Skip to lecture
Quantum Solids

Lecture 22: SSH Winding and Boundary Localization

Geometric phase becomes a condensed-matter diagnostic only when symmetry, filling, boundary, and allowed deformation are specified. The SSH chain supplies the smallest setting in which those ingredients can be followed from a bulk family of states to an explicit boundary recursion. That construction becomes a controlled prototype for later bulk–boundary arguments, while also showing why termination and symmetry breaking can change an edge claim without changing every bulk energy. Topology does not attach to a band diagram in isolation; it relates a gapped bulk object, an equivalence rule, and a boundary problem under declared protecting conditions.

Trans-polyacetylene supplies the historical mechanism: a Peierls distortion turns equal carbon–carbon bonds into alternating stronger and weaker bonds, so the electronic hopping alternates as well. Its two dimerization patterns have the same bulk spectrum in the idealized chain but differ at a domain wall or a specified end. Real polyacetylene also has lattice dynamics, spin, interactions, chemical end groups, and soliton physics. We therefore use an engineered electronic or cold-atom dimer chain as the literal realization of the minimal Hamiltonian, because there the hopping ratio and termination can be prepared and local spectral weight or site occupation can be resolved.

The two bulk dimerizations can have the same energy spectrum while a specified termination treats them differently. When does a bulk winding actually license a localized end state? The qualified answer applies to electronic, photonic, mechanical, and electrical dimer chains, but only after symmetry, unit cell, and termination have been stated.

We will Fourier transform the declared dimerized chain, calculate its winding, and solve the open-boundary zero-mode recursion for both terminations and a symmetry-breaking variation.

With one frozen chain, let t1/t2=0.5, take positive hoppings and an exposed A1 site, and traverse the Brillouin zone with increasing k. Predict whether the hopping loop encloses the origin and whether a zero-energy amplitude launched at the left edge grows or decays. The lecture will make those two answers meet and then deliberately break one of their shared assumptions.

In five minutes, Fourier transform only ∑jc^A,j+1†c^B,j, decide when a circle of radius |t2| centered at t1 contains the origin, and state when ∑j≥0r2j converges. These retrieve the lattice transform from Lecture 7, two-band geometry from Lecture 4, and loop reasoning from Lecture 21. The local changes are the off-diagonal hopping function and the open-boundary recursion.

Fourier transform the declared chain

The SSH winding and its end state live in two related but different descriptions. The winding belongs to a chiral Bloch Hamiltonian with an open gap, |t1|≠|t2|, and fixed orientation and unit-cell conventions; the localized mode belongs to a terminated real-space operator. Both calculations are exact for the declared alternating-hopping model. Mapping an actual chain or device to that model is phenomenological unless omitted onsite, longer-range, and interaction terms are bounded. Changing the termination or breaking chiral symmetry is therefore a decisive physical test, not an afterthought to the topological label.

The Brillouin zone is a circle and the Bloch operator acts on a two-orbital space. Declare the chiral operator, unit-cell convention, complex hopping function, winding orientation, finite-chain Hilbert space, termination, and boundary-state normalizability domain. A continuously chosen phase is a local branch, whereas the winding is globally defined.

The fiber-operator/matrix distinction is the one fixed in the Bloch Hamiltonian definition. The later polarization comparison reuses the Zak-phase definition, including its origin, unit-cell, orientation, and endpoint qualifications.

The bulk object is a gapped symmetry-constrained Hamiltonian family, and its topological statement is an obstruction to a symmetry-preserving gapped deformation. A winding number is one representation of that obstruction after the chiral basis and unit-cell convention are declared. Moving a unit-cell boundary can relabel a winding representative; physically changing a boundary termination can change the boundary spectrum. Edge localization is therefore a conditional bulk–boundary consequence, not the definition of the bulk phase.

Choose cells j of length a, with orbitals Aj,Bj. Let real t1 connect Aj to Bj, and real t2 connect Bj to Aj+1. Here A and B are orbital names, so their equation subscripts are upright. The real-space operator is

H^=∑j(t1c^A,j†c^B,j+t2c^A,j+1†c^B,j+h.c.).

For Nc periodic cells at positions Rj=ja, use the cell-coordinate Fourier convention

c^α,k=1Nc∑je−ikRjc^α,j,k∈[−π/a,π/a).

Before transforming, predict which bond remembers a cell displacement. The intracell term has no phase,

∑jc^A,j†c^B,j=∑kc^A,k†c^B,k,

whereas Rj+1=Rj+a gives

∑jc^A,j+1†c^B,j=∑ke−ikac^A,k†c^B,k.

Let BAB=(|A⟩,|B⟩) be the ordered orthonormal basis of the two-orbital Bloch fiber. The resulting operator representation, its short numerical name, and its spectrum are

(22.1)

[H^(k)]BAB=:HSSH(k)=(0t1+t2e−ikat1+t2eika0)=[t1+t2cos⁡(ka)]σx+t2sin⁡(ka)σy, ε±(k)=±|t1+t2eika|.

Let H^ be a self-adjoint operator on a Hilbert space H with domain D(H^), and fix an energy origin E0. A chiral symmetry is a unitary, self-adjoint involution Γ^:H→H such that Γ^2=I^,Γ^D(H^)=D(H^),Γ^(H^−E0I^)Γ^−1=−(H^−E0I^). Equivalently, {Γ^,H^−E0I^}=0 on the common domain. The definition depends on the declared energy zero and acts on states; after a basis is chosen, its numerical matrix has no hat. It is an operator relation, not a property of one eigenvector representative.

The numerical Pauli matrices act on the declared A/B sublattice coordinates and carry no hats. The corresponding Hilbert-space chiral operator Γ^ is +1 on A and −1 on B, so [Γ^]BAB=σz. The off-diagonal form gives

σzHSSH(k)σz=−HSSH(k),{Γ^,H^}=0.

Chiral symmetry pairs every bulk energy E with −E. The gap is 2mink|t1+t2eika| and closes when |t1|=|t2| at the corresponding zone point. Including orbital positions in the Fourier phase would change matrix representatives but not the spectrum; Berry and winding representatives would have to transform consistently.

Winding from a continuously unwrapped phase

The lower-left matrix entry fixes the ordinary complex function

q(k)=dx(k)+idy(k)=t1+t2eika.

The upper-right entry is q∗(k); changing either entry without changing the orientation would conjugate the loop and reverse the reported sign.

Fix an oriented Brillouin circle BZ, a unit cell, an ordered sublattice basis, and a Bloch trivialization in which H(k)=(0q∗(k)q(k)0). If the ordinary continuously differentiable function q:BZ→C∖{0} never vanishes, the SSH winding number is the degree of q/|q|:BZ→U(1), ν[q]=12πi∫BZq(k)−1∂kq(k)dk∈Z. Equivalently it is the total continuously unwrapped change of a local branch of arg⁡q, divided by 2π. It is undefined when q=0, reverses sign with the orientation, and its representative depends on the unit-cell trivialization. The function q, its circle-valued phase, and a local real argument branch are three different mathematical objects; none is a distribution.

For the declared branch convention, the same definition can be displayed as the total unwrapped angle:

(22.2)

ν=12π∫BZdk∂karg⁡q(k).

Differentiating a principal-value branch directly would create artificial jumps. A branch-independent evaluation is

ν=12πi∫BZdkq(k)−1∂kq(k),q(k)≠0.

The SSH image is a circle of radius |t2| centered at t1. For positive hoppings and increasing k, |t1/t2|<1 encloses the origin once and gives ν=+1; |t1/t2|>1 gives ν=0. Reversing the Brillouin-zone orientation reverses the sign. If q=0, the inverse is singular, the bulk gap closes, and the gapped winding is undefined rather than noninteger.

The argument principle evaluates the claim without relying on the drawing. Set z=eika; as k increases through the Brillouin zone, |z|=1 is traversed counterclockwise. Then

ν=12πi∮|z|=1t2dzt1+t2z.

The integrand has one pole at z=−t1/t2. Its residue is one, so the integral is +1 when |t1/t2|<1 and zero when the pole lies outside. At equality the pole lies on the contour and the invariant is not defined. This pole-in-contour test fixes both the magnitude and the orientation sign.

Close the text. For t1/t2=0.5, reconstruct the intercell Fourier phase, the pole in the z plane, its winding, and the boundary ratio you expect before seeing the boundary equation. A correct magnitude with the wrong winding sign calls for an orientation check; disagreement between pole location and expected decay calls for a unit-cell/termination check.

The anchor now has a bulk prediction: the declared 0.5 loop winds once and stays gapped. Keep that same cell and cut fixed while asking whether real-space normalizability makes the identical inequality reappear.

For the occupied SSH band in this chiral two-band convention, γZak=πν (mod 2π). The Berry connection remains gauge dependent even though the holonomy and winding relation is stable modulo its quantum. A unit-cell redefinition can shift the displayed winding together with the polarization and boundary bookkeeping; changing only the bulk convention is inconsistent.

To see the factor of one half, write q=|q|eiφ on a local phase branch. A normalized negative-energy eigenvector and its connection are

|u−(k)⟩=12(−e−iφ(k)1),A−(k)=i⟨u−|∂ku−⟩=12∂kφ(k).

The unwrapped change in φ around the Brillouin circle is 2πν, giving the stated Zak phase modulo 2π. The spinor uses e−iφ, which is single valued even when no single real phase branch is periodic. This calculation uses the fixed cell-periodic orbital convention above; an embedding change must also be included in the physical polarization.

Use the real bonds t1,t2>0 of Equation (22.1) and the forward transform c^α,k=Nc−1/2∑je−ikRjc^α,j. The inverse has e+ikRj. Take increasing k on the Brillouin circle. Transform the two bonds, identify the chiral off-diagonal function q(k)=t1+t2eika, and calculate its winding for t1≠t2. Check the two atomic limits before making a boundary claim.

The intracell bond has no cell displacement. The bond c^A,j+1†c^B,j contributes e−ika, so the upper off-diagonal element is q∗, not q. The resulting matrix anticommutes with σz. Set z=eika; increasing k traverses |z|=1 counterclockwise. Then ν=12πi∮|z|=1t2dzt1+t2z={1,t1<t2,0,t1>t2. The only zero is z=−t1/t2, inside the contour precisely in the first regime. At t1=0, one intercell bond winds once; at t2=0, the constant intracell bond winds zero times. Independently the spectral gap is 2|t2−t1|, so the contour hits its zero exactly at the gap closing. Using q∗ or reversing the coordinate orientation would reverse the signed winding, not change the spectrum. This result has a fixed chiral basis and cell convention; the next recursion must use the corresponding physical termination rather than assume an edge from a circle drawing.

Boundary recursion and localization length

Let ψ=(ψj)j∈N be a nonzero normalizable boundary solution in ℓ2(N)⊗Cs for cells separated by a>0, each with s orbitals (s=2 for SSH), so that ψj∈Cs. If its amplitude has a positive asymptotic decay rate, its boundary-state localization length is 1ξloc=−limj→∞1jaln⁡‖ψj‖C>0, where any fixed C>0 gives the same limit. For a constant amplitude ratio 0<r<1, ξloc=−a/ln⁡r; the adjacent probability ratio is r2, not r. The localization length ξloc diverges as r→1−; for r≥1 the geometric sequence is not a normalizable boundary state, and for r=0 it has compact support with the limiting convention ξloc=0. A finite-chain fit estimates this semi-infinite quantity only after opposite-edge hybridization and bulk isolation have been checked.

Take a semi-infinite chain beginning with A1, with no B0 bond. The zero-energy equations permit a state with all B-sublattice amplitudes set to zero. The remaining Bj equation is

(22.3)

t1ψA,j+t2ψA,j+1=0,ψA,j+1=−t1t2ψA,j.

Thus

ψA,j=ψA,1(−t1t2)j−1.

Predict the boundary criterion before normalizing: the amplitude must shrink into the bulk. With r=|t1/t2|, normalizability requires r<1, and

1=∑j=1∞|ψA,j|2=|ψA,1|21−r2,|ψA,1|=1−r2.

The probability ratio of adjacent cells is r2. Writing the amplitude as

|ψA,j|=|ψA,1|exp⁡[−(j−1)a/ξloc],ξloc=−aln⁡r,

shows that the localization length diverges as r→1−, exactly where the bulk gap closes. In a finite chain of length L, left and right boundary modes overlap by order e−L/ξloc and can split symmetrically around zero without breaking chiral symmetry. A semi-infinite zero mode and a finite-chain pair therefore answer different questions.

A bulk–boundary audit for two hopping ratios

Bulk winding for both hopping ratios

Cut the chain of Example 22.1 at a left A1 site. For a zero-energy mode supported only on the A sublattice, derive and normalize the boundary recursion. Evaluate it for t1/t2=0.5 and 1.5, and estimate how a finite chain changes the zero-energy conclusion.

The B-site equation is t1aj+t2aj+1=0, so aj=Crj−1 with the signed ratio r=−t1/t2; its magnitude |r| is the amplitude ratio of Definition 22.3. On the half-infinite chain ∑j|aj|2=|C|2/(1−|r|2)=1, requiring |r|<1 and C=1−|r|2 after a phase choice. Writing the modulus as |aj|=Ce−(j−1)a/ξloc, with cell spacing a, gives ξloc=−a/ln⁡|r|; the probability decays twice as fast.

Keep t2>0, increasing k, the declared cell, and the left A1 termination.

For t1/t2=0.5, the q(k) circle encloses the origin and has ν=+1. The signed boundary ratio is r=−0.5, so the adjacent probability ratio is 0.25, the first-cell probability is 1−0.52=0.75, and

ξloc=−aln⁡0.5≈1.44a.

For t1/t2=1.5, the circle misses the origin and has ν=0. The same left-edge recursion grows into the bulk and is not normalizable. At t1=t2, the loop passes through the origin at ka=π, the bulk gap closes, arg⁡q is undefined there, and ξloc diverges. These are three representations of one transition.

For N cells, the truncated vector has CN2=(1−r2)/(1−r2N) for real r. Its unsatisfied far-end equation leaves amplitude t1CNrN−1. Projecting onto the normalized right B-edge vector gives coupling t1CN2rN−1, of order t2|r|N, and an exponentially small splitting when the edges are well separated. It is not an exactly isolated zero mode at arbitrary finite size. The geometric-series norm and the t1→0 single-site limit check normalization and termination independently. Normalizability was derived in real space, not inferred from the winding. Breaking chirality later tests energy pinning without necessarily destroying localization.

Measured decay in a momentum-space chain

The recursion predicts that weakening dimerization spreads a boundary state. Does the measured profile show that trend, and what prevents an exact identification with the ideal eigenstate? Meier, An and Gadway implemented an SSH chain using 21 momentum states of 87Rb atoms, rather than atomic positions in a polymer. After a 1 ms preparation ramp they inferred decay lengths from measured populations on even sites [MAG16, fig. 4(d), p. 5, and Adiabatic preparation].

Before reading the decay plot, trace Figure 22.1 from the physical atom cloud to the measured populations. Which objects occupy real space, and which labels denote states rather than distinct trapped atoms?

A cold-atom momentum lattice and its population readout. Panel (a) shows representative atoms in a dilute condensate and the field directions; panel (b) separates the synthetic chain from the measurement and fit. Neither panel contains measured intensities.

An irregular three-dimensional cloud of representative rubidium-87 atom symbols depicts a dilute condensate of about 50,000 atoms in the experiment. Many atoms share one coherent matter-wave mode. The symbols are not measured positions. Counterpropagating optical fields couple a separate abstract chain of 21 momentum states, not 21 atoms. Release, 18 ms time of flight, absorption imaging and an even-site population fit connect the system to the decay length.
Figure 22.1. A cold-atom momentum lattice and its population readout. Panel (a) shows representative atoms in a dilute condensate and the field directions; panel (b) separates the synthetic chain from the measurement and fit. Neither panel contains measured intensities. [MAG16, p. 2, Overview; pp. 5-6, Methods: Constructing the momentum space lattice, Calibration of tunnelling strengths, and Imaging]

Here the starting material is a Bose-Einstein condensate of approximately 5×104 rubidium-87 atoms, prepared by all-optical evaporative cooling and held in an optical trap. It is a dilute, ultracold gas, not a solid droplet. Condensation means that a macroscopic number of atoms occupy the same single-particle matter-wave mode; it does not mean that they sit at one point. The small atom symbols make the gas visible schematically. Their count, positions, sizes and the cloud shape are not experimental measurements or a map of localized quantum particles.

Counterpropagating 1064 nm fields couple momentum states pn=2nℏk, n=0,…,20, where k here is the optical wave number, not the SSH Bloch label. Multiple frequency components address the 20 links; the displayed left termination starts with a weak link. A two-photon Bragg process transfers momentum 2ℏk between adjacent states. The driving coherently redistributes the condensate among these momentum components of its matter wave. Thus a site labels a momentum state that many atoms can populate, not a particular atom or a separate trap in real space. Field axes are offset only for visibility; no chamber, camera orientation or optical hardware layout is inferred.

After preparation the confinement is removed. During 18 ms time of flight, different momenta separate approximately as xn−x0≃(pn−p0)T/m. Absorption imaging then yields resolved site populations; the even-site exponential fit yields the population-decay length. This ballistic relation explains the readout principle, not the full imaging calibration. The 18 ms readout interval is distinct from the 1 ms preparation ramp. The other STM schematic later in this lecture describes a different platform and is not the provider for these data.

The length convention matters. Write the site spacing as d, so our cell spacing is a=2d, and put δ=Δfinal/t, t1=t−Δfinal, t2=t+Δfinal. Then r=(1−δ)/(1+δ). On even sites n=2(j−1), Pn∝rn=exp⁡(−nd/ξP), so

ξPd=1ln⁡[(1+δ)/(1−δ)],ξloc=2ξP.

Thus the fitted population length must not be compared directly with the amplitude length in Definition 22.3. Inspect Figure 22.2 with this conversion in place. For its physical system and signal-to-population mapping, return to Figure 22.1, panels (a,b), respectively.

The boundary population becomes more localized as dimerization increases. Markers: experimental decay-length estimates digitized from the published panel; bars: the authors’ one standard error of the mean on both axes. Dashed line: the ideal exponential recursion above, with no fitted parameters.

Five digitized measured population-decay lengths decrease from about 4.2 to 0.50 site spacings as hopping imbalance increases. Horizontal and vertical bars show the reported standard errors. The first point has a large uncertainty and lies in the nonadiabatic preparation regime; the ideal prediction is not fitted to these points.
Figure 22.2. The boundary population becomes more localized as dimerization increases. Markers: experimental decay-length estimates digitized from the published panel; bars: the authors’ one standard error of the mean on both axes. Dashed line: the ideal exponential recursion above, with no fitted parameters. [MAG16, fig. 4(d), p. 5]

The dotted boundary at δ=0.13 marks the authors’ preparation-time qualification, not a phase transition. The ideal curve is shown only to its right and is not their ramp simulation. Digitization adds conservative reading bounds of 0.003 in δ and 0.05 site spacings, separate from the reported bars. Adapted from E. J. Meier, F. A. An and B. Gadway (2016), CC BY 4.0; colors, notation and theory comparison changed. The original absorption images were not digitized.

The recovered inputs are supplied here so the comparison does not depend on reading tiny markers. Uncertainties in this table are the reported standard errors recovered from the panel, rounded at its usable precision; the last column has no fit to the measurements.

δ, reported estimate and s.e. ξP/d, reported estimate and s.e. Ideal ξP/d
0.060±0.005 4.21±1.98 Not compared: ramp limitation
0.170±0.007 2.71±0.56 2.91
0.375±0.010 1.44±0.13 1.27
0.544±0.012 0.92±0.12 0.82
0.806±0.008 0.50±0.05 0.45

For the row near δ=0.375, the recursion gives r=0.625/1.375≃0.455, hence ξP/d≃1.27, compared with the recovered 1.44±0.13. The trend and scale agree, but the points do not sit exactly on the ideal line. A finite-time preparation and a fit to measured populations need not return the exact eigenstate profile; the smallest-imbalance point is especially vulnerable as the gap shrinks. The quoted uncertainties do not justify a precision goodness-of-fit test without the original fit details and correlations. This cold-atom record tests the localization mechanism, not an STM signal or a measurement on polyacetylene. The next calculation returns to our declared real-space chain and its termination and finite-length corrections.

Boundary recursion and termination

The finite-chain calculation should approach these semi-infinite predictions as its length grows. It can show two near-zero levels in the winding phase, but their exponentially small splitting is not a failure of the recursion. This equal-cell chain has the same number of A and B orbitals. It differs from an ideal 21-site open bipartite chain with 11 A and 10 B orbitals: setting B amplitudes to zero leaves ten recursions for eleven A amplitudes, with no final B-site condition. That ideal odd-site chain therefore has an exact zero mode. A state prepared in finite time in the experiment need not be this exact eigenstate; do not use its odd-site count to infer the paired-end splitting of the equal-cell chain.

Reuse the finite-chain normalization and residual end coupling in Example 22.2: with r=−t1/t2, the magnitude is |MLR|=t2CN2|r|N, and the approximate levels are E±=±|MLR|. For |r|=0.5 and N=10, |MLR|≃7.32×10−4t2, so the level separation is about 1.46×10−3t2. Increasing N by one halves the leading splitting, a quantitative localization check rather than a visual judgment of “near zero.”

Return now to an engineered-chain spectrum rather than leaving the result in units of t2. Take t2=100meV, t1=50meV, a=0.5nm, and N=10. The bulk band gap is

Egap=2|t2−t1|=100meV,

the edge-state localization length is 1.44a=0.72nm, and the finite-size level separation is approximately 0.146meV. The local spectral density at orbital j,

ρj(E)=∑n|ψn(j)|2δ(E−En),

therefore predicts an in-gap peak whose integrated weight is concentrated near the exposed end: 75% of the semi-infinite zero-mode probability lies on the first A orbital and each subsequent occupied-sublattice probability is smaller by a factor 0.25. Local tunneling spectroscopy tests the energy and spatial decay together; bulk spectroscopy tests the 100meV gap. A peak near zero without the predicted end localization, length dependence, and bulk gap would not establish this bulk–boundary mechanism.

The measurement problem starts far outside the tunnel junction. For a simple vacuum-barrier model, I∝exp⁡(−2κz), so a small relative motion δz gives

δII≃−2κδz.

With a representative κ∼10nm−1, even 1pm of tip–sample motion produces a current change of order 2%. The building foundation, pneumatic isolation, acoustic and RF shielding, remote pumps, flexible services, UHV chamber, scanner, and feedback loop are therefore parts of one measurement chain rather than optional laboratory decoration.

Before reading Figure 22.3, trace that chain from the building to the junction. Then predict how a local spectrum at the exposed end differs from one deep in the bulk, and state what must be measured in addition to a near-zero-bias peak.

The building-to-junction isolation hierarchy makes a local STM test of SSH boundary localization physically credible.

A sectional basement laboratory contains a T-shaped inertia block on six pneumatic jacks, an acoustic and RF shielded room, remote pumps and controls, and a UHV STM on a secondary air table. Nested panes enlarge the same STM and then its tip above an engineered dimerized chain, while a functional diagram shows bias, tunneling-current readout, return, and height feedback.
Figure 22.3. The building-to-junction isolation hierarchy makes a local STM test of SSH boundary localization physically credible.

Panel (a) separates the stiff building bay from the air-supported inertia block, locates the acoustic/RF room, keeps control electronics and pumps outside it, and shows flexible service runs that do not rigidly bypass the isolation. Panel (b) changes camera and scale to the same UHV STM on a second air-supported table. Panel (c) changes scale again to the tip, vacuum gap, and engineered chain. Panel (d) closes the bias/current circuit and distinguishes it from the z-feedback path.

The tunneling current is local only within a forward model for the tip and matrix element. A broadened end peak near zero bias would be consistent with boundary spectral weight only when a bulk spectrum supplies the gap reference. The stronger test scans the peak area with site index and compares its decay ratio with the wavefunction prediction. Energy, sublattice or spatial localization, termination, and finite-length evolution must agree before the feature is assigned to the SSH boundary mode.

Before reading Figure 22.4, predict which loop encloses the origin, which bulk spectrum closes at the transition, and which boundary probability sequence decays. Then check that all panels use the same hopping and termination conventions.

Exact SSH hopping loops, bulk spectra, and boundary probabilities show that equal bulk gaps can have different winding while the one-half hopping ratio gives probability ratio one quarter and localization length one point four four lattice spacings.

Three aligned panels compare exact counterclockwise SSH loops at hopping ratios one half and three halves, their nonzero bulk spectra with equal gap, and the normalized boundary probability sequence with ratio one quarter for the A1 termination.
Figure 22.4. Exact SSH hopping loops, bulk spectra, and boundary probabilities show that equal bulk gaps can have different winding while the one-half hopping ratio gives probability ratio one quarter and localization length one point four four lattice spacings.

Panel (a) uses the frozen lower-left q(k) and increasing k: the 0.5 loop winds counterclockwise once, while the 1.5 loop misses the origin. Panel (b) evaluates the exact two spectra and shows that both retain the same band gap t2, so gap size alone does not reveal winding. Panel (c) plots the normalized 0.5 boundary probability, whose exact adjacent ratio 0.25 gives ξloc=a/ln⁡2; the 1.5 recursion instead grows. Every label is generated from the same analytic parameter ledger as the text.

Use the boundary panel quantitatively: its adjacent probability ratio should be 0.25, and its decay should give ξloc≈1.44a for the anchor. The figure is the only simultaneous audit of loop, bulk gap, and boundary profile; removing it requires a numerical table carrying the same hoppings, orientation, cell, termination, and finite length.

Consider the nearest-neighbor SSH operator on ℓ2(N)⊗C2 with the declared A1 termination, real nonzero t1,t2, energy origin zero, Γ^=+1 on A and −1 on B, and the lower-left function q(k)=t1+t2eika. Assume the bulk is gapped, |t1|≠|t2|. Then this boundary has exactly one normalizable zero mode of chirality +1 when |t1|<|t2|, and none when |t1|>|t2|; in the frozen orientation these cases have ν=1 and ν=0, respectively.

More generally, for a local finite-range chiral operator asymptotic to gapped bulks, the stable statement is the Fredholm index: the signed number of zero modes of opposite chiralities equals the winding difference across the interface while locality, chiral symmetry, and the bulk gaps preserve the Fredholm property. It is a net chiral index, not an unconditional count of all in-gap states. Extra zero modes may occur in opposite-chirality pairs. A finite chain has two interfaces and its paired end modes may split exponentially; if chiral symmetry or a bulk gap is lost, this theorem does not apply.

The symmetry-breaking perturbation test

This is the exact point where “topological” can be overextended.

If the bulk winding is one in the displayed cell, must every physical cut contain a zero-energy end state? Move the cut by one bond: the leftmost site is now B1, followed by the retained t2 bond to A2. Write the first zero-energy boundary equation, then test normalizability at t1/t2=0.5 before reading the calculation below.

For this changed cut, set all A amplitudes to zero and denote the amplitude on Bj by bj. The equation at Aj+1 gives

t2bj+t1bj+1=0,bj+1=−t2t1bj.

Thus a normalizable B-edge state requires |t2/t1|<1, the opposite inequality to the original A-edge state. At t1/t2=0.5, successive amplitudes grow by magnitude two, so this cut has no normalizable zero mode. The bulk hoppings have not changed. A winding quoted in the original cell cannot specify a boundary without also specifying its physical cut and the matching interface convention.

Moving the physical cut changes the exposed sublattice and first retained bond while the bulk hopping sequence and site labels remain fixed. Schematic spacing is not a measured distance.

Two aligned schematic SSH half-lines retain the same indexed sites and alternating hoppings. The original cut exposes A1 with first retained bond t1 to B1; moving the cut one bond exposes B1 with first retained bond t2 to A2. Both chains continue rightward.
Figure 22.5. Moving the physical cut changes the exposed sublattice and first retained bond while the bulk hopping sequence and site labels remain fixed. Schematic spacing is not a measured distance.

A chiral-preserving perturbation can deform the complex loop without changing its winding unless the loop crosses the origin. By contrast, an onsite sublattice imbalance adds a numerical σz term. The spectral gap may remain open, but chiral anticommutation is lost, the planar winding no longer classifies the full Hamiltonian, and a localized boundary level may move away from zero. Persistence of localization and symmetry protection of exact energy are different claims. Cutting the opposite bond likewise requires a new boundary recursion and can exchange which sublattice is exposed.

The uniform staggered perturbation makes the energy shift explicit. Add mΓ^, taking Γ^=+1 on the exposed A sublattice. The semi-infinite left mode remains an eigenstate because its B amplitudes vanish and the original hopping Hamiltonian annihilates it, but its energy is

Eleft=+m.

The right B-sublattice mode shifts to −m, while the bulk spectrum is E±(k)=±|q(k)|2+m2. Localization can therefore survive even though zero-energy pinning and the planar chiral winding no longer apply. A boundary-only onsite perturbation gives the corresponding first-order shift ⟨ψ|V^edge|ψ⟩, weighted by the first-cell probability 1−r2.

For the same illustrative chain, a uniform m=20meV imbalance shifts the left-edge peak to +20meV, while the minimum positive bulk energy becomes (50meV)2+(20meV)2=53.9meV. The peak can remain localized and in the gap even though it is no longer pinned to zero and the planar chiral winding no longer classifies the full Hamiltonian. This is the experimental discrimination the symmetry discussion was designed to produce: a moved end peak is compatible with persistent localization but incompatible with exact chiral protection.

Keep the normalized left-A solution of Example 22.2 and 0<t1<t2, but add +m on A and −m on B with real m. Determine whether the half-infinite A-edge state survives and whether its energy remains protected at zero. Compare its energy with the bulk band edge.

Set bj=0. The A equation becomes Eaj=maj, so Eedge=m. The B equation is still 0=t1aj+t2aj+1, giving the same normalized ratio r=−t1/t2 and localization length as before. The bulk energies now satisfy E±(k)=±|t1+t2eika|2+m2,|Ebulk|≥(t2−t1)2+m2>|m|. Thus this particular edge remains in the gap, while {σz,H}=2mI, nonzero when m≠0. Its localization survives; zero-energy pinning by chiral symmetry does not. At m=0 the previous solution is recovered, while t1→0 leaves an isolated A site of energy m, independently checking the sign. Changing the physical cut would change the first boundary equation; it is not merely a Bloch rephasing. Nor does persistence under this special mass prove protection under every symmetry-breaking perturbation. The following gauge ledger separates those distinct changes.

Gauge-dependent objects and invariant content

Reconstruct the complete chain by classifying each object:

No Dirac distribution is hidden in an angle jump: a jump of a chosen principal branch is a representation artifact. This classification prevents a gauge change from being mistaken for a topological transition and prevents a boundary claim from being detached from its physical cut.

For the declared unit cell and left termination, determine ν, normalizability, sublattice support, and adjacent probability ratio for t1/t2=0.8. Then state what a chiral-symmetry-breaking onsite imbalance changes.

Qualification to retain. An end state is not guaranteed for every cut. The bulk invariant, unit cell, interface, termination, gap, and protecting symmetry form one convention-dependent but physically consistent statement.

From bulk winding to a qualified boundary claim

The real-space hopping convention fixes the Bloch matrix. Its off-diagonal function traces a circle whose oriented enclosure is well defined only while the gap remains open. Under the matching termination, the zero-energy Schrödinger equation gives a geometric boundary sequence whose normalizability and localization length agree with that bulk criterion. Chiral symmetry and the bulk gaps are hypotheses of the correspondence, not decorative labels.

The larger-picture advance is a closed prediction loop. A real-space bond pattern fixes a Bloch loop; the loop and symmetry constrain a boundary recursion; the recursion predicts an energy, sublattice support, decay length, and finite-size trend that a local probe can test. Topology does not replace materials modeling—it identifies which conclusions survive continuous deformations once the symmetry, bulk gap, interface, and termination have all been declared.

The one-dimensional construction relates a loop to end localization under a declared symmetry and termination. It does not count oriented state transfer across a two-dimensional sample. Lecture 23 supplies a contrastive route: magnetic flux fixes a state count and a boundary twist moves those states, creating the spectral-flow operation later reformulated for lattice bands.

From one parameter set, reconstruct the bulk gap, winding, boundary recursion, and localization length together with the symmetry and termination conditions required to compare them. An SSH diagnosis must carry the chiral symmetry, unit-cell and orientation conventions, physical interface, and boundary termination throughout. The winding represents the bulk obstruction in that convention; the localized recursion tests a conditional boundary consequence. Relabeling the cell can change representatives, whereas changing hoppings, symmetry, or the physical cut changes the model. An isolated edge level therefore cannot define the bulk phase without the complete deformation and termination audit.

Problems

1. Bulk winding and boundary recursion

Fourier transform the declared SSH chain, compute the winding without choosing a global angle branch, solve the zero-energy boundary recursion, and compare the two criteria.

Use positive t2, increasing k:−π/a→π/a, the ordered basis (A,B), the lower-left convention q(k)=t1+t2eika, the A1 termination, and t1/t2=0.5. Show the intercell phase, contour pole, normalization constant, adjacent probability ratio, and localization length. For ten cells, use |MLR|=t21−r21−r20r10,r=|t1/t2|, to estimate the positive near-zero energy and the full pair separation. Identify which intermediate quantity first exposes a reversed Fourier sign.

2. Change termination or break chiral symmetry

Shift the unit cell or add a staggered onsite potential. Predict which winding representative, end-state energy, and boundary localization statements remain meaningful.

Keep t1/t2=0.5. First move the physical cut by one bond so the leftmost site is B1 and the first retained bond is the t2 bond from B1 to A2. Derive the zero-energy B-sublattice recursion and decide normalizability. Separately, return to the original A1 cut and add a uniform mΓ^ with m=0.20t2. Calculate the left/right sublattice- resolved energy shifts and E±(k)=±|q(k)|2+m2, including the minimum positive bulk energy. Separate four claims: winding representative, normalizability, localization, and exact zero pinning.

3. Audit a bulk–boundary claim

Given a finite spectrum and boundary weights for several lengths, decide whether the data establish an isolated bulk gap and a stable localized end state rather than a finite-size accident.

For the same t1/t2=0.5, A1-terminated chain, the positive member E+(L) of the near-zero pair and the smallest bulk band separation are

cells L E+(L)/t2 bulk gap /t2
6 1.20×10−2 1.020
8 3.00×10−3 1.010
10 7.50×10−4 1.005
12 1.88×10−4 1.002

The measured adjacent boundary probability ratio is 0.250±0.005. Fit E+(L)=Cexp⁡(−La/ξE), compare ξE with the localization length inferred independently from the probability ratio, and decide whether the bulk gap is size stable. State which chiral- symmetry and termination evidence must accompany the numerical fit.

(advanced): Soliton Charge at a Dimerization Domain Wall

A slowly varying domain wall can be calculated in the continuum rather than inferred from a slogan. Let H^D=−iℏvσy∂x+Δ(x)σxonH=L2(R,C2), with the usual Sobolev domain, v>0, and Δ(x)=Δ0tanh⁡(x/ℓ),Δ0>0,ℓ>0. The ordinary function Δ:R→R is the continuum dimerization mass; it is not a distribution. The numerical matrix σz represents the chiral operator because {σz,H^D}=0 in this spinor representation. The two limits Δ(±∞)=±Δ0 represent the two asymptotic dimerizations.

Write the zero-energy spinor as ψ0=(ψ0,A,ψ0,B)T. The Dirac equation separates:

(ℏv∂x+Δ)ψ0,A=0,(−ℏv∂x+Δ)ψ0,B=0.

Only the first solution decays at both spatial infinities. With p=Δ0ℓ/(ℏv)>0,

ψ0(x)=Cpsechp⁡(x/ℓ)(10),|Cp|2=Γ(p+12)ℓπΓ(p).

The normalization follows from ∫−∞∞sech2p⁡(x/ℓ)dx=ℓπΓ(p)/Γ(p+1/2). Reversing the domain wall moves the normalizable solution to the other component and reverses its chiral eigenvalue. The asymptotic decay length is ℏv/Δ0, whereas ℓ controls the shape of the wall; these are not the same length in general.

The localized mode and its electric charge are separate statements. Chiral symmetry pairs every nonzero single-particle level at +E with one at −E. For one spinless species, define the half-filled reference by filling all negative-energy states and assigning half of the unpaired zero-level spectral weight to the neutral background. If the zero mode has occupation n0∈{0,1}, its excess electron number and conventional electric charge are

ΔN=n0−12,Q=−eΔN=−e(n0−12).

Thus an empty zero mode carries Q=+e/2 and a filled zero mode carries Q=−e/2, each understood relative to the declared half-filled background and modulo the addition of an integer electronic charge. Spin degeneracy, boundaries, chiral-breaking terms, or a different occupation convention change the charge ledger even when a localized in-gap state remains. The calculation therefore does not claim that every domain wall in real polyacetylene has an unqualified charge e/2.

The nonorthogonal-localized-basis Berry-geometry candidate is owned by this lecture with disposition defer; it has no source target and is not silently used in this continuum calculation. The appendix extends the core by adding a spatially varying mass and charge accounting, but it supplies no provider needed by Lectures 23–24.

A reader who enters the appendix should reconstruct the two first-order equations, select the normalizable component, verify Cp, and compute Q for n0=0,1. Deleting the appendix removes no winding, boundary-state, or Lectures 23–24 dependency: the optional fractional-charge interpretation is not used as a core premise.

References

[MAG16] Meier, E. J., An, F. A., and Gadway, B. (2016). “Observation of the topological soliton state in the Su–Schrieffer–Heeger model.” Nature Communications 7, 13986. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13986.