text:
# Superintegrable Systems, Multi-Hamiltonian Structures and Nambu Mechanics in an Arbitrary Dimension

## I Introduction

Nambu mechanics is a generalization of the Hamiltonian formulation of classical mechanics in that it replaces the usual binary Poisson bracket (PB) to higher order $`n`$-ary bracket, generically called Nambu bracket (NB), and specifies the dynamics in terms of $`n1`$ “generalized Hamiltonian” functions . The original motivation of Nambu was to show that the Hamiltonian mechanics is not the only formulation that makes a statistical mechanics possible. Relevance of Nambu mechanics to membrane theory has been put forward and a form of quantized Nambu mechanics has been purposed as a nonlinear generalization of geometric formulation of quantum mechanics . Nambu formulation may also give some insights into the theory of higher order algebraic structures and their possible physical significance . Unfortunately, up to now only few examples of dynamical systems which admit Nambu formulation have been given. The Euler equations for three dimensional $`(3D)`$ rigid body were the only example given by Nambu. Then, the equations of Nahm system in the theory of static $`SU(2)`$ monopoles were realized in this formulation . Connection between Nambu mechanics and so-called superintegrable systems has been the subject of some recent studies .

A Hamiltonian system of $`n`$ degrees of freedom is called to be completely integrable, in the Liouville-Arnold sense, if it admits $`n`$ functionally independent, globally defined constants of motion in involution (i.e., commuting with respect to PB) . A completely integrable system is called superintegrable if it allows $`k`$ additional constants of motion. Not all constants of motion of a superintegrable system can be in involution but they must be functionally independent, otherwise the extra invariants are trivial. Superintegrability is said to be minimal if $`k=1`$, and maximal if $`k=n1`$ . An $`nD`$ maximally superintegrable Hamiltonian system can be specified by the following set

$$SI_H(2n1)=\{H,H_i,A_j:\{H,H_i\}=0=\{H_i,H_j\},\{H,A_i\}=0,\mathrm{\Gamma }0\},$$
(1)
where $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian of the system, $`H_i,A_j;i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},n1`$ are the additional constants of motion and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denotes the following $`(2n1)`$-form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=dHdH_1\mathrm{}dH_{n1}dA_1\mathrm{}dA_{n1}.$$
(2)
Here $`d`$ and $``$ denote the usual exterior derivative and exterior product of Cartan calculus. For functional independence $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ must be different from zero on a dense subset of the underlying symplectic manifold endowed with the PB $`\{,\}`$.

In this paper three main points concerning the fundamental structure of a $`SI_H(2n1)`$ system for any finite $`n`$ are established. We shall first prove that the constants of motion of a $`SI_H(2n1)`$ system are functionally independent where $`(n1)\times (n1)`$ matrix $`B`$ with elements $`B_{ij}=\{H_i,A_j\}`$ is nonsingular. Secondly we shall construct the normalized NB which produces the correct Hamiltonian time evolutions. This means that all $`nD`$ maximally superintegrable Hamiltonian systems admit Nambu formulation. We then show that every $`SI_H(2n1)`$ system admits $`2n1`$ multi-Hamiltonian structures. Statements that we have proved make these facts possible, in a well defined generic way and independently from the forms of Hamiltonians. Multi-Hamiltonian structures of maximally superintegrable systems were considered for the first time in Ref. by using a different approach from ours. In this context, our geometric proofs of Jacobi identity and of compatibility condition for alternative Poisson structures are different but validate and, in a sense, are complementary to that of Ref..

In the next section main points of the Nambu mechanics, mainly those needed for the subsequent investigation are briefly reviewed ( for more details we refer to ). In Section III a coordinate-free form of canonical NB and normalized NB are introduced, and the Jacobi identity for a normalized binary bracket induced from NB is established. The general algebraic condition for the functional independence is proved in section IV. Nambu formulation of a $`SI_H(2n1)`$ system is established in section V where we also point out some general facts concerning the structure of symmetry algebras of maximally superintegrable systems. Multi-Hamiltonian structures are taken up in section VI. As applications the Calogero-Moser system, motion of a charged particle in a uniform perpendicular magnetic field (this will be referred to as (classical) Landau problem) and Smorodinsky-Winternitz potentials are considered in the final section where their symmetry algebras and explicit forms of their alternative Hamiltonian structures are established.

Our further notational conventions are as follows. We shall denote the linear spaces of all vector fields and (differential) $`p`$-forms on a smooth manifold $`M`$ of dimension $`n`$, respectively, by $`𝒳(M)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^p(M),\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}pn`$. Together with their commutative (and associative) algebra structure with respect to usual point-wise product, the linear space of all smooth functions ($`0`$-forms) defined on $`M`$ will be represented by $`𝒜`$. We shall denote the vector fields by bold face letters, adopt the Einstein summation convention over repeated pair of contravariant and covariant indices and use the shorthand $`𝒜^^n=𝒜\mathrm{}𝒜`$ ($`n`$ times).

## II Nambu Mechanics

NB of order $`n`$ is the real multilinear map $`\{,\mathrm{},\}:𝒜^^n𝒜`$ which has, for all $`f_j,g_j𝒜`$, the following properties.
i. Skew-symmetry

$$\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_n\}=(1)^\epsilon \{f_{\sigma (1)},\mathrm{},f_{\sigma (n)}\},$$
(3)
where $`\sigma `$ is a member of the permutation group $`S_n`$ and $`\epsilon `$ is the parity of permutation $`\sigma `$ ($`\epsilon =1`$ for odd permutations, and $`\epsilon =0`$ for even permutations).
ii. Derivation (the Leibniz rule)

$$\{f_1f_2,f_3,\mathrm{},f_{n+1}\}=f_1\{f_2,f_3,\mathrm{},f_{n+1}\}+f_2\{f_1,f_3,\mathrm{},f_{n+1}\}.$$
(4)
iii. Fundamental identity (a kind of generalized Jacobi identity)

$$\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_{n1},\{g_1,\mathrm{},g_n\}\}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\{g_1,\mathrm{},\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_{n1},g_k\},\mathrm{},g_n\}.$$
(5)
With respect to NB, $`𝒜`$ acquires another algebra structure henceforth denoted by $`𝒜_N`$.

Nambu dynamics is determined by $`n1`$ Hamiltonian functions $`h_1,\mathrm{},h_{n1}𝒜_N`$ and is described, for any $`f𝒜_N`$, by the Nambu-Hamilton (NH) equations of motion

$$\frac{df}{dt}=X_{NH}(f)=\{f,h_1,\mathrm{},h_{n1}\},$$
(6)
where $`X_{NH}`$ is called the NH vector field corresponding to $`h_1,\mathrm{},h_{n1}`$.

NB of order $`n`$ induces infinite family of lower order NB, including the family of Poisson structures, all of which satisfy corresponding fundamental identities (FIs) that follow from (5). Below we shall concentrate only on the induced Poisson structures. For a fixed set of $`n2`$ Hamiltonian functions $`f_i𝒜_N`$ we define the Nambu induced PB as follows

$$\{f,g\}_{NP}=\{f,g,f_1,\mathrm{},f_{n2}\},$$
(7)
where $`f,g𝒜_N`$ are arbitrary. If in Eq. (5) we take

$`f_{n1}=f,:g_{n1}=g,g_n=h,g_i=f_i;i=1,\mathrm{},n2`$then, by virtue of (3), the first $`n2`$ terms at the right hand side (5) vanish and we get

$$\{f,\{g,h\}_{NP}\}_{NP}+cp=0,$$
(8)
where $`cp`$ stands for cyclic permutations. Eq. (8) reveals the fact that $`\{,\}_{NP}`$ satisfies the Jacobi identity. Note that all the fixed functions in the definition (7) are Casimirs of $`\{,\}_{NP}`$, that is, $`\{f_i,f\}_{NP}=0`$ for all $`f_i,i=1,\mathrm{},n2`$ and $`f𝒜_N`$.

## III Canonical NB and Normalized NB

The problem of constructing concrete realizations of NB is of great importance. In the case of $`M=𝐑^n`$ the following form, called the canonical NB

$$\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_n\}=\frac{(f_1,\mathrm{},f_n)}{(x^1,\mathrm{},x^n)},$$
(9)
was provided by Y. Nambu. Here $`(x^1,\mathrm{},x^n)`$ denote the local coordinates of $`𝐑^n`$ and the right hand side stands for the Jacobian of the mapping $`f=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_n):𝐑^n𝐑^n`$.

We shall now introduce a coordinate-free expression of the canonical NB that provides a considerable ease in proving the technical points of the paper. For this purpose we first associate the $`n1`$-form

$$\gamma =dh_1\mathrm{}dh_{n1},$$
(10)
to $`n1`$ Hamiltonian functions $`h_j𝒜_N`$. We then recall the Hodge map $`{}_{}{}^{}:\mathrm{\Lambda }^p(𝐑^n)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{np}(𝐑^n)`$ defined for any p-form $`w=(1/p!)w_{i_1\mathrm{}i_p}dx^{i_1}\mathrm{}dx^{i_p}`$ as follows

$`{}_{}{}^{}w={\displaystyle \frac{1}{p!(np)!}}ϵ_{}^{i_1\mathrm{}i_p}{}_{i_{p+1}\mathrm{}i_n}{}^{}w_{i_1\mathrm{}i_p}dx^{i_{p+1}}\mathrm{}dx^{i_n},`$ (11)
where $`w_{i_1\mathrm{}i_p}`$ are antisymmetric cotravariant components of $`w`$ and $`ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}`$ with $`ϵ^{1\mathrm{}n}=1`$ is the $`nD`$ completely antisymmetric Levi-Civita symbol. Note that with respect to $`𝒜`$ the Hodge map is linear and exterior product is bilinear. It is now obvious that, in local coordinates

$${}_{}{}^{}(df\gamma )=\{f,h_1,\mathrm{},h_{n1}\}=\frac{(f,h_1,\mathrm{},h_{n1})}{(x^1,\mathrm{},x^n)}.$$
(12)
In that case, multilinearity, antisymmetry and derivation properties of the canonical NB are direct results of the linearity of the Hodge map with respect to $`𝒜`$, and of the well-known properties of $``$-product and $`d`$. We can also associate the $`n1`$-form $`\beta =\beta _{i_1\mathrm{}i_{n1}}dx^{i_1}\mathrm{}dx^{i_{n1}}/(n1)!`$ to the vector field $`𝜷=(\beta ^1,\mathrm{},\beta ^n)`$ with components $`\beta ^k=ϵ^{ki_1\mathrm{}i_{n1}}\beta _{i_1\mathrm{}i_{n1}}/(n1)!`$. Then, (11) can also be written as

$${}_{}{}^{}(df\gamma )=𝜸\mathbf{}f,$$
(13)
where $`\mathbf{}`$ stands for $`n`$-dimensional gradient operator and $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\mathrm{"}`$ denotes the usual inner product of $`𝐑^n`$. The fundamental identity can be verified by taking $`f=\{g_1,\mathrm{},g_n\}`$ in Eq. (12).

We should note that Eq. (12) implies

$$X_{NH}=(1)^{n1}{}_{}{}^{}(\gamma d)=𝜸\mathbf{},$$
(14)
for the NH vector field corresponding to $`h_1,\mathrm{},h_{n1}`$. As illustrative examples, let us consider the cases $`n=2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}`$. The vector fields corresponding to $`\gamma =dh`$ in the case of $`n=2`$ and $`\gamma ^{}=dh_1dh_2`$ in the case of $`n=3`$ are easily found to be

$`𝜸=(_2h,_1h),𝜸^{}=\mathbf{}h_1\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{}h_2,`$ (15)
where $`_j=/x_j`$ and $`\mathbf{\times }`$ denotes the cross product of $`𝐑^3`$. The associated NH vector fields and canonical NBs can be written as follows

$`X_{NH}(f)=_2h_1f_1h_2f,X_{NH}^{}(f)=(\mathbf{}h_1\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{}h_2)\mathbf{}f.`$ (16)
The first is the usual PB of $`𝐑^2`$ and the second is the original NB first appeared in . In the next two sections we shall generalize these expressions for a $`SI_H(2n1)`$ system in the case of arbitrary $`n`$.

To be precise, from now on we shall adopt, in accordance with related literature, the following definition : If the time evolution equations of a dynamical system can be written in terms of (canonical) NB then the system will be called to admit equivalent Nambu formulation. As it will be apparent in the next two sections in order to get the correct dynamics the induced PBs must be properly normalized. For this purpose, in terms of $`n2`$-form

$$\eta =df_1\mathrm{}df_{n2},$$
(17)
we define

$$\{f,g\}_{NP}^{}=C\{f,g,f_1,\mathrm{},f_{n2}\}=C^{}(dfdg\eta ),$$
(18)
where $`C𝒜`$ is, for the time being, an arbitrary function. $`C`$ will be referred to as the normalization coefficient and will be specified from the requirement that the NH equation produces the correct time evolution for any function. The generic form of $`C`$ will be determined in the next section, but before that it must be emphasized that $`\{,\}_{NP}^{}`$ satisfies the Jacobi identity for any $`C`$. To prove this let us consider

$$\{h,\{f,g\}_{NP}^{}\}_{NP}^{}=C^{}\{dhd[C^{}(dfdg\eta )]\eta \}$$
(19)
and its cyclic permutations for three functions $`h,f`$ and $`g`$. Since in a $`nD`$ space we have at most $`n`$ functional independent functions and since in (15) we have, apart from $`C`$, $`n+1`$ functions, in the most general case one of them, say $`f`$, must be functional dependent to others. Hence we can take

$$df=adh+bdg+\underset{1}{\overset{n2}{}}c_if_i,$$
(20)
where $`a,b`$ and $`c_i`$ are arbitrary constants. On substituting this in (16) and in its $`cp`$ we immediately see that their sum vanishes.

Obviously, in the case of $`n=2`$ we have $`C=1`$. For known $`3D`$ examples, namely, for free rigid body and the Nahm equations we also have $`C=1`$. However the requirement of nontrivial $`C`$ is inevitable at least when $`n`$ is an even integer greater than two. Although this normalization requirement have appeared in the literature, its generic form and important implications were not recognized.

## IV An Algebraic Expression For Functional Independence

The phase-space of a Hamiltonian system is a $`2n`$ dimensional symplectic manifold $`M`$ on which a symplectic structure is defined by a closed ($`d\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$) and nondegenerate symplectic 2-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Two immediate implications of nondegeneracy are that ; (i) $`M`$ is orientable with nowhere vanishing Liouville measure (volume form)

$$V_L=\frac{(1)^{n(n1)/2}}{n!}\mathrm{\Omega }^n,$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n=\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (n times). (ii) There is a natural isomorphism between the vector fields and 1-forms defined by $`𝝃\mu _𝝃=i_𝝃\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`i_𝝃:\mathrm{\Lambda }^p(M)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p1}(M)`$ is called the interior product operator defined for any p-form $`\alpha `$ by

$$(i_𝝃\alpha )(𝝃_1,\mathrm{},𝝃_{p1})=\alpha (𝝃,𝝃_1,\mathrm{},𝝃_{p1}).$$
(22)
If $`\mu _𝝃`$ is exact, that is, if $`\mu _𝝃=df`$, then $`𝝃`$ is called a Hamiltonian vector field corresponding to $`f𝒜`$ and henceforth denoted by $`𝝃_f:i_{𝝃_f}\mathrm{\Omega }=df`$. PB on $`M`$ is defined by $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝝃_f,𝝃_g)=\{f,g\}`$. According to Darboux theorem at each point of $`M`$ there are local canonical coordinates $`(q^1,\mathrm{},q^n,p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)`$ in which $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ takes the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }=dq^jdp_j`$ and leads us to the following coordinate expressions

$`\{f,g\}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝝃_f,𝝃_g)=_{q^j}f_{p_j}g_{p_j}f_{q^j}g,`$ (24)
$`𝝃_f`$ $`=`$ $`_{p_j}f_{q^j}_{q^j}f_{p_j},`$ (25)
$`V_L`$ $`=`$ $`dq^1\mathrm{}dq^ndp_1\mathrm{}dp_n.`$ (26)
By definition of exterior forms and their $``$-products, the value of $`\alpha \beta ;\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^p,\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }^q`$ on $`p+q`$ vectors $`𝝃_k𝒳(M);k=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{},p+q2n`$, is given, in the notation of , by

$$(\alpha \beta )(𝝃_1,\mathrm{},𝝃_{p+q})=\underset{S_{p+q}}{}(1)^\epsilon \alpha (𝝃_{i_1},\mathrm{},𝝃_{i_p})\beta (𝝃_{j_1},\mathrm{},𝝃_{j_q}),$$
(27)
where $`i_1<\mathrm{}<i_p`$ and $`j_1<\mathrm{}<j_q`$ such that $`(i_1,\mathrm{},i_p,j_1,\mathrm{},j_q)`$ is a permutation of $`(1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{},p+q)`$. The summation in Eq. (21) is over all permutations of the permutation group $`S_{p+q}`$, provided that the indices are partitioned into two ordered sets as given above.

By making use of Eq. (21) we now evaluate the Liouville form $`V_L`$ given by (20c) on $`2n`$ Hamiltonian vector fields $`𝝃_{f_A};A=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}n`$, as follows

$`V_L(𝝃_{f_1},\mathrm{},𝝃_{f_{2n}})`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_{2n}}dq^1(𝝃_{f_{i_1}})\mathrm{}dq^n(𝝃_{f_{i_n}})dp_1(𝝃_{f_{i_{n+1}}})\mathrm{}dp_n(𝝃_{f_{i_{2n}}})`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`(1)^n\epsilon ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_{2n}}_{p_1}f_{i_1}\mathrm{}_{p_n}f_{i_n}_{q^1}f_{i_{n+1}}\mathrm{}_{q^n}f_{i_{2n}}`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{(f_{n+1},\mathrm{},f_{2n},f_1,\mathrm{},f_n)}{(q^1,\mathrm{},q^n,p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)}}.`$ (30)
By the antisymmetry properties of determinant, or in view of $`V_L(𝝃_1,\mathrm{},𝝃_{2n})=(1)^nV_L(𝝃_{n+1},\mathrm{},𝝃_{2n},𝝃_1,\mathrm{},𝝃_n)`$, the above relation can be written as

$$V_L(𝝃_{f_1},\mathrm{},𝝃_{f_{2n}})=\frac{(f_1,\mathrm{},f_{2n})}{(q^1,\mathrm{},q^n,p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)}.$$
(31)
We now evaluate $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n`$ on the same set of Hamiltonian vector fields as follows

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^n(𝝃_{f_1},\mathrm{},𝝃_{f_{2n}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{S_{2n}}{}}(1)^\epsilon \mathrm{\Omega }(𝝃_{f_{i_1}},𝝃_{f_{i_2}})\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }(𝝃_{f_{k_1}},𝝃_{f_{k_2}})`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{S_{2n}}{}}(1)^ϵ\{f_{i_1},f_{i_2}\}\mathrm{}\{f_{k_1},f_{k_2}\},`$ (33)
where $`i_1<i_2;\mathrm{};k_1<k_2`$ such that $`(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},k_1,k_2)`$ is a permutation of $`(1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}n)`$, and we have used Eq. (20a). ***When we were about to submit this paper we came across to very recent study  which derive Eq. (23) (with Jacobian at the left hand side) without referring to the above symplectic techniques. They successfully use it in Nambu formulation of a class of systems whose symmetry algebras close into some simple Lie algebras (see the next section) and then they develop, in analogy to the classical case, interesting quantum versions of NB. Let us make the identifications

$$f_1=f,f_2=H,f_{2+i}=H_i,f_{n+1+i}=A_i;i=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{},n1,$$
(34)
where $`H,H_i,A_iSI_H(2n1)`$ and $`f𝒜`$ is an arbitrary function. In that case, at the right hand side of Eq. (23) only the terms in which $`H`$ is paired with $`f`$ and each $`H_i`$ is paired with one of $`A_j`$ give non-zero contributions. All other possible pairing are zero by very definition of maximal superintegrability. With this in mind let us consider a fixed partition

$`\{f_{i_1},f_{i_2}\}\{f_{j_1},f_{j_2}\}\mathrm{}\{f_{k_1},f_{k_2}\}.`$ (35)
There are $`n`$ different places for $`\{f_{i_1},f_{i_2}\}`$, and for a fixed place of $`\{f_{i_1},f_{i_2}\}`$ there are $`n1`$ possible places for $`\{f_{j_1},f_{j_2}\}`$, and $`n2`$ places for the next pair (provided that the places of the first two pairs are fixed), and so on. In all this cases the signs of permutations are the same since each is obtained from the initial one by interchanging two fixed pairs of indices. Hence, in the right hand side of (23) there are $`n!`$ identical copies of each non-zero term. Thus, (23) can be written, in view of identifications given by (24) , as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^n(𝝃_{f_1},\mathrm{},𝝃_{f_{2n}})=n!K(n)\{f,H\},$$
(36)
where $`K(n)`$ represents all different partitions which are non-zero

$$K(n)=Nϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_{n1}}\{H_1,A_{i_1}\}\mathrm{}\{H_{n1},A_{i_{n1}}\}.$$
(37)
Since $`ϵ^{1\mathrm{}n1}=1`$, the factor $`N`$ is found to be $`(1)^{(n1)(n2)/2}`$ by computing the parity of permutation

$`\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccc}1& 2& 3& 4& & 5& 6& 7\mathrm{}& 2n1& 2n\\ 1& 2& 3& n+2& & 4& n+3& 5\mathrm{}& n+1& 2n\end{array}\right).`$As a result, by defining $`B_{ij}=\{H_i,A_j\}`$ and the $`(n1)\times (n1)`$ matrix $`B=(B_{ij})`$ with determinant

$`detB=ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_{n1}}B_{1i_1}\mathrm{}B_{n1i_{n1}},`$ (38)
Eq. (25)can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^n(𝝃_{f_1},\mathrm{},𝝃_{f_{2n}})=(1)^{(n1)(n2)/2}n!detB\{f,H\}.$$
(39)
It will be convenient to give the explicit calculation of (27) for $`n=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}`$. For $`n=1`$ we immediately get $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝝃_{f_1},𝝃_{f_2})=\{f,H\}`$, and $`detB=1`$. In the case of $`n=2`$ we obtain directly from (23)

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^2(𝝃_{f_1},\mathrm{},𝝃_{f_4})=(1)^{ϵ_1}\{f_1,f_2\}\{f_3,f_4\}+(1)^{ϵ_2}\{f_3,f_4\}\{f_1,f_2\},`$ (40)
where $`ϵ_1`$ is the parity of identity permutation and $`ϵ_2`$ is the parity of

$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 2& 3& 4\\ 3& 4& 1& 2\end{array}\right)=(13)(24)ϵ_2=0=ϵ_1.`$ (43)
Hence $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2(𝝃_{f_1},\mathrm{},𝝃_{f_4})=2\{f,H\}B_{11}`$, and $`detB=B_{11}=\{H_1,A_1\}`$. For $`n=3`$ we have

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^3(𝝃_{f_1},\mathrm{},𝝃_{f_6})`$ $`=`$ $`\{f_1,f_2\}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\{[(1)^{ϵ_i^1}+(1)^{ϵ_i^2}]\{f_3,f_5\}\{f_4,f_6\}+`$ (45)
$`[(1)^{ϵ_i^3}+(1)^{ϵ_i^4}]\{f_3,f_6\}\{f_4,f_5\}\},`$
where $`ϵ_1^j;j=1,,2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}`$, are for the following permutations

$`\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}1& 2& 3& 4& 5& 6\\ 1& 2& 3& 5& 4& 6\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`(45)ϵ_1^1=1,`$ (48)
$`\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}1& 2& 3& 4& 5& 6\\ 1& 2& 4& 6& 3& 5\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`(3465)ϵ_1^2=1,`$ (51)
$`\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}1& 2& 3& 4& 5& 6\\ 1& 2& 3& 6& 4& 5\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`(465)ϵ_1^3=0,`$ (54)
$`\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}1& 2& 3& 4& 5& 6\\ 1& 2& 4& 5& 3& 6\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`(345)ϵ_1^4=0.`$ (57)
For $`ϵ_2^i`$ and $`ϵ_3^i`$, the first pair $`(12)`$ must be interchanged, respectively, with the second pair and the last pair in the above permutations; in both cases we have the same signs as $`ϵ_1^i`$. Hence Eq. (28) can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^3(𝝃_{f_1},\mathrm{},𝝃_{f_6})=3!\{f,H\}(B_{11}B_{22}B_{12}B_{21}),$$
(58)
and we get $`detB=B_{11}B_{22}B_{12}B_{21}`$.

In view of Eq. (18) a comparison of Eqs. (22) and (27) yields

$$\frac{(f,H,H_1,\mathrm{}H_{n1},A_1,\mathrm{},A_{n1})}{(q^1,\mathrm{},q^n,p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)}=(1)^{n+1}detB\{f,H\}.$$
(59)
In terms of

$`d^nx`$ $`=`$ $`dx^1\mathrm{}dx^n,`$ (60)
$`d^n\widehat{x}^i`$ $`=`$ $`dx^1\mathrm{}dx^{i1}dx^{i+1}\mathrm{}dx^n,`$ (61)
we obtain for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, by comparing (11) and (30)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=detB\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{i1}[_{q^i}Hd^nqd^n\widehat{p}_i(1)^n_{p_i}Hd^n\widehat{q}^id^np],$$
(62)
where the summation is explicitly written to avoid any confusion. Note that $`{}_{}{}^{}(df\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is equal to the left hand side of Eq. (30). We conclude this section by the following statement.

If $`H`$ constant then the constants of motion $`H,H_i,A_iSI_H(2n1)`$ are functionally dependent $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }=0)`$ if and only if $`detB=0`$. These functions are functionally independent $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }0)`$ where $`detB0`$.

## V Nambu Formulation of Maximally Superintegrable Systems and Their Symmetry Algebras

Since the Jacobian determinant (30) is proportional to $`\{f,H\}`$, the correct time evolution of $`f`$ can be expressed by the properly normalized NB as in Eq. (15) with the normalization coefficient $`C=(1)^{n+1}/detB`$. Indeed, the bracket

$`\{f,H\}_{NP}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}(df\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}),`$ (63)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{n+1}}{detB}}{\displaystyle \frac{(f,H,H_1,\mathrm{},H_{n1},A_1,\mathrm{},A_{n1})}{(q^1,\mathrm{},q^n,p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)}},`$ (64)
written in terms of ($`2n1`$)-form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\frac{(1)^{n+1}}{detB}\mathrm{\Gamma }$$
(65)
produces the correct Hamiltonian time evolution

$$\frac{df}{dt}=\{f,H\}_{NP}^{(0)}=\{f,H\},$$
(66)
where $`f`$ is an arbitrary function. Therefore, every $`nD`$ maximal superintegrable time-independent Hamiltonian system defined by (1) admits equivalent Nambu formulation.

It must be emphasized that as we have proved in Sec. III the normalized NB defined, for two arbitrary functions $`h,f𝒜`$, by

$$\{f,h\}_{NB}^{(0)}=^{}(dfdh\mathrm{\Gamma }_H),$$
(67)
obeys the Jacobi identity. Here the $`(2n2)`$-form $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$ is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_H=\frac{(1)^{n+1}}{detB}dH_1\mathrm{}dH_{n1}dA_1\mathrm{}dA_{n1}.$$
(68)
The above discussion singles out an important special case in which the symmetry algebra of a $`SI_H(2n1)`$ system is such that $`detB`$ is everywhere a non-zero constant. In such a case the constants of motion are globally functional independent and the Nambu formulation is possible without any (nontrivial) normalization coefficient. For this reason the rest of this section is devoted to a discussion of some general points of symmetry algebras of superintegrable systems.

Besides the vanishing PBs given by (1) the defining relations of the symmetry algebra of a $`SI_H(2n1)`$ system contain the following

$$\{H_i,A_j\}=B_{ij},\{A_i,A_j\}=C_{ij}.$$
(69)
By the Jacobi identity $`B_{ij}`$ and $`C_{ij}`$ are constants of motion and each is functionally dependent to the constants of motion specified by the set $`SI_H(2n1)`$. Hence, each of them can be expressed as $`X=X(H,H_i,A_j)`$. By making use of the identity

$$\{R,X\}=\{R,H\}_HX+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\left(\{R,H_i\}_{H_i}X+\{R,A_i\}_{A_i}X\right)$$
(70)
we obtain

$`\{H_i,X\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}B_{ij}_{A_j}X,`$ (72)
$`\{A_i,X\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left(B_{ji}_{H_j}X+C_{ij}_{A_j}X\right),`$ (73)
Obviously, the symmetry algebra of $`SI_H(2n1)`$ system is a Lie algebra if and only if each of $`B_{ij}`$ and $`C_{ij}`$ is at most first order in $`H,H_i`$ and $`A_j`$. If each of $`B_{ij}`$ and $`C_{ij}`$ is a polynomial of degree at most $`k>1`$, then the symmetry algebra is called to be a polynomial Poisson algebra of degree $`k`$. There may also be cases in which the right hand sides of Eqs. (39) are polynomials but some of $`B_{ij}`$ and $`C_{ij}`$ are not. In such cases, by including the non-polynomial ones into the set of symmetry algebra we again obtain polynomial algebras. Although these possible cases are by no means exhaustive, especially for low values of $`n`$ they are likely to occur as interesting structures .

## VI  Multi-Hamiltonian Structures of Maximally Superintegrable Systems

To ease the calculation of this section we shall use the notion $`H_k;k=0,1,\mathrm{},2n2`$ such that $`H_0=H`$ and $`H_{n+i1}=A_i,i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$. Then, in terms of $`(2n2)`$-forms

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{H_k}=\frac{(1)^{n+k+1}}{detB}dH_0dH_1\mathrm{}dH_{k1}\widehat{dH}_kdH_{k+1}\mathrm{}dH_{2n2},$$
(74)
where a hat over a quantity indicates that it should be omitted, we can define $`2n1`$ different normalized NBs as follows

$$\{f,h\}_{NP}^{(k)}=^{}(dfdh\mathrm{\Gamma }_{H_k}),k=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}n2.$$
(75)
Each of these brackets gives the original time evolution provided that we choose the new Hamiltonian function to be $`H_k`$:

$$\frac{df}{dt}=\{f,H_k\}_{NP}^{(k)}=\{f,H\}.$$
(76)
In such a case, the system given by (1) has the so-called multi-Hamiltonian structures property: it can equally well be described by any one of the $`2n1`$ pairs $`(H_k,\{,\}_{NP}^{(k)})`$.

We shall now prove that the above defined brackets are pairwise compatible, that is, $`\{,\}_{NP}^{(k_1k_2)}=a\{,\}_{NP}^{(k_1)}+b\{,\}_{NP}^{(k_2)}`$ satisfies the Jacobi identity for all $`a,b𝐑`$, independently from the form of $`detB`$. Evidently, there is no loss of generality in taking $`k_1=0,k_2=1`$ and $`a=1=b`$. Then let us consider

$`\{f,\{g,h\}_{NP}^{(01)}\}_{NP}^{(01)}+cp`$ $`=`$ $`[\{f,\{g,h\}_{NP}^{(0)}\}_{NP}^{(1)}+cp]+[\{f,\{g,h\}_{NP}^{(1)}\}_{NP}^{(0)}+cp],`$ (77)
$`=`$ $`\{^{}[dfd^{}(dgdh\mathrm{\Gamma }_{H_0})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{H_1}]+cp\}+`$ (79)
$`\{^{}[dfd^{}(dgdh\mathrm{\Gamma }_{H_1})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{H_0}]+cp\},`$
for three functions $`f,g`$ and $`h`$. In writing Eq. (43) we have made use of the fact that $`\{,\}_{NP}^{(0)}`$ and $`\{,\}_{NP}^{(1)}`$ satisfy the Jacobi identity separately. The definition of $`\{,\}_{NP}^{(k)}`$ requires $`2n1`$ independent functions but (43) involves $`2n+2`$ functions. Therefore, in the most general case any two of $`(f,g,h)`$, say $`f`$ and $`g`$, must depend on the other $`2n`$ independent functions. That is, we can take

$`df=a_1dh+{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{2n2}{}}}b_kdH_k,dg=a_2dh+{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{2n2}{}}}c_kdH_k,`$ (80)
where $`a_1,a_2,b_k,c_k`$ are arbitrary constants. When these are substituted in (43), with special care paid to the signs, the right hand side vanishes.

To point out another important property of superintegrable systems we shall use local canonical coordinates $`x^\gamma ;\gamma =1,\mathrm{},2n`$ such that $`x^j=q^j,x^{n+j}=p_j`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Then, in terms of the so-called Poisson tensor components

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(k)}^{\alpha \beta }={\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{n+k+1}}{detB}}\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \gamma _0\mathrm{}\widehat{\gamma _k}\mathrm{}\gamma _{2n2}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{x^{\gamma _0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_1}{x^{\gamma _1}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{H_{k1}}{x^{\gamma _{k1}}}}\widehat{{\displaystyle \frac{H_k}{x^{\gamma _k}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_{k+1}}{x^{\gamma _{k+1}}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{H_{2n2}}{x^{\gamma _{2n2}}}},`$ (81)
we rewrite Eq. (41) as

$$\{f,h\}_{NP}^{(k)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(k)}^{\alpha \beta }\frac{f}{x^\alpha }\frac{h}{x^\beta },k=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}n2.$$
(82)
In Eqs. (44-45) and below summations over repeated Greek letters range from $`1`$ to $`2n`$. It is not hard to verify that in terms of Poisson tensor the Jacobi identity means that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(k)}^{\eta \gamma }\frac{}{x^\gamma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(k)}^{\alpha \beta }+cp=0,$$
(83)
where $`cp`$ indicates the cyclic sum with respect to superscripts $`\eta ,\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. We shall now prove that all of these Poisson tensors are singular, that is, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(k)}`$ being the $`2n\times 2n`$ matrix with elements $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(k)}^{\alpha \beta }`$ we have

$$det(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(k)})=\epsilon _{\alpha _1;\mathrm{}\alpha _{2n}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(k)}^{1\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(k)}^{2n\alpha _{2n}}=0.$$
(84)
The easiest way to prove Eq. (47) may be as follows. Let $`\{𝐞_\alpha :\alpha =1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}n\}`$ be a basis of vector space $`𝐑^{2n}`$ and let us define $`2n`$ vectors $`𝐯^{(\alpha )}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(0)}^{\alpha \beta }𝐞_\beta `$, where , without any loss of generality, we have taken $`k=0`$. Then for $`k^{}=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}n2`$ we have

$`𝐯^{(\alpha )}\mathbf{}H_k^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(0)}^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{H_k^{}}{x^\beta }}`$ (85)
$`=`$ $`\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _{2n2}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_1}{x^{\gamma _1}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{H_{2n2}}{x^{\gamma _{2n2}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_k^{}}{x^\beta }}=0,`$ (86)
because of the contraction of two symmetric and two antisymmetric indices. This proves that each of $`𝐯^{(\alpha )}`$ is perpendicular to the set of $`2n2`$ linearly independent vectors $`S_H=\{\mathbf{}H_k^{}:k^{}=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}n2\}`$. Hence the $`2n`$ vectors $`𝐯^{(\alpha )}`$ are linearly dependent and therefore the matrix of their components, which is the matrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(0)}`$, is singular. In fact the rank of this matrix is two since this is the dimension of the orthogonal complement of the set $`S_H`$.

Evidently, all of the Poisson tensors defined above are pairwise compatible, but as they are singular they do not lead to any symplectic structure.

## VII Applications

### A Calogero-Moser system

The Calogero-Moser system is one of the four $`nD`$ systems which are known to be maximally superintegrable for any finite integer $`n`$ . The other three systems are the Kepler-Coulomb problem, harmonic oscillator with rational frequency ratios, and Winternitz system. Here we shall consider $`n=2`$ (two particles) case of the Calogero-Moser system described by

$$H_{CM}=\frac{1}{2m}𝐩^2+\frac{g^2}{2(q^1q^2)^2},$$
(87)
where $`g`$ is a constant. Constants of motion for $`H_{CM}`$ can be written as

$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`2(q^1+q^2)H_{CM}𝐪𝐩{\displaystyle \frac{p_1+p_2}{m}},`$ (88)
$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_1+p_2}{m}},`$ (89)
$`A_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^2}}(p_1p_2)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{m(q^1q^2)^2}}.`$ (90)
They obey the following relations

$`\{H_{CM},H_1\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{H_{CM},A_1\}=\{H_{CM},A_1^{}\}=0,`$ (91)
$`\{A_1,A_1^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`0,\{H_1,A_1\}=2A_1^{},\{H_1,A_1^{}\}=2A_1A_1^{}.`$ (92)
The relation $`\{A_1,A_1^{}\}=0`$ implies (and is implied by) the fact that $`H_{CM},A_1`$ and $`A_1^{}`$ are functionally dependent. From Eqs. (48) and (49) one can easily identify this dependence as $`A_1^{}=(4H_{CM}mA_1^2)/2m`$. Thus, as a functional independent set we can take $`(H_{CM},H_1,A_1)`$, or $`(H_{CM},H_1,A_1^{})`$. In the former case the symmetry algebra is spanned by $`(H_{CM},H_1,A_1)`$ and since

$$B_{11}=\{H_1,A_1\}=A_1^2+\frac{4}{m}H_{CM},$$
(93)
it is a quadratic Poisson algebra. In the latter case the symmetry algebra is spanned by $`(H_{CM},H_1,A_1^{},B_{11}^{})`$, where $`B_{11}^{}=\{H_1,A_1^{}\}`$ such that

$$B_{11}^2=8A_1^3+\frac{16}{m}A_1^2H_{CM}.$$
(94)
From Eqs. (39a) and (39b) it is found that

$`\{H_1,B_{11}^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_{11}^2}{A_1^{}}}=12A_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{m}}A_1^{}H_{CM},`$ (96)
$`\{A_1^{},B_{11}^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_{11}^2}{H_1}}=0.`$ (97)
Hence we have again a quadratic Poisson algebra.

In both cases the time evolutions can be written in the Nambu and Hamiltonian mechanics equivalently as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{df}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B_{11}}}\{f,H_{CM},H_1,A_1\}`$ (99)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B_{11}^{}}}\{f,H_{CM},H_1,A_1^{}\}=\{f,H_{CM}\}.`$ (100)
Both of the brackets

$`\{f,g\}_{NP}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B_{11}}}\{f,g,H_1,A_1\},`$ (101)
$`\{f,g\}_{NP}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B_{11}^{}}}\{f,g,H_1,A_1^{}\},`$ (102)
defined for two arbitrary functions $`f,g`$ satisfy the Jacobi identity. This is also the case for the normalized NBs corresponding to the Hamiltonian functions $`H_1`$

$`\{f,g\}_{NP}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B_{11}}}\{f,g,H_{CM},A_1\},`$ (103)
$`\{f,g\}_{NP}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B_{11}^{}}}\{f,g,H_{CM},A_1^{}\},`$ (104)
and to $`A_1`$ and to $`A_1^{}`$

$`\{f,g\}_{NP}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B_{11}}}\{f,g,H_{CM},H_1\},`$ (105)
$`\{f,g\}_{NP}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B_{11}^{}}}\{f,g,H_{CM},H_1^{}\}.`$ (106)
Finally in this subsection we should note that by redefinition of the constants of motion we can make the normalization coefficients trivial at the expense of restricting their domains of definition. As an example we consider the constant of motion

$`A^{\prime \prime }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2h}}ln{\displaystyle \frac{A_1h}{A_1+h}},h=2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{H_{CM}}{m}}},`$which satisfies $`\{H_1,A_1^{\prime \prime }\}=\{H_1,A_1\}_{A_1}A^{\prime \prime }=1`$. Then, we can rewrite Eq. (54a) as

$$\frac{df}{dt}=\{f,H_{CM},H_1,A^{\prime \prime }\}=\{f,H_{CM}\}.$$
(107)
Two more alternative brackets can be defined as

$`\{f,g\}_{NP}^{\prime \prime (1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\{f,g,H_{CM},A_1^{\prime \prime }\},`$ (108)
$`\{f,g\}_{NP}^{\prime \prime (2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\{f,g,H_{CM},H_1\}.`$ (109)
Like others, all these brackets obey the Jacobi identity are pairwise compatible and each is degenerate. Explicit forms of corresponding Poisson tensors can also be found as will be done for the next application.

### B Landau problem

We now consider the well-known Landau Hamiltonian $`H_L`$ and first establish its superintegrability and Nambu formulation. Explicit expressions of three different Hamiltonian structures of this problem will be presented in the next subsection.

For a particle of charge $`q>0`$ and mass $`m`$ moving on the $`q^1q^2`$-plane under the influence of the perpendicular static and uniform magnetic field $`=_{q^1}a_2_{q^2}a_1`$ , $`H_L`$ is (in the Gaussian units)

$$H_L=\frac{1}{2m}(𝐩\frac{q}{c}𝐚)^2=\frac{1}{2}m(v_1^2+v_2^2),$$
(110)
where $`c`$ is the speed of light, $`𝐚=(a_1,a_2)`$ is the vector potential and $`𝐯=(𝐩\frac{q}{c}𝐚)/m`$ is the velocity vector . Components of $`𝐯`$ obey $`\{v_1,v_2\}=q/m^2c`$ for any $``$.

When $``$ is constant the most general form of the vector potential is $`𝐚=(/2)(q^2,q^1)+\mathbf{}_q\chi `$ , where $`\chi \chi (𝐪)`$ is an arbitrary gauge function. In such a case we have, in any gauge $`\chi `$, two constants of motion

$$H_1=m(v_2+\omega q^1),A_1=m(v_1\omega q^2),$$
(111)
where $`\omega =q/mc`$ is the cyclotron frequency. $`(H_1,A_1)/m\omega `$ correspond to coordinates of the cyclotron centre and they satisfy the gauge-independent relations $`\{v_j,H_1\}=0=\{v_j,A_1\},j=1,2`$, and

$$\{H_L,H_1\}=0=\{H_L,A_1\},\{H_1,A_1\}=m\omega .$$
(112)
These relations explicitly show that $`H_L,H_1`$ and $`A_1`$ are functional independent constants of motion and they close into a Lie algebra structure which can be identified as the centrally extended Heisenberg-Weyl algebra. This completes the superintegrability of the Landau problem.

Let us now consider the 3-form $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(m\omega )^1dH_LdH_1dA_1`$, which can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=(v_1dq^2v_2dq^1)[dp_1dp_2\frac{q}{c}(dp_1da_2dp_2da_1)]+m\omega 𝐯d𝐩dq^1dq^2.$$
(113)
Making use of this we immediately have

$`{}_{}{}^{}(d𝐪\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ $`=`$ $`𝐯,`$ (114)
$`{}_{}{}^{}(d𝐩\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{c}}(v_1\mathbf{}a_1+v_2\mathbf{}a_2).`$ (115)
It is straightforward to check that the right hand sides of these equations are the right hand sides of the canonical Hamiltonian equations for $`H_L`$. Therefore, we can write them collectively as

$$\frac{d}{dt}𝐮={}_{}{}^{}(d𝐮\mathrm{\Gamma }),$$
(116)
where $`𝐮=(q^1,q^2,p_1,p_2)`$. One may also write Eq. (60) for any function $`f`$.

### C Three Hamiltonian Structures of Landau Problem

Since $`B_{11}=\{H_1,A_1\}=m\omega `$ we can define the following three different Poisson tensors

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(0)}^{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m\omega }}\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \gamma _1\gamma _2}{\displaystyle \frac{H_1}{x^{\gamma _1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_1}{x^{\gamma _2}}},`$ (117)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(1)}^{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m\omega }}\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \gamma _1\gamma _2}{\displaystyle \frac{H_L}{x^{\gamma _1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_1}{x^{\gamma _2}}},`$ (118)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(2)}^{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m\omega }}\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \gamma _1\gamma _2}{\displaystyle \frac{H_L}{x^{\gamma _1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_1}{x^{\gamma _2}}},`$ (119)
for the Landau problem. These are all computed and in terms of $`2\times 2`$ matrices

$`Y=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),Z=\left(\begin{array}{cc}_2a_1& _2a_2\\ _1a_1& _1a_2\end{array}\right),S_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& v_1\\ 0& v_2\end{array}\right),S_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}v_1& 0\\ v_2& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (128)
and

$`l=detZ,l_1=v_1_1a_1+v_2_1a_2,l_2=v_1_2a_1+v_2_2a_2,`$ (129)
they can be expressed by the following $`4\times 4`$ matrices

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`J_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{c}{q}Y& Z\\ \stackrel{~}{Z}& \frac{q}{c}lY\end{array}\right),`$ (132)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`v_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(0)}+\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟎}& S_1\\ \stackrel{~}{S_1}& \frac{q}{c}l_1Y\end{array}\right),`$ (135)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`v_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(0)}+\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟎}& S_2\\ \stackrel{~}{S_2}& \frac{q}{c}l_2Y\end{array}\right).`$ (138)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ denotes the transposition of the matrix $`Z`$ and in terms of $`2\times 2`$ zero matrix $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and unit matrix $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$

$$J_0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟏}\\ \mathrm{𝟏}& \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right),$$
(139)
stands for the standard $`4\times 4`$ symplectic matrix.

We first should note that these Hamiltonian structures are valid in any gauge $`\chi `$. Then, as applications of general statements proved in the main text one can explicitly verify the following.
(i) Each of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(k)}`$ provides the correct Hamiltonian equations for the Landau problem which can be cast in the following matrix forms

$$\frac{d}{dt}\stackrel{~}{𝐮}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(k)}H_k;k=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},$$
(140)
where $`H_0=H_L,H_2=A_1`$ and $`H_k`$ is the column matrix of gradient $`H_k`$.
(ii) $`det\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(k)}=0`$ and in fact each of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(k)}`$ has rank two.
(iii) All $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(k)}`$ satisfy the Jacobi identity (46) and they are pair-wise compatible.

### D Smorodinsky-Winternitz potentials

We now consider a set of four potentials first found by Winternitz and co-workers . Relaying on the assumptions; (i) Hamiltonians are of potential form, (ii) integrals of motion are at most quadratic in momenta, they found the following four potentials

$`V^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}kr^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{q_1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{q_2^2}}\right),`$ (142)
$`V^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega (4q_1^2+q_2^2)+\alpha _2q_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2}{q_2^2}},`$ (143)
$`V^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}\left(\kappa +{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _3}{r+q_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _3}{rq_1}}\right),`$ (144)
$`V^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}(\sigma +\alpha _4\sqrt{r+q_1}+\beta _4\sqrt{rq_1}),`$ (145)
where $`k,\omega ,\kappa ,\sigma `$ and $`\alpha _j,\beta _j`$ are some real constants and $`r^2=q_1^2+q_2^2`$. All these potentials accept separation of variables in at least two coordinate systems and each has, in addition to Hamiltonian function $`H^{(j)}=(p^2/2m)+V^{(j)}`$, two constants of motion $`H_1^{(j)},A_1^{(j)};j=1,2,3,4`$. That is, all the Smorodinsky-Winternitz systems are superintegrable and they contain two-dimensional harmonic oscillator and Kepler-Coulomb problem as special cases. $`D`$-dimensional version of (67a) for $`D2`$ is known as the Winternitz system .

Explicit expressions of constants of motion and their nonvanishing PBs are given altogether in the Table I. In addition to that given in third column of the table one must add the following relations

$$\{H_1^{(j)},H^{(j)}\}=\{A_1^{(j)},H^{(j)}\}=\{B_{11}^{(j)},H^{(j)}\}=0,$$
(146)
to the defining relations of symmetry algebras. The constants of motion $`B_{11}^{(j)}=\{H_1^{(j)},A_1^{(j)}\}`$ are found to be

$`B_{11}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{m}}\left[L\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2}{m}}+kq_1q_2\right)\alpha _1{\displaystyle \frac{q_2p_2}{q_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}+\beta _1{\displaystyle \frac{q_1p_1}{q_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right],`$ (147)
$`B_{11}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m}}q_2p_2\left(8\omega q_1+\alpha _2\right){\displaystyle \frac{2p_1}{m}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_2^2}{m}}2\omega q_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _2}{q_2^2}}\right),`$ (148)
$`B_{11}^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2p_1L^2}{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2q_2L}{mr}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _3}{r+q_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _3}{rq_1}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{q_2^2}{mr}}𝐪𝐩\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _3}{(r+q_1)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _3}{(rq_1)^2}}\right],`$ (149)
where $`B_{11}^{(4)}`$ is not written due to its length and we have defined

$$\gamma _j^\pm =\alpha _j\pm \beta _j,L=p_2q_1p_1q_2.$$
(150)
Since $`B_{11}^{(j)}`$s are cubic polynomials in the momenta they can not be written as polynomials in the constants of motion . But their squares can be expressed as follows

$`B_{11}^{(1)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16}{m}}\left[A_1^{(1)}(H_1^{(1)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}2H_1^{(1)}H^{(1)}+kA_1^{(1)}2\gamma _1^+k)+4\alpha _1H^{(1)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}\right]`$ (152)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{16}{m}}\gamma _1^{}(2H_1^{(1)}H^{(1)}\gamma _1^{}k),`$
$`B_{11}^{(2)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{m}}\left[4H_1^{(2)}(H_1^{(2)}H^{(2)})^2+\alpha _2A_1^{(2)}(H_1^{(2)}H^{(2)})\omega A_1^{(2)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}\beta _2(16\omega H_1^{(2)}+\alpha _2^2)\right],`$ (153)
$`B_{11}^{(3)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\left[H_1^{(3)}\left(4A_1^{(3)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}8H_1^{(3)}H^{(3)}+8\gamma _3^+H^{(3)}\kappa ^2\right)2\gamma _3^{}(\kappa A_1^{(3)}+\gamma _3^{}H^{(3)})+\kappa ^2\gamma _3^+\right],`$ (154)
$`B_{11}^{(4)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\left[H_1^{(4)}(2H^{(4)}H_1^{(4)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _4^+\gamma _4^{})+A_1^{(4)}(2H^{(4)}A_1^{(4)}\alpha _4\beta _4){\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{2}}\left(H^{(4)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _4^2+\beta _4^2}{2}}\right)\right].`$ (155)
As a result, the symmetry algebras for all the Smorodinsky-Winternitz potentials are five dimensional quadratic Poisson algebras generated by $`H^{(j)},H_1^{(j)},A_1^{(j)},B_{11}^{(j)}`$ and $`1`$. Finally in this section we will be content with writing the normalized NB of this system as

$$\frac{df}{dt}=\frac{1}{B_{11}^{(j)}}{}_{}{}^{}(dfdH^{(j)}dH_1^{(j)}dA_1^{(j)})=\{f,H^{(j)}\}.$$
(156)
It is also straightforward to write out the alternative Poisson structures for each member of this class of potentials.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Ş. Kuru for useful conversations and for her help in preparing the manuscript of this study. This work was supported in part by the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK).


format: text

text:
# Does circular polarisation reveal the rotation of quasar engines?

## 1 Introduction

The long lasting interest in CP from quasar-like systems (e.g. Jones & O’Dell 1977a, in the following J&O’D) increased recently due to the detection of several new CP sources as SgrA (Bower et al. 1999; Sault & Macquart 1999), M81 (Brunthaler et al. 2001), the micro-quasars SS 433 and GRS 1915+105 (Fender et al. 2000, 2002), low luminosity AGNs (Bower et al. 2002a), and many additional powerful quasars (Wardle et al. 1998; Homan & Wardle 1999) and blazars (Homan et al. 2001). In the following we will summarise these systems under the general term quasar, assuming that a similar mechanism produces CP in most of them. The level of CP is $`1\%`$ and below, usually (but not in the case of SgrA) much lower than the level of LP. On the one hand CP is highly time variable, but on the other hand in many sources it exhibits a very persistent rotational sense (per source and at nearly all frequencies where detected), which is constant on timescales of decades (Komesaroff et al. 1984; Homan & Wardle 1999; Bower et al. 2002b), although exceptions exist. This is far in excess of the dynamical timescale of the central quasar engine from which the emission originates.

In these sources synchrotron radiation from relativistic electrons produces LP, but only a very small and usually negligible amount of CP. A number of mechanisms have been proposed to explain the observed CP, among which FC of LP to CP seems to be the most likely process (Fender et al. 2002; Macquart et al. 2002). Beckert & Falcke (2002) and Ruszkowski & Begelman (2002) (B&F and R&B in the following) provide a good introductions into the matter, a detailed discussion of the various CP generation mechanisms, and further references. For a discussion of scintillation models for CP generation Macquart (2002) should be consulted.

FC of synchrotron emission is a two-step process, since the emitted polarisation state has to be rotated before it can be Faraday converted into circular polarisation. This can happen by FR, as discussed by e.g. B&F and R&B and used as a starting point of this work, or it can be done by a systematic geometrical rotation of the magnetic field along the LOS, as originally proposed by Hodge (1982) and discussed here.

The motivation for the standpoint adopted in this Letter, the assumption that the rotation of LP is a geometric effect rather than FR, is the observational fact that CP changes are very rare, much more rare than LP rotator events, and that a predominant CP sign seems to be persistent in many sources. As explained in the following, this observational fact requires in the FR based models a constant magnetic polarity in the emission region over timescales far in excess of the dynamical timescale of the central engine, since the sign of CP depends on the magnetic field polarity in such models. In the geometrical model discussed here, the CP sign is fully determined by the rotational sense of the central engine. Therefore the persistence of the predominant CP sign would – in this picture – be a natural consequence of angular momentum conservation.

## 2 Faraday conversion

### 2.1 Homogeneous magnetic fields

We start our discussion with the case of a homogeneous magnetic field, and follow the notation of J&O’D, B&F, and R&B, which should be consulted for details and references. The evolution of the Stokes polarisation parameters $`I,Q,U,V`$ along a given LOS (here defining the $`z`$-axis) is governed by

$$\frac{d}{dz}\left(\begin{array}{c}I\\ Q\\ U\\ V\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\epsilon _I\\ \epsilon _Q\\ 0\\ \epsilon _V\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\kappa _I& \kappa _Q& 0& \kappa _V\\ \kappa _Q& \kappa _I& \kappa _\mathrm{F}& 0\\ 0& \kappa _\mathrm{F}& \kappa _I& \kappa _\mathrm{C}\\ \kappa _V& 0& \kappa _\mathrm{C}& \kappa _I\end{array}\right)(\begin{array}{c}I\\ Q\\ U\\ V\end{array}),$$
(1)
where $`\epsilon _{I/Q/U/V}`$ is the emissivity and $`\kappa _{I/Q/U/V}`$ the absorption coefficient of radiation with Stokes parameter $`I/Q/U/V`$. A special coordinate frame is adopted, in which the sky-projected magnetic field is parallel to the $`y`$-axis ($`B=(0,B_y,B_z)`$), which leads to vanishing synchrotron emission and absorption coefficients for Stokes-$`U`$ 111LP, $`\pi /4`$ inclined to the sky-projected magnetic fields.. The emission and absorption coefficients for Stokes-$`V`$ 222CP, clockwise or negatively rotating in sky-projection for $`V>0`$, counter-clockwise or positively rotating for $`V<0`$. are much smaller than the ones for Stokes-$`Q`$ 333LP, perpendicular ($`Q>0`$) or parallel ($`Q<0`$) electric oscillation with respect to the sky-projected magnetic field. – if they are not also zero as would be the case for an $`\mathrm{e}^\pm `$ plasma444Valtaoja (1984) proposed a model in which relativistic beaming allows to see the small amount of circularly polarised synchrotron emission, whereas the linear polarisation is suppressed by cancelling in a helical magnetic field configuration seen face on. Note, that in this model the CP sign depends on the magnetic polarity.. The FR coefficient reads

$$\kappa _\mathrm{F}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\mathrm{e}e^2B_z}{\pi m_\mathrm{e}^2c^4}\lambda ^2,$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\mathrm{e}`$ gives the effective Faraday-active leptonic charge density. For a non-relativistic plasma $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\mathrm{e}`$ is identical to the leptonic charge density $`\rho _\mathrm{e}=e(n_{\mathrm{e}^+}n_\mathrm{e}^{})`$, and for a relativistic plasma $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\mathrm{e}\rho _\mathrm{e}`$ with a constant of proportionality smaller than one.555$`n_{\mathrm{e}^\pm }`$ is the $`\mathrm{e}^\pm `$ number density respectively. In the relativistic case an identical spectral distribution of the two species is assumed, otherwise they enter $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\mathrm{e}`$ with different proportionality factors. The sign of FR depends on the sign of $`\rho _\mathrm{e}`$ and on the direction of the magnetic field component along the LOS ($`B_z`$). The FC coefficient

$$\kappa _\mathrm{C}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{n}_\mathrm{e}e^4B_y^2}{4\pi ^2m_\mathrm{e}^3c^6}\lambda ^3$$
(3)
is sensitive to the total number of leptonic charge carriers $`\stackrel{~}{n}_\mathrm{e}n_\mathrm{e}=n_{\mathrm{e}^+}+n_\mathrm{e}^{}`$ (with a proportionality constant of one in the non-relativistic and smaller than one in the relativistic case) and the square of the perpendicular field strength $`B_y^2`$. Since both numbers are always positive, $`\kappa _\mathrm{C}`$ is always negative (or zero). Since both Faraday coefficients strongly increase with wavelength their importance is largest at lowest frequencies, possibly explaining why CP is often detected close to the synchrotron-self-absorption frequency. The relatively flat observed $`V`$ spectrum of SgrA (compared to the $`I`$ spectrum, Bower et al. 2002b) may indicate that for too strongly self-absorbed sources CP production becomes inefficient, since it is expected to happen only within the $`\tau =𝑑z\kappa _I1`$ region. In an $`\mathrm{e}/\mathrm{p}`$ plasma with diagonal magnetic fields ($`|B_y||B_z|`$) the FR coefficient is usually larger in magnitude compared to the FC coefficient, except for extremely high field strength or extremely low frequencies. Both are not expected in our case.

Since there is no direct conversion of $`Q`$ synchrotron emission to $`V`$ (the corresponding matrix element in Eq. 1 is zero) CP has to be produced via a two-step conversion in this setting: After FR of $`Q`$ into $`U`$ it is further converted by FC to $`V`$. The sign of $`V`$ depends only on the sign of $`\kappa _\mathrm{F}`$ and therefore on the polarity of the magnetic field with respect to the LOS. In a charge symmetric $`\mathrm{e}^\pm `$ plasma ($`\rho _{\mathrm{e}^\pm }=0`$) FR vanishes, and this mechanism is unable to operate. On the other hand the total Faraday depth ($`\tau _\mathrm{F}=𝑑z\kappa _\mathrm{F}`$) should not be too large within the converting region, otherwise the continued FR changes the sign of $`U`$, which leads to the production of $`V`$ with the opposite sign and therefore cancelling of CP. An effective CP production can be achieved if both $`\tau _\mathrm{F}`$ and $`\tau _\mathrm{C}=𝑑z\kappa _\mathrm{C}`$ are simultaneously of the order one, since $`V\frac{1}{6}\tau _\mathrm{F}\tau _\mathrm{C}Q`$ for $`\tau _\mathrm{F}1`$ and $`\tau _\mathrm{C}1`$ within an optically thin region666For an optically thick source, using only the region up to $`\tau =1`$ is a reasonable approximation, leading to $`V\frac{1}{6}\tau _\mathrm{F}\tau _\mathrm{C}Q/\tau ^2`$. CP sign changes can occur around $`\tau 1`$ (Jones & O’Dell 1977a, b). However, the intensity of the CP flux with reversed sign is usually much below the flux with the predominant sign. For that reason Björnsson (1990) concluded that in inhomogeneous situations such CP reversals are usually suppressed. Anyhow, here we concentrate on the predominant sign of CP, and ignore possible complication which can occur occasionally at special frequencies., and much less than this if $`\tau _\mathrm{F}1`$ and/or $`\tau _\mathrm{C}1`$ due to over-rotation and/or over-conversion.

In order to produce a significant $`V`$ component in the case of a homogenous magnetic field either $`\kappa _\mathrm{F}`$ has to be fine tuned with the help of a suitable field orientation777Ideally, the field would be oriented mostly perpendicular to the LOS – but not perfectly, as B&F point out by emphasising the advantage of a helical field configuration. or by a small but non-zero effective leptonic charge density, since $`\kappa _\mathrm{F}/\kappa _\mathrm{C}\varrho _\mathrm{e}/n_\mathrm{e}`$. Both possibilities seem to be too contrived to allow CP to be detected in a significant number of very different sources, ranging from micro-quasars over low-luminosity AGNs to powerful quasars.

### 2.2 Stochastic magnetic fields

B&F and R&B demonstrated that a significant CP production can be achieved even in the case of a very large microscopic FR coefficient if the magnetic field is mostly stochastic. The contributions of $`\kappa _\mathrm{F}`$ with differing signs due to magnetic field reversals can cancel each other, leaving only a small total Faraday depth $`\tau _\mathrm{F}`$ due to an assumed weak mean field. The strength and sign of this mean field determines the strength and sign of the resulting CP respectively. Although some fine-tuning is also necessary in this scenario in order to simultaneously have the right order of FR and FC, the larger number of free parameters (field strength and coherence length, ratio of mean to stochastic field components, $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\mathrm{e}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{n}_\mathrm{e}`$) provides a sufficiently large parameter space to make this scenario a plausible explanation for the observed CP for a wide range of objects. R&B showed that this approach can produce CP in the case of an $`\mathrm{e}/\mathrm{p}`$ and also in the case of a (charge-asymmetric) $`\mathrm{e}^\pm `$ plasma.

However, in order to explain the long-term stability of the observed sign of $`V`$ it has to be assumed that the weak magnetic mean flux has to retain its polarity. This might surprise, since the dynamical time scales in several of the observed systems are orders of magnitudes smaller than the time-scale over which stability of the sign of $`V`$ could be established888E.g. SgrA and GRS 1915+105. SgrA exhibited a stable $`V`$ sign on a timescale (20 years) which is 5 orders of magnitude longer than the dynamical timescale of the accretion flow close to the black hole ($``$ h). GRS 1915+105 was observed to exhibit a LP-rotator event, but no change in the sign of CP (Fender et al. 2002, who described an indication of a CP sign reversal to be insignificant). However, counter-examples seem to exist, e.g. a CP sign reversal seems to be observed during the onset of a radiation outburst of GRO J1655-40 in 1994 (Macquart et al. 2002).. Furthermore, the large fluctuations in $`V`$ indicate strong temporal variations in the strength of the mean field. Since the latter should be dynamically unimportant, its stable polarity may be best explained if it results from an environmental large scale field, which gets dragged into the central engine. An alternative possibility was suggested by the anonymous referee: the mean field may be a remnant field of a stochastic superposition of many independent magnetic flux patches. The dynamical timescale for the evolution of the mean field could be on timescales much larger than the timescale of the evolution of an individual magnetic patch.

### 2.3 Twisted magnetic fields

The formalism of Sect. 2.1 can also be applied to the case of inhomogeneous magnetic fields if all coefficients in Eq. 1 become spatially dependent, and the FR coefficient is replaced by

$$\kappa _\mathrm{F}\kappa _\mathrm{R}=\kappa _\mathrm{F}+\mathrm{\Omega }.\text{Here,}\mathrm{\Omega }=2d\varphi _B/dz$$
(4)
describes the rate of linear polarisation rotation along the LOS due to the rotation of the coordinate frame, which was tied to the sky-projected magnetic fields for convenience. $`\varphi _B`$ is the position angle of the sky-projected magnetic field in a fixed (non-varying) coordinate frame. For a purely stochastic magnetic field, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a random variable with zero mean. However, if there is a systematic twist in the magnetic fields along the LOS $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has a preferred sign. The sign of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ does not depend on the polarity of the field, only on the handedness of the twist along the LOS. The effect of magnetic twist for CP production is mathematically identical to that of FR, but only if a single frequency is regarded, since FR is frequency dependent, whereas magnetic twist is not. However, CP production is possible in a completely non-Faraday rotating medium, e.g. as a charge symmetric $`\mathrm{e}^\pm `$ plasma. This is illustrated in Fig. 1, where simple model spectra for FR based and magnetic twist based CP generation scenarios are presented.

The requirement of $`\tau _\mathrm{R}=𝑑z\kappa _R1`$ for effective conversion translates into the requirement that the total magnetic twist along a LOS within the converting region is of the order of one (optimally it would be below $`\pi /2`$ in order to avoid cancellation of $`V`$ contributions with opposite signs). It is argued below that this condition can be fulfilled naturally. In order to have magnetic twist being the dominant cause of $`Q`$ to $`U`$ conversion, FR has to be sufficiently suppressed. We assume in the following that $`\tau _\mathrm{F}1`$ holds within the optical thin part of the emission region, and show that this naturally leads to the observed sign persistence of $`V`$. The suppression of FR could be due to a vanishing leptonic charge density ($`\rho _\mathrm{e}`$) as expected for a $`\mathrm{e}^\pm `$ plasma, or due to the presence of aligned, separate or nested flux tubes (with a global large scale twist) with independently oriented (but aligned) internal magnetic fields. As B&F and R&B showed for the stochastic field case, this can strongly reduce the Faraday depth also in the case of a large microscopic $`\kappa _\mathrm{F}`$. In their cases, some fine-tuning was required since FR should be somehow suppressed, but not completely, leaving to sufficient FR from $`Q`$ to $`U`$. This fine-tuning is not required here, since the geometrical rotation provides $`Q`$ to $`U`$ rotation even in the case of fully suppressed FR. $`\kappa _\mathrm{C}`$ is not affected by LOS reversals of the magnetic field direction, since it only depends on the invariant $`B_y^2`$.

## 3 Circular polarisation and rotating flows

### 3.1 A jet scenario

Twisted magnetic fields are expected to be a natural ingredient of any quasar central engine due to the rotational nature of the accretion flow. A helically twisted magnetic field is expected to be present in jet outflows, especially if jets are magneto-hydrodynamically launched (Blandford & Payne 1982), but also otherwise, due to decreasing rotation speed of the sideways expanding outflow. The strength of the twisting depends on the ratio of the rotation to the outflow velocity (modulo beaming). In typical situations one would expect both velocities to be of the same order of magnitude, leading to $`|\tau _\mathrm{R}|1`$, as required for an efficient conversion in the absence of FR. Further, $`|\tau _\mathrm{R}|2\pi `$, where equality corresponds to a full reversal of the field across the jet in case of a completely wound up toroidal field. If the fields are very toroidal ($`\tau _\mathrm{R}\pi `$) an optical depth $`\tau >1`$ can help to increase CP by restricting the effective FC volume to a fraction of the LOS through the jet, and therefore suppressing CP cancellation effects caused by a production of $`V`$ of both signs.

A typical geometry is sketched in Fig. 2 for an approaching jet, which is rotating positively (in sky-projection). The rotation sense of the sky-projected magnetic fields seen by a photon flying from its emission point (where the synchrotron process provided it with $`Q>0`$) to the observer is therefore also positive, leading to $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2d\varphi _B/dz<0`$ in this geometry. Thus, in our limit $`\kappa _\mathrm{F}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we obtain $`V\mathrm{\Omega }\kappa _\mathrm{C}Q0`$ since $`\kappa _\mathrm{C}0`$ always. In this picture a positively rotating approaching jet emits negatively (clockwise) rotating circularly polarised light. Since the counter jets should exhibit an oppositely twisted magnetic field, it should produce CP of the opposite sign. However, the approaching jet dominates the total emission due to relativistic beaming so that its CP emission dominates the CP of both jets. We can conclude that the rotation of the received photons of a synchrotron emitting jet source are expected to be retrograde to – and therefore reveal – the sense of rotation of the central engine, which is the rotation of the accretion disk and/or the black hole.

### 3.2 An ADAF scenario

In an ADAF (Narayan & Yi 1994) CP can also result from converted synchrotron emission, if the ADAF region produces synchrotron emission. The handedness of the magnetic twist is expected to be the same as the one in jets (if FR is suppressed in ADAFs) for the following reason: the ADAF is a converging flow, that is spinning up due to angular momentum conservation, whereas the jet is an expanding down-spinning flow. The way magnetic fields should be dragged in both cases has therefore the same handedness with respect to the spin axis of the system (see Fig. 3). This leads to the same handedness of the magnetic twist in the jet and ADAF case (on the upper and lower hemisphere of the black hole respectively). If the received flux is dominated by the upper (nearer) side of the ADAF, due to optical depth effects (CP sources are often self-absorbed), or due to the black hole absorption of photons from the lower ADAF hemisphere, a net CP results, which counter-rotates to the ADAF. The fractional CP of an ADAF may be comparable to that of a jet since $`|\tau _\mathrm{R}|1`$ and $`|\tau _\mathrm{R}|2\pi `$ should hold for the same reasons as in the jet case. CP is therefore not necessarily uniquely a jet signature.

## 4 Discussion and outlook

Twisted magnetic flux can produce circularly polarised synchrotron emission due to FC. If FR is sufficiently suppressed the expected sense of rotation of the emission is expected to be opposite to the one of the central engine, independent of the question whether the emission results form a synchrotron jet, or from a synchrotron emitting ADAF, and independent of the polarity of the magnetic fields. The FR suppression can be – as discussed by B&F and R&B – due to a charge symmetric $`\mathrm{e}^\pm `$ plasma, in which FR is absent, or due to small-scale magnetic field polarity changes which produce cancelling FR contributions, but do not affect FC if the different flux tubes show alignment. Such polarity changes could be present if the magnetic field is organised in many helically aligned flux tubes of independent magnetic field polarity which originated in differently magnetised patches of the accretion disk.

This model is not in conflict with other proposed generation mechanisms for CP (as e.g. stochastic Faraday rotation with a small mean magnetic field as proposed by B&F and R&B), rather, it supplements them. Several of its strengths listed below are also present in other models. However, a few of the strengths (No. 1., 2., and 6.) seem to be slight advantages, potentially suggesting that it could be the dominant mechanism in several cases:

1. The sign of the CP does not depend on the presence of a mean field, but on geometrical properties of the flow pattern in the central engine of a quasar, which are fixed by the system’s angular momentum. This may explain naturally the observed sign persistence of the CP over periods which exceed the dynamical timescales of the system by orders of magnitude.
2. The requirement that the rotation of the angle between LP and projected magnetic field is of the order one (not much higher, since over-rotation reduces CP, not much lower in order to have FC operating) within the optically thin part of the emission region, is naturally fulfilled by the geometrical properties of jet and ADAF flows. This requirement implies some level of fine-tuning in other models where the rotation is due to FR.
3. CP is still converted LP in this scenario, so that the variability of CP should exceed the one of LP as observed.
4. The mechanism can work in jets and in ADAFs.
5. It is able to produce CP in an $`\mathrm{e}^\pm `$ and in an e/p plasma.
6. The relatively large robustness of the mechanism to variations in the underlying source properties – as composition of the Faraday converting plasma and nature of the emission region (jet or ADAF) – may explain why CP appears in a large variety of very different systems, such as micro-quasars, low luminosity AGNs, and powerful quasars.
7. In cases where CP exceeds LP (e.g. SgrA), an outer Faraday screen, e.g. located in a mixing layer around an $`\mathrm{e}^\pm `$ jet, could provide the depolarisation (e.g. Homan et al. 2001). Alternatively, a $`\pi /2`$ rotation of the sky-projected magnetic field throughout the visible emission region (the full optical thin jet, or the $`\tau 1`$ region) could remove any observable LP, but leave a measurable amount of CP.

There are conditions, under which the here proposed relation between the (predominant) rotational sense of CP and the rotation of the central engine is not valid anymore. Whenever the average FR is stronger than the twist in the magnetic fields along the LOS, the sign of the average magnetic field will determine the sign of CP as in the models of B&F and R&B. This may occur temporarily, if thermal plasma gets mixed into an $`\mathrm{e}^\pm `$ jet. If the emission region contains an e/p plasma, the occurrence of a mean magnetic field – either as a statistical fluctuation, or due to some physical reason – can increase the average Faraday depth and lead to a CP reversal. External CP generation from LP due to environmental scintillation also can mask the intrinsic CP signature of a quasar. Also within the scenario in which CP is due to bending in magnetic fields, CP sign reversals are possible, whenever the magnetic twist within the emission region is not linked to the central engine rotation. This may happen temporarily in violent shocks in a jet outflow, and would suggest that CP sign reversals of this origin are likely accompanying emission outbursts of the source999This may explain the observed CP sign reversal in GRO J1655-40 in during an outburst in 1994, as reported by Macquart et al. (2002). The CP should also change if the rotational sense of the central engine is changed, e.g. due to a black hole merging event, or due to a massive infall of fresh material onto the accretion disc. Note, that the rarity of CP sign reversals indicate that the above discussed conditions should be exceptional, if CP is due to the here proposed mechanism.

The proposed mechanism provides testable predictions:

1. The sign of CP from a quasar measures the rotation direction of the quasar’s engine. The electric vector of radio emission should rotate retrograde in the sky-plane with respect to the engine rotation. Positive $`V`$ polarisations implies therefore positive $`=`$ counter-clockwise rotation (on the sky) of the engine.
2. Thus, we expect SgrA, which exhibited $`V<0`$ during the last 20 years, to rotate clockwise. This is retrograde with respect to the galactic rotation and the rotation of the molecular gas cloud in the galactic centre. However, it has the same rotation sense as the population of young hot HeI stars in its direct vicinity (Genzel et al. 2000), which were proposed to feed SgrA via their stellar winds (Genzel 2001, for discussion and references). Conservation of angular momentum in this wind should lead to a retrograde (clockwise) rotating accretion disk. Alternatively, the spin of the central black hole may determine the twist of the magnetic fields in the emission region.
3. We expect the microquasars GRS 1915+105 and SS 433 (both exhibit $`V<0`$) also to rotate clockwise, and we could give corresponding expectations for the other sources with detected CP.
4. The predominant sign of CP should be temporally constant. If the model is correct, quasar-like CP sources should only exhibit CP flips under exceptional circumstances, as discussed above.
5. CP from the counter jet should have opposite handedness than CP from the approaching jet. This prediction may allow a discrimination of the presented model from FR based scenarios, since in the latter the same predominant CP sign is expected from both jets for a dipole-like mean field component.
6. There are possibly also spectral signatures, which allow to discriminate the different models. E.g. in FR based scenarios frequency dependent LP oscillations can occur, as illustrated by model 2 in Fig. 1, whereas this is impossible in the magnetic twist based scenarios. However, due to cancellation effects in the superposition of many slightly different LOSs such oscillations likely appear as a strong suppression of LP. Due to the high complexity of the resulting polarisation spectra general rules are not obvious and would require further investigations. In that context it is interesting to note that Beckert (in preparation) recently presented new model calculations for SgrA. In order to simultaneously explain new high frequency LP measurements of SgrA model parameters seem to be favoured for which magnetic twist is more important for CP production than FR.

If the scenario of CP production proposed here could be demonstrated to be operatively in quasars, it would give us a tool to measure the sense of rotation of the most powerful and enigmatic engines of the universe – the violent matter flows in the direct vicinity of black holes – by simply looking at the spin of the received photons.

###### Acknowledgements.

I acknowledge useful discussions with F. Meyer, S. Heinz, H. Spruit, T. Beckert, H. Falcke, and C. Pfrommer. The manuscript benefited from several critical comments of an anonymous referee. After submission of this paper I became aware that on a recent conference (The Central 100 Parsecs, Hawaii, Nov. 3-8, 2002) T. Beckert presented new model calculations of the polarisation spectra of SgrA in which a helical field geometry plays the the same role as in this work.