the definitions should be consistant.

That's a plot I can deal with =P.  It seems that Maple isn't that bad as I thought at the beginning. What are you doing with it?

I worte to Maple in order to let them know about the definition error.

Thank you a lot.

Best regards,

Sven

Ah, ok. Now it looks at least a bit like my references. But why is this so rough instead of beeing round and smooth?

I looked up the definition of SphericalY in the documentation and it says my order of theta and phi is used, which contradicts our experience.

Thank you a lot.

Regards,

Sven

Sure. With the beginning of this semester I'm doing almost nothing else then analyzing the spherical harmonics. They should look like

http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys402/AnlageSpring09/spherical_harmonics.gif

Another reference is Mathematica, which draws the right plots. Additionaly by thinking about the appeareance of the plot you will find it has to be polar-symmetric, which is not given by maple.

Thanks for your reply.

Regards,

Sven