Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Simulation
Quantum statistical signature of mathcal{PT} symmetry breaking
arXiv
Authors: Stefano Longhi
Year
2019
Paper ID
39830
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
128
Citations
N/A
Abstract
In multiparticle quantum interference, bosons show rather generally the tendency to bunch together, while fermions can not. This behavior, which is rooted in the different statistics of the particles, results in a higher coincidence rate P for fermions than for bosons, i.e. P(bos)<P(ferm). However, in lossy systems such a general rule can be violated because bosons can avoid lossy regions. Here it is shown that, in a rather general optical system showing passive parity-time $mathcal{PT}$ symmetry, at the mathcal{PT} symmetry breaking phase transition point the coincidence probabilities for bosons and fermions are equalized, while in the broken mathcal{PT} phase the reversal P(bos)>P(ferm) is observed. Such effect is exemplified by considering the passive mathcal{PT}-symmetric optical directional coupler.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Simulation research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2019 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- In multiparticle quantum interference, bosons show rather generally the tendency to bunch together, while fermions can not.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.