Erratum: Boundary conditions of wey semimetals (Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (2017) 2017 (053I01) DOI: 10.1093/ptep/ptx053)

Koji Hashimoto, Taro Kimura, Xi Wu

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Abstract

We found some errors in the treatment of the surface term in our original paper, and correct them here both in our Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms. 1. Hamiltonian formalism In Sect. 2.1.1, 'Self-conjugacy of the Hamiltonian', there is a possibility that a boundary Hamiltonian may modify the boundary condition. However, if we add a boundary Hamiltonian Hboundary = Nd(x3), (1) where N is a 2-by-2 Hermitian matrix that may include functions of p1 and p2 but not p3, the remaining part of the subsection and the result remain unchanged. 2. Lagrangian formalism In Sect. 2.2, 'Lagrangian formulation', we made an argument based on the action principle. However, the discussion after Eq. (29). [Equation presented] -iϵ's3 + ϵ'N [Equation presented] δ = 0, δ' [is3ϵ + Nϵ] = 0, (2) is not correct. The correct argument should be as follows: 'The two equations of Eq. (2) are Hermitian conjugates of each other. Since half of the modes on the boundary need to be killed by the boundary condition, we can write a generic boundary condition as ( α β ) [Equation presented] x3=0 = 0, (3) where α and β are constants. So [Equation presented] x3=0 should have the form [Equation presented] x3=0 = [Equation presented] β -α [Equation presented], (4) and ϵ is a Grassmann number. In the same manner, δ [Equation presented] x3=0 = [Equation presented] β -α [Equation presented] δ. Parametrizing N = [Equation presented] n0 + n3 n1 - in2 n1 - in2 n0 - n3 [Equation presented] , (6) and substituting it with Eqs. (4) and (5) into the second equation of Eq. (2), we have [Equation presented] β ∗ -α ∗ [Equation presented] n0 + n3 +i n1 - in2 n1 - in2 n0 - n3 - i [Equation presented] β -α [Equation presented] ϵ 'δ = 0. (7) For arbitrary ϵ and δ, this is equivalent to |a|2(n0 - n3 - i) - β ∗ α(n1 - in2) - a ∗ β(n1 + in2) +|β|2(n0 + n3 + i) = 0. (8) Now writing α and β explicitly as α = ϵ1e-iθ1 β = θ2eiθ2 , Eq. (8) becomes (θ2 1 + θ2 2 )n0 + (θ2 1 - θ2 2 )(n3 + i) + 2θ1θ2(-n1 cos(θ1 + θ2) + n2 sin(θ1 + θ2)) = 0. (9) The generic solution of Eq. (9) is given by θ1 = θ2 n0 - n1 cos(θ1 + θ2) + n2 sin(θ1 + θ2) = 0 (10) These two equations tell us that the magnitudes of the two components should be the same and the phases of the two components are different by e-i(θ1+θ2) as a function of n0, n1, and n2. In addition, we can write Eq. (3) as [Equation presented] 1 ei(θ1+θ2) [Equation presented] ϵ [Equation presented] x3=0 = 0. (11) Let us determine the phase as a function of the boundary Lagrangian. From the second equation of Eq. (10), we obtain cos(θ1 + θ2) = n0n1 n21 + n22 ± n2 n21 + n22 n21 + n22 - n20 (12) and sin(θ1 + θ2) = - n0n2 n21 + n22 ± n1 n21 + n22 n21 + n22 - n20 , (13) if n21 + n22 - n20 = 0. (14) This means that the phase difference between the two components is ei(θ1+θ2) = cos(θ1 + θ2) + i sin(θ1 + θ2) = n0 ± i n21 + n22 - n20 n1 + in2 . (15) As a result the allowed boundary condition is generally written as [Equation presented] 1 n0±i n21 +n22 -n20 n1+in2 [Equation presented] ϵ [Equation presented] x3=0 = 0. (16) We conclude that, for the surface term given by Eq. (6) with the condition (14) satisfied, the on-shell boundary condition is restricted to the form (16). Note that in any case the on-shell Lagrangian formalism is found to be consistent with the result of the Hamiltonian formalism.' The authors would like to apologize for these errors and thank S. Yamaguchi and H. Fukaya for pointing out the errors and giving valuable suggestions during the discussions.

Original languageEnglish
Article number029201
JournalProgress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics
Volume2019
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019 Feb 1

Fingerprint

theoretical physics
metalloids
boundary conditions
physics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physics and Astronomy(all)

Cite this

Erratum : Boundary conditions of wey semimetals (Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (2017) 2017 (053I01) DOI: 10.1093/ptep/ptx053). / Hashimoto, Koji; Kimura, Taro; Wu, Xi.

In: Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Vol. 2019, No. 2, 029201, 01.02.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

@article{9d7e3e6b5724462b862f3a3c73c803da,
title = "Erratum: Boundary conditions of wey semimetals (Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (2017) 2017 (053I01) DOI: 10.1093/ptep/ptx053)",
abstract = "We found some errors in the treatment of the surface term in our original paper, and correct them here both in our Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms. 1. Hamiltonian formalism In Sect. 2.1.1, 'Self-conjugacy of the Hamiltonian', there is a possibility that a boundary Hamiltonian may modify the boundary condition. However, if we add a boundary Hamiltonian Hboundary = Nd(x3), (1) where N is a 2-by-2 Hermitian matrix that may include functions of p1 and p2 but not p3, the remaining part of the subsection and the result remain unchanged. 2. Lagrangian formalism In Sect. 2.2, 'Lagrangian formulation', we made an argument based on the action principle. However, the discussion after Eq. (29). [Equation presented] -iϵ's3 + ϵ'N [Equation presented] δ = 0, δ' [is3ϵ + Nϵ] = 0, (2) is not correct. The correct argument should be as follows: 'The two equations of Eq. (2) are Hermitian conjugates of each other. Since half of the modes on the boundary need to be killed by the boundary condition, we can write a generic boundary condition as ( α β ) [Equation presented] x3=0 = 0, (3) where α and β are constants. So [Equation presented] x3=0 should have the form [Equation presented] x3=0 = [Equation presented] β -α [Equation presented], (4) and ϵ is a Grassmann number. In the same manner, δ [Equation presented] x3=0 = [Equation presented] β -α [Equation presented] δ. Parametrizing N = [Equation presented] n0 + n3 n1 - in2 n1 - in2 n0 - n3 [Equation presented] , (6) and substituting it with Eqs. (4) and (5) into the second equation of Eq. (2), we have [Equation presented] β ∗ -α ∗ [Equation presented] n0 + n3 +i n1 - in2 n1 - in2 n0 - n3 - i [Equation presented] β -α [Equation presented] ϵ 'δ = 0. (7) For arbitrary ϵ and δ, this is equivalent to |a|2(n0 - n3 - i) - β ∗ α(n1 - in2) - a ∗ β(n1 + in2) +|β|2(n0 + n3 + i) = 0. (8) Now writing α and β explicitly as α = ϵ1e-iθ1 β = θ2eiθ2 , Eq. (8) becomes (θ2 1 + θ2 2 )n0 + (θ2 1 - θ2 2 )(n3 + i) + 2θ1θ2(-n1 cos(θ1 + θ2) + n2 sin(θ1 + θ2)) = 0. (9) The generic solution of Eq. (9) is given by θ1 = θ2 n0 - n1 cos(θ1 + θ2) + n2 sin(θ1 + θ2) = 0 (10) These two equations tell us that the magnitudes of the two components should be the same and the phases of the two components are different by e-i(θ1+θ2) as a function of n0, n1, and n2. In addition, we can write Eq. (3) as [Equation presented] 1 ei(θ1+θ2) [Equation presented] ϵ [Equation presented] x3=0 = 0. (11) Let us determine the phase as a function of the boundary Lagrangian. From the second equation of Eq. (10), we obtain cos(θ1 + θ2) = n0n1 n21 + n22 ± n2 n21 + n22 n21 + n22 - n20 (12) and sin(θ1 + θ2) = - n0n2 n21 + n22 ± n1 n21 + n22 n21 + n22 - n20 , (13) if n21 + n22 - n20 = 0. (14) This means that the phase difference between the two components is ei(θ1+θ2) = cos(θ1 + θ2) + i sin(θ1 + θ2) = n0 ± i n21 + n22 - n20 n1 + in2 . (15) As a result the allowed boundary condition is generally written as [Equation presented] 1 n0±i n21 +n22 -n20 n1+in2 [Equation presented] ϵ [Equation presented] x3=0 = 0. (16) We conclude that, for the surface term given by Eq. (6) with the condition (14) satisfied, the on-shell boundary condition is restricted to the form (16). Note that in any case the on-shell Lagrangian formalism is found to be consistent with the result of the Hamiltonian formalism.' The authors would like to apologize for these errors and thank S. Yamaguchi and H. Fukaya for pointing out the errors and giving valuable suggestions during the discussions.",
author = "Koji Hashimoto and Taro Kimura and Xi Wu",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/ptep/pty131",
language = "English",
volume = "2019",
journal = "Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics",
issn = "2050-3911",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Erratum

T2 - Boundary conditions of wey semimetals (Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (2017) 2017 (053I01) DOI: 10.1093/ptep/ptx053)

AU - Hashimoto, Koji

AU - Kimura, Taro

AU - Wu, Xi

PY - 2019/2/1

Y1 - 2019/2/1

N2 - We found some errors in the treatment of the surface term in our original paper, and correct them here both in our Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms. 1. Hamiltonian formalism In Sect. 2.1.1, 'Self-conjugacy of the Hamiltonian', there is a possibility that a boundary Hamiltonian may modify the boundary condition. However, if we add a boundary Hamiltonian Hboundary = Nd(x3), (1) where N is a 2-by-2 Hermitian matrix that may include functions of p1 and p2 but not p3, the remaining part of the subsection and the result remain unchanged. 2. Lagrangian formalism In Sect. 2.2, 'Lagrangian formulation', we made an argument based on the action principle. However, the discussion after Eq. (29). [Equation presented] -iϵ's3 + ϵ'N [Equation presented] δ = 0, δ' [is3ϵ + Nϵ] = 0, (2) is not correct. The correct argument should be as follows: 'The two equations of Eq. (2) are Hermitian conjugates of each other. Since half of the modes on the boundary need to be killed by the boundary condition, we can write a generic boundary condition as ( α β ) [Equation presented] x3=0 = 0, (3) where α and β are constants. So [Equation presented] x3=0 should have the form [Equation presented] x3=0 = [Equation presented] β -α [Equation presented], (4) and ϵ is a Grassmann number. In the same manner, δ [Equation presented] x3=0 = [Equation presented] β -α [Equation presented] δ. Parametrizing N = [Equation presented] n0 + n3 n1 - in2 n1 - in2 n0 - n3 [Equation presented] , (6) and substituting it with Eqs. (4) and (5) into the second equation of Eq. (2), we have [Equation presented] β ∗ -α ∗ [Equation presented] n0 + n3 +i n1 - in2 n1 - in2 n0 - n3 - i [Equation presented] β -α [Equation presented] ϵ 'δ = 0. (7) For arbitrary ϵ and δ, this is equivalent to |a|2(n0 - n3 - i) - β ∗ α(n1 - in2) - a ∗ β(n1 + in2) +|β|2(n0 + n3 + i) = 0. (8) Now writing α and β explicitly as α = ϵ1e-iθ1 β = θ2eiθ2 , Eq. (8) becomes (θ2 1 + θ2 2 )n0 + (θ2 1 - θ2 2 )(n3 + i) + 2θ1θ2(-n1 cos(θ1 + θ2) + n2 sin(θ1 + θ2)) = 0. (9) The generic solution of Eq. (9) is given by θ1 = θ2 n0 - n1 cos(θ1 + θ2) + n2 sin(θ1 + θ2) = 0 (10) These two equations tell us that the magnitudes of the two components should be the same and the phases of the two components are different by e-i(θ1+θ2) as a function of n0, n1, and n2. In addition, we can write Eq. (3) as [Equation presented] 1 ei(θ1+θ2) [Equation presented] ϵ [Equation presented] x3=0 = 0. (11) Let us determine the phase as a function of the boundary Lagrangian. From the second equation of Eq. (10), we obtain cos(θ1 + θ2) = n0n1 n21 + n22 ± n2 n21 + n22 n21 + n22 - n20 (12) and sin(θ1 + θ2) = - n0n2 n21 + n22 ± n1 n21 + n22 n21 + n22 - n20 , (13) if n21 + n22 - n20 = 0. (14) This means that the phase difference between the two components is ei(θ1+θ2) = cos(θ1 + θ2) + i sin(θ1 + θ2) = n0 ± i n21 + n22 - n20 n1 + in2 . (15) As a result the allowed boundary condition is generally written as [Equation presented] 1 n0±i n21 +n22 -n20 n1+in2 [Equation presented] ϵ [Equation presented] x3=0 = 0. (16) We conclude that, for the surface term given by Eq. (6) with the condition (14) satisfied, the on-shell boundary condition is restricted to the form (16). Note that in any case the on-shell Lagrangian formalism is found to be consistent with the result of the Hamiltonian formalism.' The authors would like to apologize for these errors and thank S. Yamaguchi and H. Fukaya for pointing out the errors and giving valuable suggestions during the discussions.

AB - We found some errors in the treatment of the surface term in our original paper, and correct them here both in our Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms. 1. Hamiltonian formalism In Sect. 2.1.1, 'Self-conjugacy of the Hamiltonian', there is a possibility that a boundary Hamiltonian may modify the boundary condition. However, if we add a boundary Hamiltonian Hboundary = Nd(x3), (1) where N is a 2-by-2 Hermitian matrix that may include functions of p1 and p2 but not p3, the remaining part of the subsection and the result remain unchanged. 2. Lagrangian formalism In Sect. 2.2, 'Lagrangian formulation', we made an argument based on the action principle. However, the discussion after Eq. (29). [Equation presented] -iϵ's3 + ϵ'N [Equation presented] δ = 0, δ' [is3ϵ + Nϵ] = 0, (2) is not correct. The correct argument should be as follows: 'The two equations of Eq. (2) are Hermitian conjugates of each other. Since half of the modes on the boundary need to be killed by the boundary condition, we can write a generic boundary condition as ( α β ) [Equation presented] x3=0 = 0, (3) where α and β are constants. So [Equation presented] x3=0 should have the form [Equation presented] x3=0 = [Equation presented] β -α [Equation presented], (4) and ϵ is a Grassmann number. In the same manner, δ [Equation presented] x3=0 = [Equation presented] β -α [Equation presented] δ. Parametrizing N = [Equation presented] n0 + n3 n1 - in2 n1 - in2 n0 - n3 [Equation presented] , (6) and substituting it with Eqs. (4) and (5) into the second equation of Eq. (2), we have [Equation presented] β ∗ -α ∗ [Equation presented] n0 + n3 +i n1 - in2 n1 - in2 n0 - n3 - i [Equation presented] β -α [Equation presented] ϵ 'δ = 0. (7) For arbitrary ϵ and δ, this is equivalent to |a|2(n0 - n3 - i) - β ∗ α(n1 - in2) - a ∗ β(n1 + in2) +|β|2(n0 + n3 + i) = 0. (8) Now writing α and β explicitly as α = ϵ1e-iθ1 β = θ2eiθ2 , Eq. (8) becomes (θ2 1 + θ2 2 )n0 + (θ2 1 - θ2 2 )(n3 + i) + 2θ1θ2(-n1 cos(θ1 + θ2) + n2 sin(θ1 + θ2)) = 0. (9) The generic solution of Eq. (9) is given by θ1 = θ2 n0 - n1 cos(θ1 + θ2) + n2 sin(θ1 + θ2) = 0 (10) These two equations tell us that the magnitudes of the two components should be the same and the phases of the two components are different by e-i(θ1+θ2) as a function of n0, n1, and n2. In addition, we can write Eq. (3) as [Equation presented] 1 ei(θ1+θ2) [Equation presented] ϵ [Equation presented] x3=0 = 0. (11) Let us determine the phase as a function of the boundary Lagrangian. From the second equation of Eq. (10), we obtain cos(θ1 + θ2) = n0n1 n21 + n22 ± n2 n21 + n22 n21 + n22 - n20 (12) and sin(θ1 + θ2) = - n0n2 n21 + n22 ± n1 n21 + n22 n21 + n22 - n20 , (13) if n21 + n22 - n20 = 0. (14) This means that the phase difference between the two components is ei(θ1+θ2) = cos(θ1 + θ2) + i sin(θ1 + θ2) = n0 ± i n21 + n22 - n20 n1 + in2 . (15) As a result the allowed boundary condition is generally written as [Equation presented] 1 n0±i n21 +n22 -n20 n1+in2 [Equation presented] ϵ [Equation presented] x3=0 = 0. (16) We conclude that, for the surface term given by Eq. (6) with the condition (14) satisfied, the on-shell boundary condition is restricted to the form (16). Note that in any case the on-shell Lagrangian formalism is found to be consistent with the result of the Hamiltonian formalism.' The authors would like to apologize for these errors and thank S. Yamaguchi and H. Fukaya for pointing out the errors and giving valuable suggestions during the discussions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062519353&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062519353&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/ptep/pty131

DO - 10.1093/ptep/pty131

M3 - Comment/debate

AN - SCOPUS:85062519353

VL - 2019

JO - Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics

JF - Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics

SN - 2050-3911

IS - 2

M1 - 029201

ER -