PHYSICAL REVIEW A 84, 024103 (2011)

Origin of maximal symmetry breaking in even PT -symmetric lattices

Yogesh N. Joglekar* and Jacob L. Barnett

Department of Physics, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), Indianapolis, Indiana 46202, USA
(Received 21 July 2011; published 30 August 2011)
By investigating a parity- and time-reversal- (PT -) symmetric, N -site lattice with impurities ±iγ and hopping
amplitudes t0 (tb ) for regions outside (between) the impurity locations, we probe the interimpurity-distance
dependence of the critical impurity strength and the origin of maximal PT -symmetry breaking that occurs when
the impurities are nearest neighbors. Through a simple and exact derivation, we prove that the critical impurity
strength is equal to the hopping amplitude between the impurities, γc = tb , and the simultaneous emergence
of N complex eigenvalues is a robust feature of any PT -symmetric hopping profile. Our results show that the
threshold strength γc can be widely tuned by a small change in the global profile of the lattice and thus have
experimental implications.

DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.84.024103 PACS number(s): 11.30.Er, 42.82.Et

Introduction. The discovery of a “complex extension or is it generic? Which factors truly determine the critical
of quantum mechanics” by Bender and co-workers [1,2] impurity strength γc (N/2) in the exceptional case? In the
set in motion extensive mathematical [3–5] and theoretical general case, how does the critical impurity strength γc (m)
investigations [6] of non-Hermitian Hamiltonians HPT = for arbitrary impurity positions (m,m̄) depend upon the lattice
K̂ + V̂ that are symmetric with respect to combined parity parameters?
(P) and time-reversal (T ) operations. Such continuum or In this Brief Report, we investigate an N -site lattice
lattice Hamiltonians [7–10] usually consist of a Hermitian with impurities ±iγ at positions (m,m̄) and a constant
kinetic energy part, K̂ = K̂ † , and a non-Hermitian, PT - hopping amplitude t0 (tb ) for sites outside (between) the
symmetric potential part, V̂ = PT V̂ PT = V̂ † . Although it is parity-symmetric impurity locations. Our two salient results
not Hermitian HPT has purely real eigenvalues E = E ∗ over are as follows: (i) When tb  t0 , the critical impurity strength
a range of parameters, and its eigenfunctions are simultaneous γc (m) → tb irrespective of the impurity position m and
eigenfunctions of the combined PT operation; this range is de- whether N is even or odd. When tb < t0 , the critical impurity
η
fined as the PT -symmetric region. The breaking of PT sym- strength γc (m) ∼ tb where the exponent η(d) ∼ d increases
metry, along with the attendant nonreciprocal behavior, was monotonically with the distance d = m̄ − m = N + 1 − 2m
recently observed in two coupled optical waveguides [11,12] between the impurities, irrespective of whether N is even or
and has ignited further interest in PT -symmetric lattice odd. (ii) For an even lattice, when m = N/2, we analytically
models. These evanescently coupled waveguides provide an prove that all eigenvalues simultaneously become complex
excellent realization [13] of an ideal, one-dimensional lattice when γ > γc (N/2) = tb . This robust result is true for any
with tunable hopping [14], disorder [15], and non-Hermitian, symmetric distribution of real hopping amplitudes. Thus, the
on-site, impurity potentials [16,17]. PT -symmetry-breaking threshold can be substantially tuned
Recently, nonuniform lattices with site-dependent hopping without significant changes in the global hopping-amplitude
tα (k) = t0 [k(N − k)]α/2 and a pair of imaginary impurities profile of the lattice, and the exceptional nature of the m = N/2
±iγ at positions (m,m̄) have been extensively explored case is due to the ability to partition the system into two, and
[17–20], where m̄ = N + 1 − m and N  1 is the number exactly two, pieces.
of lattice sites. The PT -symmetric phase in such a lattice Tight-binding model. We start with the Hamiltonian for a
is robust when α  0, the loss and gain impurities ±iγ are one-dimensional, tight-binding, nonuniform lattice,
closest to each other, and γ  γc where the critical impurity
strength is proportional to the bandwidth of the clean lattice,
γc ∝ 4t0 (N/2)α . For a generic impurity position m, when the 
N−1
† † †
†
impurity strength γ > γc (m) increases the number of complex HPT = − t(i)(ai+1 ai + ai ai+1 ) + iγ (am am − am̄ am̄ ),
eigenvalues increases sequentially from 4 to N − 1 when N is i=1
(1)
odd and to N when it is even. In an exceptional contrast, when †
m = N/2—nearest-neighbor impurities on an even lattice— where an (an ) is the creation (annihilation) operator for a state
all eigenvalues simultaneously become complex at the onset localized at site n, and the hopping function is given by t(i) =
of PT -symmetry breaking. This maximal symmetry breaking tb > 0 for m  i  m̄ − 1, and t(i) = t0 > 0 otherwise. This
is accompanied by unique signatures in the time evolution of Hamiltonian continuously extrapolates from that for a lattice of
a wave packet [20]. length d = N + 1 − 2m with impurities at its end when tb 
These results raise the following questions: Is this excep- t0 to that of a pair of disconnected lattices, one with the gain
tional behavior limited to lattices with α-dependent hopping impurity and the other with the loss impurity, when tb  t0 .
Note that the critical impurity strengths in these two limits are
known [17,21]. Due to the constant hopping amplitude outside
or between the impurity locations, an arbitrary eigenfunction
 †
*
yojoglek@iupui.edu |ψ = N n=1 ψ(n)an |0 with energy E can be expressed using

1050-2947/2011/84(2)/024103(3) 024103-1 ©2011 American Physical Society

BRIEF REPORTS PHYSICAL REVIEW A 84, 024103 (2011)

the Bethe ansatz as an odd lattice. Note that the distance between PT -symmetric
⎧ impurities is odd when N is even and vice versa. We find
⎪
⎨A sin(kn), 1  n  m,
that γc → tb quickly for tb /t0 > 1; when tb /t0  1, the lattice
ψ(n) = P sin(k n) + Q cos(k n), m < n < m̄, (2) reduces to a uniform one with d + 1 sites, impurities at its end
⎪
⎩B sin(k n̄), m̄  n  N. points, and the result γc = tb is expected [21]. The left-hand
panel shows c (d) vs Tb on a logarithmic scale in N = 20
Here E(k,k ) = −2t0 cos(k) = −2tb cos(k ) defines the rela- and N = 21 lattices for Tb < 1. As the distance d between
tion between the quasimomenta k,k . In the PT -symmetric the impurities increases, the corresponding critical impurity
phase, the energy spectrum of Eq. (1) is particle-hole sym- η(d)
strength decreases as a power law, c (d) ∝ Tb , where
metric [22], and the eigenenergies satisfy |E|  2 max(t0 ,tb ).
the exponent η(d) ∼ d. This behavior can be qualitatively
Note that the relative phases of ψ(n) are the same at
understood as follows: the system is in the PT -symmetric
different points within each of the three regions, although
region if the frequency ∼γ /t0 at which particles are created
there may be a phase difference between wave functions in
at the gain-impurity site m is lower than rate at which these
different regions. Therefore, without loss of generality, we
excess particles can hop over to the loss-impurity site, where
may choose ψ(n) to be real for 1  n  m. By considering the
they are absorbed at frequency ∼γ /t0 . Since tb is the hopping
eigenvalue equation HPT |ψ = E|ψ at points m,m + 1 and
amplitude at sites between the impurities, it follows that the
their reflection counterparts, it follows that the quasimomenta
effective frequency of hopping from the gain to the loss site
(k,k ) obey the equation [21]
decreases with d as Tbd . Indeed, when tb /t0  1, the system
M(k,k ) ≡ {sin2 [k(m + 1)] +  2 sin2 (km)} is divided into two, non-PT -symmetric, uniform lattices,
one with the loss impurity and the other with the gain. It
× sin[k (N + 1 − 2m)] + Tb2 sin2 (km)
follows, then, that γc → 0 as tb /t0 → 0. We remind the reader
× sin[k (N − 1 − 2m)] − 2Tb sin(km) that except when d = 1 (right-hand panel in Fig. 1)—the
× sin[k(m + 1)] sin[k (N − 2m)] = 0, (3) exceptional case—the PT symmetry breaks sequentially with
the emergence of four complex eigenvalues.
where  = γ /t0 and Tb = tb /t0 denote the dimensionless Origin of maximal symmetry breaking. Now let us consider
impurity strength and hopping amplitude, respectively. Note the exceptional case in an even lattice, m = N/2, where Eq. (3)
that when 2 min(t0 ,tb ) < |E|  2 max(t0 ,tb ), k is real and reduces to
k is purely imaginary (or vice versa), whereas for |E|  
2 min(t0 ,tb ), both k and k are real. Thus, Eq. (3) represents N kN
two distinct equations in these two cases. t02 sin2 k + 1 = tb2 − γ 2 sin2 . (4)
2 2
The right-hand panel in Fig. 1 shows the dimensionless
critical impurity strength c (d) = γc (m)/t0 as a function It follows from Eq. (4) that the PT symmetry breaks
of Tb = tb /t0  1 for various interimpurity distances d = maximally when γ > γc (N/2) = tb and is accompanied by the
N + 1 − 2m in an N = 20 lattice; we obtain similar results for simultaneous emergence of N complex (not purely imaginary)

−1
6
10
N=20,21 N=20
5
−3
10
4
Γ (d)

−5 3
10
c

d=5
2 d=1
d=7
−7
10 d=9 d=3
d=4 1 d=5
d=11 d=7
−9
10 0
10
−1
10
0 1 2 3 4 5
T Tb
b

FIG. 1. (Color online) Left-hand panel shows dimensionless critical impurity strength c (d) = γc /t0 as a function of dimensionless hopping
amplitude 0 < Tb = tb /t0 < 1 for various distances d between PT -symmetric impurities in N = 20,21 lattices; note that d must be odd when
N is even and vice versa. It follows that c (d) ∝ Tbη(d) → 0, as is expected on physical grounds, irrespective of whether N is even or odd.
Right-hand panel shows the critical impurity strength c (d) as a function of Tb  1 for various values of d in an N = 20 lattice. Although
at Tb = 1, the critical strength c (d) is reduced with distance d between the impurities, for Tb  2 the critical impurity strength c → Tb
(γc → tb ), irrespective of d and N .

024103-2
BRIEF REPORTS PHYSICAL REVIEW A 84, 024103 (2011)

quasimomenta and eigenenergies. Since the bandwidth of the strength is equal to the hopping between the nearest-neighbor
clean lattice is determined by both hoppings (t0 ,tb ), it follows impurities. Note that when the eigenvalue becomes complex,
that the critical impurity strength is independent of the lattice the corresponding eigenfunction |φ does not remain PT
bandwidth. symmetric, φ(m̄) = zφ ∗ (m), and thus the eigenfunction coef-
To generalize this result, we consider the system with ficients φ(k) for 1  k  m cannot be chosen as real; instead
an arbitrary, PT -symmetric, position-dependent hopping PT |φ is an eigenfunction of the Hamiltonian with eigenvalue
∗
profile tk = tN−k and real energy eigenvalues. In the PT - = . Our robust result also explains the fragile nature
symmetric region, the coefficients of an eigenfunction |φ = of PT -symmetric phase in lattices with hopping function
N ∗
m=1 φ(m)|m satisfy φ(m̄) = zφ (m) where z = e
iχ tα (k) for α < 0 [20]: in this case, the lattice bandwidth
is a
−|α|/2
complex number of unit modulus; this follows from the α ∼N whereas the hopping amplitude between the two
constraint (PT )2 |φ = |φ . Since the hopping and eigen- nearest-neighbor impurities scales as tb ∼ N −|α| . Therefore
values are real, the eigenvalue difference equations imply the critical impurity strength γc / α ∼ N −|α|/2 → 0 as N →
that for any eigenfunction |φ , we can choose the coeffi- ∞. A similar analysis for closest impurities in an odd-N lattice
cients φ(k) to be real for 1  k  m. A real eigenvalue shows that, due to the presence of a lattice site between the
and the (real) coefficients α = φ(N/2) and β = φ(N/2 − two impurity positions m = (N − 1)/2 and m̄ = (N + 3)/2,

1) of its corresponding eigenfunction |φ = N i=1 φ(i)|i
the corresponding critical impurity strength γc depends on the
satisfy details of the eigenfunction.
 Thus, the maximal symmetry breaking only occurs in an
t β + ( − iγ )α tN/2 α even, PT -symmetric lattice with nearest-neighbor impurities,
det N/2−1 = 0, (5)
tN/2 α tN/2−1 β + ( + iγ )α and its origin is the ability to naturally partition such a lattice
where we have used the PT -symmetric nature of eigen- into exactly two components.
functions to deduce that φ(N/2 + 1) = eiχ α, φ(N/2 + 2) =
eiχ β. Thus, when γ > γc = tN/2 = tb , the eigenvalue must This work was supported by the IUPUI Undergraduate
become complex. Since this is true for all eigenfunctions, the Research Opportunities Program (J.B.) and by NSF Grant
PT symmetry breaks maximally and the critical impurity No. DMR-1054020 (Y.J.).

[1] C. M. Bender and S. Boettcher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5243 [13] D. N. Christodoulides, F. Lederer, and Y. Silberberg, Nature
(1998). (London) 424, 817 (2003).
[2] C. M. Bender, Dorje C. Brody, and Hugh F. Jones, Phys. Rev. [14] A. Perez-Leija, H. Moya-Cessa, A. Szameit, and D. N.
Lett. 89, 270401 (2002). Christodoulides, Opt. Lett. 35, 2409 (2010).
[3] A. Mostafazadeh, J. Math. Phys. 43, 205 (2002). [15] Y. Lahini, A. Avidan, F. Pozzi, M. Sorel, R. Morandotti, and
[4] A. Mostafazadeh, J. Phys. A 36, 7081 (2003). D. N. Christodoulides, and Y. Silberberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100,
[5] A. Mostafazadeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 130502 (2007). 013906 (2008).
[6] See, for example, C. M. Bender, Rep. Prog. Phys. 70, 947 (2007); [16] O. Bendix, R. Fleischmann, T. Kottos, and B. Shapiro, Phys.
A. Mostafazadeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 130502 (2007); M. Znojil, Rev. Lett. 103, 030402 (2009).
J. Phys. A 44, 075302 (2011). [17] L. Jin and Z. Song, Phys. Rev. A 80, 052107 (2009); 81, 032109
[7] M. Znojil, J. Phys. A 40, 13131 (2007). (2010).
[8] M. Znojil, Phys. Lett. B 650, 440 (2007). [18] S. Longhi, Phys. Rev. B 82, 041106(R) (2010).
[9] M. Znojil, Phys. Rev. A 82, 052113 (2010). [19] Y. N. Joglekar, C. Thompson, and G. Vemuri, Phys. Rev. A 83,
[10] C. Korff and R. Weston, J. Phys. A 40, 8845 (2007); O. A. 063817 (2011).
Castro-Alvared and A. Fring, ibid. 42, 465211 (2009). [20] D. D. Scott and Y. N. Joglekar, Phys. Rev. A 83, 050102(R)
[11] A. Guo et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 093902 (2009). (2011).
[12] C. E. Rüter, K. G. Makris, R. El-Ganainy, D. N. Christodoulides, [21] Y. N. Joglekar, D. Scott, M. Babbey, and A. Saxena, Phys. Rev.
M. Segev, and D. Kip, Nature Phys. 6, 192 (2010); T. Kottos, A 82, 030103(R) (2010).
ibid. 6, 166 (2010). [22] Y. N. Joglekar, Phys. Rev. A 82, 044101 (2010).

024103-3