arXiv:0705.1062v3 [quant-ph] 29 Oct 2007 ae.Hartmann cases. and addressed be can interact- time, strongly locally. first of measured the class for that, new systems therefore whole ing is a It study to [11]. possible resonators systems, pair superconducting physical Cooper in to of [10] boxes range crystals wide photonic in a nanocavities in from realized cav- be Coupled can blockade. ities photon photon with competing hand, thus delocaliza- other tion favours cavities the neighboring On photon between suppressing hopping cavity. thus each 9], in 8, 7, fluctuations pho- [6, a achieve regime to blockade possible ton is it resonance cavity, photonic the the inside control- and frequency By spacings level ef- atomic photons. strong the ling between a Light- nonlinearity to leads Kerr effects. these cavity fective two the in of inside emerges interplay interaction which the matter from scenario con- stems rich a cavities systems The in coupled phenomena way. correlated use of strongly trolled phase to of Mott way study a the the realize for to paved 5] have 4, polaritons 2]). [3, lat- [1, proposals optical reviews recent the were (see The arrays sort junction this Josephson or of tices examples sys- Successful many-body controlled tems. of design been judicious has a systems by interacting gained strongly of physics the of ing N ed oteeitneo oaio glass. polariton this a that of show we existence and the cavity to cav- each number leads the in the in fluctuates where atoms atoms case of of the number consider we the non-trivial Furthermore of its ity. function and a boundary phase as we the scaling locate calculations to accom- analytical able we and are means what By simulations is case. numerical one-dimensional this of the far; for work so this out in diagram plish worked phase [4] exact been one The not for cavity. has level in atoms field [13] mean phase many the a and case, at other evaluated number the was large In of boundary detuning. limit large the and in atoms polaritons of Na the for Neil [14] experimental by model an devised case, also Hartmann last been light- has this the proposal in for scheme interaction; a matter as model [12] Jaynes-Cummings gelakis h oaio otisltrhsbe rdce ntwo in predicted been has insulator Mott polariton The understand- considerable a decades two past the Over orlvlssesi h ii flarge of limit the in systems four-level otisltn n lsypae fplrtn n1 arrays 1D in polaritons of phases glassy and insulating Mott tal. et tal. et hs onaya ucino h ubro tm nieeac inside atoms of number the of function a a of emergence critica as the boundary across boundary phase fringes phase visibility the and locate We compressibility cavities. coupled dimensional 5 n Greentree and [5] 1 ymaso nltcladnmrclmtosw nlz h p the analyze we methods numerical and analytical of means By ETCRIF coaNraeSproe izadiCaval dei Piazza Superiore, Normale Scuola 2 & NEST-CNR-INFM nentoa colfrAvne tde SSA,VaBei Via (SISSA), Studies Advanced for School International on apn noaBose-Hubbard a onto mapping a found tal. et 3 icse aiydpdwith doped cavity a discussed [3] oaioi lsyphase glassy polaritonic tal. et aieRossini Davide 4 nlzdthe analyzed [4] N hl An- while , tal. et hntenme faosflcutsfo aiyt cavity. to cavity from fluctuates atoms of number the when [13]. 1 n oai Fazio Rosario and ehv endtesi operators spin the defined have we ewe h w tmclevels, atomic two the between tr o the for ators ( htncecttosadtettlaoi spin atomic total the and excitations photonic and ( cavity, constant the of quency ulyn os.I h neato itr,i electric in picture, reads interaction model H the the approximations differ- wave In vir- rotating pro- and a with dipole nonlinearity noise. been problem, Kerr no has large this tually a atoms, overcome producing four-level [15] to posed involving weak- order scheme is In ent nonlinearities is of emission strength spontaneous ened. the atomic also the minimized, when ∆, detuning ntesbpc fmxmmspin, maximum always of is state subspace ground the The in quantities. conserved are site g n n oeigoperators lowering and ing j | lsia opigfil ihRb rqec ;tecav- the Ω; frequency frequency of Rabi mode with ity field coupling classical g a of ray aitna nec aiyadtepoo opn term cavities: hopping different photon between the and cavity each on Hamiltonian | ( nthe in o opn,and hopping, ton potential chemical a expression add ous we 13], [4, in As neatwt htn i ansCmig coupling Jaynes-Cummings a H via photons with interact h ih-atritrcin ewl osdrtefollow- models. the two consider ing will We interaction. light-matter the 2 l α l t tm h transition The atom. -th 2 2 i i i i ( ( ( h parameters the ; j oe II Model h aitna o h ytmcmoe ya ar- an by composed system the for Hamiltonian The oe I Model on,adfidanntiilsaigo the of scaling non-trivial a find and point, l II,a j I,a 6= = S H h i m 24 | → ) ± m = ) | a L i = z , = t aiy h oa contribution local the cavity; -th ,o nrylvlppltos( populations level energy or ), † r h tmcriigadlwrn operators lowering and raising atomic the are ics h eairo h polariton the of behavior the discuss , X i 4 =1 dnia ope aiisi ie ytelocal the by given is cavities coupled identical and ) + L ǫ i δS ,ω > β ω, ǫ, j ( S S H i olcinof collection A 33 rniin ihculn constants coupling with transitions u -,I304Tise Italy Trieste, I-34014 2-4, rut aedarmo oaiosi one- in polaritons of diagram hase i i 42 z nteJye-umnsmdla large a at model Jaynes-Cummings the In j i ( t atom, -th +∆ ,1 2, a aiy eas rdc the predict also We cavity. h + t σ a ) stenaetniho ne-aiypho- inter-cavity nearest-neighbor the is j,i ,hvn endtegoa tmcrais- atomic global the defined having ), ± − ei7 -62 ia Italy Pisa, I-56126 7, ieri N 2 a S δ i r h tmcriiglwrn oper- raising/lowering atomic the are t + ) i 44 ) h oa ubro tmcplus atomic of number total The 0). h X stepoo niiainoperator annihilation photon the is n con o h euig of detunings the for account ∆ and i,j +Ω( ω i ωa cav  ǫ a S i † eoe h rniinenergy transition the denotes fculdcavities coupled of i † a β i 23 S a ope the couples i | N 3 j lm + + steao-edcoupling atom-field the is i + j S w-ee ytm which systems two-level β = ω i 32 a | → ( j † S S )+ P a stersnnefre- resonance the is i + i =  a 2 j N g =1 S i i 1 − N/ j ( i + α l | S µ 1 | µ sdie ya by driven is l H i 13 i = nteprevi- the In . 2. S i X = j i j i ( =1 i L − a a h | → m ) a † m S P + n i † i o the for ) describes 2 | ,where ), i ; S 3 j N neach on . g =1 i i σ 31 1 j j lm a σ and and (1) )+ j,i α = 2

-0.5 levels 3 and 4 respectively. The atomic part of the system ρ -0.25 N = 1 = 3 N = 2 ρ= 3 -0.75 wavefunction for the i-th cavity can be fully character- β / ρ= 2 β / ized by the number of atoms in each of the four possible ρ= 2 4 ω) -0.5 ω) - -1 states: n1,n2,n3,n4 , with ni = N. The total -

i=1 µ ( {| i} P µ -0.75 ρ ( number of photons plus the number of atomic excitations = 1 -1.25 ρ= 1 in the whole system (where states 2 , 3 count for one | ij | ij -1 excitation, while 4 counts for two excitations), is a con- -1.5 j 0 0.08 0.16 β 0.24 0 0.08 0.16 β 0.24 served quantity.| Hereafteri we assume g g g and t/ t/ 1 ≃ 2 ≡ 4 4 define the relative atomic detuning δw ∆ δ. L = 12 L = 12 ≡ − 3 L = 24 3 L = 24

Mott insulator The phase diagram of the coupled cav- β L = 36 β L = 36 / L = 48 / L = 48 ity system is characterized by two distinct phases [3, 4, 5]: κ L = 64 κ 2 L = 80 2 the Mott Insulator (MI) is surrounded by the Superfluid L = 96 (SF) phase. In the MI polaritons are localized on each 1 1 site, with a uniform density ρ npol/L, where npol is 0 0 ≡ 0 0.08 0.24 0 0.08 0.24 the total number of polaritons in a system of L cavities; 0.16 t/β 0.16 t/β there is a gap in the spectrum, and the compressibility κ ∂ρ/∂µ vanishes. A finite hopping renormalizes this ≡ ∗ FIG. 1: (Color online) Upper panels: Phase diagram for the gap, which eventually vanishes at t . The phase bound- Hamiltonian model I, with N = 1, 2 atoms inside each cavity aries between the two phases can thus be determined by at ǫ = ω. Lower panels: System compressibility κ for the first evaluating, as a function of the hopping, the critical val- lobe (i.e., ρ = 1), for different system sizes L, with N = 1 ues of µ at which the gap vanishes. Our data have been (left) and N = 2 (right). obtained by means of the Density Matrix Renormaliza- tion Group (DMRG) algorithm with open boundary con- -0.25 ditions [16]. In numerical calculations, the Hilbert space -0.75 ρ= 2 Ω

/ N = 1 N = 2 for the on-site Hamiltonian is fixed by a maximum num- -0.5 Ω / -1 phot phot µ ρ ber of admitted photons nmax . We chose nmax = 6 for -0.75 µ = 2 phot -1.25 model I and nmax = 4 for model II; we also retained -1 ρ= 1 up to m = 120 states in the DMRG procedure, such to -1.5 ρ= 1 guarantee accurate results, and checked that our data -1.25 -1.75 phot -1.5 are not affected by increasing nmax . We simulated sys- 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 tems with up to L = 128, and up to N = 5 atoms per t/Ω t/Ω cavity [17]; the asymptotic values in the thermodynamic 3 3 L = 12 L = 8 Ω Ω limit have been extracted by performing a linear fit in / L = 24 / L = 16 L = 36 L = 24 1/L. By combining these results with strong coupling κ 2 L = 48 κ 2 L = 32 perturbation theory [18] we were able to locate the phase boundaries for all values of N. Most of this paper is de- 1 1 voted to the case ǫ = ω for model I and δ =∆=0 for 0 0 model II. These regimes could not be accessed by the 0 0.1 0.2 0.3Ω 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3Ω 0.4 perturbative approach of Ref. [3]. t/ t/ Let us start with zero photon hopping (t = 0). For ∗ FIG. 2: (Color online) Upper panels: Phase diagram of model model I, at fixed N, there exists a value δI of the de- II. The detuning parameters are set to zero and g/Ω = 1. ∗ tuning δI ω ǫ such that, for δI > δ , the width Lower panels: System compressibility κ for the first lobe, for ≡ − I of the lobe with a polaritonic density ρ = N is greatly different system sizes L, with N = 1 (left) and N = 2 (right). enhanced with respect to the other lobes. We estimate δ∗ numerically and find a scaling δ∗ √N. For model I I ∼ II, at a given relative atomic detuning δω > 0 the situa- tion is similar to model I, where the resonating lobe with to the lobe width at t = 0. Furthermore, the ratio be- ρ = N is much larger than the other lobes, if δ<δ∗. In tween the upper and the lower slopes of the lobes at small the opposite case, δω < 0, some of the lobes disappear. hopping is greater than the one predicted in Ref. [18]; For model I, numerical data at finite photon hopping this discrepancy disappears on increasing the number of for different values of N are shown in Fig. 1; the phase atoms inside the cavity. In terms of an effective Bose- diagram of model II is shown in Fig. 2. Several interest- Hubbard model, this may be understood as a correlated ing features emerge in the structure of the lobes. In both hopping of the polaritons, i.e., the hopping depends on models, for fixed N, contrary to Bose-Hubbard model, the occupation of the cavity. the critical values t∗ of the hopping strength at which A more detailed analysis of the transition at filling one the various lobes shrink in a point are not proportional can be performed by considering the compressibility. In 3 our DMRG simulations we fix the total number npol of 0.4 0.4

β MODEL I Ω MODEL II excitations in the system, thus fixing the polariton den- / / t* t* sity ρ inside each cavity in the insulating regime. In the 0.2 0.2 lower panels of Figs. 1, 2 we plot κ in the first insulating lobe (with a polariton density ρ = 1) as a function of t for different sizes of the system, for the models I and II. By 0.1 0.1 exploring the mapping to the Bose-Hubbard model we 0.08 0.08 construct the full curve t∗ versus N. The effective repul- 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.04 1 sive interaction Ueff between polaritons, at ρ = 1, is given 1 1/3 1/3 1/5 1/4 1/2 1/4 1/2 1/50 1/201/20 1/10 2 2 1/50 1/20 1/10 by Ueff (1) ∂ E(n)/∂n n=1 (where E(n) is the ground 1/N 1/N ≡ | 0 state energy of Hamiltonian i with n polaritons), that 10

H β is exactly the opening of the first lobe at t = 0. For / MODEL I, N=10 t* model I it is possible to give an exact analytic formula: -1 U (1) = 2√N[1 1 1/(2N)], while for model II it 10 eff − p − SF can be evaluated numerically. As N increases, Ueff (1)

√ -2 decays to zero; for both models Ueff (1) 1/ N as far 10 MI as N . Moreover the effective repulsion∼ depends on → ∞ the number of polaritons, contrary to the Bose-Hubbard -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 model; this dependence weakens, and eventually vanishes ∆ /β in the limit n N. Therefore the mapping becomes ac- ∗ ≪ FIG. 3: (Color online) Upper graphs: Critical hopping t in curate when N increases. The polaritonic hopping teff can be obtained by performing a strong coupling expan- the first lobe as a function of the number N of atoms inside each cavity, for the two different models with all the detunings ∗ ∗ ∗ sion in t. For model I we found that t 2 teff , while set to zero. Dashed black lines indicate a behavior t 1/√N ∗ N+1 ∗ ∼ ∼ for model II we get t 2 N teff . The critical hopping and are plotted as guidelines. Lower graph: Critical hopping ∼ ∗ is then obtained using the value for the critical point t for model I with N = 10 atoms per cavity [20], as a function ∗ teff /Ueff 0.3 [19]. Figure 3 (upper part) displays both of the relative detuning ∆. Blue squares have been evaluated numerical≃ (blue squares) and analytical estimates (red with the DMRG. Red data are estimates obtained from the circles) for the two models. This analysis shows that the effective on-site polaritonic repulsion Ueff at zero hopping, Bose-Hubbard model provides a good description already with filling ρ = 1. for N 10. A study of the dynamics is needed to further strengthen∼ this observation. We point out that, in exper- imental realizations, the parameter that can be changed to cross the transition is the detuning. For model I this when N changes from cavity to cavity, it leads to the is shown in the lower part of Fig. 3. emergence of a polariton glass. Following [14], this phase Visibility of photon interference The phase transi- is characterized by a finite compressibility, gapless exci- tion can be detected by analyzing the phase coherence tation spectrum, and zero superfluid density. of photons [21], in a way similar to what has been Random fluctuations in the number of atoms per cav- done for the Bose-Hubbard model [21, 22]. The in- ity lead to disorder in the on-site light-matter interaction terference pattern of the photonic density is propor- strength. This effect can cause significant consequences tional to the photon number distribution in the mo- only in the limit of large N (we quantify this state- 1 L 2πik(j−l)/LS † ment below) where the mapping onto a Bose-Hubbard mentum space: (k) = L j,l=1 e aj al . The visibility of interferenceS fringesP can then beh definedi as model applies. A Bose glass phase has been originally = ( max min)/( max+ min) . The visibility is strictly predicted [14] as a function of disorder in the chemical zeroV onlyS in−S the limitS t = 0,S where the interference pat- potential. Recently it has been shown that fluctuations tern is constant. When t is increased, the visibility in the on-site repulsion lead to a Bose glass as well [23]. S itself increases, until it saturates to the maximum value We take advantage of the results obtained in [23] and = 1 in the superfluid regime. This description is well the mapping to an effective Bose-Hubbard model to give V adapted even for photon coherence in our hybrid light- a detailed estimate for the width of the polariton glass matter system, as shown in Fig. 4. The existence of differ- phase. The key to our finding is to relate fluctuations ent phases can also be detected by measuring fluctuations in the number of atoms to fluctuations in the on-site in the number of polaritons, as discussed in [3]. repulsion Ueff . We suppose that each Ni is a random Polaritonic glass phase Up to now we have assumed discrete Gaussian variable with a mean value N , and that the number of atoms in each cavity was constant a standard deviation δN. Figure 5 displays fluctuationsh i and equal to N. In certain implementations this require- in the effective on-site repulsion δUeff as a function of ment might be demanding. Here however we consider the fluctuations in the number of atoms, while in the this problem from a different perspective and show that, inset of Fig. 5 we show an example of such a varia- 4

1 cavity and we choose δN 19 (such to have ǫ = 0.25), V L = 48 ≃ 2 L = 128 10 a polaritonic glassy phase should be visible, in the case −3 −2 0.8 S 1 of model I, for 7.51 10 . t/β . 1.401 10 . The 10 × × 0 10 situation is qualitatively the same for model II. The

-1 0.6 10 polariton glass may be observed by measuring, at frac-

-2 0.6 10 tional fillings, the photon visibility as a function of the S 1 16 32 48 0.4 0.55 k disorder. Anyway, a complete characterization of the po- 0.5 lariton glass requires a study of its dynamical behavior. 0.2 0.45 Concluding remarks In this work we have discussed 0.4 1 16 32 48 in details the equilibrium properties of a chain of cou- k 0 pled cavities. The results we presented here are general, 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 t/β in the sense that they apply to all the systems described by Eq. (1). An important issue is to understand the ef- FIG. 4: (Color online) Photonic visibility in the first insu- fect of decoherence, decay, cavity losses, ..., which occur lating lobe (ρ = 1) as a function of the hoppingV strength t/β, in these systems. These aspects have to be discussed for for model I. Here we considered the case N =1, ∆=0. In- each implementation (see for example [3, 11]), together sets: The photon number correlation function (k) for L = 48 S with the effect of an additional possible external driv- in the deep insulating regime (t/β = 0.01), and at the edge ing. The combined presence of dissipation and external of the superfluid regime (t/β = 0.20). driving may lead to a change of the universality class of the transition, or to new phenomena associated to non- 2 equilibrium phases. We acknowledge useful discussions with A. Tredicucci 1.4 = 1 > = 10 and support by MIUR-PRIN and EC-Eurosqip. eff = 100 U 1.5 1.2 = 1000 > ) / < i ( eff

eff 1 U

0.8 1 0 25 50 75 100 /

δ 0.5 [3] M.J. Hartmann, F.G.S.L. Brand˜ao, and M.B. Plenio, Na- ture Physics 2, 849 (2006). [4] A.D. Greentree et al., Nature Physics 2, 856 (2006). [5] D.G. Angelakis, M.F. Santos, and S. Bose, Phys. Rev. A 0 76 -1 0 1 2 3 4 , 031805(R) (2007). 10 10 10 10 10 10 [6] A. Imamo¯glu et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1467 (1997). δN [7] S. Rebi´c et al., J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 1, 490 (1999). FIG. 5: (Color online) Relative standard deviation of the ef- 397 4 [8] J. Kim et al., Nature , 500 (1999). fective on-site interaction strength Ueff averaged over L = 10 [9] K.M. Birnbaum et al., Nature 436, 87 (2005). cavities, as a function of the atom number fluctuations δN; [10] Y. Akahane et al., Nature 425, 944 (2003). from left to right N = 1, 10, 100, 1000. Dashed line indi- [11] A. Wallraff et al., Nature 431, 162 (2004). h i cates an effective variation of the interaction strength equal to [12] B.W. Shore and P.L. Knight, J. Mod. Opt. 40, 1195 the standard deviation of a random interaction uniformly dis- (1993). tributed in the interval Ueff (i)/ Ueff [ ǫ, +ǫ] with ǫ = 0.25. [13] Y.C. Neil Na et al., quant-ph/0703219. h i ∈ − In the inset an example of the variation on the on-site effective [14] M.P.A. Fisher et al., Phys. Rev. B 40, 546 (1989). interaction is shown; N = 100, δN = 20. [15] H. Schmidt and A. Imamo¯glu, Opt. Lett. 21, 1936 (1996). h i [16] The DMRG code of the “Powder with Power” project (http://www.qti.sns.it) has been used. [17] In model II, for N = 3, 4, only states with at most three phot tion, with N = 100, δN = 20, in the case of model atomic excitations and nmax = 3 were considered. I. We canh theni use numerical data of Ref. [23] to esti- [18] J.K. Freericks and H. Monien, Phys. Rev. B 53, 2691 mate where the polaritonic glass phase can be observed. (1996). [19] T.D. K¨uhner, S.R. White, and H. Monien, Phys. Rev. B It has been shown that in the Bose Hubbard model, for 61, 12474 (2000). a relative interaction δU / U uniformly distributed eff h eff i [20] For N = 10 we limited the total polariton number per in an interval of length 2ǫ = 0.5, a L = 200 sites sys- site to n = 4. tem at filling ρ = 1.01 exhibits a Bose glass phase for [21] M.X. Huo et al., quant-ph/0702078. 95 0.078 . teff / Ueff . 0.133. In our model with the same [22] F. Gerbier et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. , 050404 (2005). polaritonic filling,h i if we take, e.g., N = 100 particles per [23] H. Gimperlein et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 170401 (2005). h i