Time Reversal Symmetry and Humpty-Dumpty *

B e r t h o l d - G e o r g Englert
Center for Advanced Studies and Department of Physics and Astronomy,
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87131
and Sektion Physik, Universität München, Am Coulombwall 1, D-85748 Garching

Z. Naturforsch. 52a, 13-14 (1997)

It is argued that the quantal evolution of a physical system is fundamentally irreversible although
the dynamical equations are symmetric under time reversal. The example of spin coherence in a
Stern-Gerlach interferometer demonstrates that even undoing the evolution partially only may
require sub-microscopic precision in controlling a macroscopic apparatus.

1. Elementary Considerations The a n t i - u n i t a r y time reversal o p e r a t o r 0 T has these

In simplest nonrelativistic q u a n t u m mechanics - a
particle with m a s s m moving along the x-axis under
the influence of a potential energy V (x) - the d y n a m -
ics is governed by the H a m i l t o n o p e r a t o r
2
H = ~ p + K(x)>0,
2m
where, for simplicity, the requirement that H be
b o u n d e d f r o m below is equivalently replaced by in-
sisting on the positivity of H. T h e corresponding
Schrödinger differential o p e r a t o r Q,
effects on spatial and m o m e n t a l wave functions:
( 0 r ^ ) ( T , x) = \J/* (T, x ) ,
(0riJ/)(T,p) = il/*(T,-p).
P e r h a p s m o s t t r a n s p a r e n t is the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of the
Wigner f u n c t i o n gw(t, x, p) associated with the state of
the system: {0TqJ(T, X, p) = qw(T, x, - p), signify-
ing that the m o m e n t u m , here identical with the veloc-
ity, is reversed. Indeed, for m o r e complicated d y n a m -
ics it is the velocities, n o t canonical m o m e n t a , that are
reversed.

h 2
0 2
2. Undoing Previous Evolution
h Q = - — - - j + V(x),
2 m ox
With the time reversal o p e r a t o r at h a n d one can
a p p e a r s in the Schrödinger e q u a t i o n for the spatial
imagine the u n d o i n g of all evolutionary changes that
probability a m p l i t u d e iJ/ (t, x),
have occurred between, say, t = 0 a n d t = T by first
applying 0 T , followed by evolution u n d e r the same
+ iü )\j/(t, x) = 0 . H a m i l t o n o p e r a t o r for T < t < 2 T, a n d final applica-
ER
tion of 0 2 X , so that an instant x after t = 2 T one has
It is well k n o w n a n d easily d e m o n s t r a t e d that the time the same wave function as at time t = z:
reversed wave f u n c t i o n ( 0 T iJ/) {t, x) = ij/*{2T — t, x) is
also a solution t o this Schrödinger equation, x\j{2T + T, x) = e-iQz02Te~iQz0Te-iQz\lj{<d, x)
= \Mt, x) = e~iQx\l/{0, x).
— +iQ )iA*(2T - r , x ) = 0 This, however, c a n n o t be achieved in a n y real sense.
The changes symbolized by 0T a n d 0 2 t must be of
dynamical origin themselves, which they c a n n o t be
because these o p e r a t o r s are not unitary. It is true that
* Presented at a Workshop in honor of E. C. G. Sudarshan's all that really m a t t e r s is the p r o d u c t
contributions to Theoretical Physics, held at the Univer-
sity of Texas in Austin, September 15-17, 1991. 02Te-iQT 0T = eiQT
Reprint requests to Dr. B.-G. Englert, now at Max-Planck-
Institut für Quantenoptik, Hans-Kopfermann-Straße 1, a n d this is unitary. But for most Q the right-hand side
D-85748 Garching. is not of the f o r m exp (— i Q T) with a physical, posi-

0932-0784 / 97 / 0100-0013 S 06.00 © - Verlag der Zeitschrift für Naturforschung, D-72072 Tübingen
14 B.-G. Englert • Time Reversal Symmetry and H u m p t y - D u m p t y
tive Q. We are thus led to the conclusion t h a t the
u n d o i n g of all evolutionary changes is impossible. In
other words: Q u a n t u m mechanical evolution is f u n d a -
mentally irreversible.
3. The Humpty-Dumpty Problem
A m o r e general scheme, not so tightly b o u n d to
elementary nonrelativistic q u a n t u m mechanics is
what I would like to call the Humpty-Dumpty prob-
lem* Given an initial state with density o p e r a t o r (?(0)
and a H a m i l t o n o p e r a t o r H l (t) > 0, acting from t = 0
to t = T, find T a n d H2 (t) > 0, acting f r o m t = T to
t = T, such that the unitary evolution o p e r a t o r s
(7(0, T) a n d U(T, T), constructed as time o r d e r e d
exponentials f r o m Hx (t) a n d H2{t), respectively, are
effectively equal to the unit o p e r a t o r
1/(0, T)U(T, T) = 1
when applied to the given p(0). T h e realization re-
quires
exp + -\H2(t)dt exp -JtfiWdr
ft t n o
where we have s t a n d a r d time o r d e r i n g on the right
and the reverse order o n the left. In view of the positiv-
ity of b o t h H x (t) a n d H2(t) this can only by realized
under exceptional circumstances. T h e H u m p t y -
D u m p t y problem is then: F o r which £?(0) a n d H j (r) is
it possible at all? T h e r e are, of course, two very i m p o r -
tant rules in this game, namely (i) only real physical
interactions are considered, a n d (ii) over-idealizations
are not allowed.
4. Spin Coherence in a Stern-Gerlach Interferometer
M a y b e part of the evolutionary changes can be un-
d o n e at least? Consistent with rule (i) we ask m o r e
specifically: C a n the t w o partial b e a m s of a Stern-Ger-
* If you don't have a copy of Mother Goose at home, you
can look up the Humpty-Dumpty riddle in [2] and [3].
[1] B.-G. Englert, J. Schwinger, and M. O. Scully, Found.
Phys. 18,1045 (1988).
[2] J. Schwinger, M. O. Scully, and B.-G. Englert, Z. Phys.
D 10, 135 (1988).
lach a p p a r a t u s (SGA) be reunited with such precision
that the initial spin state is recovered? This p r o b l e m of
constructing a S G interferometer has been studied
some time ago by Schwinger, Scully, a n d myself [1, 2];
a gedanken experiment based on a f u n c t i o n i n g device
was also analyzed [3], It is f o u n d that one needs three
m o r e S G A s for the beam reunion. Ideally, the four
SGAs would be perfectly identical. With d u e respect
to rule (ii), however, we have to ask how large a mis-
match between the SGAs can be tolerated. T w o rele-
vant quantities are the net transverse m o m e n t u m
transferred to either partial beam a n d their net trans-
verse displacement, measured by
Ap = \dtF(t), Az = - jdtF(t)t/m,
where F(t) is the force on the u p - c o m p o n e n t , for in-
stance, p r o d u c e d by the inhomogeneity of the mag-
netic field. Thus, Ap and Az are properties of the
macroscopic SGAs; the deviations f r o m the ideal
values Ap = 0, Az = 0 are resulting f r o m the lack of
control over the SGAs. It turns out that to m a i n t a i n
spin coherence one must, at least, ensure t h a t
(5z Ap/h)2 + (bp Az/h)2 <§ 1
holds, where 5z and 5p are the n a t u r a l spreads of the
beam prior to entering the first SGA. Therefore, one
can tolerate only such variations in the m a g n e t i c field
that b o t h | Az | h/bp and | Ap | h/bz, with the con-
sequence
| Az 11Ap| h
h bz bp
In s u m m a r y , this states that the macroscopic magnetic
field must be controlled with sub-microscopic preci-
sion. It won't be easy.
Acknowledgement
It is a great pleasure to dedicate these r e m a r k s to
E. C. G. S u d a r s h a n whose interest in irreversible q u a n -
tal evolution is on record [4], I am grateful for the
valuable insights gained in discussions with the co-
a u t h o r s of the H u m p t y - D u m p t y p a p e r s [ 1 - 3 ] , J.
Schwinger and M . O . Scully, as well as with G.
S ü ß m a n n a n d I. Bialynicki-Birula. This w o r k was p a r -
tially s u p p o r t e d by the Office of N a v a l Research.
[3] M. O. Scully, B.-G. Englert, and J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev.
A 40, 1775 (1989).
[4] E. C. G. Sudarshan, C. B. Chiu, and V. Gorini, Phys. Rev.
D 18, 2914 (1978).