format: text

text:
# Published in J. de Phys. (France) I4 (1994) 1783 COMPLEX–BARRIER TUNNELLING TIMES11footnote 1Work partially supported by I.N.F.N.

## 1 Introduction

In recent times the longstanding question of the tunnelling times has acquired new urgency because of the recent experimental results claiming for superluminal tunnelling speeds. The problem of defining tunnelling times has a long history, since it arose in the forties and fifties,, simultaneously with the fundamental problem of introducing time as a quantum mechanical observable and, in particular, of a definition (in Quantum Mechanics) of the collision durations. Furthermore, a corpuscular picture of tunnelling is very hard to be realized because of the lack of a direct classical limit for the sub-barrier particle paths and velocities. Nevertheless, various typical definitions for the time spent by a particle in the classically forbidden regions have been proposed,; we underline that the differences among them are not only merely formal but, on the contrary, they are a consequence of different views, physical interpretations and experimental expectations. Let us quote, incidentally, the most important definitions of the tunnelling times:

a) the dwell time,,: i.e., the time spent inside the barrier, averaged over all the incoming particles,with no distinction between transmission and reflection channels;

b) the local “Larmor times”: i.e., the traversal time as measured by the spin precession of the tunnelling particle in a uniform infinitesimal magnetic field;

c) the “complex time approach”,: a quantum extension —via path integral averages over the classical paths— of the classical complex time spent by the particle in the scattering process;

d) the “Buttiker-Landauer” times,,: namely interaction times of the particle with a time modulated barrier;

e) the so called “spatial approaches”,, based on the probabilistic quantum standard interpretation of the flux densities $`J[x,t]`$ involved during transmission and reflection;

f) the ordinary “phase times”,,,,, or group delays: i.e.,the times taken by quasimonochromatic wave packets to appear on the other side of the barrier, as given by the stationary phase approximation.

Before going on, let us stress the important fact that many of those theoretical pictures do imply the so-called Hartman-Fletcher effect, that is to say the surprising occurrence, for sufficiently opaque barriers, of tunnelling delays independent of the barrier width. Namely, those delays imply traversal mean group velocities larger than the light speed in vacuum. Recent optical experiment seem to confirm the exitence of superluminal tunnelling speeds. They can be grouped in 3 main classes:

1) evanescent wave propagation in a low dielectric costant region, separating two regions of higher dielectric costant or, similarly, in optical devices allowing for frustrated total internal reflection;

2) propagation of a gaussian light pulse through an anomalous dispersion medium;

3) evanescent microwaves in a wave guide below cut-off.

We are particularly interested in evanescent microwaves since the recent optical experiments by Nimtz et al. agree with our quantum mechanical calculation. The analogy between quantum tunnelling and propagation of microwaves in wave guides is based on the fact that the group velocity is obtained from the derivative of the trasmission amplitude in both cases. Moreover the Schroedinger equation is formally identical to the Helmholtz equation for the propagation of a scalar field, electric or magnetic component of the wave:

$$d^2\psi /dx^2+k^2\psi =0$$

where $`k`$ is the wave number. Thus is possible to simulate quantum tunnelling studying the propagation of e.m. waves in wave guide, where the region below the cut off is the equivalent of the quantum barrier. The connection between the Schroedinger equation and the Helmholtz equation is also valid for the Dirac equation, which is a relativistic equation. Using the Dirac equation instead of the Schroedinger equation we obtain again the Hartman effect, so that this effect is not a “wrong” quantum mechanical effect due to the fact that one is not using a relativistic equation (this has been showed by C.R. Leavens).

Our proposal in this paper is studying the tunnelling time and the Hartman-Fletcher effect in the presence of absorption. To that purpouse we introduce a complex square potential (with a negative immaginary part); such non-real potentials are customary in scattering theory and in nuclear physics (where they are named optical potentials). We shall show that the non reality of the effective hamiltonian (related to the existence of other interaction channels) does in general destroy the Hartman-Fletcher effect. Superluminal speeds can be achieved only if the imaginary part of the hamiltonian is chosen sufficiently small. Let us notice that these theoretical predictions are in agreement with the experimental results obtained by Nimtz et al. at Cologne employing evanescent microwaves in absorptive wave guides below cut-off. In this context, the most suitable and natural theoretical approach for the evaluation of the global tunnelling times and of the mean tunnelling speeds is perhaps the most “direct” one, the phase time approach already mentioned in f): thus, in the following we are going to adopt such a theoretical approach.

## 2 Analytic calculation of the phase time

Following the ordinary procedures employed in refs.$`[10]`$, the group delay for quasimonochromatic packets in the stationary phase approximation, is given by:

$$\delta \tau (E)=\mathrm{}\frac{}{E}(\mathrm{arg}A_\mathrm{T})$$
$`(1\mathrm{a})`$
where $`E`$ is the incoming particle energy, $`A_\mathrm{T}`$ is the (complex) transmission amplitude and $`\mathrm{}`$ is the reduced Planck constant. The global tunnelling time is given, as usual, by the sum of the semiclassical traversal and delay time:

$$\tau =\tau _\mathrm{c}+\delta \tau (E)$$
$`(1\mathrm{b})`$
In order to find out the analytic expression for $`A_\mathrm{T}`$ we have to solve the (stationary) Schroedinger equation with a potential different from zero only in the interval $`(0,a)`$; namely:

$$V(x)=V_0iV_1,xϵ(0,a).$$

Let us observe that:

$$\psi _\mathrm{I}\psi _{\mathrm{in}}+\psi _\mathrm{R}=\mathrm{e}^{ikx}+B_\mathrm{I}\mathrm{e}^{ikx}$$

and

$$\psi _{\mathrm{III}}\psi _\mathrm{T}=A_{\mathrm{III}}\mathrm{e}^{ikx}$$

as in the real potential case (with $`k^2=2mE/\mathrm{}^2`$), while $`\psi _{\mathrm{II}}`$ is obtained by solving the Schroedinger equation in the barrier region:

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\psi }{\mathrm{d}x^2}+\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2}(EV_0+iV_1)\psi =0$$
$`(3)`$
Thus, we get for $`\psi _{\mathrm{II}}`$ the following expression:

$$\psi _{\mathrm{II}}=A_{\mathrm{II}}\mathrm{e}^{ik_{\mathrm{II}}x}+B_{\mathrm{II}}\mathrm{e}^{ik_{\mathrm{II}}x}$$
$`(4)`$
where

$$k_{\mathrm{II}}\sqrt{2m(EV_0+iV_1)}/\mathrm{}$$
$`(5\mathrm{a})`$
Let us notice that eq.(5a) implies that $`k_{\mathrm{II}}`$ is a complex quantity:

$$k_{\mathrm{II}}\xi +i\mu $$
$`(5\mathrm{b})`$
where $`\xi ,\mu `$ are real numbers.

In the $`E<V_0`$ case we get:

$$\xi =(\sqrt{m}/\mathrm{})\sqrt{\sqrt{(EV_0)^2+V_1^2}(V_0E)}$$
$`(6\mathrm{a})`$
and:

$$\mu =(\sqrt{m}/\mathrm{})\sqrt{\sqrt{(EV_0)^2+V_1^2}+(V_0E)}$$
$`(6\mathrm{b})`$
Imposing the continuity boundary conditions for $`\psi `$ and its derivative, i.e.:

$$\psi _\mathrm{I}(0)=\psi _{\mathrm{II}}(0);\psi _{\mathrm{II}}(a)=\psi _{\mathrm{III}}(a);\psi _\mathrm{I}^{}(0)=\psi _{\mathrm{II}}^{}(0);\psi _{\mathrm{II}}^{}(a)=\psi _{\mathrm{III}}^{}(a),$$

we get, after some algebra, the expression for $`A_\mathrm{T}A_{\mathrm{III}}`$ :

$$A_\mathrm{T}=\frac{4kk_{\mathrm{II}}\mathrm{e}^{ik_{\mathrm{II}}a}\mathrm{e}^{ika}}{k^2+k_{\mathrm{II}}^2(1\mathrm{e}^{2ik_{\mathrm{II}}a})+2kk_{\mathrm{II}}(1+\mathrm{e}^{2ik_{\mathrm{II}}a})}$$
$`(7\mathrm{a})`$
Since we are interested in determining $`\varphi \mathrm{arg}A_\mathrm{T}`$ let us express $`A_\mathrm{T}^1`$ in agebraic form, e.g.:

$$A_\mathrm{T}^1=\frac{Ax+By+C\omega }{2kk_{\mathrm{II}}k_{\mathrm{II}}^{}}+i\frac{CrAx+By}{2kk_{\mathrm{II}}k_{\mathrm{II}}^{}}$$
$`(7\mathrm{b})`$
where:

$$A\xi (k^2+k_{\mathrm{II}}k_{\mathrm{II}}^{})$$
$`(8\mathrm{a})`$
$$B\mu (k_{\mathrm{II}}k_{\mathrm{II}}^{}k^2)$$
$`(8\mathrm{b})`$
$$C2kk_{\mathrm{II}}k_{\mathrm{II}}^{}$$
$`(8\mathrm{c})`$
$$x\mathrm{sin}\xi a\mathrm{cosh}\mu a$$
$`(8\mathrm{d})`$
$$y\mathrm{cos}\xi a\mathrm{sinh}\mu a$$
$`(8\mathrm{e})`$
$$\omega \mathrm{cos}\xi a\mathrm{cosh}\mu a$$
$`(8\mathrm{f})`$
$$r\mathrm{sin}\xi a\mathrm{sinh}\mu a$$
$`(8\mathrm{g})`$
Thus we may write:

$$\varphi \mathrm{arg}A_\mathrm{T}=\mathrm{arctan}(\frac{Cr+AxBy}{C\omega +Ay+By})ka.$$
$`(9\mathrm{a})`$
After some manipulations, quantity $`\varphi `$ can be written as follows:

$$\varphi =\mathrm{arctan}(\frac{\mathrm{tanh}\mu a(CB\mathrm{cot}\xi a)+A}{\mathrm{cot}\xi a(C+A\mathrm{tanh}\mu a)+B})ka.$$
$`(9\mathrm{b})`$
According to eq. (1b) the tunnelling time is:

$$\tau (E)=\frac{a}{v}+\mathrm{}\frac{}{E}(\mathrm{arg}A_\mathrm{T})=\mathrm{}\frac{}{E}(\mathrm{arg}A_\mathrm{T}+ka)$$
$`(10)`$
where $`v=\mathrm{}k/m`$. By inserting eq. (9b) into eq. (10) we get, after some elaborations (see the Appendix),

$$\tau =\frac{n}{d}$$
$`(11)`$
where

$$n\mathrm{sin}2\xi a[(am\mu /\mathrm{}^2\rho ^2)(C^2B^2A^2)+(A^{}CAC^{})]+\mathrm{cos}2\xi a[2BCam\mu /(\mathrm{}^2\rho ^2)]+$$

$$+\mathrm{sinh}2\mu a[(am\xi /\mathrm{}^2\rho ^2)(A^2+B^2+C^2)+(BC^{}B^{}C)]+(2am\xi AC/\mathrm{}^2\rho ^2)\mathrm{cosh}2\mu a+$$

$$+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}(A^{}BAB^{})(\mathrm{sin}^2\xi a+\mathrm{sinh}^2\mu a)$$
$`(11\mathrm{a})`$
and

$$d2(A^2+B^2)(\mathrm{sin}^2\xi a+\mathrm{sinh}^2\mu a)+2AC\mathrm{sinh}2\mu a+2BC\mathrm{sin}2\xi a+2C^2(\mathrm{cos}^2\xi a+\mathrm{sinh}^2\mu a).$$
$`(11\mathrm{b})`$
Since we want to check the occurrence of the Hartman-Fletcher effect, we are interested in studying the opaque barrier limit. That is, we are interested in the asymptotic condition:

$$ak_{\mathrm{II}}k_{\mathrm{II}}^{}>>1$$
$`(12)`$
which yields:

$$\tau ^{\mathrm{asy}}=\frac{m\xi a}{\mathrm{}(\xi ^2+\mu ^2)}$$
$`(13)`$
that is, $`\tau ^{\mathrm{asy}}`$ is directly proportional to the barrier width. In other words the mean tunnel speed $`v_l`$ is asymptotically :

$$v_l\frac{a}{\tau ^{\mathrm{asy}}}=\frac{\mathrm{}(\xi ^2+\mu ^2)}{m\xi }.$$
$`(14)`$
Thus, we do not obtain the Hartman-Fletcher effect and the saturation of the transmission times anylonger, but a limiting speed as it is shown in eq. (14). Nevertheless, as we can deduce from (14), for sufficiently small values of $`\xi `$,i.e., in the case of low absorption, we get:

$$v_l\mathrm{}$$

so that superluminal tunnelling velocities are not a priori forbidden.

## 3 Conclusions

Most of the theoretical models proposed for the tunnelling time give rise to the Hartman effect, i.e. to an anomalously short tunnelling time. In the very last years the phase time approach, as well as the Hartman effect, has received experimental confirmation by several groups which exploited the analogy between tunnelling particles and evanescent electromagnetic waves. Thus, we propose to extend this approach to the case of a complex potential, in order to introduce an absorption channel. Our calculations shows that a strong absorption tends to destroy the Hartman effect and agree with the experimental results of Nimtz et al. However, although all those experiments do confirm the Hartman effect, there are controversial opinions about the interpretation of this effect and the possibility of superluminal signal transmission. In our opinion, for a better physical interpretation of this phenomenus one should also study the distributions of tunnelling times and the distortion of the wave packet. Work is in progress in this direction.

Acknowledgements

Special thanks are due to V.S. Olkhovsky for having suggested this work, and to E. Recami and V.S. Olkhovsky for stimulating discussions and their continuous help. We also thank S. Sambataro, R. Mignani and G. Andronico, G. Angilella, P. Falsaperla, A.Lamagna, G.D. Maccarrone, R. Maltese. At last, the kind collaboration of G. Nava, S. Parietti, P. Saurgnani and T. Venasco is also acknowledged.

APPENDIX

Our starting point will be the analytical expression for $`\varphi `$, already written in (9b). Thus, we can calculate the global tunnelling time (10) and obtain that in the general case:

$$\frac{}{E}(\varphi +ka)=\frac{n}{d}$$

where

$$n(1/\mathrm{cosh}^2\xi a)\{\mathrm{sin}\xi a\mathrm{cos}\mu a[a\mu ^{}(C^2B^2A^2)+(A^{}CAC^{})]+a\mu ^{}BC(\mathrm{sin}^2\xi a\mathrm{cos}^2\xi a)\}+$$

$$+\mathrm{tanh}\mu a[a\xi ^{}(A^2+B^2+C^2)+(BC^{}B^{}C)]+$$

$$+a\xi ^{}AC(1+\mathrm{tanh}^2\mu a)+(A^{}BAB^{})(\mathrm{sin}^2\xi a+\mathrm{tanh}^2\mu a\mathrm{cos}^2\mu a)$$

and

$$d(A^2+B^2)(\mathrm{sin}^2\xi a+\mathrm{tanh}^2\mu a\mathrm{cos}^2\xi a)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}AC\mathrm{tanh}\mu a+C^2(\mathrm{cos}^2\xi a+\mathrm{sin}^2\xi a\mathrm{tanh}^2\mu a)+$$

$$+\frac{BC\mathrm{sin}2\xi a}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\mu a},$$

symbol $``$ meaning derivation with respect to the energy.

At this point, we can check our complicated formula in the special case $`V_1=0`$. Let us observe that the assumption $`V_1=0`$ implies:

$$\xi =0,\xi ^{}=0,\mu ^{}=m/\mathrm{}^2(1/\mu );k^{}=m/\mathrm{}^2(1/k);$$

and also:

$$A=0;A^{}=0;B=\mu ^3\mu k^2;B^{}=3\mu ^2\mu ^{}\mu ^{}k^22\mu kk^{};$$

$$C=2k\mu ^2C^{}=2\mu ^2k^{}+4\mu \mu ^{}k.$$

After some manipulations, we get the expression for the phase time in the particular case $`V_1=0`$:

$$\frac{}{E}(\varphi +ka)_{V_1=0}=\frac{(am/\mathrm{}^2)2k^2\mu (\mu ^2k^2)+(m/\mathrm{}^2)(2mV_0/\mathrm{}^2)^2)\mathrm{sinh}2\mu a}{k\mu [(2m/\mathrm{}^2)V_0^2\mathrm{sinh}\mu a^2+4k^2\mu ^2}.$$

If we define $`(2mV_0/\mathrm{}^2)^2k_0^2`$ and $`D[(2m/\mathrm{}^2)V_0^2\mathrm{sinh}\mu a^2+4k^2\mu ^2]`$, we realize that our expression is identical with eq.(12a) of ref.. After this check, we can now go back to the general expression (11) of the tunnelling time which —after further algebra— can be written:

$$\tau =\frac{n}{d}$$

where now

$$n\mathrm{sin}2\xi a[(am\mu /\mathrm{}^2\rho ^2)(C^2B^2A^2)+(A^{}CAC^{})]+\mathrm{cos}2\xi a[2BCam\mu /(\mathrm{}^2\rho ^2)]+$$

$$+\mathrm{sinh}2\mu a[(am\xi /\mathrm{}^2\rho ^2)(A^2+B^2+C^2)+(BC^{}B^{}C)]+(2am\xi AC/\mathrm{}^2\rho ^2)\mathrm{cosh}2\mu a+$$

$$+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}(A^{}BAB^{})(\mathrm{sin}^2\xi a+\mathrm{sinh}^2\mu a)$$

and

$$d2(A^2+B^2)(\mathrm{sin}^2\xi a+\mathrm{sinh}^2\mu a)+2AC\mathrm{sinh}2\mu a+2BC\mathrm{sin}2\xi a+$$

$$+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}C^2(\mathrm{cos}^2\xi a+\mathrm{sinh}^2\mu a).$$


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Cabibbo-favored transition $`bc\overline{c}s`$ is well established by observation  of $`B`$ decays to a charmonium state and a kaon, such as $`BJ/\psi K`$ and $`J/\psi K^{}`$. Recent observations of the decays $`BJ/\psi \pi `$  and $`J/\psi \rho \text{[2]}`$ are evidence for the Cabibbo-suppressed transition $`bc\overline{c}d`$. The quark diagrams for these color-suppressed decays are shown in Figures 1 (a) and (b). We search for $`B`$ meson decays into other final states with charmonium. Since $`BJ/\psi \pi `$ is observed, the Cabibbo suppressed modes $`J/\psi \eta `$ and $`J/\psi \eta ^{}`$ may exist at a comparable level. A further test is to search for quark combinations such as $`b\overline{q}c\overline{c}s\overline{s}s\overline{q}`$, where the $`s\overline{s}`$ quark pairs are produced from sea quarks or are connected via external gluons as shown in Figures 2 (a) and (b). This would be exemplified in modes such as $`BJ/\psi \varphi K`$. The mode $`J/\psi \varphi `$ is a pure rescattering process, the measurement of which can help to resolve the discrete ambiguity in the $`cos(2\beta )`$ measurement with $`BJ/\psi K^{}`$ . In this paper we report a search for $`B`$ decays into $`J/\psi \varphi ,`$ $`J/\psi \eta `$, $`J/\psi \eta ^{}`$, $`J/\psi \varphi K^+`$, and $`J/\psi \varphi K_S^0`$ and present their branching fractions or upper limits.

Using a factorization approximation with heavy quarks, A. Deandrea et al.  have predicted the branching fraction of $`B`$ $`J/\psi \eta `$ to be a factor of 3.7 smaller than $`B^0`$ $`J/\psi \pi ^0`$, corresponding to $`(B^0`$ $`J/\psi \eta )=0.54\times 10^5\text{[5]}`$. The L3 Collaboration  searched for this mode, found no events and set an upper limit, $`(B^0`$ $`J/\psi \eta )<1.2\times 10^3`$ at 90% confidence level. The mode $`BJ/\psi \varphi K`$ has been observed by the CLEO Collaboration  with 10 events in $`9.6\times 10^6`$ $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs with the result $`(BJ/\psi \varphi K)=\left(8.8_{3.0}^{+3.5}\pm 1.3\right)\times 10^5`$. In addition to yielding $`c\overline{c}`$ bound states, the decay $`BX(c\overline{c})+K`$ may provide hybrid charmonium ($`c\overline{c}+glue`$, and the hybrid state may ultimately decay into $`J/\psi \varphi `$ in the final state $`J/\psi \varphi K`$. No published results exist for the modes $`BJ/\psi \varphi `$ and $`J/\psi \eta ^{}`$.

## 2 BABAR Detector and Dataset

The data used in this analysis were collected with the BABAR detector at the PEP-II asymmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ storage ring. The complete detector is described in detail elsewhere . We briefly describe the relevant detector subsystems for the physics analysis in this paper. The BABAR detector contains a five-layer silicon vertex tracker (SVT) and a forty-layer drift chamber (DCH) in a 1.5-Tesla solenoidal magnetic field. These devices detect charged particles and measure their momentum and energy loss. The transverse momentum resolution is $`\sigma _{p_t}/p_t=(0.13\pm 0.01)\times p_t\%+(0.45\pm 0.03)\%`$, where $`p_t`$ is measured in GeV/$`c`$. Photons and neutral hadrons are detected in a CsI(Tl) crystal electromagnetic calorimeter (EMC). The EMC detects photons with energies as low as 20 MeV and identifies electrons by their large energy deposit. The EMC energy resolution for photons and electrons is $`\sigma (E)/E=2.3\%/E`$(GeV)$`{}_{}{}^{1/4}+1.9\%`$. The charged particle identification (PID) combines SVT and DCH track energy loss measurements and particle velocity measurements by an internally reflecting ring-imaging Cherenkov detector (DIRC) of quartz bars circumjacent to the DCH. The slotted steel flux return is instrumented with 18-19 layers of planar resistive plate chambers (IFR). The IFR identifies penetrating muons and neutral hadrons.

The data used in these analyses were collected in two periods, October 1999 to October 2000 and February 2001 to December 2001. The data correspond to a total integrated luminosity of $`51`$ fb-1 taken on the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance and 6.3 fb-1 taken off-resonance at an energy 0.04 GeV below the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ center of mass energy and below the threshold for $`B\overline{B}`$ production. This data set contains $`56`$ million $`B\overline{B}`$ events ($`N_{B\overline{B}}`$).

## 3 Physics Analysis

### 3.1 Particle Selection

This analysis begins with selection of charged particles and photons. All charged particle track candidates must have at least 12 DCH hits and $`p_t>`$ 100 MeV/$`c`$. The track candidates not associated with a $`K_s^0`$ decay must also extrapolate to a nominal interaction point within $`\sqrt{x^2+y^2}<`$1.5 cṁ and $`\left|z\right|<`$3 cm where the origin is at the interaction point, the $`z`$ axis is along the electron beam direction, the $`y`$ axis is vertically up, and the $`x`$ axis points away from the collider center. The muon, electron, and kaon candidates must have a polar angle in radians of $`0.3<\theta _\mu <2.7`$, $`0.41<\theta _e<2.409`$, and $`0.45<\theta _K<2.5`$, respectively. In addition, all charged kaon candidates used in this analysis are required to a lab momentum greater than 250 MeV/$`c`$. These restrictions keep the tracks in regions that are well understood by the PID systems.

Photons candidates are identified as hits in contiguous EMC crystals that are summed together to form shower clusters and have a minimum 30 MeV shower energy and satisfy certain shower shape criteria expected for electromagnetic showers. The variables that describe the shower shape include the lateral energy  (LAT) that determines the radial energy profile, and Zernike moment  ($`A_{42}`$) that measures the asymmetry of the cluster shape about its maximum. For electron showers the LAT peaks near 0.25 and $`A_{42}`$ peaks near zero. All the photon candidates are required to have LAT$`<0.8`$.

Electron candidates are required to have a good match between the expected and measured energy loss (d$`E`$/d$`x`$) and between the expected and measured DIRC Cherenkov angle ($`\theta _C`$). Also the measurements of the ratio of EMC shower energy over DCH momentum ($`E/p`$), and the number of EMC crystals associated with the track candidate must be appropriate for an electron. We define very tight (VTE) and loose (LE) electron selection criteria that have efficiencies of 88% and 97%, respectively.

Muon candidates are required to have measurements of several variables that help distinguish muons from other charged particles. These measurements are: the EMC energy, the number of hit layers in the IFR, the penetration depth expressed in units of interaction length along the track’s path in the IFR and EMC, the difference between the expected and measured number of interaction lengths, the average number of hits per IFR layer, the variance of the distribution of the number of hits on each IFR layer, the fraction of hit layers between the innermost and outermost layer, the chi-square match of hits in the IFR, and the chi-square match between the IFR and the extrapolated DCH track. We combine these variables to form different selection criteria applicable in different modes. The criteria are called tight (TM, efficiency 70%), loose (LM, efficiency 86%), and very loose (VLM, efficiency 92%).

Charged kaon candidates are selected based on d$`E`$/d$`x`$ information from the SVT and DCH and $`\theta _C`$. A likelihood function that combines all the information is constructed for the kaon, the proton and the pion hypotheses. A likelihood ratio test determines if the candidate track satisfies the loose kaon selection (LK), very tight kaon selection (VTK) or the not-a-pion selection (NP). The SVT, DCH and DIRC information and the likelihoods are used in certain selected momentum ranges. The loose and very tight selections have typical efficiencies from 70 to 90%, whereas the extremely loose selection, not-a-pion, has $`>90`$% efficiency.

### 3.2 Event Selection

The estimation of the signal and the background employs two kinematic variables; the energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, which is the energy of the $`B`$ candidate in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ frame minus the energy of the beam particle, $`E_{beam}^{CM}`$, and the energy substituted mass $`M_{ES}`$ which is $`\sqrt{\left(E_{beam}^{CM}\right)\left(P_B^{CM}\right)^2}`$, where $`P_B^{CM}`$ is the momentum of the $`B`$ candidate in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ frame. Typically these two weakly correlated variables form a two dimensional Gaussian distribution for the $`B`$ meson signal and a nearly flat two dimensional distribution for background. The resolutions in $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and $`M_{ES}`$ can be different for different decay modes.

The intermediate state particles in this analysis are $`J/\psi (ee,\mu \mu )`$, $`\varphi \left(K^+K^{}\right)`$, $`\eta (\gamma \gamma ,\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$$`\pi ^0)`$, $`\eta ^{}\left(\eta \left(\gamma \gamma \right)\pi ^+\pi ^{}\right)`$, $`\pi ^0\left(\gamma \gamma \right)`$,and $`K_S^0\left(\pi ^+\pi ^{}\right)`$. All of the intermediate state particles are selected in mass windows, which are listed in Table 1. The $`J/\psi ee`$ decay has a slightly asymmetric mass window to include the radiative $`J/\psi `$ tail. Since $`B^0J/\psi \eta `$ and $`B^0J/\psi \eta ^{}`$ are pseudoscalar decays into a vector and a pseudoscalar, the distribution of the helicity angle111 The lepton helicity angle is defined as the angle measured in the $`J/\psi `$ rest frame between the direction of the negative charged lepton and the direction opposite to the parent $`B`$ meson. of the lepton, $`\theta _{Lepton}`$, from the $`J/\psi `$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{Lepton}`$. Hence an additional cut of $`\left|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{Lepton}\right|<0.8`$ is applied to reject continuum and other backgrounds. For the $`\eta `$ candidates, a $`\pi ^0`$ veto is applied where the candidate is rejected if either of the associated photons can be combined with another photon in the event to form a $`\gamma \gamma `$ mass within 20 MeV/$`c^2`$ of the $`\pi ^0`$ mass. Also for the mode $`B^0J/\psi \eta (\gamma \gamma )`$ the $`\eta `$ candidate is rejected for asymmetric decays with $`\left|\mathrm{cos}\theta _\gamma ^\eta \right|<0.8`$, where $`\theta _\gamma ^\eta `$ is the photon helicity angle in the $`\eta `$ rest frame. The $`\eta ^{}\eta \left(\gamma \gamma \right)\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ candidate uses the same $`\eta `$ selections, including the $`\pi ^0`$ veto. The mass of $`K_S^0`$ candidates is taken at the closest distance of approach between positively and negatively charged tracks.

An additional requirement is applied to separate and remove two-jet-like continuum events from more spherical $`B`$ meson decays. The thrust direction of the $`B`$ meson candidate and thrust direction of the recoiling other tracks in the event are calculated. Typically, $`\theta _T`$, the angle between these two directions is uncorrelated for $`B\overline{B}`$ events and peaked at $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _T=\pm 1`$ for continuum events. The thrust angle requirement for the $`B`$ decays is $`\left|\mathrm{cos}\theta _T\right|<0.8.`$

The PID criteria are listed in Table 2 mode by mode. The PID requirements for some modes are slightly more stringent for background rejection.

#### 3.2.1 $`B^0J/\psi \varphi `$ Mode

This mode combines the $`J/\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ based on the selection described in the previous section. The resulting scatter plot of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ versus $`M_{ES}`$ is shown in Figure 3 (left top). The signal region is shown on the figure, and it is defined by $`5.272<M_{ES}<5.288`$ GeV/$`c^2`$ and $`0.057<\mathrm{\Delta }E<0.057`$ GeV. The left bottom (right) plot shows the projection onto the $`M_{ES}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$) axis for events that satisfy the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ ($`M_{ES}`$) requirement for the signal region. The curve overlaid on the $`M_{ES}`$ projection in this and the following figures is the sum of an ARGUS function  to model the combinatoric background and a Gaussian, where the Gaussian contains the background peaking in the signal region as well as the signal itself (see Section 4 for details). Statistically there is no significant signal for $`B^0J/\psi \varphi `$. An upper limit on the branching fraction is described in the next section.

#### 3.2.2 $`BJ/\psi \varphi K^+`$ and $`J/\psi \varphi K_S^0`$ Modes

In this mode we combine the $`J/\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ candidates described above with a charged kaon or $`K_S^0`$ candidate. The resulting scatter plot of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ versus $`M_{ES}`$ is shown in Figure 4 (left top) for $`B^+J/\psi \varphi K^+`$. The signal region is shown on the figure, and it is defined by $`5.272<M_{ES}<5.288`$ GeV/$`c^2`$ and $`0.057<\mathrm{\Delta }E<0.057`$ GeV. The left bottom (right) plot shows the projection onto the $`M_{ES}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$) axis for events that satisfy the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ ($`M_{ES}`$) requirement for the signal region. The corresponding plots for $`B^0J/\psi \varphi K_S^0`$ are shown in Figure 5. The branching fractions are determined in the next section.

#### 3.2.3 $`B^0J/\psi \eta `$ Mode

For this mode, we combine a $`J/\psi `$ candidate with an $`\eta `$ candidate in the final states $`\gamma \gamma `$ or $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$. The resulting scatter plot of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ versus $`M_{ES}`$ is shown in Figure 6 (left top) for the $`\gamma \gamma `$ mode and in Figure 7 (left top) for $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ mode. The left bottom plot and the right plot show the projections onto $`M_{ES}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ respectively. The signal region is defined by $`5.27<M_{ES}<5.29`$ GeV/$`c^2`$ and $`0.1<\mathrm{\Delta }E<0.1`$ GeV for the $`\gamma \gamma `$ mode, and $`5.27<M_{ES}<5.29`$ GeV/$`c^2`$ and $`0.072<\mathrm{\Delta }E<0.072`$ GeV for $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ mode. No statistically significant signal is observed. Upper limits on the branching fractions for these modes are described in the next section.

#### 3.2.4 $`B^0J/\psi \eta ^{}`$ Mode

In this mode we combine $`J/\psi `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ candidates. The resulting scatter plot of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ versus $`M_{ES}`$ is shown in Figure 8 (left top) for $`B^0J/\psi \eta ^{}`$. The signal region is defined by $`5.27<M_{ES}<5.29`$ GeV/$`c^2`$ and $`0.1<\mathrm{\Delta }E<0.1`$ GeV. The left bottom (right) plot shows the projected $`M_{ES}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$) distribution for events that satisfy the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ ($`M_{ES}`$) requirement for the signal region. There is no significant evidence for $`B^0J/\psi \eta ^{}`$. An upper limit on the branching fraction is determined in the next section.

## 4 Efficiencies, Backgrounds and Systematic Uncertainties

The efficiencies for each mode are determined by Monte Carlo simulation where three-body phase space is assumed for the three body modes ($`J/\psi \varphi K^+,`$ $`J/\psi \varphi K_S^0)`$, two-body phase space for the vector-vector mode $`\left(J/\psi \varphi \right)`$, and helicity amplitude matrix elements for vector-pseudoscalar modes ($`J/\psi \eta ,`$ $`J/\psi \eta ^{})`$. The statistical error due to the number of Monte Carlo events is included as part of the systematic error.

The background in the $`M_{ES}`$ distributions can be described by an ARGUS function for the combinatoric background, plus a Gaussian function for the peaking background. The combinatoric background, denoted $`N_{ARGUS}`$, is due to continuum events, $`B\overline{B}`$ events with at least one $`J/\psi `$, and $`B\overline{B}`$ events without a $`J/\psi `$. The peaking background, denoted $`N_{J/\psi Gauss}`$, comes only from $`B\overline{B}`$ events with a $`J/\psi `$. The shape of the ARGUS term is determined mode by mode by fitting an ARGUS function to the $`M_{ES}`$ distribution from a special set of events in the data where the $`J/\psi `$ is replaced by a fake $`J/\psi `$. The fake $`J/\psi `$ is selected with identical selection criteria in each mode except for logically reversing the lepton identification. This provides a large sample in each mode whose $`M_{ES}`$ distribution can be fitted and represents the ARGUS shape. The normalization of the combinatoric background for each mode is obtained from a fit to the $`M_{ES}`$ distributions in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ signal region of the on-peak data. The integral of this function in the signal region is $`N_{ARGUS}`$. This method of determining $`N_{ARGUS}`$ has been checked with Monte Carlo simulation, off-peak data and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and $`J/\psi `$ mass sidebands from on-peak data. The peaking background $`N_{J/\psi Gauss}`$ is determined from a sample of Monte Carlo $`B\overline{B}`$ events that is normalized to the equivalent data integrated luminosity and contains at least one decay of $`J/\psi `$ leptons. The $`M_{ES}`$ distribution from this sample is fit with an ARGUS function and a Gaussian in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ signal region where the normalizations are allowed to vary. The number of events in the resulting Gaussian fit is the Monte Carlo estimation of the peaking background $`N_{J/\psi Gauss}`$. The sum of $`N_{ARGUS}`$ plus $`N_{J/\psi Gauss}`$ gives $`n_b`$, the total number of background candidates in the signal region and its error, $`\sigma _b`$. The combinatoric background is by far the dominant background in all modes except the $`B^0J/\psi \eta (\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)`$ mode, where the peaking component reaches $`20\%`$ of the total background.

The following sources of systematic uncertainty are considered.

* Uncertainty in the number of $`B\overline{B}`$ events (column labeled $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{B\overline{B}}`$ in Table 3).
* Uncertainty from secondary branching fractions (column labeled SBF in Table 3).
* Monte Carlo statistical error (column labeled MC in Table 3).
* Uncertainties in PID, tracking efficiency and photon detection efficiency (column labeled PidTrkG in Table 3).
* Variations in the event selection criteria (column labeled EvtSel in Table 3).
* Background parameterization (column labeled BkgdP in Table 3).

The secondary branching fraction uncertainty combines all errors from the Particle Data Group (PDG)  for each mode. The fractional uncertainty in $`N_{B\overline{B}}`$ is $`1.6\%.`$ The uncertainty from PID, tracking efficiency and photon detection efficiency is based on the study of the control samples. The uncertainty due to event selection includes varying all event selection criteria by a reasonable amount and determining the effect on the branching fraction. The uncertainty from background parameterization is estimated by using $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ sideband information. The largest systematic error comes from varying the event selection criteria and no single variation dominates this systematic in any mode.

The total systematic error combines all these separate errors in quadrature mode by mode. The individual systematic uncertainties are listed in Table 3.

## 5 Branching Fractions and Upper Limits

The branching fraction determination uses a simple subtraction of events in the signal region. The number of signal events is $`n_s=n_0n_b`$, where the term $`n_0`$ is the number of data events in the signal region, and $`n_b`$ is the total background described in Section 4.

The modes $`J/\psi \varphi K^+`$ and $`J/\psi \varphi K_S^0`$ have significant signals: $`J/\psi \varphi K^+`$ is 3.1 statistical standard deviations from zero, while $`J/\psi \varphi K_S^0`$ is 2.7 statistical standard deviations from zero. The calculated branching fraction is based on the Monte Carlo efficiency, $`n_s`$, $`N_{B\overline{B}}`$, and the secondary branching fractions for the $`J/\psi ,`$ $`\varphi `$, and $`K_S^0`$ from PDG . The results are summarized in Table 4 including the total summed background events in the signal region. The first error is the statistical error, and the second error is the systematic error $`\sigma _T`$ taken from Table 3. The derived result for $`B^0J/\psi \varphi K^0`$ is also shown in Table 4.

For the modes with no signal or weak statistical evidence ($`J/\psi \varphi `$, $`J/\psi \eta `$, $`J/\psi \eta ^{}`$) an upper limit is set. The upper limit method uses the number of data events counted in the signal region, $`n_0`$, $`n_b`$, and its error $`\sigma _b`$ (described in Section 4), in the signal region and the total systematic uncertainty $`\sigma _T(\%)`$ from Table 3. Once we obtain $`n_0`$, $`n_b\pm \sigma _b`$, and $`\sigma _T,`$ then we assume these two uncertainties ($`\sigma _b,\sigma _T`$) are uncorrelated and Gaussian, the upper limit $`N_{90\%}`$ is obtained by folding the Poisson distribution with two normal distributions for these two uncertainties and integrating it to the 90% confidence level. We list the variables in Table 5 to obtain, $`N_{90\%}`$, the number of events for a 90% upper confidence limit. Then using the upper limit $`N_{90\%}`$, the efficiency and $`N_{B\overline{B}}`$, we determine the resulting upper limits on the branching fractions which are also shown in Table 5.

## 6 Conclusions

We observe evidence for $`BJ/\psi \varphi K`$ in two modes and determine the branching fractions $``$($`BJ/\psi \varphi K^+`$)= $`(4.4\pm 1.4(stat)\pm 0.7(syst))\times 10^5`$ and $``$($`BJ/\psi \varphi K_S^0`$)=$`(5.1\pm 1.9(stat)\pm 0.9(syst))\times 10^5`$. The branching fraction for $`BJ/\psi \varphi K`$ is consistent with CLEO results . Upper limits have been determined for the modes $`BJ/\psi \varphi ,`$ $`J/\psi \eta `$, and $`J/\psi \eta ^{}`$. However, the two $`BJ/\psi \eta `$ upper limits in Table 5 would correspond to a combined branching fraction of $`(1.6\pm 0.6(stat.)\pm 0.2(syst.))\times 10^5`$, which is comparable to the $`BJ/\psi \pi ^0`$ branching fraction.

## 7 Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the extraordinary contributions of our PEP-II colleagues in achieving the excellent luminosity and machine conditions that have made this work possible. The success of this project also relies critically on the expertise and dedication of the computing organizations that support BABAR. The collaborating institutions wish to thank SLAC for its support and the kind hospitality extended to them. This work is supported by the US Department of Energy and National Science Foundation, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Canada), Institute of High Energy Physics (China), the Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (France), the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (Germany), the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (Italy), the Research Council of Norway, the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation, and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (United Kingdom). Individuals have received support from the A. P. Sloan Foundation, the Research Corporation, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.


text:
# Green Function for a Spin 1/2 Particle in a Coulomb + Scalar Potential

## Abstract

We calculate the Green function for the Dirac equation describing a spin 1/2 particle in the presence of a potential which is a sum of the Coulomb potential $`V_C=A_1/r`$ and a Lorentz scalar $`V_s=A_2/r`$. The bound state spectrum is obtained.

PACS numbers:03.65.Pm,03.65.Ge  e-mail:vaidya@if.ufrj.br

1. Introduction

The generalized Dirac equation that we consider describes a spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle in interaction with a mixed potential consisting of the Coulomb potential and a Lorentz scalar potential.The scalar potential is added to the mass term in the Dirac equation and may be interpreted as an effective position dependent mass.If the scalar potential is assumed to be created by the exchange of massless scalar mesons, it has the form $`V_S=\frac{A_2}{r}`$. Exact solutions for the bound states in this mixed potential can be obtained by separation of variables . Alternatively, using a similarity transformation it is possible to bring the radial equation to a form almost identical to those of the Schrödinger and Klein-Gordon equations in a Coulomb field leading to the bound state spectrum .The bound state problem for the N-dimensional generalized Dirac equation has also been solved .The scattering problem does not seem to have been treated in litrature.

In this paper we obtain the explicit form for the Green function for the generalized Dirac equation.Our results generalize earlier ones for the Dirac-Coulomb Green function .

The paper is organized as follows : in Section 2 we formulate the problem,in Section 3 we obtain the projectors which simplify the angular part of the Green function,in Section 4 a Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula is used to simplify the radial dependence, in section 5 the final form of the Green function is obtained.Section 6 contains the conclusions.

2. Formulation of the problem

The generalized Dirac equation involves a potential which is the sum of the time component of a Lorentz vector and a Lorentz scalar and is given by

$`(\gamma ^0(i_0+{\displaystyle \frac{A_1}{r}})+i𝜸\mathbf{}M+{\displaystyle \frac{A_2}{r}})\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=0,`$ (1)
where $`_\mu =\frac{}{x^\mu }`$ and $`r=|𝐱|`$. The Green function for this equation satisfies the differential equation

$`(\gamma ^0(i_0+{\displaystyle \frac{A_1}{r}})+i𝜸\mathbf{}M+{\displaystyle \frac{A_2}{r}})G(x,x^{})=\delta (xx^{}).`$ (2)
Since the potential is time independent one may write

$$G(x,x^{})=\frac{1}{2\pi }e^{iϵ(tt^{})}G(𝐱,𝐱^{}|ϵ)𝑑ϵ.$$
(3)
Thus

$$G(𝐱,𝐱^{}|ϵ)=(\gamma ^0(ϵ+\frac{A_1}{r})M+\frac{A_2}{r}+i𝜸\mathbf{})^1\delta (𝐱𝐱^{}).$$
(4)
We rewrite the above equation in the form

$`G(𝐱,𝐱^{}|ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`(\gamma ^0(ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{A_1}{r}})+M{\displaystyle \frac{A_2}{r}}+i𝜸\mathbf{})`$ (5)
$`\times `$ $`(r(ϵ^2M^2p_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+2(ϵA_1+MA_2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}𝒦)^1`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^{}}}\delta (rr^{})\delta (𝐧𝐧^{}),`$
where $`𝐧=\frac{𝐫}{r}`$, $`p_r=i(_r+\frac{1}{r})`$ and

$$𝒦=𝐋^\mathrm{𝟐}i(A_1\gamma ^0+A_2)𝜸𝒏(A_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}A_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}).$$
(6)
Next we use the inegral representation

$$\frac{1}{D}=i_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s\mathrm{exp}isD,$$
(7)
where a convergence factor (not shown explicitly) is assumed to be present in the integral.Then we can write equation (5) as

$`G(𝐱,𝐱^{}|ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`i(\gamma ^0(ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{A_1}{r}})+M{\displaystyle \frac{A_2}{r}}+i𝜸\mathbf{})`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}`$ $`dse^{2is(ϵA_1+MA_2)}\mathrm{exp}is(r(k^2+p_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}𝒦){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^{}}}\delta (rr^{})\delta (𝐧𝐧^{}),`$
where $`k^2=M^2ϵ^2`$.We assume k to be real.

3. The projectors for the eigenvalues of the operator $`𝒦`$

In this section we construct the eigenfunctions of the operator $`𝒦`$ and show that the angular delta function $`\delta (𝐧𝐧^{})`$ may be written as the sum of the projectors of its eigenvalues. This may be done easily if we introduce the total angular momentum by $`𝐉=𝐋+𝐒=𝐋+\frac{1}{2}𝚺`$ and use a basis in which the operators $`𝐉^\mathrm{𝟐},𝐋^\mathrm{𝟐},𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`J_z`$ are diagonal.Using the standard representation for the Dirac matrices and the usual notation for the eigenvalues of the operators $`𝐉^\mathrm{𝟐},𝐋^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`J_z`$ the basis functions may be written as

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,l,m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,l,m}\\ 0\end{array}\right),`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,l,m}^{}{}_{}{}^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_{j,l,m}\end{array}\right),`$ (9)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,l,m}`$ are the two component spinors

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,l,m}=\left(\begin{array}{c}(\frac{l+\frac{1}{2}+m}{2l+1})^{\frac{1}{2}}Y_{l,m\frac{1}{2}}\\ (\frac{l+\frac{1}{2}m}{2l+1})^{\frac{1}{2}}Y_{l,m+\frac{1}{2}}\end{array}\right),$$
(10)
for $`j=l+\frac{1}{2}`$,$`l=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,l,m}=\left(\begin{array}{c}(\frac{l+\frac{1}{2}m}{2l+1})^{\frac{1}{2}}Y_{l,m\frac{1}{2}}(\theta ,\varphi )\\ (\frac{l+\frac{1}{2}+m}{2l+1})^{\frac{1}{2}}Y_{l,m+\frac{1}{2}}(\theta ,\varphi )\end{array}\right),$$
(11)
for $`j=l\frac{1}{2}`$,$`l=1,2,3,\mathrm{}..`$, which satisfy the equations

$$(1+𝝈𝐋)\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j\pm \frac{1}{2},m}=(j+\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j\pm \frac{1}{2},m},$$
(12)
$$𝝈𝐧\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j\pm \frac{1}{2},m}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j\frac{1}{2},m}.$$
(13)
In the above basis

$$𝐉^\mathrm{𝟐}+\frac{1}{4}=(1+𝚺𝐋)^2.$$
(14)
Since the operator $`𝒦`$ may be written as

$$𝒦=𝐉^\mathrm{𝟐}+\frac{1}{4}(A_1^2A_2^2)(1+𝚺𝐋)i(A_1\gamma ^0+A_2)𝜸𝒏,$$
(15)
we get

$$𝒦=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Lambda }+1),$$
(16)
where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=(1+𝚺𝐋)i(A_1\gamma ^0+A_2)𝜸𝒏.$$
(17)
Since

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=𝐉^\mathrm{𝟐}+\frac{1}{4}(A_1^2A_2^2),$$
(18)
we get the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as $`\pm \lambda `$ where

$$\lambda =[(j+\frac{1}{2})^2(A_1^2A_2^2)]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(19)
We assume that $`\lambda `$ is real.

Next, one can show that

$$S\mathrm{\Lambda }S^1=(1\frac{A_1^2A_2^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2})^{\frac{1}{2}}(1+𝚺𝐋),$$
(20)
where

$$S=e^{i\gamma ^0𝜸𝐧\eta (\mathrm{\Gamma })}e^{i𝜸𝐧\xi (\mathrm{\Gamma })},$$
(21)
and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^0(1+𝚺𝐋),`$
$`\mathrm{tanh}2\xi (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}},`$
$`\mathrm{tan}2\eta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{A_1^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2})^{\frac{1}{2}}}}.`$ (22)
Hence

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{\pm }{}_{j,j+\frac{\mu }{2},m}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu (j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{\pm }{}_{j,j+\frac{\mu }{2},m}{}^{},`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }S^1\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{\pm }{}_{j,j+\frac{\mu }{2},m}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu \lambda S^1\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{\pm }{}_{j,j+\frac{\mu }{2},m}{}^{}.`$ (23)
Thus $`S^1\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{\pm }{}_{j,j+\frac{\mu }{2},m}{}^{}`$ are eigenfunctions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with eigenvalues $`\mu \lambda `$. To calculate their explicit form one can use the results

$`\gamma ^0\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{\pm }{}_{j,j+\frac{\mu }{2},m}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{\pm }{}_{j,j+\frac{\mu }{2},m}{}^{}`$
$`𝜸𝐧\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{\pm }{}_{j,j+\frac{\mu }{2},m}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{}{}_{j,j\frac{\mu }{2},m}{}^{}`$
$`\gamma ^0𝜸𝐧\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{\pm }{}_{j,j+\frac{\mu }{2},m}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{}{}_{j,j\frac{\mu }{2},m}{}^{}`$ (24)
Using equations (21-23) the unnormalized eigenfunctions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ belonging to the eigenvalues $`\pm \lambda `$ are

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda ,j,m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(\pm )}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda +j+\frac{1}{2}}{2\lambda }}\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j+\frac{1}{2},m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(\pm )}i{\displaystyle \frac{A_1A_2}{2\lambda }}\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j\frac{1}{2},m}^{}{}_{}{}^{()}`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda ,j,m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(\pm )}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda +j+\frac{1}{2}}{2\lambda }}\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j\frac{1}{2},m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(\pm )}+i{\displaystyle \frac{A_1A_2}{2\lambda }}\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j+\frac{1}{2},m}^{}{}_{}{}^{()}`$ (25)
Next we have the completeness relation

$$\delta (𝐧𝐧^{})=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j,\mu ,m}\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j+\frac{\mu }{2},m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(+)}(𝐧)\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j+\frac{\mu }{2},m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(+)}(𝐧^{})+\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j+\frac{\mu }{2},m}^{}{}_{}{}^{()}(𝐧)\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j+\frac{\mu }{2},m}^{}{}_{}{}^{()}(𝐧^{})$$
(26)
where $`\mu =\pm 1`$. Next, inverting equation (25) we have

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j+\frac{\mu }{2},m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \lambda ,j,m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(+)}+i\mu {\displaystyle \frac{A_1A_2}{\lambda +j+\frac{1}{2}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \lambda ,j,m}^{}{}_{}{}^{()}`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j+\frac{\mu }{2},m}^{}{}_{}{}^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \lambda ,j,m}^{}{}_{}{}^{()}+i\mu {\displaystyle \frac{A_1+A_2}{\lambda +j+\frac{1}{2}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \lambda ,j,m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(+)}`$ (27)
Hence

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }P_{\pm \lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \lambda P_{\pm \lambda }`$
$`\delta (𝐧𝐧^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_j(P_\lambda (𝐧,𝐧^{})+P_\lambda (𝐧,𝐧^{}))`$ (28)
where the projectors $`P_{\pm \lambda }`$ are given by

$`P_\lambda (𝐧,𝐧^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_m\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda ,j,m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(+)}(𝐧)(\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j+\frac{1}{2},m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(+)}(𝐧^{})i{\displaystyle \frac{A_1+A_2}{\lambda +j+\frac{1}{2}}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j\frac{1}{2},m}^{}{}_{}{}^{()}(𝐧^{}))`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda ,j,m}^{}{}_{}{}^{()}(𝐧)(\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j+\frac{1}{2},m}^{}{}_{}{}^{()}(𝐧^{})i{\displaystyle \frac{A_1A_2}{\lambda +j+\frac{1}{2}}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j\frac{1}{2},m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(+)}(𝐧^{}))`$
$`P_\lambda (𝐧,𝐧^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_m\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda ,j,m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(+)}(𝐧)(\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j\frac{1}{2},m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(+)}(𝐧^{})+i{\displaystyle \frac{A_1+A_2}{\lambda +j+\frac{1}{2}}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j+\frac{1}{2},m}^{}{}_{}{}^{()}(𝐧^{}))`$ (29)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda ,j,m}^{}{}_{}{}^{()}(𝐧)(\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j\frac{1}{2},m}^{}{}_{}{}^{()}(𝐧^{})+i{\displaystyle \frac{A_1A_2}{\lambda +j+\frac{1}{2}}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j+\frac{1}{2},m}^{}{}_{}{}^{(+)}(𝐧^{}))`$
If we now use equation (25) one can write the projectors in terms of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ functions. The summations involved may be done as follows.First using equations (11) and (12) we get

$`4\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_m\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j+\frac{\mu }{2},m}(𝐧)\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j+\frac{\mu }{2},m}(𝐧^{})=(j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})P_{j+\frac{\mu }{2}}(x)+i\mu 𝝈(𝐧\times 𝐧^{})P_{j+\frac{\mu }{2}}^{^{}}(x)`$ (30)
where $`x=𝐧𝐧^{}`$ and the prime on the Legendre polynomials $`P_{j+\frac{\mu }{2}}`$ denotes derivative with respect to x. Also,

$`(j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})P_{j+\frac{1}{2}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`xP_{j+\frac{1}{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}(x)P_{j\frac{1}{2}}^{^{}}(x)`$
$`(j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})P_{j\frac{1}{2}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`P_{j+\frac{1}{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}(x)xP_{j\frac{1}{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}(x)`$ (31)
Hence

$`4\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu ,m}\mu \mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j+\frac{\mu }{2},m}(𝐧)\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j+\frac{\mu }{2},m}(𝐧^{})=(1+x+i𝝈(𝐧\times 𝐧^{}))A_j`$ (32)
$`4\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu ,m}\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j+\frac{\mu }{2},m}(𝐧)\mathrm{\Omega }_{j,j+\frac{\mu }{2},m}(𝐧^{})=(1+x+i𝝈(𝐧\times 𝐧^{}))B_j`$ (33)
where

$`A_j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{j+\frac{1}{2}}{x1}}(P_{j+\frac{1}{2}}(x)P_{j\frac{1}{2}}(x))`$
$`B_j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{j+\frac{1}{2}}{x+1}}(P_{j+\frac{1}{2}}(x)+P_{j\frac{1}{2}}(x))`$ (34)
The final expression for $`P_\lambda `$ is

$`8\pi P_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`(1+x+i𝚺(𝐧\times 𝐧^{}))B_j+{\displaystyle \frac{j+\frac{1}{2}}{\lambda }}(1+x+i𝚺(𝐧\times 𝐧^{}))A_j`$ (35)
$``$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{(A_1\gamma ^0+A_2)}{\lambda }}𝜸(𝐧+𝐧^{})B_j`$
The results for the projector $`P_\lambda `$ can be obtained from the above equation by changing the sign of $`\lambda `$. The projectors $`P_{\pm \lambda }`$ satisfy the relations:

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐧^{}P_{\pm \lambda }(𝐧,𝐧^{})P_{\pm \lambda ^{}}(𝐧^{},𝐧^{\prime \prime })}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\lambda \lambda ^{}}P_{\pm \lambda }(𝐧,𝐧^{\prime \prime })`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐧^{}P_\lambda (𝐧,𝐧^{})P_\lambda ^{}(𝐧^{},𝐧^{\prime \prime })}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (36)
Thus equation (8) can now be written in the form

$`G(𝐱,𝐱^{}|ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`i(\gamma ^0(ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{A_1}{r}})+M{\displaystyle \frac{A_2}{r}}+i𝜸\mathbf{})\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\nu ,j}P_{\nu \lambda }(𝐧,𝐧^{})`$ (37)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}`$ $`dse^{2is(ϵA_1+MA_2)}\mathrm{exp}is(r(k^2+p_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+\nu \lambda (\nu \lambda +1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^{}}}\delta (rr^{})`$
where $`\nu =\pm 1`$

4 The Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula for the SO(2,1) algebra

In this section we calculate the action of the operator $`\mathrm{exp}is(rp_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\nu \lambda (\nu \lambda +1)\frac{1}{r})`$ on a suitable function $`f(r)`$.This will allow us to simplify the radial dependence of the Green function.The method used is the same as one used by Mil’shtein and Strakhovenko previously.We include the calculation for the sake of completeness. The operators

$`T_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(rp_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\nu \lambda (\nu \lambda +1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}})`$
$`T_2`$ $`=`$ $`rp_r`$
$`T_3`$ $`=`$ $`r`$ (38)
obey the commutation rules

$`[T_1,T_2]`$ $`=`$ $`iT_1`$
$`[T_1,T_3]`$ $`=`$ $`iT_2`$
$`[T_2,T_3]`$ $`=`$ $`iT_3`$ (39)
which are equivalent to those of the generators of the $`SO(2,1)`$ algebra.

In the notation introduced above we need to calculate the action of the operator $`\mathrm{exp}2is(T_1+\frac{k^2}{2}T_3)`$ on a function $`f(r)`$. Next we have

$$\mathrm{exp}2is(T_1+\frac{k^2}{2}T_3)=e^{iaT_3}e^{ibT_2}e^{icT_1}$$
(40)
where

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`k\mathrm{tan}ks`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`2ln\mathrm{cos}ks`$
$`c`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{2}{k}})\mathrm{cot}ks`$ (41)
as may be easily verified using the $`2\times 2`$ matrix representation of the operators $`T_1,T_2`$ and $`T_3`$. Since

$$e^{ibT_2}\varphi (r)=e^b\varphi (re^b)$$
(42)
we need only to calculate explicitly the action of the operator $`e^{icT_1}`$ on a function $`f(r)`$ Assume that $`f(r)`$ admits the Laplace transform

$`f(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i\pi }}{\displaystyle _i\mathrm{}^i\mathrm{}}𝑑\sigma F(\sigma )e^{\sigma r}r^\delta `$
$`F(\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rf(r)e^{\sigma r}r^\delta `$ (43)
where

$$T_1r^\delta =0$$
(44)
. For $`\nu =1`$ we choose $`\delta =\lambda `$ and for $`\nu =1`$ we take $`\delta =\lambda 1`$.

Next,

$$e^{icT_1}e^{\sigma T_3}=e^{ia_1T_3}e^{ib_1T_2}e^{ic_1T_1}$$
(45)
where

$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\sigma }{1\frac{1}{2}i\sigma c}}`$
$`b_1`$ $`=`$ $`2ln(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i\sigma c)`$
$`c_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{(1\frac{1}{2}i\sigma c)}}`$ (46)
as may be easily verified using the $`2\times 2`$ matrix representation of the operators $`T_1,T_2`$ and $`T_3`$. Thus

$$e^{icT_1}e^{\sigma T_3}r^\delta =\frac{r^\delta }{(1\frac{1}{2}i\sigma c)^{2(\delta +1)}}\mathrm{exp}\frac{\sigma r}{(1\frac{1}{2}i\sigma c)}$$
(47)
Hence

$$e^{iuT_1}f(r)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r^{}f(r^{})e^{\sigma r^{}+\frac{2ir}{c}}(\frac{r}{r^{}})^\delta \frac{1}{2i\pi }_i\mathrm{}^i\mathrm{}𝑑\sigma \frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{2}i\sigma c)^{2(\delta +1)}}\mathrm{exp}\frac{2ir}{c(1\frac{1}{2}i\sigma c)}$$
(48)
Expanding the exponential on the right hand side in series we get a series of integrals which can be evaluated by the residue theorem so that we finally get

$$e^{icT_1}f(r)=\frac{2}{c}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xf(x)(\frac{x}{r})^{\frac{1}{2}}J_{2\delta +1}(\frac{4}{c}(xr)^{\frac{1}{2}})e^{\frac{2i}{c}(x+r)}e^{i\pi \delta }$$
(49)
We now choose $`f(r)=\delta (rr^{})`$ which gives

$$\mathrm{exp}2is(T_1+\frac{k^2}{2}T_3)\delta (rr^{})=\frac{k}{\mathrm{sin}ks}(\frac{r^{}}{r})^{\frac{1}{2}}J_{2\delta +1}(\frac{2k}{\mathrm{sin}ks}(rr^{})^{\frac{1}{2}})e^{ik\mathrm{cot}ks(r+r^{})}e^{i\pi \delta }$$
(50)
Thus equation (37) can now be written in the form

$`G(𝐱,𝐱^{}|ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`i(\gamma ^0(ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{A_1}{r}})+M{\displaystyle \frac{A_2}{r}}+i𝜸\mathbf{}){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑se^{2is(ϵA_1+mA_2)}e^{ik\mathrm{cot}ks(r+r^{})}e^{i\pi \lambda }`$ (51)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{\mathrm{sin}ks}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{rr^{}}})^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\nu ,j}\nu P_{\nu \lambda }(𝐧,𝐧^{})J_{2\lambda +\nu }({\displaystyle \frac{2k}{\mathrm{sin}ks}}(rr^{})^{\frac{1}{2}})`$
where $`\nu =\pm 1`$ It remains now to work out the action of the differential operators.

5.The final form of the Green function

To simplify the Green function we note that

$$i𝜸\mathbf{}=(p_r\frac{i}{r}(1+𝚺𝐋))𝜸𝒏=𝜸𝒏(p_r+\frac{i}{r}(1+𝚺𝐋))$$
(52)
Using equation (17) we get

$`i𝜸\mathbf{}=𝜸𝒏(p_r{\displaystyle \frac{i}{r}}\mathrm{\Lambda })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}(A_1\gamma ^0A_2)`$ (53)
Hence

$`(\gamma ^0(ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{A_1}{r}})+M{\displaystyle \frac{A_2}{r}}+i𝜸\mathbf{})=\gamma ^0ϵ+M𝜸𝒏(p_r{\displaystyle \frac{i}{r}}\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (54)
Using equation (23) we can prove the following relations:

$`8\pi 𝜸𝐧P_{\pm \lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`B_j𝜸(𝐧+𝐧^{}){\displaystyle \frac{j+\frac{1}{2}}{\lambda }}A_j𝜸(𝐧𝐧^{})`$ (55)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\lambda }}(A_1\gamma ^0A_2)(1+x+i𝚺(𝐧\times 𝐧^{}))B_j`$
$`[(rr^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{ik\mathrm{cot}ks(r+r^{})}](p_r{\displaystyle \frac{i\lambda }{r}})[(rr^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}J_{2\lambda \pm 1}(y)e^{ik\mathrm{cot}ks(r+r^{})}]`$
$`=k\mathrm{cot}ksJ_{2\lambda \pm 1}(y){\displaystyle \frac{iy}{2r}}J_{2\lambda }(y)`$ (56)
where $`y=\frac{2k(rr^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\mathrm{sin}ks}`$. Hence

$`(rr^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ $`e^{ik\mathrm{cot}ks(r+r^{})}(\gamma ^0(ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{A_1}{r}})+M{\displaystyle \frac{A_2}{r}}+i𝜸\mathbf{})(rr^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{ik\mathrm{cot}ks(r+r^{})}8\pi (J_{2\lambda +1}(y)P_\lambda (𝐧,𝐧^{})=`$ (57)
$`(`$ $`\gamma ^0ϵ+M)J_{2\lambda +1}(y)`$
$`[`$ $`(1+x+i𝚺(𝐧\times 𝐧^{}))B_j+{\displaystyle \frac{j+\frac{1}{2}}{\lambda }}(1+x+i𝚺(𝐧\times 𝐧^{}))A_ji{\displaystyle \frac{(A_1\gamma ^0+A_2)}{\lambda }}𝜸(𝐧+𝐧^{})B_j)]`$
$``$ $`(k\mathrm{cot}ksJ_{2\lambda +1}(y){\displaystyle \frac{iy}{2r}}J_{2\lambda }(y))`$
$`\times `$ $`[B_j𝜸(𝐧+𝐧^{}){\displaystyle \frac{(j+\frac{1}{2})}{\lambda }}A_j𝜸(𝐧𝐧^{}){\displaystyle \frac{i}{\lambda }}(A_1\gamma ^0A_2)(1+x+i𝚺(𝐧\times 𝐧^{}))B_j]`$
and

$`(rr^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ $`e^{ik\mathrm{cot}ks(r+r^{})}(\gamma ^0(ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{A_1}{r}})+M{\displaystyle \frac{A_2}{r}}+i𝜸\mathbf{})(rr^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{ik\mathrm{cot}ks(r+r^{})}8\pi (J_{2\lambda 1}(y)P_\lambda (𝐧,𝐧^{})=`$ (58)
$`(`$ $`\gamma ^0ϵ+M)J_{2\lambda 1}(y)`$
$`[`$ $`(1+x+i𝚺(𝐧\times 𝐧^{}))B_j{\displaystyle \frac{j+\frac{1}{2}}{\lambda }}(1+x+i𝚺(𝐧\times 𝐧^{}))A_j+i{\displaystyle \frac{(A_1\gamma ^0+A_2)}{\lambda }}𝜸(𝐧+𝐧^{})B_j)]`$
$``$ $`(k\mathrm{cot}ksJ_{2\lambda 1}(y)+{\displaystyle \frac{iy}{2r}}J_{2\lambda }(y))`$
$`\times `$ $`[B_j𝜸(𝐧+𝐧^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{(j+\frac{1}{2})}{\lambda }}A_j𝜸(𝐧𝐧^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\lambda }}(A_1\gamma ^0A_2)(1+x+i𝚺(𝐧\times 𝐧^{}))B_j]`$
Hence we get

$`G(𝐱,𝐱^{}|ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\pi rr^{}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_j{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑se^{2is(ϵA_1+mA_2)}e^{ik\mathrm{cot}ks(r+r^{})}e^{i\pi \lambda }T_j(r,r^{},s)`$ (59)
where

$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{y}}`$ $`T_j(r,r^{},s)=`$ (60)
$`(`$ $`\gamma ^0ϵ+M)J_{2\lambda +1}(y)`$
$`[`$ $`(1+x+i𝚺(𝐧\times 𝐧^{}))B_j+{\displaystyle \frac{j+\frac{1}{2}}{\lambda }}(1+x+i𝚺(𝐧\times 𝐧^{}))A_ji{\displaystyle \frac{(A_1\gamma ^0+A_2)}{\lambda }}𝜸(𝐧+𝐧^{})B_j)]`$
$``$ $`(k\mathrm{cot}ksJ_{2\lambda +1}(y){\displaystyle \frac{iy}{2r}}J_{2\lambda }(y))`$
$`\times `$ $`[B_j𝜸(𝐧+𝐧^{}){\displaystyle \frac{(j+\frac{1}{2})}{\lambda }}A_j𝜸(𝐧𝐧^{}){\displaystyle \frac{i}{\lambda }}(A_1\gamma ^0A_2)(1+x+i𝚺(𝐧\times 𝐧^{}))B_j]`$
$`(`$ $`\gamma ^0ϵ+M)J_{2\lambda 1}(y)`$
$`[`$ $`(1+x+i𝚺(𝐧\times 𝐧^{}))B_j{\displaystyle \frac{j+\frac{1}{2}}{\lambda }}(1+x+i𝚺(𝐧\times 𝐧^{}))A_j+i{\displaystyle \frac{(A_1\gamma ^0+A_2)}{\lambda }}𝜸(𝐧+𝐧^{})B_j)]`$
$`+`$ $`(k\mathrm{cot}ksJ_{2\lambda 1}(y)+{\displaystyle \frac{iy}{2r}}J_{2\lambda }(y))`$
$`\times `$ $`[B_j𝜸(𝐧+𝐧^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{(j+\frac{1}{2})}{\lambda }}A_j𝜸(𝐧𝐧^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\lambda }}(A_1\gamma ^0A_2)(1+x+i𝚺(𝐧\times 𝐧^{}))B_j]`$
One may rewrite the above result in the form

$`T_j(r,r^{},s)`$ $`=`$ $`(1+x+i𝚺(𝐧\times 𝐧^{}))B_j({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\gamma ^0ϵ+M)yJ_{2\lambda }^{}(y)i(A_1\gamma ^0A_2)k\mathrm{cot}ksJ_{2\lambda })`$ (61)
$`+`$ $`(j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})(1xi𝚺(𝐧\times 𝐧^{}))A_jJ_{2\lambda }(\gamma ^0ϵ+M)`$
$`+`$ $`i(\gamma ^0ϵ+M)(A_1\gamma ^0+A_2)𝜸(𝐧+𝐧^{})B_jJ_{2\lambda }`$
$``$ $`k\mathrm{cot}ks(𝜸(𝐧+𝐧^{})B_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}yJ_{2\lambda }^{}(j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})A_j𝜸(𝐧𝐧^{})J_{2\lambda })`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iy^2}{4r}}J_{2\lambda }𝜸(𝐧+𝐧^{})B_j`$
where the prime on the Bessel functions $`J_{2\lambda }(y)`$ means derivative with respect to $`y`$.

The integral over $`s`$ can be decomposed into the sum of integrals over the segments of length $`\frac{\pi }{k}`$.The Bessel function passes from sheet to sheet at points $`s=n\frac{\pi }{k}`$ at integer $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ acquiring a phase $`e^{2i\pi \lambda }`$.Using this fact and the periodicity of $`\mathrm{cot}ks`$ the above expression for $`G(𝐫,𝐫^{}|ϵ)`$ can be transformed to the form

$`G(𝐫,𝐫^{}|ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi rr^{}k}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\pi (\frac{ϵA_1+MA_2}{k}\lambda )}}`$ (62)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\frac{\pi }{2}}}𝑑\tau e^{ik(r+r^{})\mathrm{cot}\tau 2i\tau \frac{ϵA_1+MA_2}{k}}T_j(r,r^{},{\displaystyle \frac{(\pi 2\tau )}{2k}})`$
The Green function obtained above has simple poles at the points

$`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_n}{M}}={\displaystyle \frac{A_1A_2}{(\widehat{n}^2+A_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}}\pm [({\displaystyle \frac{A_1A_2}{\widehat{n}^2+A_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{n}^2A_2^2}{\widehat{n}^2+A_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (63)
where $`\widehat{n}=n+\lambda `$ and $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}..`$ which correspond to bound states.

6. Conclusion

In conclusion, we have constructed the Green function for the Dirac equation for a spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle in a mixed potential which is the sum of the Coulomb potential $`V_C=\frac{A_1}{r}`$ and a scalar potential $`V_S=\frac{A_2}{r}`$ and obtained the bound state spectrum.The results for the Dirac-Coulomb problem  can be reproduced when we put $`A_2=0`$.