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, 'Selfconjugacy 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 2by2 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 a2(n0  n3  i)  β ∗ α(n1  in2)  a ∗ β(n1 + in2) +β2(n0 + n3 + i) = 0. (8) Now writing α and β explicitly as α = ϵ1eiθ1 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 ei(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 onshell boundary condition is restricted to the form (16). Note that in any case the onshell 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 language  English 

Article number  029201 
Journal  Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 
Volume  2019 
Issue number  2 
DOIs 

Publication status  Published  2019 Feb 1 
Fingerprint
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 journal › Comment/debate
}
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, 'Selfconjugacy 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 2by2 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 a2(n0  n3  i)  β ∗ α(n1  in2)  a ∗ β(n1 + in2) +β2(n0 + n3 + i) = 0. (8) Now writing α and β explicitly as α = ϵ1eiθ1 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 ei(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 onshell boundary condition is restricted to the form (16). Note that in any case the onshell 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, 'Selfconjugacy 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 2by2 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 a2(n0  n3  i)  β ∗ α(n1  in2)  a ∗ β(n1 + in2) +β2(n0 + n3 + i) = 0. (8) Now writing α and β explicitly as α = ϵ1eiθ1 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 ei(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 onshell boundary condition is restricted to the form (16). Note that in any case the onshell 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  20503911
IS  2
M1  029201
ER 