Z. Phys.

D - Atoms, Molecules and Clusters 10, 135-t44 (1988) Atoms,Molecules

and Clusters
fur Physik D

© Springer-Verlag 1988

Is spin coherence like Humpty-Dumpty?

II. General theory

J. Schwinger*, M.O. Scully **, B.-G. Englert***

Max-Planck-Institut fiir Quantenoptik, D-8046 Garching bei Miinchen, Federal Republic of Germany

Received 1 September 1988; final version 28 September 1988

A Stern-Gerlach interferometer combines Stern-Gerlach deflecting magnets to reconsti-

tute initially split beams, in such a way that an arbitrary initial spin state is recovered.
Technical and fundamental limitations on the realizability of the device are derived.

PACS: 03.65.Bz; 41.80.--y

Introduction Folk wisdom concerning irreversibility may be a

Although I.I. Rabi [1] properly described the out-
come of the I921-1922 Stern-Gerlach (SG) experi-
ment as "astounding," the general reaction at the time
was more muted because it had been "hinted at by
quantum theory" [1]. Indeed, the experimenters had
set out to verify the quantum idea of spatial quantiza-
tion, and thought they had succeeded in doing so.
We, however, know that their results were revolution-
ary; they had discovered spin 1. And, even today,
it is not widely appreciated that the SG experiment
epitomizes the quantum mechanical description of
microscopic phenomena.
Subtle aspects of quantum measurement can be
explored by studying a device based on the SG experi-
ment. This is the Stern-Gerlach interferometer (SGI).
It combines SG deflecting magnets in such a way
that not only are the intially split beams of a SG
measurement recombined, but an arbitrary initial spin
state can also be reconstructed. Although early refer-
ences to such a device by Bohm [-2] and Wigner [3],
for example, and later works as well, acknowledged
the difficulty of the experiment, the possibility of
achieving it, in principle, was not generally doubted.
* Permanent address: Department of Physics, University of Califor-
nia, Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA
** Also: Center for Advanced Studies and Department of Physics
and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM
87131, USA
*** Permanent address: Sektion Physik, Universit/it Miinchen,
D-8046 Garching, Federal Republic of Germany
better guide:
Humpty-Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty-Dumpty had a great fall;
All the King's horses and all the King's men
Couldn't put Humpty-Dumpty
together again.
[-The Humpty-Dumpty rhyme is actually a riddle,
with the solution: egg.]
In the first paper of this series about spin coher-
ence and Humpty-Dumpty, [-4] the authors used sim-
plifying assumptions for the motion of the magnetic
atom to obtain criteria for the precision with which
the various component magnets must be constructed.
In this paper we intend to justify, and extend that
initial treatment - which can be regarded as limited
to technical difficulties - by also examining funda-
mental limitations on the maintenance of spin coher-
ence. No prior knowledge of Humpty-Dumpty I is
required, however.
General theory
For simplicity, we shall generally adopt units for
which h = 1. Consider an atom of mass m, spin S,
magnetic moment #=72S, that moves in the static
inhomogeneous magnetic field B(r), as described by
the Hamiltonian 1
This takes for granted that the individual atoms have already
been prepared with such a degree of spatial localizability and mo-
mentum control that there is a negligible chance of striking macro-
scopic surfaces in the course of traversing the magnetic field
136

p2
by
H=~m---/~-B(r).
t

The equations of motion for the spatial variables of p (t): p + j"d t' 7 VB (r (t')) •rff (t') a t/(t')
0
the atom are
and
d r(t) = 1 p(t), t
dt m r(t) : r + t p + j" dt'(t_t') 7_ VB(r(t')).nt(t')at/(t ')
m o m
d
d~ p(t) = V [/~(t). B(r(t))] = y VB(r (t))-2S(t).
=r+--p(t)+ J dt'(-t') VB(r(t')).t/*(t') an(t').
Although we shall soon restrict attention to spin m o

3, there is an advantage in employing the general

construction of any angular momentum as the sym-
metrical superposition of spin ½ constituents. The
Bose-Einstein (BE) realization in terms of spin ½ anni-
hilation (7) and creation (t/t) operators is [5]
S(t)= ~ t/~,(t)(a'[½a]&')t/~,,(t)
a ' , a " = 4-
= t/t(t) ½an(t).
The BE operator aspect is illustrated by
[t/~, (t), t/;,, (t)] = 8~, ~,,;
all other equal-time commutators, involving a pair
of n's, or a pair of t/*'s, are zero. The individual com-
ponents of n 4-(t), for example, refer to the +__½ states
of z-angular momentum. And the numerical matrices
a are the standard Pauli set.
The equation of motion for/7 (t) is
d
i h 5 n ( t ) = Et/(t), - y ~*(t) ~. B(r(t)) n(t)]
= - 7 a- B(r (t)) t/(t),
from which follows the adjoint statement
- - i d t/*(t) = - t/t (t) a. B(r (t)) 7.
An immediate consequence is
d t/*(t) t/(t) = 0,
which is the assertion that the number of spin ½ sys-
tems used to represent S does not change in time.
We shall integrate the equations of motion from
time zero, when the sufficiently localized atom has
certainly not yet entered the magnetic domain, to time
T, when it has assuredly passed through the appara-
tus. The formal solutions for the spatial variables,
at any intermediate time t, are given in terms of the
initial assignments
p(O)=p, r(0)=r,
Spin~
Consider an initial spin ½ state (symbolized by vectors
( and )) such that measurement of a component of
2S(0) in a particular direction has the eigenvalue + 1.
Then
(2s(o)) = (t/*(o) a n ( o ) )
is a unit vector pointing in that direction. The ques-
tion of spin coherence refers to the magnitude of the
vector
( 2 S ( T ) ) = (t/*(T) at/(T)).
Should it be of unit length, some component of 2S(T)
will have the eigenvalue + 1, and spin coherence has
been maintained. To the extent that it has a smaller
length, ranging down to zero, spin coherence has been
lost.
We can evaluate ( 2 S ( T ) ) by constructing the vec-
tors n(T)) and (t/t(T) with the aid of the differential
equation
d
i d~(t)) = - ~ a . B(r(t)) t/(t)5
and its adjoint. Notice that B(r(t)), which commutes
with n(t), has been placed to the left of n(t), so that
we meet the combination
B(r (t)) t/(t))
:B(r+~p
+ ~ dt'(t-t') • VB(r(t')).t/t(t')at/(t ' tl(t)).
0 m
Now, ), a single spin ½ state at time zero, is also
a single spin ½ state at time t, and that single spin
is annihilated by t/(t). Thus n(t)) is a null spin ½ state
at any time, as is f ( r + t p) t/(t)) for arbitrary f, so
 137

it is annihilated by all the t/(t'). The result is the reduc-
tion of the differential equation to
d (tp)
i~tl(t))=-Ta.B r+
with the adjoint form
--t ~ (t/*(t)= -- (t/*(t) a . B
SG and SGI: leading approximation
SG
t/(t)), The SG experiment is designed to measure the z-com-
ponent of an atomic magnetic moment through the
spatial deflection produced by a z-inhoraogeneity in
the magnetic field. Thus the dominant components
of field and field gradient are B~ and ~ B~. In this
t
circumstance the ~ equation of motion simplifies to

Here is the special advantage of using the annihila- ida(t) = -a~[yBz(t)+~(z+tp~)~-zB~(t)]tl(t),

tion-creation description for spin ½.

in which it is assumed that

Macroscopic and microscopicscales (z) =0, (pz)=0.
The magnets, and the inhomogeneous fields they pro- With the notation
duce, set a macroscopic scale of length. The magnetic
atoms that move through these fields carry a micro-
scopic scale of spatial localizability. The meeting place
7B~(t)= E(t), ~ ~z B~(t)= F(t),
of these two disparate scales occurs in B ( r + ~ p ) , this reads
where it is natural to distinguish between macroscop-
ic, average quantities and their microscopic fluctua- id,(t)= -a~[E(t)+(z +tp~)F(t)]~(t).
tions. Thus, we write
The same symbol, F(t), is used in writing the solutions
r +--t p = (r) + t (p) + (r-- (r)) + t (p_ (p)), of the equations of motion for the z-components of
m m m the spatial variables at time T:

along with T
p~(T)--p~=2S~Ap~, Ap~= ~ dte(t),
o

B (r + t P)"~B((r) + ~ (P)) +((r- (r)) T T--t

z(T)--z-T--pz=2S~Az, Az=Sdt F(t).
PA m
o
+--(p . (r)+ (p)
m An alternative to the latter, based on the definition

or Az_TAp = T t --
B(r+-~P)~-B(t)+[(r--(r))+t
(p-(P))]'VB(t). is
Here we see the natural appearance of effectively time-
varying fields, in contrast with their introduction as z(T)-z--Tp~(T)=2S~ Az.
a dynamical approximation in Humpty-Dumpty I.
The q differential equation has now become (the pres- In the simple situation where F(t) is the constant F
ence of ) is understood) for all 0 < t < T,
1T 1T
i ~ tl(t)= {-- ~'a"B(t)-- , [(r-- (r ) ) /Jz ........
2m FT-- 2m Ap~= --Az.
+ t (p--(p))] "VB(t)'a} tl(t). SG criteria. It is well to recall here
the conditions
for a good SG experiment: that the splitting of the
138

beam be unmistakable because the displacements in the differential equation

z and p~, produced by the inhomogeneous magnetic
field, are very large in comparison with the spread d [
id-)-t/(t)=-a~ E(t)+ z + p~ F(t q(t)
or dispersion of values that are already present in
the beam,
stems from the non-commutativity of z and p~, as
IAzlm>~z, [Ap~[so>>~p~, expressed, in relevant form by
IA zlmlA P=[m > OzOp=. [a~z,a~p~]=i.
Thus, in contrast with the microscopic uncertainties But the sole effect of this numerical non-commutativ-
6 z and 6 p~ that are related by the inequality ity, in what is evidently an exponential structure, is
3z3p=> ½(h), a multiplicative numerical phase factor. To within
such a factor, then
the displacements in a good SG experiment, which
obey tl(T) = U(a~) q, II = tl(O),
where
IA zls~ IA P=lm >> 1 (h),
U(az ) = cia~½q, eiadzA p= -p~2lzl.
must be macroscopic.
Incidentally, we have not troubled to distinguish In addition to previously defined symbols, this intro-
between the initial and final values of 3z, which, if duces the Larmor phase angle
there is no initial correlation between z and p~, are
related by T
@=2 ~ dtE(t).
(~ z(T))2 = (6z(0))2 + ( ~ ) 2 (3p~) 2. o

The matrix (G)-operator (z, Pz) structure U(az) is

This assumes that the beam spreads only moderately tinitary:
in the course of the experiment, corresponding to a
duration of order of magnitude u (a3* = [ u (~z)] -1 = u ( - ~).

3z Accordingly, we have
V,-~--
6pjm"
t/* (T) = r/* U(-- a~),

along with the inverse of the numerical phase factor

SGI
The first requirement for the SGI is that the macros-
copically split beams be recombined. Ideally, this re-
quires that z(T) and p~(T) become independent of
S=, or that
A z ]so = 0, A p~ ]s~ = 0.
Yet, the practical measure of spatial recombination
is that both beams shall pass unhindered through a
slit just wide enough to transmit either beam without
loss. Thus, the spatical criteria are more realistically
stated as
space:]Azls~bz, ]Apz]sGi~6p~,
IA Zlscd A P~lscI > 1 ;
this is a microscopic criterion.
Spin coherence. N o w we turn to spin coherence, the
essence of the SGI. The only problem in integrating
associated with tl(T ). These numerical phase factors
therefore cancel in the spin construction of interest.
The simplest example refers to the z-component
of spin:
<2Sz(T)) = QI¢(T) ~: ,I(T))
= <~* [ u ( ~ ) ] - ~ G: u ( ~ ) ~>
= < r f a ~ r/> = (2S=(0)>.
This is just the statement, essential to the SG measure-
ment concept, that S: is constant in time (at this level
of description).
It is useful to study Sx and Sy in the non-Hermitian
combination S~ + iSy,
<(Sx (T) + iSy (T))>
= <t/*(T) ½(a~ + lay) t7(T)>
= <~¢ U (-- o-z)½(rrx + iay) U (at) Vl>.
NOW, ½(6 x + io-y) has a single non-zero entry, of unity,
in the + r o w and - c o l u m n . As a result, a z on the
 139

right hand side has the unique value of - t , whereas On recalling the relation
% on the left hand side takes the value + 1. All re-
maining dependence on spin appears in the factor Az=T--Ap~+jz,
m
<r/* ½(ax + iay) q> = <(S~(O) + iS,(O))>,
we recognize that the alternative form, referring to
referring only to the spin aspect of the initial state. the final state of the free particle, is
The outcome,

<(Sx(T)+ iSr(T))> - ([U(- i)32> C= ~ dp@r(p--Ap)*eeipa~¢r(p+Ap),

<(S~ (0) + iSy(0))> -oo

= e - i e < e - 21t~ap=-p~ azl>,

which has the equivalent version
contains an expectation value that depends only upon
the initial spatial state. C= ~ dzOr(z-Az)*e-Zi"av'-¢r(z+Az ).
Explicit expressions for this expectation value, -oo

C = <e- 2ilzAp= --Pz Acl),

in terms of wave functions, can be produced with
the aid of the following rearrangements, which require
no additional numerical phase factors:
We note in passing that, if the initial beam has
a symmetry about z--0 that can be expressed by
0 o ( - z) = 4'o(Z),

e - 2i[zap= - p = a z ] which is consistent with, but not required by (z> = 0,

:eip=Aze-2izAp=eiv=Taz <pz>=0, the combination of complex conjugation
and the substitution z ~ - z shows that C is real. For
:e-izap=e2ip=aze-iZAp="
simplicity, we henceforth assume this.
Suppose the initial spin state is such that
Thus, when the initial spatial state is described by
the coordinate 2 wave function ~O0(z), the first version
leads directly to <2Sx(0)> = 1, (2S,(0)> =0,

which also implies that <2 Sz (0)> = 0. Then

C= S dzOo(z-Az)* e-2i~P=0o(Z+z~z),
-ct) <2Sx(T)> = C cos ~, <2S,(T)> = - C sin ~,

whereas the corresponding momentum wave func- and this means that the magnitude of C, which gives
tion, ~o (P~), and the second version, produce [p = p~] the length of the vector <2S(T)>, is the measure of
spin coherence 3
C= ; dptpo(p--Ap)*e21Va=¢o(p+Ap). In a good SG experiment,
-oo
SG:Az>>6z, Apz>>6p=
The wave functions ¢0 are those of a free particle,
at time zero. In the absence of the magnetic field - the combination of non-overlap of the wave func-
for a free particle - the z-momentum wave function, tions:
at time T, is just [p = p~] Or(z- A z)* Or(z + A z)~-O,
_ip~r with the rapid oscillation of the exponential factor:
Or(p)=e 2m ~/'o(P),

so that 6zApz~A~pp=>>1,
¢o(p--Ap)* @o(p+Ap) assures that
ApT
=@r(p- Ap)* e2ip m Or(p+ Ap). SG: IC[~0;

2 The symbol z in the wave function now stands for the eigenvalue 3 It is consistent that, as a diagonal matrix element of a unitary
of the operator z operator, C can never exceed unity in magnitude
140

spin coherence in the x - y plane is totally destroyed which provide the conditions
in a good SG measurement 4.
1
SGI, C~-I:IJzI~IAz[~ ~ ,
SGI criteria. What about the SGI ? Ideal maintenance opt
of spin coherence, C = 1, is possible only if 1

SGI, C=I:Az=O, Ap~=0,

I
lAzt tAp~l~ 6zg)p ~.
which are also the ideal conditions for the spatial
reconstitution of the beam. But what is the appro-
The previous statements about a minimum uncer-
priate scale of precision here?
tainty state are contained here, of course. But mini-
A limiting situation is described by an initial mini-
mum uncertainty states are hard to come by s, which
mum uncertainty state (rzrp~=½), with its Gaussian
intensifies the severity of the technical challenge.
wave functions, e.g.,

1 1 !(~ ~
Marginal detection. Perhaps one would be satisfied
Oo(Z)=(2rc)-4(rz) 2e 4 ~ # . with just enough coherence to be detectable? That
circumstance might be described by
The immediate outcome, I 1
SGI, C>~0:IAzI~@z, IAp~l~Tz,
[ 1 [[A z \ 2 [A pz\2]~
C=exp~-2tt~-z) +I~P~)l)' 1
IAz[ lapel'-' <1.
6zrp~
shows that a nearly perfect maintenance of spin co-
herence requires that Yet, a state close to that of minimum uncertainty
would still be required if the control involved is to
SGI, C~-I:IJzI~rz, [Ap~l~rpz, be on the microscopic level.
I,~zl IAp~l,~.6z6p=. Interference pattern. Incidentally, it is all very well
to speak of an interferometer, but where is the inter-
An alternative statement, for A z, combines
ference pattern? That comes into view if we recall
T that
Az=Ap~--+ J z
m
(2S~(T)) = C cos ~,
with T/m~rz/rpz to get
and recognize the possibility of a controlled shift in
IAzl¢rz, the Larmor phase angle • that can be produced by
[Azt tAPzI ¢rzrp~. having a stretch of homogeneous magnetic field be-
tween the two major stages of the apparatus - those
The implication, of splitting and recombination.

SGI, C ~- 1: [Az[ [A pd,~ 1, SG Larmor angle. It wilt be useful to have some idea
of the order of magnitude of
presents a sub-microscopic criterion for the near main-
tenance of spin coherence. It won't be easy. T
One can avoid reference to specific wave functions, oh=2 ~ dtyBz(t)
under the circumstance of nearly perfect coherence, o
by returning to the unitary operator form of C and
expanding the exponential. With the assumption of that is characteristic of a single SG magnet, for which
no initial correlation between z and Pz, the dominant
terms are IAp~lso = fr dt??-az Bz(t) > 6p~.
o
C -~ 1 - 2 [(3 z)2 (A p~)2 + (3 pz)2 (Az)2],
5 An attempted realization with the aid of slits m u s t approach the
4 Heisenberg recognized this long ago from a consideration equiva- diffraction limit, which, in view of the quite short wave length of
lent to the oscillation of the exponential factor the atom, requires rather extreme dimensions
 141

The time-independent field and field inhomogeneity of which there are really only five, because of the
within the magnet define a length, field equation V. B = 0.
The field component By vanishes in the interior
of a magnet; it is characteristic of the fringing fields
encountered in entering and leaving a magnet. We
shall assume that the magnets can be so constructed
one that is assuredly macroscopic: that By vanishes everywhere along a free atom's aver-
age trajectory:
l~>>,Sz.
Then, on writing B (t) = 0, B,(t) O,
1
IA p~lsc ~-~ I~1 ,> 6p~, which are not independent statements, for

8 18 1
we learn that By= v= <p,>.
I~l>>Iz6p~>>6z,Sp~. So we are left with
Consequently,

I i,>1
must be quite a large number, involving as it does all of which are related to the z-components.
the product of two ratios between macroscopic and The t/equation now reads:
microscopic quantities.
d
i-d-~tl(t)
The next level
={-az[E(t)+(z +tpz) F(t)
It is time for a second look at the q equation of mo-
tion:
+((Y-<y))+t (Py-<Py)))l d E(t)]
i ~--~tl(t)={-~a'B(t)-7[(r-(r))
--axl--(x +t px) F(t)]
+t (p_ (p))]. VB(t).a}q(t).
-a,[(z +tp~) l d e(t)]} tl(t),
Coordinatesandfield components. Recall that the time which has used the properties ( x ) = O, (p~) = O.
dependences of B and VB are associated with the av-
erage motion of the free atom along a direction that
will be identified with the y-axis, the line with x = 0, ConservedS~
z = 0. The structure of the magnetic field is taken to
be invariant under reflection in the y-z
plane, as First, we set aside the ax and o-y terms, so that only
produced by x ~ - x . An immediate implication is a~ appears in the ~/equation and Sz continues to be
the vanishing of the following x = 0 quantities: conserved. The solution of the t/ equation that pre-
sents q(T) in linear relation to tt now contains two
B~,~x Br, ~x Bz, ~y B~,~z B* unitary operators. One, referring to z and Pz, is as
before. The other, apart from a numerical phase fac-
tor, is
which are actually only three in number, because of
the field equation g x B = 0. The remaining field quan-
tifies of interest are

8 0 8 0 0 py - <py))~,
Br, B~,~x Bx, -~y Br,~z B~,~fy B~=~z By,
142

which uses the significance of times zero and T to SG1 Larmor angle. This brings us to the question:
get What is the magnitude of q~ for a SGI, having in
mind that it is a large number for a single SG appara-
r d tus? It is in the nature of a SGI that individual SG
dt ~ E(t)= E( T)- E(O)=O, magnets with opposite field inhomogeneities are re-
0
quired. But this leaves open the choice of the orienta-
whereas tion of the magnetic field. In general, [~lsoi=>t~IsG,
except when the SG magnets are used in pairs, with
r r 1 oppositely oriented fields, to achieve
i dtt~--~E(t)= -- ~ dtE(t)= ---~
0 0
I~ISGI~ 1,
As a result, the expression for (S~(T)+iSy(T))
now has e -ie replaced by where one must remember that q) includes the vari-
able effect of the homogeneous field used to exhibit
the interference pattern.
If I~lsGi>>1, the degree of momentum control re-
quired ranges from absurd to incredibly difficult,
=/exp[-i~(l PY-(P')'I]\,~y).]j/ whereas I~lsG~ 1 demands no such unreasonable ef-
fort.
It is interesting to look again at the expectation
where one can recognize the first terms in the expan- value involving py, this time made explicit in terms
sion of of the initial y-wave function:

@ x p [ - i ~ (PY)]~py
J/ ([exP{2~bPY--(PY);]2\(p,)
JJ /

in powers of (p~,- (py))/(py). This is as it should be. 1 * 1 ~),

The time integral in • is a replacement for a y-spatial oo

integration, divided by v=pffm. We have now been

reminded of the quantum nature of the y-motion; where we have introduced the (reduced) de Broglie
py is an operator. wave length for the atom's y-motion
If the initial y-state were made one of minimum
uncertainty (an extraordinarily difficult feat), we h
would have (p,)"
Here is another way to see that spin coherence can
(exp[icPY--(PY)]\
(-p~ j / =
exp[--l(4~ 3PY] 2]
-~-~} j" be lost for sufficiently large [~J. If the relative displace-
ment of the two wave functions becomes comparable
to 6y,
Or, without detailed specification of the state, pro-
vided this quantity is nearly unity, one gets
• ~ y ~ 1,
p,--(p,)]\~l 1 ~ 3py] 2
Iexp[i~ <p,> J/ the overlap between them will be significantly re-
duced, to the detriment of spin coherence.
In any event, nearly perfect maintenance of spin co-
herence requires that Longitudinal SG effect. The main objective of this co-
ordinate formulation, however, is to facilitate recog-
nizing that we are also discussing what is called the
(p,) longitudinal SG effect. When a magnetic atom enters
the field B~ it acquires a potential energy:
whereas, if but a whisper of a spin-coherent signal --yB~(t) 2Sz, which induces a compensating change
suffices, it may be possible to allow in kinetic energy: py 6 vy, so that

• : ~ . ; ~ 1. ~v,=2~Bz(t) 2S.
Py
 143

The result is an accumulated displacement of y, rela- and A*(t) will differ only in the sign of i. One should
tive to that of a free particle 6, which depends on the notice that A(t) oscillates very rapidly in time, with
spin state: a period ~ 1/E, which represents the spill precession
in the x - y plane.
T 1 T
Ay= ~ dtbv,=--2 ~ dtyB~(t) S~ An iterative solution of the 0 equation, that begins
o Py o with t~(0)= i, must be carried to the second order,
because

It is just these displacements that occur in the y-wave
functions, where, indeed, the displacement in the right
(left) hand wave function is that for S~ = - ½ ( + ½).
Non-conservedS~
If Sz is not conserved, spin coherence is inevitably
lost to some degree. It remains to find the order of
magnitude of the loss. For simplicity, let us include
just o-~ terms in the q differential equation, and omit,
as well, the effect of y-motion just discussed. Then
we are confronted with
(x)=0, (px)=0.
Then the two time integrals, ~(1/E) 2, combine with
the square of 6xF to give a loss of coherence, both
for S~ and Sx, Sy, that is of the order
2
~E/ \ B~ / \tz]"
As the squared ratio of microscopic and macroscopic
lengths, this is small, but it is not zero. A similar
treatment of the o-y terms associated with fringing
fields gives a measure of coherence loss

d rl(t)=[_azE(t)_az(Z+tmP~)F(t) ~(~@)2,

+a,(x +tp~)V(t)]tl(t). where ly measures the y-displacement that changes

B~ by an appreciable fraction.
The known solution, without the a~ term, is used
to define a new function, F/(t):
Conclusion

tl(t)=exp[ia~ f dt'(E(t') So how do matters stand with Humpty-Dumpty? He

certainly has irreparable cracks. But, with sufficiently
hard work of exquisitely fine precision, the general
outlines of his configuration may yet again be recog-
nizable.
to within a numerical phase factor. Then, with the Which is to say: that, although there are coher-
aid of ence losses associated with magnetic and quantum
aspects that are inherent in the SG concept and thus
ox = ½(~ + i ~,) + ½ ( ~ - i ~ , ) ,
are unavoidable in that framework, they do seem to
the new differential equation appears as be small; and that, with the lowering of the require-
ment of near total coherence to acceptance of a barely
d detectable coherent signal, easing the very stringent
i dt Fl(t)= [½(ax- ia,) A(t) technical demands, an experimental test may have
some chance of success.
+½(~x + i~,) A* (t)] O(t),
A word of caution is needed, however. The analy-
where
sis is incomplete, particularly with regard to the tran-
sitions between the component SG magnets. The in-
A(t)=(x +-~ p~)F(t) clusion of second derivatives of the magnetic field may
reveal a sensitivity to such effects.
xexp 2 i S d t ' E(t')+ z+ p~ F(t') J. Schwingerand B.-G. Englert wish to thank H. Walther and the
~- 0
Max-Planck-InstitutffirQuantenoptikfor their gracioushospitality.
6 Naturally, all this follows as welt from the spatial equations of The support of the Officeof Naval research in gratefullyacknowl-
motion edged.
144

References 3. Wigner, E.P.: Am. J. Phys. 31, 6 (1963)

1. Rabi, I.I.: Z. Phys. D - Atoms, Molecules and Clusters 10, 119
(1988)
2. Bohm, D.: Quantum theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
1951
4. Englert, B.-G., Schwinger, J., Scully, M.O.: Found. Phys. 18, 1045
(1988)
5. Schwinger, J.: On angular momentum: In: Quantum theory of
angular momentum. Biedenharn, L.C., Van Dam, H. (eds.). New
York, London: Academic Press 1965