arXiv:1401.1911v1 [astro-ph.IM] 9 Jan 2014 rpitpeae yteauthor the by prepared Preprint .PLRGNSS...... 6 ...... POLARIGENESIS 3. 2 2 ...... BASICS . PHYSICAL . 2. INTRODUCTION 1. Contents ora fTeKra srnmclSociety Astronomical Korean 00 The of Journal 1 : ..HneEet...... 10 . . . . 9 ...... 10 . . . 11 ...... 8 . . . 7 . . . Matter . . . 8 and . . . Polarization . . . of . . . . Interactions ...... Effect . . . Hanle . . 3.8...... Effect . . . Goldreich–Kylafis 3.7...... Effect . Zeeman . 3.6. . . 6 . . Radiation . Synchrotron . 3.5. . . Media . . Active . Optically . 3.4. . Media . Dichroic 3.3. . 3 . . 3.2. . . 4 ...... Polarization . . Scattering ...... 3.1...... Parameterizations . Photons 2.3. 2 2.2...... Waves Electromagnetic 2.1. e od : words Key interstella act bodies, bursts, radiation. system gamma-ray background fields, planetary magnetic physics, galactic pulsars, stellar masers, and X/ solar pola and optical, polarization, try: instrumental radio, obs and for (iii) atmosphere techniques polarizat between effect); of interactions Chandrasekhar-Fermi influence as the etry, well or act as rotation, p radiation, effects, Faraday and synchrotron Hanle photons, and scattering, waves, Kylafis, polarization: electromagnetic of I polarization: sources discoveries. of astrophysical multiple basics possible th ical made to spectroscop has linked photometric, fundamentally and complements is radiation and Polarimetry light radiation. of property of basic a is Polarization ∼ 5 03December 2013 25, eateto hsc n srnm,SolNtoa University National Seoul Astronomy, and Physics of Department ...FrdyRtto 12 11 ...... 11 ...... Rotation Faraday . . . . Birefringence . 3.8.3. Reflection Partial 3.8.2. 3.8.1. 7 . . . 6 ...... Dust 6 by . Scattering . 5 4 . Scattering Microscopic . . 3.1.2...... 3.1.1...... M¨uller . Formalism . Parameters . Stokes 2.3.3. 3 Calculus 3 Jones 2.3.2. 2 . . . . 2.3.1...... 2 . . . . 2 Polarization . . Macroscopic . . . . . Polarization . . Circular . . . 2.1.5. . . Polarization . . Linear . 2.1.4. . Polarization Elliptical 2.1.3. Vectors Field Electric 2.1.2. 2.1.1. Rcie 0Ags 03 eie 7Dcme 03 Accepte 2013; December 17 Revised 2013; August 30 (Received oaiain—Mtos oaierc—Rdainmcaim:genera mechanisms: Radiation — polarimetric Methods: — Polarization OAIAINADPLRMTY REVIEW A POLARIMETRY: AND POLARIZATION -al [email protected] E-mail: γ aeegh;ad(v cec ae o srnmclpolarime- astronomical for cases science (iv) and wavelengths; acaTrippe Sascha ABSTRACT – 1 – .OSRAIN 13 ...... OBSERVATIONS 4. eeecs...... 22 . . . . . 22 . . . 22 ...... References . . Acknowledgments CONCLUSIONS 6. 17 ...... CASES SCIENCE 5. ..OtclOsrain 15 . 14 . . . . . 14 ...... 13 . . . . 14 . . . . . and . . 13 . . X ...... Observations . . . . Optical . 4.7...... Observations . . . Radio . 4.6...... Statistics . . Polarization 4.5. . . . . Polarization . Instrumental . 4.4. . . . Atmosphere Terrestrial 4.3. Projection Sky 4.2. 4.1. ..GmaRyBrt 21 . 19 . . . 21 . . . 20 . . . 20 ...... 19 ...... 19 ...... Radiation . . Background . . . . Cosmic . Bursts . . . 18 . Ray . . . Gamma . . 5.10. . . . . Fields . . . Magnetic . . . . Galactic . 5.9. . . . . Nuclei . . Galactic . . . Active . 5.8...... Pulsars . 5.7. . . . Masers . 17 . Astronomical 5.6. . . . 17 . . Astrobiology 5.5. . . . . Matter Interstellar . . 5.4. . . . . 5.3...... Bodies . System Planetary Physics Stellar and Solar 5.2. 5.1. v aatcnce,adcsi microwave cosmic and nuclei, galactic ive v ei,adteZea,Goldreich- Zeeman, the and media, ive rainlmtoooy nsygeom- on-sky methodology: ervational ...Plrzto ovrin.....13 13 . . 12 ...... Effect . Chandrasekhar-Fermi . . Conversion . Polarization 3.8.6. Depolarization Faraday 3.8.5. 3.8.4. ...Amshrs...... 18 . 17 ...... Atmospheres . Surfaces Solid 5.2.2. 5.2.1. c n mgn nlsso ore of sources of analyses imaging and ic, iainsaitc,adobservational and statistics, rization atr srbooy astronomical astrobiology, matter, r rmtrztos i)astrophysical (ii) arameterizations; o n atr(iebirefringence, (like matter and ion hsatceIrve i h phys- the (i) review I article this n eu 5-4,SuhKorea South 151-742, Seoul , γ 8Dcme 2013) December 28 d nenlgoer fasource a of geometry internal e a bevtos...... 16 ...... Observations Ray Pern oDIassigned) DOI no - (Preprint l http://jkas.kas.org ISSN:1225-4614 2 S. TRIPPE

1. INTRODUCTION 2. PHYSICAL BASICS “ To many astrophysicists, stellar polarimetry is a 2.1 Electromagnetic Waves Cinderella subject considered as being so insignif- icant and, at the same time, being so esoteric as 2.1.1 Electric Field Vectors to be ignored and left alone. [...] There can be no doubt, however, that the study of polarization The concept of electromagnetic waves derives from non- within astronomy has a strong role to play either in its own right, or in combination with other obser- zero solutions of Maxwell’s equations in vacuum, mean- vational tools, as a diagnostic for understanding the ing here specifically the absence of electric charges (e.g., behaviour of celestial sources. ” Landau & Lifschitz 1997; Jackson 1999). Following — Clarke (2010), p. XIII common conventions, we regard the electric field∗ E of an electromagnetic wave traveling in z direction in Historically, the study of polarized light began with Euclidean coordinates (x,y,z) with speed of light c. the discovery of birefringence in crystals by Eras- Accordingly, we have – in trigonometric notation – mus Bartholinus and its subsequent interpretation by Christian Huygens around the year 1670 (Brosseau E(t,z)= E(0, 0) cos(ωt kz φ) (1) 1998). Astronomical observations of polarized light − − commenced in the middle of the 19th century; some where t is the time, ω denotes the angular frequency, of the earliest publications treat the linear polariza- k = ω/c is the absolute value of the wave vector, and φ tion of sun light reflected by the moon (Secchi 1860) denotes an arbitrary phase. As the electric field vector and the linear polarization of the light from the solar is perpendicular to z, we can decompose E(t,z) into corona (Edlund 1860). Subsequently, the field of po- its x and y components. For simplicity, we regard the larimetry evolved closely with the technical progress of location z = 0 only, i.e., we regard the location of E(t) observational techniques in general: from optical po- in the xy plane. The x and y components are then larimetry to radio polarimetry in the 1940s (Wilson, Rohlfs & H¨uttemeister 2010) and eventually to space- based X-ray polarimetry in the 1970s (Weisskopf et al. E (t) = E (0) cos(ωt φ ) (2) x x − 1 1978). Ey(t) = Ey(0) cos(ωt φ2) . Polarization is a fundamental property of electro- − magnetic radiation. It is a rich source of information on Here, φ1,2 denote two – a priori arbitrary – phases. the physical properties – magnetic fields, internal con- In addition, we denote the angle between E(t) and ditions, particle densities, et cetera – of astronomical the positive x axis – the polarization angle, counted objects. Polarimetric observations complement analy- in counterclockwise direction – with χ. The polar- sis methods based on photometry as well as on spectral ization of the wave is given by the relative values of (spectroscopy) or angular (mapping, imaging) resolu- Ex(0), Ey(0), φ1, and φ2 (Rybicki & Lightman 1979; tion. Accordingly, polarimetry has contributed sub- Huard 1997; Landau & Lifschitz 1997; Jackson 1999; stantially to the progress of astronomy. Milestones Born & Wolf 1999; Goldstein 2003). have been, for example: 2.1.2 Elliptical Polarization the mapping of solar and stellar magnetic fields • (e.g., Schrijver & Zwaan 2000); In general, the tip of the electric field vector follows an elliptical trajectory in the xy plane; accordingly, the the characterization of the surface composition of • light is denoted as elliptically polarized. The orientation solar system bodies (e.g., Bowell & Zellner 1974); of the ellipse in the xy plane is constant in time; the the discovery of synchrotron radiation from astro- polarization angle χ corresponds to the angle between • nomical objects (Oort & Walraven 1956); the positive x axis and the semi-major axis of the ellipse the discovery and characterization of large-scale (counted in counterclockwise direction). • (many kpc) galactic magnetic fields (e.g., Kulsrud Elliptical polarization is the most general state of & Zweibel 2008); polarization of an electromagnetic wave. Linear po- larization occurs if the polarization ellipse degenerates the analysis of the polarization modes of the • into a line. Circular polarization corresponds to the – cosmic microwave background (e.g., Kovac et al. opposite – special case of the ellipse degenerating into 2002). a circle. This review provides a broad overview on the the- ory and phenomenology of polarization in astronomy. 2.1.3 Linear Polarization It covers (i) the physical basics of polarized radiation, For the case φ1 = φ2, using here specifically φ1 = φ2 = (ii) sources of astrophysical polarization, (iii) concepts 0 without loss of generality, we have and methods of astronomical polarimetry, and (iv) as- trophysical science cases. ∗The magnetic field is perpendicular to the direction of travel and to the electric field. The amplitude of the magnetic field, B, is related to the amplitude of the electric field, E, like B = E/c. POLARIZATION AND POLARIMETRY 3

IP mP = [0, 1] (5) Ex(t) = Ex(0) cos(ωt) (3) I ∈ Ey(t) = Ey(0) cos(ωt) . where I denotes the total intensity of the light and I denotes the intensity of polarized light.† Inten- E P The orientation of then depends only on the magni- sity I and amplitude of electric field E are related like tudes of Ex(0) and Ey(0) and is independent of time; I E2. The total polarization state of radiation can the angle χ is constant. The radiation is linearly polar- be∝ described as a superposition of linear and circular ized with polarization angle χ [0, π]. The orientation ∈ polarization (cf. 2.1.2–2.1.4); accordingly, we can de- of the plane wherein the wave is located – the plane fine separate degrees§ of linear and circular polarization. of polarization – as given by χ has an orientation but The degree of linear polarization is given by no direction; accordingly, the location of linear polar- ization in the xy plane is not a vector. In physics and IL astronomy, the x and y components of linearly polar- mL = [0, 1] (6) ized light are commonly identified with horizontal (H) I ∈ and vertical (V) polarizations, respectively. where IL denotes the intensity of linearly polarized light. The degree of circular polarization is given by 2.1.4 Circular Polarization IC In case of a relative phase shift φ2 = φ1 π/2, using m = [ 1, 1] (7) ± C I here specifically φ1 = 0 without loss of generality, and ∈ − Ex(0) = Ey(0), we have where IC denotes the intensity of circularly polar- ized light. The sign of IC and thus mC depends on the orientation of the polarization. By convention, Ex(t) = Ex(0) cos(ωt) (4) the positive (negative) sign is assigned to light with Ey(t) = Ey(0) sin(ωt) . IRHC ILHC > 0 (< 0); here, IRHC and ILHC denote the ± intensities− of right-hand circularly and left-hand circu- The tip of the electric field vector moves circularly in larly polarized light, respectively (Hamaker & Bregman the xy plane with angular frequency ω: the radiation 1996). is circularly polarized. The sign of Ey(t) – which de- rives from the relative phase – determines the sense 2.2 Photons of the motion of E. A positive sign, corresponding to counterclockwise motion, is commonly referred to as The wave-particle dualism of light (Einstein 1905) im- right-hand circular (RHC) polarization. Accordingly, plies that polarization is a property of individual pho- a negative sign, corresponding to clockwise motion, is tons; each photon can be assigned an individual state denoted as left-hand circular (LHC) polarization. of polarization (Dirac 1958). Using the standard bra–ket notation for quantum 2.1.5 Macroscopic Polarization states,‡ we may write two arbitrary photon states like X and Y . These two states are orthogonal if An individual electromagnetic wave is necessarily po- X Y| =i 0. We| mayi further assume that all states are larized as described above (microscopic polarization). hnormalized| i , meaning X X = 1 for arbitrary X. The Astrophysical observations do not deal with individual bracket product X Yh is| thei probability amplitude of waves but with radiation that is a (almost always inco- the event “The systemh | i in state X is also in state Y ”, herent) superposition of a very large number of elemen- and X Y 2 [0, 1] is the corresponding probability; tary electromagnetic waves. Accordingly, astronomical ... denotes|h | i| the∈ absolute value of the enclosed function. | | observations are sensitive to the macroscopic polariza- For the specific case of photon polarization (Bachor tion of light. For most physical systems, all orientations & Ralph 2004), we have to consider photon states corre- of the electric field vectors from the elementary emit- sponding to horizontal linear polarization H , vertical ters are equally probable – there is, a priori, no reason linear polarization V , right-hand circular| polarizationi to expect a macroscopic polarization of light. Confus- | i ingly, unpolarized light is therefore sometimes referred † to as “natural” light. In the astronomical literature, degrees of polarization are com- monly quoted in units of per cent (%). A (macroscopic) polarization signal (Fowles 1975; ‡One may picture bras X as complex row vectors and kets X Rybicki & Lightman 1979; Mandel & Wolf 1995; Born as complex column vectorsh | of equal – potentially infinite –| dii- & Wolf 1999) can occur whenever the internal geome- mension. A bra transforms into a ket by transposition plus com- try of the source of radiation or the properties of the plex conjugation (Hermitian conjugate). Accordingly, the prod- uct X Y corresponds to a complex matrix, the product X Y interstellar medium prefer a certain orientation of elec- corresponds| ih | to a complex scalar (e.g. Dirac 1958). h | i tric field vectors. In those cases – discussed in detail in 3 – the light becomes partially polarized with a degree of§ polarization 4 S. TRIPPE

R , and left-hand circular polarization L .§ Evidently, 2.3 Parameterizations |Hi and V on the one hand and R |andi L on the other| i hand| i are mutually exclusive,| meaningi | i 2.3.1 Jones Calculus In Eq. 2, I introduced the components of the electric field in trigonometric notation for convenience. Like- H V = V H = 0 (8) wise, the electric field can be given in complex expo- h | i h | i R L = L R = 0 . nential notation as h | i h | i

Due to normalization, we further have i(ωt−φ1) Ex(t) = Ex(0)e (13) i(ωt−φ2) Ey(t) = Ey(0)e . H H = V V = 1 (9) h | i h | i R R = L L = 1 . One may now define (Jones 1941; Fowles 1975; Huard h | i h | i 1997; Goldstein 2003) the Jones vector

In addition, we have to note the relations between iφ1 linear and circular polarization states. A standard Ex(0) e e iφ2 (14) tool employed in quantum optics is a polarizing beam- ≡  Ey(0) e  splitter that is sensitive to linear polarization: in a that expresses amplitudes and phases of the electric (thought) laboratory experiment, incident photons in field in vector form. A convenient – usually not normal- state H are sent into one direction, photons in state ized – form of the Jones vector is achieved by express- V into| i another. The beam-splitter is insensitive to | i ing the components in units of the amplitude of one of circular polarization; an incident photon in state R them. Linearly polarized waves may be expressed like or L is sent into either direction with equal probabil-| i | i ity of 50%. Accordingly, one finds 1 0 e = ; e = (15) x  0  y  1  R V 2 = R H 2 = 0.5 (10) |h | i| |h | i| where ex and ey denote waves polarized in x and y di- L V 2 = L H 2 = 0.5 . rection, respectively. Likewise, by exploiting the iden- |h | i| |h | i| tity i = e±iπ/2, circularly polarized waves can be ex- ± Combining the information from Eqs. 8, 9, and 10, pressed like it turns out (Bachor & Ralph 2004) that circular po- larization states can be expressed as superpositions of 1 1 e = ; e = (16) linear polarization states like L  i  R  i  − where eL and eR denote left-hand and right-hand cir- 1 cular polarization, respectively. The result of a super- R = ( H + i V ) (11) | i √2 | i | i position of electric fields is given by the sum of the appropriate Jones vectors. A noteworthy example is 1 L = ( H i V ) . | i √2 | i− | i 1 1 2 1 + = =2 (17)  i   i   0   0  with i being the imaginary unit. An arbitrary polar- − ization state P can be expressed as which demonstrates that a linearly polarized wave can | i be expressed as the sum of a left-hand and a right-hand P = a H + eiφ b V (12) circularly polarized wave with equal amplitudes – as | i | i | i demanded by equivalence with Eqs. 11, 12. In general, with φ, a, and b being real numbers, and a2 + b2 = 1. any polarization state can be expressed as combination The representation given by Eq. 12 is not unique; any of two Jones vectors e1, e2 that represent orthogonal pair of orthogonal states can be used as base vectors. polarizations, meaning In analogy to the case of electromagnetic waves, the ∗ macroscopic polarization of light is given by the super- e1e2 = 0 (18) position of a large number of photons with individual ∗ microscopic polarization states. The discussion pro- where the operator denotes complex conjugation. vided in 2.1.5 is equally valid for waves and particles. A (linear) modification of the polarization state of a § wave is expressed by a 2 2 Jones matrix J that relates × ′ §Only up to this sub-section V denotes vertical linear polarization. input wave e and output wave e like In the remainder of this paper, V denotes the corresponding Stokes parameter ( 2.3.2). ′ § e = Je . (19) POLARIZATION AND POLARIMETRY 5

I = E2 + E2 (22) h xi h y i Q = E2 E2 h xi − h y i U = 2 E E cos δ h x y i V = 2 E E sin δ h x y i

(Stokes 1852) where Ex,y Ex,y(t) for simplicity, and ... denotes the time≡ average of the enclosed parametersh i taken over times much larger than 2π/ω (Huard 1997; Born & Wolf 1999; Goldstein 2003; Thompson, Moran & Swenson 2004; Wilson, Rohlfs & H¨uttemeister 2010). Notably, the parameters Q, U, and V can take negative values. Fig. 1.— Fundamental coordinates and geometries of the By construction, I is the intensity of the wave. The Stokes parameters Q and U; ψ denotes the parallactic angle. parameter Q quantifies a difference in the intensities in x and y, thus providing information on linear po- larization. The parameter U quantifies the difference between the two field components diagonal – at angles In optics, Jones matrices are commonly employed ◦ ◦ to characterize polarizing optical elements or trains of 45 and 135 counted from the positive x axis – to thereof. Successive modifications 1, 2, ..., n of the polar- the x and y coordinates, thus likewise probing linear ization state can be written in terms of a single Jones polarization. Finally, the parameter V corresponds to matrix. This matrix is given by the product of the ma- the circularly polarized intensity. An illustration of the trices corresponding to the individual optical elements fundamental geometries is provided in Fig. 1. like For individual waves – microscopic polarization – the Stokes parameters are related via

J = Jn Jn−1 ... J2 J1 . (20) I2 = Q2 + U 2 + V 2, (23) Simple examples for Jones matrices of polarizing opti- cal elements are thus reducing the number of free parameters to three – as expected. As I is a constant, each polarization 1 0 1 1 i state of a wave corresponds to a point on a sphere, the Jx = ; JR = (21) Poincar´esphere (Poincar´e1892). In case of macro-  0 0  2  i 1  − scopic polarization, radiation with intensity I is formed where Jx describes a linear polarizer with the x axis from superposition of many elementary emitters; polar- being the transmission axis, and JR corresponds to a ization is averaged out at least partially. Accordingly, right-hand circular polarizer. Eq. 23 breaks down to

2 2 2 2 2.3.2 Stokes Parameters IP = Q + U + V (24)

We understand from 2.1.2–2.1.4 that the polariza- with IP I being the polarized intensity; the number tion state of an electromagnetic§§ wave can be charac- of free parameters≤ increases to four, the fourth param- terized by means of three independent parameters: the eter being I. Using the definitions provided by Eqs. 5, amplitudes Ex(0) and Ey(0) and the phase difference 6, and 7 as well as the definition of the polarization an- δ = φ2 φ1. In general, astronomical observations deal gle χ, the Stokes parameters relate to the parameters with light− intensities rather than with field amplitudes; of linear polarization like accordingly, it is convenient to quantify polarization via characteristic intensities. For reasons that are go- ing to be evident soon, those characteristic intensities¶ Q2 + U 2 m = [0, 1] (25) are the Stokes parametersk L p I ∈ 1 U ¶In the convention we adopt here, intensity I and field amplitude χ = atan2 [0, π] 2 2 2 Q ∈ E are related like I = E , whereas in SI units I = ε0cE with vacuum permittivity ε0. Accordingly, our convention implies a ′ rescaling of electric fields like E E = √ε0cE where atan2 denotes the quadrant-preserving arc tan- k −→ Occasionally, the parameters I, Q, U, V are also denoted as S0, gent; mL and χ correspond to the length and the ori- S1, S2, S3, respectively. entation of a vector centered at the origin of a plane spanned by Q and U. The degree of circular polariza- tion relates to Stokes V like 6 S. TRIPPE

tends and combines Jones calculus and Stokes formal- V m = [ 1, 1] . (26) ism. The Stokes parameters can be expressed as a four- C I ∈ − dimensional vector, the Stokes vector When using complex exponential notation for the electric field (Eq. 13), we find an alternative – though I Q equivalent – definition of the Stokes parameters: S =   TC (30) U ≡  V    I = E E∗ + E E∗ (27) h x xi h y y i with Q = E E∗ E E∗ h x xi − h y y i U = E E∗ + E E∗ ∗ x y y x ExEx 1 00 1 h i h i h ∗i V = i E E∗ E E∗ .  ExEy   1 00 1  − h x y i − h y xi C = h ∗i ; T = − . (31)   EyEx 0 11 0 ∗  hE E∗i   0 i i 0  As usual, the operator denotes complex conjugation.  h y y i   −  It is straightforward to see that this definition is equiv- alent to Eq. 22 (e.g. Hamaker & Bregman 1996). The vector C is commonly referred to as coherency vec- In astronomy, the Euclidean coordinates we use here tor; evidently, this notation is equivalent to Eq. 27. are conventionally defined such that the x axis points to Modifications of the polarization state can be ex- the north, the y axis points to the east, and the z axis pressed as modifications of the Stokes vector like points toward the observer. Accordingly, the polariza- tion angle χ is counted from north to east. The orien- S′ = MS (32) tations of circular polarizations as defined in 2.1.4 – § where M is a 4 4 M¨uller matrix. Simple examples are RHC and LHC – are preserved. × As I indicated before in 2.2 and 2.3.1, the po- 10 0 0 larization state of photons as§ well as electromagnetic§ 01 0 0 waves can be described using left- and right-hand cir- M =   (33) ref 0 0 1 0 cular polarization components with amplitudes EL,R − ′  00 0 1  and phases φL,R as base. Using δ = φR φL, we find  −  − (e.g. Cenacchi et al. 2009) for the Stokes parameters and in trigonometric notation 1 0 00 0 cos2β sin 2β 0 2 2 Mrot =   (34) I = ER + EL (28) 0 sin 2β cos2β 0 h i h i ′  0− 0 01  Q = 2 EREL cos δ   h ′ i U = 2 EREL sin δ that correspond to a reflection at a mirror and rotation h 2 2 i V = ER EL by an angle β, respectively. h i − h i Else than the Jones calculus, the M¨uller formalism and in complex exponential notation can describe unpolarized light as well as depolarization, i.e. a reduction of the degree of (total) polarization mP .

I = E E∗ + E E∗ (29) h R Ri h L Li 3. POLARIGENESIS Q = E E∗ + E E∗ h R Li h L Ri U = i [ E E∗ E E∗ ] As I discussed briefly in 2.1.5, the occurrence of a − h R Li − h L Ri macroscopic polarization of§ light – the polarigenesis – V = E E∗ E E∗ . h R Ri − h L Li is intimately linked to the internal symmetry of the physical system under consideration. Macroscopic po- It is important to note that – in general – the treat- larization requires that the internal structure of the ment of combinations of polarized signals requires the source of light is anisotropic. We can identify a variety use of the Stokes parameters: only intensities can be of astrophysical sources of polarized light that I discuss added or subtracted in a straightforward manner – de- in the following. grees of polarization or polarization angles cannot (cf., e.g., Heiles 2002). 3.1 Scattering Polarization 2.3.3 M¨uller Formalism 3.1.1 Microscopic Scattering The M¨uller formalism (M¨uller 1948; Hamaker, Breg- Microscopic scattering processes – meaning the scatter- man & Sault 1996; Huard 1997; Goldstein 2003) ex- ing of a photon at a free electric charge like an electron, POLARIZATION AND POLARIMETRY 7

infrared light. A quantitative description of scatter- ing of light by dust is provided by Mie’s theory that assumes scattering by small spherical particles. From geometrical arguments equivalent to those presented in 3.1.1 one finds that initially unpolarized incident light becomes§ linearly polarized by dust scattering; the de- gree of polarization is given by an expression equivalent to Eq. 35 (Born & Wolf 1999). The derivation of Eq. 35 assumes that the incident light is propagating along a single well-defined direc- tion. In clouds of interstellar matter, this is usually not the case: dust clouds tend to be optically thick, meaning that incident light experiences multiple scat- tering, absorption, and re-emission events, making the radiation field within the cloud isotropic. In this case, linear polarization can occur if (i) the dust grains have elongated (cylindrical, ellipsoidal) shapes, and (ii) the Fig. 2.— The geometry of scattering polarization. An grains are oriented collectively along a preferred direc- unpolarized light ray with linear polarization components tion by magnetic fields. The absorption of radiation Ex,y propagates in positive z direction. The ray is scattered by an angle θ and continues to propagate in the yz plane by the dust becomes a function of orientation relative (shaded). From the point of view of an observer of the to the magnetic field – resulting in linear polarization. scattered light, the polarization components perpendicular Empirically, it has been found (Serkowski, Mathewson ′ ′ to the direction of propagation are Ex = Ex and Ey = & Ford 1975; Draine 2003) that at optical to near- Ey cos θ, respectively: the light is linearly polarized. infrared wavelengths the linear polarization is

m λ L exp 1.15 ln2 max (36) an atom, or a molecule – lead to a characteristic linear mmax ≈ −  λ  polarization of the scattered light. Notably, the follow- L ing geometry argument holds for a variety of scattering scaled by the degree of linear polarization at a reference processes like Thomson scattering, Compton scattering, wavelength, Rayleigh scattering, fluorescence, or Raman scattering regardless of the different underlying physical mecha- max mL < 0.03 A(λmax) (37) nisms. From now on, I assume incident unpolarized ∼ light propagating in z direction with electric field com- where λ is the wavelength, λ 550 nm, A is the max ≈ ponents Ex,y in x and y directions. Upon interaction extinction in units of photometric magnitudes, and ln with a charge, atom, or molecule, the light is scattered denotes the logarithm to base e; this relation is com- and continues to propagate in the yz plane at an angle monly referred to as Serkowski’s law. θ to the z axis. From the point of view of an observer of the scat- 3.2 Dichroic Media tered light, the light intensities in x direction are the Dichroism is a further effect of the electric anisotropy same before and after the scattering, i.e. E′2 = E2, x x of certain materials. Here the attenuation of light due with the prime denoting the scattered light. The y ′2 2 2 to absorption by the material is anisotropic. Assum- component transforms like Ey = Ey cos θ, meaning 2 ing initially unpolarized light, one component of the the intensity is reduced by a factor cos θ. This im- wave experiences stronger attenuation than the other plies that the scattered light is linearly polarized with one; the light becomes polarized.∗∗ Depending on if a degree of polarization the difference in absorption affects the linear or circular wave components, the medium is referred to as linear I′ I′ 1 cos2 θ x − y dichroic or circular dichroic, respectively. Accordingly, mL = ′ ′ = − 2 [0, 1] (35) Ix + Iy 1+cos θ ∈ the light becomes either linearly or circularly polar- ized. The most efficient linear dichroic polarizers are ′ with Ix,y denoting the observed intensities (after the polaroids, sheets of organic polymers with long-chain scattering); I provide an illustration in Fig. 2. molecules which are aligned by stretching (Huard 1997; Born & Wolf 1999). 3.1.2 Scattering by Dust ∗∗The term “dichroism” is actually misleading. Historically, the Dust grains are an important ingredient of interstellar first dichroic crystals studied showed a strong dependence of the matter (Dyson & Williams 1997; Kwok 2007). Grain effect on the wavelength of the light, leading to rays with different sizes are typically on the order of a micrometer, approx- polarization having different colors. imately corresponding to the wavelengths of optical to 8 S. TRIPPE

In the presence of a magnetic field, a plasma be- comes dichroic with respect to circular polarization. Assuming a propagation of light along the magnetic field lines, the ratio of the absorption coefficients for LHC and RHC polarized light, κL and κR, respectively, is

κ ω + ω 2 L = B (38) κ ω ω  R − B where ω denotes the (angular) frequency of the light and ωB denotes the (angular) gyration frequency of charged particles (usually electrons). This relation as- sumes ω ω; the resulting circular polarization is B ≪ mC =2ωB/ω (Angel 1974). 3.3 Optically Active Media Fig. 3.— Polarization of synchrotron radiation from a collimated electron beam as function of re-scaled viewing Materials composed of helically shaped molecules af- angle η = γ sin φ. Given here are the Stokes parameters 2 2 fect the polarization state of reflected or transmitted I and V and the linearly polarized flux IL = Q + U , light very similar to birefringent and/or dichroic me- normalized to I(η = 0) ≡ 1. p dia ( 3.2, 3.8.2). Macroscopic polarization arises if one of§§ the two possible helix orientations is preferred; this is the case in a variety of biological materials. Ini- tially unpolarized light reflected from helically layered 64η V = (39) surface structures on some insects can reach circular −7π√3(1 + η2)3 polarizations up to mC 100% (Wolstencroft 1974). ≈ with η = γ sin φ. In this notation, the total intensity 3.4 Synchrotron Radiation (Stokes I) of the radiation is given by Synchrotron radiation is arguably the most important 7+12η2 type of non-thermal continuum radiation from astro- I = (40) nomical sources. It is emitted by electric charges – 7(1 + η2)7/2 usually electrons – gyrating around magnetic field lines at relativistic velocities. Assuming a magnetic field di- (Michel 1991). The linearly polarized flux follows from rected in z direction, the magnetic Lorentz force en- Eqs. 39 and 40 via Eq. 23 in a straightforward manner. forces a circular motion in the xy plane. In addition, Notably, I normalized the expressions for V and I such the electron will usually have a non-zero velocity in z that I =1 at φ = 0. direction, meaning that the overall trajectory of the Isotropic electron motion. In most astrophysical electron has a helical shape. From the point of view plasmas, the electron velocities are distributed ran- of an external, not co-moving, observer the radiation domly and (more or less) isotropically. This implies is emitted from the electron in forward direction into a that both right-handed and left-handed electron orbits narrow cone with half opening angle θ 1/γ, with γ contribute with equal probability, meaning the circular being the relativistic Lorentz factor†† (Ginzburg≈ & Sy- component of the radiation averages out: macroscopi- rovatskii 1965; Rybicki & Lightman 1979; Bradt 2008). cally, the synchrotron radiation becomes linearly polar- Due to geometry, the observer sees the orbit of the elec- ized (though not perfectly; see the discussion below). tron as an ellipse in projection – the radiation emitted Taking into account the various projection effects, by a single oscillating charge is thus elliptically polar- the degree of linear polarization is given by ized. Collimated electron beam. Macroscopically, the I⊥ I|| mL = − (41) amounts of linear and circular polarization observed by I⊥ + I|| an external observer are functions of γ and the viewing angle φ between the line of sight and the plane of par- with I⊥ and I|| denoting the intensities perpendicular ticle motion. For a collimated beam of mono-energetic and parallel to the magnetic field lines as projected electrons – i.e., all electrons have the same Lorentz fac- onto the plane of the sky. Notably, the direction of po- tor γ – moving in the xy plane the circularly polarized larization is perpendicular to the (projected) direction flux (Stokes V ) is of the magnetic field. The actual value of mL depends on the spectrum of the synchrotron radiation which in −1/2 †† γ = 1 v2/c2 , with v being the electron speed and c turn is a function of the distribution of the electron − energies. For an ensemble of mono-energetic electrons being the speed of
light. POLARIZATION AND POLARIMETRY 9

the result is mL = 75% (Rybicki & Lightman 1979). ated by a magnetic field. For atomic or molecular tran- For a power law distribution of electron energies, the sitions involving the orbital angular momentum only number of electrons N varies with γ like N γ−Γ, (i.e., no spin–orbit coupling), the quantum mechanical with Γ being the energy index. In this case, the∝ flux selection rules demand that the change of the mag- density of the synchrotron radiation Sν varies with fre- netic quantum number m has to obey ∆m [ 1, 0, 1] −α ∈ − quency ν like Sν ν , where Γ = 2α +1. The degree – meaning there are three different transitions possible. of linear polarization∝ is given by As long as the atom is not exposed to external electric or magnetic fields, the three transitions are energeti- Γ+1 cally degenerate; all three transitions have the same m = (42) L Γ+7/3 energy and cause spectral lines at the same frequency ν0. This changes in the presence of an external mag- (Ginzburg & Syrovatskii 1965). For astrophysically re- netic field as reported first by Zeeman (1897), hence alistic plasmas with α 0...1, m 60...80%. ≈ L ≈ Zeeman effect. As shown by a simple classical analy- The relation given by Eq. 42 corresponds to a highly sis (Rybicki & Lightman 1979; Haken & Wolf 1990), idealized situation, assuming optically thin plasmas, the magnetic field causes a splitting of the three ini- isotropic distributions of electrons, perfectly ordered tially degenerate energy levels. The spectral line splits homogeneous magnetic fields, and the absence of sub- into a set of three lines located at frequencies ν0 and stantial perturbations. A major modification occurs for ν± = ν0 ∆νz for ∆m = 0 and ∆m = 1, respectively. optically thick plasmas where each light ray experiences The frequency± offset is given by ± multiple scattering events. In those cases, 1 e 1 ∆νz = B = 14 GHz B (45) m = (43) 4π me × L 2Γ+13/3 where e is the electric charge of the electron, me is the (Pacholczyk 1970); for α 0, mL 16%. Likewise, electron mass, and B is the strength of the magnetic any disordering of the magnetic≈ field≈ leads to the po- field in units of Tesla. The lines at ν−, ν0, and ν+ larization signal partially being averaged out, thus re- are denoted as σ−, π (“parallel”), and σ+ components, ducing mL well below the idealized theoretical values. respectively. In optically thick plasmas, the polarization is oriented The three spectral lines have distinct polarization parallel to the magnetic field component projected on properties that depend on the viewing geometry. the sky. Transversal view. If the line of sight is perpendicu- Yet another characteristic modulation of polariza- lar to the magnetic field lines, the observer notes three tion is caused by shocks propagating through the spectral lines corresponding to the π and σ± compo- plasma. The degree of linear polarization in a partially nents. All lines are linearly polarized. The polarization compressed plasma, compared to the case without com- of the π component is parallel to the magnetic field pression, is reduced by a factor (hence the name), the polarizations of the σ± compo- nents are perpendicular to the field lines. δ Longitudinal view. If the line of sight is parallel to µ = [0, 1] with δ = (1 k2)cos2 ǫ (44) the magnetic field lines, only the σ± components are 2 δ ∈ − + − visible. Both lines are circularly polarized, with σ − where 0 k 1 is the factor by which the length and σ being RHC and LHC, respectively. Notably, of the shocked≤ ≤ region is reduced by compression, and the orientation of polarization is defined relative to the ǫ is the angle between the line of sight and the plane direction of the magnetic field lines, not the direction of compression in the frame of reference of the emit- of propagation of the light. ter (Hughes, Aller & Aller 1985; Cawthorne & Wardle Assuming an angle θ between the magnetic field and 1988). the line of sight, the Stokes parameters resulting from The amount of circular polarization follows roughly the viewing geometry (e.g., Elitzur 2000) are −1/2 the relation mC (ω/ωB) where ω is the (angular) frequency of the∼ light and ω is the (angular) gyration B I = I0 sin2 θ (46) frequency of the charged particle. As before, this rela- tion assumes a uniform magnetic field and an isotropic Q = I0 sin2 θ distribution of particle velocities. In the extreme case U = 0 ω >ω, the relation changes to m ω/ω . In real- B C ∼ B V = 0 istic∼ astrophysical plasmas, mC < 1% (Angel 1974). ∼ for the ∆m = 0 transition and 3.5 Zeeman Effect Spectral emission or absorption lines experience modi- 1 I = I± (1 + cos2 θ) (47) fications if the emitting or absorbing material is perme- 2 10 S. TRIPPE

1 Q = I± sin2 θ −2 U = 0 1 2 ± dΩ I⊥ + I|| cos α (49) V = I± cos θ T ∝ 2 Z ±   2 0 ± 0 dΩ I sin α for the ∆m = 1 transitions, respectively. The I , I T ∝ Z || denote the maximum± intensities of the respective lines, with I+(ν )= I−(ν )= I0(ν ). + − 0 respectively, where I⊥ is the incident light intensity As yet, I assumed strong Zeeman splitting that leads polarized perpendicular to the magnetic field and the to distinct spectral lines, meaning intrinsic line widths direction of propagation, I|| is the intensity of the inci- ∆ν ∆νz. In astronomy, this is not always the case; dent light polarized perpendicular to I and the direc- ≪ ⊥ the situation ∆ν ∆νz is common. In the latter case, tion of propagation, Ω is the solid angle, and α is the the total intensity≫ as function of frequency, I(ν), ex- angle between the travel path of the incident light and hibits a single line only. The Zeeman components are the magnetic field. unveiled by analysis of the Stokes parameters as func- Depending on which transitions are excited prefer- tion of frequency, resulting in entially, the resulting linear polarization is oriented ei- ther parallel or perpendicular to the (sky-projected) magnetic field lines. Under realistic conditions, one I = I0 + I+ + I− =2 I0 (48) may expect degrees of linear polarization up to 10% 2 d I(ν) 2 in molecular lines from cool (temperatures <100 K)≈ in- Q = (∆ν sin θ) − dν2 z terstellar matter at millimeter-radio wavelengths.∼ U = 0 dI(ν) 3.7 Hanle Effect V = ∆νz cos θ dν The Hanle effect (Hanle 1924) is a phenomenon that Accordingly, Q(ν) and V (ν) are the scaled derivatives appears in fluorescent light. In the following, I assume of I(ν). Observations especially of V (ν) are important a fluorescent gas permeated by a weak magnetic field examples of spectro-polarimetry. B. The primary source of radiation is located in x direction from the fluorescent gas, the line of sight as As yet, I discussed the normal Zeeman effect occur- well as the magnetic field are directed along the z axis. ring in atomic transitions without spin–orbit coupling. The primary light source emits radiation in x direction If spin–orbit coupling has to be taken into account, with electric field components E . By geometry, the more complex patterns with multiple line components y,z linear polarization component Ey causes fluorescence spaced non-equally occur. Details for this anomalous observable in z direction. Zeeman effect depend on the total spins S, orbital an- When regarding normal Zeeman splitting ( 3.5) in gular momentum quantum numbers L, and total an- § ± the limit of a vanishing magnetic field B 0, one gular quantum numbers J. The π and σ components → are given by ∆M = 0 and ∆M = 1 respectively, with reaches the regime of coherent resonances. As long ± as the Zeeman splitting is on the order of the nat- M denoting the total magnetic quantum number. ± ural line width, i.e., ∆νz > ∆ν, the σ transitions 3.6 Goldreich–Kylafis Effect are excited independently. The∼ observer notes two cir- cularly polarized waves with amplitudes E+ and E− 2 2 We now revisit the Zeeman effect for the case of weak and a combined intensity I = E+ + E−. For van- Zeeman splitting (∆ν ∆νz), meaning that the three ishing magnetic fields, ∆ν ∆ν and both transi- ≫ z Zeeman line components are not resolved. As indicated tions σ± can be excited by the≪ same photon (which by Eq. 48, the linear polarization is rather weak in gen- is linearly polarized and thus can be decomposed in eral (and zero at ν = ν0). However, this result is based one RHC and one LHC component for exciting σ+ and on the assumption that each transition ∆m = 1, 0, 1 σ−, respectively). The observer notes fluorescent light − 2 is equally likely. with intensity I = (E+ + E−) and linear polarization ∗ In case that the transitions ∆m occur at different (mL = 100% in ideal situations) directed along y. rates, increased linear polarization can occur (Goldre- Ideal coherence with maximum light intensity I and ich & Kylafis 1981, 1982). This is the case if the radi- maximum linear polarization occurs at B = 0. For an ation field within the source is anisotropic: depending increasing field strength ( B > 0), the degree of coher- on the relative orientation of magnetic field and inci- ence decreases, causing several| | effects: (i) the intensity dent radiation, the amount of anisotropy, and the ratio of the fluorescent light decreases; (ii) the “de-phasing” of collisional and radiative excitation rates, the σ± and π line components are excited with different probabili- ∗ ± Similar situations can also occur at non-zero magnetic fields ties. The radiative transition rates for the σ and π where magnetic term levels belonging to different angular mo- components, which are proportionalT to the line inten- mentum quantum numbers can cross. This is the base of level- sities, are given by crossing spectroscopy. POLARIZATION AND POLARIMETRY 11

+ − of σ and σ causes (a) a depolarization, and (b) a of isotropic crystals, εx = εy = εz; this is the case turning of the plane of linear polarization by an angle for cubic crystals. In uniaxial crystals, εx = εy while β such that tan β ω /Γ , with ω being the Lamor ε = ε ; in biaxial crystals, ε = ε = ε . The two lin- ≈ L line L y 6 z x 6 y 6 z frequency and Γline being the effective (i.e., natural plus ear polarization components of a light ray – which are collisional) line width (e.g., Stenflo 1982). perpendicular to the direction of propagation – pass- ing through an anisotropic crystal experience different 3.8 Interactions of Polarization and Matter permittivities and thus different indices of refraction n √ε. The optic axes of a crystal correspond to 3.8.1 Partial Reflection light∝ travel paths for which the two linear polarizations A plane wave that falls onto the boundary between two experience equal refraction. For the case of uniaxial homogeneous media “1” and “2” with indices of refrac- crystals, the optic axis is the z axis. tion n1,2 – like, e.g., the boundary between two plane- Birefringence is employed in various optical elements parallel plates made of different types of glass – is split that modify the polarization state of light. into a reflected and a transmitted wave according to the Polarizers. For a uniaxial crystal, the dielectric ten- law of reflection and Snell’s law of diffraction, respec- sor is an ellipsoid. The index of refraction describes tively. Except of the special case of normal incidence, a circle in the xy plane and ellipses in the xz and yz reflectivity R and transmissivity T – the fractions of planes,with the optic axis corresponding to either the intensity being reflected and transmitted – are func- major or the minor axis of the ellipse depending on the tions of linear polarization (Born & Wolf 1999). Both material. For a wave polarized perpendicular to the op- parameters have to be re-written like tic axis, E1, the propagation in the crystal is isotropic, the surfaces of equal phase in the plane of incidence are circular (regardless of the relative orientation of optic 2 2 R = R|| cos α + R⊥ sin α (50) axis and plane of incidence). E1 propagates through 2 2 the crystal according to Snell’s law; therefore it is re- T = T|| cos α + T⊥ sin α ferred to as ordinary wave. For a wave E2 polarized perpendicular to E1 (i.e., E1 E2), the components with and denoting linear polarizations parallel and ⊥ || ⊥ parallel and perpendicular to the optic axis experience perpendicular to the plane of incidence, respectively, different refractive indices and thus different phase ve- and α being the angle between the electric field vec- locities. The surfaces of equal phase in the plane of tor and the plane of incidence. Conservation of energy incidence are elliptical, rendering Snell’s law invalid; demands accordingly, E2 is referred to as extraordinary wave. Anisotropic crystals can be used to separate the ordi- R + T = R|| + T|| = R⊥ + T⊥ =1 . (51) nary and extraordinary waves, and thus the two linear polarizations, of unpolarized light. Various crystal ge- All reflectivities and transmittivities depend on the ometries and combinations of crystals with different op- ratio n = n2/n1 and the angle between the normal of tic axis orientations – adding internal reflections – are the boundary and the incident light ray, θ, via Fres- used. The most common types of polarizers are polar- nel’s formulae. In general, R = R and T = T ; || 6 ⊥ || 6 ⊥ izing beam splitters, Nicol prisms, and Glan-Thompson both, reflected and transmitted light become linearly prisms. polarized even if the incident light is unpolarized. In the specific case Linear-to-circular converters. Let us consider a thin, plane-parallel plate cut from a uniaxial crystal located in the xy plane, with the optic axis being the tan θB = n (52) y axis. In this case, the linear polarization components of a light wave propagating in z direction experience the component R|| vanishes; θB is the Brewster angle. For the case of a transition from air to glass, n 1.5 two different refractive indices nx,y. The corresponding ◦ ≈ phase velocities – the speeds of light within the crystal and θB 57 . If the incident light is unpolarized, the reflected≈light is completely polarized; the transmitted – are cx = c/nx and cy = c/ny, respectively, with c light is polarized with a degree of linear polarization denoting the speed of light in vacuum. For light with m 8%. wavelength λ in vacuum, traveling a distance d within L ≈ the crystal, the two polarizations experience a phase 3.8.2 Birefringence shift Birefringence is a consequence of the electric anisotropy 2π δ = d (n n ) . (53) of crystals, meaning that the response of the medium λ y − x to incident radiation (usually) depends on the direction of the electric field. This anisotropy is described by a When choosing d such that d(ny nx)= λ/4, we find 2 2− symmetric dielectric tensor ε that defines a system of δ = π/2. Light with Ex = Ey , i.e. Stokes param- h i h i principal dielectric axes with permittivities εx,εy,εz eter Q = 0 (cf. Eq. 22), becomes circularly polarized (Fowles 1975; Huard 1997; Born & Wolf 1999).{ In case} (cf. Eq. 4); for Q = 0, it becomes elliptically polar- 6 12 S. TRIPPE ized. Optical elements with this property are referred electric anisotropy implies a characteristic rotation of to as quarter wave plates. For realistic uniaxial crystals the plane of polarization of linearly polarized light. The with ny nx 0.01...0.1 (Fowles 1975), d (3...25)λ, change of polarization angle can be expressed like meaning| − that|≈ quarter wave plates are fragile≈ devices.

Polarization plane turners. The relation provided ∆χ = B|| l (55) by Eq. 53 has an additional consequence for linearly V with l denoting the length of the light travel path polarized light with components E . When choosing x,y within the medium, B being the magnetic field strength d such that d(n n )= λ/2, the phase shift becomes || y x parallel to the light travel path, and denoting δ = π; the plate− is a half wave plate. The component Verdet’s constant which is a function of wavelengthV and perpendicular to the optic axis, here E , is mirrored at x material (Fowles 1975). the optic axis, i.e. Ex Ex (cf. Eq. 3). If plane of polarization and optic−→ axis − are tilted by an angle β, In astrophysical situations, Faraday rotation oc- the crystal turns the polarization plane of the light by curs when light passes through magnetized interstellar an angle of 2β. plasma. This effect is quantified like In a variety of materials, birefringence can be in- ∆χ = RM λ2 (56) duced by external electric – Kerr effect – or magnetic × – Cotton-Mouton effect – fields (Fowles 1975). This is where λ is the wavelength of the radiation (in the rest- employed in light modulators that need to be switched frame of the medium) and RM is the rotation measure between different states at high speed. In case of the (in units of rad m−2) Kerr effect, the difference between the indices of refrac- tion parallel – n|| – and perpendicular – n⊥ – to the l 5 orientation of an external electric field with amplitude RM=8.1 10 B|| ne dz (57) E is × Z0 with B|| being the strength of the magnetic field (in 2 n|| n⊥ = K E λ (54) units of Gauss) parallel to the line of sight (l.o.s.), − −3 ne being the electron number density (in cm ), and where λ is the wavelength of the light in vacuum and z being the coordinate (in parsec) directed along the K is Kerr’s constant which is a function of the mate- l.o.s. (Rybicki & Lightman 1979; Wilson, Rohlfs & rial. The Cotton-Mouton effect is the magnetic ana- H¨uttemeister 2010). logue of the (electric) Kerr effect; here the difference between the two indices of refraction is proportional to 3.8.4 Faraday Depolarization the squared strength of the external magnetic field. A further variety is introduced by the Pockels ef- In case of spatially inhomogeneous media, especially fect observed in certain kinds of birefringent crystals astrophysical plasmas, the Faraday effect can lead to a upon application of external electric fields. Here the loss of linearly polarized intensity. If the rotation mea- difference between the two indices of refraction is pro- sure RM shows modulations with amplitudes ∆RM on portional to the electric field strength. This effect is spatial scales smaller than the source, the source radi- used in Pockels cells that permit a rapid modulation of ation experiences different Faraday rotation depending light. A common setup comprises a Pockels cell located on the position. Observations that do not resolve the between two static linear polarizers with perpendicular RM structure spatially superimpose waves with differ- transmission axes. Via appropriate switching of the ent orientations of their planes of linear polarization. Pockels cell, it turns the plane of polarization of the This partially averages out the polarization signal, re- infalling linearly polarized light, making the setup act ducing the degree of linear polarization observed. A as a very fast shutter (Fowles 1975). complete depolarization occurs when the medium is “Faraday thick”; from Eq. 56 one can estimate that 3.8.3 Faraday Rotation this is the case if An external, static magnetic field B permeating a ∆RM λ2 1 . (58) medium introduces an electric anisotropy. The impact × ≫ on a light wave propagating through the medium is A more sophisticated calculation is possible when as- found by solving the equation of motion for an elec- suming that the RM fluctuations follow a Gaussian dis- tribution with dispersion ζ ∆RM. For a source that tron influenced by B and the oscillating electric field ≈ of the light wave E(t) (Fowles 1975; Rybicki & Light- is not resolved spatially by observations, one finds a man 1979). From this, one finds a circular electric depolarization law anisotropy with permittivities εR = εL, with R and L denoting right-hand and left-hand6 circular polariza- ξ = exp 2ζ2λ4 (59) − tion, respectively. As any linearly polarized wave can (Burn 1966; Tribble 1991). The parameter
ξ [0, 1] be expressed as a superposition of one left-hand and is the ratio of observed and intrinsic degree of∈ linear one right-hand circularly polarized wave (Eq. 17), the polarization. POLARIZATION AND POLARIMETRY 13

3.8.5 Polarization Conversion 4. OBSERVATIONS Under certain conditions, effects corresponding to those Similar to the cases of photometry and spectroscopy, of birefringence in crystals can be observed also in as- the techniques used for polarimetry of radiation from trophysical plasmas. In the following, I assume an elec- astronomical sources depend strongly on the energy of tromagnetic wave with components Ex,y propagating the light. In general, we can distinguish three different through a plasma in z direction. The plasma is per- wavelength regimes. At radio wavelengths, we are able meated by an ordered, static magnetic field directed to record electromagnetic waves with their amplitudes along the x axis. Plasma electrons accelerated by Ex and phases. At optical wavelengths, we are usually can move freely, whereas those accelerated by Ey ex- dealing with light intensity information. At X/γ-ray perience an additional magnetic Lorentz force – the re- energies, a combination of high frequency and low flux sponse of the plasma to light becomes anisotropic, the usually implies that we observe and analyze individual plasma effectively becomes birefringent. In analogy to photons. This being said, I note that the distinction the relation given by Eq. 53, this effective birefringence can be blurred depending on the physical situation, and introduces a phase shift between Ex and Ey that con- various techniques find application over a wide range verts linear into circular polarization and vice versa; of radiation energies. this effect is also referred to as Faraday conversion or Faraday pulsation (Pacholczyk & Swihart 1970). 4.1 Sky Projection In relativistic astrophysical plasmas and at radio fre- quencies, one may expect to observe a certain level of Our usual use of polarization parameters, especially of the Stokes parameters ( 2.3.2), implicitly assumes that circularly polarized light generated from initially lin- § early polarized radiation. Details depend strongly on emitter and receiver of radiation are placed in a com- the physical conditions within the plasma. Pacholczyk mon, stationary system of coordinates. In astronom- (1973) provides an estimate for the relation between ical observations, this is usually not the case: Earth rotation leads to a rotation of the field of view with the degrees of linear (mL) and circular (mC ) polariza- tion, respect to the observer. Assuming electric fields EV,H measured vertical and horizontal, respectively, with re- m spect to the telescope, these are related to the Stokes C n B2 ν−3 (60) m ∝ e ⊥ parameters in the frame of reference of the source on L sky like where ne denotes the electron density, B⊥ is the strength of the magnetic field component perpendicu- ∗ lar to the line of sight, and ν is the observing frequency. 2 EVEV = I + Q cos2ψ + U sin 2ψ (62) In general, one may expect m < 1%. h ∗ i C 2 EHEH = I Q cos2ψ U sin 2ψ ∼ h ∗ i − − 2 EVEH = Q sin 2ψ + U cos2ψ + iV 3.8.6 Chandrasekhar-Fermi Effect h ∗ i − 2 EHEV = Q sin 2ψ + U cos2ψ iV Linear polarization generated within a magnetized tur- h i − − bulent plasma – via, e.g., dust scattering ( 3.1.2) where ψ denotes the parallactic angle counted from or synchrotron radiation ( 3.4) – is sensitive§ to the north to east and i is the imaginary unit. Compar- strengths of turbulence and§ magnetic field. The mag- ison to Eq. 27 shows that Earth rotation leads to a netic field is assumed to be “frozen” in the plasma. In conversion from Q to U and vice versa from the point case of weak fields, the field lines are dragged around of view of the observer; V remains unaffected (Thomp- by the turbulence, leading to a large r.m.s. disper- son, Moran & Swenson 2004). The same result follows sion in polarization angles. In case of strong fields, from Eq. 34 in a straightforward manner. the field lines remain rather unimpressed by the tur- bulence, the dispersion in polarization angles is small. 4.2 Terrestrial Atmosphere Magnetic field, turbulence, and polarization angle are related (Chandrasekhar & Fermi 1953) like In most situations, the influence of Earth’s atmosphere on polarization can be neglected; the atmosphere is 1/2 neither birefringent nor dichroic. An important excep- 4 σv tion occurs at radio frequencies where the interaction B⊥ = πρ (61) 3  σχ of ionosphere and terrestrial magnetic field causes sub- stantial Faraday rotation ( 3.8.3). At an observing fre- where B⊥ is the strength of the magnetic field perpen- quency ν = 100 MHz, the§ angle of polarization is ro- dicular to the line of sight (in Gauss), ρ is the mass tated by ∆χ 300◦ at night to ∆χ 3000◦ at daytime −3 density of the gas (in g cm ), σv is the r.m.s. velocity under typical≈ atmospheric conditions;≈ a reliable deriva- −1 dispersion of the gas (in cm s ), and σχ is the disper- tion of the true polarization angle is very difficult. As sion of polarization angles (in radians). ∆χ ν−2, this effect can be circumvented by select- ing a∝ sufficiently high observing frequency (Thompson, Moran & Swenson 2004; Clarke 2010). 14 S. TRIPPE

An additional effect relevant mostly at optical wave- other hand – and observations of one or more polarized lengths is the polarization of scattered sun or moon calibration sources, possibly several times at different light. From the geometry argument presented in 3.1.1 parallactic angles – probing interactions between Q, U, it is straightforward to see that scattered light§ is lin- and V by comparison of observed and expected values early polarized. The degree of polarization reaches its (e.g., Clarke 2010). maximum at an angular distance of 90◦ from the light source, the polarization is oriented perpendicular to 4.4 Polarization Statistics the line on sky connecting the source and the point Whereas the effects discussed in 4.1–4.3 introduce observed. This behavior can be exploited for the cali- §§ bration of polarimetric observations via dedicated ob- systematic errors into polarization data, we now dis- servations of scattered light. cuss the statistical uncertainties and limits to be taken into account. First of all, it is important to note that, in 4.3 Instrumental Polarization general, polarimetric observations require much better signal-to-noise ratios (S/N) than photometric ones. As The design and geometry of a telescope inevitably in- the degrees of linear or circular polarization mL,C 1 fluence the polarization of the collected light. Ex- are usually much smaller than unity, the signal-to-noise≤ cept of highly symmetric situations – most notably in ratio (S/N)I of the total intensity (Stokes I) signal can Cassegrain focus telescopes – the (usually) multiple re- be related to the S/N of the polarized intensity (S/N)P ‡ flections within an optical system alter the polarization like (S/N)P mL,C(S/N)I . This implies that a de- state of the light. The resulting instrumental polariza- tection of a weak≈ polarization signal may require very tion is given by the product of the M¨uller matrices high (S/N)I . of the individual telescope components as described in In case of linear polarization, statistical measure- 2.3.3. These geometric effects need to be corrected in ment uncertainties lead to a bias in the measured val- the§ course of data analysis and/or by dedicated correc- ues for mL. This is due to mL being positive definite tive optics in the telescope (see, e.g., Thum et al. 2008 by construction (Eq. 25): even if Q and U are symmet- for a discussion of Nasmyth optics). ric random variables centered at zero, the sum of their Even though one may correct for the influence of squares is not; the values of mL follow a Rice distri- the telescope geometry, realistic instruments are not bution. A de-biasing can be attempted by subtracting perfect. In the most general case, the observed Stokes from each of Q and U the corresponding statistical un- parameter values deviate from the actual ones by certainty in squares before the calculation of mL. For high (S/N)P , the statistical errors of mL, σm, and po- − larization angle χ, σχ, are related like σχ = σm/(2mL) γ++ γ+− δ+− iδ−+ (in units of radians); the values of χ follow a normal 1 γ+− γ++ δ++ −iδ−− ∆S = − S (63) distribution. For low (S/N)P , the values for Q and U  δ+ −δ++ γ++ iγ  2 − −− scatter around the origin of the QU plane, the distribu- −iδ + iδ −iγ γ++  − −− −−  tion of the χ values becomes more and more platykurtic where S is the Stokes vector of the infalling light, the for lower and lower (S/N)P (Clarke 2010). γ 1 are error terms related to the gains, or efficien- xx ≪ 4.5 Radio Observations cies, of the optical paths for the Ex,y components, and the δ 1 are error terms related to the leakage, also xx ≪ At radio wavelengths, the infalling radiation can be known as cross-talk, meaning the mutual influence of recorded and analyzed as waves with full amplitude and † the optical paths for separate polarizations; the (max- phase information; due to fundamental quantum lim- imum) number of error terms is seven (Sault, Hamaker its, this is possible at frequencies up to about one THz & Bregman 1996). The expression given by Eq. 63 as- (Thompson, Moran & Swenson 2004; Wilson, Rohlfs sumes that Stokes parameters are derived from linear & H¨uttemeister 2010). Regardless of the actual de- polarization components via Eq. 27. If Stokes parame- sign details, a radio telescope can be modeled as a ters are derived from circular polarization components cross of two dipoles aligned along the x and y axes, (Eq. 29), Eq. 63 can be applied to a Stokes vector with respectively. We may assume, as usual, light propa- Q, U, and V being interchanged with V , Q, and U, gating along the z direction with linear polarization respectively (cf. Eq. 27 vs. Eq. 29). components Ex,y. Each of the two dipoles receives the The actual calibration procedure depends strongly corresponding polarization component and converts it on the telescope(s) used. In general, calibration in- into an electric voltage that can be recorded and pro- volves observations of one or more unpolarized astro- cessed electronically – radio receivers are polarimeters nomical reference sources – probing interactions be- tween I on the one hand and Q, U, and V on the ‡This relation is strictly valid only when the polarization is de- rived from sums or differences of intensities, especially in opti- cal polarimetry. In cases where the polarization is derived from †Even though the δ and γ terms are small, they can easily be of multiplications of fields or from correlations, the process of mul- the order of few per cent – i.e. the same order as the actual tiplication leads to non-Gaussian error distributions, modifying polarization signal in many cases. the noise estimates by factors of several. POLARIZATION AND POLARIMETRY 15

by construction§ (see also Hamaker, Bregman & Sault 1996; Hamaker & Bregman 1996; Sault, Hamaker & Bregman 1996; Hamaker 2000, 2006 for an exhaustive discussion). The signals received by the dipoles can be autocorrelated – resulting in the time-averaged prod- ucts E E∗ and E E∗ – as well as crosscorrelated – h x xi h y y i resulting in E E∗ and E E∗ (using complex expo- h x y i h y xi nential notation). The Stokes parameters I,Q,U,V are derived from these products via Eq. 27 in a straight- forward manner. A receiving system sensitive to both polarizations Ex,y (or ER,L for circular polarization) is referred to as a dual-polarization receiver. The cross of dipoles also serves as a model for radio receivers sensitive to circular polarization. For this we Fig. 4.— assume that (i) the signals from the two dipoles are Polarimetric imaging of Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, sent to a common electronic processor and summed at 2.2 µm. Sgr A* is indicated by an arrow, the surround- up coherently and (ii) a phase shift of π/2 is ap- ≈ ± ing sources are stars; the angular resolution is 50 mas. plied to the signal from the y dipole. Accordingly, the The difference between the synchrotron source Sgr A* and two voltages will be in phase and trigger a signal if the stars emitting thermal radiation becomes evident in the the infalling light is either RHC or LHC polarized, de- Stokes Q image; at the time of observation, mL ≈ 20% pending on the sign of the phase shift. The receiver (Trippe et al. 2007). is a single-polarization receiver sensitive to either RHC or LHC; it can be extended to a dual-polarization re- ceiver by adding a second cross of dipoles with oppo- ( 2.3.2). The Stokes parameters Q and U are related site phase shift. By symmetry, these arguments hold to§ these intensities like also for the case of sending waves for radar astron- omy; here, usually circularly polarized radio light is used (Ostro 1993). Due to the technical simplicity of Q I(0◦) I(90◦) = − (64) radio polarimetry, recent efforts have been directed to- I I(0◦)+ I(90◦) ward simultaneous multi-wavelength polarimetry (cf., U I(45◦) I(135◦) e.g., K.-T. Kim et al. 2011; Lee et al. 2011) aimed at = ◦ − ◦ the measurement of differential parameters like disper- I I(45 )+ I(135 ) sion measures. with I I(0◦)+I(90◦) I(45◦)+I(135◦) being Stokes The choice of polarization is important when com- ≡ ≡ bining the signals from two antennas located at large I as usual (Kitchin 2009; Witzel et al. 2011); see Fig. 4 distance, e.g., in Very Long Baseline Interferometry for an example. Alternatively, one may measure I(ψ) (VLBI). The discussion provided in 4.1 also implies at multiple – at least four – values of ψ and model the that the raw observed values for Q and§ U are functions measurement values with the function of the geographic positions when using linear polariza- tion receivers. This problem is circumvented by using I(ψ) I(ψ + 90◦) circular polarization receivers which are insensitive to q(ψ)= − = mL cos [2(ψ χ)] (65) Earth rotation. I(ψ)+ I(ψ + 90◦) −

4.6 Optical Observations with mL denoting the degree of linear polarization and χ denoting the polarization angle as defined in 2.1.5 At optical wavelengths, polarimetry is limited to light (e.g., Ott, Eckart & Genzel 1999; Trippe et al. 2010).§ intensities rather than electric waves. Polarimetric Using Eq. 65 with a sufficiently large number of mea- measurements require the use of polarizers plus aux- surement values ( 8) with a good sampling of ψ values iliary optical elements placed in the optical path be- helps to recognize≥ instrumental polarization effects in fore the detector (usually a CCD array; e.g., Tinbergen the data.¶ 1996). Linear polarization can be probed by measuring the ¶This is straightforward to see in the special case of Cassegrain intensity of the received light, I(ψ), polarized at a focus observations. In this case, the target polarization is fixed with respect to the sky whereas the instrumental polarization is parallactic angle ψ to the x (north-south) axis of the fixed with respect to the telescope. We may obtain observations usual xy coordinate system of the Stokes parameters at two (or more) different hour angles and model each data set as a superposition of two cosine profiles as defined in Eq. 65: one corresponding to the target polarization and one corresponding §This excludes radio techniques sensitive to total intensities only, to the instrumental polarization. A polarization signal which notably bolometers. These have to be treated like optical tele- remains unchanged – in sky coordinates – at different hour angles scopes ( 4.6). § is intrinsic to the target. 16 S. TRIPPE

In order to filter I(ψ) out of the infalling radiation, various types of polarizers can be used. One possi- bility are wire-grid polarizers (Huard 1997) that pass light polarized perpendicular to the grid and reflect the other component. For each value of ψ, the grid is ro- tated into the required position and an image of the target is taken (e.g., Ott, Eckart & Genzel 1999). A more efficient approach is provided by using a combi- nation of (i) a Wollaston prism that splits the infalling light into ordinary and extraordinary linearly polarized rays, and (ii) a half wave plate (HWP) that permits turning the plane of linear polarization (cf. 3.8.2). A complete measurement cycle involves taking§ two im- ages, each showing the ordinary and extraordinary ray images of the target: one with the HWP turned to a po- sition corresponding to ψ =0◦/90◦, one with the HWP turned such that ψ = 45◦/135◦ is observed. The linear polarization of the target is then derived via Eq. 64 in Fig. 5.— Illustration of Bragg diffraction polarimetry. a straightforward manner (e.g., Witzel et al. 2011). An analysis of circular polarization requires the use of a quarter wave plate (QWP). The QWP converts n λ =2 d sin θ ; n =1, 2, 3, ... (68) circular into linear polarization; the linearly polarized light can be analyzed as discussed above. For a QWP with d denoting the distance between two consecutive with its axis of minimum index of refraction – its fast atomic layers measured perpendicular to the surface axis – being the x axis in our usual ( 2.1) coordinate of the crystal, θ denoting the angle of incidence mea- system, its impact on circularly polarized§ light can be sured between the infalling light ray and the surface of written in Jones calculus like the crystal, and n being the order of diffraction (Born & Wolf 1999). Using the relation derived in 3.1.1 1 0 1 1 it becomes evident that the reflected light is linearly§ = (66)  0 i  i   1  polarized, with the component parallel to the surface ∓ ± prevailing. If incident and reflected rays are perpendic- which denotes the application of the Jones matrix of the ular – meaning θ = 45◦ – only the polarization com- QWP to a circularly (RHC or LHC) polarized wave, re- ponent parallel to the surface of the crystal remains sulting in a linearly polarized wave with diagonal plane in the reflected light. The linear polarization state of of polarization (Fowles 1975). Comparison of the re- a science target can be derived by rotating the field sult to the definition of the Stokes parameters ( 2.3.2) of view of the instrument and observing the resulting § shows that the QWP converts V to U. Accordingly, we cosinusoidal profile equivalent to Eq. 65; I illustrate can now derive V from an analysis of linear polarization the measurement geometry in Fig. 5. As Bragg’s law according to Eq. 64, resulting in is strictly valid only for one specific wavelength, this method is, a priori, limited to very narrow energy bands V I(45◦) I(135◦) = − (67) at each order of diffraction. This condition can be re- I I(45◦)+ I(135◦) laxed by using “mosaicked” crystals composed of many small crystalets, thus providing a range of d values for (cf., e.g., Goodrich, Cohen & Putney 1995). I note that diffraction (Silver & Schnopper 2010). the choice of QWP orientation – here along the x axis – is arbitrary; for example, a diagonal orientation of Bragg diffraction polarimetry was the method used the fast axis leads to a conversion from V to Q (e.g., for the only X-ray polarimeter ever implemented in a Fowles 1975). space telescope, the OSO-8 satellite. It was used to measure the polarization of the Crab nebula (Weis- 4.7 X and γ Ray Observations skopf et al. 1978), resulting in the “first and only high- precision X-ray polarization measurement obtained for Due to the high photon energies and short wavelengths any cosmic source” (Silver & Schnopper 2010). involved, optical elements used at optical wavelengths Scattering polarimetry. As discussed in 3.1.1, become transparent at X/γ ray energies. Polarimetry Thomson or Compton scattering of photons by§ elec- at these wavelengths can be based on any of three dis- trons is sensitive to the linear polarization of the inci- tinct physical effects. dent photons. This is exploited in scattering polarime- Bragg diffraction. Light with sufficiently short (less ters. We may assume, as usual, partially polarized light than a few nanometers) wavelength λ falling onto a composed of photons propagating in z direction. These crystal is reflected by the crystal according to Bragg’s photons arrive at a scattering detector that provides law material for scattering the incident light; the scatter- POLARIZATION AND POLARIMETRY 17 ing detector is located at the origin of the xy plane. 5. SCIENCE CASES A certain fraction of the arriving photons will be scat- tered at right angles into the xy plane where they are 5.1 Solar and Stellar Physics recorded by a calorimeter. In case of no polarization, Across the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, stars, includ- the distribution of scattered photons in the xy plane ing the sun, are known to posess magnetic fields with will be isotropic. If the light is partially linearly polar- field strengths ranging from a few to several ten thou- ized, photons will be scattered preferentially perpen- sand Gauss (e.g., Schrijver & Zwaan 2000; Berdyug- dicular to the direction of polarization projected onto ina 2009). In case of hot stars with radiative outer the xy plane; the resulting distribution is given by ex- layers (roughly, spectral classes O–A), magnetic fields pressions equivalent to Eq. 65 when taking into account are supposed to be “fossil”, i.e., inherited from the in- the instrument and scattering geometries (McConnell tergalactic medium the stars formed from; in case of 2010). stars with convective outer layers (approximately spec- Photoelectron tracking. Irradiation of X rays on a tral classes F–M), magnetic fields are generated by dy- medium can cause the release of photoelectrons. The namo processes (e.g., Berdyugina 2009). Accordingly, direction of photoelectron emission is a function of the analyses of stellar magnetic fields are able to constrain polarization of the incident light. Assuming a linearly solar and stellar dynamo models. polarized X ray photon propagating in z direction that Stellar magnetic fields – including here also mag- causes the emission of a photoelectron at the origin of netic white dwarfs with B < 109 G (Jordan 2009) – the xy plane, the differential cross section of photoelec- can be analyzed via spectropolarimetry∼ of absorption tron emission is given by lines that are affected by Zeeman splitting ( 3.5). Ac- cording to Eqs. 46, 47 and 48, the orientation§ of the dσ sin2 θ cos2 φ (69) field lines can be assessed from the relative strength dΩ ∝ [1 β cos θ]4 of linear and circular polarization (see, e.g., Donati & − Landstreet 2009 for a review). In case of weak Zeeman where σ is the cross section, Ω denotes the solid an- splitting (Eq. 48) – a common case in stellar spectral gle, β is the electron speed in units of speed of light, lines – the magnetic field strength B enters (via Eq. 45) θ is the angle between the path of the incident photon linearly into V and quadratically into Q. On the one and the path of the emitted photoelectron, and φ is the hand, this makes it possible to estimate B directly from angle between the path of the photoelectron and the di- the V (ν) profile; on the other hand, this complicates rection of polarization of the photon projected onto the the analysis of the field orientation. Spatially resolved xy plane (Bellazzini & Spandre 2010). Accordingly, the maps of magnetic fields of the sun (e.g., Stenflo 2013) or distribution of photoelectrons is a function of photon 2 stars (e.g., Arzoumanian et al. 2011), usually based on polarization, resulting in a characteristic cos φ pattern circular polarization, are referred to as magnetograms. in the xy plane. Complementary to Zeeman effect measurements, the Compared to classical Thomson scattering, the pho- Hanle effect ( 3.7) can be used to probe the magnetic toelectric effect is more efficient in analyzing the photon field of the sun§ (Berdyugina 2004; Mili´c& Faurobert polarization: whereas the differential cross section of ◦ 2012). This is achieved by simultaneous spectropo- Thomson scattering decreases with θ increasing from 0 larimetric observations of several molecular fluores- to 90◦ (cf., e.g., Rybicki & Lightman 1979), it strongly cent lines; important diagnostic molecules are C2 and increases in case of photoelectron emission (Eq. 69). MgH. In addition, scattering polarization by Rayleigh At energies of few keV (i.e., β < 0.1), the differen- and Raman scattering probes the physical conditions tial cross section peaks at θ 90∼◦, meaning most of ≈ in stellar atmospheres (e.g., Sampoorna, Nagendra & the photoelectrons are emitted within or close to the Stenflo 2013). xy plane. The electron paths can be traced by semi- conductor (CCD), gas, or scintillation photo-detectors 5.2 Planetary System Bodies located in the xy plane; again, the degree and orien- tation of macroscopic polarization can be derived from 5.2.1 Solid Surfaces the photoelectron distribution via Eq. 65 (or equivalent Sunlight reflected at a solid surface – like the ones of expressions). rocky planets or asteroids – becomes partially linearly The use of a certain method for X/γ ray polarime- polarized due to scattering polarization ( 3.1). Un- try is largely dictated by the photon energies. Soft X surprisingly, the observed degree of polarization§ is a rays can be analyzed with either method; the analysis function of the relative position of observer, reflecting of hard X and γ rays is usually limited to Compton body, and the star (the phase angle in case of the so- scattering polarimetry (cf., e.g., Bloser et al. 2010). lar system). The maximum degree of linear polariza- tion, in the following denoted withm ¯ L, is a function of wavelength and of the structure of the reflecting mate- rial. The interplay between absorption and scattering of light causes the Umov effect, a characteristic anti- 18 S. TRIPPE

correlation betweenm ¯ L and geometric albedo of a levels depend strongly on the reflection geometry and solid surface (Bowell & Zellner 1974). For a givenA ma- the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Within terial – like lunar regolith, sand, basalt, or granite – and around the regime of visible wavelengths, observed polarization and albedo are related like levels of polarization – integrated over the planetary disks – are <5% for Venus, 5–10% for Jupiter and Sat- urn, and up to 50% for Titan (Saturn’s moon). log( )= c1 log(m ¯ L)+ c2 (70) ≈ A − Quantitative investigations of the polarization prop- at visible wavelengths, with constants c1 1 and erties of planetary atmospheres require numerical mod- c 2 (for ,m [0.01, 1]). Notably,≈ this im- 2 ≈ − A L ∈ eling (e.g., Buenzli & Schmid 2009). The polarization plies degrees of polarization close to 100% for very low of – intrinsically unpolarized – starlight reflected from albedos. Observed deviations from this relation indi- planets is used for direct imaging of exoplanets via po- cate a change in the structure of the surface material; larimetric differential imaging (e.g., Milli et al. 2013). accordingly, m¯ diagrams can be used to assess A− L the surface composition of a planet or any other solid 5.3 Interstellar Matter body. In addition, characteristic variations ofm ¯ L with time can be used to estimate the rotation period and/or Interstellar space is filled with diffuse matter occurring surface profile of a small body (e.g., an asteroid) that in a large variety of states, from cold dense molec- is not resolved spatially by observations (e.g., Ishiguro ular (main species being H2, CO, and H2O) clouds et al. 1997; Cellino et al. 2005). with temperatures T of few Kelvin and (hydrogen) particle densities 103...5 cm−3 up to the hot ionized Radar astronomical observations (Ostro 1993; Camp- ii iv v bell 2002) exploit the polarization state of the reflected (coronal) medium (main species being H , C , N , vi 6 radio light. The transmitted radar signal has a well de- and O ) with T 10 K and hydrogen densities 3 10−3 cm−3. In≈ addition, interstellar dust is om- fined polarization state (usually 100% circular). In case ≈ × of a single reflection at an ideal dielectric surface, the nipresent throughout galaxies (see, e.g., Kwok 2007 for circular polarization state of the echo signal is inverted a detailed overview). with respect to the transmitted signal, the linear polar- The interplay of interstellar dust and galactic mag- ization state (expressed via Stokes Q by proper choice netic fields ( 3.1.2, 5.8) is responsible for the inter- §§ of coordinates) remains unchanged (cf. Eq. 33). Multi- stellar polarization of scattered starlight (see, e.g., Das, ple scattering and/or refraction at rough surfaces lead Voshchinnikov & Il’in 2010; Matsumura et al. 2011 for to some of the echo light being in the same circular recent discussions); the degree of linear polarization is polarization state and/or inverted linear polarization approximately given by Serkowski’s law and, accord- state compared to the infalling light. Denoting the po- ingly, ranges from a few to about ten per cent (Draine larization states as the “same” (S) and “opposite” (O) 2003). In case of circumstellar material in the immedi- ones with respect to the transmitted radar signal, one ate vicinity of a star, scattering polarization can arise can define the polarization ratios from: (i) The alignment of dust grains in the magnetic field ΣSC ΣOL C = and L = (71) of a circumstellar disk or star-forming nebula. R ΣOC R ΣSL (ii) Scattering at spherical or randomly oriented dust with “L” and “C” referring to linear and circular po- grains; in this case, polarization arises from ge- larization, respectively, and Σ denoting the radar cross ometry because the incident light arrives from a section of the target. Accordingly, both L and C well-defined direction – the star. would be zero for an ideal smooth surface.R For mostR (iii) Scattering at magnetically aligned dust grains solar system objects, C < 0.3, with the notable ex- plus dichroic absorption by foreground material, R ception of the icy moons of∼ Jupiter for which > 1 leading (also) to circular polarization with mC < RC (Ostro 1993). ∼ 20% (Kwon et al. 2013). ∼

5.2.2 Atmospheres In case (i), infrared polarimetric imaging has revealed the magnetic field structures in disks around young Reflection of light at (sufficiently dense) planetary at- stars as well as characteristic “hour-glass” field geome- mospheres (e.g., Buenzli & Schmid 2009, and references tries in star forming regions (e.g., Cho & Lazarian 2007; therein) is mainly affected by two (linearly) polariz- Sugitani et al. 2010). In case (ii), polarimetric imaging ing processes: (i) Rayleigh scattering at molecules and of circumstellar material shows a highly symmetric cir- aerosol haze particles, and (ii) refraction and reflec- cular pattern centered at the star, with the orientation tion at liquid droplets in clouds. Whereas individual of polarization being perpendicular to the direction of interactions can lead to degrees of linear polarization the incident radiation. This has been used to ana- up to 100%, the signal observed by a distant observer lyze (proto)stars embedded in dense interstellar matter is the average over multiple light rays, which partially (e.g., Saito et al. 2009). Circular scattering/absorption averages out the polarization signal and reduces the ob- polarization (case iii) has been observed only in a few served degree of polarization. The actual polarization star forming regions (Kwon et al. 2013). POLARIZATION AND POLARIMETRY 19

5.4 Astrobiology ideal maser is always fully linearly polarized. When averaging over multiple waves – as in any realistic as- Complex helical organic molecules in terrestrial life tronomical observation – the sign ambiguity in U/I forms – like amino acids – show homochirality: out causes Stokes U to average out; only Q remains, im- of two helix orientations possible, only one is used ex- plying a partial linear polarization with mL = Q/I. clusively. This phenomenon implies that one of the However, more recent calculations based on numeri- two orientations was preferred in pre-biotic chemistry. cal simulations of realistic maser radiation fields find A possible cause is circularly polarized light in star that the analytical estimates quoted above suffer from forming regions ( 5.3) leading to preferential photo- § over-simplifications; the actual levels of linear polariza- dissociation of organic molecules with one specific ori- tion should be substantially smaller than the ones pre- entation. This causes an excess of molecules with a dicted by Eq. 72 (Dinh-V-Trung 2009). Furthermore, given orientation and, eventually, on Earth to which or- already moderate (∆νz < ∆ν) Zeeman splitting intro- ganic matter is transported via comets and meteoroids duces circular polarization with amplitudes as high as (De Marcellus et al. 2011; Kwon et al. 2013). mC 20%, with frequency-dependent profiles V (ν) Homochirality causes light reflected from certain bi- similar≈ to Eq. 48 for sufficiently small θ < 30◦ (Elitzur ological surfaces to be circularly polarized (cf. 3.3). 2000; Dinh-V-Trung 2009). ∼ This effect can – in principle – be exploited for§ de- tecting life on other planets via (spectro)polarimetry of 5.6 Pulsars starlight reflected from the surface (e.g., Sparks et al. 2012). Pulsars are neutron stars with strong magnetospheres. Their radiation is composed of thermal radiation from 5.5 Astronomical Masers the neutron star surface – at temperatures T 106 K – and, predominantly, non-thermal synchrotron≈ and Stimulated emission of radiation at radio frequencies – curvature radiation created within the stellar magne- maser radiation – can be observed from the interstellar tosphere. The observational pulsar phenomenology is matter in star-forming regions and from the circumstel- given by geometry: the magnetic axis of the star is lar envelopes of late-type (super)giant stars (e.g., Kwon tilted relative to its spin axis. If the magnetic axis & Suh 2012). Maser radiation is emitted as molecu- points to the observer during a rotation period, the lar line emission with very high brightness tempera- 12 radiation from the magnetosphere becomes visible as a tures up to roughly 10 K. Species known to act as short pulse of light. Observed pulse periods are located astrophysical maser media are the molecules OH, H2O, roughly in the range from few milliseconds to tens of CH3OH, NH3, HC3N, H2CO, CH, SiO, SiS, and HCN, seconds, with most pulsars having periods about few plus atomic hydrogen (H). Maser radiation has been hundred milliseconds. To date, approximately 2000 observed at frequencies from 1.61GHz (from OH) to pulsars are known which are distributed throughout 662.4 GHz (from H), i.e., across the entire radio regime the Milky Way (see, e.g., Lyne & Graham-Smith 2012 (Reid & Moran 1981; Elitzur 1982; Townes 1997). for a review). Astronomical masers tend to show substantial Zee- The magnetic field of the neutron star can be as- man line splitting caused by magnetic fields permeating sumed to be a relic of the field of the progenitor star. the maser medium. In the case of strong (∆ν ∆ν) z ≫ Conservation of magnetic flux demands very high field Zeeman splitting, the resulting line polarizations are strengths nearby the star, with values in the range given by Eqs. 46 and 47. In case of weak Zeeman split- B 106−10 T. The field geometry is bipolar (at least ting (∆ν ∆ν) however we have to take into account ≈ z ≪ within the light cylinder, i.e. the regime of co-rotation that maser radiation is caused by stimulated, coherent speeds below the speed of light). The combination of emission, meaning a coherent superposition of electric strong magnetic field plus fast rotation leads to the waves. For a single electromagnetic wave, the resulting creation of a strong electric field at the stellar surface, Stokes parameters, in units of Stokes I, are with field strengths up to E 1012 V m−1. The elec- tric field extracts charged particle≈ (electrons, ion) at and around the magnetic poles. The charges propa- Q 2 gate along the magnetic field lines at highly relativis- = 1+ 2 (72) I − 3 sin θ tic (Lorentz factors γ 107) energies. Those primary ≈ U 2 2 1/2 electric charges, plus secondary charges with γ 1000 = 3 sin θ 1 ≈ I ±3 sin2 θ − originating from electron-positron pair creation, pro-
V duce synchrotron and (mostly) curvature radiation di- = 0 I rected along the magnetic field lines. The emission ge- ometry provides the “lighthouse effect” necessary for with θ denoting the angle between the magnetic field the observational pulsar phenomenology. The emitted and the line of sight (Elitzur 1991, 2000). For sin2 θ radiation is partially coherent; the highest flux den- 1/3 (i.e., θ < 35◦), Q/I = 1 and U/I = 0. As≤ sities are usually observed at low – few GHz – radio frequencies (Michel 1991; Beskin et al. 1993). (Q/I)2 + (U/I∼)2 = 1 for all θ, a wave emitted by an 20 S. TRIPPE

By geometry, the radiation from pulsars can roughly along the jets.k Observations at multiple wavelengths be approximated as synchrotron radiation from colli- permit the use of Faraday rotation and Faraday de- mated beams of electrons ( 3.4). Accordingly, one ob- polarization as a probe of magnetic fields and matter serves (e.g., Rankin 1983) both§ linear and circular po- distributions (e.g., Macquart et al. 2006; Taylor et al. larization approximately following the pattern outlined 2006; Trippe et al. 2012b). A somewhat unexpected in Fig. 3, with details depending on the actual viewing property of AGN jets was the discovery of inverse de- geometry. The angle of linear polarization “swings” polarization – higher degrees of linear polarization at through a range of values during a pulse because of longer wavelengths – in some sources which has been in- the rotation of the star (Michel 1991). Historically, po- terpreted as a “conspiracy” of spatial small-scale struc- larimetric observations of the Crab nebula, the super- ture and Faraday rotation (e.g., Homan 2012). Occa- nova remnant surrounding the Crab pulsar, provided sional observations of circular polarization in AGN jets, the first evidence ever for synchrotron radiation from most notably in 3C 84 with polarization levels up to astronomical objects (Oort & Walraven 1956). mC 3%, have been attributed to polarization con- version≈ (Homan & Wardle 2004). 5.7 Active Galactic Nuclei Historically, polarimetric observations of the active 15 Seyfert galaxy NGC 1068 helped to establish the – With luminosities up to approximately 10 L⊙, active galactic nuclei (AGN; see, e.g., Beckmann & Shrader nowadays standard – viewing angle unification scheme 2012 for a recent review) are the most luminous persis- of AGN. Spectropolarimetry at optical wavelengths tent objects in the universe. Their source of energy is shows that the total flux received from the galaxy is the accretion of interstellar matter onto supermassive actually composed of two components: one – unpolar- 6−10 ized – from directly observable gas with narrow emis- – meaning M• 10 M⊙ – black holes which are located in the centers≈ of most, if not all, galaxies. The sion lines, one – linearly polarized – from gas with much energy gained from accretion is (largely) radiated away broader emission lines located within a dust torus and in the form of broad-band continuum emission that visible only indirectly via Thomson scattering toward is observed from low-frequency radio to high-energy γ the observer (cf., e.g., Baek et al. 2007; Lee 2011). This energies. AGN emission shows strong variability and observation eventually removed the distinction between characteristic statistical properties (e.g., Park & Trippe narrow and broad emission line galaxies which were 2012; Kim & Trippe 2013). The radiation from AGN found to be different realizations of AGN (Miller & crudely falls into two physical regimes. At low energies Antonucci 1983; Miller, Goodrich & Mathews 1991). ranging roughly from radio to ultraviolet frequencies, the emission is dominated by synchrotron radiation. At 5.8 Galactic Magnetic Fields higher energies, the radiation is probably produced by Disk galaxies and clusters of galaxies are permeated inverse Compton scattering of low-energy synchrotron by large-scale (many kpc) magnetic fields with field photons. strengths B on the order of µGauss. In case of disk As AGN are synchrotron sources, their emission is galaxies, these fields are aligned with the galactic plane linearly polarized; see also the example provided by and follow closely the galactic structure, especially spi- Fig. 4. Accordingly, AGN polarization has been stud- ral arms (see, e.g., Fletcher et al. 2011 for an impres- ied extensively for several decades and has been used to sive example). The fields are supposed to be generated address the geometries of magnetic fields and the mat- via amplification of primordial cosmic magnetic fields ter distributions (notably particle densities via Faraday – with B 10−20 G – by “galactic dynamos” driven rotation) in and around active nuclei (see, e.g., Saikia by galactic∼ rotation. The most widely applied model & Salter 1988 for an overview). Degrees of linear po- is the α–Ω disk dynamo which comprises as parame- larization are mL < 20%, with typical values around ters (i) the angular speed Ω of galactic rotation and m 5% (e.g., Trippe∼ et al. 2010, 2012a). Circular (ii) the quantity α = τ(v v)/3, with τ be- L − ·∇× polarization≈ has been observed in a handful of sources ing the decorrelation time of plasma turbulences and on levels mC < 1% (e.g., Agudo et al. 2010). v being the plasma velocity (the expression in brackets The outflows∼ of matter from AGN, especially the is also referred to as “kinematic helicity”). In case of galaxy clusters, the fields supposedly originate from ex- formation of collimated jets which extend over several tended AGN jets ( 5.7) which carry strong magnetic megaparsecs in extreme cases, are intimately linked to § the immediate (tens of Schwarzschild radii) environ- fields into the intragalactic medium and where these are dissolved over time (Wielebinski & Krause 1993; ment of the central black hole and the geometry of the Kulsrud & Zweibel 2008). magnetic fields located there (e.g., Narayan & Quataert 2005). AGN jets are – largely – optically thin emitters of synchrotron radiation best observable at radio fre- kAt this point it is important to note that the observed polar- ization of extended sources is a function of angular resolution: quencies. Accordingly, linear polarization is used to if several individual emitters of polarized radiation fall within trace the orientation and strength of magnetic fields the same resolution element (the point spread function or beam of the instrument), the polarization signal can be averaged out partially – a phenomenon known as beam depolarization. POLARIZATION AND POLARIMETRY 21

The analysis of large-scale magnetic fields is based the plasma-physical conditions and magnetic fields in on signatures of their interaction with the interstellar GRBs similar to the procedures for AGN ( 5.7). § or intergalactic medium, specifically: As noted by, e.g., Toma et al. (2012), polarized high- energy emission from cosmological sources like GRBs (i) Faraday rotation ( 3.8.3) of radiation from pul- sars or extragalactic§ background sources (cf. Clarke can be used to probe a vacuum birefringence arising from a violation of the Lorentz invariance of Einstein’s 2004; Kronberg 2004; Kronberg & Newton-McGee theory of relativity. 2011). (ii) Weak Zeeman effect line splitting, especially the 5.10 Cosmic Background Radiation V (ν) profiles in H i emission and absorption lines ( 3.5; cf. Heiles & Robishaw 2009). The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is supposed § (iii) Polarized synchrotron radiation ( 3.4; cf. Heald to originate from the hot plasma filling the universe ap- 2009). § proximately 400 000 years after the big bang. To first order, the CMB corresponds to thermal emission from (iv) Polarization arising from scattering at magneti- a black body with a temperature of 2.7 K. Plasma cally aligned dust grains ( 3.1.2; cf. Pavel 2011). ≈ § density fluctuations imprint characteristic fluctuations Notably, this method provided detailed insight with amplitudes on scales of µK into the angular distri- into the magnetic field geometry within the center bution of the CMB. In addition to fluctuations in the of the Milky Way (Nishiyama et al. 2010) and in total intensity, one may expect localized linear scatter- parts of the Large Magellanic Cloud (J. Kim et al. ing polarization if the radiation propagating through 2011). the plasma shows quadrupole anisotropies – differences (v) The Chandrasekhar-Fermi effect ( 3.8.6; Chan- in intensities at angles of 90◦ in the sky plane. De- drasekhar & Fermi 1953) § pending on the underlying geometry, two signatures or modes of polarization have to be distinguished (Zal- As should be clear from the discussion provided in 3 §§ darriaga & Seljak 1997; Kamionkowski, Kosowsky & and 3.8, (i) and (ii) provide information on magnetic Stebbins 1997). field components along the line of sight, whereas (iii), E mode polarization. A polarization geometry (iv), and (v) provide information on field components where the orientations of polarization are perpendicu- perpendicular to the line of sight. lar to the gradient of a local perturbation of the CMB 5.9 Gamma Ray Bursts is referred to as electric-field like (hence E) or gradient mode (G) polarization. By construction, such a polar- Gamma-ray bursts (GRB; e.g., Piran 2005; Gehrels ization pattern does not show a handedness. E mode et al. 2009) are short, intense pulses of soft (hundreds polarization can be attributed to local energy density of keV) γ rays of cosmological origin occurring a few fluctuations, also known as scalar perturbations. times per day. GRBs last from fractions of a second B mode polarization. A local curl pattern of po- to hundreds of seconds; with luminosities up to about larization with distinct handedness is referred to as 1046 W they are among the most luminous (transient) magnetic-field like (hence B) or curl mode (C) polariza- sources of radiation in the universe. According to their tion. The amplitudes of those patterns are supposed to duration, GRBs fall into either of two groups: be roughly one order of magnitude weaker than those Long GRBs typically last tens of seconds and are asso- of E mode signatures. By geometry, B mode polariza- ciated with type Ib/c supernovae. They are assumed to tion requires tensor perturbations of the CMB. Those originate from collapsars, massive evolved stars (prob- perturbations occur due to the propagation of gravi- ably Wolf-Rayet stars) whose cores collapse into black tational waves through the CMB plasma; accordingly, holes. measurements of B mode polarization are a key exper- Short GRBs usually last less than one second. They are iment for probing primordial gravitational waves and assumed to be caused by mergers of compact objects in cosmic inflation theories. binary systems, like two neutron stars or one neutron In the past decade, E mode polarization has been star and one stellar black hole. observed by a variety of ground based CMB telescopes In either case, the outflowing plasma is collimated in the approximate frequency range 30–150 GHz (e.g., into relativistic jets with opening angles of a few de- Leitch et al. 2002; Kovac et al. 2002; Park & Park 2002; grees; this explains the very large apparent isotropic Readhead et al. 2004; Takahashi et al. 2010). A typ- luminosities of GRBs. The GRB emission results from ical CMB telescope is designed as an interferometer synchrotron and inverse Compton radiation from rela- with multiple receivers located on a common carrier tivistic electrons. The combination of synchrotron radi- platform spanning a few meters in diameter. By de- ation ( 3.4) and non-isotropic geometry should lead to sign (using Rayleigh’s criterion for angular resolution) substantial§ linear polarization, and, indeed, degrees of CMB telescopes are sensitive to structures on angu- ◦ polarization up to 30% have been reported (G¨otz et al. lar scales of about 1–2 , i.e. the characteristic size 2013; Mundell et al. 2013). Sufficient measurement ac- scale of E mode polarization patterns. More recently, curacies provided, the polarization can be used to probe the Planck satellite has begun a polarization monitor- 22 S. TRIPPE ing program aimed at both E and B modes (see, e.g., stars, and nebulae studied with photopolarimetry, U. Lamarre et al. 2003 for technical details), and an obser- Arizona Press, Tucson, 54 vation of B mode polarization by a ground-based CMB Arzoumanian, D., et al. 2011, The contribution of star-spots telescope has been reported (Hanson et al. 2013). to coronal structure, MNRAS, 410, 2472 Bachor, H.-A. & Ralph, T.C. 2004, A guide to experiments 6. CONCLUSIONS in quantum optics, 2nd edn., Wiley-VCH, Weinheim Baek, K.M., et al. 2007, Polarization of Thomson scat- Polarization of light and polarimetry play fundamen- tered line radiation from broad absorption line outflows tal roles in astrophysics. Polarization is fundamentally in quasars, JKAS, 40, 1 linked to the internal geometry of sources of radiation: Beckmann, V. & Shrader, C. 2012, Active Galactic Nuclei, the strengths and orientations of magnetic fields, the Wiley VCH, Weinheim distribution and orientation of scattering particles like Bellazzini, R. & Spandre, G. 2010, Photoelectric polarime- dust grains, the microscopic structure of reflecting sur- ters, in: Bellazzini, R., et al. (eds.), X-ray polarimetry: faces, or intrinsic anisotropies of the primordial plasma a new window to astrophysics, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 19 filling the early universe. Accordingly, polarimetry has found application in a vast variety of astrophysical Berdyugina, S.V. & Fluri, D.M. 2004, Evidence for the Hanle effect in molecular lines, A&A, 417, 775 fields of study ranging all the way from solar physics Berdyugina, S.V. 2009, Stellar magnetic fields across the to cosmology, comprising even a “personal touch”: Un- H-R diagram: observational evidence; in: Strassmeier, derstanding the interplay between circularly polarized K.G., et al. (eds.), Cosmic magnetic fields: from planets, starlight and the interstellar medium might help to un- to stars and galaxies, Proc. IAU Symp. 259, Cambridge derstand the formation of life on Earth. Univ. Press, Cambridge, 323 Reviewing its applications, it is evident that po- Beskin, V.S., Gurevich, A.V. & Istomin, Y.N. 1993, Physics larimetry is a powerful tool for astrophysics; it pro- of the pulsar magnetosphere, Cambridge Univ. Press, vides rich information on the physics of targets that Campbridge cannot be obtained in any other way. Consequently, Bloser, P.F., et al. 2010, The Gamma-RAy Polarimeter Ex- a large number of dedicated observational instruments periment (GRAPE) balloon payload, in: Bellazzini, R., has been constructed and progress is fast. One impor- et al. (eds.), X-ray polarimetry: a new window to astro- tant current trend is the development of instruments physics, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 314 dedicated to polarimetry at the high-energy end of Born, M. & Wolf, E. 1999, Principles of optics, 7th edn., the electromagnetic spectrum, at X and γ ray wave- Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge lengths ( 4.7); another one could be investigations of Bowell, E. & Zellner, B. 1974, Polarizations of asteroids and optical polarimetric§ interferometry (Elias 2001). Each satellites; in: Gehrels, T. (ed.), Planets, stars, and neb- new technical development eventually opens new win- ulae studied with photopolarimetry, U. Arizona Press, dows for observational astronomy. Likewise, more tra- Tucson, 381 ditional polarimetric techniques profit from the general Bradt, H. 2008, Astrophysics processes, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge progress in instrumentation technologies; a key aspect is the improvement of instrumental sensitivities – which Brosseau, C. 1998, Fundamentals of polarized light: A sta- tistical optics approach, John Wiley & Sons, New York have always been harmed by polarimetry measuring relatively small differential fluxes by definition. This Buenzli, E. & Schmid, H.M. 2009, A grid of polarization models for Rayleigh scattering planetary atmospheres, being said, we may conclude that polarimetry has the A&A, 504, 259 potential for new and exciting astrophysical discoveries Burn, B.J. 1966, On the depolarization of discrete radio in the future. sources by Faraday dispersion, MNRAS, 133, 67 Campbell, B.A. 2002, Radar remote sensing of planetary ACKNOWLEDGMENTS surfaces, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge I am grateful to Myungshin Im, Masateru Ishiguro, Cawthorne, T.V. & Wardle, J.F.C. 1988, Kinematic con- Junghwan Oh, Taeseok Lee, Jong-Ho Park, and Jae- straints on models of the BL Lacertae object OJ 287 from Young Kim (all at SNU) for valuable discussion. I ac- VLBI polarization observations, ApJ, 332, 696 knowledge financial support from the Korean National Cellino, A., et al. 2005, A polarimetric study of asteroid Research Foundation (NRF) via Basic Research Grant 25143 Itokawa, Icarus, 179, 297 2012-R1A1A2041387. Last but not least, I am grateful Cenacchi, E., Kraus, A., Orfei, A. & Mack, K.-H. 2009, Full to an anonymous referee for valuable comments. Stokes polarimetric observations wth a single-dish radio telescope, A&A, 498, 591 REFERENCES Chandrasekhar, S. & Fermi, E. 1953, Magnetic fields in spiral arms, ApJ, 118, 113 Agudo, I., Thum, C., Wiesemeyer, H. & Krichbaum, T.P. Cho, J. & Lazarian, A. 2007, Polarization of FIR emission 2010, A 3.5 mm polarimetric survey of radio-loud active from T Tauri stars, JKAS, 40, 113 galactic nuclei, ApJSS, 189, 1 Clarke, T.E. 2004, Faraday rotation observations of mag- Angel, J.R.P. 1974, Mechanisms that produce linear and netic fields in galaxy clusters, JKAS, 37, 337 circular polarization, in: Gehrels, T. (ed.), Planets, Clarke, D. 2010, Stellar polarimetry, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim POLARIZATION AND POLARIMETRY 23

Das, H.K., Voshchinnikov, N.V. & Il’in, V.B. 2010, Inter- Hamaker, J.P. 2000, Understanding radio polarimetry. IV. stellar extinction and polarization – a spheroidal dust The full-coherency analogue of scalar self-calibration: grain perspective, MNRAS, 404, 265 Self-alignment, dynamic range and polarimetric fidelity, De Marcellus, P., et al. 2011, Non-racemic amino acid pro- A&ASS, 143, 515 duction by ultraviolet irradiation of achiral interstellar Hamaker, J.P. 2006, Understanding radio polarimetry. V. ice analogs with circularly polarized light, ApJL, 727, Making matrix self-calibration work: processing of a sim- L27 ulated observation, A&A, 456, 395 Dinh-V-Trung 2009, On the theory of astronomical masers Hanle, W. 1924, Uber¨ magnetische Beinflussung der Polar- – II. Polarization of maser radiation, MNRAS, 399, 1495 isation der Resonanzfluoreszenz, Z. Phys., 30, 93 Dirac, P.A.M. 1958, The principles of quantum mechanics, Hanson, D., et al. 2013, Detection of B-mode polarization 4th edn., Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford in the cosmic microwave background with data from the Donati, J.-F. & Landstreet, J.D. 2009, Magnetic fields of South Pole Telescope, Phys. Rev. Lett., 111, 141301 nondegenerate stars, ARA&A, 47, 333 Heald, G. 2009, The Faraday rotation measure synthesis Draine, B.T. 2003, Interstellar dust grains, ARA&A, 41, technique; in: Cosmic magnetic fields: from planets, to 241 stars and galaxies, Proc. IAU Symp. 259, Cambridge Dyson, J.E & Williams, D.A. 1997, The physics of the inter- Univ. Press, Cambridge, 591 stellar medium, 2nd edn., Taylor & Francis, New York Heiles, C., Goodman, A.A., McKee, C.K. & Zweibel, E. Edlund, E. 1860, Uber¨ die Polarisation des Lichtes der 1993, Magnetic fields in star forming regions: Observa- Corona bei totalen Sonnenfinsternissen, AN, 52, 305 tions, in: Levy, E.H. & Lunine, J.I. (eds.), Protostars Einstein, A. 1905, Uber¨ einen die Erzeugung und Verwand- and planets III, Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson, 279 lung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesicht- Heiles, C. 2002, A heuristic introduction to radio astronom- spunkt, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig), 322, 132 ical polarization, in: Stanimirovi`c, S. et al. (eds.), Single- Elias, N.M., II 2001, Optical interferometric polarimetry. I. dish radio astronomy: techniques and applications, ASP Foundation, ApJ, 549, 647 Conf. Series, 278, 131 Elitzur, M., 1982, Physical characteristics of astronomical Heiles, C. & Robishaw, T. 2009, Zeeman splitting in the dif- masers, Rev. Mod. Phys., 54, 1225 fuse interstellar medium – The Milky Way and beyond; Elitzur, M. 1991, Polarization of astronomical maser radia- in: Cosmic magnetic fields: from planets, to stars and tion, ApJ, 370, 407 galaxies, Proc. IAU Symp. 259, Cambridge Univ. Press, Elitzur, M. 2000, Astronomical masers and their polariza- Cambridge, 579 tion; in: Trujillo-Bueno, J., et al. (eds.), Astrophysical Homan, D.C. & Wardle, J.F.C. 2004, High levels of circu- spectropolarimetry, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, larly polarized emission from the radio jet in NGC 1275 225 (3C 84), ApJ, 602, L13 Fletcher, A., et al. 2011, Magnetic fields and spiral arms in Homan, D.C. 2012, Inverse depolarization: A potential the galaxy M51, MNRAS, 412, 2396 probe of internal Faraday rotation and helical magnetic Fowles, G.R. 1975, Introduction to modern optics, 2nd edn., fields in extragalactic radio jets, ApJL, 747, L24 Dover Publ., New York Huard, S. 1997, Polarization of light, Masson, Paris Ginzburg, V.L. & Syrovatskii, S.I. 1965, Cosmic magne- Hughes, P.A., Aller, H.D. & Aller, M.F. 1985, Polarized tobremsstrahlung (synchrotron radiation), ARA&A, 3, radio outbursts in BL Lacertae. II. The flux and polar- 297 ization of a piston-driven shock, ApJ, 298, 301 Gehrels, N., Ramirez-Ruiz, E. & Fox, D.B. 2009, Gamma- Ishiguro, M., et al. 1997, Maximum visible polarization of ray bursts in the Swift era, ARA&A, 47, 567 4179 Toutatis in the apparition of 1996, PASJ, 49, L31 G¨otz, D., et al. 2013, The polarized gamma-ray burst GRB Jackson, J.D. 1999, Classical electrodynamics, 3rd edn., 061122, MNRAS, 431, 3550 Wiley & Sons, New York Goldreich, P. & Kylafis, N.D. 1981, On mapping the mag- Jones, R.C. 1941, A new calculus for the treatment of opti- netic field direction in molecular clouds by polarization cal systems. I. Description and discussion of the calculus, measurements, ApJ, 243, L75 J. Opt. Soc. Am., 31, 488 Goldreich, P. & Kylafis, N.D. 1982, Linear polarization of Jordan, S. 2009, Magnetic fields in white dwarfs and their radio frequency lines in molecular clouds and circumstel- direct progenitors; in: Strassmeier, K.G., et al. (eds.), lar envelopes, ApJ, 253, 606 Cosmic magnetic fields: from planets, to stars and galax- Goldstein, D. 2003, Polarized light, 2nd edn., Marcel ies, Proc. IAU Symp. 259, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cam- Dekker Inc., New York bridge, 369 Goodrich, R.W., Cohen, M.H. & Putney, A. 1995, Spec- Kamionkowski, M., Kosowsky, A. & Stebbins, A. 1997, tropolarimetry. II. Circular polarization optics and tech- Statistics of cosmic microwave background polarization, niques, PASP, 107, 179 Phys. Rev. D, 55, 7368 Haken, H. & Wolf, H.C. 1990, Atom- und Quantenphysik, Kim, J., et al. 2011, Near-IR polarimetry around 30 Do- 4th edn., Springer, Berlin radus: I. Separation of the galactic sources, JKAS, 44, Hamaker, J.P., Bregman, J.D. & Sault, R.J. 1996, Un- 135 derstanding radio polarimetry. I. Mathematical founda- Kim, K.-T., et al. 2011, 100-GHz band test observations of tions, A&ASS, 117, 137 the KVN 21-m radio telescopes, JKAS, 44, 81 Hamaker, J.P. & Bregman, J.D. 1996, Understanding radio Kim, J.-Y. & Trippe, S. 2013, How to monitor AGN intra- polarimetry. III. Interpreting the IAU/IEEE definition day variability at 230 GHz, JKAS, 46, 65 of the Stokes parameters, A&ASS, 117, 161 24 S. TRIPPE

Kitchin, C.R. 2009, Astrophysical techniques, 5th edn., Milli, J., et al. 2013, Prospects of detecting the polarimetric CRC Press, Boca Raton signature of the Earth-mass planet α Centauri B b with Kovac, J.M., et al. 2002, Detection of polarization in the SPHERE/ZIMPOL, A&A, 556, A64 cosmic microwave background using DASI, Nature, 420, M¨uller, H. 1948, The foundations of optics (abstract), J. 772 Opt. Soc. Am., 38, 661 Kronberg, P.P. 2004, New probes of intergalactic magnetic Mundell, C.G., et al. 2013, Highly polarized light from sta- fields by radiometry and Faraday rotation, JKAS, 37, ble ordered magnetic fields in GRB 120308A, Nature, 343 504, 119 Kronberg, P.P. & Newton-McGee, K.J. 2011, Remark- Narayan, R. & Quataert, E. 2005, Black hole accretion, able symmetries in the Milky Way disc’s magnetic field, Science, 307, 77 PASP, 28, 171 Nishiyama, S., et al. 2010, Magnetic field configuration Kulsrud, R.M. & Zweibel, E.G. 2008, On the origin of cos- at the Galactic center investigated by wide-field near- mic magnetic fields, Rep. Prog. Phys., 71, 046901 infrared polarimetry: Transition from a toroidal to a Kwok, S. 2007, Physics and chemistry of the interstellar poloidal magnetic field, ApJL, 722, L23 medium, University Science Books, Sausalito Oort, J.H. & Walraven, T. 1956, Polarization and compo- Kwon, Y.-J & Suh, K.-W. 2012, Properties of OH, SiO, and sition of the Crab nebula, Bull. Astron. Inst. Neth., 12, H2O masers in O-rich AGN stars, JKAS, 45, 139 285 Kwon, J., et al. 2013, Near-infrared circular polarization Ostro, S.J. 1993, Planetary radar astronomy, Rev. Mod. images of NGC 6334-V, ApJL, 765, L6 Phys., 65, 1235 Lamarre, J.M., et al. 2003, The Planck High Frequency Ott, T., Eckart, A. & Genzel, R. 1999, Variable and em- Instrument, a third generation CMB experiment, and bedded stars in the Galactic center, ApJ, 523, 248 a full sky submillimeter survey, New Astron. Rev., 47, Pacholczyk, A.G. 1970, Radio Astrophysics, W.H. Freeman 1017 & Co. Landau, L.D. & Lifschitz, E.M. 1997, Klassische Feldtheo- Pacholczyk, A.G. & Swihart, T.L. 1970, Polarization of rie, 12th edn., Harri Deutsch, Thun radio sources. II. Faraday effect in the case of quasi- Lang, K.R. 2006, Astrophysical formulae. Vol. I. Radiation, transverse propagation, ApJ, 161, 415 gas processes, and high energy astrophysics, 3rd edn., Pacholczyk, A.G. 1973, Circular repolarization in compact Springer, Berlin radio sources, MNRAS, 163, 29P Lee, H.-W. 2011, Linear polarization of a double peaked Park, C.-G. & Park, C. 2002, Simulation of cosmic mi- broad emission line in active galactic nuclei, JKAS, 44, crowave background polarization fields for AMiBA ex- 59 periment, JKAS, 35, 67 Lee, S.-S., et al. 2011, Single-dish performance of KVN 21- Park, J.-H. & Trippe, S. 2012, Multiple emission states in m radio telescopes: simultaneous observations at 22 and active galactic nuclei, JKAS, 45, 147 43 GHz, PASP, 123, 1398 Pavel, M.D. 2011, Constraining Galactic magnetic field Leitch, E.M., et al. 2002, Measurement of polarization with models with starlight polarimetry, ApJ, 740, 21 the Degree Angular Scale Interferometer, Nature, 420, Piran, T. 2005, The physics of gamma-ray bursts, Rev. 763 Mod. Phys., 76, 1143 Lyne, A. & Graham-Smith, F. 2012, Pulsar astronomy, 4th Poincar´e, H. 1892, Th´eorie math´ematique de la lumi`ere, edn., Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge vol. II, Georges Carr´e, Paris Macquart, J.-P., et al. 2006, The rotation measure and 3.5- Rankin, J.M. 1983, Toward an empirical theory of pulsar millimeter polarization of Sagittarius A*, ApJ, 646, L111 emission. I. Morphological taxonomy, ApJ, 274, 333 Mandel, L. & Wolf, E. 1995, Optical coherence and quan- Readhead, A.C.S., et al. 2004, Polarization observations tum optics, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge with the Cosmic Background Imager, Science, 306, 836 Matsumura, M., et al. 2011, Correlation between interstel- Reid, M.J. & Moran, J.M. 1981, Masers, ARA&A, 19, 231 lar polarization and dust temperature: Is the alignment Rybicki, G.B. & Lightman, A.P. 1979, Radiative processes of grains by radiative torques ubiquitous?, PASJ, 63, L43 in astrophysics, Wiley & Sons, New York McConnell, M.L. 2010, Scattering polarimetry in high- Saikia, D.J. & Salter, C.J. 1988, Polarization properties of energy astronomy, in: Bellazzini, R., et al. (eds.), X-ray extragalactic radio sources, ARA&A, 26, 93 polarimetry: a new window to astrophysics, Cambridge Saito, H., et al. 2009, Near-infrared imaging polarimetry of Univ. Press, Cambridge, 11 S106 cluster-forming region with SIRPOL, AJ, 137, 3149 Michel, F.C. 1991, Theory of neutron star magnetospheres, Sampoorna, M., Nagendra, K.N. & Stenflo, J.O. 2013, Line- U Chicago Press, Chicago interlocking effects on polarization in spectral lines by Mili´c, I. & Faurobert, M. 2012, Hanle diagnostics of weak Rayleigh and Raman scattering, ApJ, 770, 92 solar magnetic fields, A&A, 547, A38 Sault, R.J., Hamaker, J.P. & Bregman, J.D. 1996, Under- Miller, J.S. & Antonucci, R.R.J. 1983, Evidence for a highly standing radio polarimetry. II. Instrumental calibration polarized continuum in the nucleus of NGC 1068, ApJ, of an interferometer array, A&ASS, 117, 159 271, L7 Schrijver, C.J. & Zwaan, C. 2000, Solar and stellar magnetic Miller, J.S., Goodrich, R.W. & Mathews, W.G. 1991, Mul- activity, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge tidirectional views of the active nucleus of NGC 1068, Secchi, P.A. 1860, On the polarisation of light reflected by ApJ, 378, 47 the moon, MNRAS, 20, 70 POLARIZATION AND POLARIMETRY 25

Serkowski, K., Mathewson, D.S. & Ford, V.L. 1975, Wave- Witzel, G., Eckart, A., Buchholz, R.M., et al. 2011, The length dependence of interstellar polarization and ratio instrumental polarization of the Nasmyth focus polari- of total to selective extinction, ApJ, 196, 261 metric differential imager NAOS/CONICA (NACO) at Silver, E. & Schnopper, H. 2010, Bragg crystal polarime- the VLT, A&A, 525, A130 ters, in: Bellazzini, R., et al. (eds.), X-ray polarimetry: Wolstencroft, R.D. 1974, The circular polarization of a new window to astrophysics, Cambridge Univ. Press, light reflected from certain optically active surfaces; in: Cambridge, 34 Gehrels, T. (ed.), Planets, stars, and nebulae studied Sparks, W., et al. 2012, Remote sensing of chiral signatures with photopolarimetry, U. Arizona Press, Tucson, 54 on Mars, Planet. Space Sci., 72, 111 Zaldarriaga, M. & Seljak, U. 1997, All-sky analysis of po- Stenflo, J.O. 1982, The Hanle effect and the diagnostics of larization in the microwave background, Phys. Rev. D, turbulent magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere, Solar 55, 1830 Phys., 80, 209 Zeeman, P. 1897, On the influence of magnetism on the Stenflo, J.O. 2013, Horizontal or vertical magnetic fields on nature of the light emitted by a substance, ApJ, 5, 332 the quiet sun, A&A, 555, A132 Stokes, G.G. 1852, Trans. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 9, part III, 399 Sugitani, K., et al. 2010, Near-infrared imaging polarime- try of the Serpens cloud core: Magnetic field structure, outflows, and inflows in a cluster forming group, ApJ, 716, 299 Takahashi, Y.D., et al. 2010, Characterization of the BI- CEP telescope for high-precision cosmic microwave back- ground polarimetry, ApJ, 711, 1141 Taylor, G.B., et al. 2006, Magnetic fields in the centre of the Perseus cluster, MNRAS, 368, 1500 Thompson, A.R., Moran, J.M. & Swenson, G.W. 2004, In- terferometry and synthesis in radio astronomy, 2nd edn., Wiley-VCH, Weinheim Thum, C., Wiesemeyer, H., Paubert, G., et al. 2008, XPOL – the Correlation Polarimeter for the IRAM 30-m Tele- scope, PASP, 120, 777 Tinbergen, J. 1996, Astronomical polarimetry, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge Toma, K., et al. 2012, Strict limit on CPT violation from polarization of γ-ray bursts, Phys. Rev. Lett, 109, 241104 Townes, C.H. 1997, Astronomical masers and lasers, Quan- tum Electron., 27, 1031 Tribble, P.C. 1991, Depolarization of extended radio sources by a foreground Faraday screen, MNRAS, 250, 726 Trippe, S., Paumard, T., Ott, T., et al. 2007, A polarized infrared flare from Sagittarius A* and the signatures of orbiting plasma hotspots, MNRAS, 375, 764 Trippe, S. Neri, R., Krips, M., et al. 2010, The first IRAM/PdBI polarimetric millimeter survey of active galactic nuclei. I. Global properties of the sample, A&A, 515, A40 Trippe, S. Neri, R., Krips, M., et al. 2012, The first IRAM/PdBI polarimetric millimeter survey of active galactic nuclei. II. Activity and properties of individual sources, A&A, 540, A74 Trippe, S., Bremer, M., Krichbaum, T.P., et al. 2012, A search for linear polarization in the active galactic nu- cleus 3C 84 at 239 and 348 GHz, MNRAS, 425, 1192 Weisskopf, M.C., et al. 1978, A precision measurement of the X-ray polarization of the Crab nebula without pulsar contamination, ApJ, 220, L117 Wielebinski, R. & Krause, F. 1993, Magnetic fields in galax- ies, A&AR, 4, 449 Wilson, T.L., Rohlfs, K. & H¨uttemeister, S. 2010, Tools of radio astronomy, 5th edn., Springer, Berlin