text:
# Zeeman Spectroscopy of the Star Algebra

## 1 Introduction

After Rastelli, Sen and Zwiebach calculated, in , the spectrum and all the eigenvectors of the zero-momentum Neumann matrix in the matter sector $`M`$, it has become clear that the knowledge of the spectrum is very useful to perform exact calculations in string field theory . Also, it has recently been shown by Douglas, Liu, Moore and Zwiebach in  that this allows us to write the star-product of two zero-momentum string fields as a continuous tensor product of Moyal products, each of which corresponding to one eigenvalue in the spectrum of $`M`$. The noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$ of each of these Moyal products is given as a function of the eigenvalue $`\lambda `$. For $`\lambda =\frac{1}{3}`$, it is zero, and we therefore have one commutative product corresponding to the momentum carried by half of a string (which is conserved in this setup).

Because of this success, it has become a subject of interest to diagonalize Neumann matrices in diverse situations: In , Mariño and Schiappa diagonalized the Neumann matrices of superstring field theory. In a recent paper  we diagonalized $`M^{}`$, the bosonic Neumann matrix in the matter sector including zero modes; the same work was done independently by Belov . We found that the spectrum of $`M^{}`$ has the same continuous part as that of $`M`$, that is the interval $`[\frac{1}{3},0)`$, plus one doubly degenerate eigenvalue in the range $`(0,1)`$, whose value depends on the parameter $`b`$, defined by $`a_0=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{b}\widehat{p}\frac{1}{\sqrt{b}}i\widehat{x}`$.

The goal of this paper is to diagonalize the Neumann matrix $`^{11}`$ with zero modes in a nontrivial $`B`$-field background. The form of the star-product in the presence of a $`B`$-field was already studied in . We will use here the formalism of Bonora, Mamone and Salizzoni  for the Neumann matrix $`^{11}`$ with nonzero $`B`$-field, which we can easily cast into the form introduced by Okuyama . Therefore, it is merely an extension of our work  to give complete expressions for the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $`^{11}`$.

In short, our results are as follows: We turn on a $`B`$-field $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& B\\ B& 0\end{array}\right)`$ in two spatial directions. First we find a scaling parameter $`\xi =1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B)^2`$, such that our continuous spectrum is $`[\frac{1}{3\xi },0)`$, the same as that of $`M`$ or $`M^{}`$ but shrunk by $`\xi `$. Each eigenvalue in this interval is four times degenerate (they are twice more degenerate than the eigenvalues of $`M^{}`$ simply because we are considering two spatial directions instead of a single one), except the point $`\lambda =\frac{1}{3\xi }`$ which is only doubly degenerate when $`B0`$. Then we find two doubly degenerate discrete eigenvalues in the range $`(0,\frac{1}{\xi })`$ (again the same range as for $`M^{}`$ but shrunk by $`\xi `$). We give these two eigenvalues in terms of roots of transcendental equations depending on $`b`$ and $`B`$. When $`B=0`$, these eigenvalues are the same, whereas the role of turning on a $`B`$-field is just to split them and push one eigenvalue towards $`0`$ and the other one towards $`\frac{1}{\xi }`$ (This is reminiscent of the Zeeman effect). Finally we give analytical expressions for all the eigenvectors.

This paper is organized as follows. We begin with nomenclature and some review of the known results in diagonalising the Neumann matrix, especially with the zero modes, in Section 2. Then in Section 3 we proceed to the basic setup of diagonalising the matrix in the presence of a $`B`$-field background. Here we reduce the problem to the solution of a $`4\times 4`$ linear system. We next address the case of the continuous spectrum in Section 4. Thereafter we focus on the properties of the determinant of the $`4\times 4`$ system in Section 5 so as to obtain a discrete spectrum in Section 6. To verify our analysis, we perform level truncation analysis in Section 7 and come to satisfying agreement. We end with conclusions and prospects in Section 8.

## 2 Notations and Some Review of Known Results

In a previous work , we generalised the results of  in studying the spectrum of the Neumann Matrix by including the zero mode. We recall that this is the matrix

$$M^{}:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{00}^{}& M_{0m}^{}\\ M_{n0}^{}& M_{nm}^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\frac{2}{3}\frac{b}{\beta }\hfill & \frac{2}{3}\frac{\sqrt{2b}}{\beta }v_e|\hfill \\ \frac{2}{3}\frac{\sqrt{2b}}{\beta }|v_e\hfill & M+\frac{4}{3}\frac{(|v_ev_e|+|v_ov_0|)}{\beta }\hfill \end{array}\right),$$

with

$$\beta :=V_{00}^{rr}+\frac{b}{2}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{27}{16}+\frac{b}{2},\begin{array}{c}|v_e:=E^1|A_e\hfill \\ |v_o:=E^1|A_o,\hfill \end{array}E_{mn}:=\sqrt{n}\delta _{mn}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{c}(A_e)_n:=\frac{1+()^n}{2}A_n\hfill \\ (A_o)_n:=\frac{1()^n}{2}A_n,\hfill \end{array}\text{s.t.}(\frac{1+ix}{1ix})^{1/3}:=\underset{n=even}{}A_nx^n+i\underset{n=odd}{}A_nx^n.$$

Now we recall that $`M^{}`$ has a continuous spectrum in $`[1/3,0)`$ with eigenvalue $`M(k)=\frac{1}{1+2\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi k}{2}}`$, with a pair of degenerate twist-even and twist-odd eigenvalues under the twist operator $`C_{mn}:=(1)^m\delta _{mn}`$. Moreover, $`M^{}`$ has an isolated eigenvalue inside $`(0,1)`$ also with doubly degenerate eigenvectors.

We shall also adhere to the following definitions, as in . All the vectors will ultimately be written in the basis

$$|k=(v_1^k,v_2^k,v_3^k,\mathrm{})^T$$

with the generating function

$$f_k(z)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{v_n^k}{\sqrt{n}}z^n=\frac{1}{k}(1e^{k\mathrm{arctan}z}).$$

Defining $`|z=(z,z^2,z^3,\mathrm{})^T`$, and the inner product

$$z|k\underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}z^nv_n^k,$$

we have orthonormality and closure conditions:

$$k|p=𝒩(k)\delta (kp),𝒩(k):=\frac{2}{k}\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi k}{2});\mathrm{𝟏}=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑k\frac{|kk|}{𝒩(k)}.$$

Moreover under the twist action,

$$C|z=|z,C|k=|k.$$

The $`|v_e`$ and $`|v_o`$ vectors above obey

$$k|v_e=\frac{1}{k}\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi k}{2})1}{2\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi k}{2})+1},k|v_o=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{k}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi k}{2})}{2\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi k}{2})+1}$$

and

$$C|v_e=|v_e,C|v_o=|v_o.$$

Finally, with the inner product the generating functions can be written as

$$f_k(z)=z\left|E^1\right|k=k|E^1|z,$$

and we define also

$$G_e(z)z\left|E^1\frac{1}{\lambda M}\right|v_e=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑k\frac{f_k(z)k|v_e}{𝒩(k)(\lambda M(k))},$$

$$G_o(z)z\left|E^1\frac{1}{\lambda M}\right|v_o=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑k\frac{f_k(z)k|v_o}{𝒩(k)(\lambda M(k))},$$

whose explicit integrations were carried out in Equations (7.6) and (7.10) of .

### 2.1 The Presence of the Background $`B`$-Field

Now let us consider the presence of a background field $`B^{\alpha \beta }`$. We use the notation in . The authors define the following matrices

$$G^{\alpha \beta }=(\frac{1}{\eta +2\pi \alpha ^{}B}\eta \frac{1}{\eta 2\pi \alpha ^{}B})^{\alpha \beta },\theta ^{\alpha \beta }=(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2(\frac{1}{\eta +2\pi \alpha ^{}B}B\frac{1}{\eta 2\pi \alpha ^{}B})^{\alpha \beta },$$
(1)
where they have chosen the simplest but easily generalizable case of $`B`$ non-vanishing in two directions $`\alpha \beta `$ equaling to, say 24 and 25, and $`\eta ^{\alpha \beta }`$ is the flat metric in $`𝐑^2`$.

Adhering to their convention, we explicitly chose

$$B_{\alpha \beta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& B\\ B& 0\end{array}\right),\eta _{\alpha \beta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(2)
From (2) we can simplify (1) to

$$G^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{\xi }\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\theta ϵ^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2B}{\xi }\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
where we have defined

$$\xi =1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B)^2,\theta =\frac{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2B}{\xi }.$$

These immediately give us

$$det(G)=\xi ^2,\theta \sqrt{det(G)}=(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2B.$$

For later usage and recalling $`\beta :=V_{00}^{rr}+\frac{b}{2}`$, we define two matrices

$$\chi ^{rs}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 1\\ 1& 0& 1\\ 1& 1& 0\end{array}\right),\varphi ^{rs}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}\\ \frac{1}{2}& 1& \frac{1}{2}\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
as well as two parametres

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{2\beta }{4\pi ^4\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}B^2+3\beta ^2},\mathrm{\Xi }=\frac{i(\pi \alpha ^{})^2B}{\beta \xi }.$$
(5)
We shall henceforth take $`\alpha ^{}=1`$.

Using these notations we can write the Neumann coefficients in the presence of the background $`B`$-field : First the vertex is

$$|V_3=d^{26}p_{(1)}d^{26}p_{(2)}d^{26}p_{(3)}\delta ^{(26)}(p_{(1)}+p_{(2)}+p_{(3)})\mathrm{exp}(E)|0,p_{123},$$
(6)
where $`E=E_{}+E_{}`$ is split into a parallel part (for the directions in which $`B=0`$) which is the same as the vertex without $`B`$-field, and a perpendicular part (for the two spatial directions in which we switched on the $`B`$-field) which depends on $`B`$; it can be written

$$E_{}=\underset{r,s=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\underset{m,n1}{}G_{\alpha \beta }a_m^{(r)\alpha }V_{mn}^{rs}a_n^{(s)\beta }+\underset{n1}{}G_{\alpha \beta }p_{(r)}^\alpha V_{0n}^{rs}a_n^{(s)\beta }+\frac{1}{2}G_{\alpha \beta }p_{(r)}^\alpha V_{00}^{rs}p_{(s)}^\beta +\frac{i}{2}\underset{r<s}{}p_\alpha ^{(r)}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }p_\beta ^{(s)}\right).$$
(7)
Here we notice that if we don’t include the zero-modes in our analysis, (7) would simply reduce to

$$\underset{r,s=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\underset{m,n1}{}G_{\alpha \beta }a_m^{(r)\alpha }V_{mn}^{rs}a_n^{(s)\beta }\right).$$

We thus see immediately, from the form of $`G_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{\xi }\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$ in (3), that in this case, the effect of $`B`$ is just to shrink the spectrum by $`\xi `$. We will thus include the zero-modes in our analysis. In this case, we write the vertex $`|V_3=|V_{3,}|V_{3,}`$, where $`|V_{3,}`$ is the same as in the case without $`B`$-field and $`|V_{3,}=Ke^E|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ where $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is annihilated by all $`a_m`$, $`m0`$, $`K`$ is some constant which depends on $`b`$ and $`B`$ , and $`E`$ is

$$E=\frac{1}{2}\underset{r,s=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{m,n0}{}a_m^{(r)\alpha }𝒱_{mn}^{\alpha \beta ,rs}a_n^{(s)\beta },$$

where111In 10, we have used $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ instead of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in  since when we set $`B=0`$ we should get back to the zero $`B`$-field case.

$`𝒱_{00}^{\alpha \beta ,rs}`$ $`=`$ $`G^{\alpha \beta }\delta ^{rs}\mathrm{\Omega }b(G^{\alpha \beta }\varphi ^{rs}+\mathrm{\Xi }ϵ^{\alpha \beta }\chi ^{rs}),`$ (8)
$`𝒱_{0n}^{\alpha \beta ,rs}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{b}{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(G^{\alpha \beta }\varphi ^{rt}+\mathrm{\Xi }ϵ^{\alpha \beta }\chi ^{rt})V_{0n}^{ts},`$ (9)
$`𝒱_{mn}^{\alpha \beta ,rs}`$ $`=`$ $`G^{\alpha \beta }V_{mn}^{rs}\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \underset{t,v=1}{\overset{3}{}}}V_{m0}^{rv}(G^{\alpha \beta }\varphi ^{vt}+\mathrm{\Xi }ϵ^{\alpha \beta }\chi ^{vt})V_{0n}^{ts}.`$ (10)
These coefficients satisfy the properties

$$𝒱_{mn}^{\alpha \beta ,rs}=𝒱_{nm}^{\beta \alpha ,sr},𝒱_{mn}^{\alpha \beta ,rs}=𝒱_{mn}^{\alpha \beta ,(r+1)(s+1)}.$$

To write these coefficients into a more compact form, we need to invoke from Appendix B  the following forms for the Neumann Coefficients, rewritten in our basis:

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}V_{n0}^{rr}& =& \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}|v_e,\hfill & V_{0n}^{rr}& =& \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}v_e|,\hfill \\ V_{n0}^{21}& =& \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}|v_e+\frac{\sqrt{6}}{3}|v_o,\hfill & V_{0n}^{12}& =& \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}v_e|+\frac{\sqrt{6}}{3}v_o|,\hfill \\ V_{n0}^{12}& =& \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}|v_e\frac{\sqrt{6}}{3}|v_o,\hfill & V_{0n}^{21}& =& \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}v_e|\frac{\sqrt{6}}{3}v_o|.\hfill \end{array}$$

Substituting the above, (8), (9) and (10) simplify to

$`(𝒱_{mn}^{\alpha \beta })^{11}`$ $`=`$ $`G^{\alpha \beta }[V_{mn}^{11}2\mathrm{\Omega }(|v_ev_e|+|v_ov_o|)]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }ϵ^{\alpha \beta }[|v_ev_o||v_ov_e|],`$
$`(𝒱_{0n}^{\alpha \beta })^{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2b}\mathrm{\Omega }G^{\alpha \beta }v_e|{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{6b}}{3}}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }ϵ^{\alpha \beta }v_o|,`$
$`(𝒱_{n0}^{\alpha \beta })^{11}`$ $`=`$ $`(𝒱_{0n}^{\beta \alpha })^{11}`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{2b}\mathrm{\Omega }G^{\alpha \beta }|v_e+{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{6b}}{3}}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }ϵ^{\alpha \beta }|v_o,`$
$`(𝒱_{00}^{\alpha \beta })^{11}`$ $`=`$ $`G^{\alpha \beta }(1\mathrm{\Omega }b),`$
We can define two matrices

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`:=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\mathrm{\Omega }b\hfill & \sqrt{2b}\mathrm{\Omega }v_e|\hfill \\ \sqrt{2b}\mathrm{\Omega }|v_e\hfill & V^{11}2\mathrm{\Omega }(|v_ev_e|+|v_ov_o|)\hfill \end{array}\right)`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`:=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \frac{2\sqrt{6b}}{3}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }v_o|\hfill \\ \frac{2\sqrt{6b}}{3}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }|v_o\hfill & \frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }[|v_ev_o||v_ov_e|]\hfill \end{array}\right)`$ (16)
to simplify things further.

Using (16) we can finally write down the Neumann coefficients $`(𝒱)^{11}`$ in the presence of the $`B`$-Field into a $`4\times 4`$ matrix form

$$(𝒱)^{11}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\xi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\hfill & \mathrm{\Sigma }\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Sigma }\hfill & \frac{1}{\xi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(17)
### 2.2 The Matrix of Our Concern: $`()^{11}`$

Combining all of the notation above, the matrix we wish to diagonalize is $`(𝒱)^{11}`$ multiplied by the twist operator $`C`$, i.e.,

$$()^{11}C(𝒱)^{11}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\xi }C\mathrm{\Gamma }\hfill & C\mathrm{\Sigma }\hfill \\ C\mathrm{\Sigma }\hfill & \frac{1}{\xi }C\mathrm{\Gamma }\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(18)
where

$$C\mathrm{\Gamma }:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\mathrm{\Omega }b\hfill & \sqrt{2b}\mathrm{\Omega }v_e|\hfill \\ \sqrt{2b}\mathrm{\Omega }|v_e\hfill & M2\mathrm{\Omega }(|v_ev_e||v_ov_o|)\hfill \end{array}\right)$$

and

$$C\mathrm{\Sigma }:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \frac{2\sqrt{6b}}{3}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }v_o|\hfill \\ \frac{2\sqrt{6b}}{3}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }|v_o\hfill & \frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }\left(|v_ev_o|+|v_ov_e|\right)\hfill \end{array}\right).$$

Note that since $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ from (5) is a purely imaginary number, $`()^{11}`$ is Hermitian, so its eigenvalues are real. It is the diagonalisation of this matrix $`()^{11}`$ with which we shall concern ourselves in the remainder of the paper.

## 3 Diagonalising $`()^{11}`$: The Setup

Now we can solve the eigenvectors and eigenvalues, as what we did in , with the ansatz

$$v=\left(\begin{array}{c}g_1\\ 𝑑kh_1(k)|k\\ g_2\\ 𝑑kh_2(k)|k\end{array}\right)$$

Acting on $`v`$ by (18), we can write the eigen-equation into four parts as

$`\lambda g_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{\Omega }b}{\xi }}g_1{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2b}\mathrm{\Omega }}{\xi }}𝒞_e^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{6b}}{3}}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }𝒞_o^{(2)},`$
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑k\lambda h_1(k)|k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2b}\mathrm{\Omega }}{\xi }}|v_eg_1+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{M(k)}{\xi }}h_1(k)|k{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }}{\xi }}[|v_e𝒞_e^{(1)}|v_o𝒞_o^{(1)}]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{6b}}{3}}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }|v_og_2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }[|v_e𝒞_o^{(2)}+|v_o𝒞_e^{(2)}],`$
$`\lambda g_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{6b}}{3}}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }𝒞_o^{(1)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{\Omega }b}{\xi }}g_2{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2b}\mathrm{\Omega }}{\xi }}𝒞_e^{(2)},`$
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑k\lambda h_2(k)|k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{6b}}{3}}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }|v_og_1+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }[|v_e𝒞_o^{(1)}+|v_o𝒞_e^{(1)}]{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2b}\mathrm{\Omega }}{\xi }}|v_eg_2`$ (19)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{M(k)}{\xi }}h_2(k)|k{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }}{\xi }}[|v_e𝒞_e^{(2)}|v_o𝒞_o^{(2)}]`$
where we have defined

$`𝒞_e^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑kh_1(k)v_e|k,`$
$`𝒞_o^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑kh_1(k)v_o|k,`$
$`𝒞_e^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑kh_2(k)v_e|k,`$
$`𝒞_o^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑kh_2(k)v_o|k.`$
Now we solve $`g_1,g_2`$ from the first and third equations of (19):

$`g_1`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2b}\mathrm{\Omega }}{\xi }}𝒞_e^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{6b}}{3}}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }𝒞_o^{(2)}]/(\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{\Omega }b}{\xi }}),`$
$`g_2`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{6b}}{3}}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }𝒞_o^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2b}\mathrm{\Omega }}{\xi }}𝒞_e^{(2)}]/(\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{\Omega }b}{\xi }}).`$
Putting these back into the second and fourth equations of (19) we obtain

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑kh_1(k)|k[\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{M(k)}{\xi }}]`$ $`=`$ $`|v_e[𝒞_e^{(1)}d_{ee}+𝒞_o^{(2)}d_{oe}]+|v_o[𝒞_o^{(1)}d_{oo}+𝒞_e^{(2)}d_{oe}]`$
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑kh_2(k)|k[\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{M(k)}{\xi }}]`$ $`=`$ $`|v_o[𝒞_o^{(2)}d_{oo}𝒞_e^{(1)}d_{oe}]+|v_e[𝒞_e^{(2)}d_{ee}𝒞_o^{(1)}d_{oe}],`$ (20)
where to simplify notation, we have defined

$`d_{ee}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }(\xi \lambda 1)}{\xi (\xi \lambda 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}},`$
$`d_{oo}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }}{3\xi }}[3+{\displaystyle \frac{4b\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }^2\xi ^2}{\xi \lambda 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b}}],`$
$`d_{oe}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }(\xi \lambda 1)}{\sqrt{3}(\xi \lambda 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}}.`$
We note that $`d_{ee},d_{oo}`$ are reals while $`d_{oe}`$ is purely imaginary.

We can expand $`|v_e,|v_o`$ as in (4.7) of

$$|v_e=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑k|k\frac{k|v_e}{𝒩(k)},|v_o=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑k|k\frac{k|v_o}{𝒩(k)}.$$

Subsequently, (20) can be re-written as222The term $`\frac{1}{\lambda \frac{M(k)}{\xi }}`$ is not very well defined when we write it in this form. However, the only physically meaningful quantity is the expression $`𝑑kh(k)|k`$. When we perform the integration, as what we did in the generating function, we should choose the principal-value integration. This fixes the definition. We want to thank Dmitri Belov for discussing with us about this point.

$`h_1(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda \frac{M(k)}{\xi }}}[{\displaystyle \frac{k|v_e}{𝒩(k)}}(d_{ee}𝒞_e^{(1)}+d_{oe}𝒞_o^{(2)})+{\displaystyle \frac{k|v_o}{𝒩(k)}}(d_{oo}𝒞_o^{(1)}+d_{oe}𝒞_e^{(2)})+\delta (kk_1)r_1(k)],`$
$`h_2(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda \frac{M(k)}{\xi }}}[{\displaystyle \frac{k|v_e}{𝒩(k)}}(d_{ee}𝒞_e^{(2)}d_{oe}𝒞_o^{(1)})+{\displaystyle \frac{k|v_o}{𝒩(k)}}(d_{oo}𝒞_o^{(2)}d_{oe}𝒞_e^{(1)})+\delta (kk_2)r_2(k)]`$ (21)
with yet undetermined parameters $`k_1,k_2`$ and functions $`r_1(k),r_2(k)`$ with zeros respectively at $`k_1,k_2`$. Again, as in , we define

$`A_{ee}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{k|v_ev_e|k}{𝒩(k)(\lambda \frac{M(k)}{\xi })}}=v_e\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda \frac{M}{\xi }}}\right|v_e,`$
$`A_{eo}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{k|v_ov_e|k}{𝒩(k)(\lambda \frac{M(k)}{\xi })}}=v_e\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda \frac{M}{\xi }}}\right|v_o=0,`$
$`A_{oo}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{k|v_ov_o|k}{𝒩(k)(\lambda \frac{M(k)}{\xi })}}=v_o\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda \frac{M}{\xi }}}\right|v_o,`$
$`B_e^{(1)}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (kk_1)r_1(k)v_e|k}{\lambda \frac{M(k)}{\xi }}},`$
$`B_o^{(1)}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (kk_1)r_1(k)v_o|k}{\lambda \frac{M(k)}{\xi }}},`$
$`B_e^{(2)}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (kk_2)r_2(k)v_e|k}{\lambda \frac{M(k)}{\xi }}},`$
$`B_o^{(2)}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (kk_2)r_2(k)v_o|k}{\lambda \frac{M(k)}{\xi }}}.`$ (22)
Finally, we can write the eigen-equation (19) we wish to solve into matrix form:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1d_{ee}A_{ee}& 0& 0& d_{oe}A_{ee}\\ 0& 1d_{oo}A_{oo}& d_{oe}A_{oo}& 0\\ 0& d_{oe}A_{ee}& 1d_{ee}A_{ee}& 0\\ d_{oe}A_{oo}& 0& 0& 1d_{oo}A_{oo}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}𝒞_e^{(1)}\hfill \\ 𝒞_o^{(1)}\hfill \\ 𝒞_e^{(2)}\hfill \\ 𝒞_o^{(2)}\hfill \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}B_e^{(1)}\hfill \\ B_o^{(1)}\hfill \\ B_e^{(2)}\hfill \\ B_o^{(2)}\hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(23)
To solve this equation we need to consider the determinant $`Det`$ of the $`4\times 4`$ matrix in (23). We will leave this discussion to section 5. For now let us address the case when $`Det0`$ so that we can invert (23); this gives us the continuous spectrum.

## 4 The Continuous Spectrum

As we will see from Section 5, only a few $`\lambda `$’s make the determinant zero. For other $`\lambda `$, the determinant is non-zero and we can invert to solve $`𝒞`$’s. Just as what we did in , to get the nonzero solution, $`\lambda `$ must be in the region $`\frac{1}{\xi }[1/3,0)`$. This is what is going to give us the continuous spectrum.

### 4.1 The Continuous Eigenvalues

To see the above discussion more clearly, let us write down the explicit form of $`B_e`$ from (22):

$$B_e^{(1)}=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑k\frac{1}{k}\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi k}{2})1}{2\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi k}{2})+1}\frac{\delta (kk_1)r_1(k)}{\lambda \frac{M(k)}{\xi }},$$

Since $`r_1(k_1)=0`$, the above integration will be zero unless the denominator $`\lambda \frac{M(k)}{\xi }`$ also has a zero at $`k=k_1`$:

$$\lambda \frac{M(k_1)}{\xi }=0.$$

Because $`M(k_1)[1/3,0)`$ for any $`k_1`$, we know immediately that we have a continuous spectrum for any

$$\lambda =\frac{M(k)}{\xi }\frac{1}{\xi }[1/3,0);$$
(24)
this is our continuous eigenvalue. Comparing with the result in  we see that in the background of $`B`$, the continuous spectrum is simply scaled by a factor of $`\frac{1}{\xi }`$.

### 4.2 The Continuous Eigenvectors

Now let us construct the eigenvector for the given $`\lambda `$ from (24) but not equal to $`\frac{1}{3\xi }`$. We will consider this special point in Subsection 4.3.

Now let us set

$$\lambda =\frac{M(k_0)}{\xi }=\frac{1}{\xi }\frac{1}{1+2\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi k_0}{2}}$$
(25)
for our eigenvalue from (24). we expand $`\lambda M(k)/\xi `$ around $`k_0`$ as

$`\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{M(k)}{\xi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}[M(k_0)M(k)]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}[{\displaystyle \frac{dM}{dk}}|_{k_0}(kk_0){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2M}{dk^2}}|_{k_0}(kk_0)^2+\mathrm{}.]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{sinh}\frac{\pi k_0}{2}}{(1+2\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi k_0}{2})^2}}(kk_0){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2+\frac{\pi ^2}{2}\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi k_0}{2}\pi ^2\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{\pi k_0}{2}}{(1+2\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi k_0}{2})^3}}(kk_0)^2+\mathrm{}.]`$
Recall that we have two independent pairs of parameters $`(k_1,r_1(k))`$ and $`(k_2,r_2(k))`$ with $`r_i(k_i)=0`$. We freely choose333Here we choose $`k_1=k_2=k_0`$ for convenience. We can equally choose $`k_1=k_0,k_2=k_0`$. However, it is easy to see that the final result is same. $`k_1=k_2=k_0`$, $`r_1(k)=D_1(kk_0)`$ and $`r_1(k)=D_2(kk_0)`$, where $`D_{i=1,2}`$ are arbitrary constants. Then we have

$`B_e^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi D_1(\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi k_0}{2})1)(2\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi k_0}{2})+1)}{\pi k_0\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\pi k_0}{2}}}:=B_{e,k_0}D_1,`$
$`B_o^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{3}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi D_1(2\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi k_0}{2})+1)}{\pi k_0}}:=B_{o,k_0}D_1,`$
$`B_e^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi D_2(\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi k_0}{2})1)(2\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi k_0}{2})+1)}{\pi k_0\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\pi k_0}{2}}}:=B_{e,k_0}D_2,`$
$`B_o^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{3}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi D_2(2\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi k_0}{2})+1)}{\pi k_0}}:=B_{o,k_0}D_2.`$ (26)
From this we can solve

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}𝒞_e^{(1)}\hfill \\ 𝒞_o^{(1)}\hfill \\ 𝒞_e^{(2)}\hfill \\ 𝒞_o^{(2)}\hfill \end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(\begin{array}{c}(1d_{oo}A_{oo})B_e^{(1)}+d_{oe}A_{ee}B_o^{(2)}\hfill \\ (1d_{ee}A_{ee})B_o^{(1)}+d_{oe}A_{oo}B_e^{(2)}\hfill \\ d_{oe}A_{ee}B_o^{(1)}+(1d_{oo}A_{oo})B_e^{(2)}\hfill \\ d_{oe}A_{oo}B_e^{(1)}+(1d_{ee}A_{ee})B_o^{(2)}\hfill \end{array}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(\begin{array}{c}(1d_{oo}A_{oo})B_{e,k_0}\hfill \\ (1d_{ee}A_{ee})B_{o,k_0}\hfill \\ d_{oe}A_{ee}B_{o,k_0}\hfill \\ d_{oe}A_{oo}B_{e,k_0}\hfill \end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{D_2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(\begin{array}{c}d_{oe}A_{ee}B_{o,k_0}\hfill \\ d_{oe}A_{oo}B_{e,k_0}\hfill \\ (1d_{oo}A_{oo})B_{e,k_0}\hfill \\ (1d_{ee}A_{ee})B_{o,k_0}\hfill \end{array}\right)`$
where we have defined

$$\mathrm{\Delta }:=(1d_{ee}A_{ee})(1d_{oo}A_{oo})+d_{oe}^2A_{ee}A_{oo}$$

so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2=Det`$.

Now recalling that we can solve the $`h_i`$ from (21) from the $`𝒞`$’s and the $`g_i`$ as well; whence substituting back into (19), we obtain the eigenvector. We see that the general solutions are just the linear combinations of the $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ terms:

$`v(k_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{\sqrt{2b}\mathrm{\Omega }}{(\lambda \xi 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}(1d_{oo}A_{oo})B_{e,k_0}+\frac{2\sqrt{6b}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }\xi }{3(\lambda \xi 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}d_{oe}A_{oo}B_{e,k_0}\hfill \\ \\ \frac{B_{e,k_0}(d_{ee}(d_{ee}d_{oo}+d_{oe}^2)A_{oo})}{\lambda \frac{M}{\xi }}|v_e+\frac{B_{o,k_0}(d_{oo}(d_{ee}d_{oo}+d_{oe}^2)A_{ee})}{\lambda \frac{M}{\xi }}|v_o\frac{\xi \mathrm{\Delta }}{\frac{dM}{dk}|_{k_0}}|k_0\hfill \\ \\ \frac{2\sqrt{6b}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }\xi }{3(\lambda \xi 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}(1d_{ee}A_{ee})B_{o,k_0}+\frac{\sqrt{2b}\mathrm{\Omega }}{(\lambda \xi 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}d_{oe}A_{ee}B_{o,k_0}\hfill \\ \\ \frac{d_{oe}B_{o,k_0}}{\lambda \frac{M}{\xi }}|v_e+\frac{d_{oe}B_{e,k_0}}{\lambda \frac{M}{\xi }}|v_o\hfill \end{array}\right)+`$ (36)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D_2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{\sqrt{2b}\mathrm{\Omega }}{(\lambda \xi 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}d_{oe}A_{ee}B_{o,k_0}\frac{2\sqrt{6b}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }\xi }{3(\lambda \xi 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}(1d_{ee}A_{ee})B_{o,k_0}\hfill \\ \\ \frac{d_{oe}B_{o,k_0}}{\lambda \frac{M}{\xi }}|v_e+\frac{d_{oe}B_{e,k_0}}{\lambda \frac{M}{\xi }}|v_o\hfill \\ \\ \frac{2\sqrt{6b}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }\xi }{3(\lambda \xi 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}d_{oe}A_{oo}B_{e,k_0}\frac{\sqrt{2b}\mathrm{\Omega }}{(\lambda \xi 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}(1d_{oo}A_{oo})B_{e,k_0}\hfill \\ \\ \frac{B_{e,k_0}(d_{ee}(d_{ee}d_{oo}+d_{oe}^2)A_{oo})}{\lambda \frac{M}{\xi }}|v_e+\frac{B_{o,k_0}(d_{oo}(d_{ee}d_{oo}+d_{oe}^2)A_{ee})}{\lambda \frac{M}{\xi }}|v_o\frac{\xi \mathrm{\Delta }}{\frac{dM}{dk}|_{k_0}}|k_0\hfill \end{array}\right)`$ (44)
Since for a given $`\lambda `$ there are two corresponding $`k`$-values in solving (25), viz., $`k_0`$ and $`k_0`$, we get two degenerate states $`v(k_0),v(k_0)`$ (in fact, the degeneracy is four because for each we have one corresponding to $`D_1`$ and another to $`D_2`$). Using

$$B_{e,k_0}=B_{e,k_0},B_{o,k_0}=B_{o,k_0},\frac{dM}{dk}|_{k_0}=\frac{dM}{dk}|_{k_0}$$

we can write the eigenstates which are even and odd with respect to $`k_0`$:

$`v_{1,\lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{v(k_0)+v(k_0)}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{\sqrt{2b}\mathrm{\Omega }}{(\lambda \xi 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}(1d_{oo}A_{oo})B_{e,k_0}+\frac{2\sqrt{6b}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }\xi }{3(\lambda \xi 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}d_{oe}A_{oo}B_{e,k_0}\hfill \\ \\ \frac{B_{e,k_0}(d_{ee}(d_{ee}d_{oo}+d_{oe}^2)A_{oo})}{\lambda \frac{M}{\xi }}|v_e\frac{\xi \mathrm{\Delta }}{2\frac{dM}{dk}|_{k_0}}(|k_0|k_0)\hfill \\ \\ 0\hfill \\ \\ \frac{d_{oe}B_{e,k_0}}{\lambda \frac{M}{\xi }}|v_o\hfill \end{array}\right)`$ (52)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D_2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\hfill \\ \\ \frac{d_{oe}B_{e,k_0}}{\lambda \frac{M}{\xi }}|v_o\hfill \\ \\ \frac{2\sqrt{6b}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }\xi }{3(\lambda \xi 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}d_{oe}A_{oo}B_{e,k_0}\frac{\sqrt{2b}\mathrm{\Omega }}{(\lambda \xi 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}(1d_{oo}A_{oo})B_{e,k_0}\hfill \\ \\ \frac{B_{e,k_0}(d_{ee}(d_{ee}d_{oo}+d_{oe}^2)A_{oo})}{\lambda \frac{M}{\xi }}|v_e\frac{\xi \mathrm{\Delta }}{2\frac{dM}{dk}|_{k_0}}(|k_0|k_0)\hfill \end{array}\right)`$ (60)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}v_{1,\lambda }^e+{\displaystyle \frac{D_2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}v_{1,\lambda }^o`$ (61)
and

$`v_{2,\lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{v(k_0)v(k_0)}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\hfill \\ \\ \frac{B_{o,k_0}(d_{oo}(d_{ee}d_{oo}+d_{oe}^2)A_{ee})}{\lambda \frac{M}{\xi }}|v_o\frac{\xi \mathrm{\Delta }}{2\frac{dM}{dk}|_{k_0}}(|k_0+|k_0)\hfill \\ \\ \frac{2\sqrt{6b}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }\xi }{3(\lambda \xi 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}(1d_{ee}A_{ee})B_{o,k_0}+\frac{\sqrt{2b}\mathrm{\Omega }}{(\lambda \xi 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}d_{oe}A_{ee}B_{o,k_0}\hfill \\ \\ \frac{d_{oe}B_{o,k_0}}{\lambda \frac{M}{\xi }}|v_e\hfill \end{array}\right)`$ (69)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D_2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{\sqrt{2b}\mathrm{\Omega }}{(\lambda \xi 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}d_{oe}A_{ee}B_{o,k_0}\frac{2\sqrt{6b}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }\xi }{3(\lambda \xi 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}(1d_{ee}A_{ee})B_{o,k_0}\hfill \\ \\ \frac{d_{oe}B_{o,k_0}}{\lambda \frac{M}{\xi }}|v_e\hfill \\ \\ 0\hfill \\ \\ \frac{B_{o,k_0}(d_{oo}(d_{ee}d_{oo}+d_{oe}^2)A_{ee})}{\lambda \frac{M}{\xi }}|v_o\frac{\xi \mathrm{\Delta }}{2\frac{dM}{dk}|_{k_0}}(|k_0+|k_0)\hfill \end{array}\right)`$ (77)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}v_{2,\lambda }^o+{\displaystyle \frac{D_2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}v_{2,\lambda }^e.`$ (78)
However, we see that $`v_{i,\lambda }`$ are neither twist-even nor twist-odd under the $`C`$-operator. The twist-even (odd) states in the first direction of our 2-dimensions chosen for the $`B`$-field are mixed with the twist-odd (even) states in the second direction. This behaviour is of course a result of turning on the background $`B`$-field.

### 4.3 The Special Case of $`\lambda =1/(3\xi )`$

Now, as promised, we discuss the special case of $`\lambda =1/(3\xi )`$ which was excluded from the above. For general $`B0`$, $`\lambda =1/(3\xi )`$ does not make the determinant zero. Then we can solve the equation as before and find the coefficients $`𝒞`$ and subsequently the eigenvector.

However, one thing is special for this point: this is that $`\frac{dM}{dk}|_{k_0=0}`$ when $`k_0=0`$. In another words, we should choose $`r(k)=Dk^2`$ instead of the linear $`r(k)=D(kk_0)`$. Under such a choice, we have $`B_{e,0}=0`$ and $`B_{o,0}=6\sqrt{3}\xi /\pi `$. So the solution is

$`v(k_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi D_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\hfill \\ \frac{B_{o,0}(d_{oo}(d_{ee}d_{oo}+d_{oe}^2)A_{ee})}{1/3M}|v_o\frac{36\mathrm{\Delta }}{\pi ^2}|0\hfill \\ \frac{2\sqrt{6b}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }\xi }{3\xi (\lambda \xi 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}(1d_{ee}A_{ee})B_{o,0}+\frac{\sqrt{2b}\mathrm{\Omega }}{\xi (\lambda \xi 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}d_{oe}A_{ee}B_{o,0}\hfill \\ \frac{d_{oe}B_{o,0}}{1/3M}|v_e\hfill \end{array}\right)+`$ (83)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi D_2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{\sqrt{2b}\mathrm{\Omega }}{\xi (\lambda \xi 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}d_{oe}A_{ee}B_{o,0}\frac{2\sqrt{6b}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }\xi }{3\xi (\lambda \xi 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}(1d_{ee}A_{ee})B_{o,0}\hfill \\ \\ \frac{d_{oe}B_{o,0}}{1/3M}|v_e\hfill \\ 0\hfill \\ \frac{B_{o,0}(d_{oo}(d_{ee}d_{oo}+d_{oe}^2)A_{ee})}{1/3M}|v_o\frac{36\mathrm{\Delta }}{\pi ^2}|0\hfill \end{array}\right).`$ (89)
Now at $`k_0=0`$ we get only two independent eigenvectors instead of the four as discussed at the end of the last subsection. This may seem a little surprising because when $`B=0`$, we do have four eigenvectors (since we have two spatial directions instead of one in : two of $`v_{+,\frac{1}{3}}`$ and two of $`v_{,\frac{1}{3}}`$). However, after a careful analysis we see that the two eigenvectors $`v_{+,\frac{1}{3}}`$ arise because when $`B=0`$, $`\lambda =1/3`$ gives zero determinant. But this is not the case here and we thus lose these two vectors. More concretely, every point $`\lambda `$ in the continuous region which makes the determinant zero will kill two eigenvectors while adding another two eigenvectors. At $`B=0`$ case, the eigenvectors which should be killed are not there, so the net effect is to add two more eigenvectors.

## 5 The Determinant

Having addressed the continuous, let us proceed with the discrete spectrum. This corresponds to the few cases when $`Det`$ becomes zero. Therefore in this section we shall determine the roots of $`Det`$. We see that the determinant $`Det`$ can be written as

$$Det(\lambda )=[(1d_{ee}A_{ee})(1d_{oo}A_{oo})+d_{oe}^2A_{ee}A_{oo}]^2,$$
(90)
so that any root $`\lambda `$ of $`Det`$ will always be at least a double-root.

Now we have the evaluations of all the pieces of $`Det`$ from ; the reader is referred to the sections on $`A_{ee}`$ and $`A_{oo}`$ therein. Using these results from equations (5.1) and the one at the beginning of subsection 5.2 in cit. ibid., we have the following analytic expressions for $`Det`$. We have set $`x:=\xi \lambda `$. Then for $`\frac{1}{3}x<0`$,

$`Det`$ $`=`$ $`(b^2(1+3x)+4b(1+3x)\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{27}{16}})+4(1+x)(4B^2\pi ^4+3\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{27}{16}})^2))^2\times `$
$`\{b^2(1+3x)4b(1+3x)(2\gamma +f(x)+\mathrm{log}(16))+`$
$`4(4B^2\pi ^4(1+x)+4\gamma ^2(1+3x)+f(x)^2(1+3x)+16(1+3x)\mathrm{log}(2)^2+`$
$`8f(x)(\mathrm{log}(2)+x\mathrm{log}(8))+4\gamma (1+3x)(f(x)+\mathrm{log}(16)))\}^2`$
where $`\gamma `$ is the Euler constant,

$$f(x):=\psi (g(x))+\psi (g(x)),g(x):=\frac{i}{2\pi }\mathrm{arcsech}\left(\frac{2x}{1+x}\right),$$

and $`\psi (x)`$ is the digamma function. From this expression, we see immediately two results: (1) When $`B=0`$, $`x=1/3`$ makes the determinant zero; (2) When $`B0`$, $`x=1/3`$ is not a root of the determinant. This shows that when $`B0`$, the point at $`x=1/3`$ has a different behavior.

On the other hand for $`x`$ not in the region, viz., $`x<\frac{1}{3}`$ or $`x0`$, we have the form of $`Det`$ as in (5), but with $`f(x)`$ replaced by

$$h(x):=\psi (g(x))+\psi (1+g(x)).$$

### 5.1 Zeros of $`Det`$ Between $`1/3`$ and $`0`$

We observe from (5), that $`Det`$ inside $`[\frac{1}{3},0)`$ is actually an algebraic equation in the transcendental function $`f(x)`$ and $`x`$. Therefore we can solve $`Det=0`$ by bringing it into the form where one side is $`f(x)`$ and the other, an algebraic function of $`x`$ (i.e., by solving for $`f(x)`$); this gives us

$$2f(x)=\frac{4B\pi ^2\sqrt{1x}\sqrt{1+3x}\left(1+3x\right)\left(b+4\gamma +\mathrm{log}(256)\right)}{1+3x}.$$
(92)
As an immediate check we can see that when $`B0`$, $`x=1/3`$ is a solution; this is of course in perfect agreement with the case seen in . Now for nonzero values of $`B`$, $`x=1/3`$ is no longer a solution. In the interior region when $`x1/3`$, we can safely cancel the $`(1+3x)`$ factor and the right-hand side simply becomes a (square-root) hyperbola whose size is governed by $`B`$ and whose position is shifted by $`b`$, i.e.,

$$2f(x)=4B\pi ^2\sqrt{\frac{1x}{1+3x}}(b+4\gamma +8\mathrm{log}2)$$
(93)
Now we have 2 cases, the one with the minus sign in front of $`B`$ in (92) and the other, with a plus sign.

### Case 1: $`2f(x)=4(\gamma +\mathrm{log}4)+b\frac{4B\pi ^2\sqrt{1x}}{\sqrt{1+3x}}`$

Let us examine the left graph in Figure 1. Indeed for sufficiently small $`b`$ the RHS drops below the left and there are no solution. At a critical value $`b_0(B)`$, the two curves touch at a single point (and no more because the LHS is an increasing function whose derivative is also increasing while the RHS is an increasing function whose derivative is decreasing.) Above this critical point, there will always be two solutions, which is the case we have drawn in the plot. To find the critical point we equate the derivatives of both sides which gives

$$\frac{i(1+3x)}{8\pi ^3x}\left(\psi ^{}(g(x))\psi ^{}(g(x))\right)=B$$

From this equation we can solve $`x_0(B)`$ as a function of $`B`$. Then we can find the critical value $`b_0(B)`$ by substituting back into the original intersection problem to yield

$$2f(x_0(B))=4(\gamma +\mathrm{log}4)+b\frac{4B\pi ^2\sqrt{1x_0(B)}}{\sqrt{1+3x_0(B)}}.$$

The solution of this transcendental equation is then the critical value $`b_0(B)`$ which we seek.

### Case 2: $`2f(x)=4(\gamma +\mathrm{log}4)+b+\frac{4B\pi ^2\sqrt{1x}}{\sqrt{1+3x}}`$

For the other solution with $`+`$ in front of $`B`$ we refer to the right plot of Figure 1. Here the situation is easier. The RHS is always a decreasing function so there is always a solution between $`1/3`$ and 0.

#### 5.1.1 Comparison Between the $`B=0`$ and $`B0`$ Cases

Now let us compare the roots found here with the ones found in  for the case $`B=0`$. There the determinant is reduced to the diagonal form $`\left|\begin{array}{cc}1d_{ee}A_{ee}\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 1d_{oo}A_{oo}\hfill \end{array}\right|`$. It has a root at $`\lambda =1/3`$ where $`1d_{ee}A_{ee}=0`$ but $`1d_{oo}A_{oo}0`$. Furthermore, there is a critical value $`b_0=8\mathrm{log}2`$, above which we have doubly degenerate roots where both $`1d_{ee}A_{ee}=0`$ and $`1d_{oo}A_{oo}=0`$.

In our general $`B0`$ case here. Firstly we have a root in the case 2 above no matter what $`b`$ is. This root obviously corresponds to $`\lambda =1/3`$ at $`B=0`$. Secondly, there is a critical value $`b_0(B)`$, above which we have two roots. These two roots obviously correspond to the doubly degenerate roots when $`B=0`$. Therefore, we observe that when $`B0`$ the doubly degenerate roots are split (Zeeman effect). This will be a general picture which we will meet again when we discuss the root in the region $`(0,1)`$.

### 5.2 Zeros of $`Det`$ between 0 and 1

We recall the form of $`Det`$ from (5). Here as in the previous subsection we reduce the problem of finding its zeros to the intersection of a transcendental function with an algebraic one:

$$2h(x)=b\frac{4B\pi ^2\sqrt{1x}}{\sqrt{1+3x}}4\left(\gamma +\mathrm{log}(4)\right)$$
(94)
We see immediately that for $`x[0,1]`$, the function $`h(x)`$ is real while the RHS is complex (with non-vanishing imaginary part) whence there are no solutions there. We therefore focus on the solutions between 0 and 1 where both sides become real. Again we must analyse the minus and the plus cases.

### Case 1: $`2h(x)=b\frac{4B\pi ^2\sqrt{1x}}{\sqrt{1+3x}}4\left(\gamma +\mathrm{log}(4)\right)`$

In the region $`(0,1]`$, the LHS is a monotonically decreasing function while the RHS, a monotonically increasing one. At the endpoint $`x=1`$, the RHS equals $`b4(\gamma +\mathrm{log}4)`$ and the LHS is $`4(\gamma +\mathrm{log}4)`$. Therefore at the lower limit of $`b=0`$ there is a solution at $`x=1`$. For any other value of positive $`b`$, the RHS gets shifted upwards and there will always be a solution. The situation is illustrated in the left part of Figure 2.

### Case 2: $`2h(x)=b+\frac{4B\pi ^2\sqrt{1x}}{\sqrt{1+3x}}4\left(\gamma +\mathrm{log}(4)\right)`$

Now in the interesting region both functions are monotonically decreasing, but the LHS, from $`\mathrm{}`$ and the RHS, from a finite value. Once again if $`b=0`$ there is an intersection at $`x=1`$, but now there is another point of intersection in $`(0,1)`$. For positive $`b`$ however, the $`x=1`$ endpoints no longer meet but the intersection at another point in between still exists.

Let us compare to the case of $`B=0`$ in  again. There, we had doubly degenerate roots in $`(0,1)`$. Here for general $`B0`$, we have two roots which are not degenerate. It is obvious that these two roots here correspond to the two doubly degenerate roots at $`B=0`$ and $`B0`$ lifts the degeneracy and splits the roots (Zeeman effect). The bigger the value of $`B`$ the further they split.

## 6 The Discrete Spectrum

Having addressed the case of the continuous spectrum corresponding to $`Det0`$ in the preceding section, here we focus on the case when $`\lambda `$ makes $`Det`$ zero. This will give us a Discrete Spectrum.

### 6.1 The Region $`\frac{1}{\xi }(0,1)`$

As we have seen before in this region, there are two values $`\lambda =\lambda _{1,2}`$ making $`Det=0`$. For both these values, $`d_{oe}A_{ee}`$ and $`d_{oe}A_{oo}`$ are nonzero because they are zero only when $`B=0`$ or $`\lambda =\frac{1}{\xi }`$. Furthermore, since $`\lambda \frac{1}{\xi }(0,1)`$, $`\lambda \frac{M(k)}{\xi }`$ can not have a zero to cancel the ones from $`r_1(k)`$ and $`r_2(k)`$ in (22) and we get

$$B_e^{(1)}=B_o^{(1)}=B_e^{(2)}=B_o^{(2)}=0.$$

This must indeed be so for (23) to have solutions for $`Det=0`$.

Now we can solve the $`𝒞`$’s, which must be in the nullspace of the $`4\times 4`$ matrix in (23); we find two independent vectors:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}𝒞_e^{(1)}\hfill \\ 𝒞_o^{(1)}\hfill \\ 𝒞_e^{(2)}\hfill \\ 𝒞_o^{(2)}\hfill \end{array}\right)=D_1\left(\begin{array}{c}d_{oe}A_{ee}\hfill \\ 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill \\ 1d_{ee}A_{ee}\hfill \end{array}\right)+D_2\left(\begin{array}{c}0\hfill \\ 1d_{ee}A_{ee}\hfill \\ d_{oe}A_{ee}\hfill \\ 0\hfill \end{array}\right)$$

Substituting this back into (21) and (19) as was done before, we have:

$$v=D_1\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{2\sqrt{6b}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }\xi }{3(\lambda \xi 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}\hfill \\ \frac{d_{oe}}{\lambda \frac{M}{\xi }}|v_e\hfill \\ 0\hfill \\ \frac{d_{oo}A_{ee}(d_{oo}d_{ee}+d_{oe}^2)}{\lambda \frac{M}{\xi }}|v_o\hfill \end{array}\right)+D_2\left(\begin{array}{c}0\hfill \\ \frac{d_{oo}A_{ee}(d_{oo}d_{ee}+d_{oe}^2)}{\lambda \frac{M}{\xi }}|v_o\hfill \\ \frac{2\sqrt{6b}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Xi }\xi }{3(\lambda \xi 1+\mathrm{\Omega }b)}\hfill \\ \frac{d_{oe}}{\lambda \frac{M}{\xi }}|v_e\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(95)
where $`\lambda =\lambda _{1,2}`$, the two solutions of $`Det`$ in $`\frac{1}{\xi }(0,1)`$ given in the previous section.

### 6.2 The Region $`\frac{1}{\xi }[1/3,0)`$

When $`\lambda \frac{1}{\xi }[1/3,0)`$ makes $`Det`$ zero, things become a little more complex since in this case, we can choose the parameters $`k_1,k_2,r_1(k),r_2(k)`$ properly to have nonzero $`B_{e,o}^{(1,2)}`$. This opens a door to new solutions. Let us discuss it in more detail. First, we choose the parameters such that $`B_{e,o}^{(1,2)}=0`$. In this case, we have two solutions given by the same form as (95).

We need two more solutions and they can be found by choosing nonzero values of $`B_{e,o}^{(1,2)}0`$. Let us discuss this case in more detail. To find these two more solutions we need to generalize our method a little bit. The idea is that when we had $`𝑑kf(k)|k=0`$ before, in general we should require

$$f(k)=\underset{k_i}{}\delta (kk_i)r_i(k),r_i(k_i)=0.$$

Since the equation is linear, if we find a single solution, we can get the general one by linear combination. This method works well for the analysis in the previous sections. However, in the case at hand, such a simplification does not work. Let us explain a little bit. Assume there is a solution for $`k_1=k_2=k_0`$, $`r_1(k)=D_1(kk_0)`$ and $`r_2(k)=D_2(kk_0)`$ with $`\lambda =M(k_0)/\xi `$. Consistency requires that

$$\frac{d_{oe}A_{ee}}{1d_{oo}A_{oo}}=\frac{B_{e,k_0}D_1}{B_{o,k_0}D_2}=\frac{B_{e,k_0}D_2}{B_{o,k_0}D_1},D_1^2=D_2^2$$

which have solutions only when $`D_1=\pm iD_2`$ and are perfectly consistent since $`d_{oe}`$ is a purely imaginary number. Now the crucial thing is to check if

$$\frac{d_{oe}A_{ee}}{1d_{oo}A_{oo}}=i\frac{B_{e,k_0}}{B_{0,k_0}}\text{or}\frac{d_{oe}A_{ee}}{1d_{oo}A_{oo}}=i\frac{B_{e,k_0}}{B_{0,k_0}}$$

for the given $`\lambda `$ which makes $`Det=0`$. We do not have an analytic proof to show this is not true, but it is easy to check numerically and was found that it indeed does not hold. In other words, if we keep only a single term we do not have any solution.

In our case, the generalization is obvious: we just replace $`\delta (kk_1)r_1(k)`$ by $`\delta (kk_1)r_1(k)+\delta (k+k_1)\stackrel{~}{r}_1(k)`$. This then modifies (23) to

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1d_{ee}A_{ee}& 0& 0& d_{oe}A_{ee}\\ 0& 1d_{oo}A_{oo}& d_{oe}A_{oo}& 0\\ 0& d_{oe}A_{ee}& 1d_{ee}A_{ee}& 0\\ d_{oe}A_{oo}& 0& 0& 1d_{oo}A_{oo}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}𝒞_e^{(1)}\hfill \\ 𝒞_o^{(1)}\hfill \\ 𝒞_e^{(2)}\hfill \\ 𝒞_o^{(2)}\hfill \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}B_{e,k_0}D_1+B_{e,k_0}\stackrel{~}{D}_1\hfill \\ B_{o,k_0}D_1+B_{o,k_0}\stackrel{~}{D}_1\hfill \\ B_{e,k_0}D_2+B_{e,k_0}\stackrel{~}{D}_2\hfill \\ B_{o,k_0}D_2+B_{o,k_0}\stackrel{~}{D}_2\hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(96)
Now consistency requires

$$\frac{d_{oe}A_{ee}}{1d_{oo}A_{oo}}=\frac{B_{e,k_0}D_1+B_{e,k_0}\stackrel{~}{D}_1}{B_{o,k_0}D_2+B_{o,k_0}\stackrel{~}{D}_2}=\frac{B_{e,k_0}D_2+B_{e,k_0}\stackrel{~}{D}_2}{B_{o,k_0}D_1+B_{o,k_0}\stackrel{~}{D}_1}.$$

Using $`B_{e,k_0}=B_{e,k_0}`$ and $`B_{o,k_0}=B_{o,k_0}`$ we can solve

$$D_2=\frac{1}{2}[(\rho \frac{1}{\rho })D_1(\rho +\frac{1}{\rho })\stackrel{~}{D}_1],\stackrel{~}{D}_2=\frac{1}{2}[(\rho \frac{1}{\rho })D_1(\rho \frac{1}{\rho })\stackrel{~}{D}_1],$$

where we have defined $`\rho =\frac{d_{oe}A_{ee}}{1d_{oo}A_{oo}}\frac{B_{o,k_0}}{B_{e,k_0}}`$. Notice that we have two independent parameters $`D_1,\stackrel{~}{D}_1`$ which give us the missing two eigenstates. However, the most convenient way is to choose

$$D_{i;+}=D_i+\stackrel{~}{D}_i,D_{i;}=D_i\stackrel{~}{D}_i.$$

Then (96) becomes

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1d_{ee}A_{ee}& 0& 0& d_{oe}A_{ee}\\ 0& 1d_{oo}A_{oo}& d_{oe}A_{oo}& 0\\ 0& d_{oe}A_{ee}& 1d_{ee}A_{ee}& 0\\ d_{oe}A_{oo}& 0& 0& 1d_{oo}A_{oo}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}𝒞_e^{(1)}\hfill \\ 𝒞_o^{(1)}\hfill \\ 𝒞_e^{(2)}\hfill \\ 𝒞_o^{(2)}\hfill \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}D_{1,+}B_{e,k_0}\hfill \\ D_{1,}B_{o,k_0}\hfill \\ \rho D_{1,}B_{e,k_0}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{\rho }D_{1,+}B_{o,k_0}\hfill \end{array}\right),$$

from which we have two solutions

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}𝒞_e^{(1)}\hfill \\ 𝒞_o^{(1)}\hfill \\ 𝒞_e^{(2)}\hfill \\ 𝒞_o^{(2)}\hfill \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\hfill \\ 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill \\ \frac{D_{1,+}B_{e,k_0}}{d_{oe}A_{ee}}\hfill \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}𝒞_e^{(1)}\hfill \\ 𝒞_o^{(1)}\hfill \\ 𝒞_e^{(2)}\hfill \\ 𝒞_o^{(2)}\hfill \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\hfill \\ \frac{\rho D_{1,}B_{e,k_0}}{d_{oe}A_{ee}}\hfill \\ 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(97)
Our final eigenvectors then become

$$v_+=\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{\sqrt{2b}\xi }{2(\lambda \xi 1)}\frac{B_{e,k_0}D_{1,+}}{A_{ee}}\hfill \\ \\ \frac{B_{e,k_0}D_{1,+}}{A_{ee}(\lambda \frac{M}{\xi })}|v_e\frac{\xi D_{1,+}}{2\frac{dM}{dk}|_{k_0}}(|k_0|k_0)\hfill \\ \\ 0\hfill \\ \\ \frac{d_{oo}B_{e,k_0}D_{1,+}}{d_{oe}A_{ee}(\lambda \frac{M}{\xi })}|v_o+\frac{\xi \frac{1}{\rho }D_{1,+}}{2\frac{dM}{dk}|_{k_0}}(|k_0+|k_0)\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(98)
and

$$v_{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\hfill \\ \\ \frac{\rho d_{oo}B_{e,k_0}D_{1,}}{d_{oe}A_{ee}(\lambda \frac{M}{\xi })}|v_o\frac{\xi D_{1,}}{2\frac{dM}{dk}|_{k_0}}(|k_0+|k_0)\hfill \\ \\ \frac{\rho \sqrt{2b}\xi }{2(\lambda \xi 1)}\frac{B_{e,k_0}D_{1,}}{A_{ee}}\hfill \\ \\ \frac{\rho B_{e,k_0}D_{1,}}{A_{ee}(\lambda \frac{M}{\xi })}|v_e\frac{\xi \rho D_{1,}}{2\frac{dM}{dk}|_{k_0}}(|k_0|k_0)\hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(99)
## 7 Level truncation analysis

Here we want to compare some of our predictions with the results of level truncation. First, we do observe a continuous spectrum in the range $`\xi ^1[\frac{1}{3},0)`$. Next, we want to check our analytical expressions for the eigenvalues in the interval $`(0,\xi ^1)`$. For this, we show in the following table these rescaled eigenvalues $`\xi \lambda _1`$ and $`\xi \lambda _2`$ (defined such that $`\lambda _1\lambda _2`$), for $`b=1`$ and for various values of $`B`$, to levels 5, 20 and 100. We compare these results to the exact values calculated from (94), shown in the last column.

|  | Level 5 | Level 20 | Level 100 | Exact value |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\xi \lambda _1(B=0.001)`$ | 0.394832 | 0.397808 | 0.397969 | 0.397976 |
| $`\xi \lambda _2(B=0.001)`$ | 0.408028 | 0.410125 | 0.410283 | 0.41029 |
| $`\xi \lambda _1(B=0.01)`$ | 0.340706 | 0.343376 | 0.343537 | 0.343544 |
| $`\xi \lambda _2(B=0.01)`$ | 0.463391 | 0.465736 | 0.465892 | 0.465899 |
| $`\xi \lambda _1(B=0.1)`$ | 0.0353826 | 0.036406 | 0.0364938 | 0.0364979 |
| $`\xi \lambda _2(B=0.1)`$ | 0.83877 | 0.839611 | 0.839684 | 0.839688 |
| $`\xi \lambda _1(B=0.5)`$ | $`0.000444917`$ | $`3.0373110^{15}`$ | $`7.3931810^{18}`$ | $`4.0898810^{69}`$ |
| $`\xi \lambda _2(B=0.5)`$ | 0.989926 | 0.98998 | 0.989986 | 0.989986 |

We see a remarkable agreement between the level truncation and our analytical values. As was already observed in , level truncation converges very fast for the isolated eigenvalues.

This also illustrates our discussion in section 5.2 on how turning on a $`B`$-field breaks the degeneracy between $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$. Indeed we see that $`\xi \lambda _2`$ goes to one as $`B`$ is increased, whereas $`\xi \lambda _1`$ goes to zero. This last convergence being very fast, as can be measured from the asymptotic expansions of our analytical expressions .

Next we want to check our formulas (61) and (78)444The vectors $`\left(\lambda M/\xi \right)^1|v_{e,o}`$ can be calculated from our formulas for the generating functions written down in  for the eigenvectors in the continuous spectrum $`v_{1,\lambda }^e`$, $`v_{1,\lambda }^o`$, $`v_{2,\lambda }^o`$ and $`v_{2,\lambda }^e`$. Here some care is needed: Due to the block-matrix form (18) of $`()^{11}`$, its eigenvalues in the level truncation will always be twice exactly degenerate; indeed if (in block notation) $`\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ b\end{array}\right)`$ is an eigenvector, then so is $`\left(\begin{array}{c}b\\ a\end{array}\right)`$. This degeneracy is undesirable because the numerical algorithm which finds the level-truncated eigenvectors will, for each eigenvalue, give two eigenvectors which will be in a mixed state. In other words, for some eigenvalue $`\lambda `$, the algorithm will output two vectors $`w_1=a_1v_{1,\lambda }^e+a_2v_{1,\lambda }^o+a_3v_{2,\lambda }^o+a_4v_{2,\lambda }^e`$ and $`w_2=b_1v_{1,\lambda }^e+b_2v_{1,\lambda }^o+b_3v_{2,\lambda }^o+b_4v_{2,\lambda }^e`$, and we will have no control on the parameters $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$. We can remedy555The reader might wonder why we don’t simply check our exact eigenvectors by multiplying them by the level truncated $`()^{11}`$. The problem is that this procedure does not give very good results in the level truncation. to this by artificially breaking this degeneracy in the following way: We consider $`()_ϵ^{11}()^{11}+ϵJ`$, where $`J\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$, and $`ϵ`$ is a small number (we will typically choose $`ϵ=10^7`$. We observe that adding this small perturbation to $`()^{11}`$ breaks the degeneracy in the level truncation. moreover, $`J`$ commutes with $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}C& 0\\ 0& C\end{array}\right)`$, we thus expect the level-truncated eigenvectors to be of the form $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{even}\\ \mathrm{odd}\end{array}\right)`$ which we will call even, or $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{odd}\\ \mathrm{even}\end{array}\right)`$ which we will call odd. If we further constraint all eigenvectors to be of the form $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{real}\\ \mathrm{imaginary}\end{array}\right)`$, we expect the even level-truncated eigenvectors $`w_\lambda ^e`$ to be close to some linear combination $`a_1v_{1,\lambda }^e+a_2v_{2,\lambda }^e`$ with $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ being real parameters. Similarly, we expect the odd level-truncated eigenvectors $`w_\lambda ^o`$ to be close to some linear combination $`a_1v_{1,\lambda }^o+a_2v_{2,\lambda }^o`$.

In the next tables, we consider 4 eigenvectors of the level-truncated matrix $`()_ϵ^{11}`$ with $`b=1`$, $`B=0.2`$, $`ϵ=10^7`$ and we work at level $`L=100`$. We find the parameters $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ by minimizing

$$\mathrm{err}(a_1,a_2)=\frac{\left(\underset{i=0}{\overset{5}{}}|(a_1v_{1,\lambda }^{e,o}+a_2v_{2,\lambda }^{e,o}w_\lambda ^{e,o})_i|^2+\underset{i=L+1}{\overset{L+6}{}}|(a_1v_{1,\lambda }^{e,o}+a_2v_{2,\lambda }^{e,o}w_\lambda ^{e,o})_i|^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{a_1v_{1,\lambda }^{e,o}+a_2v_{2,\lambda }^{e,o}},$$

where we have chosen, for simplicity, to compare only the 6 first components of the upper block and the 6 first components of the lower block (remember that each block has size $`L+1`$). Also, all the vectors appearing in the above formula are normalized to unit norm before being plugged in the formula. Here are the results of this fit for two different eigenvalues which appear in the level truncation.

| $`\lambda =0.110388`$, even vector | Level truncation | Exact value |
| --- | --- | --- |
| component 0 | 0.158253 | 0.158271 |
| component 2 | $`0.314559`$ | $`0.314559`$ |
| component 4 | 0.206995 | 0.206947 |
| component $`L+2`$ | $`0.583525i`$ | $`0.583576i`$ |
| component $`L+4`$ | $`0.313203i`$ | $`0.313186i`$ |
| component $`L+6`$ | $`0.228656i`$ | $`0.22858i`$ |
| $`a_1`$ | $`0.0289756`$ | |
| $`a_2`$ | 0.884282 | |
| err | $`0.0107\%`$ | |

| $`\lambda =0.110388`$, odd vector | Level truncation | Exact value |
| --- | --- | --- |
| component 1 | 0.583524 | 0.583575 |
| component 3 | $`0.313202`$ | $`0.313185`$ |
| component 5 | 0.228656 | 0.228578 |
| component $`L+1`$ | $`0.158253i`$ | $`0.158271i`$ |
| component $`L+3`$ | $`0.314561i`$ | $`0.314561i`$ |
| component $`L+5`$ | $`0.206996i`$ | $`0.206948i`$ |
| $`a_1`$ | $`0.0289793`$ | |
| $`a_2`$ | 0.884282 | |
| err | $`0.0107\%`$ | |

| $`\lambda =0.0716535`$, even vector | Level truncation | Exact value |
| --- | --- | --- |
| component 0 | 0.0342766 | 0.0342883 |
| component 2 | 0.280389 | 0.280447 |
| component 4 | $`0.260653`$ | $`0.260619`$ |
| component $`L+2`$ | $`0.107005i`$ | $`0.107033i`$ |
| component $`L+4`$ | $`0.201759i`$ | $`0.201769i`$ |
| component $`L+6`$ | $`0.185215i`$ | $`0.185146i`$ |
| $`a_1`$ | 0.673384 | |
| $`a_2`$ | $`0.100719`$ | |
| err | $`0.0102\%`$ | |

| $`\lambda =0.0716536`$, odd vector | Level truncation | Exact value |
| --- | --- | --- |
| component 1 | 0.107009 | 0.107037 |
| component 3 | $`0.20176`$ | $`0.20177`$ |
| component 5 | 0.185216 | 0.185147 |
| component $`L+1`$ | $`0.0342776i`$ | $`0.0342892i`$ |
| component $`L+3`$ | $`0.280388i`$ | $`0.280446i`$ |
| component $`L+5`$ | $`0.260652i`$ | $`0.260619i`$ |
| $`a_1`$ | $`0.673384`$ | |
| $`a_2`$ | $`0.100714`$ | |
| err | $`0.0102\%`$ | |

We see that the errors are of the order of $`0.01\%`$. This is therefore a very good test of the validity of our formulas.

At last, let us do the same kind of test for one discrete eigenvalue in order to check (95). With the same parameters as before, we have the two following discrete eigenvalues: $`\lambda _1=0.0000900753`$ and $`\lambda _2=0.366192`$. In the following two tables, we compare the eigenvectors related to $`\lambda _2`$. Here, half of the degeneracy is already broken by the $`B`$-field. Adding the perturbation will further break the degeneracy completely, and we don’t need to use a fit.

| $`\lambda =0.366192`$, even vector | Level truncation | Exact value |
| --- | --- | --- |
| component 0 | 0.97589 | 0.975946 |
| component 2 | 0.0115766 | 0.0115736 |
| component 4 | $`0.00544373`$ | $`0.00543968`$ |
| component $`L+2`$ | $`0.21255i`$ | $`0.212556i`$ |
| component $`L+4`$ | $`0.0404268i`$ | $`0.0404213i`$ |
| component $`L+6`$ | $`0.0186439i`$ | $`0.0186363i`$ |
| err | $`0.0026\%`$ | |

| $`\lambda =0.366192`$, odd vector | Level truncation | Exact value |
| --- | --- | --- |
| component 1 | 0.212551 | 0.212556 |
| component 3 | $`0.0404268`$ | $`0.0404213`$ |
| component 5 | 0.0186439 | 0.0186363 |
| component $`L+1`$ | $`0.97589i`$ | $`0.975946i`$ |
| component $`L+3`$ | $`0.0115766i`$ | $`0.0115737i`$ |
| component $`L+5`$ | $`0.00544373i`$ | $`0.00543973i`$ |
| err | $`0.0141\%`$ | |

Again, there is a remarkable agreement between numerical and analytical results. These calculation also show that level truncation gives very precise results for the eigenvectors; this observation was already made in .

## 8 Conclusions and Discussions

We analytically solved the problem of finding all eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the Neumann matrix $`^{11}`$ of the bosonic star-product in the matter sector including zero-modes and with a nontrivial $`B`$-field background. In particular we see, as was already observed in , that turning on a $`B`$-field does not seem to obstruct the possibility of finding exact solutions.

Starting from the spectrum of $`^{11}`$ with $`B=0`$, we found that turning on the $`B`$-field has three effects on the spectrum:

1. It shrinks the whole spectrum by $`\xi =1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B)^2`$.
2. It splits the discrete eigenvalue into two different ones (Zeeman effect), still in the range $`(0,\frac{1}{\xi })`$.
3. As we are considering two spatial directions, the eigenvalues in $`(\frac{1}{3\xi },0)`$ are now four times degenerate. Surprisingly, when $`B0`$, the eigenvalue $`\frac{1}{3\xi }`$ is only doubly degenerate. Also the isolated eigenvalues in the range $`(0,\frac{1}{\xi })`$ are both doubly degenerate.

In the discussion of $`Det`$ we also found some discrete values inside the interval $`[\frac{1}{3\xi },0)`$, depending on the parameters $`b`$ and $`B`$, for which the expressions of the eigenvectors differ from those of the continuous eigenvectors. However, it is merely an artifact of the basis in which we are expanding our eigenvectors, and if we renormalize the expression by a proper factor it will be continuous in the whole region $`[\frac{1}{3\xi },0)`$666We thank D. Belov for discussing this issue.. Furthermore, using the same trick as in  and , it is an obvious task to calculate the spectra of $`^{12}`$ and $`^{21}`$ from the spectrum of $`^{11}`$ since the three of them satisfy the same algebra relations .

The physical meaning of the discrete eigenvalues is still mysterious. It seems however that, unlike the continuous ones, the discrete eigenvectors are $`\mathrm{}^2(𝐍)`$-normalizable; this hints us that they are particularly interesting777We thank W. Taylor and B. Zwiebach for a discussion about this point.. It thus seems very important to try to understand the meaning of these eigenvectors. We can actually get some clue about it by considering the large $`B`$-field limit . Indeed if we write the expansion of $`^{11}`$ in powers of $`\frac{1}{B}`$, using (5) and (18), we find, up to order two:

$`\xi ^{11}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & M\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & M\hfill \end{array}\right)+`$ (104)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{3}\pi ^2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & \sqrt{2b}v_o|\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & \sqrt{2b}|v_o\hfill & 2(|v_ev_o|+|v_ov_e|)\hfill \\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& \\ 0\hfill & \sqrt{2b}v_o|\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ \sqrt{2b}|v_o\hfill & 2(|v_ev_o|+|v_ov_e|)\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right)+`$ (109)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2\pi ^4}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}b\hfill & \sqrt{2b}v_e|\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ \sqrt{2b}|v_e\hfill & 2(|v_ev_e||v_ov_o|)\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & b\hfill & \sqrt{2b}v_e|\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & \sqrt{2b}|v_e\hfill & 2(|v_ev_e||v_ov_o|)\hfill \end{array}\right)+𝒪\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{B}}\right)^3\right).`$ (114)
If we look only to order zero, we see immediately that the spectrum of $`\xi ^{11}`$ is two copies of the spectrum of $`M`$ and another two eigenvectors with the eigenvalue one. The one with unit eigenvalue obviously is one of our discrete eigenvalues (the other one is sent to zero as $`B\mathrm{}`$). On the other hand, we know from , that in the large $`B`$-field limit, the star-algebra factorizes into a zero-momentum star-algebra (represented here by the spectrum of $`M`$) and one non-commutative algebra (which must therefore be related to the discrete eigenvalue) corresponding to the momentum of the string. Putting it another way, the discrete eigenvalues should be related to the momentum of the string. All these discussions of the limiting case give us a hint on the physical meaning of these discrete eigenvectors we met in  and here.

There is another thing we can observe from equation (114). In the limit of large $`B`$, the mixing of the two spatial directions happens only at the first order. In other words, comparing with the non-commutativity from the star-product in string field theory (both the zero mode and non-zero modes), the non-commutativity from the $`B`$-field in the spatial directions is small at large $`B`$ limit. This may be a little of surprising and deserves better understanding.

There are some immediate follow-up works, for example, to calculate the spectrum of the Neumann matrices in the ghost sector in the light of . This will clarify some subtle points, such as the infinite coefficients mentioned therein. Another interesting direction is to discuss the Moyal product corresponding to the case of $`B`$ fields. From our eigenvectors we see a mixing of even (odd) state in first direction with the odd (even) in the second. This pattern tells us how the noncommutativities from the star-product and from the $`B`$-field mix up. Understanding this mix-up will help us better comprehend the noncommutativity.

## Acknowledgements

We extend our sincere gratitude to B. Zwiebach for useful discussions and proofreading of the paper. We would also like to thank I. Ellwood, M. Mariño and R. Schiappa for many stimulating conversations. Many thanks also to D. Belov for interesting correspondence and for showing us his unpublished work on the spectrum of $`M^{}`$, and to W. Taylor for discussions. This Research was supported in part by the CTP and LNS of MIT and the U.S. Department of Energy under cooperative research agreement # DE-FC02-94ER40818.