Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: the neutron lifetime @xmath1 is an important parameter in tests of the standard model of particle physics . it also affects the rate of helium production in the early universe and the energy production in the sun . the current particle data group ( pdg ) average is @xmath1 = 880.1@xmath2 1.1 s @xcite . however , the value of one experiment @xcite , which reported the lowest measurement uncertainty of @xmath3 0.8 s , is @xmath3 3.5 s lower than the bulk of other data in the pdg collection @xcite , that are grouped consistently around 882.0 s ( @xmath2 1.0 s ) @xcite . therefore the actual uncertainty of @xmath1 to be used in cosmological calculations may be of the order of 2 seconds or more . as a possible way of advancing this field , storage of polarized ultracold neutrons ( ucns ) in a magnetic trap has been pioneered by paul _ _ @xcite and is currently being pursued vigorously by several groups worldwide @xcite . one advantage of magnetic ucn storage versus storage in material bottles , the method used in a number of previous neutron lifetime measurements @xcite , is the potential absence of losses due to effects other than @xmath4-decay . there are no wall losses , the slow loss due to quasi - stable orbits is serious but believed to be manageable by avoiding regular orbits @xcite , and the potential loss due to depolarization , defined as spin flip relative to the local field direction , is commonly assumed to be negligible . for systems using permanent magnets the question of gradual demagnetization over time appears to have found little attention so far .    until recently ucn depolarization estimates @xcite were based on majorana s quasi - classical result of 1932 @xcite for a free polarized particle with magnetic moment moving with constant velocity vector through a non - uniform static magnetic field of specific form . only its spin state was assumed to be affected by the magnetic field . this model predicted a depolarization probability @xmath5 for one passage through the field . this value decreases exponentially with the adiabaticity parameter @xmath6 , where @xmath7 is the frequency of rotation of the field as seen from the reference frame of the moving particle , in the critical region where the field rotates fastest while the magnitude @xmath8 of the magnetic field may be small . @xmath9 is the larmor frequency . for magnetic field parameters as currently used or proposed for ucn storage , @xmath10 would be of order @xmath11 , thus immeasurably small . recently , walstrom _ et al . _ @xcite pointed out that the values of @xmath10 for confined , rather than freely moving , neutrons are much larger . for a ucn moving along a vertical path in the storage system proposed by them , @xmath10 was estimated to be in the range @xmath12 to @xmath13 . this is much larger than the majorana value but still negligible in any actual or projected neutron lifetime experiment .    using a simplified model of magnetic field distribution we extend the theory of @xcite to include arbitrary ucn motion with both vertical and horizontal velocity components , confined to the vertical space between upper and lower turning points that depend only on the ucn energy for vertical motion . in our model ( introduced in sec . [ sec : ii ] ) the magnetic field magnitude @xmath8 is uniform within any horizontal plane , so there is no horizontal component of magnetic force . therefore the neutron moves with constant velocity in the horizontal @xmath14- and @xmath15- directions . we show that @xmath10 could reach a level approaching the tolerance limit for a high precision neutron lifetime measurement unless precautions are taken . as is well known the most critical issue is the choice of a stabilization field perpendicular to the magnetic mirror field , of sufficient strength so that the depolarization rate will be negligible in a neutron lifetime experiment . our model field is close to the `` bathtub configuration '' of ref .  @xcite but the lateral confinement of ucns , achieved there by double curvature of the magnetic mirror , is simulated differently . the magnetic mirror is horizontal and extends to infinity in both lateral dimensions . however , one could imagine the presence of ideal vertical mirrors reflecting the ucns back and forth in the horizontal directions without any change in the analysis . more specifically , we use an infinite ideal planar halbach array @xcite , which is free of the field ripples present in actual realizations @xcite . in the design of ref . @xcite , the ripples are important only within about 1 mm of the surface of the magnets . this region is not reached by the ucns whose maximum energy ( for vertical motion ) is @xmath345 nev ( for the parameters in @xcite ) , since they reverse their flight direction before entering this zone . using this model of field distribution we have also studied the problem of depolarization of ucns in reflection from a non - magnetic mirror immersed in a non - uniform magnetic field . this question is important as a mechanism that may limit the efficiency of ucn polarizers based on transmission through a magnetic field . for a sufficiently strong field , neutrons in only one spin state can pass the field to proceed to the experiment . otherwise they are reflected . however , following the polarizer the ucns are usually reflected on trap or guide walls exposed to the stray field of the polarizer and thus may lose their 100% polarization if the reflection process involves depolarization . moreover , a possible depolarization on non - magnetic trap walls in a magnetic field is highly relevant in measurements of the neutron decay asymmetry parameter @xmath0 using ultracold neutrons @xcite . this problem has first been investigated by pokotilovski @xcite who used an adaptation of the majorana model to the reflection geometry . in the present work we study certain aspects of this problem by imagining a horizontal lossless non - magnetic ucn mirror inserted at a variable height into the magneto - gravitational storage space . the net depolarization per bounce on this mirror will be compared to the depolarization for one bounce in the magnetic field in the absence of the mirror to obtain an estimate for the depolarization effect of the mirror . the topic of ucn depolarization in magnetic storage or in mirror reflection in a magnetic field raises interesting questions of quantum interpretation . fig .  3 of ref . @xcite and our fig . [ fig : two ] ( to be discussed in sec . [ sec : iii.b.2 ] ) show the probability for the neutron to be in the spin - flipped state ( relative to the field direction ) as a function of position of the neutron as it moves through the magnetic storage space . the curve is strongly peaked at the critical level where the field rotates fastest in the reference frame of the moving neutron . this behavior is the same as displayed by the majorana result @xcite ( where it is more difficult to deduce since the author used a quantization axis fixed in space rather than rotating together with the field ) . in a semi - classical interpretation , as the ucn starts moving from one turning point , say the upper one , down toward the lower one , the spin vector rotates away from the quantization axis ( which was chosen parallel to the local magnetic field vector in ref . it reaches a certain maximum angle around the critical zone ; then this rotation is reversed and ends at a much smaller value at the next turning point for ucn motion . this indicates that an analyzer of neutron polarization placed at different heights would show a variation of depolarization by many orders of magnitude ( @xmath16 8 decades for the example shown in fig .  3 of ref . @xcite ) over the vertical range of the storage space . the depolarization rate expected for an actual ucn magnetic storage experiment , without any polarization analyzer intersecting the beam , is determined by the current of ucns in the `` wrong '' spin state , i.e. of high - field seekers leaving the system at the lower and upper turning points while the `` correct '' ( high - field repelled ) state is reflected and returns to the storage space . this association of net depolarization with loss currents is consistent with the following interpretation : at the turning points a measurement is performed ( in the sense of quantum mechanics ) , conceptually by neutron detectors placed just below the bottom and just above the top of the storage region for a given ucn energy for vertical motion . these detectors would intersect the ucns in the `` wrong '' spin state as they exit the storage system . in the copenhagen interpretation , such a measurement ( actual or hypothetical ) resets the ucn wave function to a pure state of high - field repelled neutrons . the spin state then evolves as described by the spin - dependent schrdinger equation ( or its semi - classical analog ) until the next `` measurement '' takes place at the following turning point and the process of wave collapse and wave evolution is repeated . alternative interpretations are conceivable but we will use the picture outlined above .    following ref . @xcite we use the wentzel - kramers - brillouin ( wkb ) approximation to solve the spin - dependent schrdinger equation . this appears justified since the spatial variation of field variables ( gravitational potential and magnetic field * b * ) is much slower than the variation of ucn wave function . the scales are of order cm for gravity and * b * , and of order @xmath17 m or less for the neutron wavelength . we are aware of the fact that an exact treatment of ucn depolarization in magnetic storage may involve quantum electrodynamics since the moving neutron , in its reference frame , is affected by a time - dependent electromagnetic field , i.e. by low - energy photons . we will also neglect temporal fluctuations of the field due to mechanical vibrations or , if electromagnets are used for field generation , ac components of the current supply . we are not aware of any work on time - dependent effects of this kind in magnetic ucn storage . as it rotates in the ( @xmath18)-plane . its magnitude @xmath19 decreases exponentially with height @xmath20 and is represented by the arrow length using a log scale . the angle @xmath21 of the halbach field is also shown . the superimposed stabilization field @xmath22 in the @xmath14-direction increases slowly with @xmath20 as in ref . @xcite and is symbolized by the crosses of variable size.,width=291 ]    we consider a halbach array @xcite of permanent magnets of thickness @xmath23 covering the infinite @xmath24-plane , where the @xmath15-axis points to the right , the @xmath20-axis points up ( against gravity ) and the @xmath14-axis toward the front ( fig . [ fig : one ] ) . we choose @xmath25 at the upper magnet surface and will closely follow the description in ref . @xcite , apart from this choice of system of coordinates . this choice will allow us to use the pauli matrices in their standard form .    in the limit of infinitely fine division of magnet blocks in the @xmath15-direction , let the magnetization vector have a constant magnitude @xmath26 but , viewed along the positive @xmath14 direction , rotate clockwise in the @xmath27-plane with periodicity @xmath28 in @xmath15-direction :    @xmath29    using a complex quantity @xmath30 , eq . ( [ ( 1 ) ] ) can also be written @xmath31 . @xmath32 and @xmath33 are unit vectors . we choose the same parameters as for the design in ref . @xcite , thus @xmath34 = 5.2 cm and @xmath35 @xmath36 . the special feature of the halbach system is that it generates a magnetic field only on one side of the magnets , namely in the half space @xmath37 for clockwise sense of rotation . this halbach field is @xmath38 or , in complex notation , @xmath39 . @xmath40 is determined by the remanent field @xmath41 and the block depth @xmath23 = 2.54 cm . the magnitude of @xmath42 , @xmath43 , only depends on the vertical coordinate @xmath20 . the field distribution is shown schematically in fig . [ fig : one ] .    in the actual scheme @xcite , the uniform rotation is replaced by dividing the rotation period @xmath34 into four blocks , each of length @xmath44 and with the same magnetization @xmath45 , but with an angle of 90@xmath46 between the directions of @xmath47 in adjacent blocks ( schematically represented as @xmath48 . alternative designs are in the form of vertical or horizontal cylinders where the magnets are assembled along the cylindrical surface : in a dipolar way in @xcite , with adjacent blocks magnetized in the peripheral direction with equal magnetic poles facing each other ( schematically : @xmath49 ) . in project @xcite a cylindrical octupole halbach magnet is used where 32 blocks are distributed uniformly over the perimeter and the direction of magnetization advances by 56.25@xmath50 from one block to the next . in these systems the magnitude @xmath8 of magnetic field increases sharply near the magnetic wall . a superconducting quadrupole system of magnetic ucn storage for a neutron lifetime experiment is used in ref . @xcite while in ref . @xcite the ucn are stored in superfluid helium using a ioffe system with horizontal electromagnetic quadrupole . for a quadrupole the field magnitude increases linearly with radial distance from the axis . at least one magnetic end cap is required for all cylindrical systems ; on the upper side of vertical systems gravitational confinement can be used . the field distribution for systems using permanent magnets with magnetization direction advancing in steps from block to block may be expressed as a fourier series , as in eq . ( 7 ) of ref .  @xcite . the first term of the expansion is dominant and has the form ( [ ( 2 ) ] ) with constant @xmath51 somewhat smaller than @xmath52 . for the planar quadrupole halbach system the reduction factor is @xmath53 @xcite and the field in the lower half space @xmath54 no longer vanishes . the higher fourier components generate a ripple field in the @xmath27-plane , which is significant within @xmath55 mm from the magnet surface ( and even induces a logarithmic divergence in the field gradient within @xmath56 m ) . but this space is not accessible to the ucns if we choose a spectrum soft enough to ensure that all neutrons approaching the magnet from above are reflected back up before reaching the ripple zone . we use the value of 0.64 t for the magnetic field at a safe distance 2 mm , which corresponds to @xmath57 t at the surface . thus , for the halbach array generated field we assume the form ( [ ( 2 ) ] ) with @xmath57 t and strict confinement of the vector @xmath42 in the @xmath27-plane . we ignore the small field ripple in the @xmath14-direction considered in @xcite since it also decays strongly with distance from the magnet surface . these small perturbations are not expected to affect the depolarization results obtained below in a significant way . our value of @xmath58 is @xmath59% lower than the design value of @xcite to take into account partial demagnetization , over time , of the ndfeb permanent magnets exposed to large fields . a common feature of the various magnetic ucn storage schemes is the requirement of a bias field @xmath60 perpendicular to the main field . it ensures that the field magnitude @xmath61 exceeds a certain minimum value everywhere in the storage volume , especially at critical positions where the field rotates fast in the neutron s moving reference frame . the main purpose of the present work is to provide an estimate of this minimum field for typical field parameters , as those in ref . @xcite where the field @xmath60 also serves the purpose of guiding the decay electrons out of the storage space to a detector as a way to monitor the neutron decay rate in real time . @xmath60 is generated by a toroidal electromagnet , and it is oriented along the longitudinal direction of the `` bathtub surface '' which corresponds to the @xmath14-direction in our model with a planar , rather than curved halbach magnet . we use the same @xmath20-dependence as in ref . @xcite , @xmath62 with @xmath63 m. the magnitude of @xmath64 is uniform on a horizontal plane , and since the halbach field magnitude @xmath19 is uniform for given height @xmath20 no horizontal force acts on the stored ucn .    in ref . @xcite a value of 0.05 to 0.1 t was proposed for @xmath65 . we will consider field strengths down to the mt range since this range seems to be closer to the bias field used in ref . @xcite . in this latter work the value used was not given but it was estimated , on the basis of the majorana formula , that a minimum field @xmath66 of @xmath30.001 t was required for their neutron lifetime measurement . our analysis of the evolution of spin - flip probability for ucns moving in our model magnetic field distribution differs from that of ref .  @xcite as follows . it is not restricted to purely vertical motion but assumes that the ucns can also have arbitrary horizontal velocity components @xmath67 and @xmath68 . @xmath67 and @xmath68 are constant since neither gravity nor the net magnetic field @xmath69 of our model exert a horizontal force on the neutron . as noted earlier , both @xmath19 and @xmath66 are uniform at given height @xmath20 , and @xmath42 is perpendicular to @xmath60 , thus @xmath70 depends on @xmath20 only . as a result , the magnetic force , which is determined by the gradient of @xmath71 , has no horizontal components and the equation of motion is separable in three dimensions . we use three different methods of analysis , both for purely magnetic confinement of ucns with arbitrary 3d velocity components , and for a system involving a non - magnetic mirror placed into our model magnetic field distribution : ( a ) in sec . [ sec : iii ] a quantum approach using the wkb approximation , ( b ) in sec . [ sec : iv ] a quasi - classical approximation and ( c ) in sec . [ sec : v ] direct numerical integration of the equations of motion . in the quantum approach the stationary spin - dependent schrdinger equation is solved using the wkb approximation , extending the method of ref . @xcite to 3d motion . the semi - classical majorana method @xcite which was adapted to magnetically confined ucns in ref . @xcite will also be extended to 3d . using both methods we will also analyze ucn reflection on a non - magnetic mirror in a magnetic field . in sec . [ sec : v ] we will show that some analytic results can be obtained as well by direct numerical integration of the wave equation for the spin - flipped component of the wave function . this is only feasible because the magnetically trapped ucns have relatively long wavelengths , in the @xmath17 m range , so the number of wave oscillations for the entire integration path is not too large . the wave function for a ucn moving in the magneto - gravitational field of the trap is a linear superposition of the two eigenstates of the magnetic moment interaction hamiltonian    @xmath72    where @xmath73 is the neutron magnetic moment in terms of the nuclear magneton @xmath74 j / t , @xmath75 is the pauli spin operator , and @xmath76 is the local magnetic field . the two eigenstates @xmath77 and @xmath78 of @xmath79 satisfy the eigenvalue equations    @xmath80    and correspond , respectively , to neutron spin parallel to @xmath81 with spin energy @xmath82 , and to antiparallel spin with energy @xmath83 . these spin eigenfunctions are obtained by spin rotation from the @xmath14-axis to the direction of @xmath76 through angles @xmath84 and @xmath85 . the polar field angle is @xmath86 , where @xmath87 is due to the bias field @xmath88 and @xmath89 is the magnitude of the halbach field @xmath42 . the azimuthal angle in the @xmath27-plane is @xmath90 . ( [ ( 2 ) ] ) shows that for the halbach field configuration    @xmath91    thus @xmath85 depends only on @xmath15 ( not on @xmath20 or @xmath14 ) , while @xmath84 depends only on @xmath20 . these properties will simplify the analysis considerably . exact correspondence between the system of coordinates @xmath92 used here and the system @xmath93 used in ref . @xcite ( with @xmath94 pointing up ) is established if we add the constant @xmath95 to the right - hand side of eq . ( [ ( 5 ) ] ) .    performing the spin rotation through angles @xmath84 and @xmath85 we obtain for the spin basis vectors @xcite with quantization axis along @xmath81    @xmath96    where @xmath97 , @xmath98 and @xmath99 . we write the dependence of the wave function on position and spin in the form    @xmath100    where we have used the superscript ( 3 ) to indicate that @xmath101 are functions of the three space coordinates while the corresponding functions @xmath102 and @xmath103 , introduced below , depend on @xmath20 only . @xmath104 satisfies the eigenvalue equation @xmath105 \chi\ ] ] for a neutron of mass @xmath106 with constant total energy @xmath107 moving in a uniform gravitational field of magnitude @xmath108 and a non - uniform magnetic field @xmath109 . using subscripts to denote partial differentiation , the laplace operator acting on the wave function gives @xmath110 where for the second and third term the indicated permutations are performed . the basis vectors for quantization along the fixed @xmath14-axis can be expressed in terms of the basis vectors @xmath77 and @xmath78 : @xmath111 using eq . ( [ ( 10 ) ] ) and noting that , from ( [ ( 5 ) ] ) , @xmath112 , @xmath113 , @xmath114 and also @xmath115 , we obtain @xmath116 as in ref . @xcite we will use the wkb approximation @xcite and keep only those terms in eq . ( [ ( 9 ) ] ) that contain the derivatives of the field variables ( @xmath84 and @xmath85 ) in lowest order since those change on the scale of centimeters while the waves in real space , @xmath117 and @xmath118 , vary on the micrometer scale , i.e. @xmath119 times faster . this implies that all second derivatives of @xmath77 and @xmath78 are dropped , along with other small terms . ( using the numerical integration described in sec . [ sec : v ] we have performed test runs where the small terms were retained . the results were the same within the precision of numerical integration . ) assuming that the ucn started out from a pure ( + ) spin state and keeping only the dominant terms in eq . ( [ ( 9 ) ] ) we obtain @xmath120 \chi^- , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where we have used @xmath121 , @xmath122 , and the fact that in practice @xmath123 . the functions in real space multiplying @xmath77 and @xmath78 can be simplified by noting that the @xmath15 and @xmath14 dependence of @xmath117 has the plane wave form @xmath124 and @xmath118 is proportional to @xmath125 . the wave numbers @xmath126 and @xmath127 are constant and @xmath128 represents a bloch - wave modulation due to the periodicity of the halbach field . in practice , @xmath126 and @xmath127 are of order @xmath17m@xmath129 , thus much larger than @xmath130 and @xmath131 , both of which are of order @xmath36 .    thus we can factor eq . ( [ ( 12 ) ] ) in the form @xmath132\chi^+   \\ & +   \mathrm{e}^{-ikx}[\beta '' - ( k_x^2+k_z^2)\beta - ( \theta'\alpha'+kk_x\alpha\sin\theta)]\chi^-\},\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] simplifying the notation . in eq . ( [ ( 13 ) ] ) and henceforth , @xmath102 and @xmath103 stand for the @xmath20-dependent parts of the wave function only , and differentiation with respect to @xmath20 is denoted by primes . we also drop the subscript @xmath20 from the @xmath20-component of the wave vector . thus , @xmath133 and @xmath134 . the terminology @xmath135 conforms to that used in ref . @xcite where motion in horizontal directions was not taken into account in the depolarization calculations .    inserting eq . ( [ ( 13 ) ] ) into the eigenvalue equation ( [ ( 8) ] ) gives @xcite two coupled equations , one for spinor @xmath77 ( i.e. , for low - field seeking ucns with spin parallel to @xmath136 , which can be stored ) and the other for @xmath78 ( i.e. , for the fraction of ucns whose spin has flipped relative to @xmath136 and which therefore can escape from the trap ; the probability of flipping twice is negligible ) : @xmath137+mgy\alpha+|\mu_{\textrm{n}}|b\alpha\ ] ] and @xmath138 \nonumber \\ & + mgy\beta-|\mu_n|b\beta.\end{aligned}\ ] ] in the framework of the wkb approximation , the solution of ( [ ( 14 ) ] ) is @xcite @xmath139 where @xmath140 @xmath141 is the magnitude of the @xmath20-component of local wave vector for the storable ( + ) spin state ( parallel to @xmath81 ) and @xmath142 is that for the ( @xmath143 ) spin state .    in eq . ( [ ( 17 ) ] ) , @xmath144 is the greatest height a neutron of energy @xmath107 and given @xmath126 and @xmath127 would achieve in the gravitational field if the magnetic field were switched off . in eq . ( [ ( 16 ) ] ) , @xmath145 is the phase angle , for the + spin state , accumulated between the start of vertical motion and the position @xmath20 . the initial height @xmath146 for motion upward is assumed to be that of the lower turning point , thus @xmath147 , and for motion downward the initial level is taken at the upper turning point , @xmath148 . the additional + or @xmath143 sign in the argument of the exponential function in ( [ ( 16 ) ] ) , in front of @xmath149 , refers to this direction of the motion ; plus for upward and minus for downward , as in @xcite . the wkb wave function ( [ ( 16 ) ] ) is normalized to a constant particle flux @xmath150 in the @xmath20-direction . for the spin - flipped ucns , the flux in the @xmath20-direction is the measure of the probability of depolarization , as shown below . at the classical turning points , where @xmath151 , the wkb form ( [ ( 16 ) ] ) diverges and has to be replaced by the airy function , as shown in @xcite , but the wkb form is still valid almost all the way to the turning point , except for the last @xmath17 m or so , since it correctly represents the asymptotic behavior of the airy function in this region this is an important feature of the approximation used in ref . @xcite and in the present work . it is made more explicit as follows : the asymptotic form of the airy function in the region of real waves ( rather than the exponentially decaying wave on the other side ) is @xcite @xmath152 . \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] the wave number @xmath153 is determined by the local acceleration @xmath154 at the turning point @xmath146 , and @xmath155 . for upward motion the wkb wave approximation ( [ ( 16 ) ] ) for @xmath102 , which is valid between the turning points , is matched to the first term inside the braces of ( [ ( 19 ) ] ) , and for downward motion to the second term by adjusting the constant multiplying the airy function . it follows from eq . ( [ ( 15 ) ] ) that the wave function @xmath156 for the spin flipped component is determined by the inhomogeneous second - order differential equation @xmath157 having separated off the @xmath15 and @xmath14 dependence allows us to choose the same wkb form for @xmath103 as in ref . @xcite : @xmath158 where the function @xmath159 modulating the wkb wave represents the amplitude of spin flip . apart from the modulation @xmath159 , @xmath103 is constructed in the same way as @xmath102 . the phase accumulated since the start at a turning point ,    @xmath160    always has a larger magnitude than the phase @xmath161 for @xmath102 since @xmath162 is greater than @xmath163 ( except in zero magnetic field ) . summarizing , the governing equation for @xmath103 is the second - order differential equation @xmath164 \alpha(y),\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the right - hand side represents an inhomogeneous term and @xmath102 is given by eq . ( [ ( 16 ) ] ) while @xmath103 has the form @xmath165    in the second expression on the right - hand side of ( [ ( 23 ) ] ) we have carried out the differentiation of @xmath102 , using the wkb rule of considering the slow - varying terms as constant , with the result @xmath166 where the + sign applies to upward motion and the @xmath143 sign to downward motion . this replacement is valid except within a few @xmath17 m of the turning points . ( [ ( 23 ) ] ) is the same as eq . ( 28 ) of ref . @xcite except for the additional , @xmath126 dependent term on the right - hand side . it is present because we include motion with finite lateral momentum @xmath167 , whereas the analysis in ref . @xcite was restricted to the special case @xmath168 . we will show that this new term makes the major contribution to ucn depolarization in magnetic storage . we also note that eq . ( [ ( 23 ) ] ) does not depend on @xmath127 , thus motion exactly along the @xmath14-direction does not induce depolarization . this is understandable since neutrons moving along the @xmath14-axis during the short periods of horizontal motion at the turning points move in a uniform @xmath81-field . on the other hand , in motion along the @xmath15-direction they are exposed to the strong field ripple due to the rotating halbach field . these features are expected to hold , on a qualitative basis , also for the `` bathtub system '' of ref . @xcite , where the direction perpendicular ( parallel ) to the curved halbach array corresponds to our @xmath14-axis ( @xmath15-axis ) . next we will solve eq . ( [ ( 23 ) ] ) to obtain the depolarization rate for ucn storage in our model field distribution .        we will first consider a neutron of given energy and fixed values of @xmath126 and @xmath127 , moving downward from the upper turning point @xmath169 . using the wkb rule , the second derivative @xmath170 is obtained from ( [ ( 24 ) ] ) as @xmath171 inserting @xmath172 and @xmath102 from ( [ ( 16 ) ] ) into eq . ( [ ( 23 ) ] ) gives @xmath173 \exp\big(-i\phi(y)\big),\ ] ] where @xmath174 and @xmath175 .    defining a function @xmath176 through @xmath177 we obtain from ( [ ( 26 ) ] ) @xmath178 \exp\big(-i\psi(y)\big),\ ] ] where @xmath179 . the phases @xmath180 and @xmath181 are fast - varying quantities , while the field variables @xmath182 and @xmath183 vary slowly with @xmath20 and will therefore be considered constant in all differentiations . in integrations , as needed to obtain @xmath176 from eq . ( [ ( 27 ) ] ) , this `` wkb rule '' directly corresponds to performing the integral of products of slow- and fast varying terms by parts and neglecting the second term which contains the derivative of the slow - varying factor . it has been shown numerically in ref . @xcite that for the parameters of magnetic ucn storage at hand this procedure gives approximations with precision in the range @xmath184 . thus we obtain from ( [ ( 27 ) ] ) @xmath185\exp(-i\psi')dy ' \nonumber \\ & = \int_{\psi_s}^\psi \frac{iu(y')+v(y')}{k_-+ k_+ } \exp(-i\psi ' ) d\psi ' \\ & =   \frac{i[iu(y ) + v(y)]}{k_-(y ) + k_+(y ) } \exp\big(-i\psi(y)\big ) . \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] the third step in ( [ ( 28 ) ] ) is an integration by parts , where only the leading term is kept . the lower limit of the @xmath20-integration in ( [ ( 28 ) ] ) is the upper turning point . carrying out the integration in the last step of eq . ( [ ( 28 ) ] ) we should expect a contribution from this lower limit of integration ( @xmath186 or @xmath187 ) . however , such a term does not appear in ( [ ( 28 ) ] ) for the following reasons : first we note that in the quantum treatment involving the airy function the turning `` point '' is blurred within a range of order @xmath17 m . second , as mentioned in sec . [ sec : i ] , we assume , as the authors of ref . @xcite did , that at a turning `` point '' ( here the region around @xmath169 ) the neutron starts out in a pure low - field seeking spin state ( + ) , i.e. from @xmath188 , @xmath189 . this implies that @xmath102 and the functions @xmath190 and @xmath176 , derived from @xmath191 and @xmath192 through eq . ( [ ( 23 ) ] ) , tend to 0 as @xmath193 ( in practice , for @xmath20 just a few @xmath17 m above the classical turning point ) . it was also mentioned earlier , that the wkb function used here for @xmath102 is just the asymptotic representation of the airy function @xmath194 which does satisfy the initial condition without any constant added since @xmath194 and @xmath195 vanish for @xmath193 . as a result , there is no lower - limit contribution to @xmath196 in ( [ ( 28 ) ] ) , and the same is true also for the functions @xmath159 and @xmath103 derived below by further integration ( in equations ( [ ( 29 ) ] ) and ( [ ( 32 ) ] ) ) . we can also argue that , due to the factor @xmath197 in @xmath198 ( defined following ( [ ( 26 ) ] ) ) , a wave containing a term derived from a finite integration constant in ( [ ( 28 ) ] ) would diverge at the endpoint @xmath199 of integration , where @xmath200 , and therefore must be zero , in the same way as in total reflection a wave increasing exponentially inside the medium must have amplitude zero . the singularity is avoided only by setting the integration constant in ( [ ( 28 ) ] ) equal to zero .    remembering the definition @xmath201 , we integrate eq . ( [ ( 28 ) ] ) once more to obtain @xmath202 in ( [ ( 29 ) ] ) , we have defined @xmath203 it follows from the definition of @xmath163 and @xmath162 in eq . ( [ ( 17 ) ] ) that @xmath204 depends only on the magnitude @xmath205 of the local magnetic field .    from the symmetry of the problem it follows that motion in the opposite direction , from the lower turning point at @xmath199 upward to @xmath169 gives the same function @xmath159 as in the last form of eq . ( [ ( 29 ) ] ) , except that the phase term @xmath206 is replaced by @xmath207 and @xmath208 is replaced by its complex conjugate @xmath209 . @xmath210 is a phase factor of unit amplitude , which arises due to the shift of reference point for @xmath211 from @xmath169 to @xmath199 when we change from downward to upward motion . none of these differences affect the squared magnitude @xmath212 which measures the probability to find the neutron in the spin - flipped state at height @xmath20 . an explicit expression for @xmath210 will be given following eq . ( [ ( 44 ) ] ) .    we can compare our eq . ( [ ( 29 ) ] ) for the depolarization amplitude @xmath213 with the corresponding result in equations ( 31 - 35 ) of ref . @xcite , where only the case @xmath168 was analyzed . this corresponds to setting @xmath214 in our analysis . apart from this difference , our eq . ( [ ( 29 ) ] ) can be obtained from eq . ( 35 ) of @xcite by multiplying the latter by the factor @xmath215 . the magnitude of this factor is close to unity if @xmath141 is only slightly less than @xmath142 . for fairly high - energy ucns this is the case for most of the path between the turning points , but not near these points . this minor difference appears to be due to the neglect , in ref . @xcite , of @xmath216 in the derivation of their eq . ( 31 ) . the main difference between the results of @xcite and our numbers , obtained below , is due to the restriction of the previous work to @xmath168 . our analysis of the depolarization current and depolarization rate for magnetically stored ucns yields a loss @xmath310 decades larger for a typical velocity @xmath67 up to @xmath217 m / s than the range of values , @xmath218 to @xmath13 given in ref . @xcite for @xmath219 . we can now insert @xmath159 from ( [ ( 29 ) ] ) into ( [ ( 24 ) ] ) to determine the wave function @xmath103 for spin - flipped ucns . for the downward motion , this gives @xmath220 the phase @xmath149 ( with the index @xmath221 ) indicates that this wave for the ( @xmath143 ) spin state propagates , not with wave number @xmath162 , but with the same wave number @xmath163 as the ( + ) spin state , as it should . using @xmath222 we can verify that the function ( [ ( 32 ) ] ) solves equation ( [ ( 23 ) ] ) , starting from a pure ( + ) spin state , as described following eq . ( [ ( 28 ) ] ) .    on a more formal basis , eq .  ( [ ( 32 ) ] ) represents a particular solution to ( [ ( 23 ) ] ) and we could add to ( [ ( 32 ) ] ) any solution @xmath223 of the homogeneous equation @xmath224 corresponding to ( [ ( 23 ) ] ) . in the wkb framework , these solutions are @xmath225 with arbitrary constants @xmath226 . these functions represent a constant current in the upward ( downward ) direction for the + ( @xmath143 ) sign . thus the same current enters and leaves the storage space , resulting in a zero contribution to the net flux out which corresponds to the depolarization loss as described below . as an example , such a homogeneous term may represent a neutron that has undergone a spin flip on the way up , proceeds past @xmath169 until it reaches its reversal point in the gravitational field and , on its way down , traverses the storage space without contributing to further depolarization . reverting to solution ( [ ( 32 ) ] ) without added terms , we associate the net depolarization over the path from upper turning point @xmath169 to @xmath199 with the current of spin - flipped ucns at the endpoint @xmath199 , which is consistent with the interpretation in ref . this current represents the net flux out of the storage space since no flux enters at @xmath169 .    ) multiplied by @xmath227 , as a function of neutron position for drop heights @xmath144 = 450 mm and 100 mm , stabilization field parameter @xmath228 = 0.005 t , and neutron velocity component @xmath67 = 3 m / s or zero . the sharp peak occurs in the region where the gradient of field angle @xmath84 is largest.,width=291 ]    at an arbitrary position @xmath20 along the way the current @xmath229 is given by @xcite @xmath230.\ ] ] for function ( [ ( 32 ) ] ) we have @xmath231 and thus the current as a function of position @xmath20 between @xmath199 and @xmath169 becomes @xmath232    the function @xmath233 corresponds to the depolarization probability of ref . it is plotted in fig . [ fig : two ] for ucns with energy for vertical motion determined by the `` drop heights '' @xmath234 cm and 45 cm ( @xmath144 was defined following eq . ( [ ( 17 ) ] ) ) , a bias magnetic field @xmath228 = 0.005 t and @xmath67 = 3 m / s . as in fig .  3 of @xcite we see a sharp peak at the @xmath20-position where @xmath235 is large , and a decrease as the particle drops further down . the third curve in fig .  [ fig : two ] is for @xmath144 = 45 cm , @xmath228 = 0.005 t and @xmath67 = 0 . the peak value and the decrease on the upper side are quite similar . below the peak position the curve for @xmath67 = 0 decreases faster than for @xmath67 = 3 m / s . the current leaving the storage space at @xmath236 is @xmath237    @xmath238    where the index @xmath239 refers to the values at @xmath236 and the last form of eq . ( [ ( 35 ) ] ) uses the fact that @xmath163 vanishes at the turning points . in the analysis of ref . @xcite for @xmath168 only this vanishing term ( @xmath240 ) appeared , and a higher order of approximation as well as numerical integration were used to estimate the depolarization probability . the result was a very small value which is negligible compared to the second term given in the last form of ( [ ( 35 ) ] ) , even for values of @xmath67 as small as 0.1 m / s . the dependence of ( [ ( 35 ) ] ) on the primary field variables is established by noting that @xmath241 , @xmath242 and @xmath243 , where @xmath244 is the frequency of the halbach field as seen by the moving ucn . for upward motion from @xmath199 to @xmath169 we get the same result for the current as in ( [ ( 35 ) ] ) except that all indices @xmath239 are replaced by @xmath245 , i.e. , the quantities relevant for the spin - flipped current leaving the system at the upper turning point are determined by the field angle @xmath246 and by @xmath247 at @xmath169 . the combined depolarization loss for one reflection on the magnetic field , i.e. for one complete round trip down and up , is determined by @xmath248 to approximate the actual situation in magnetic ucn storage , where the ucns have positive and negative velocities in any direction and , for a low - energy maxwell spectrum , with uniform probability per unit of @xmath249 and @xmath127 ( since the phase space density is constant ) , we take the mean value of @xmath250 in ( [ ( 36 ) ] ) for the spectral interval @xmath251 with the result @xmath252    as a final step in this analysis of depolarization in the wkb approximation we establish the explicit connection between the loss current ( [ ( 37 ) ] ) and the rate of depolarization , @xmath253 , that is observable as a contribution to the decay rate ( but should be negligible compared to the neutron @xmath4-decay rate in a neutron lifetime measurement ) . for given neutron energy for vertical motion , i.e. fixed turning levels at @xmath199 and @xmath169 , the depolarization rate ( in s@xmath129 ) is determined by the loss current ( [ ( 37 ) ] ) divided by the number of ucns in the field - repelled spin state present in the trap , @xmath254 we have used the square magnitude of the wkb form ( [ ( 16 ) ] ) for @xmath102 as the density . the factor 2 takes into account that both downward and upward moving ucns are in the trap at the same time .    since @xmath255 and @xmath256 , the expression in ( [ ( 38 ) ] ) equals @xmath257 where @xmath258 is the time required for one round trip down and up . thus , the depolarization rate is @xmath259 where we have inserted ( [ ( 37 ) ] ) for the current in the last step . this shows that the loss current ( [ ( 37 ) ] ) of spin - flipped ucns is the loss per round trip , i.e. for one bounce in the magnetic field . this interpretation is consistent with the interpretation in ref . @xcite .    to compare to actual experiments storing polarized ( + ) ucns in a broad velocity range in three dimensions , we have to average ( [ ( 39 ) ] ) also over @xmath68 and @xmath260 . averaging over @xmath68 is trivial since ( [ ( 39 ) ] ) does not depend on @xmath68 . averaging over @xmath260 can be achieved as follows . as a measure of @xmath260 for a stored ucn we could take its value at any height within the confinement range , but the most convenient choice of reference plane is the neutral plane at @xmath261 where the gravitational force is compensated by the magnetic force pushing upward , i.e. where @xmath262 . this is the plane where the ucns with the lowest energy for vertical motion reside . in our field model , a ucn with vertical velocity @xmath263 in the neutral plane floats or moves along the plane at constant speed . in actual confinement fields as in @xcite they would follow closed or open paths on the curved neutral surface . for small values of @xmath264 the vertical motion is a classical harmonic oscillation with natural frequency @xmath265 where @xmath266 is the net downward acceleration . this implies that for small oscillations about the neutral plane the time for a round trip becomes @xmath267 . for larger vertical velocities the oscillator potential is strongly anharmonic but the drop height @xmath144 , used originally as a measure of energy for vertical motion , is unambiguously determined by @xmath268 . therefore , if we plot the depolarization rate ( [ ( 39 ) ] ) versus @xmath268 , rather than @xmath144 , the mean height of this curve in the range from @xmath269 to its maximum value for the stored ucn spectrum directly gives the average value of depolarization rate for a maxwell spectrum . ( the trap loading process used in an actual experiment may induce deviations from the maxwell spectrum . )    ) , and neutron @xmath4-decay rate ( for a lifetime of 882s ) , plotted as a function of vertical velocity component @xmath270 in the neutral plane ( where the gravitational and magnetic forces are balanced ) . @xmath270 is normalized with the constant @xmath271 which is determined by the field magnitude in the neutral plane . the curve for @xmath228 = 0.005 t is plotted to scale @xmath272 and the curve for @xmath228 = 0.05 t is plotted with magnification factor @xmath273 @xmath274 . their difference by about two orders of magnitude shows the strong suppression of depolarization by a stabilization field of sufficient strength . for a maxwell spectrum , the mean height of the curves over the range of the abscissa , from 0 to 2.5 for @xmath275 t and from 0 to 4.7 for @xmath276 t , directly determines the average over the full spectrum ( here for @xmath277 m / s @xmath278 @xmath279 m / s and drop heights @xmath144 up to 450 mm).,width=291 ]    such a plot is presented in fig .  [ fig : three ] where we have normalized @xmath268 to @xmath280 , the @xmath20-velocity for the spin - flipped state on the neutral plane for @xmath281 . @xmath282 is solely determined by the field magnitude @xmath283 on the neutral plane . the parameters used are : @xmath284 cm , @xmath285 t and @xmath286 t and @xmath287 m / s . for these parameters the mean depolarization rate , normalized to the @xmath4-decay rate @xmath288 , is @xmath289 for @xmath276 t and about two orders of magnitude less for @xmath275 t.    it might come as a surprise that the largest contribution to the depolarization rate originates from ucns with fairly low energy of vertical motion . they move through the field almost horizontally , with small vertical oscillations about the neutral plane . the result is plausible since these ucns spend the largest fraction of time in the region where the field rotates rapidly in the reference frame of the laterally moving neutron .    in section [ sec : iv.b ] we will analyze the same problem of depolarization in magnetic storage of ucns using the semiclassical method and compare the two approaches . next we apply the quantum approximation to analyze the depolarization in reflection of polarized neutrons on a non - magnetic mirror immersed in a non - uniform magnetic field .       between the upper and lower turning surfaces at @xmath169 and @xmath199 for a given ucn energy for vertical motion . the reflected spin - flipped wave consists of the two components in eq . ( [ ( 42 ) ] ) : ( a ) the particular solution @xmath290 which is the same as for a wave moving upward from the lower turning point at ii in the absence of the mirror ; ( b ) the homogeneous wave @xmath291 induced at the mirror surface by the wave incident from above , starting from the upper turning level at point i. the position iii of the virtual image of i below the mirror determines a phase angle.,width=291 ]    in sec . [ sec : i ] we mentioned two examples where the possible depolarization of ucns in total reflection from a non - magnetic wall , like copper , is of major importance : ( a ) ucn experiments on spin anisotropy parameters in neutron decay , such as the neutron - electron spin correlation coefficient @xmath0 @xcite ; and ( b ) ucn polarizers based on transmission through a high magnetic field . depolarization in mirror reflection has been investigated theoretically in ref . we will study aspects of this problem by imagining an ideal , non - magnetic mirror inserted horizontally into our magnetic model field at various heights @xmath292 , as shown in fig . [ fig : four ] , and comparing the depolarization per bounce on this mirror with that in the field without the mirror . the reflecting mirror surface at @xmath292 lies between the upper and lower turning points @xmath169 and @xmath199 for ucns . we use index @xmath106 to denote the quantities at the reflecting mirror surface and have assumed that the ucns have given lateral velocities @xmath67 and @xmath68 and a fixed energy for vertical motion . an ideal ucn mirror has reflection amplitude @xmath293 and reflectivity @xmath294 . the phase angle @xmath295 depends on the limit @xmath296 of total reflection and , for the system at hand , on the vertical component of incident wave vector , @xmath297 , which is the same for both wave components , @xmath191 and @xmath4 . we will see that the depolarization at the mirror is independent of @xmath298 , i.e. , it should be virtually the same for any low loss ( almost ideal ) mirror material . on physical grounds , no abrupt change of depolarization probability @xmath299 is expected since the dwell time of @xmath300 s inside the wall is much shorter than the larmor precession period ( 1 @xmath17s for @xmath301 mt ) which sets the time scale for any change .    as in the previous sections , we assume that the particle started out from an upper turning level @xmath169 in a pure ( + ) spin state . on incidence at @xmath302 its wave function has acquired a depolarized component given by eq . ( [ ( 32 ) ] ) : @xmath303 where @xmath304 has been defined in ( [ ( 30 ) ] ) . the evolution of @xmath103 following reflection is determined by the inhomogeneous differential equation ( [ ( 23 ) ] ) : @xmath305 \alpha(y),\ ] ] where we replaced the @xmath2 sign in ( [ ( 23 ) ] ) by + since the reflected wave is propagating upward . the solution to ( [ ( 41 ) ] ) can be written as a superposition @xmath306 of a particular solution , @xmath307 , and the general solution @xmath308 of the homogeneous equation @xmath309 the amplitude multiplying @xmath310 is adjusted to satisfy initial conditions . a particular solution @xmath290 for downward motion has been given as eq . ( [ ( 32 ) ] ) . for the mirror - reflected beam we need the corresponding solution for upward motion . it follows from the discussion in sec . [ sec : iii.b.1 ] that this particular solution is @xmath311 the phase factor @xmath312 , with @xmath313 , arises as follows : for the mirror reflection problem we choose a time axis with @xmath314 at the upper turning point @xmath169 and increasing as the motion proceeds . however , the corresponding time @xmath315 , chosen in sec . [ sec : iii.b.1 ] for the upward motion , starts from @xmath316 at @xmath199 ( not from @xmath169 ) . the times required to reach a given particle position are related through @xmath317 , where , as before , @xmath258 is the time for a round trip down and up . the phase factor @xmath210 arises due to this difference in the time coordinates . the homogeneous equation ( [ ( 45 ) ] ) has two solutions but only one , @xmath318 , corresponds to upward wave propagation , as required for the reflected wave . the plane wave form is valid only near the mirror surface where @xmath142 is considered constant on the scale of the neutron wavelength . thus , in the framework of the wkb approximation , we use the homogeneous solution @xmath319 where the constant @xmath320 is to be adjusted to match the outgoing wave ( [ ( 42 ) ] ) to the wave @xmath321 excited by the incoming beam . expression ( [ ( 46 ) ] ) is the incoming wave ( [ ( 32 ) ] ) multiplied by the phase factor @xmath322 where @xmath323 is the reflection amplitude . the factor @xmath324 is due to a shift of time scales similar to that defined following eq . ( [ ( 44 ) ] ) but now referring to mirror reflection with start from the upper turning point @xmath169 versus start from its virtual image at @xmath325 below the mirror surface , as shown in fig . [ fig : four ] . now we match the outgoing wave @xmath326 ( from ( [ ( 44 ) ] ) and ( [ ( 45 ) ] ) ) to the wave @xmath327 at the mirror surface @xmath292 ( from ( [ ( 46 ) ] ) ) to determine the constant @xmath320 , with the result @xmath328 @xmath329 \exp(-i\phi_{-m}).\ ] ] thus the mirror reflected wave becomes @xmath330 \exp(-i\phi_{-m } ) \exp\big(i\phi_-(y)\big)\big\}. \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] the first term in the braces represents an outgoing wave with wave number @xmath331 and the second one with wave number @xmath162 . to calculate the outgoing current we also need the derivative @xmath332\exp(-i\phi_{-m } ) \exp\big(i\phi_-(y)\big)\big\}. \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] the current propagating in the upward direction is obtained from @xcite @xmath333,\ ] ] and the result is a sum of slowly varying terms representing the measurable depolarization . there are also fast oscillating terms with phase @xmath334 $ ] which would be averaged to zero by a detector of spin - flipped ucns except within a narrow range of order @xmath335 , i.e. , of a few wavelengths above the mirror . with the same proviso , mixed terms @xmath336 ( or @xmath337 can also be dropped since the phase factors @xmath210 and @xmath338 depend sensitively on the exact position of the mirror and the exact distance between upper and lower turning points . in practice these quantities are blurred by geometrical imperfections as well as the finite spread in ucn energy . thus @xmath210 and @xmath338 can be considered statistically independent of one another . as a result we obtain for the measurable average current @xmath339    to measure the depolarization per one complete bounce on the mirror from upper turning point down and back up to the upper turning point , we insert @xmath340 for the detector position and obtain @xmath341 this corresponds to expression ( [ ( 36 ) ] ) for one bounce in the magnetic field . in ( [ ( 52 ) ] ) we have used @xmath342 and we note that in typical cases the first term in ( [ ( 52 ) ] ) is negligible . we have assumed that the ucns are incident on the mirror from above , i.e. are confined to the space @xmath343 . if , instead , they impinge from below at @xmath344 ( now the lower mirror surface ) and are confined to the space @xmath345 , the expressions ( [ ( 51 ) ] ) and ( [ ( 52 ) ] ) ( now for @xmath346 , not @xmath347 ) remain the same except that in ( [ ( 52 ) ] ) the index @xmath245 is replaced by @xmath239 .    we will discuss these results in greater detail in sections [ sec : iv.c ] and [ sec : vi ] . the semi - classical schrdinger equation describes the particle in time @xmath348 , rather than in space coordinates . the particle is assumed to follow a known classical path , so the field variable @xmath109 is considered a known function of @xmath348 . we again choose the quantization axis along the position - dependent direction of @xmath109 , for which the mutually orthogonal basis vectors @xmath77 and @xmath78 are given in ( [ ( 6 ) ] ) and the wave function for the ( + ) and ( @xmath143 ) state is @xmath349 but these quantities are now considered to be functions of @xmath348 , rather than of space variables . as before , the spin flip probability @xmath350 is considered small compared to the probability @xmath351 1 to find the neutron in the storable ( + ) spin state .    in this approximation the schrdinger equation reads @xcite @xmath352 where the hamiltonian @xmath79 for spin interaction was given in ( [ ( 3 ) ] ) . we denote time derivatives by a dot and , using the notation and relations of sec . [ sec : iii.a ] and , from @xmath21 , @xmath353 , obtain @xmath354 and @xmath355    inserting into ( 54 ) and keeping only the dominant contributions we get for the terms with @xmath77 @xmath356 and for those with @xmath78 @xmath357 where @xmath358 is the larmor frequency . in practice , @xmath359 . equations ( [ ( 57)]-[(58 ) ] ) correspond to equations ( 14 ) and ( 15 ) of @xcite , but ( [ ( 58 ) ] ) contains the new phase factor @xmath360 ( as the quantum equivalent , eq . ( [ ( 12 ) ] ) , does ) and the term dependent on @xmath67 .      equation ( [ ( 57 ) ] ) is solved by @xmath361 where @xmath362 is twice the phase angle accumulated since the start time @xmath363 . as for the quantum case , we assume that the motion starts at the upper or lower turning point with velocity @xmath364 , where @xmath365 const . and the constant @xmath14-component @xmath68 does not induce depolarization for our field model . @xmath366 implies @xmath367 at the start .    as in @xcite , eq . ( [ ( 58 ) ] ) is solved using the ansatz @xmath368 , where @xmath369 , the new measure of depolarization amplitude @xcite , satisfies the relation @xmath370 since @xmath371 the factor @xmath372 is time dependent and therefore @xmath373 contributes to the energy . however , as noted before , @xmath374 is much smaller than @xmath375 and can be neglected in the same way small terms are neglected in the wkb approximation . ( [ ( 60 ) ] ) is readily integrated by parts : @xmath376 as for the quantum analog ( [ ( 28 ) ] ) of ( [ ( 68 ) ] ) , the right - hand side of eq . ( [ ( 61 ) ] ) does not include a term for the lower integration limit @xmath363 . as we will see , this leads to results matching those of the quantum approach . we again can argue , as in the discussion of eq . ( [ ( 28 ) ] ) , that in view of the airy - function character of the actual wave solution around the turning region , the initial time @xmath363 is a blurred quantity and the contribution from the lower limit of integration averages to zero . but a rigorous justification may be impossible within this semi - classical mix of ingredients as incongruent as classical and quantum mechanics are . we identify @xmath377 with the probability @xmath378 of finding the neutron in the spin - flipped state @xcite @xmath379 in the last step of eq . ( [ ( 62 ) ] ) we have used @xmath380 , and @xmath381 , since in our field model @xmath84 depends only on @xmath20 .    the result ( [ ( 62 ) ] ) agrees with eq . ( [ ( 34 ) ] ) for the function @xmath382 which had also been identified as the depolarization probability . therefore we have full agreement also for the mean depolarization per bounce ( [ ( 37 ) ] ) and for the depolarization rate given in eq . ( [ ( 39 ) ] ) .    in the next section we will see that the semi - classical and quantum approaches do not always produce exactly the same results , although a strong correlation between the two will be found also in this case . the semi - classical analysis of the mirror problem follows the same path as for the quantum case analyzed in sec . [ sec : iii.c ] . the crucial step again is matching the superposition of particular plus homogeneous solution for the ascending reflected beam , @xmath383 to the wave @xmath327 induced by the incident beam at the mirror surface at @xmath384 .    in eq . ( [ ( 63 ) ] ) , @xmath385 is the general solution of the homogeneous equation @xmath386 , which corresponds to the inhomogeneous equation ( [ ( 58 ) ] ) with the direction of time reversed as described following eq . ( [ ( 44 ) ] ) . using the same sequence of terms as in ( [ ( 63 ) ] ) and the notation of sec . [ sec : iii.c ] , the matching condition @xmath387 reads @xmath388 where we have divided out the common factor @xmath389 . @xmath390 is the larmor frequency at the mirror position and @xmath391 , @xmath392 are statistically independent unitary phase factors similar to their quantum analogs @xmath210 , @xmath338 in ( [ ( 44 ) ] ) and ( [ ( 46 ) ] ) . solving for the constant @xmath320 of the homogeneous term and inserting into ( [ ( 63 ) ] ) gives @xmath393.\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] finally , taking the square magnitude of ( [ ( 65 ) ] ) and performing the same statistical averaging as for ( [ ( 50 ) ] ) , which includes setting @xmath394 and @xmath395 , we find for the probability of depolarization @xmath396\nonumber \\ & + \frac{1}{2\omega_{lm}^2 } \left[\dot\theta_m^2 + ( kv_x\sin\theta_m)^2\right].\end{aligned}\ ] ] to facilitate comparison with the quantum result ( [ ( 51 ) ] ) we convert from time to space dependent variables @xmath397 , as for eq . ( [ ( 62 ) ] ) , and obtain @xmath398}{(k_{-m}^2 - k_{+m}^2)^2}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] this is the same expression as ( [ ( 51 ) ] ) except that the factor @xmath399 for the second term on the right - hand side is missing . except for very low energy ucns hovering in the magnetic field , and for mirror position at a turning point , this factor is close to 1 .    for a complete bounce on the mirror , starting from , and ending at , the upper turning point level @xmath169 we obtain @xmath400}{(k_{-m}^2-k_{+m}^2)^2 } .\ ] ]    . we use eq . ( [ ( 52 ) ] ) for the quantum treatment ( qm ) and eq . ( [ ( 68 ) ] ) for the semi - classical approach . the plotted values are normalized by dividing ( [ ( 68 ) ] ) by ( [ ( 36 ) ] ) , the depolarization due to the field alone , and by the ratio of duration of one bounce with and without the mirror . the data show a strong enhancement of depolarization due to the mirror . the enhancement factor depends on incident ucn energy ( which increases with larger fall height @xmath144 ) and on the gradient @xmath401 of field angle @xmath84 at the mirror position . @xmath401 is largest in the region where the curves have their peak value which is of order @xmath402 for @xmath67 = 3 m / s . for the examples shown , the turning point levels are : @xmath403 mm , @xmath404 mm for @xmath405 mm and @xmath406 mm , @xmath407 mm for @xmath408 mm.,width=291 ]    fig . [ fig : five ] shows the depolarization per bounce on the mirror in our model field as a function of mirror position @xmath292 . for the quantum treatment ( qm ) this probability is given by eq . ( [ ( 52 ) ] ) and for the semi - classical approach ( cl ) by eq . ( [ ( 68 ) ] ) . to separate the role of the non - magnetic mirror in the field from the depolarization due to the field alone we have divided ( [ ( 68 ) ] ) by ( [ ( 36 ) ] ) , the depolarization due to the field alone , and by the ratio of duration of one bounce with and without the mirror . fig . [ fig : five ] shows a strong enhancement due to the mirror . the enhancement factor depends on incident ucn energy ( which increases with larger fall height @xmath144 ) and on the gradient @xmath401 of field angle at the mirror position . @xmath401 is largest in the region where the curves have their peak . the enhancement reaches four orders of magnitude for @xmath409 m and @xmath410 m / s , and six decades for @xmath411 m / s . in the latter comparison , the role of lateral velocity component @xmath67 appears so large because the depolarization in the field alone vanishes for @xmath219 in our approximation ( [ ( 36 ) ] ) ( and is negligibly small in higher - order approximations @xcite ) , while the mirror depolarization remains finite for @xmath219 . the quantum and semi - classical results , compared for identical parameters by the dashed and dash - dotted curves in fig . [ fig : five ] , are quite similar . for the given parameters they differ by a few percent at most if we exclude the range within @xmath3 5 mm from a turning point .    as for the quantum approach , the results ( [ ( 67 ) ] ) and ( [ ( 68 ) ] ) remain the same ( except for the index @xmath245 in ( [ ( 68 ) ] ) changing to @xmath239 ) if incidence on the mirror from above is replaced by incidence from below , with start from the lower turning point @xmath412 rather than from @xmath413 .    in the next section we will show that for low ucn energies these analytical results can also be obtained by numerical integration of the basic differential equation . numerical integration does not rely on the wkb approximation . however , the lengthy integration over many oscillations of the wave function is plagued with the rounding errors and the error due to the finite step size . reasonable agreement of the two methods would be an indication that the results are reliable . the equation of motion of the wave function @xmath103 for spin flip is given by the second - order inhomogeneous differential equation ( [ ( 23 ) ] ) ,    @xmath414 \alpha(y ) , \nonumber\ ] ]    with ( [ ( 16 ) ] ) @xmath415 and the + ( @xmath143 ) sign refers to motion upward ( downward ) . using the fourth - order runge kutta process , eq . ( [ ( 23 ) ] ) may be integrated numerically , starting from an initial point @xmath416 slightly above ( below ) the turning point @xmath146 . key is the suitable choice of initial values @xmath417 and @xmath418 . we choose the wkb solution which is given by ( [ ( 32 ) ] ) for downward motion . its extension to include also the upward path reads @xmath419 with derivative @xmath420 where @xmath421 and @xmath422 . @xmath208 has been defined in ( [ ( 30 ) ] ) . as discussed following ( [ ( 19 ) ] ) , near a turning point @xmath146 eq . ( [ ( 69 ) ] ) is based on the asymptotic form of the airy function wave solution @xmath423 , where the coefficient @xmath424 is adjusted to match ( [ ( 16 ) ] ) asymptotically . the constants @xmath425 and @xmath426 were defined following eq . ( [ ( 19 ) ] ) . since @xmath427 varies slowly , the constant value @xmath425 is a good approximation over hundreds of oscillations of the airy function , starting from @xmath428 . = 8 cm , @xmath228 = 0.05 t and @xmath67 = 3 m / s . direct numerical integration , represented by the solid curve , coincides with the analytic result shown by the dashed curve , with a maximum deviation of 1% over the entire range from upper to lower turning point ( @xmath429 mm , @xmath430 mm).,width=291 ]    using initial values ( [ ( 69 ) ] ) and ( [ ( 70 ) ] ) , eq . ( [ ( 23 ) ] ) may be integrated numerically up to a point slightly before the next turning point , @xmath431 , is reached . the method fails at @xmath431 itself due to the divergence of @xmath432 . we calculate the current @xmath433 $ ] at every point along the integration path and fig . [ fig : six ] shows the result of downward integration for parameters @xmath434 cm , @xmath435 t , @xmath410 m / s and starting point at @xmath436 . we have tested that the solution is stable in a wide range of initial position from @xmath4372 to 20 . [ fig : six ] shows that the numerical result coincides with the analytical solution ( [ ( 69 ) ] ) , with maximum deviations of @xmath438 over the entire range including the far endpoint @xmath199 . this consistency at the lower turning point is vital since the current leaving there from the storage space is identified with the depolarization probability for the move from top to bottom . to be specific , this depolarization probability @xmath439 is obtained by extrapolating the numerical solution over the short distance of order @xmath440 to the next endpoint @xmath431 with the result @xmath441 for the case shown in fig . [ fig : six ] . the extrapolation at @xmath442 mm is straightforward since the current shows a smooth behavior in the entire integration range . the same level of agreement within @xmath443 is obtained for the upward motion which is represented by the same curve of fig . [ fig : six ] , but the extrapolation for the loss current is now made at the upper end @xmath444 mm ( and this contribution is much smaller in the case shown , but it is comparable for smaller drop heights ) . we found agreement within 1% between the various methods also for other parameters @xmath445 within the range of interest . there is one exception . for the strictly vertical mode of motion analyzed in ref . @xcite , where @xmath219 , the analytical solution vanishes and the numerical solution for the intercept is at least four orders of magnitude smaller than for @xmath410 m / s . in this case the numerical precision is insufficient to determine a reliable value of depolarization probability . however , this is inconsequential since extremely small values of @xmath67 make a negligible contribution to the mean depolarization rate in a broad ucn spectrum . we add one remark . if the explicit analytical solutions ( [ ( 69)]-[(70 ) ] ) for @xmath4 and @xmath446 were not known , we could use , for the numerical integration , initial values derived solely from the properties of the airy function solution near the turning points . in these regions the second derivative @xmath170 in eq . ( [ ( 23 ) ] ) is negligible compared with @xmath447 since @xmath448 . therefore , @xmath449 \alpha(y)/k_-^2(y)$ ] is a good approximation . it differs from ( [ ( 69 ) ] ) only by the multiplier @xmath450 $ ] which is close to 1 at either turning point since @xmath163 vanishes there . it turns out that these modified initial values give the same results for @xmath103 at both endpoints , and therefore the same depolarization probability , as the more exact method . however , the function @xmath103 will be somewhat different in the range between the endpoints , where @xmath170 can not be neglected .    we may summarize the results on depolarization in magnetic storage as follows : the fact that the three methods used agree ( quantum and semi - classical analysis as well as direct numerical integration ) appears to be a good indication that the approximations made were justified .      for ucn reflection from a non - magnetic mirror in a magnetic field the analytical results given in ( [ ( 52 ) ] ) and ( [ ( 68 ) ] ) are similar but not identical . we used numerical integration for the reflected beam , starting from initial conditions ( [ ( 46 ) ] ) at the mirror surface and note that in this case the extrapolation to the next turning point is less straightforward since the curve for current shows , superimposed on a smooth variation , fast oscillations due to beating between two wave components : one propagating with wave number @xmath163 and the other with @xmath162 . this is expected for the superposition of these two waves in eq . ( [ ( 48 ) ] ) . the numerical results are generally consistent with the analytical expressions but not precise enough to decide whether the semi - classical approximation ( [ ( 68 ) ] ) or the quantum approximation ( [ ( 52 ) ] ) is more reliable . depolarization in high precision neutron lifetime experiments using magnetic confinement must either be negligible or else very small and quantitatively understood . using two analytical methods based on ref . @xcite and direct numerical integration we have analyzed the depolarization per bounce and the depolarization rate ( per s ) for ucns stored in a model magnetic field configuration . our magnetic field model is similar to the system envisaged for the `` bathtub '' project @xcite which uses a halbach array of permanent magnets . our model is simplified to a configuration with translational symmetry in both horizontal directions ( @xmath14 and @xmath15 ) and an ideal halbach field whose magnitude depends only on the vertical distance @xmath20 from the horizontal magnet surface . the parameters for the halbach field are the same as those proposed in ref . our analysis shows that depolarization is mainly caused by the rotating halbach field the ucns see as they move through the field with finite lateral velocity component @xmath67 , not by the small field ripple due to imperfections of the halbach system . therefore we do not expect the simplification of the model to affect the depolarization in a significant way .    however , the role of the additional horizontal stabilization field @xmath22 perpendicular to the halbach field @xmath451 is critical . it has to be strong enough to suppress depolarization to an acceptable level . the main purpose of this work was to determine tolerance limits for its magnitude @xmath66 . our analysis extends that of ref . @xcite by including arbitrary ucn orbits in 3d space whereas the analysis in @xcite was restricted to purely vertical motion . as a main result of the extension we find that the lateral @xmath15-component of motion in the plane of the halbach field makes the dominant contribution to depolarization while the depolarization due to the vertical motion is insignificant . as a result , some previous estimates of depolarization probability may have been overoptimistic . for the parameters of @xcite ( 0.05 - 0.1 t for @xmath228 ) we estimate on the basis of fig . [ fig : three ] that even a measurement of the neutron lifetime with precision @xmath452 should be possible ( disregarding other potential limitations ) but the safety margin may be smaller than previously expected .    systems with smaller stabilization field , as possibly that of ref . @xcite , where @xmath66 has not been specified , may require a separate analysis since they use a cylindrical rather than planar field distribution . however , the main result of the present work is independent of geometrical details : the depolarization loss is determined , not by the largest rotation frequency of @xmath136 as seen by the ucns as they traverse the field , but by the conditions at the turning points where the spin - flipped neutrons can leave the storage system . this is an important point which may appear to contradict the common view , but is also implied by the work of ref . our interpretation of the present results is as follows : the measurable depolarization is not directly caused by critical spots within the storage volume , where the @xmath136-field has a small magnitude @xmath8 and rotates fast in the moving reference frame . all that matters for depolarization are the field conditions at the turning points where the storable ucns are reflected back into the storage space while the spin - flipped fraction leaves the trap . the loss current in eq . ( [ ( 37 ) ] ) is determined by the value of @xmath453 at such a surface . this factor is large for fast field variation ( @xmath454 ) seen by the neutron moving in a horizontal direction ( parallel to the turning surface ) , as well as for small @xmath8 since @xmath455 from ( [ ( 31 ) ] ) is directly proportional to @xmath8 at a turning point where @xmath151 . it also increases quadratically with sin@xmath456 , i.e. with the magnitude @xmath457 of the halbach field at a turning surface . if a broad spectrum of ucns is stored the critical points will be of importance in the sense that some , usually ucns with very low energy of vertical motion , may have a turning surface near such areas and therefore make a large contribution . in fact , the low - energy ucns make the largest contribution to depolarization seen in the peaks in fig . [ fig : three ] , and they are the reason why a larger stabilization field @xmath66 suppresses the net depolarization very effectively .    fig . [ fig : three ] shows @xmath458 , the depolarization rate divided by the @xmath4-decay rate , as a function of normalized vertical velocity @xmath268 in the neutral plane , where gravity and the magnetic force are balanced . both curves , for @xmath228 = 0.05 t and for @xmath228 = 0.005 t , are peaked at small values of @xmath459 . thus the ucns most in danger of suffering depolarization are confined to a narrow space of @xmath310 cm about the neutral plane , moving laterally as they float in the field ( for @xmath460 or oscillate up and down about the neutral plane with small amplitude . the magnetic field configurations and neutron orbits in actual or projected 3d magneto - gravitational ucn confinement systems @xcite are more complex than in our field model . however , for some of these concepts the 1d approximation of our model appears to be justified . for the  bathtub " system @xcite , the neutral plane of our model , about which low - energy ucns oscillate , corresponds to a strongly anisotropic oscillator potential in the vicinity of the minimum of potential @xmath461 for the low - field seeking spin state . for @xmath276 t the minimum is located about 1.8 cm up from the lowest point of the double - curved surface of permanent magnets of ref .  @xcite . for this anisotropic oscillator , the frequency for oscillations in the vertical @xmath20-direction , @xmath462 s@xmath129 , is 22 times larger than for the @xmath14-direction , @xmath463 s@xmath129 where the radius of curvature is @xmath464 m. for the @xmath15-direction , with its asymmetry , there are two curvatures ( 0.5 and 1.0 m ) and , therefore , two ratios replacing 22 : 13 on one side ( @xmath465 ) and 18 for @xmath466 . since all these factors are large , the neutrons move almost freely , on a relative scale , in the peripheral @xmath15- and @xmath14-directions and , therefore , our 1d model should be a good approximation . as a result , we expect the peripheral velocity in the plane of the halbach field , which corresponds to @xmath467 in the model , to be the main source of depolarization .    in the cylindrical field geometries of references @xcite , the field magnitude @xmath8 varies more slowly in space . thus , the oscillator is less anisotropic , the degrees of freedom of motion in different coordinate directions are less decoupled and a more complex analysis may be required . to the extent that qualitative features of our model may still apply we expect that the main source of depolarization would be a large peripheral ucn velocity perpendicular to the cylinder axis . in this case , the peripheral velocity corresponds to the component @xmath467 of the model .    besides depolarization of magnetically confined ucns we also studied depolarization in ucn reflection on a non - magnetic mirror immersed in a magnetic field . the field was our model field into which we conceptually inserted an ideal neutron mirror horizontally at a variable height . the problem of possible depolarization in mirror reflection is of paramount importance in ucn experiments on the asymmetry parameter @xmath0 in neutron decay @xcite and it is also encountered in high - field ucn polarizers . depolarization is expected since the adiabaticity condition may be violated due to the abrupt change of flight direction at the reflection point , thus @xmath468 changes abruptly . this problem has first been studied in ref . @xcite by adapting the majorana semi - classical approach @xcite to the mirror geometry . in our analysis the three methods used ( quantum approximation , semi - classical and numerical approach ) gave identical results for depolarization in magnetic ucn storage . for the mirror reflection problem the quantum result ( [ ( 52 ) ] ) and the semi - classical result ( [ ( 68 ) ] ) are very similar but not identical , as shown in fig . [ fig : five ] . the numerical method is not accurate enough in this case to distinguish between the two . the semiclassical result ( [ ( 68 ) ] ) lacks the factor @xmath399 which would cause a divergence if the mirror is placed at a turning point height ( since @xmath469 in this region ) .    between the turning points the difference is minor and the common result is as follows : depolarization in mirror reflection , averaged over field directions as in our model field , is determined mainly by the second term of eq . ( [ ( 68 ) ] ) . it increases with the frequency of field variation ( @xmath470 ) seen by the neutron moving along the in - plane @xmath15-direction . it also increases quadratically with the sine of the field angle @xmath84 , which is a measure of halbach field strength @xmath471 , and with its gradient , @xmath472 , at the mirror location . depolarization strongly decreases with increasing field strength @xmath8 at the mirror ( @xmath473 ) . [ fig : five ] shows that , for @xmath67 = 3 m / s , the magnitude of depolarization per one bounce on the mirror is up to @xmath119 times larger than the depolarization per bounce in the magnetic field without the mirror . the depolarization on the mirror has its peak value at the vertical location where the depolarization probability plotted in fig . [ fig : two ] also has its peak . in fact , comparing expression ( [ ( 68 ) ] ) for depolarization at the mirror with the result ( [ ( 34 ) ] ) for the field alone ( and neglecting the small first term on the right - hand side of ( [ ( 68 ) ] ) ) we realize that the mirror acts like a polarization analyzer inserted into the particle beam moving through the * b*-field . this interpretation also holds for a non - horizontal or curved mirror since the second term on the right - hand side of ( [ ( 68 ) ] ) is independent of the orientation of the reflecting surface element . in this case , the second term should be averaged over the mirror extension .    in cases where many successive wall reflections take place in a weak , non - uniform magnetic field , the depolarization may become significant . comparing our result ( [ ( 66 ) ] ) with equations ( 10 - 11 ) of ref . @xcite we note that both results have the square of the larmor frequency @xmath9 at the mirror position in the denominator . however , a quantitative comparison is difficult since the magnetic field variations assumed in the two approaches are different . in either analysis , no depolarization is expected for a uniform magnetic field . our field model may be too specific to allow a quantitative comparison with the data @xcite on depolarization in ucn reflection from various mirror materials ( like beryllium or samples with diamond - like carbon coating ) . expression ( [ ( 68 ) ] ) does not depend on specific properties of the mirror , as long as it is a good , nearly loss - free ucn reflector . therefore , ( [ ( 68 ) ] ) could explain , without having to invoke any anomalies @xcite , the remarkable similarity and temperature independence of depolarization probabilities measured for different wall materials . such independence would be expected if the samples were exposed to the same non - uniform magnetic field . our results , which were obtained as straightforward solutions to the spin - dependent schrdinger equation , may also provide an alternative to the discussion of new short - range , spin - dependent forces as a possible pathway to explaining the depolarization data for stored ucns . for a recent comprehensive review of fundamental physics with neutrons see @xcite .
Abstract:

Answer: we analyze the depolarization of ultracold neutrons confined in a magnetic field configuration similar to those used in existing or proposed magneto - gravitational storage experiments aiming at a precise measurement of the neutron lifetime . we use an extension of the semi - classical majorana approach as well as an approximate quantum mechanical analysis , both pioneered by walstrom _ et al_. [ nucl . instr . meth . phys . res . a 599 , 82 ( 2009 ) ] . in contrast with this previous work we do not restrict the analysis to purely vertical modes of neutron motion . the lateral motion is shown to cause the predominant depolarization loss in a magnetic storage trap . the system studied also allowed us to estimate the depolarization loss suffered by ultracold neutrons totally reflected on a non - magnetic mirror immersed in a magnetic field . this problem is of preeminent importance in polarized neutron decay studies such as the measurement of the asymmetry parameter @xmath0 using ultracold neutrons , and it may limit the efficiency of ultracold neutron polarizers based on passage through a high magnetic field .