Abstract
Integrals of motion are constructed from noncommutative (NC ) Kepler dynamics, generating \(\mathrm{SO}(3)\), \(\mathrm{SO}(4)\), and \(\mathrm{SO}(1,3)\) dynamical symmetry groups. The Hamiltonian vector field is derived in action–angle coordinates, and the existence of a hierarchy of bi-Hamiltonian structures is highlighted. Then, a family of Nijenhuis recursion operators is computed and discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1. Introduction
In “Mysterium Cosmographicum,” published in 1596, Kepler proposed a model of the Solar system by relating the five extra-terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn) known at that time to the five Platonic solids (the tetrahedron or pyramid, cube, octahedron, dodecahedron, and icosahedron) [1], [2]. Kepler’s work attracted the attention of the Danish astronomer Brahe who recruited him in October 1600 as an assistant. Kepler then accessed Brahe’s empirical data, and published the so-called Kepler’s first two laws of planetary motion in 1609 [3], [4], and the third one in 1619 [5]. Kepler thus obtained from Brahe a detailed set of observations of the motion of the planet Mars, analyzed them, and deduced that the path of Mars is an ellipse, with the Sun located at one of its focal points, and that the radius vector from the Sun to this planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times [6]. The Kepler direct problem of determining the nature of the force required to maintain elliptical motion about a focal force center was finally solved by Newton in the 1680s. Indeed, Newton determined the functional dependence on distance of the force required to sustain such an elliptical path of Mars about the Sun as a center of force located at a focal point of the ellipse. Today, scientists still concentrate on the inverse problem that consists in using the combined gravitational forces of the Sun and the other planets to predict and explain perturbations in the conic paths of planets and comets.
On the other hand, although the Kepler problem was a central theme of analytical dynamics for centuries, addressed by several authors, it continues to be so in the contemporary studies as well, revealing interesting mathematical symmetries. Significant steps in understanding the symmetries underlying the Kepler dynamics were made with its quantum explorations, where the \(\mathrm{SO}(4)\), \(O(4,1)\), and \(O(4,2)\) symmetry groups were explored (see, e.g., [7]–[13] and the references therein). These studies led to the reinvestigation of the classical Kepler problem (see [14]–[17] and the references therein). Thus, in 1966, Bacry et al. [15] proved that the transformations generated by the angular momentum and the Runge–Lenz vector indeed form a group of canonical transformations isomorphic to \(\mathrm{SO}(4)\). In 1968, Györgyi [16] gave a formulation of the Kepler problem, manifestly invariant under the \(\mathrm{SO}(4)\) and \(\mathrm{SO}(3,1)\) symmetry groups, in terms of the Fock variables and their canonical conjugates, respectively, and introduced a new time parameter, proportional to the eccentric anomaly. In that work, a transformation of the dynamical variables was performed in order to regain the standard time \(t\) leading in a natural way to Bacry’s generators inducing the \(\mathrm{SO}(4,2)\) symmetry group. In 1970, Moser [18] regularized the Kepler problem, enlarging the phase space in such a way that the temporal evolution generates a global time flow, a situation otherwise precluded by the existence of collision orbits. Six years later, in 1976, Ligon et al. [19] completed the previous works by adding the symplectic forms and the Hamiltonian vector fields. They transformed the Kepler problem in such a way that both the time flow and the \(\mathrm{SO}(4)\) symmetry were globally realized in a simple and canonical way. This was also done for a positive energy and the group \(\mathrm{SO}(1,3)\). Since 1976, several works have focused on the classical Kepler problem, (see, e.g., [17], [20]–[24]). Further, in a remarkable book published in 2001, Vilasi [25] showed that the Lie algebra of symmetries for the Kepler dynamics is \(so(3)\otimes so(3)\), or better, \(su(2) \otimes su(2)\), which is locally isomorphic to \(so(4)\).
In addition, in the last few decades, there was a renewed interest in the Kepler problem as one of completely integrable Hamiltonian systems (IHS), the concept of which goes back to Liouville in 1897 [26] and Poincaré in 1899 [27]. Loosely speaking, IHS are dynamical systems admitting a Hamiltonian description and possessing sufficiently many constants of motion. Many of these systems are Hamiltonian systems with respect to two compatible symplectic structures [28]–[31], permitting a geometric interpretation of the so-called recursion operator [32]. Hence, a natural approach to integrability is to try to find sufficient conditions for the eigenvalues of the recursion operator to be in involution [33]. In 1992, Marmo et al. [34] constructed two Hamiltonian structures for the Kepler problem in action–angle coordinates and proved their compatibility condition by verifying the vanishing of the Nijenhuis tensor of the corresponding recursion operator.
Over the past few years, Magri’s approach [28] to integrability through bi-Hamiltonian structures has became one of the most powerful methods relating to the integrability of evolution equations, applicable in studying both finite- and infinite-dimensional dynamical systems [35]. This approach has also been proven to be one of the classical methods of integrability of evolution equations along with, for example, the Hamilton–Jacobi method of separation of variables and the Lax representation method [32], [36]. When a completely integrable Hamiltonian system does admit a bi-Hamiltonian construction, infinite hierarchies of conserved quantities can be generated following the construction by Oevel [37] based on scaling invariances and master symmetries [38], [39]. Another generalization is due to Bogoyavlenskij [40], who proposed a complete classification of the invariant Poisson structures for nondegenerate and degenerate Hamiltonian systems. In 1997 and 1999, Smirnov [36], [39] formulated a constructive method of transforming a completely integrable Hamiltonian system, in Liouville’s sense, into Magri–Morosi–Gel’fand–Dorfman’s (MMGD) bi-Hamiltonian form. He showed that the action–angle variables can be a powerful tool in solving the problem of transforming a completely integrable Hamiltonian system into its MMGD bi-Hamiltonian form. Smirnov’s result is applicable to the classical Kepler problem due to the possibility of transforming the action–angle coordinates connected with the spherical–polar coordinates to the Delaunay coordinates. In 2005, Rañada [41] proved the existence of a bi-Hamiltonian structure arising from a nonsymplectic symmetry as well as the existence of master symmetries and additional integrals of motion (weak superintegrability) for certain particular values of two parameters \(b\) and \(k\). In 2015, Grigoryev et al. [35] showed that the perturbed Kepler problem is a bi-Hamiltonian system in spite of the fact that the graph of the Hamilton function is not a hypersurface of translation, which goes against a necessary condition for the existence of a bi-Hamiltonian structure according to the Fernandes theorem [42]. They explicitly presented a few nondegenerate bi-Hamiltonian formulations of the perturbed Kepler problem using the Bogoyavlenskij construction of a continuum of compatible Poisson structures for isochronous Hamiltonian systems [40]. In this paper, we focus on investigations into dynamical symmetry groups and bi-Hamiltonian structures for the Kepler dynamics in a noncommutative (NC) phase space.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, we introduce the noncommutative phase space and give some basic notions useful in what follows. In Sec. 3, we give the Hamiltonian function, the symplectic form, and the vector field describing the Kepler dynamics in the noncommutative phase space. In Sec. 4, we study the existence of dynamical symmetry groups \(\mathrm{SO}(3)\), \(\mathrm{SO}(4)\), and \(\mathrm{SO}(1,3)\) in the described setting. In Sec. 5, we derive relevant geometric quantities in action–angle variables and obtain the corresponding Hamiltonian system. In Sec. 6, we construct bi-Hamiltonian structures and the associated recursion operators. In Sec. 7, we define the hierarchy of master symmetries and compute the conserved quantities. In Sec. 8, we end with some concluding remarks.
2. Noncommutative phase space and basic definitions
Let \(\mathcal{Q}=\mathbb{R}^{3} \backslash \{0\}\) be the manifold describing the configuration space of the Kepler problem, and \(\mathcal{T}^{\ast}\mathcal{Q}=\mathcal{Q} \times \mathbb{R}^{3}\) be the cotangent bundle with the local coordinates \((q,p)\) and a natural symplectic structure \(\omega\colon \mathcal{T}\mathcal{Q} \longrightarrow \mathcal{T}^{\ast}\mathcal{Q}\) given by
where \(\mathcal{T}\mathcal{Q}\) is the tangent bundle. By definition, \(\omega\) is nondegenerate. It induces the map \(P\colon \mathcal{T}^{\ast}\mathcal{Q} \longrightarrow \mathcal{T}\mathcal{Q}\) defined by
called a bivector field, which is the inverse map of \(\omega\), i.e., \({\omega \circ P=P \circ \omega=1}\) [25]. In this case, the Hamiltonian vector field \(X_{f}\) of a Hamiltonian function \(f\) is given by
The noncommutativity [43] between phase space variables is here understood by replacing the usual product with the \(\ast_{\beta}\)-product, also known as the Moyal product, between two arbitrary functions of position and momentum as follows [44]–[46]:
where
The parameters \(\alpha\) and \(\lambda\) are antisymmetric \((n \times n)\) matrices generating the noncommutativity in coordinates and momenta, respectively; \(\gamma\) can depend on \(\alpha\) and \(\lambda\). The \(\ast_{\beta}\)-deformed Poisson bracket is defined as
providing the commutation relations
It is worth noting that the transformed coordinates
obey the same commutation relations as in (1) with respect to the usual Poisson bracket:
while \(q_{i}\) and \(p_{j}\) satisfy the canonical commutation relations
A Hamiltonian system is a triple \((\mathcal{Q}, \omega, H)\), where \((\mathcal{Q}, \omega)\) is a symplectic manifold, which in the present context is the configuration space for the Kepler problem, and \(H\) is a smooth function on \(\mathcal{Q}\), called the Hamiltonian or Hamiltonian function [47].
Given a general dynamical system defined on the \(2n\)-dimensional manifold \(\mathcal{Q}\) [36], its evolution can be described by the equation
If system (3) admits two different Hamiltonian representations
its integrability as well as many other properties are subject to Magri’s approach. The bi-Hamiltonian vector field \(X_{H_{1},H_{2}}\) is defined by two pairs of Poisson bivectors \(P_{1}, P_{2}\) and Hamiltonian functions \( H_{1},H_{2}\). Such a manifold \(\mathcal{Q}\) equipped with two Poisson bivectors is called a double Poisson manifold, and the quadruple \((\mathcal{Q},P_{1},P_{2},X_{H_{1},H_{2}})\) is called a bi-Hamiltonian system. \(P_{1}\) and \(P_{2}\) are two compatible Poisson bivectors with the vanishing Schouten–Nijenhuis bracket [48]:
3. NC Kepler Hamiltonian system
We consider the NC Kepler Hamiltonian function in the transformed phase space coordinates (2),
The dynamical variables satisfy the NC Poisson bracket relations [49]
with respect to the NC symplectic form
with
For \(n=3\), the Hamiltonian function \(H'\) takes the form
yielding the Hamilton equations:
where
In terms of the new coordinates \(p'_{i}\) and \(q'^{i}\), Hamilton equations (5) and (6) become
where \(\mu\), \(i=1,2,3\), \(\nu \neq\mu\); \(q'^{i}=q'^{i} (q,p)\) and \(p'_{i}=p'_{i}(q,p)\) are given by relations (2).
The Hamiltonian function \(H'\) in (4) can be viewed as a generalization of the Hamiltonian function obtained in our previous work [50]. The quantity \(Y\) deforming the distance between the Sun and the considered planet is responsible for the distortion of the conic path about the Sun.
The \(1\)-form \(dH' \in \mathcal{T}^{\ast}\mathcal{Q}\) is given by
where \(\nu \neq\mu\).
Using the NC Poisson bracket in (3), we obtain the NC Hamiltonian vector field
satisfying the required condition for a Hamiltonian system, i.e.,
where \(\iota_{_{X_{H'}}} \omega'\) is the interior product of \(\omega'\) with the Hamiltonian vector field \(X_{H'}\). Hence, the triplet \((\mathcal{T}^{\ast}\mathcal{Q},\omega',H')\) is a Hamiltonian system.
The NC coordinates \(q'^{i}\) and \( p'_{i}\) generate the noncommutative relations
where
4. Dynamical symmetry groups
We start by defining the NC phase space angular momentum vector \(L'\) and the Laplace–Runge–Lenz (LRL) vector \(A'\) as
where \(p'\) is the momentum vector and \(q'\) is the position vector of the particle of mass \(m\). Their components
do not commute with the Hamiltonian function \(H'\):
where \(i=1,2,3\), \(\varepsilon_{\mu \varrho \nu}, \varepsilon_{i \eta \varrho}\), and \(\varepsilon_{\mu i \nu}\) are Levi-Civita symbols given by
Proposition 1.
Under the conditions
-
1)
\(\lambda_{ij}\alpha_{ij}=- [(\lambda_{i\kappa }\alpha_{i\kappa }+\lambda_{j\kappa }\alpha_{j\kappa })/2+4]\) , \(i,j,\kappa=1, 2, 3\) ,
-
2)
\(\dfrac{q'^{i}}{q'^{j}}= \dfrac{\lambda_{\kappa i} \theta_{j}}{\lambda_{\kappa j} \theta_{i}}=- \dfrac{\alpha_{\kappa j} \theta_{i}}{\alpha_{\kappa i} \theta_{j}}\) and \(\dfrac{p'_{i}}{p'_{j}}= \dfrac{\alpha_{\kappa i} \theta_{j}}{\alpha_{\kappa j} \theta_{i}}=- \dfrac{\lambda_{\kappa j} \theta_{i}}{\lambda_{\kappa i} \theta_{j}}\) ,
-
3)
\(F\) is a symmetric \(3 \times 3\) matrix with \(F_{11}=F_{22}=F_{33}\) ,
the vectors \(L_i'\) and \(A_i'\) are in involution with the Hamiltonian function \(H'\) :
and hence become constants of motion or first integrals of \(H'\) on \(\mathcal{T}^{\ast}\mathcal{Q}\) .
Proof.
Condition 1 leads to \(\lambda_{ij}\theta_{i}=\lambda_{ji}\theta_{j}\) and \(\alpha_{ij}\theta_{i}=\alpha_{ji}\theta_{j}\). Therefore, \(D_{ij}=E_{ij}=0\), and Eqs. (8) and (9) reduce to
After computing, replacing the \(F_{ij}\) by their expressions, and using conditions 2) and 3), we obtain \(\{ H', L'_{i} \}_\text{nc}= \{ H', A'_{i} \}_\text{nc}= 0\) Then \(L'\) and \(A'\) are constants of motion or first integrals of \(H'\) on \(\mathcal{T}^{\ast}\mathcal{Q}\). \(\blacksquare\)
Equation (10) means that the functions \(L'_{i}\) and \(A'_{i}\), \(i=1,2,3\), are also constant along the orbits of \(H'\). Then, in \(\mathcal{T}^{\ast}\mathcal{Q}\), the orbits of \(H'\) lie in the inverse image of a value of these functions [17], [19].
Proposition 1 naturally leads to the following one.
Proposition 2.
Let \(L'\) be an integral of motion on \(\mathcal{T}^{\ast}\mathcal{Q}\). Then, under the NC Poisson bracket defined in (3), its components \(L'_{i}\)’s generate the Lie algebra \(so(3)\) of the group \(\mathrm{SO}(3),\dots\), \(\{L_{i}', L_{j}'\}_\mathrm{nc}= \varepsilon_{i j h} F'_{hh}L'_{h}\), where \(\varepsilon_{i j h} F'_{hh}\) are the structure constants of the Lie algebra.
Proof.
Under conditions 1–3 of Proposition 1, the Poisson bracket
where \(i,j,h=1,2,3\), yields \(\{L_{i}', L_{j}' \}_\text{nc}=\varepsilon_{i j h} F'_{hh}L'_{h}\), where \(\varepsilon_{i j h} F'_{hh}\) are the structure constants of the Lie algebra. \(\blacksquare\)
Moreover, the following relations hold:
where \(F'_{ij}=-F_{ij}\) and \(i,j,h=1,2,3\).
We now consider some noncommutative constant-energy hypersurfaces \( \Pi_{c}\) defined as
where \(c\) is a constant. Then, following [19] and [51], because the \(1\)-form \(dH'\) obtained in (7) has no zeroes on \(\mathcal{T^{\ast}Q}\), the noncommutative constant-energy hypersurfaces \(\Pi_{c}\) are closed submanifolds of \(\mathcal{T^{\ast}Q}\). Moreover, we define open submanifolds \(\Pi_{\tau} :=\bigcup_{c\gtrless 0} \Pi_{c}\), \(\tau=-, +\), of \(\mathcal{T^{\ast}Q}\) such that
with \(\Pi_{0}\) being the common boundary of \(\Pi_{-}\) and \(\Pi_{+}\).
On \(\Pi_{\tau}\), we introduce
and define a scaled Runge–Lenz–Pauli vector \(\widehat{\Gamma}'\) by
where \(H'\) is the Hamiltonian function given in (4). We then obtain \(\{H', \widehat{\Gamma}'^{+}_{i} \}_\text{nc}=\{ H', \widehat{\Gamma}'^{-}_{i}\}_\text{nc}=0\), proving that \(\widehat{\Gamma}'^{+}_{i}\) and \(\widehat{\Gamma}'^{-}_{i}\) are also constants of motion respectively on \(\Pi_{+}\) and \(\Pi_{-}\). We can then rewrite relations (11), (12), and (13) as
where \(F'_{ij}=- F_{ij}\), \(i,j,h=1,2,3\), and \(\tau=-, +\).
For all \(i,j,h=1,2,3\), setting \(L'^{\tau}_{h}p_{j}'=- L'^{\tau}_{j}p_{h}'\) and \(({m}/{Y})q'^{j}=\varepsilon_{i j h} L'^{\tau}_{i}p_{h}'\), we arrive at a Lie algebra isomorphic to the Lie algebra \(so(4)\) for \(\tau=-\):
with the associated generators given by
and, for \(\tau=+\), at a Lie algebra isomorphic to the Lie algebra \(so(1,3)\):
with the corresponding generators given by
5. The case of action–angle coordinates
The idea of considering a Liouville-integrable Hamiltonian system in the action–angle coordinates leads to many interesting results elucidating the general properties of Hamiltonian systems [36], [52].
Assuming the conditions \(\sum_{i,j,k=1}^{3}\lambda_{ij}\lambda_{ik}q^{j}q^{k}=0\) and \(\alpha_{ij}=0\), Hamiltonian function (4) takes the form
where \(L_{k}=q^{j}p_{i}-q^{i}p_{j}\) \((i,j,k=1,2,3)\) denote the components of the angular momentum \(L\) on the cotangent bundle \(\mathcal{T}^{\ast}\mathcal{Q}=\mathcal{Q} \times \mathbb{R}^{3}\). The term
contains the deformation parameters perturbing the initial Kepler Hamiltonian function
Without loss of generality, we can consider the matrix \(\lambda\) of the form
where we have \(\varphi \in (0, 2\pi)\), \(\vartheta \in (0, \pi)\), and \(\dot{\vartheta}\sin(2\varphi) \ll m\) and \(\dot{\varphi}, \dot{\vartheta}\) are constants. This yields the Hamiltonian function in spherical–polar coordinates in the form
where
is a constant of motion,
The associated Hamiltonian vector field \( X_{H'} \in \mathcal{T}^{\ast}\mathcal{Q}\) corresponding to the symplectic form
is given by
We introduce two additional integrals of motion
where \(\tilde{L}\) is the modified angular momentum vector in spherical–polar coordinates,
and \(\xi\) denotes the angle between the orbit plane and the equatorial plane \((x,y)\) [25]. Because the Hamiltonian function \(H'\) does not explicitly depend on time, setting \(V=W-Et\) we can find an additive separable solution
which reduces the Hamilton-Jacobi equation [53]
to a simpler form
leading to the set of equations
In the compact case characterized by \(E<0\), the action–angle variables [36], [40], [53], [54] can be expressed as
According to Eq. (15), \(J_{\varphi}\) can be rewritten in terms of \(D_{\varphi}\) and \(\sin(2\varphi)\):
Because \(\dot{\vartheta}\sin(2\varphi) \ll m\), it follows that
Using the first-order Maclaurin expansion [55],
and the standard integration method [56], we obtain
where
Then we obtain the Hamiltonian \(H'\), the Poisson bivector \(P'\), the symplectic form \( \omega'\), and the Hamiltonian vector field \(X_{H'}\),
satisfying the required relation \(\iota_{_{X_{H'}}} \omega'= -dH'\). Therefore, in the action–angle coordinates \((J,\varphi)\), the triplet \((\mathcal{T}^{\ast}\mathcal{Q},\omega',H')\) is also a Hamiltonian system.
6. Construction of bi-Hamiltonian structures
The generalized action–angle variables of Kepler’s problem are usually denoted by \(L,G,H\), \(l=\mathtt{M}\), \(g=\omega\), \(h=\Omega\), called the Delaunay variables [57]. \(G\) and \(H\) have the meaning of the respective total and azimuthal angular momentum, and \(L\) has the meaning of the total orbital action. The angles \(\omega\) and \(\Omega\) are the argument of periapsis and the longitude of ascending node. The angle \(\mathtt{M}\) is just the mean anomaly containing the only real dynamics in the Kepler problem.
We consider the Delaunay-type variables
which coincide with the classical Delaunay variables for \(\lambda_{ij}=0\) [58]:
where \(\xi\) is the inclination, \(n\) is the mean motion, \(a\) is the semimajor axis of the orbit, \(\mathfrak{e}\) is the eccentricity, and \(t_{0}\) is the time at which the satellite passes through the perigee.
Then the Hamiltonian function \(H'\), the symplectic form \(\omega'\), the Poisson bivector \(P'\), and the Hamiltonian vector field \( X'_{H}\) reduce to the expressions
where \(\widetilde{N }_{1}=1,\widetilde{N }_{2}=M, \widetilde{N }_{3}=1\).
We recall that a vector field \(X\) is called nondegenerate or anisochronous if the Kolmogorov condition [40] for the Hessian matrix
is satisfied almost everywhere in the given action–angle coordinates. This condition implies that the dense subsets of the invariant \(n\)-dimensional tori of \(X\) are closures of trajectories. If (17) is not satisfied, \(X\) is called a degenerate or isochronous vector field.
In our framework, \(X'_{H}\) is a degenerate Hamiltonian vector field because
Our system is isochronous with a well-defined derivative for \(H'=E < 0\),
and therefore, according to the Bogoyavlenskij theorem [40], we can obtain a bi-Hamiltonian formulation of this system in the domain of definition of action–angle variables (16). In particular, we here use the Hamiltonian function \(H'\) in the defined Delaunay-type variables \((I,\phi)\) to construct bi-Hamiltonian structures. Following the example of the generic Bogoyavlenskij construction for the isochronous Hamiltonian system proposed in [35], we can make the canonical transformations
permitting us to construct a set of Poisson bivectors for all \(h \in \mathbb{N}\):
Putting
simplifies the expression of the Poisson bivectors \( \widetilde{P}_{h}\) as
Each of \(\widetilde{P}_{h}\) is compatible with \(P'\), i.e., \([\widetilde{P}_{h}, P']_\mathrm{NS}=0\). In this case, the eigenvalues of the corresponding recursion operator \(T:= \widetilde{P}\circ P'^{-1}\) are integrals of motion only [34], [39], [40]. Then, for all \(h \in \mathbb{N}\), a hierarchy of Poisson bivectors \(\widetilde{P}_{h} \) and their corresponding \(2\)-forms \(\tilde{\omega}_{h}\) is given by
where \(n=3\), \(x^{k}=I_{k}\), \(x^{k+3}=\phi^{k}\), \(k \leq 3\),
\((\widetilde{P}_{h})^{ij}=-(\widetilde{P}_{h})^{ji}\), \((\tilde{\omega}_{h})_{ij}=-(\tilde{\omega}_{h})_{ji}\).
In the previous action–angle coordinate system \((J,\varphi)\), they become
\((\widetilde{P}_{h})^{ij}=- (\widetilde{P}_{h})^{ji}\), \( (\tilde{\omega}_{h})_{ij}=-(\tilde{\omega}_{h})_{ji}\), \(H'=H'(J,\varphi)\), \(\tilde{L}^{h}= \tilde{L}^{h}(J,\varphi)\).
The Poisson bracket \(\{\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,\}_{\tilde{\omega}_{h}}\) with respect to each symplectic form \(\tilde{\omega}_{h}\) is now defined as
Proposition 3.
For each \(h \in \mathbb{N}\) , the vector field \(X_{H}\) is a bi-Hamiltonian vector field with respect to \((\omega',\tilde{\omega}_{h})\) , i.e.,
where \(F_{h}\) \((F_{0}\equiv H')\) are integrals of motion for \(X_{H'}\) .
Proof.
Because
we obtain
Besides, we obtain the recursion operators
which in the action–angle coordinate system become \((J,\varphi)\):
with
7. Master symmetries
In differential geometric terms, a vector field \(\Gamma\) on \(\mathcal{T}^{\ast}\mathcal{Q}\) that satisfies
is called a master symmetry or a generator of symmetries of degree \(m=1\) for \(X_{H'}\) [38], [41], [59]–[61].
In the following, we consider the Hamiltonian system \((\mathcal{T}^{\ast}\mathcal{Q}, \omega', H')\) and the integrals of motion \(F_{h}\), \(h \in \mathbb{N}\). Thereby, we obtain the vector fields
which commute with the Hamiltonian vector field \(X_{0}= X_{H'}\). The \(X_{h}'s\) are called dynamical symmetries of the Hamiltonian system \((\mathcal{T}^{\ast}\mathcal{Q}, \omega', H')\), i.e., \([X_{H'}, X_{h}]=0\).
For the Hamiltonian system \((\mathcal{T}^{\ast}\mathcal{Q}, \omega', H')\), we introduce the vector fields \(\Gamma_{i\mu} \in \mathcal{T}^{\ast}\mathcal{Q}\),
satisfying the relation
with
Computing the Lie bracket between \(X_{i}\) and \(\Gamma_{i\mu}\), we obtain (see Fig. 1 for their diagram representation)
Hence, \(\Gamma_{i\mu}\) are master symmetries or generators of symmetries of degree \(m= 1\) for \(X_{i}\). The quantities \(\tilde{F}_{i\mu}\) are called master integrals. Furthermore, we have
showing that the vector fields
are conformal symmetries for both \(P', \widetilde{P}_{1}\) and \(H'\) [38]. Now, defining the families of quantities \(X'_{h}, \Gamma'_{ih}, P'_{h}, \omega'_{h} \) and \(dH'_{h}\) by
where \(i,h \in \mathbb{N}\) and \(T^{\ast}:=P'^{-1}\circ \widetilde{P}_{1}\) denotes the adjoint of \(T:=\widetilde{P}_{1} \circ P'^{-1}\), we obtain
and, for each \(i \in \mathbb{N}\), we derive the plethora of conserved quantities
satisfying
8. Concluding remarks
In this paper, we have defined a noncommutative phase space, derived a Hamiltonian system, and proved the existence of dynamical symmetry groups \(\mathrm{SO}(3)\), \(\mathrm{SO}(4)\), and \(\mathrm{SO}(1,3)\) for the Kepler problem. Further, we have investigated the same Kepler problem in action–angle coordinates and obtained its corresponding Hamiltonian system. Then, we have constructed a hierarchy of bi-Hamiltonian structures in the considered action–angle coordinates following the example of the generic Bogoyavlenskij construction for the isochronous Hamiltonian system proposed by Grigoryev et al., and computed conserved quantities using related master symmetries.
References
M. Livio, The Golden Ratio. The Story of Phi, the World’s Most Astonishing Number, Broadway Books, New York (2003).
J. Zhou, “On geometry and symmetry of Kepler systems. I,” arXiv:1708.05504.
J. R. Voelkel, Johannes Kepler and the New Astronomy (Oxford Portraits in Science), Oxford Univ. Press, New York (1999).
J. Kepler, New Astronomy, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York (1992).
J. Kepler, The Harmony of the World (Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 209), American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA (1997).
J. B. Brackenridge, The Key to Newton’s Dynamics: The Kepler Problem and the Principia, UC Press, Berkeley, CA (1995).
W. Lenz, “Über den Bewegungsverlauf und die Quantenzustände des gestörten Keplerbewegung,” Z. Phys., 24, 197–207 (1924).
W. Pauli, Jr., “Über das Wasserstoffspektrum vom Standpunkt der neuen Quantenmechanik,” Z. Phys., 36, 336–363 (1926).
V. Fock, “Zur Theorie des Wasserstoffatoms,” Z. Phys., 98, 145–154 (1935).
V. Bargmann, “Zur Theorie des Wasserstoffatoms. Bemerkungen zur gleichnamigen Arbeit von V. Fock,” Z. Phys., 99, 576–582 (1936).
M. Bander and C. Itzykson, “Group theory and the hydrogen atom (I),” Rev. Modern Phys., 38, 330–345 (1966).
M. Bander and C. Itzykson, “Group theory and the hydrogen atom (II),” Rev. Modern Phys., 38, 346–358 (1966).
L. Hulthén, “Über die quantenmechanische Herleitung der Balmerterme”, Z. Phys., 86, 21–23 (1933).
D. M. Fradkin, “Existence of the dynamic symmetries \(O_{4}\) and \(SU_{3}\) for all classical central potential problems,” Prog. Theor. Phys., 37, 798–812 (1967).
H. Bacry, H. Ruegg, and J. M. Souriau, “Dynamical groups and spherical potentials in classical mechanics,” Commun. Math. Phys., 3, 323–333 (1966).
G. Györgyi, “Kepler’s equation, Fock variables, Bacry’s generators and Dirac brackets,” Nuovo Cimento A, 53, 717–736 (1968).
A. Guichardet, “Histoire d’un vecteur tricentenaire,” Gaz. Math., 117, 23–33 (2008).
J. Moser, “Regularization of Kepler’s problem and the averaging method on a manifold,” Commun. Pure Appl. Math., 23, 609–636 (1970).
T. Ligon and M. Schaaf, “On the global symmetry of the classical Kepler problem,” Rep. Math. Phys., 9, 281–300 (1976).
D. E. Chang and J. E. Marsden, “Geometric derivation of Delaunay variables and geometric phases,” Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 86, 185–208 (2003).
A. Chenciner and R. Montgomery, “A remarkable periodic solution of the three-body problem in the case of equal masses,” Ann. Math., 152, 881–901 (2000).
R. H. Cushman and J. J. Duistermaat, “A characterization of the Ligon–Schaaf regularization map,” Commun. Pure Appl., 50, 773–787 (1997).
J. Milnor, “On the geometry of the Kepler problem,” Amer. Math. Monthly, 90, 353–365 (1983).
C.-M. Marle, “A property of conformally Hamiltonian vector fields; application to the Kepler problem,” J. Geom. Mech., 4, 181–206 (2012).
G. Vilasi, Hamiltonian Dynamics, World Sci., Singapore (2001).
R. Liouville, “Sur le mouvement d’un corps solide pesant suspendu par l’un de ses points,” Acta Math., 20, 239–284 (1897).
H. Poincaré, “Sur les quadratures mécaniques,” Bull. Astron., 16, 382–387 (1899).
F. Magri, “A simple model of the integrable Hamiltonian equation,” J. Math. Phys., 19, 1156–1162 (1978).
I. M. Gel’fand and I. Ya. Dorfman, “The Schouten Bracket and Hamiltonian operators,” Funct. Anal. Appl., 14, 223–226 (1980).
G. Vilasi, “On the Hamiltonian structures of the Korteweg–de Vries and sine-Gordon theories,” Phys. Lett. B, 94, 195–198 (1980).
S. De Filippo, G. Vilasi, G. Marmo, and M. Salerno, “A new characterization of completely integrable systems,” Nuovo Cimento B, 83, 97–112 (1984).
P. D. Lax, “Integrals of nonlinear equations of evolution and solitary ways,” Commun. Pure Appl. Math., 21, 467–490 (1968).
M. Santoprete, “On the relationship between two notions of compatibility for bi-Hamiltonian systems,” SIGMA, 11, 089 (2015).
G. Marmo and G. Vilasi, “When do recursion operators generate new conservation laws?” Phys. Lett. B, 277, 137–140 (1992).
Y. A. Grigoryev and A. V. Tsiganov, “On bi-Hamiltonian formulation of the perturbed Kepler problem,” J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 48, 175206 (2015).
R. G. Smirnov, “Magri–Morosi–Gel’fand–Dorfman’s bi-Hamiltonian constructions in the action–angle variables,” J. Math. Phys., 38, 6444–6454 (1997).
W. Oevel, “A geometrical approach to integrable systems admitting time dependent invariants,” in: Topics in Soliton Theory and Exactly Solvable Nonlinear Equations (Proceedings of the Conference on Nonlinear Evolution Equations, Solitons and the Inverse Scattering Transform, Oberwolfach, Germany, July 27 – August 2 1986, M. Ablowitz, B. Fuchssteiner, and M. Kruskal, eds.), World Sci., Singapore (1987), pp. 108–124.
R. L. Fernandes, “On the master symmetries and bi-Hamiltonian structure of the Toda lattice,” J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 26, 3797–3803 (1993).
R. G. Smirnov, “The action–angle coordinates revisited: bi-Hamiltonian systems,” Rep. Math. Phys., 44, 199–204 (1999).
O. I. Bogoyavlenskij, “Theory of tensor invariants of integrable Hamiltonian systems. I. Incompatible Poisson structures,” Commun. Math. Phys., 180, 529–586 (1996).
M. F. Rañada, “A system of \(n=3\) coupled oscillators with magnetic terms: symmetries and integrals of motion,” SIGMA, 1, 004 (2005).
R. L. Fernandes, “Completely integrable bi-Hamiltonian systems,” J. Dyn. Differ. Equ., 6, 53–69 (1994).
A. Connes, Noncommutative Geometry, Academic Press, San Diego, CA (1994).
B. Vakili, P. Pedram, and S. Jalalzadeh, “Late time acceleration in a deformed phase space model of dilaton cosmology,” Phys. Lett. B, 687, 119–123 (2010).
B. Malekolkalami, K. Atazadeh, and B. Vakili, “Late time acceleration in a non-commutative model of modified cosmology,” Phys. Lett. B, 739, 400–404 (2014).
N. Khosravi, S. Jalalzadeh, and H. R. Sepangi, “Non-commutative multi-dimensional cosmology,” JHEP, 01, 134 (2006).
G. Rudolph and M. Schmidt, Differential Geometry and Mathematical Physics. Part I. Manifolds, Lie Group and Hamiltonian Systems, Springer, Dordrecht (2013).
B. Dubrovin, Bihamiltonian Structures of PDEs and Frobenius Manifolds, in: Lectures at the ICTP Summer School “Poisson Geometry” (Trieste, Italia, July 11–15 2005), SISSA, Trieste (2005).
M. N. Hounkonnou, M. J. Landalidji, and E. Baloïtcha, “Recursion operator in a noncommutative Minkowski phase space,” in: Geometric Methods in Physics XXXVI (P. Kielanowski, A. Odzijewicz, E. Previato, eds.) (Białowieża, Poland, July 2–8, 2017), Trends in Mathematics, Birkhäuser, Cham (2019), pp. 83–93.
M. N. Hounkonnou and M. J. Landalidji, “Hamiltonian dynamics for the Kepler problem in a deformed phase space,” in: Geometric Methods in Physics XXXVII (P. Kielanowski, A. Odzijewicz, E. Previato, eds.) (Białowieża, Poland, July 1 – 7, 2018) Trends in Mathematics, Birkhäuser, Cham (2019), pp. 34–48.
J. Dieudonné, Eléments d’Analyse, Tome 3, Gauthiers-Villars, Paris (1970).
R. Abraham and J. E. Marsden, Foundation of Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, New York (1978).
V. I. Arnold, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics (Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 60), Springer, New York (1978).
J. Liouville, “Note sur l’intégration des équations différentielles de la Dynamique,” J. Math. Pure Appl., 20, 137–138 (1855).
C. Canute and A. Tabacco, Mathematical Analysis I, Springer, Milan (2008).
M. Born, The Mechanics of the Atom, G. Bell and Sons Limited, London (1927).
V. I. Arnold, V. V. Kozlov, and A. I. Neishtadt, Mathematical Aspects of Classical and Celestial Mechanics (3), Springer, Berlin (2006).
A. Morbidelli, Modern Celestial Mechanics: Aspects of Solar System Dynamics, Taylor & Francis, New York (2002).
R. Caseiro, “Master integrals, superintegrability and quadratic algebras,” Bull. Sci. Math., 126, 617–630 (2002).
P. A. Damianou, “Symmetries of Toda equations,” J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 26, 3791–3796 (1993).
M. F. Rañada, “Superintegrability of the Calogero–Moser system: constants of motion, master symmetries, and time-dependent symmetries,” J. Math. Phys., 40, 236–247 (1999).
Funding
The ICMPA-UNESCO Chair is in partnership with the Association pour la Promotion Scientifique de l’Afrique (APSA), France, and Daniel Iagolnitzer Foundation (DIF), France, supporting the development of mathematical physics in Africa. M. M. is supported by the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Niš, Serbia, Grant “Research and development of new generation machine systems in the function of the technological development of Serbia.”
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Translated from Teoreticheskaya i Matematicheskaya Fizika, 2021, Vol. 207, pp. 403-423 https://doi.org/10.4213/tmf10017.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hounkonnou, M.N., Landalidji, M.J. & Mitrović, M. Noncommutative Kepler Dynamics: symmetry groups and bi-Hamiltonian structures. Theor Math Phys 207, 751–769 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0040577921060064
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0040577921060064