The scattering of quantum particles by non-Hermitian (generally non-local) potentials in one dimension may result in asymmetric transmission and/or reflection from left and right incidence. After extending the concept of symmetry for non-Hermitian potentials, eight generalized symmetries based on the discrete Klein's four-group (formed by parity, time reversal, their product, and unity) are found. Together with generalized unitarity relations they determine selection rules for the possible and/or forbidden scattering asymmetries. Six basic device types are identified when the scattering coefficients (squared moduli of scattering amplitudes) adopt zero/one values, and transmission and/or reflection are asymmetric. They can pictorically be described as a one-way mirror, a one-way barrier (a Maxwell pressure demon), one-way (transmission or reflection) filters, a mirror with unidirectional transmission, and a transparent, one-way reflector. We design potentials for these devices and also demonstrate that the behavior of the scattering coefficients can be extended to a broad range of incident momenta.
The scattering of quantum particles by non-Hermitian (generally non-local) potentials in one dimension may result in asymmetric transmission and/or reflection from left and right incidence. After extending the concept of symmetry for non-Hermitian potentials, eight generalized symmetries based on the discrete Klein's four-group (formed by parity, time reversal, their product, and unity) are found. Together with generalized unitarity relations they determine selection rules for the possible and/or forbidden scattering asymmetries. Six basic device types are identified when the scattering coefficients (squared moduli of scattering amplitudes) adopt zero/one values, and transmission and/or reflection are asymmetric. They can pictorically be described as a one-way mirror, a one-way barrier (a Maxwell pressure demon), one-way (transmission or reflection) filters, a mirror with unidirectional transmission, and a transparent, one-way reflector. We design potentials for these devices and also demonstrate that the behavior of the scattering coefficients can be extended to a broad range of incident momenta.
Non-Hermitian, one-dimensional potentials which are also nonlocal, allow for scattering asymmetries, namely, asymmetric transmission or reflection responses to the incidence of a particle from left or right. The symmetries of the potential imply selection rules for transmission and reflection. In particular, parity-time (PT) symmetry or the symmetry of any local potential do not allow for asymmetric transmission. We put forward a feasible quantum-optical implementation of non-Hermitian, nonlocal, non-PT potentials to implement different scattering asymmetries, including transmission asymmetries.
Abstract We review recent work on asymmetric scattering by Non-Hermitian (NH) Hamiltonians. Quantum devices with an asymmetric scattering response to particles incident from right or left in effective ID waveguides will be important to develop quantum technologies. They act as microscopic equivalents of familiar macroscopic devices such as diodes, rectifiers, or valves. The symmetry of the underlying NH Hamiltonian leads to selection rules which restrict or allow asymmetric response. NH-symmetry operations may be organized into group structures that determine equivalences among operations once a symmetry is satisfied. The NH Hamiltonian posseses a particular symmetry if it is invariant with respect to the corresponding symmetry operation, which can be conveniently expressed by a unitary or antiunitary superoperator. A simple group is formed by eight symmetry operations, which include the ones for Parity-Time symmetry and Hermiticity as specific cases. The symmetries also determine the structure of poles and zeros of the S matrix. The ground-state potentials for two-level atoms crossing properly designed laser beams realize different NH symmetries to achieve transmission or reflection asymmetries.
In the propagation of an electron through a one-dimensional asymmetric complex potential, it is known that while the conventional Green function reciprocity symmetry will ensure transmission to be symmetric between a “left-incident” and a “right-incident” beam, no such symmetry exists for the case of reflection. Here we derive generalized reciprocity relations for both the amplitude and phase of the reflected waves as constraints on the left- and right-incident beams, in complete analogy to what was established in optics. We further provide illustrations of these relations via direct analytical calculations in the case of a real potential, and via numerical studies in the case of a complex potential.
We discuss Hamiltonian symmetries and invariants for quantum systems driven by non-Hermitian Hamiltonians. For time-independent Hermitian Hamiltonians, a unitary or antiunitary transformation AHA† that leaves the Hamiltonian H unchanged represents a symmetry of the Hamiltonian, which implies the commutativity [H,A]=0, and a conservation law, namely the invariance of expectation values of A. For non-Hermitian Hamiltonians, H† comes into play as a distinct operator that complements H in generalized unitarity relations. The above description of symmetries has to be extended to include also A-pseudohermiticity relations of the form AH=H†A. A superoperator formulation of Hamiltonian symmetries is provided and exemplified for Hamiltonians of a particle moving in one-dimension considering the set of A operators forming Klein's 4-group: parity, time-reversal, parity\&time-reversal, and unity. The link between symmetry and conservation laws is discussed and shown to be more subtle for non-Hermitian than for Hermitian Hamiltonians.
We discuss Hamiltonian symmetries and invariants for quantum systems driven by non-Hermitian Hamiltonians. For time-independent Hermitian Hamiltonians, a unitary or antiunitary transformation AHA† that leaves the Hamiltonian H unchanged represents a symmetry of the Hamiltonian, which implies the commutativity [H,A]=0 and, if A is linear and time-independent, a conservation law, namely the invariance of expectation values of A. For non-Hermitian Hamiltonians, H† comes into play as a distinct operator that complements H in generalized unitarity relations. The above description of symmetries has to be extended to include also A-pseudohermiticity relations of the form AH=H†A. A superoperator formulation of Hamiltonian symmetries is provided and exemplified for Hamiltonians of a particle moving in one-dimension considering the set of A operators that form Klein’s 4-group: parity, time-reversal, parity&time-reversal, and unity. The link between symmetry and conservation laws is discussed and shown to be richer and subtler for non-Hermitian than for Hermitian Hamiltonians.
For complex one-dimensional potentials, we propose the asymmetry of both reflectivity and transmitivity under time reversal: R ( − k ) ≠ R ( k ) and T ( − k ) ≠ T ( k ), unless the potentials are real or PT-symmetric. For complex PT-symmetric scattering potentials, we propose that R left ( − k ) = R right ( k ) and T ( − k ) = T ( k ). So far, the spectral singularities (SS) of a one-dimensional non-Hermitian scattering potential are witnessed/conjectured to be at most 1. We present a new non-Hermitian parametrization of the Scarf II potential to reveal its four new features. Firstly, it displays the just acclaimed (in)variances. Secondly, it can support two spectral singularities at two pre-assigned real energies ( E * = α 2 , β 2 ) either in T ( k ) or in T ( − k ), when αβ > 0. Thirdly, when αβ < 0 it possesses one SS in T ( k ) and the other in T ( − k ). Fourthly, when the potential becomes PT-symmetric [(α + β) = 0], we obtain T ( k ) = T ( − k ), it possesses a unique SS at E = α 2 in both T ( − k ) and T ( k ). Lastly, for completeness, when α = iγ and β = iδ there are no SS, instead we get two real energies −γ 2 and −δ 2 of the complex PT-symmetric Scarf II belonging to the two well-known branches of discrete bound-state eigenvalues. We find them as E + M = −(γ − M ) 2 and E − N = −(δ − N ) 2 ; M ( N ) = 0, 1, 2, ... with 0 ⩽ M ( N ) < γ(δ).