Tag Archives: Wave function

Topology and the Nobel Prize

You may have seen that the Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded this week. The Prize was given “for theoretical discoveries of topological phase transitions and topological phases of matter”, which is a bit of a mouthful. Since this is an area that I have done a small amount of work in, I thought I would try to explain what it means.

You might have seen a video where a slightly nutty Swede talks about muffins, donuts, and pretzels. (He’s my boss, by the way!) The number of holes in each type of pastry defined a different “topology” of the lunch item. But what does that have to do with electrons? This is the bit that I want to flesh out. Then I’ll give an example of how it might be a useful concept.

What is topology?

In a previous post, I talked about band structure of crystal materials. This is the starting point of explaining these topological phases, so I recommend you read that post before trying this one. There, I talked about the band structure being a kind of map of the allowed quantum states for electrons in a particular crystal. The coordinates of the map are the momentum of the electron.

Each of those quantum states has a wave function associated with it, which describes among other things, the probability of the electron in that state being at a particular point in space. To make a link with topology, we have to look at how the wave function changes in different parts of the map. To use a real map of a landscape as the analogy, you can associate the height of the ground with each point on the map, then by looking at how the height changes you can redraw the map to show how steep the slope of the ground is at each point.

We can do something like that in the mathematics of the wave functions. For example, in the sketches below, the arrows represent how the slope of the wave function looks for different momenta. You can get vortices (left picture) where the arrows form whirlpools, or you can get a source (right picture) where the arrows form a hedgehog shape. A sink is similar except that the arrows are pointing inwards, not outwards.

bstopology-svg

Now for the crucial part. There is a theorem in mathematics that says that if you multiply the slope of the wave function with the wave function itself at the same point, and add up all of these for every arrow on the map, then the result has to be a whole number. This isn’t obvious just by looking at the pictures but that’s why mathematics is great!

That whole number (which I’m going to call n from now on) is like the number of holes in the cinnamon bun or pretzel: It defines the topology of the electron states in the material. If n is zero then we say that the material is “topologically trivial”. If n is not zero then the material is “topologically non-trivial”. In many cases, n counts difference between the number of sources and the number of sinks of the arrows.

What topology does

Okay, so that explains how topology enters into the understanding of electron states. But what impact does it have on the properties of a material? There are a number of things, but one of the most cool is about quantum states that can appear on the surface of topologically non-trivial materials. This is because of another theorem from mathematics, called the “bulk-boundary correspondence” which says that when a topologically non-trivial material meets a topologically trivial one, there must be quantum states localized at the interface.

Now, the air outside of a crystal is topologically trivial. (In fact, it has no arrows at all, so that when you take the sum there is no option but to get zero for the result.) So, at the edges of any topologically non-trivial material there must be quantum states at the edges. In some materials, like bismuth selenide for example, these quantum states have weird spin properties that might be used to encode information in the future.

And the best part is that because these quantum states at the edge are there because of the topology of the underlying material, they are really robust against things like impurities or roughness of the edge or other types of disorder which might destroy quantum states that don’t have this “topological protection”.

An application

Now, finally, I want to give one more example of this type of consideration because it’s something I’ve been working on this year. But let me start at the beginning and explain the practical problem that I’m trying to solve. Let’s say that graphene, the wonder material is finally made into something useful that you can put on a computer chip. Then, you want to find a way to make these useful devices talk to each other by exchanging electric current. To do that, you need a conducting wire that is only a few nanometers thick which allows current to flow along it.

The obvious choice is to use a wire of graphene because then they can be fabricated at the same time as the graphene device itself. But the snag is that to make this work, the edges of that graphene wire have to be absolutely perfect. Essentially, any single atom out of place will make it very hard for the graphene wire to conduct electricity. That’s not good, because it’s very difficult to keep every atom in the right place!

grbnhet-svg

The picture above shows a sketch of a narrow strip of graphene surrounded by boron nitride. Graphene is topologically trivial, but boron nitride is (in a certain sense) non-trivial and can have n equal to either plus or minus one, depending on details. So, remembering the bulk-boundary correspondence, the graphene in this construction works like an interface between two different topologically non-trivial regions, and therefore there must be quantum states in the graphene. These states are robust, and protected by the topology. I’ve tried to show these states by the black curved lines which illustrate that the electrons are located in the middle of the graphene strip.

Now, it is possible to use these topologically protected states to conduct current from left to right in the picture (or vice versa) and so this construction will work as a nanometer size wire, which is just what is needed. And the kicker is that because of the topological protection, there is no longer any requirement for the atoms of the graphene to be perfectly arranged: The topology beats the disorder!

Maybe this, and the example of the bismuth selenide I gave before show that the analysis of topology of quantum materials is a really useful way to think about their properties and helps us understand what’s going on at a deeper level.

(If you’re really masochistic and want to see the paper I just wrote on this, you can find it here.)

Advertisements

Particle-wave duality and the two slit experiment

Particle-wave duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that small objects simultaneously behave a bit like particles and a bit like waves. This comes very naturally from the mathematics, but instead of talking about those boring details, I’m going to describe a famous experiment that proves it.

Diffraction

TwoSlitsIt’s called the two slit experiment, and I’ve sketched how it works in the picture on the right. Before going into the full details, let’s look at the upper part of the picture. This shows a light wave shining on a barrier with a small slit in it. The thin black lines show the position of the peaks of the wave that describes the traveling light. Some of the light can get through that slit, but in doing so, it changes its form to become a circular wave with the slit at its source. This is called diffraction, and leads to a distinctive pattern when the light hits a screen placed some way behind the barrier. The red line behind the barrier shows the intensity of the light hitting the screen. This demonstrates that light can behave in a wave-like way because if the light was just particles you would not see the diffraction pattern, but there would be a small spot of light on the screen in line with the slit.

Now look at the lower part of the picture. Now the screen has been replaced with a second barrier that has two slits in it. Both of these slits act like the first one: they diffract the light that is coming through. So behind the second barrier, there are now two waves of light, one coming from each slit. These two waves interfere with each other, so that the pattern of light seen on the screen (the red line) looks very different from that made by just one slit. (I did actually calculate what the light should look like before I drew these pictures, so I hope both of the red lines are actually correct!) Interference is the process of these wave adding together to form one single pattern. The value of a light wave at a particular position can be either positive or negative. In the picture, the thin black lines show where the waves are at their maximum – so where they are their most positive. Exactly half-way between a pair of lines they are at their most negative. If the two waves are both positive at a particular position (like exactly at the center of the screen) then they add together to give intense light. But if one is positive and one is negative then they will cancel each other out and leave almost no light.

Electrons

That’s not very controversial. But it starts to get a bit more weird when you repeat the same experiment but using a beam of electrons instead of a beam of light. Electrons are one of the three types of “particle” which make up an atom: The protons and neutrons bind together to form the nucleus, and then electrons “orbit” around it. Until this experiment was done for the first time, most physicists thought that electrons were particles. But the result of the experiment was the same kind of two-slit diffraction pattern that they got when they used light. The electrons that went through each of the slits were interfering with each other just like the light waves did. The only possible conclusion: these electrons were also wave-like.

Then, they pushed the experiment a bit further. They had the same barriers, but instead of using a beam of electrons, they fired them through one at a time. Astonishingly, even though there was only one electron, the result was still a two-slit diffraction pattern. Somehow, the electron was going through both slits and interfering with itself. Conclusion: Electrons are not just wave-like when there are lots of them, they are wave-like on their own!

Now it gets weird

To try and verify this, they modified their apparatus to include detectors at both of the slits so they could tell which slit the electron was going though. Expecting to find a signal from both detectors, they were surprised to find that only one of the detectors sensed an electron going though, and instead of the two-slit diffraction pattern, they now saw a one-slit pattern on the screen. If they did the experiment with the detectors turned off, the two-slit diffraction pattern reappeared. It seemed like asking the electron which slit it had gone through forced it to choose one or the other. But get this: The experimentalists got sneaky. They took the electron detectors away and instead made slits that could be opened and closed very quickly. Starting with both slits open, they fired one electron from the gun. After it had passed the barrier with the two slits, but before it reached the screen, they closed one of the slits. Any guesses as to what pattern was measured on the screen?

They saw a single-slit diffraction pattern! Somehow, the electron knew that one of the slits had been closed after it went through, and behaved like only the other one had been open the whole time. This hints at many deep issues about quantum measurement and (gulp!) the nature of reality itself. But I’ll save that discussion for another time.

This experiment has been repeated with many different objects used instead of the light or electrons. Protons, whole atoms, and buckyballs all show the same behavior, so this is without doubt a general feature in quantum mechanics and not something oddly specific to light and electrons. In fact, once you allow for the possibility of wave-like particles, you start to see the effects of them in many places, including in the behavior of electrons in the materials which make computer chips and all the rest of information technology. So it’s a pretty big deal.

And finally…

One final point of detail which I think is worth pointing out. In the first paragraph, I mentioned that “small objects” are needed to do this experiment. But what does “small” mean in this context? It turns out, this can be written down in a really simple equation. The de Broglie wavelength, referred to by the symbol \lambda, is the wavelength associated with the quantum object. It turns out, that to see the wave-like properties, the size of the slits has to be similar to \lambda.

The formula is \lambda = h / mv. Here, h is just a number that comes from quantum mechanics and can be forgotten about. The m and v are the mass and speed associated with the particle-like properties of the object. So, the heavier the “particle”, the smaller the associated wavelength is. This explains why you don’t see any wave-like effects for people or cars or golf balls. Just to illustrate the kind of size that we talking about, light has a \lambda of half a micron or so. For electrons, it’s a few nanometers, and for buckyballs, it’s a few thousandths of a nanometer.