---
author:
- 'C.S. Gerving, T.M. Hoang, B.J. Land, M. Anquez, C.D. Hamley, and M.S. Chapman'
bibliography:
- 'QPref.bib'
title: 'Non-equilibrium dynamics of an unstable quantum pendulum: Supplementary Information'
---

In this Supplementary Information, we provide an overview of the calculation methods used to compare the experimental results to theory and discuss the effect of spin impurities in the initial state.

Second Quantized Calculations
=============================

Exact quantum calculations
--------------------------

The first calculation method is the exact second quantized form of the Hamiltonian. The second quantized form operates on a Fock basis represented by $| N_1,N_0,N_{-1} \rangle$ where $N_i$ is the number of particles in the $m_f$ state given in the index. The spin mixing Hamiltonian conserves both the total atom number $N=N_1+N_0+N_{-1}$ and the magnetization $M=N_1-N_{-1}$. The Hamiltonian in this basis is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Hamilton}
    H_{SMA} &=& \lambda [(
    \hat{N}_{1} - \hat{N}_{-1})^2
    + (2  \hat{N}_{0}-1) (\hat{N}_{1}+ \hat{N}_{-1})   \nonumber\\
    & &~~+ 2 \hat{a}_{0}^\dag \hat{a}_{0}^\dag \hat{a}_{1} \hat{a}_{-1}
    + 2 \hat{a}_{1}^\dag \hat{a}_{-1}^\dag \hat{a}_{0} \hat{a}_{0}] \nonumber\\
    & &~~+q(\hat{N}_{1}+ \hat{N}_{-1}).\end{aligned}$$ Similar to Ref. @Law98 [@Diener06; @Mias08; @Chen09; @Heinze10], we write the Hamiltonian in a Fock basis of $N$, $M$, and $k$, where $N_0=N-2k$. $k$ represents the number of pairs of atoms that have evolved from the $m_f=0$ state via spin-mixing. In matrix form operating on the vector of $k$ coefficients this can be written: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BTriDiagonal}
\lefteqn{\tilde{H}_{k,k'} =} \nonumber \\
& & \{ \lambda M^2 + 2 \lambda k(2(N-2k)-1) + q (2k+|M|) \} \delta_{k,k'} \nonumber \\
 &+& 2 \lambda \{ (k'+1) \sqrt{(N-2k')(N-2k'-1)} \delta_{k,k'+1} \nonumber \\
 &+& k'\sqrt{(N-2k'+1)(N-2k'+2)} \delta_{k,k'-1} \}.\end{aligned}$$

where $\lambda = \frac{c_{2}}{2} \int d\textbf{r} \left|\phi (\textbf{r})\right|^{4}$, $q = \mu_B^2 B_z^2 / \left(\hbar^2 E_{HFS} \right)$, $c_{2}$ is the spin-dependent collisional interaction strength, and $E_{HFS}$ is the ground state hyperfine splitting. $\lambda$ and $q$ characterize the inter-spin and Zeeman energies respectively. This produces a tridiagonal matrix which can be exactly solved or numerically integrated. In our simulation we numerically integrate since the magnetic field and spinor energy hence $q$ and $\lambda$ vary in time. The value for $q(t)$ is modeled from experimental measurements of the magnetic field using microwave spectroscopy. $\lambda$ varies with the atom number as $N^{-3/5}$.[^1] The simplest way to account for this in the dynamical simulations is to make $\lambda$ a function of time. Since $N$ decays approximately exponentially with atom loss, the value for $\lambda(t)$ is estimated from population dynamics and then scaled according to the condensate lifetime. This simple model captures much of the early dynamics, but does not produce as much damping as observed experimentally.

Quantum Monte Carlo
-------------------

A more rigorous calculation of the effects of atom loss is to use a quantum Monte Carlo simulation. The quantum Monte Carlo is implemented similar to Refs. @PhysRevA.46.4363 [@carmichael1993open; @Tan99]. The atoms are assumed to be lost one at a time and the process of losing an atom effectively measures its $m_f$ state and so the collapse operators are simply related to the annihilation operators for the modes of the condensate. The numerical integration of the $k$ coefficients is performed with an effective Hamiltonian, $$\begin{aligned}
    H_{eff} &=&  H_{SMA} -\frac{{i}}{2} \sum_{i}{C_i^\dag C_i^{\textcolor{white}{\dag}}} \nonumber \\
    &=& H_{SMA} -\frac{{i}}{2\tau} \hat{N}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_i = \sqrt{1/\tau} \,\hat{a}_i$ are the collapse operators for each mode ($i=-1,0,1$) and $\tau$ is the condensate lifetime. During the time interval $\Delta t$ of the numerical integration each atom has a probability $e^{-\Delta t/\tau}$ of remaining. For each atom a random number in the range 0 to 1 is generated to stochastically determine how many atoms to annihilate in each mode. If this number is greater than $e^{-\Delta t/\tau}$, then the appropriate collapse operator is applied to the state vector. The number of atoms for each mode is given by $\langle \hat{N}_i \rangle$. After the collapse operators have been applied the $k$ coefficients are renormalized and the next step of the numerical integration is performed with updated values for $N$ and $M$. Results are obtained from the quantum Monte Carlo simulation by taking the average of quantum expectation values from many runs with the same initial conditions but a uniquely seeded sequence of random numbers to determine the annihilation probabilities. In effect, the results of the quantum Monte Carlo simulation are the average of many quantum trajectories.

At first glance the quantum Monte Carlo is a daunting task since in general it should be necessary to use a basis spanning every possible value of $N(t)$, $M(t)$, and $k(t)$ which scales as $N^3$. However the action of the collapse operators shifts the state vector from $N(t)$ and $M(t)$ to $N(t+\Delta t)$ and $M(t+\Delta t)$ while modifying the $k$ coefficients in a well characterized way. At any given step of the calculation there is only one value for $N$ and $M$. So for any step of the calculation the basis is proportional to $N(t)$ and is completely described with the current values of $N$, $M$, and the complex coefficients for the $k$ index.

Mean Field Calculations
=======================

Semi-classical simulations
--------------------------

To make connections with the mean-field theory, we use a semi-classical technique together with quasi-probability distributions (QPD) to regain the quantum statistics. The mean-field order parameter is represented by a complex vector $(\zeta_1,\zeta_0,\zeta_{-1})^T$ where $\zeta_i$ represents the amplitude and phase of the classical field for the mode associated with the $m_f$ state given in the index. A mean field analysis of the spin Hamiltonian @Ho98 [@Ohmi98; @Stenger99] produces the dynamical equations @Pu99:

$$\begin{aligned}
    i \hbar \dot{\zeta}_1^{\textcolor{white}{*}} &=& E_1 \zeta_1^{\textcolor{white}{*}} +
        c [(\rho_1 + \rho_0 - \rho_{-1})\zeta_1^{\textcolor{white}{*}} + \zeta_0^2 \zeta_{-1}^*] \\
    i \hbar \dot{\zeta}_{0^{\textcolor{white}{*}}} &=& E_{0} \zeta_{0}^{\textcolor{white}{*}} +
        c [(\rho_{1} + \rho_{-1})\zeta_{0}^{\textcolor{white}{*}} + 2 \zeta_1^{\textcolor{white}{*}} \zeta_{-1}^{\textcolor{white}{*}} \zeta_{0}^*] \\
    i \hbar \dot{\zeta}_{-1}^{\textcolor{white}{*}} &=& E_{-1}^{\textcolor{white}{*}} \zeta_{-1} +
        c [(\rho_{-1} + \rho_0 - \rho_{1})\zeta_{-1}^{\textcolor{white}{*}} + \zeta_0^2 \zeta_{1}^*]~~~~\end{aligned}$$

where $c = 2 N \lambda$, $\rho_i \equiv N_i/N = |\zeta_i|^2$ is the fractional population of the $m_f=i$ component, and $E_i$ is the magnetic field energy for each mode.

A convenient parameterization of the order parameter is given by $$\begin{aligned}
    \zeta_1 &=& \sqrt{\frac{1-\rho_0+m}{2}} e^{{i}\frac{\theta_s+\theta_m}{2}} \nonumber \\
    \zeta_0 &=& \sqrt{\rho_0} \nonumber \\
    \zeta_{-1} &=& \sqrt{\frac{1-\rho_0-m}{2}} e^{{i}\frac{\theta_s-\theta_m}{2}} \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta_m = \theta_1-\theta_{-1}$ is the magnetization or Larmor precession phase, $\theta_s = \theta_1+\theta_{-1}-2\theta_0$ is the spinor phase, and $m=(N_1-N_{-1})/N$ is the fractional magnetization.

Using this parameterization, the dynamical equations reduce to @Zhang05: $$\begin{aligned}
    \dot{\rho_0} &=& \frac{2 c}{\hbar} \rho_0 \sqrt{(1-\rho_0)^2 - m^2} \sin \theta_s \nonumber \\
    \dot{\theta_s} &=& -\frac{2 q}{\hbar} + \frac{2 c}{\hbar} \times \nonumber \\
    & &\left[ (1-2\rho_0) + \frac{(1-\rho_0)(1-2\rho_0)-m^2}
    {\sqrt{(1-\rho_0)^2 - m^2}} \cos \theta_s \right].\end{aligned}$$

$\rho_0$ and $\theta_s$ are canonically conjugate variables and the dynamical phase space is defined by the corresponding spin energy functional of the condensate: $$\begin{aligned}
    \mathcal{E} &=& \frac{c}{2} m^2
    + c \rho_0 \left[ (1-\rho_0) + \sqrt{(1-\rho_0)^2 - m^2} \cos \theta_s \right] \nonumber \\
    & &+ p m + q (1-\rho_0).\end{aligned}$$ $m$ and $\theta_m$ are also canonically conjugate variables. However, $\theta_m$ is cyclic because it does not appear in the energy functional, and thus $m$ is conserved.

### SU(3)

A spin-1 condensate can be described using the SU(3) symmetry group with the Cartesian dipole-quadrupole decomposition of the Lie algebra su(3) as a basis. There are three dipole (or angular momentum) operators $S_a$, and nine quadrupole operators $Q_{ab}$ which are moments of the quadrupole tensor ($\{a,b\} \in \{x,y,z\}$). Only five of quadrupole operators are linearly independent since the quadrupole tensor is symmetric and traceless. These operators are defined as @Carusotto04 [@Di10]: $$S_a = - i \hbar \epsilon_{abc} b_b^\dag b_c^{\textcolor{white}{\dag}}$$ $$Q_{ab} = - b_a^\dag b_b^{\textcolor{white}{\dag}} - b_b^\dag b_a^{\textcolor{white}{\dag}}  + \frac{2}{3} \delta_{ab} b_c^\dag b_c^{\textcolor{white}{\dag}}$$ summing over repeated indices where $$\begin{aligned}
b_x^\dag &=& \left(-a_{+1}^\dag+a_{-1}^\dag\right)/\sqrt{2} \nonumber \\
b_y^\dag &=& i\left(a_{+1}^\dag+a_{-1}^\dag\right)/\sqrt{2} \nonumber \\
b_z^\dag &=& a_0^\dag \nonumber\end{aligned}$$

In Figure 3 of the main text we depict an SU(2) subspace of this SU(3) as $\{S_x, Q_{yz},Q_{zz}\}$. Just as in @Hamley12, the exact subspace is $\{S_x, Q_{yz},(Q_{zz}-Q_{yy})\}$. However, our initial state of $m_f= 0$ makes the off-diagonal elements ($\propto\ \sqrt{N_1 N_{-1} }$) of $(Q_{zz}-Q_{yy})$ small and always average to zero over a Larmor precession cycle, so ignoring these terms $(Q_{zz}-Q_{yy})\approx \frac{3}{2} Q_{zz}$. Additionally, $Q_{zz}$ is linear with $N_0$ ( $Q_{zz} = \frac{2}{3}(N-3N_0)$), making for an easy mapping to $\rho_0 \equiv N_0/N$. For the initial state of all atoms in the $m_f=0$ level, $ |0,N,0\rangle$, we have the following expectation values for the variances: $\langle ( \Delta \hat{S}_x ) ^2 \rangle = \langle ( \Delta \hat{S}_y ) ^2 \rangle =\langle ( \Delta \hat{Q}_{xz} ) ^2 \rangle = \langle ( \Delta \hat{Q}_{yz} ) ^2 \rangle =N $

### Quasiprobability distributions

It is well known that the perfect $m_f=0$ state does not evolve from these mean-field equations. Some seeding is necessary. This seeding comes from the quantum noise of the initial Fock state, $|0,N,0\rangle$. In order to produce the necessary QPD, we note that the $|0,N,0\rangle$ Fock state is a minimum uncertainty coherent state with $S_x$, $Q_{yz}$, $S_y$, and $Q_{xz}$ all having an expectation value of zero and variance of $N$. Here, $S_a$ ($\{a\} \in \{x,y,z\}$) are the spin-1 dipole (or angular momentum) operators, and $Q_{ab}$ ($\{a,b\} \in \{x,y,z\}$) are moments of the spin-1 quadrupole (nematic) tensor. Generating a sample of random numbers for each of these distributions, we can then find values for the initial $\zeta_1$, $\zeta_0$, and $\zeta_{-1}$ (or $\rho_0$ and $\theta_s$) to plug into the spinor dynamical equations for the semi-classical simulation @Hamley12. The conversion equations are: $$\label{ChiPlus}
    \tan \chi_+ = -\frac{S_y + Q_{yz}}{S_x + Q_{xz}} \nonumber$$ $$\label{ChiMinus}
    \tan \chi_- = \frac{S_y - Q_{yz}}{S_x - Q_{xz}} \nonumber$$ $$\label{Rho0}
    \rho_0 = \frac{1}{2} + \sqrt{\frac{1}{4} -
    \frac{1}{8}\left(\left( \frac{S_x + Q_{xz}}{\cos \chi_+} \right)^2 +
    \left( \frac{S_x - Q_{xz}}{\cos \chi_-} \right)^2 \right)} \nonumber$$ $$\label{M}
    m = \rho_1 - \rho_{-1} = \frac{1}{8\rho_0}\left(\left( \frac{S_x + Q_{xz}}{\cos \chi_+} \right)^2 -  \left( \frac{S_x - Q_{xz}}{\cos \chi_-} \right)^2 \right) \nonumber$$ where $\chi_\pm = \theta_{\pm1} - \theta_0 = \frac{\theta_s \pm \theta_m}{2}$

Each of these sample wavefunctions is numerically integrated using the dynamical equations to yield $\rho_0(t)$ and $\theta_s(t)$, which are then plotted on the semi-classical phase space as in Fig. 2 in the main paper.

Effect of Initial State Impurities
==================================

![<span>**Analysis of impurities.**</span> Upper bound from direct measure of impurities at 15 ms of evolution, gray shaded region. Measurement of first minimum of $\rho_0$, orange shaded area. Simulation with polluting atoms for a spinor dynamical rate of $c/(2 \pi \hbar)=$ 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, 6.5, 7.0, 7.5, and 8.0 Hz (blue lines top to bottom). The values between 7-8 Hz are most consistent with the long term dynamics and are shaded blue.<span data-label="Pollution"></span>](PollutionPlot)

In this section, we discuss the effects of spin impurities in the initial state preparation, and the impurity limits determined by the experiment. The experiment uses condensates containing $4 \times 10^4$ atoms, initialized in the $f=1,m_f=0$ hyperfine state with measured impurities in the $m_f= \pm 1$ states (limited by the atom counting noise @Hamley12) below $<30$ atoms or 0.1% of the total population.

Spin evolution from the metastable state is a parametric amplification process whose early-time dynamics are exponentially sensitive to initial population in the $m_F= \pm1$ states @Klempt10. Hence, any impurities in the initial state preparation will certainly effect the timescale of the initial pause and first oscillation minimum. Importantly though, as shown in @Diener06, the overall character of the evolution, including the intricate evolution of the quantum spin fluctuations, is robust to impurities even up to the few percent level, which is an order of magnitude larger than our measured bound.

In order to analyze the quantitative effect of impurities, we perform simulations with two types of impurities: an initial non-zero magnetization and an initial non-zero number of pairs of $m_f=\pm1$ atoms. The results of these calculations are nearly identical for the same number of impurity atoms with the non-zero magnetization results shown in Figure \[Pollution\] for various levels of impurities and for a range of spinor dynamical rates determined from the long time evolution of the experiment (blue shaded region) as well as several other values (blue lines). These are compared to experimental measurements in order to ascertain an upper bound on the impurities in the experiment. The first time at which the atom populations are measured is $15~\mathrm{ms}$ after the beginning of the magnetic quench, which provides an upper bound on the impurities present at $t=0$. The population in the $m_F = \pm1$ states at this time is $<30$ atoms, which is shown as the gray shaded region in Fig. \[Pollution\]. Also plotted in Fig. \[Pollution\] is the measured time that the $m_f=0$ population reaches a minimum value. This time is exponentially sensitive to impurity atoms and, for both magnetization and pair impurities, reduces similarly for the same number of impurity atoms. The experimental measurement of this time plus and minus one standard deviation is shown as the orange shaded region. The shaded regions overlap only in the limit of very little pollution of the initial state. The overlap region is consistent with no pollution and is inconsistent with pollution of the magnetization of greater than 5-10 atoms and pair pollution of greater than 3-5 pairs of $\pm1$ atoms, even for significantly different spinor dynamical rates than the evolution suggests. While it is conceivable to trade off between spinor dynamical rate and pollution, the dynamics of the quadrature squeezing measurement reported previously @Hamley12 indicates that the value of spinor dynamical rate estimated from the long term population dynamics is more consistent with the available data. The analysis presented here along with the non-Gaussian nature of the fluctuations and the squeezing dynamics reported previously make an effective argument for the initial state preparation producing a very pure $m_f=0$ state.

[^1]: This scaling law is determined by integrating the Thomas-Fermi density profile of a condensate confined in a three dimensional harmonic trap.

{'source': 'arXiv_out/1205'}