format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that correlations in the detection of nonfactorizable two-particle states represent a manifestation of the quantum-mechanical effect first considered by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen . The essence of this effect is as follows. If the two-particle state is not factorizable, the character of the measurements performed on the first particle determines the readout of the detector analyzing the state of the second particle, even if the detectors were situated at a large distance. To demonstrate this effect, consider a nonfactorizable two-particle state as a coherent superposition of pairs of one-particle states:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1,2)}=\underset{i}{}\underset{k}{}c_{ik}i^{(1)}k^{(2)},$$
(1)
where $`c_{ik}`$ are complex numbers normalized to unity, $`_i_kc_{ik}^2=1.`$ In this case, the amplitude to observe the two-particle state (1) by two one-particle detectors selecting the states $`L^{(1)}`$ and $`M^{(2)}`$ results from the interference of pairs of one-particle states: $`A_{LM}=_i_kc_{ik}Li^{(1)}Mk^{(2)}.`$ Clearly, the selection of different states $`L^{(1)}`$ and $`M^{(1)}`$ for the first particle then leads to the different states of the second particle:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_L^{(2)}=\underset{i}{}\underset{k}{}c_{ik}Lik^{(2)},\mathrm{\Psi }_M^{(2)}=\underset{i}{}\underset{k}{}c_{ik}Mik^{(2)}.$$
(2)
Let us note that the states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_L^{(2)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M^{(2)}`$ can be the eigenfunctions of noncommuting operators. As a result, in the presence of the correlations, the one-particle state is not a pure one - it should be described by the density matrix and not by the wave function.

The fact that the state of one of two particles can be managed without a direct force action on it, Einstein considered as a paradox pointing to the incompleteness of the quantum-mechanical description . However, it has become clear that here we deal with the correlation effect connected with coherent properties of quantum-mechanical superpositions. The properties of $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$-pairs provide an impressive example: the detection of one of two neutral kaons through its decay or its interaction determines the internal state of the second kaon \[2-5\].

The polarization correlations, discussed in present paper, belong to the same group of phenomena \[6-8\]. It should be emphasized that namely in these cases the so-called Bell inequalities are violated. These inequalities were derived at the probability level without taking into account the coherent properties of the quantum-mechanical superpositions . We prove here a class of the inequalities, including those of Bell, based on the assumption of the factorizability of the two-particle density matrix, i.e. on its reduction to a sum of the direct products of one–particle density matrices with the nonnegative coefficients. Clearly, such a form of the density matrix corresponds to a classical probabilistic description and cannot account for the coherent quantum–mechanical effects. The violation of the Bell–type inequalities thus clearly manifests the coherent nature of quantum mechanics. We show here that the correlations in the parity-violating decays of pairs of spin-1/2 particles can serve as a sensitive and relatively simple test of this coherence, extending the tests already done with optical photons and secondary scatterings of low energy protons (see, e.g., a review ).

## 2 Two-particle density matrix and spin correlations

For two spin-1/2 particles, the normalized spin density matrix, with the sum of the diagonal elements ( ”trace”) $`\mathrm{tr}_{(1,2)}\widehat{\rho }^{(1,2)}=1`$, has the following general structure (see, e.g., )

$$\widehat{\rho }^{(1,2)}=\frac{1}{4}[\widehat{I}^{(1)}\widehat{I}^{(2)}+(\widehat{𝝈}^{(1)}𝐏_1)\widehat{I}^{(2)}+\widehat{I}^{(1)}(\widehat{𝝈}^{(2)}𝐏_2)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}T_{ik}\widehat{\sigma }_i^{(1)}\widehat{\sigma }_k^{(2)}].$$
(3)
Here $`\widehat{I}`$ is the two-row unit matrix, $`\widehat{𝝈}`$ is the Pauli vector operator, $`T_{ik}=\widehat{\sigma }_i^{(1)}\widehat{\sigma }_k^{(2)}`$ are the components of the correlation tensor. The corresponding one-particle density matrices contain the polarization vectors $`𝐏_l=\widehat{𝝈}^{(l)}`$ only: $`\widehat{\rho }^{(l)}=\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{I}+\widehat{𝝈}\stackrel{}{P}_l),l=1,2.`$ In the absence of correlations the factorization takes place:

$$T_{ik}=P_{1i}P_{2k},\widehat{\rho }^{(1,2)}=\widehat{\rho }^{(1)}\widehat{\rho }^{(2)}.$$
(4)
Let two analyzers select the states of the first and the second particle with the polarization vectors $`𝜻^{(1)}`$ and $`𝜻^{(2)}`$. Then the detection probability $`W`$ depends linearly on the polarization parameters of the two-particle system as well as on the final polarization parameters fixed by detectors, and it can be obtained by the substitution of the matrices $`\widehat{\sigma }_i^{(1)}`$ and $`\widehat{\sigma }_k^{(2)}`$ in the expression (6) with the corresponding projections $`\zeta _i^{(1)}`$ and $`\zeta _k^{(2)}`$. As a result

$$W1+𝐏_1𝜻^{(1)}+𝐏_2𝜻^{(2)}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}T_{ik}\zeta _i^{(1)}\zeta _k^{(2)}.$$
(5)
Let only the polarization vector $`𝜻^{(1)}`$ of the first particle is measured. Then, due to the correlations, the spin state of the second particle is described by the normalized density matrix

$$\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\rho }}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}(1+𝜻^{(1)}𝐏_1)^1[(1+𝜻^{(1)}𝐏_1)\widehat{I}+\widehat{𝝈}𝐏_2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}T_{ik}\zeta _i^{(1)}\widehat{\sigma }_k].$$
(6)
In this case the polarization vector of the second particle has the components

$$\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_k^{(2)}=(P_{2k}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}T_{ik}\zeta _i^{(1)})/(1+𝜻^{(1)}𝐏_1).$$
(7)
In the case of independent particles, when the factorization takes place (see Eq. (4), the detection of the spin state of the first particle does not influence the polarization of the second particle: $`\stackrel{~}{𝜻}^{(2)}=𝐏_2`$.

The situation is of interest when both one-particle states are unpolarized and the polarization vectors $`𝐏_1`$ and $`𝐏_2`$ vanish. Then, in accordance with Eq. (7), the spin effects are completely determined by the correlation tensor $`T_{ik}`$: $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_k^{(2)}=_{i=1}^3T_{ik}\zeta _i^{(1)}.`$ If the one-particle states are unpolarized and the spin correlations are absent, then $`\stackrel{~}{𝜻}^{(2)}=0`$ for any selection of the vector $`𝜻^{(1)}`$.

It may be useful to calculate the polarization vectors $`𝐏_l=\mathrm{\Psi }_{SM}|\widehat{𝝈}^{(l)}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{SM}`$ and the correlation tensor $`T_{ik}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{SM}|\widehat{\sigma }_i^{(1)}\widehat{\sigma }_k^{(2)}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{SM}`$ in the pure singlet ($`S=0`$) and triplet ($`S=1`$) states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{SM}`$.

The singlet state of two spin-1/2 particles is a typical example of a nonfactorizable two-particle state. It is described by the spin wave function

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{00}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(+1/2_z^{(1)}1/2_z^{(2)}1/2_z^{(1)}+1/2_z^{(2)}),$$
(8)
corresponding to rigidly correlated particle spins with the spin projections opposite for any choice of the quantization axis $`z`$; at the same time, the particle polarizations are equal to zero:

$$𝐏_1=𝐏_2=0,T_{ik}=\delta _{ik}.$$
(9)
Consider further the triplet states which are polarized and aligned along the spin axis unit vector $`𝐞`$, so that the triplet density matrix is diagonal in the representation of the spin projections onto the axis $`𝐞`$: $`\rho _{mm^{}}=w_m\delta _{mm^{}}`$. The states with the spin projections $`M_𝐞=+1,1,0`$ can be respectively written as

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_{1+1}=+1/2_𝐞^{(1)}+1/2_𝐞^{(2)},\mathrm{\Psi }_{11}=1/2_𝐞^{(1)}1/2_𝐞^{(2)},\\ \\ \mathrm{\Psi }_{10}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(+1/2_𝐞^{(1)}1/2_𝐞^{(2)}+1/2_𝐞^{(1)}+1/2_𝐞^{(2)}).\end{array}$$
(10)
Normalizing the corresponding occupancies to unity: $`w_++w_{}+w_0=1`$, one has:

$$𝐏_1=𝐏_2=(w_+w_{})𝐞,T_{ik}=(13w_0)e_ie_k+w_0\delta _{ik}.$$
(11)
In case of the unpolarized triplet $`w_+=w_{}=w_0=1/3`$, so that $`𝐏_1=𝐏_2=0,T_{ik}=\delta _{ik}/3.`$ Note that for a general triplet density matrix $`\rho _{mm^{}}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}P_1=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{}(\rho _{+0}+\rho _0),P_2=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{}(\rho _{+0}\rho _0),P_3=\rho _{++}\rho _{},\\ \\ T_{11}=\rho _{00}+2\mathrm{}\rho _+,T_{22}=\rho _{00}2\mathrm{}\rho _+,T_{33}=\rho _{++}+\rho _{}\rho _{00}=12\rho _{00},\\ \\ T_{12}=T_{21}=2\mathrm{}\rho _+,T_{13}=T_{31}=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{}(\rho _{+0}\rho _0),T_{23}=T_{32}=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{}(\rho _{+0}+\rho _0).\end{array}$$
(12)
One may see that the diagonal components of the triplet correlation tensor always satisfy the equalities ($`w_0\rho _{00}`$):

$$T_{11}+T_{22}=2w_0,T_{33}=12w_0,\mathrm{tr}T=1.$$
(13)
## 3 Analyzers of the spin polarization

As for the polarization analyzers, one can use the secondary scattering events and exploit the fact that the scattering of a particle with spin 1/2 on a spinless or unpolarized target selects the states polarized parallel to the normal of the scattering plane. The final polarization vectors in Eq. (5) are then the analyzing powers: $`𝜻^{(l)}=\alpha _l(𝐩_l,\theta _l)𝐧^{(l)},l=1,2.`$ Here $`𝐩_l`$ are the three-momenta of the produced particles, $`\theta _l`$ are the scattering angles, $`𝐧^{(l)}`$ are the unit vectors parallel to the scattering plane normals and $`\alpha _l`$ are the left-right azimuthal asymmetry parameters vanishing at zero scattering angle. According to the Wolfenstein theorem , the analyzing power coincides with the polarization vector arising as a result of the elastic scattering of the unpolarized particle on the same target. Inserting the analyzing powers $`𝜻^{(l)}`$ in Eq. (5), one obtains the probability of the simultaneous detection of two particles, produced in the same collision and subsequently scattered on an unpolarized target, describing the correlation of the scattering planes .

It is interesting to note that if two unpolarized particles are produced and only one of them is scattered on an unpolarized target, then the spin correlation results in the polarization of the other (unscattered) particle created together with the scattered one in the same collision event (see Eq. (7)): $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_k^{(2)}=\alpha _1(𝐩_1,\theta _1)_{i=1}^3T_{ik}n_i^{(1)}.`$ This phenomenon makes it possible, in principle, to prepare particle beams with regulated spin polarization without any direct action on the particles in the polarized beam.

Compared to the secondary scattering, there is often a more easy way to analyze the spin states of produced spin–1/2 particles using their asymmetric (parity violating) decays (see, e.g., ). The parity violation is characterized by the asymmetry parameter $`\alpha `$ measuring the strength of the correlation between the particle polarization $`𝐏`$ and the decay analyzer unit vector $`𝐧`$.

For example, $`\alpha =0.642`$ for the decay $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi ^{}`$ with the decay analyzer chosen parallel to the proton momentum in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-rest frame. Other examples are the muon decay: $`\mu ^{}e^{}\overline{\nu }_e\nu _\mu `$ with the asymmetry parameter $`\alpha _e=1/3`$, and the top–quark decay: $`tbl^+\nu _l(b\overline{d}u,b\overline{s}c)`$ with the asymmetry parameters  $`\alpha _b0.4`$, $`\alpha _{\nu _l(u,c)}0.33`$ and $`\alpha _{l^+(\overline{d},\overline{s})}=1`$. Due to the CP invariance, the asymmetry parameters for the decays of corresponding antiparticles are the same up to the opposite signs: $`\overline{\alpha }=\alpha `$.

Using the fact that the decay selects the spin projections parallel to the decay analyzer $`\widehat{𝐧}`$, one can obtain the double angular distribution of the decay analyzers by inserting in Eq. (5) the analyzing powers $`𝜻_1=\alpha _1𝐧^{(1)}`$ and $`𝜻_2=\alpha _2𝐧^{(2)}`$ (see also ):

$$W(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)=\frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}[1+\alpha _1𝐏_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐧^{(1)}+\alpha _2𝐏_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐧^{(2)}+\alpha _1\alpha _2\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}T_{ik}n_i^{(1)}n_k^{(2)}].$$
(14)
Integrating Eq. (14) over all angles except the angle $`\theta _{12}`$ between the decay analyzers $`𝐧^{(1)}`$ and $`𝐧^{(2)}`$, one gets (see also ):

$$W(x)=\frac{1}{2}[1+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{tr}T\alpha _1\alpha _2x],$$
(15)
where $`x\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12}=𝐧^{(1)}𝐧^{(2)}`$ and the trace of the correlation tensor $`\mathrm{tr}T`$ can be expressed through the rotation invariant combination of the two–particle density matrix elements, such as the singlet or triplet fractions $`\rho _s\rho _0`$ or $`\rho _t\rho _1`$, $`\rho _s+\rho _t=1`$. Using the fact that the eigen values of the operator $`\widehat{𝝈}^{(1)}\widehat{𝝈}^{(2)}`$ are equal to -3 and 1 for the singlet and triplet states respectively, one has

$$\mathrm{tr}T=\rho _t3\rho _s4\rho _t3.$$
(16)
Particularly, in agreement with Eqs. (9) and (12), the correlations between the decay analyzers in the pure singlet and triplet states are of opposite signs and differ in magnitude by a factor of three: $`\mathrm{tr}T^s=3\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}T^t=3`$.

The polarization vectors and the correlation tensor can be easily determined experimentally by the method of moments. For example, using Eq. (14), one can calculate the diagonal components of the correlation tensor according to the expressions:

$$\begin{array}{c}T_{11}=\frac{9}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2;T_{22}=\frac{9}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2;\\ \\ T_{33}=\frac{9}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2,\end{array}$$
(17)
where $`\theta _l`$ and $`\varphi _l`$ denote respectively the polar and azimuthal angles of the decay analyzers $`𝐧^{(l)}`$, $`l=1,2`$. One can directly calculate the sums (see also Eq. (15)):

$$T_{11}+T_{22}=\frac{9}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{12};\mathrm{tr}T=\frac{9}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12},$$
(18)
where $`\varphi _{12}=\varphi _1\varphi _2`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12}=𝐧^{(1)}𝐧^{(2)}`$.

## 4 Incoherent properties of the correlation tensor

Let us consider the incoherent mixture of factorizable two-particle spin states. In this case the two-particle density matrix is a sum of the direct products of one-particle density matrices only, with nonnegative coefficients:

$$\widehat{\rho }^{(1,2)}=\underset{\{s\}}{}\underset{\{t\}}{}b_{\{s,t\}}\widehat{\rho }_{\{s\}}^{(1)}\widehat{\rho }_{\{t\}}^{(2)},b_{\{s,t\}}0,\underset{\{s\}}{}\underset{\{t\}}{}b_{\{s,t\}}=1.$$
(19)
Inserting the one-particle density matrices for spin–1/2 particles

$$\widehat{\rho }_{\{s\}}^{(1)}=\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{I}^{(1)}+𝐏_{\{s\}}^{(1)}\widehat{𝝈}^{(1)}),\widehat{\rho }_{\{t\}}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{I}^{(2)}+𝐏_{\{t\}}^{(2)}\widehat{𝝈}^{(2)})$$
(20)
into Eq. (19) and comparing with the general Eq. (3), one obtains the following expressions for the polarization vectors and the correlation tensor:

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐏^{(1)}=_{\{s\}}_{\{t\}}b_{\{s,t\}}𝐏_{\{s\}}^{(1)},𝐏^{(2)}=_{\{s\}}_{\{t\}}b_{\{s,t\}}𝐏_{\{t\}}^{(2)},\\ \\ T_{ik}=_{\{s\}}_{\{t\}}b_{\{s,t\}}P_{\{s\}i}^{(1)}P_{\{t\}k}^{(2)}.\end{array}$$
(21)
Since the magnitudes of the polarization vectors do not exceed unity, $`𝐏_{\{s\}}^{(1)}1`$, $`𝐏_{\{t\}}^{(2)}1`$, it follows from Eq. (21) that, in the case of the incoherent mixture of the factorizable two-particle states, the diagonal components of the tensor $`T_{ik}`$ satisfy the inequalities:

$$\begin{array}{c}T_{11}+T_{22}1,T_{22}+T_{33}1,T_{33}+T_{11}1,\\ \\ \mathrm{tr}T=T_{11}+T_{22}+T_{33}1.\end{array}$$
(22)
It should be emphasized that the derived inequalities are related to the classical correlations at the probability (not amplitude) level. They simply reflect the fact that a weighted mean of the scalar products of some vectors cannot exceed the same mean of the corresponding products of vector modulae. In quantum mechanics, when we deal with the nonfactorizable coherent superpositions of two-particle states, the inequalities (22) may be substantially violated. Particularly, for a two–particle singlet state (see Eqs. (9)): $`T_{11}+T_{22}=T_{11}+T_{33}=T_{22}+T_{33}=2,\mathrm{tr}T=3.`$ For a two–particle triplet state (see Eqs. (12) and (13)) the last of the inequalities (22) is always satisfied: $`\mathrm{tr}T=1`$, while one of the other inequalities may be violated. Thus, $`T_{11}+T_{22}2w_0>1`$ provided that $`w_0>1/2`$;111 Note that in case of a pure triplet state (a state described by the wave function), one can always achieve this condition (except for a completely polarized state $`P=1`$) by a rotation which maximizes the probability of zero spin projection to a value $`w_0^{\mathrm{max}}=(1+\sqrt{1P^2})/2`$.  since then $`2|\mathrm{}\rho _+|<1/2`$, the remaining two inequalities are satisfied. On the other hand, for $`w_0<1/2`$, the violation of one of the inequalities $`T_{11}+T_{33}=1w_0+2\mathrm{}\rho _+1`$ or $`T_{22}+T_{33}=1w_02\mathrm{}\rho _+1`$ may happen; the required condition is $`2|\mathrm{}\rho _+|>w_0`$.

## 5 Bell inequalities

The Bell inequalities  were obtained at the probability level in the framework of the concept of hidden parameters related to the common past of particles separated from each other in space during the detection; thus, the coherent properties of the quantum-mechanical superpositions of two-particle states were not taken into consideration. One of these inequalities, as applied to particles with spin 1/2, has the form

$$\begin{array}{c}Q=(\widehat{𝝈}^{(1)}𝐧)(\widehat{𝝈}^{(2)}𝐦)+(\widehat{𝝈}^{(1)}𝐧)(\widehat{𝝈}^{(2)}𝐦^{})+\\ \\ +(\widehat{𝝈}^{(1)}𝐧^{}(\widehat{𝝈}^{(2)}𝐦)(\widehat{𝝈}^{(1)}𝐧^{})(\widehat{𝝈}^{(2)}𝐦^{})2,\end{array}$$
(23)
where $`𝐧`$, $`𝐦`$, $`𝐧^{}`$ and $`𝐦^{}`$ are arbitrary unit vectors and

$$(\widehat{𝝈}^{(1)}𝐧)(\widehat{𝝈}^{(2)}𝐦)=\underset{i}{}\underset{k}{}T_{ik}n_im_k$$
(24)
is the average product of the double spin projections of the first and second particle onto different axes $`𝐧`$ and $`𝐦`$. The latter can be determined experimentally from the double distribution of the directions of the decay analyzers $`𝐧=𝐧^{(1)}`$ and $`𝐦=𝐧^{(2)}`$ using Eq.(14). Selecting the number of pairs of the decay analyzers $`\mathrm{\Delta }N(𝐧,𝐦)`$ in sufficiently narrow intervals of the solid angles $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐧`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐦`$, and denoting $`W_\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐧,𝐦)=\mathrm{\Delta }N(𝐧,𝐦)/[N\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐧\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐦],`$ where $`N`$ is the total number of pairs, one can calculate

$$(𝝈^{(1)}𝐧)(𝝈^{(2)}𝐦)=\frac{1}{\alpha _1\alpha _2}\left\{8\pi ^2[W_\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐧,𝐦)+W_\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐧,𝐦)]1\right\}.$$
(25)
It can be shown that the inequality (23) holds for the incoherent mixture of factorizable two-particle states with the density matrix defined according to Eqs. (19). Indeed, taking into account Eqs. (21) for the corresponding correlation tensor and the relations $`𝐦+𝐦^{}=2𝐥\mathrm{cos}(\beta /2),𝐦𝐦^{}=2𝐥^{}\mathrm{sin}(\beta /2),`$ where $`𝐥`$ and $`𝐥^{}`$ are the mutually perpendicular unit vectors, $`\beta `$ is the angle between the vectors $`𝐦`$ and $`𝐦^{}`$, the quantity $`Q`$ in Eq. (23) can be rewritten as

$$\begin{array}{c}Q=_{\{s\}}_{\{t\}}b_{\{s,t\}}[(𝐏_{\{s\}}^{(1)}𝐧)(𝐏_{\{t\}}^{(2)}𝐥)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\beta }{2})+(𝐏_{\{t\}}^{(1)}𝐧^{})(𝐏_{\{t\}}^{(2)}𝐥^{})\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\beta }{2})]=\\ \\ =_{\{s\}}_{\{t\}}b_{\{s,t\}}P_{\{t\}}^{(2)()}[(𝐏_{\{s\}}^{(1)}𝐧)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\beta }{2})\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{\{t\}}+(𝐏_{\{s\}}^{(1)}𝐧^{})\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\beta }{2})\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{\{t\}}].\end{array}$$
(26)
Here $`P_{\{t\}}^{(2)()}`$ is the projection of the vector $`𝐏_{\{t\}}^{(2)}`$ onto the plane ($`𝐥,𝐥^{}`$), $`\alpha _{\{t\}}`$ is the angle between this projection and the vector $`𝐥`$. Since the magnitudes of the polarization vectors $`𝐏_{\{s\}}^{(1)}`$ and $`𝐏_{\{t\}}^{(2)}`$, as well as the magnitudes of their projections, cannot exceed unity, one finally proves the inequality (23):

$$Q\underset{\{s\}}{}\underset{\{t\}}{}2b_{\{s,t\}}\mathrm{max}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _{\{t\}}\frac{\beta }{2})2\underset{\{s\}}{}\underset{\{t}{}\}b_{\{s,t\}}=2.$$
(27)
Similar to the inequalities (22), the Bell inequality (23) can be violated for coherent superpositions of two–particle states. In particular, for the singlet state, in accordance with Eqs. (9) and (24) one has $`(\widehat{𝝈}^{(1)}𝐧)(\widehat{𝝈}^{(2)}𝐦)=\mathrm{𝐧𝐦},`$ so that the quantity

$$Q=\mathrm{𝐧𝐦}\mathrm{𝐧𝐦}^{}𝐧^{}𝐦+𝐧^{}𝐦^{}.$$
(28)
As a result, the maximal possible violation of the Bell inequality: $`Q_{max}=2\sqrt{2}>2`$ corresponds to the situation when the unit vectors are selected in the same plane and satisfy the conditions $`𝐧𝐧^{},𝐦𝐦^{},\mathrm{𝐧𝐦}=\mathrm{𝐧𝐦}^{}=𝐧^{}𝐦=\mathrm{cos}(\pi /4)=1/\sqrt{2},𝐧^{}𝐦^{}=\mathrm{cos}(3\pi /4)=1/\sqrt{2}.`$

The analogous violations of the Bell inequality take place also for the triplet state with the zero projection onto any axis $`z`$, provided the vectors $`𝐧`$, $`𝐦`$, $`𝐧^{}`$ and $`𝐦^{}`$ are selected in the plane $`(x,y)`$. For such vectors (see Eq. (11) with $`w_0=1`$) $`(𝝈^{(1)}𝐧)(𝝈^{(2)}𝐦)=+\mathrm{𝐧𝐦},`$ so that the quantity $`Q`$ coincides with the singlet expression in Eq. (28). In the general aligned triplet state (a state with the diagonal density matrix), the double spin correlation $`(𝝈^{(1)}𝐧)(𝝈^{(2)}𝐦)`$ in the plane $`(x,y)`$ and the corresponding quantity $`Q`$ scale with the probability $`w_0`$ of the zero spin projection onto the $`z`$–axis. The Bell inequality (23) can then be violated for $`w_0>1/\sqrt{2}`$ only. Recall that the inequality $`|T_{11}+T_{22}|1`$ appears to be more stringent, being always violated for $`w_0>1/2`$.

It should be stressed that there exists the difference of principle between the singlet state in quantum mechanics and the incoherent mixture of the products of two one-particle states with opposite projections onto the isotropically distributed axes. In the latter case $`T_{ik}=\delta _{ik}/3,(\widehat{𝝈}^{(1)}𝐧)(\widehat{𝝈}^{(2)}𝐦)=\mathrm{𝐧𝐦}/3,`$ so that the inequalities (22), as well as the Bell inequality (23), are valid.

## 6 Spin correlations

Consider, for example, the processes $`e^{}e^+,q\overline{q}\mu ^{}\mu ^+`$ well below the $`Z^0`$ threshold or the process $`q\overline{q}t\overline{t}`$. Due to parity conservation, the corresponding dominant tree diagrams (the s-channel photon or gluon exchange) select the final particles in a triplet state, i.e. in a state with correlated particle spins.222 The processes $`q\overline{q}\mu ^{}\mu ^+,t\overline{t}`$ are relevant for the production of Drell-Yan dimuons and top-quark pairs in hadronic collisions. The contribution of the competing process $`ggt\overline{t}`$ is small at Tevatron, it will however dominate at LHC. Note that the spin composition of the $`t\overline{t}`$-pair in this process changes with the increasing energy from the singlet (due to the Landau-Yang theorem forbidding the total two–gluon angular momentum $`J=1`$)  to the triplet (due to the helicity conserving gluon coupling to the relativistic quarks).  Directing the z-axis parallel to the production plane normal and the y-axis - antiparallel to the muon (top-quark) c.m.s. velocity vector $`𝜷`$, the nonzero components of the correlation tensor in the tree approximation become (see, e.g., ):

$$\begin{array}{c}T_{11}=A^1(2\beta ^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,T_{22}=A^1(2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\beta ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ),T_{33}=A^1\beta ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,\\ \\ T_{12}=T_{21}=A^1\gamma ^1\mathrm{sin}2\theta ,A=2\beta ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,\end{array}$$
(29)
where $`\theta `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma =(1\beta ^2)^{1/2}`$ are the c.m.s. muon (top-quark) production angle, velocity and Lorentz factor. Using the transformation properties of the correlation tensor under the rotations of the coordinate system, one can easily prove that the choice of the quantization axis parallel to the production plane normal maximizes the probability of zero spin projection: $`w_0^{\mathrm{max}}=(2\beta ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )^1`$. Since for a triplet state $`T_{11}+T_{22}=2w_0`$, the first of the inequalities (22) will be violated provided $`\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta 0`$.

It should be noted that near threshold, the considered processes are strongly influenced by the Coulomb or colour-Coulomb final state interaction (FSI). Taking into account the point-like character of these processes and neglecting the effect of finite lifetimes of produced particles (see, however, ) the FSI can be approximately taken into account by multiplying the production amplitudes by the stationary solutions of the Coulomb scattering problem at zero separation: $`\psi _𝐤^{}^{c()}(0)=e^{i\delta _c}A_c^{1/2}`$, where $`𝐤^{}`$ is the c.m.s. muon (top-quark) 3-momentum, $`\delta _c=\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+i\eta )`$ is the Coulomb s-wave shift, $`A_c=2\pi \eta /[\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \eta )1]`$ is the Coulomb penetration factor, $`\eta =(ak^{})^1`$, $`a=(\alpha \mu )^1`$ is the Bohr radius (taken negative in case of attraction), $`\mu `$ is the pair reduced mass and $`\alpha `$ is here the fine structure constant for $`\mu ^{}\mu ^+`$-pair while $`\alpha =\frac{4}{3}\alpha _s`$ ($`\frac{1}{6}\alpha _s`$) for colour singlet (octet) $`t\overline{t}`$-pair . It is important that this interaction, being spin-independent, has no influence on the spin structure of the amplitudes of the considered processes. Particularly, it leaves unchanged the components of the correlation tensor in Eqs. (29).

For identical particles, independent of the production dynamics, the effect of Bose or Fermi quantum statistics (QS) leads to the spin correlation at small relative momenta $`Q=2k^{}`$ in the two–particle rest frame. This is obvious due to the fact that the total spin $`S`$ of two identical particles and the orbital angular momentum $`L`$ in their c.m.s. satisfy the well-known equality : $`(1)^{S+L}=1.`$ When the momentum difference $`Q`$ approaches zero, the states with nonzero orbital angular momenta disappear, and only those with $`L=0`$ and even total spin $`S`$ remain. As a result, at $`Q0`$, two identical spin–1/2 particles (e.g., two protons or two $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-particles) can be produced only in the singlet state . This conclusion is clearly model independent. The corresponding width of the singlet enhancement or triplet suppression is inversely related to the effective radius $`r_0`$ of the emission region . The measurement of the singlet or triplet fractions $`\rho _s`$ or $`\rho _t`$ thus yields similar though completely independent information on the space–time separation of the produced particles as the standard correlation femtoscopy technique. The latter exploits the fact that the correlation function at small $`Q`$ is sensitive to particle separation due to the effects of QS, Coulomb and strong FSI. Note that the correlation function can be defined as a ratio $`R(p_1,p_2)`$ of the two–particle production cross section to the reference one which would be observed in the absence of the effects of QS and FSI. The reference distribution is usually constructed by mixing the particles from different events.

In the model of independent one–particle sources, the effects of QS and FSI are taken into account merely multiplying the initial amplitude for a total spin $`S`$ by a properly symmetrized stationary solution of the scattering problem $`\psi _𝐤^{}^{S()}(𝐫^{})=[\psi _𝐤^{}^{S(+)}(𝐫^{})]^{}\psi ^S`$, where $`𝐤^{}=𝐩_1^{}=𝐩_2^{}`$ and $`𝐫^{}=𝐫_1^{}𝐫_2^{}`$ (the minus sign of the vector $`𝐤^{}`$ in $`\psi _𝐤^{}^{S(+)}(𝐫^{})`$ corresponds to the reverse in time direction of the emission process). Particularly, one has : $`R(p_1,p_2)=_S\stackrel{~}{\rho }_S|\psi _𝐤^{}^{S(+)}(𝐫^{})|^2_S_SR_S(p_1,p_2)`$ and $`\rho _S=\stackrel{~}{\rho }_S|\psi ^S|^2/RR_S/R.`$ The averaging is done over the emission points of the two particles in a state with total spin $`S`$ populated in the absence of QS and FSI with the probability $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_S`$, $`_S\stackrel{~}{\rho }_S=1`$. For spin–1/2 particles initially emitted independently with the polarizations $`\stackrel{~}{𝐏}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝐏}_2`$: $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_s=(1\stackrel{~}{𝐏}_1\stackrel{~}{𝐏}_2)/4,\stackrel{~}{\rho }_t=(3+\stackrel{~}{𝐏}_1\stackrel{~}{𝐏}_2)/4.`$ The expressions for the components of the correlation tensor and particle polarizations are rather lengthy and can be found in ref. . Here we present only the simple result for the case of low–$`Q`$ pairs of identical spin–1/2 particles when one can put $`\stackrel{~}{𝐏}_1\stackrel{~}{𝐏}_2\stackrel{~}{𝐏}`$. Then

$$𝐏=\stackrel{~}{𝐏}\rho _t/\stackrel{~}{\rho }_t,T_{ik}=\stackrel{~}{P}_i\stackrel{~}{P}_k\rho _t/\stackrel{~}{\rho }_t+\delta _{ik}\left(\rho _t/\stackrel{~}{\rho }_t1\right).$$
(30)
It may be seen from Eqs. (30) that, in the presence of QS and FSI, the spins of the initially unpolarized ($`\stackrel{~}{P}_{1i}=\stackrel{~}{P}_{2i}=0`$) and uncorrelated ($`\stackrel{~}{T}_{ik}=0`$) particles remain unpolarized but not uncorrelated: $`T_{ik}=\delta _{ik}|\psi ^s|^2|\psi ^t|^2/|\psi ^s|^2+3|\psi ^t|^2`$. For $`\psi ^t=0`$ ($`\psi ^s=0`$) the latter tensor reduces to a pure singlet (triplet) one: $`T_{ik}^s=\delta _{ik}`$ ($`T_{ik}^t=\frac{1}{3}\delta _{ik}`$). On the other hand, for initially polarized identical particles the polarization vectors vanish and $`T_{ik}T_{ik}^s`$ at $`Q0`$ due to forbidden triplet amplitude $`\psi ^t`$ at $`Q=0`$.

It should be emphasized that the correlation of the polarizations of two spin–1/2 particles, conditioned by their identity, is maximal for $`Q0`$ ($`\mathrm{tr}T3`$ independently of the value of the initial polarization $`\stackrel{~}{𝐏}`$ \- the singlet state) . At sufficiently large $`Q`$, the model of independent one-particle sources yields $`T_{ik}=\stackrel{~}{P}_i\stackrel{~}{P}_k`$ so that the spin correlations vanish for unpolarized particles ($`\mathrm{tr}T0`$).

Note that recent measurements of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ correlations in multihadronic $`Z^0`$ decays at LEP point to rather small effective radius of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ emission region: $`r_00.10.2`$ fm . One can therefore expect that at $`Q<1/r_012`$ GeV/c the system of two $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-hyperons is created mainly in the singlet state.333 A large statistics of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairs is also available in heavy ion collisions at SPS and soon will be accumulated at RHIC. However, due to much larger effective radius $`r_0`$ of several fm, the singlet state dominates here only in quite narrow region of $`Q<0.1`$ GeV/c.  For such systems, the inequalities (22) for the sums of the components of the correlation tensor and the Bell inequality (23) could then be violated. Indeed, the expected suppression of the triplet fraction at small Q was observed in several LEP experiments . Particularly, the ALEPH result: $`\rho _t=0.36\pm 0.30\pm 0.08`$ at $`Q=01.5`$ GeV/c indicates the violation of the inequality $`|\mathrm{tr}T||4\rho _t3|1`$.

## 7 Conclusions

We have performed the theoretical analysis of spin correlations in the system of two spin–1/2 particles using their asymmetric (parity violating) decays. It is shown that the spin correlation tensor can be determined from the angular correlations of the decay analyzers, particularly, for two $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–particles both decaying into the channel $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi ^{}`$, - from the correlations of the directions of the decay protons in the respective $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–rest frames.

We have derived the inequalities, including those of Bell, for linear combinations of the components of the spin correlation tensor valid in the case of incoherent mixture of two-particle factorizable spin states. The violation of these inequalities is connected with the general quantum-mechanical effect (first considered by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen) and can serve as a crucial test of the basic principles of quantum mechanics.

We have considered some examples of the processes allowing one to verify the consequences of the quantum–mechanical coherence with the help of the two–particle spin correlations measured in asymmetric particle decays, the coherence arising either due to the production dynamics (dominant triplet states in the processes $`e^{}e^+,q\overline{q}\mu ^{}\mu ^+,t\overline{t}`$) or due to the effect of quantum statistics at small relative momenta (dominant singlet $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-state).

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by GA Czech Republic, Grant No. 202/01/0779.


text:
# DILEPTON PRODUCTION IN ULTRARELATIVISTIC HEAVY ION COLLISIONSaafootnote aTalk given at the 30th. International Symposium on Multiparticle Dynamics, October 9 - 15, 2000, Tihany, Hungary.

## 1 Introduction

Many probes have been proposed to map out the behaviour of hot and dense hadronic matter and also to highlight its eventual transition to a plasma of quarks and gluons. It is outside the scope of this talk to review them all or even partially: we will concentrate on electromagnetic radiation and more specifically on the emission of thermal lepton pairs. Those suffer minimal final state interactions and will thus carry valuable information about their emission site. Lepton pairs should then tell us about in-medium temperatures and densities and will constitute information that is complementary to that carried by hadronic observables. The rate for dilepton emission can be expressed in terms of the finite-temperature retarded photon self-energy $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$:

$`E_+E_{}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6R}{d^3p_+d^3p_{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e^2}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^4}}\left[p_+^\mu p_{}^\nu +p_+^\nu p_{}^\nu g^{\mu \nu }p_+p_{}\right]`$ (1)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{R}(k){\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta \omega }1}},`$
where $`k=p_++p_{}`$, $`\omega =\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}^2+M^2}`$, and $`M^2`$ = $`k^2`$. Vector Meson Dominance (VMD) couples the photon field (real or virtual) to hadronic matter through vector mesons $`^\mathrm{?}`$. This ensures that the current-current correlator in Eq. (1) will yield to the in-medium vector meson propagator $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Thus, the measurement of dilepton spectra is a valuable means of revealing the in-medium behaviour of vector mesons. We will very briefly review the current status of the understanding of low and intermediate invariant mass lepton pair measurements. Finally, we discuss the possibility of scalar-vector mixing in hot and dense hadronic matter and its manifestation in the lepton pair spectrum.

## 2 The low invariant mass sector

A considerable amount of theoretical activity devoted to calculations in the low invariant mass region of the dilepton spectrum has been generated by measurements made by the CERES (NA45) collaboration at the CERN-SPS $`^\mathrm{?}`$. By first considering hadronic sources that completely explain the proton-nucleus data, observations established that an excess over those sources is observed in semi-central heavy ion collisions. More specifically, the enhancement factor defined by $`N_{\mathrm{meas}.}^{e^+e^{}}/N_{\mathrm{had}.\mathrm{sources}}^{e^+e^{}}`$ within the invariant mass range $`0.25<M<0.7`$ GeV/c2 is 2.6 $`\pm `$ 0.5 (stat.) $`\pm `$ 0.6 (syst.), for Pb-Au collisions with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{trig}.}/\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}.}`$ = 30%.

Theoretical interpretations of the experimental data have first involved using a dropping (as a function of temperature and baryon density) vector meson mass which results from using an effective Lagrangian constructed to reflect the scale-invariance of the QCD action in the massless limit $`^\mathrm{?}`$. It is fair to say that this approach is not free from controversy as it implies phenomenology that is not supported by many-body analyses $`^\mathrm{?}`$ nor by QCD sum rule techniques $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Then, calculations of the in-medium vector meson spectral density have been done by considering that the vector meson can couple to baryonic resonances by interacting with nucleons, and to mesons via meson interaction. This will effectively broaden the $`\rho `$-meson spectral density and this will in turn enhance the low mass lepton pair spectrum $`^\mathrm{?}`$. It is also natural to ask whether a cascade-type approach, representing an incoherent sum of tree-level processes could also explain the heavy ion dilepton data. This avenue has been explored $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The results of the theoretical calculations described above are shown to agree well with the experimental data in Ref. .

The elements that are needed to make progress and to bring this issue to some closure include high resolution measurements at the vector meson peaks $`^\mathrm{?}`$, and clarifying the role of baryons in the dilepton spectrum $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The relevant experimental events are either being analyzed or will hopefully be dealt with in an upcoming low-energy CERN run.

## 3 The intermediate invariant mass sector

Other interesting dilepton data that have displayed an enhanced yield over that measured in proton-nucleus reactions are the dimuon spectra in the intermediate mass region from about 1 GeV to roughly 2.5 GeV, measured by the Helios-3 $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and NA38/NA50 $`^\mathrm{?}`$ collaborations. Even considering sources that are known to be important for higher masses such as Drell-Yan and correlated open charm semileptonic decay, the experimental heavy ion data was still underestimated. A compelling question to ask is then whether there exists mesonic channels similar to the ones at play for lower invariant masses that could contribute in this regime. The first theoretical study in this invariant mass range concluded that there existed such contributions $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Note however that studies in this region can generate complications that are absent for the lower masses. For one, the usual VMD form factors will be far off-shell and furthermore, additional couplings to high mass vector mesons is kinematically possible. Fortunately, there exists a wealth of data concerning $`e^+e^{}`$ hadrons $`^\mathrm{?}`$ in the appropriate invariant mass range. Those can be analyzed channel-by-channel and inverted by detailed balance to build a mesonic reaction database for dilepton production $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Those contributions can then be used in a transport approach to generate yields that can be directly compared with experimental measurements. The procedure described here was used in conjunction with a cascade-type model to compare with the Helios-3 measurements $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The results are shown in Fig. 1. One can see that the intermediate mass data are indeed reproduced once the “thermal” channels are included. The measured observables call for no additional sources.

Recently, the NA50 intermediate mass excess was analyzed in the same spirit as that in the presentation above $`^\mathrm{?}`$. There also, the thermal processes sufficed to explain the intermediate mass enhancement. Finally, an updated version of the mesonic reaction database discussed earlier was used with a hydrodynamic approach to also interpret the NA50 data $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Some preliminary results are show in Fig. 2. The thermal characteristics of electromagnetic sources appear as an ubiquitous feature in nuclear collisions $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

## 4 Scalar-vector mixing

In a finite-temperature medium, Lorentz symmetry is broken and this will permit phenomena that are forbidden in vacuum to happen. This breaking of Lorentz symmetry will manifest itself in longitudinal and transverse modes having different dispersion relations, for example $`^\mathrm{?}`$. At finite baryon density, scalar-vector mixing can thus occur, more specifically $`\sigma \omega `$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and $`\rho a_0`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The medium admits a mixed correlator: in effect a non-diagonal self-energy. It will open new channels like $`\pi \pi e^+e^{}`$, where the $`\pi `$’s annihilate into an $`s`$-wave, and $`\pi \eta e^+e^{}`$. Those reactions represent genuine in-medium effects. It is instructive to evaluate the emission of dileptons with those mixing effects included. Some differential rates are shown in Fig. 3. Except for the narrow $`\omega `$, most of the $`\sigma \omega `$ mixing effect lies below the $`p`$-wave $`\pi \pi `$ channel. Perhaps a more promising candidate for detection is connected with the appearance of a $`a_0`$ peak. It is within reach of high-precision measurement, such as those done by the upgraded CERES or by HADES $`^\mathrm{?}`$ at the GSI.

## 5 Conclusion

It is clear that electromagnetic radiation carries information about the strongly interacting system that is complementary to that in hadronic probes. The low mass sector measurements are suggestive of considerable many-body effects. Similarly, high precision data around the vector meson peaks could highlight the signature of meson mixing. At intermediate invariant masses, it appears that a thermal source whose components are known is sufficient to explain the observed enhancement.

In summary, current measurements have yielded exciting results and the future appears especially promising.

## Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank my collaborators. This work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and in part by the Fonds FCAR of the Quebec Government.

## References


text:
# References

The muon anomalous magnetic moment and a new light gauge boson.

S.N. Gninenko111E-mail address: Sergei.Gninenko@cern.ch and N.V. Krasnikov222Nikolai.Krasnikov@cern.ch

Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
Moscow 117312

## Abstract

It is shown that the 2.6 $`\sigma `$ discrepancy between the predicted and recently measured value of the anomalous magnetic moment of positive muons could be explained by the existence of a new light gauge boson X with a mass $`M_XO(5)GeV`$. Phenomenological bounds on the X coupling are discussed.

The recent precise measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of the positive muon $`a_\mu =(g2)/2`$ from Brookhaven AGS experiment 821  gives result which is about $`2.6\sigma `$ higher than the Standard Model prediction

$$a_\mu ^{exp}a_\mu ^{SM}=(43\pm 16)\times 10^{10}$$
(1)
This result may signals the existence of new physics beyond the Standard Model. At present the standard explanation of this result suggested in a few recently appeared papers is the supersymmetry with the chargino and sneutrino lighter than 800 GeV . Note also possible explanations related with existence of leptoquarks  or existence of some exotic flavour-changing interactions . All these explanations assume the existence of new particles with masses $`O(100)GeV`$.

In this note we suggest that the recent BNL result gives an evidence for the existence of the physics with new light particle. As an example of the realization of this scenario we consider the model with light gauge boson X ($`M_XO(5)GeV`$) and briefly discuss possible phenomenological implications.

To be concrete besides standard $`SU_c(3)SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ gauge group consider additional $`U(1)_X`$ interaction which commutes with standard gauge group. In other words our model has $`SU_c(3)SU(2)_LU(1)_YU(1)_X`$ gauge group. We assume that all quarks have the same interaction with new gauge group $`U(1)_X`$ but the interactions of each lepton flavour with new X-boson could be different. In such model the standard Higgs doublet has zero X-charge so there is no mixing between X-boson and Z-boson. The interaction of the X-boson with quarks and leptons can be written in the form

$$L_X=g_X[Q_{BX}B^\alpha +Q_{eX}L_e^\alpha +Q_{\mu X}L_\mu ^\alpha +Q_{\tau X}L_\tau ^\alpha ]X_\alpha $$
(2)
where $`B^\alpha =_{q=u,d,s,\mathrm{}}\overline{q}\gamma ^\alpha q`$, $`L_e^\alpha =\overline{e}\gamma ^\alpha e+\overline{\nu }_{eL}\gamma ^\alpha \nu _{eL}`$,… . From the requirement of the absence of the $`\gamma _5`$ anomalies an additional constraint $`3Q_{BX}+Q_{eX}+Q_{\mu X}+Q_{\tau X}=0`$ arises. The X-boson gives additional contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of lepton

$$\delta a_l=\frac{Q_{lX}^2\alpha _X}{\pi }_0^1\frac{x^2(1x)}{x^2+(1x)M_X^2/m_l^2},$$
(3)
where $`\alpha _X=g_X^2/4\pi `$ and $`M_X`$ is the mass of the X-boson. We shall use the normalisation $`Q_{\mu X}=1`$. For $`M_Xm_\mu `$ we find from Eq.(1) that

$$\alpha _X=(2.7\pm 1)\times 10^8$$
(4)
For another limiting case $`M_Xm_\mu `$ Eq.(1) leads to

$$\alpha _X\frac{m_\mu ^2}{M_X^2}=(4.1\pm 1.5)\times 10^8$$
(5)
To suppress the contribution of the X-boson to the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron we assume that 333Experimental data on $`\nu _\mu (\overline{\nu }_\mu )e`$ scattering lead to $`|Q_{eX}|1`$, see Eq.(8). $`M_X10MeV`$ or $`Q_{eX}<<Q_{\mu X}`$.

The phenomenology of the light X-boson has been studied in refs.- (see also ) where untrivial bounds on the interaction of the X-boson with quarks and leptons have been derived.

Consider first possible manifestations of the X-boson in neutrino reactions. An account of the X-boson exchange between muon neutrino, electrons and quarks leads to the additional four-fermion interaction

$$\delta L_4=\frac{g_X^2}{m_X^2t}\overline{\nu }_{\mu L}\gamma ^\mu \nu _{\mu L}(Q_{eX}\overline{e}\gamma _\mu e+Q_{BX}\underset{i}{}\overline{q}_i\gamma _\mu q_i)$$
(6)
Here, t is the square of the momentum transfer. Consider $`\nu _\mu (\overline{\nu }_\mu )e`$-scattering. The typical cutoff on the momentum transfer in neutrino-electron scattering is $`t_0400MeV^2`$ and the cross section is maximal for minimal momentum transfer. The experimental value of the effective vector coupling of the electron with muon neutrino $`g_V^{\nu e}=0.3009\pm .0015`$ . Comparison of the contribution from the effective interaction $`\delta L_4`$ to the $`\nu _\mu e`$ scattering with the experimental data  leads to the bound

$$|Q_{eX}|g_X^2(M_X^2+400MeV^2)\times 510^7GeV^2$$
(7)
For masses $`M_X20MeV`$ we find that

$$|Q_{eX}|2.310^3$$
(8)
For $`M_X20MeV`$ we obtain that

$$|Q_{eX}|0.04$$
(9)
Analysis of neutral current $`\nu `$ reactions on nuclei allow to restrict value of $`|Q_B|`$. For deep inelastic $`\nu _\mu N`$\- scattering (DIS) with the minimal momentum transfer $`t_0=10GeV^2`$ (for this value we are sure that perturbative QCD works rather well) the limit on the discrepancy between the predicted and measured values of DIS cross section could be evaluated to be $`3\%`$ . This results in the bound for X-boson contribution

$$g_X^2|Q_{BX}|510^6$$
(10)
and gives

$$|Q_{BX}|60(M_Xm_\mu )$$
(11)
$$|Q_{BX}|40m_\mu ^2/M_X^2(M_Xm_\mu )$$
(12)
For coherent pion production in neutrino and antineutrino scattering on nuclei  the typical minimal momentum transfer is $`t_00.02GeV^2`$. From the assumption that X-boson contribution is $`25\%`$, which is taken as a limit on the difference between the experimental and theoretical values of the cross section , one can find that

$$|Q_{BX}|O(1)(M_Xm_\mu )$$
(13)
$$|Q_{BX}|O(0.4)(M_Xm_\mu )$$
(14)
Similar to neutrino scattering experiments possible existence of the X-boson could manifests itself in rare meson decays. If the X-boson is lighter than $`\pi ^0`$-meson it is possible to search for it in the decay $`\pi ^0\gamma +X`$ . The branching ratio of the $`\pi ^0\gamma +X`$ is

$$Br(\pi ^0X+\gamma )=\frac{18Q_{BX}^2\alpha _X}{\alpha }(1\frac{M_X^2}{m_\pi ^2})^3$$
(15)
From the experimental bound on the branching ratio $`Br(\pi ^0X+\gamma )310^5`$  one can find that

$$|Q_{BX}|2.1$$
(16)
for $`m_Xm_\mu `$. The decay $`K\pi +X`$ has been studied in ref. . The decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(K\pi +X)`$ is proportional to $`M_X^2/m_\pi ^2`$ and it is maximal for $`M_X200MeV`$ . It appears that bound on $`|Q_{BX}|`$ from the existing experimental data is weaker than the corresponding bounds coming from the neutrino-nuclei scattering.

The X-boson contribution to the rare decays $`K\pi \mu \overline{\mu },\pi \nu \overline{\nu }`$ comes from the electromagnetic penguin diagram  with the replacement of the photon exchange on the X-boson exchange. The corresponding flavour changing $`\overline{s}dX`$ effective interaction in full analogy with the case of the electromagnetic penguin  is determined by the effective vertex

$$\overline{s}\gamma d=i\lambda _i\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{g_XQ_{BX}}{8\pi ^2}D_0^{^{}}(x_i)\overline{s}(q^2\gamma _\mu q_\mu \widehat{q})(1\gamma _5)d,$$
(17)
where $`\lambda _i=V_{is}^{}V_{id}`$, $`x_i=m_{q_i}^2/m_w^2`$ and $`D_0^{^{}}(x_i)=O(1)`$. Here, $`q_\mu `$ is the outgoing X-boson momentum. Using the effective vertex of Eq.(17) one can find that the contribution of the X-boson exchange to the $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ effective Hamiltonian is

$$\delta H_{eff}(K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu })\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda _t\frac{\alpha _XQ_{BX}}{2\pi }\frac{(p_\nu +p_{\overline{\nu }})^2}{(p_\nu +p_{\overline{\nu }})^2m_X^2}(\overline{s}d)_{VA}(\overline{\nu }\nu )_{VA}$$
(18)
and it is much smaller (by a factor $`O(10^6)Q_{BX})`$ than the standard model contribution

$$H_{eff}(K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu })\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda _t\frac{\alpha }{2\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w}(\overline{s}d)_{VA}(\overline{\nu }\nu )_{VA}$$
(19)
to this decay. The similar situation takes place for the other $`K\pi \mu \overline{\mu }`$, $`BX_{s,d}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decay modes. Finally, we conclude that there is no stringent bounds on $`|Q_{BX}|`$ from the rare meson decays.

Finally consider bounds on X-boson couplings with electron and muon from the spectroscopy measurement of the $`1s2s`$ interval in muonium $`(\mu ^+e^{})`$ atoms . The result of this measurement can be interpreted as a measurement of the muon-electron charge ratio

$$\frac{Q_{\mu ^+}}{Q_e^{}}=1(1.1\pm 2.1)10^9$$
(20)
The additional interaction of muon with electron due to the X-boson exchange leads to the additional (in comparison with standard Coulomb potential) non-relativistic interaction between electron and $`\mu ^+`$ meson

$$\delta V(r)=\frac{\alpha _XQ_{eX}}{r}exp(M_Xr)$$
(21)
For very light X-boson ($`M_Xm_e\alpha `$) the exponential factor in Eq.(21) is negligible and an account of the additional interaction of Eq.(21) is equivalent to the standard Coulomb interaction of the electron with $`\mu ^+`$ with muon electric charge equal to $`Q_{\mu ^+}=1+\alpha _X/\alpha Q_{eX}`$. So for $`M_Xm_e\alpha `$ we find from Eq.(4) and Eq.(20) that

$$Q_{eX}=(3\pm 5.7)10^4$$
(22)
For $`M_Xm_e\alpha `$ we have exponential damping $`exp(M_X/m_e\alpha )`$ for the X-boson exchange contribution to the $`1s2s`$ energy difference of muonium and there is no useful bound on $`Q_{eX}`$ from the muonium spectroscopy. Note that the spectroscopy of the hydrogen atoms is not so “clean” from the theoretical point of view as the muonium one due to composite nature of proton that prevents the extraction of stringent bounds on the interaction of the X-boson with quarks.

To summarise, the existing experimental data give the most stringent bound on $`|Q_{eX}|1`$ whereas the bound on $`|Q_{XB}|`$ is rather weak.

Especially interesting (in particular, from the aesthetic point of view) is the case when X-boson interacts only with second and third lepton generations ( $`Q_{BX}=Q_{eX}=0,Q_{\mu X}=Q_{\tau X}=1`$) that makes the search for such particle quite difficult. For $`M_X2m_\mu `$ the X-boson decays mainly to $`X\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu ,\nu _\tau \overline{\nu }_\tau `$. For $`2m_\mu <M_X<2m_\tau `$ the additional decay mode to $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ opens up with the branching ratio $`0.5`$ if $`2m_\mu M_X`$. For $`M_X>2m_\tau `$ the decay channel $`X\tau \overline{\tau }`$ is also opened.

The best limit comes from the non-observation of such X-boson at LEP1 in the decay $`Z\mu ^+\mu ^{}+X,\tau ^+\tau ^{}+X`$. We obtain $`\alpha _XO(10^4)`$ that leads to the bound

$$M_XO(5)GeV$$
(23)
on the X-boson mass. Note that bound (23) holds only if the X-boson explains the $`g2`$ anomaly. It is interesting that the existence of such gauge interaction prohibits diagonal neutrino Majorana masses $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau \nu _\tau `$ and allows non diagonal mass term $`\nu _\tau \nu _\mu `$ before $`U(1)_X`$ gauge symmetry breaking. After $`U(1)_X`$ gauge symmetry breaking small diagonal terms appear that leads to the maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing 444We are indebted to Prof. S.L. Glashow for interesting comments on this subject. with the typical prediction $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }^2m_{\nu _\mu }^2`$. .

The branching ratio for the $`\mu e\overline{\nu }_e\nu _\mu X(X\nu \overline{\nu })`$ is predicted to be $`O(\alpha _X/\pi )O(10^8)`$ that is too small to be observable in the nearest future. The X-boson could be produced in the reaction $`\mu +N\mu +X+\mathrm{}`$ and be detected (for $`M_X>2m_\mu `$) through its decay into muon pair $`X\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ with the $`\sigma (\mu +N\mu +X+\mathrm{})/\sigma (\mu +N\mu +\mathrm{})O(\alpha _X/\pi )`$. Such reaction could be searched for, e.g. in the COMPASS experiment at CERN.

Note that massless X-bosons could be associated with muonic(leptonic) photons, introduced to explain conservation of the muon(lepton) number, see  and references therein. Interestingly, the existing experimental limit on coupling strength between the muonic photons and muons, $`\alpha _\mu <(1.1÷2.3)\times 10^8`$ , is in the region of values required to explain the BNL result, $`\alpha _\mu =(2.7\pm 1.0)\times 10^8`$.

Although many models explaining the BNL discrepancy appeared recently, see e.g. -, all of them require very high energies for their experimental tests.555For some of the many references appeared during the completion of this work see also . In this note the discrepancy is explained by the existence of a new weakly interacting light gauge X-boson, which is not excluded by the experimental data. This makes it still interesting for further experimental searches at present accelerators.

We are grateful to Prof S.L. Glashow for his interest to our work and useful remarks. The work of N.V.K. has been partly supported by INTAS-CERN 377 grant.


text:
# Three-potential formalism for the three-body scattering problem with attractive Coulomb interactions

## I Integral equations of the three-potential picture

We consider a three-body system with Hamiltonian

$$H=H^0+v_\alpha ^C+v_\beta ^C+v_\gamma ^C,$$
(1)
where $`H^0`$ is the three-body kinetic energy operator and $`v_\alpha ^C`$ denotes the Coulomb-like interaction in subsystem $`\alpha `$. The potential $`v_\alpha ^C`$ may have repulsive or attractive Coulomb tail and any short-range component. We use the usual configuration-space Jacobi coordinates $`x_\alpha `$ and $`y_\alpha `$; $`x_\alpha `$ is the coordinate between the pair $`(\beta ,\gamma )`$ and $`y_\alpha `$ is the coordinate between the particle $`\alpha `$ and the center of mass of the pair $`(\beta ,\gamma )`$. Thus the potential $`v_\alpha ^C`$, the interaction of the pair $`(\beta ,\gamma )`$, appears as $`v_\alpha ^C(x_\alpha )`$. We also use the notation $`X=\{x_\alpha ,y_\alpha \}𝐑^6`$.

### A Merkuriev’s cut of the Coulomb potential

The Hamiltonian (1) is defined in the three-body Hilbert space. The two-body potential operators are formally embedded in the three-body Hilbert space

$$v^C=v^C(x)\mathrm{𝟏}_y.$$
(2)
Merkuriev introduced a separation of the three-body configuration space into different asymptotic regions. The two-body asymptotic region $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha `$ is defined as a part of the three-body configuration space where the conditions

$$|x_\alpha |<x_\alpha ^0(1+|y_\alpha |/y_\alpha ^0)^{1/\nu },$$
(3)
with $`x_\alpha ^0,y_\alpha ^0>0`$ and $`\nu >2`$, are satisfied. He proposed to split the Coulomb interaction in the three-body configuration space into short-range and long-range terms

$$v_\alpha ^C=v_\alpha ^{(s)}+v_\alpha ^{(l)},$$
(4)
where the superscripts $`s`$ and $`l`$ indicate the short- and long-range attributes, respectively. The splitting is carried out with the help of a splitting function $`\zeta `$,

$`v^{(s)}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`v^C(x)\zeta (x,y),`$ (5)
$`v^{(l)}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`v^C(x)[1\zeta (x,y)].`$ (6)
The function $`\zeta `$ is defined such that

$$\zeta (x,y)\stackrel{X\mathrm{}}{}\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & X\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha \hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
In practice, in the configuration-space differential equation approaches, usually the functional form

$$\zeta (x,y)=2/\left\{1+\left[(x/x^0)^\nu /(1+y/y^0)\right]\right\},$$
(8)
was used.

The long-range Hamiltonian is defined as

$$H^{(l)}=H^0+v_\alpha ^{(l)}+v_\beta ^{(l)}+v_\gamma ^{(l)},$$
(9)
and its resolvent operator is

$$G^{(l)}(z)=(zH^{(l)})^1.$$
(10)
Then, the three-body Hamiltonian takes the form

$$H=H^{(l)}+v_\alpha ^{(s)}+v_\beta ^{(s)}+v_\gamma ^{(s)}.$$
(11)
In the conventional Faddeev theory the wave function components are defined by

$$|\psi _\alpha =(zH^0)^1v_\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(12)
where $`v_\alpha `$ is a short-range potential and $`|\psi _\alpha `$ is the Faddeev component of the total wave function $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. While the total wave function $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, in general, has three different kind of two-body asymptotic channels, $`|\psi _\alpha `$ possesses only $`\alpha `$-type two-body asymptotic channel. The other channels are suppressed by the short-range potential $`v_\alpha `$. This procedure is called asymptotic filtering and it guarantees the asymptotic orthogonality of the Faddeev components .

The aim of the Merkuriev procedure was to formally obtain a three-body Hamiltonian with short-range potentials $`v^{(s)}`$ and long-range Hamiltonian $`H^{(l)}`$ in order that we can repeat the procedure of the conventional Faddeev theory. The total wave function $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is split into three components,

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=|\psi _\alpha +|\psi _\beta +|\psi _\gamma ,$$
(13)
with components defined by

$$|\psi _\alpha =G^{(l)}v_\alpha ^{(s)}|\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(14)
This procedure is an example of asymptotic filtering. The short-range potential $`v_\alpha ^{(s)}`$ acting on $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ suppresses the possible $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ asymptotic two-body channels, provided $`G^{(l)}`$ itself does not introduce any new two-body asymptotic channels. With the Merkuriev splitting this is avoided because $`H^{(l)}`$ does not have two-body asymptotic channels even if some of the long-range potentials have attractive Coulomb tail. In the attractive case $`v^{(l)}`$ appears as a valley along the $`y=x^\nu `$ parabola-like curve with Coulomb-like asymptotic behavior in $`x`$ at any finite $`y`$. (See Figs. 1 and 2 for the short- and long-range parts, respectively). However, as $`y\mathrm{}`$ the depth of the valley goes to zero, consequently the two-body bound states are pushed up, and finally the system does not have any two-body asymptotic channels. We note that the Merkuriev formalism contains the Noble’s in the limit $`y^0\mathrm{}`$.

### B The three-potential picture

In Ref.  the three body scattering problem with repulsive Coulomb interactions were considered in the three-potential picture. In this picture the scattering process can be decomposed formally into three consecutive scattering processes: a two-body single channel, a two-body multichannel and a genuine three-body scattering. This formalism also provides the integral equations and the method of constructing the $`S`$-matrix. Below we adapt this formalism to attractive Coulomb interactions along the Merkuriev approach.

The asymptotic Hamiltonian is defined as

$$H_\alpha =H^0+v_\alpha ^C,$$
(15)
and the asymptotic states are the eigenstates of $`H_\alpha `$

$$H_\alpha |\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha =E|\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ,$$
(16)
where $`x_\alpha y_\alpha |\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha =y_\alpha |\chi _\alpha x_\alpha |\varphi _\alpha `$ is a product of a scattering state in coordinate $`y_\alpha `$ and a bound state in the two-body subsystem $`x_\alpha `$.

We define the two asymptotic long-range Hamiltonians as

$$H_\alpha ^{(l)}=H^0+v_\alpha ^C+v_\beta ^{(l)}+v_\gamma ^{(l)}$$
(17)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_\alpha =H^0+v_\alpha ^C+u_\alpha ^{(l)},$$
(18)
where $`u_\alpha ^{(l)}`$ is an auxiliary potential in coordinate $`y_\alpha `$, and it is required to have the asymptotic form

$$u_\alpha ^{(l)}Z_\alpha (Z_\beta +Z_\gamma )/y_\alpha $$
(19)
as $`y_\alpha \mathrm{}`$. In fact, $`u_\alpha ^{(l)}`$ is an effective Coulomb-like interaction between the center of mass of the subsystem $`\alpha `$ (with charge $`Z_\beta +Z_\gamma `$) and the third particle (with charge $`Z_\alpha `$). We introduced this potential in order that we compensate the long range Coulomb tail of $`v_\beta ^{(l)}+v_\gamma ^{(l)}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha `$.

Let us introduce the resolvent operators:

$$G(z)=(zH)^1,$$
(20)
$$G_\alpha ^{(l)}(z)=(zH_\alpha ^{(l)})^1,$$
(21)
$$\stackrel{~}{G}_\alpha (z)=(z\stackrel{~}{H}_\alpha )^1.$$
(22)
The operator $`G_\alpha ^{(l)}`$ is the long-range channel Green’s operator and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_\alpha `$ is the channel distorted long-range Green’s operator. These operators are connected via the following resolvent relations:

$$G(z)=G_\alpha ^{(l)}(z)+G_\alpha ^{(l)}(z)V^\alpha G(z),$$
(23)
$$G_\alpha ^{(l)}(z)=\stackrel{~}{G}_\alpha (z)+\stackrel{~}{G}_\alpha (z)U^\alpha G_\alpha ^{(l)}(z),$$
(24)
where $`V^\alpha =v_\beta ^{(s)}+v_\gamma ^{(s)}`$ and $`U^\alpha =v_\beta ^{(l)}+v_\gamma ^{(l)}u_\alpha ^{(l)}`$.

The scattering state, which evolves from the asymptotic state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ under the influence of $`H`$, is given as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{(\pm )}=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\text{i}\epsilon G(E_\alpha \pm \text{i}\epsilon )|\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha .$$
(25)
Similarly, we can define the following auxiliary scattering states

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{(l)(\pm )}=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\text{i}\epsilon G_\alpha ^{(l)}(E\pm \text{i}\epsilon )|\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha $$
(26)
and

$$|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\alpha ^{(\pm )}=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\text{i}\epsilon \stackrel{~}{G}_\alpha (E\pm \text{i}\epsilon )|\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ,$$
(27)
which describe scattering processes due to Hamiltonians $`H_\alpha ^{(l)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_\alpha `$, respectively.

The S-matrix elements of scattering processes are obtained from the resolvent of the total Hamiltonian by the reduction technique

$$S_{\beta j,\alpha i}=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\text{i}\epsilon \text{e}^{\text{i}(E_{\beta j}E_{\alpha i})t}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\beta j}|G(E_{\alpha i}+\text{i}\epsilon )|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha i}.$$
(28)
The subscript $`i`$ and $`j`$ denotes the $`i`$-th and $`j`$-th eigenstates of the corresponding subsystems, respectively. If we substitute (23) into (28) we get the following two terms:

$$S_{\beta j,\alpha i}^{(1,2)}=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\text{i}\epsilon \text{e}^{\text{i}(E_{\beta j}E_{\alpha i})t}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\beta j}|G_\alpha ^{(l)}(E_{\alpha i}+\text{i}\epsilon )|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha i}$$
(29)
$`S_{\beta j,\alpha i}^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\text{i}\epsilon \text{e}^{\text{i}(E_{\beta j}E_{\alpha i})t}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\beta j}|G_\alpha ^{(l)}(E_{\alpha i}+\text{i}\epsilon )`$ (31)
$`V^\alpha G(E_{\alpha i}+\text{i}\epsilon )|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha i}.`$
Substituting Eq. (24) into (29), the first term yields two more terms

$$S_{\beta j,\alpha i}^{(1)}=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\text{i}\epsilon \text{e}^{\text{i}(E_{\beta j}E_{\alpha i})t}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\beta j}|\stackrel{~}{G}_\alpha (E_{\alpha i}+\text{i}\epsilon )|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha i}$$
(32)
$`S_{\beta j,\alpha i}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\text{i}\epsilon \text{e}^{\text{i}(E_{\beta j}E_{\alpha i})t}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\beta j}|\stackrel{~}{G}_\alpha (E_{\alpha i}+\text{i}\epsilon )`$ (34)
$`U^\alpha G_\alpha ^{(l)}(E_{\alpha i}+\text{i}\epsilon )|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha i}.`$
Using of the properties of the resolvent operators the limits can be performed and we arrive at the following, physically plausible, result. The first term, $`S_{\beta j,\alpha i}^{(1)}`$, is the S-matrix of a two-body single channel scattering on the potential $`u_\alpha ^{(l)}`$

$$S_{\beta j,\alpha i}^{(1)}=\delta _{\beta \alpha }\delta _{ji}S(u_\alpha ^{(l)}).$$
(35)
If $`u_\alpha ^{(l)}`$ is a pure Coulomb interaction $`S(u_\alpha ^{(l)})`$ falls back to the S-matrix of the Rutherford scattering, if $`u_\alpha ^{(l)}`$ is identically zero $`S_{\beta j,\alpha i}^{(1)}`$ equals to unity. The second term, $`S_{\beta j,\alpha i}^{(2)}`$, describes a two-body multichannel scattering on the potential $`U^\alpha `$

$$S_{\beta j,\alpha i}^{(2)}=2\pi \text{i}\delta _{\beta \alpha }\delta (E_{\beta j}E_{\alpha i})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\beta j}^{()}|U^\alpha |\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha i}^{(l)(+)}.$$
(36)
The third term gives account of the complete three-body dynamics

$$S_{\beta j,\alpha i}^{(3)}=2\pi \text{i}\delta (E_{\beta j}E_{\alpha i})\mathrm{\Phi }_{\beta j}^{(l)()}|V^\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha i}^{(+)}.$$
(37)
### C Lippmann-Schwinger integral equation for $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{(l)}`$

Starting from the definition of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{(l)}`$, Eq. (26), by utilizing the resolvent relation (24) and the definition (27), we easily derive a Lippmann-Schwinger equation

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{(l)(\pm )}=|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\alpha ^{(\pm )}+\stackrel{~}{G}_\alpha (E\pm \text{i}ϵ)U^\alpha |\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{(l)(\pm )},$$
(38)
where $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\alpha ^{(\pm )}`$ are given by

$$|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\alpha ^{(\pm )}=|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_\alpha ^{(\pm )}|\varphi _\alpha .$$
(39)
The state $`|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_\alpha ^{(\pm )}`$ is a scattering state in the Coulomb-like potential $`u_\alpha ^{(l)}(y_\alpha )`$.

### D Faddeev-Merkuriev integral equations for the wave function components

The integral equations for the wave function $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{(\pm )}`$ are arrived at by combining the resolvent relation (23) and Eq. (25). In this case however we have three resolvent relations and therefore we obtain a triad of Lippmann-Schwinger equations

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{(\pm )}`$ $`=|\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{(l)(\pm )}+`$ $`G_\alpha ^{(l)}(E\pm \mathrm{i0})V^\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{(\pm )}`$ (40)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{(\pm )}`$ $`=`$ $`G_\beta ^{(l)}(E\pm \mathrm{i0})V^\beta |\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{(\pm )}`$ (41)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{(\pm )}`$ $`=`$ $`G_\gamma ^{(l)}(E\pm \mathrm{i0})V^\gamma |\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{(\pm )}.`$ (42)
Although these three equations together provide unique solutions , their kernels are not connected therefore they cannot be solved by iterations. The way out of the problem is to use the Faddeev decomposition which leads to equations with connected kernels, thus they are effectively Fredholm-type integral equations.

Multiplying each elements of the triad from left by $`G^{(l)}v_\alpha ^{(s)}`$ and utilizing (14) we get the set of Faddeev-Merkuriev integral equations for the components

$`|\psi _\alpha ^{(\pm )}`$ $`=|\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{(l)(\pm )}+`$ $`G_\alpha ^{(l)}(E\pm \mathrm{i0})v_\alpha ^{(s)}[|\psi _\beta ^{(\pm )}+|\psi _\gamma ^{(\pm )}]`$ (43)
$`|\psi _\beta ^{(\pm )}`$ $`=`$ $`G_\beta ^{(l)}(E\pm \mathrm{i0})v_\beta ^{(s)}[|\psi _\gamma ^{(\pm )}+|\psi _\alpha ^{(\pm )}]`$ (44)
$`|\psi _\gamma ^{(\pm )}`$ $`=`$ $`G_\gamma ^{(l)}(E\pm \mathrm{i0})v_\gamma ^{(s)}[|\psi _\alpha ^{(\pm )}+|\psi _\beta ^{(\pm )}].`$ (45)
Merkuriev showed that after a certain number of iterations these equations were reduced to Fredholm integral equations of the second kind with compact kernels for all energies, including energies below $`(E<0)`$ and above $`(E>0)`$ the three-body breakup threshold . Thus all the nice properties of the original Faddeev equations established for short-range interactions remain valid also for the case of Coulomb-like potentials. We note that the triad of Lippmann-Schwinger equations and the set of Faddeev equations describe the same physics, the equations have identical spectra and in fact, the Faddeev equations are the adjoint representations of the triad of Lippmann-Schwinger equations .

Utilizing the properties of the Faddeev components the matrix elements in (37) can be rewritten in a form better suited for numerical calculations

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\beta j}^{(l)()}|V^\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha i}^{(+)}=\underset{\gamma \beta }{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\beta j}^{(l)()}|v_\beta ^{(s)}|\psi _{\gamma i}^{(+)}.$$
(46)
Summarizing, in the three-potential formalism, starting from $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\alpha ^{(\pm )}`$, by solving a Lippmann-Schwinger equation, we determine $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{(l)(\pm )}`$. Then from $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{(l)(+)}`$, by solving the set of Faddeev-Merkuriev equations, we determine the components $`|\psi _\alpha ^{(+)}`$. Finally using Eqs. (36) and (46) we construct the $`S`$-matrix.

## II Coulomb-Sturmian separable expansion approach to the three-body integral equations

In order to solve operator equations in quantum mechanics one needs a suitable representation for the operators. For solving integral equations it is especially advantageous if one uses a representation where the Green’s operator is simple. For the two-body Coulomb Green’s operator there exists a Hilbert-space basis in which its representation is very simple. This is the Coulomb-Sturmian (CS) basis. In this representation-space the Coulomb Green’s operator can be given by simple and well-computable analytic functions . This basis forms a countable set. If we represent the interaction term on a finite subset of the basis it looks like a kind of separable expansion of the potential, and so the integral equation becomes a set of algebraic equations which can then be solved without any further approximation. The completeness of the basis ensures the convergence of the method.

This approximation scheme has been thoroughly tested in two-body calculations. Bound- and resonant-state calculations were presented first . Then the method was extended to scattering states . Since only the asymptotically irrelevant short-range interaction is approximated, the correct Coulomb asymptotic is guaranteed . A recent account of this method is presented in Ref. . The method also proved to be very efficient in solving three-body Faddeev-Noble integral equations for bound-  and scattering-state  problems with repulsive Coulomb interactions.

In subsection A we define the basis states in two- and three-particle Hilbert space. In subsection B we review some of the most important formulae of the two-body problem. In subsections C and D we describe the calculation of the $`S`$-matrix and the solution of the Faddeev-Merkuriev integral equations. We follow the line presented in Ref. .

### A Basis states

The Coulomb-Sturmian functions  in some angular momentum state $`l`$ are defined as

$$r|nl=\left[\frac{n!}{(n+2l+1)!}\right]^{1/2}(2br)^{l+1}\mathrm{exp}(br)L_n^{2l+1}(2br),$$
(47)
$`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. Here, $`L`$ represents the Laguerre polynomials and $`b`$ is a fixed parameter. In an angular momentum subspace they form a complete set

$$\mathrm{𝟏}=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}|\stackrel{~}{nl}nl|=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{𝟏}_N,$$
(48)
where $`|\stackrel{~}{nl}`$ in configuration-space representation reads $`r|\stackrel{~}{nl}=r|nl/r`$.

The three-body Hilbert space is a direct sum of two-body Hilbert spaces. Thus, the appropriate basis in angular momentum representation should be defined as a direct product

$$|n\nu l\lambda _\alpha =|nl_\alpha |\nu \lambda _\alpha ,(n,\nu =0,1,2,\mathrm{}),$$
(49)
with the CS states of Eq. (47). Here $`l`$ and $`\lambda `$ denote the angular momenta associated with Jacobi coordinates $`x`$ and $`y`$, respectively. In our three-body Hilbert space basis we take bipolar harmonics in the angular variables and CS functions in the radial coordinates. The completeness relation takes the form (with angular momentum summation implicitly included)

$$\mathrm{𝟏}=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{n,\nu =0}{\overset{N}{}}|\stackrel{~}{n\nu l\lambda }_\alpha _\alpha n\nu l\lambda |=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{𝟏}_N^\alpha ,$$
(50)
where $`x_\alpha y_\alpha |\stackrel{~}{n\nu l\lambda }_\alpha =x_\alpha y_\alpha |n\nu l\lambda _\alpha /(x_\alpha y_\alpha )`$. It should be noted that in the three-particle Hilbert space we can introduce three equivalent basis sets which belong to fragmentation $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$.

### B Coulomb-Sturmian separable expansion in two-body scattering problems

Let us study a two-body case of short-range plus Coulomb-like interactions

$$v_l=v_l^{(s)}+v^C$$
(51)
and consider the inhomogeneous Lippmann-Schwinger equation for the scattering state $`|\psi _l`$ in some partial wave $`l`$

$$|\psi _l=|\varphi _l^C+g_l^C(E)v_l^{(s)}|\psi _l.$$
(52)
Here $`|\varphi _l^C`$ is the regular Coulomb function, $`g_l^C(E)`$ is the two-body Coulomb Green’s operator

$$g_l^C(E)=(Eh_l^0v^C)^1$$
(53)
with the free Hamiltonian $`h_l^0`$. We make the following approximation on Eq. (52)

$$|\psi _l=|\phi _l^C+g_l^C(E)\mathrm{𝟏}_Nv_l^{(s)}\mathrm{𝟏}_N|\psi _l,$$
(54)
i.e. we approximate the short-range potential $`v_l^{(s)}`$ by a separable form

$$v_l^{(s)}=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{𝟏}_Nv_l^{(s)}\mathrm{𝟏}_N\mathrm{𝟏}_Nv_l^{(s)}\mathrm{𝟏}_N=\underset{n,n^{}=0}{\overset{N}{}}|\stackrel{~}{nl}\underset{¯}{v}_l^{(s)}\stackrel{~}{n^{}l}|$$
(55)
where the matrix

$$\underset{¯}{v}_{l_{nn^{}}}^{(s)}=nl|v_l^{(s)}|n^{}l.$$
(56)
These matrix elements can always be calculated (numerically) for any reasonable short-range potential. In practice we use Gauss-Laguerre quadrature, which is well-suited to the CS basis.

Multiplied with the CS states $`\stackrel{~}{nl}|`$ from the left, Eq. (54) turns into a linear system of equations for the wave-function coefficients $`\underset{¯}{\psi }_{l_n}=\stackrel{~}{nl}|\psi _l`$

$$[(\underset{¯}{g}_l^C(E))^1\underset{¯}{v}_l^{(s)}]\underset{¯}{\psi }_l=(\underset{¯}{g}_l^C(E))^1\underset{¯}{\phi }_l^C,$$
(57)
where the underlined quantities are matrices with the following elements

$$\underset{¯}{\phi }_{l_n}^C=\stackrel{~}{nl}|\phi _l^C$$
(58)
and

$$\underset{¯}{g}_{l_{nn^{}}}^C(E)=\stackrel{~}{nl}|g_l^C(E)|\stackrel{~}{n^{}l}.$$
(59)
#### 1 The matrix elements $`\stackrel{~}{nl}|g_l^C(z)|\stackrel{~}{n^{}l}`$

The key point in the whole procedure is the exact and analytic calculation of the CS matrix elements of the Coulomb Green’s operator and of the overlap of the Coulomb and CS functions. For the Green’s matrix we have developed two independent, analytic approaches. Both are based on the observation that the Coulomb Hamiltonian possesses an infinite symmetric tridiagonal (Jacobi) matrix structure on CS basis.

Let us consider the radial Coulomb Hamiltonian

$$h_l^\mathrm{C}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\left(\frac{\text{d}^2}{\text{d}r^2}\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}\right)+\frac{Z}{r},$$
(60)
where $`m`$, $`l`$ and $`Z`$ stands for the mass, angular momentum and charge, respectively. The matrix $`\underset{¯}{J}_{nn^{}}^\mathrm{C}=n|(zh_l^\mathrm{C})|n^{}`$ possesses a Jacobi structure,

$$\underset{¯}{J}_{nn}^\mathrm{C}=2(n+l+1)(k^2b^2)\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4mb}Z$$
(61)
and

$$\underset{¯}{J}_{nn1}^\mathrm{C}=[n(n+2l+1)]^{1/2}(k^2+b^2)\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4mb},$$
(62)
where $`k=(2mz/\mathrm{}^2)^{1/2}`$ is the wave number. The main result of Ref.  is that for Jacobi matrix systems the $`N`$’th leading submatrix $`\underset{¯}{g}_{nn^{}}^{\mathrm{C}(N)}`$ of the infinite Green’s matrix can be determined by the elements of the Jacobi matrix

$$\underset{¯}{g}_{nn^{}}^{\mathrm{C}(N)}=[\underset{¯}{J}_{nn^{}}^\mathrm{C}+\delta _{nN}\delta _{n^{}N}\underset{¯}{J}_{NN+1}^\mathrm{C}C]^1,$$
(63)
where $`C`$ is a continued fraction

$$C=\frac{u_N}{d_N+\frac{u_{N+1}}{d_{N+1}+{\displaystyle \frac{u_{N+2}}{d_{N+2}+\mathrm{}}}}},$$
(64)
with coefficients

$$u_n=\underset{¯}{J}_{n,n1}^\mathrm{C}/\underset{¯}{J}_{n,n+1}^\mathrm{C},d_n=\underset{¯}{J}_{n,n}^\mathrm{C}/\underset{¯}{J}_{n,n+1}^\mathrm{C}.$$
(65)
In Ref.  it was shown that although the continued fraction $`C`$ is convergent only on the upper-half $`k`$ plane it can be continued analytically to the whole $`k`$ plane. This is because the $`u_n`$ and $`d_n`$ coefficients satisfy the limit properties

$`u`$ $``$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}u_n=1`$ (66)
$`d`$ $``$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}d_n=2(k^2b^2)/(k^2+b^2).`$ (67)
Then the continued fraction appears as

$$C=\frac{u_N}{d_N+\frac{u_{N+1}}{d_{N+1}+\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{d+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{d+\mathrm{}}}}}}}.$$
(68)
Therefore the tail $`w`$ of $`C`$ satisfies the implicit relation

$$w=\frac{u}{d+w},$$
(69)
which is solved by

$$w_\pm =(b\pm \mathrm{i}k)^2/(b^2+k^2).$$
(70)
Replacing the tail of the continued fraction by its explicit analytical form $`w_\pm `$, we can speed up the convergence and, more importantly turn a non-convergent continued fraction into a convergent one . Analytic continuation is achieved by using $`w_\pm `$ instead of the non-converging tail. In Ref.  it was shown that $`w_+`$ provides an analytic continuation of the Green’s matrix to the physical, while $`w_{}`$ to the unphysical Riemann-sheet. This way Eq. (64) together with (63) provides the CS basis representation of the Coulomb Green’s operator on the whole complex $`k`$ plane. We note here that with the choice of $`Z=0`$ the Coulomb Hamiltonian (60) reduces to the kinetic energy operator and our formulas provide the CS basis representation of the Green’s operator of the free particle as well. We emphasize that this procedure does not truncate the Coulomb Hamiltonian, because all the higher $`\underset{¯}{J}_{nn^{}}`$ matrix elements are implicitly contained in the continued fraction.

We note that $`\underset{¯}{g}^C`$ has already been calculated before . From the J-matrix structure a three-term recursion relation follows for the matrix elements $`\underset{¯}{g}_{nn^{}}^C`$. This recursion relation is solvable if the first element $`\underset{¯}{g}_{00}^C`$ is known. It is given in a closed analytic form

$`\underset{¯}{g}_{00}^C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4mb}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(b\text{i}k)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l+\text{i}\eta +1}}`$ (72)
$`\times {}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(l+\text{i}\eta ,1;l+\text{i}\eta +2,\left({\displaystyle \frac{b+\text{i}k}{b\text{i}k}}\right)^2),`$
where $`\eta =Zm/(\mathrm{}^2k)`$ is the Coulomb parameter and $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ is the hypergeometric function. For those cases where the first or the second index of $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ is equal to unity, there exists a continued fraction representation, which is very efficient in practical calculations. It was shown that the two methods lead to numerically identical results for all energies and our numerical continued fraction representation possesses all the analytic properties of $`g^C`$. The exact analytic knowledge of $`g^C`$ allows us to calculate the matrix elements of the full Green’s operator in the whole complex plane

$$\underset{¯}{g}_l(z)=((\underset{¯}{g}_l^C(z))^1\underset{¯}{v}_l^{(s)})^1.$$
(73)
The overlap vector of CS and the Coulomb functions $`\stackrel{~}{nl}|\phi _l^C`$ is known analytically . It can be calculated by a three-term recursion, derived from the J-matrix, using the starting value

$`\stackrel{~}{0l}|\phi _l^C`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(2\eta \mathrm{arctan}(k/b))\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \eta }{\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \eta )1}}}`$ (75)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{2k/b}{1+k^2/b^2}}\right)^{l+1}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2+i^2}{i(i+1/2)}}\right)^{1/2}.`$
### C Calculation of the three-body S-matrix

The aim of any scattering calculation is to determine the S-matrix elements. In our case we need to calculate the terms (35), (36) and (46) of the three-potential picture.

The term $`S_{\beta j,\alpha i}^{(1)}`$ is trivial because it is just the two-body S-matrix of the Coulomb-like potential $`u_\alpha ^{(l)}`$.

To calculate the second term, $`S_{\beta j,\alpha i}^{(2)}`$ of Eq. (36), the matrix elements $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\alpha j}^{()}|U^\alpha |\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha i}^{(l)(+)}`$ are needed. Since $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\alpha j}^{()}|`$ contains a two-body bound-state wave function in coordinate $`x_\alpha `$ this matrix element is confined to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha `$, where $`U^\alpha `$ is of short-range type. Therefore a separable approximation is justified

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\alpha j}^{()}|U^\alpha |\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha i}^{(l)(+)}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\alpha j}^{()}|\mathrm{𝟏}_N^\alpha U^\alpha \mathrm{𝟏}_N^\alpha |\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha i}^{(l)(+)},$$
(76)
i.e, in this matrix element, we can approximate $`U^\alpha `$ by a separable form

$`U^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{𝟏}_N^\alpha U^\alpha \mathrm{𝟏}_N^\alpha \mathrm{𝟏}_N^\alpha U^\alpha \mathrm{𝟏}_N^\alpha `$ (77)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,\nu ,n^{},\nu ^{}=0}{\overset{N}{}}}|\stackrel{~}{n\nu l\lambda }_\alpha \underset{¯}{U}^\alpha _\alpha \stackrel{~}{n^{}\nu ^{}l^{}\lambda ^{}}|`$ (78)
where

$$\underset{¯}{U}_{n\nu l\lambda ,n^{}\nu ^{}l^{}\lambda ^{}}^\alpha =_\alpha n\nu l\lambda |U^\alpha |n^{}\nu ^{}l^{}\lambda ^{}_\alpha .$$
(79)
The matrix element appears as

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\alpha j}^{()}|U^\alpha |\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha i}^{(l)(+)}\stackrel{N}{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\alpha j}^{()}|\stackrel{~}{n\nu l\lambda }_\alpha \underset{¯}{U}^\alpha _\alpha \stackrel{~}{n^{}\nu ^{}l^{}\lambda ^{}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha i}^{(l)(+)}.$$
(80)
In calculating the third term, $`S_{\beta j,\alpha i}^{(3)}`$ of (46), we have matrix elements of the type $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\alpha j}^{l()}|v_\alpha ^{(s)}|\psi _{\beta i}^{(+)}`$. Here we can again approximate the short-range potential $`v_\alpha ^{(s)}`$ in the three-body Hilbert space by a separable form

$`v_\alpha ^{(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{𝟏}_N^\alpha v_\alpha ^{(s)}\mathrm{𝟏}_N^\beta \mathrm{𝟏}_N^\alpha v_\alpha ^{(s)}\mathrm{𝟏}_N^\beta `$ (81)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,\nu ,n^{},\nu ^{}=0}{\overset{N}{}}}|\stackrel{~}{n\nu l\lambda }_\alpha \underset{¯}{v}_{\alpha \beta }^{(s)}_\beta \stackrel{~}{n^{}\nu ^{}l^{}\lambda ^{}}|`$ (82)
where

$$\underset{¯}{v}_{\alpha \beta _{n\nu l\lambda ,n^{}\nu ^{}l^{}\lambda ^{}}}^{(s)}=_\alpha n\nu l\lambda |v_\alpha ^{(s)}|n^{}\nu ^{}l^{}\lambda ^{}_\beta .$$
(83)
In (82) the ket and bra states belong to different fragmentations depending on the neighbors of the potential operators in the matrix elements. Finally, the matrix elements take the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha j}^{l()}|v_\alpha ^{(s)}|\psi _{\beta i}^{(+)}\stackrel{N}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha j}^{l()}|\stackrel{~}{n\nu l\lambda }_\alpha \underset{¯}{v}_{\alpha \beta }^{(s)}_\beta \stackrel{~}{n^{}\nu ^{}l^{}\lambda ^{}}|\psi _{\beta i}^{(+)}.$$
(84)
We conclude that to calculate the S-matrix of the three-potential formulae we need the CS matrix elements (79) and (83), which can always be evaluated numerically by using the transformation of Jacobi coordinates . In addition we need the CS wave function components $`_\alpha \stackrel{~}{n\nu l\lambda }|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\alpha i}^{(\pm )}`$, $`_\alpha \stackrel{~}{n\nu l\lambda }|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha i}^{l(\pm )}`$ and $`_\alpha \stackrel{~}{n\nu l\lambda }|\psi _\alpha ^{(+)}`$. We determine them in the following section by solving Lippmann-Schwinger and Faddeev-Merkuriev integral equations.

It should be noted that the approximations (78) and (82) used in calculating the matrix elements (80) and (84) become equalities as $`N`$ goes to infinity. In practical calculations we increase $`N`$ until we observe numerical convergence in scattering observables.

### D Solution of the three-body integral equations

In the set of Faddeev-Merkuriev equations (43-45) we make the approximation of (82)

$`|\psi _\alpha `$ $`=|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha i}^{(l)}+`$ $`G_\alpha ^{(l)}[\mathrm{𝟏}_N^\alpha v_\alpha ^{(s)}\mathrm{𝟏}_N^\beta |\psi _\beta +\mathrm{𝟏}_N^\alpha v_\alpha ^{(s)}\mathrm{𝟏}_N^\gamma |\psi _\gamma ]`$ (85)
$`|\psi _\beta `$ $`=`$ $`G_\beta ^{(l)}[\mathrm{𝟏}_N^\beta v_\beta ^{(s)}\mathrm{𝟏}_N^\gamma |\psi _\gamma +\mathrm{𝟏}_N^\beta v_\beta ^{(s)}\mathrm{𝟏}_N^\alpha |\psi _\alpha ]`$ (86)
$`|\psi _\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`G_\gamma ^{(l)}[\mathrm{𝟏}_N^\gamma v_\gamma ^{(s)}\mathrm{𝟏}_N^\alpha |\psi _\alpha +\mathrm{𝟏}_N^\gamma v_\gamma ^{(s)}\mathrm{𝟏}_N^\beta |\psi _\beta ].`$ (87)
Multiplied by the CS states $`_\alpha \stackrel{~}{n\nu l\lambda }|`$, $`_\beta \stackrel{~}{n\nu l\lambda }|`$ and $`_\gamma \stackrel{~}{n\nu l\lambda }|`$, respectively, from the left the set of integral equations turn into a linear system of algebraic equations for the coefficients of the Faddeev components $`\underset{¯}{\psi }_{\alpha _{n\nu l\lambda }}=_\alpha \stackrel{~}{n\nu l\lambda }|\psi _\alpha `$:

$$[(\underset{¯}{G}^{(l)})^1\underset{¯}{v}^{(s)}]\underset{¯}{\psi }=(\underset{¯}{G}^{(l)})^1\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(l)},$$
(88)
with

$$\underset{¯}{G}_{\alpha _{n\nu l\lambda ,n^{}\nu ^{}l^{}\lambda ^{}}}^{(l)}=_\alpha \stackrel{~}{n\nu l\lambda }|G_\alpha ^{(l)}|\stackrel{~}{n^{}\nu ^{}l^{}\lambda ^{}}_\alpha ,$$
(89)
and

$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\alpha _{n\nu l\lambda }}^{(l)}=_\alpha \stackrel{~}{n\nu l\lambda }|\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{(l)}.$$
(90)
Notice that the matrix elements of the Green’s operator are needed only between the same partition $`\alpha `$ whereas the matrix elements of the potentials occur only between different partitions $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$.

#### 1 The matrix elements $`_\alpha \stackrel{~}{n\nu l\lambda }|G_\alpha ^{(l)}|\stackrel{~}{n^{}\nu ^{}l^{}\lambda ^{}}_\alpha `$ and $`_\alpha \stackrel{~}{n\nu l\lambda }|\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{(l)}`$

Unfortunately neither the matrix elements (89) nor the overlaps (90) are known. The appropriate Lippmann-Schwinger equation for $`G_\alpha ^{(l)}`$ was proposed by Merkuriev

$$G_\alpha ^{(l)}(z)=G_\alpha ^{as}(z)+G_\alpha ^{as}(z)V_\alpha ^{as}G_\alpha ^{(l)}(z),$$
(91)
where $`G_\alpha ^{as}`$ and $`V_\alpha ^{as}`$ are the asymptotic channel Green’s operator and potential, respectively. A similar equation is valid for $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{(l)}`$

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{(l)}=|\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{as}+G_\alpha ^{as}(z)V_\alpha ^{as}|\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{(l)}.$$
(92)
Both $`G_\alpha ^{(l)}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{(l)}`$ are genuine three-body quantities. One may wonder why a single Lippmann-Schwinger equation suffices. The Hamiltonian $`H_\alpha ^{(l)}`$ has a peculiar property - it has only $`\alpha `$-type two-body asymptotic channels. For such systems a single Lippmann-Schwinger equation provides a unique solution .

The objects $`G_\alpha ^{as}`$, $`V_\alpha ^{as}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{as}`$ are very complicated. Their leading order terms were constructed in configurations space in the different asymptotic regions. The potential $`V^{as}`$, as $`|X|\mathrm{}`$, decays faster than the Coulomb potential in all directions of the three-body configuration space: $`V^{as}𝒪(|X|^{1ϵ}),ϵ>0`$ . Therefore we may express the solutions of Eqs. (91) and (92) formally as

$$(\underset{¯}{G}_\alpha ^{(l)})^1=(\underset{¯}{G}_\alpha ^{as})^1\underset{¯}{V}_\alpha ^{as}$$
(93)
and

$$[(\underset{¯}{G}_\alpha ^{as})^1\underset{¯}{V}_\alpha ^{as}]\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\alpha ^{(l)}=(\underset{¯}{G}_\alpha ^{as})^1\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\alpha ^{as},$$
(94)
respectively, where

$$\underset{¯}{G}_{\alpha _{n\nu l\lambda ,n^{}\nu ^{}l^{}\lambda ^{}}}^{as}=_\alpha n\nu l\lambda |G_\alpha ^{as}|n^{}\nu ^{}l^{}\lambda ^{}_\alpha ,$$
(95)
$$\underset{¯}{V}_{\alpha _{n\nu l\lambda ,n^{}\nu ^{}l^{}\lambda ^{}}}^{as}=_\alpha n\nu l\lambda |V_\alpha ^{as}|n^{}\nu ^{}l^{}\lambda ^{}_\alpha $$
(96)
and

$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\alpha _{n\nu l\lambda }}^{as}=_\alpha \stackrel{~}{n\nu l\lambda }|\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{as}.$$
(97)
Here, $`G_\alpha ^{as}`$, $`V_\alpha ^{as}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{as}`$ appear between finite number of of square-integrable CS states, which confine the domain of integration to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha `$. In this region, however, $`G_\alpha ^{as}`$ coincides with $`\stackrel{~}{G}_\alpha `$, $`V_\alpha ^{as}`$ with $`U^\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{as}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\alpha `$ . Finally we have

$$(\underset{¯}{G}_\alpha ^{(l)})^1=(\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{G}}_\alpha )^1\underset{¯}{U}^\alpha ,$$
(98)
where

$$\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{G}}_{\alpha _{n\nu l\lambda ,n^{}\nu ^{}l^{}\lambda ^{}}}=_\alpha n\nu l\lambda |\stackrel{~}{G}_\alpha |n^{}\nu ^{}l^{}\lambda ^{}_\alpha $$
(99)
and

$$\underset{¯}{U}_{n\nu l\lambda ,n^{}\nu ^{}l^{}\lambda ^{}}^\alpha =_\alpha n\nu l\lambda |U^\alpha |n^{}\nu ^{}l^{}\lambda ^{}_\alpha .$$
(100)
And in a similar way

$$[(\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{G}}_\alpha )^1\underset{¯}{U}^\alpha ]\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\alpha ^{(l)}=(\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{G}}_\alpha )^1\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}_\alpha ,$$
(101)
where

$$\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}_{\alpha _{n\nu l\lambda }}=_\alpha \stackrel{~}{n\nu l\lambda }|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\alpha .$$
(102)
We note that from Eq. (98) follows that the left side of Eq. (101) is just the inhomogeneous term of Eq. (88). Both Eqs. (101) and (88) are solved with the same inhomogeneous term.

#### 2 The matrix elements $`_\alpha n\nu l\lambda |\stackrel{~}{G}_\alpha |n^{}\nu ^{}l^{}\lambda ^{}_\alpha `$ and $`_\alpha \stackrel{~}{n\nu l\lambda }|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\alpha `$

The three-particle free Hamiltonian can be written as a sum of two-particle free Hamiltonians

$$H^0=h_{x_\alpha }^0+h_{y_\alpha }^0.$$
(103)
Then the Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}_\alpha `$ of Eq. (18) appears as a sum of two Hamiltonians acting on different coordinates

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_\alpha =h_{x_\alpha }+h_{y_\alpha },$$
(104)
with $`h_{x_\alpha }=h_{x_\alpha }^0+v_\alpha ^C(x_\alpha )`$ and $`h_{y_\alpha }=h_{y_\alpha }^0+u_\alpha ^{(l)}(y_\alpha )`$, which, of course, commute. The state $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\alpha `$, which is an eigenstate of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_\alpha `$, is a product of a two-body bound-state wave function in coordinate $`x_\alpha `$ and a two-body scattering-state wave function in coordinate $`y_\alpha `$. Their CS representations are known from the two-particle case described before.

The matrix elements of $`\stackrel{~}{G}_\alpha `$ can be determined by making use of the convolution theorem

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_\alpha (z)`$ $`=`$ $`(zh_{x_\alpha }h_{y_\alpha })^1`$ (105)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \text{i}}}{\displaystyle _C}𝑑z^{}(zz^{}h_{x_\alpha })^1(z^{}h_{y_\alpha })^1.`$ (106)
The contour $`C`$ should encircle, in positive direction, the spectrum of $`h_{y_\alpha }`$ without penetrating into the spectrum of $`h_{x_\alpha }`$.

The convolution theorem follows from a more general formula. A function of a self adjoint operator $`h`$ is defined as

$`f(h)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \text{i}}}{\displaystyle _C}𝑑zf(z)(zh)^1,`$ (107)
where $`C`$ is a contour around the spectrum of $`h`$ and $`f`$ should be analytic on the region encircled by $`C`$.

In the following we suppose that $`u^{(l)}`$ either vanishes or is a repulsive Coulomb-like potential. This assumption is not necessary but it greatly simplifies the analysis below. Numerical examples show that there are a great many physical three-body systems where this condition is satisfied. This condition ensures that $`h_y`$ does not have bound states.

To examine the analytic structure of the integrand (106) let us shift the spectrum of $`g_{x_\alpha }`$ by taking $`z=E+\mathrm{i}\epsilon `$ with positive $`\epsilon `$. In doing so, the two spectra become well separated and the spectrum of $`g_{y_\alpha }`$ can be encircled. The contour $`C`$ is deformed analytically in such a way that the upper part descends to the unphysical Riemann sheet of $`g_{y_\alpha }`$, while the lower part of $`C`$ can be detoured away from the cut \[see Fig. 3\]. The contour still encircles the branch cut singularity of $`g_{y_\alpha }`$, but in the $`\epsilon 0`$ limit avoids the singularities of $`g_{x_\alpha }`$. Thus, the mathematical conditions for the contour integral representation of $`\stackrel{~}{G}_\alpha (z)`$ in Eq. (106) is met. The matrix elements $`\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{G}}_\alpha `$ can be cast in the form

$$\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{G}}_\alpha (z)=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}_C𝑑z^{}\underset{¯}{g}_{x_\alpha }(zz^{})\underset{¯}{g}_{y_\alpha }(z^{}),$$
(108)
where the corresponding CS matrix elements of the two-body Green’s operators in the integrand are known analytically for all complex energies.

## III Test of the method

We demonstrate the power of this new method by calculating elastic phase shifts of $`e^++H`$ scattering below the $`Ps(n=1)`$ threshold and cross sections of the $`e^++H`$ elastic scattering as well as $`p^++Ps`$ reaction channels up to the $`Ps(n=2)`$ threshold. In all examples we have total angular momentum $`L=0`$ and we have taken angular momentum channels up to $`l=10`$. We use atomic units.

Let us numerate the particles $`e^+`$, $`p`$ and $`e^{}`$, with masses $`m_{e^\pm }=1m_e`$ and $`m_p=1836.1527m_e`$, by $`1`$, $`2`$ and $`3`$, respectively. In the channel $`3`$ there are no two-body asymptotic channels since the particles $`e^+`$ and $`p`$ do not form bound states. Therefore, we can take $`v_3^{(s)}0`$ and include the total $`v_3^C`$ in the long range Hamiltonian

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H^{(l)}+v_1^{(s)}+v_2^{(s)},`$ (109)
$`H^{(l)}`$ $`=`$ $`H^0+v_1^{(l)}+v_2^{(l)}+v_3^C.`$ (110)
In this case $`|\psi _30`$ and we have the set of two-component Faddeev-Merkuriev equations

$`|\psi _1`$ $`=`$ $`|\varphi _1^{(l)}+G_1^{(l)}v_1^{(s)}|\psi _1`$ (111)
$`|\psi _2`$ $`=`$ $`G_2^{(l)}v_2^{(s)}|\psi _2.`$ (112)
The parameters of the splitting function $`\zeta `$ of Eq. (8) are rather arbitrary. The final converged results should be insensitive to their values; our numerical experiences confirm this expectation. For the parameters of $`\zeta `$ we have taken $`\nu =2.1`$, $`x^0=3`$ and $`y^0=10`$, whereas for the parameters of CS functions we have taken $`b=0.9`$. We have experienced that the rate of convergence is rather insensitive on the choice of $`b`$ over a broad interval.

First we examine the convergence of the results for cross sections at incident wave numbers $`k_1=0.71`$, $`k_1=0.75`$ and $`k_1=0.8`$, which correspond to scattering states in the Ore gap. Table I shows the convergence of $`e^++H>e^++H`$ elastic scattering ($`\sigma _{11}`$) and $`e^++H>p^++Ps`$ positronium formation ($`\sigma _{12}`$) cross sections (in $`\pi a_0^2`$) with respect to $`N`$, the number of CS functions in the expansion, and with respect to increasing the angular momentum channels in the bipolar expansion. For comparison we provide the results of Ref. . We can see that very good accuracy is achieved even with relatively low $`N`$ in the expansion.

In Table II we compare our converged results for phase shifts (in radians) below the $`Ps(n=1)`$ threshold to that of other methods. Ref.  is the best variational calculation. In Ref.  the Schrödinger equation was solved by means of finite-element method. In Refs.  and  the configurations space Faddeev-Merkuriev differential equations were solved using the bipolar harmonic expansion method and in total angular momentum representation, respectively. We can report perfect agreements with previous calculations.

In Table III we present partial cross sections in the $`H(n=2)Ps(n=2)`$ gap (threshold energies 0.7496-0.8745 Ry). In Ref.  the configurations space Faddeev-Merkuriev differential equations were solved using the bipolar harmonic expansion in the angular variables an quintic spline expansion in the radial coordinates. We can report fairly good agreements.

## IV Conclusion

We have extended the three-potential formalism for treating the three-body scattering problem with all kinds of Coulomb interactions including attractive ones. We adopted Merkuriev’s approach and split the Coulomb potentials in the three-body configuration space into short-range and long-range terms. In this picture the three-body Coulomb scattering process can be decomposed into a single channel Coulomb scattering, a two-body multichannel scattering on the intermediate-range polarization potential and a genuinely three-body scattering due to the short-range potentials. The formalism provides us a set of Lippmann–Schwinger and Faddeev-Merkuriev integral equations.

These integral equations are certainly too complicated for the most of the numerical methods available in the literature. The Coulomb-Sturmian separable expansion method can be successfully applied. It solves the three-body integral equations by expanding only the short-range terms in a separable form on Coulomb-Sturmian basis while treating the long-range terms in an exact manner via a proper integral representation of the three-body channel distorted Coulomb Green’s operator. The use of the Coulomb-Sturmian basis is essential as it allows an exact analytic representation of the two-body Green’s operator, and thus the contour integral for the channel distorted Coulomb Green’s operator can be calculated. The method provides solutions which are asymptotically correct, at least in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha `$, which is sufficient if the scattering process starts from a two-body asymptotic state. Since the two-body Coulomb Green’s operator is exactly calculated all thresholds are automatically in the right location irrespective of the rank of the separable approximation. The method possesses good convergence properties and in practice it can be made arbitrarily accurate by employing an increasing number of terms in the expansion. Certainly, there is plenty of room for improvement but we are convinced that this method can be a very powerful tool for studying three-body systems with Coulomb interactions.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work has been supported by the NSF Grant No.Phy-0088936 and by the OTKA Grant No. T026233. We also acknowledge the generous allocation of computer time at the NPACI, formerly San Diego Supercomputing Center, by the National Resource Allocation Committee and at the Department of Aerospace Engineering of CSULB.