1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% file template.tex %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %

3: % This is a template file for The European Physical Journal

4: %

5: % Copy it to a new file with a new name and use it as the basis

6: % for your article

7: %

8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Springer-Verlag %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

9: %

10: \begin{filecontents}{leer.eps}

11: %!PS-Adobe-2.0 EPSF-2.0

12: %%CreationDate: Mon Jul 13 16:51:17 1992

13: %%DocumentFonts: (atend)

14: %%Pages: 0 1

15: %%BoundingBox: 72 31 601 342

16: %%EndComments

17: gsave

18: 72 31 moveto

19: 72 342 lineto

20: 601 342 lineto

21: 601 31 lineto

22: 72 31 lineto

23: showpage

24: grestore

25: %%Trailer

26: %%DocumentFonts: Helvetica

27: \end{filecontents}

28: %

29: \documentclass[epj]{svjour}

30: % Remove option referee for final version

31: %

32: % Remove any % below to load the required packages

33: %\usepackage{latexsym}

34: \usepackage{graphics}

35: % etc

36: %

37: \begin{document}

38: %

39: \title{The Goldberger-Miyazawa-Oehme sum rule revisited}

40: %\subtitle{Do you have a subtitle?\\ If so, write it here}

41: \author{V.V. Abaev\inst{1}, P. Mets\"a\inst{2}, and M.E. Sainio\inst{3}

42: % \thanks is optional - remove next line if not needed

43: %\thanks{\emph{Present address:} Insert the address here if needed}%

44: }                     % Do not remove

45: %

46: %\offprints{}          % Insert a name or remove this line

47: %

48: \institute{Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina 188300, Russia \and  Department of Physical Sciences, P.O. Box 64, 

49:  00014 University of Helsinki, Finland 

50: \and Helsinki Institute of Physics, P.O. Box 64, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland 

51:           }

52: %

53: \date{Received: date / Revised version: date}

54: % The correct dates will be entered by Springer

55: %

56: \abstract{

57: The Goldberger-Miyazawa-Oehme sum rule is used to extract the

58: pion-nucleon coupling constant from experimental $\pi$N information.

59: Chiral perturbation theory is exploited in relating the pionic

60: hydrogen $s$-wave level shift and width results to the appropriate

61: scattering lengths. The deduced value for the coupling is $f^2 = 0.075 \pm 0.002$,

62: where the largest source of uncertainty is the determination of

63: the $s$-wave $\pi^- p$ scattering length from the atomic level shift measurement.

64: %

65: \PACS{

66:       {13.75.Gx}{Pion-baryon interactions}   \and

67:       {14.20.Dh}{Protons and neutrons}

68:      } % end of PACS codes

69: } %end of abstract

70: %

71: \maketitle

72: %

73: \section{Introduction}

74: \label{intro}

75: 

76: The Goldberger-Miyazawa-Oehme \cite{gmo} sum rule relates the coupling constant

77: of the pion-nucleon interaction, $f^2$, to the difference of the $\pi^-p$ and $\pi^+p$

78: $s$-wave scattering lengths and to the weighted integral of the difference of

79: the $\pi^-p$ and $\pi^+p$ total cross sections. By evaluating the forward dispersion relations

80: at the physical threshold, $\omega=\mu$, we obtain \cite{hw}

81: \begin{eqnarray}

82: (1+\mu/m)(a_{\pi^-p} - a_{\pi^+p})/\mu=4 f^2/(\mu^2-\omega_B^2) + 2 \, J^-, %\nonumber

83: \end{eqnarray}

84: where $\mu$ is the (charged) pion mass, $m$ is the proton mass, $\omega_B=-\mu^2/2m$

85: and

86: \begin{eqnarray}

87: J^- =   1/(4\pi^2) \; \int^\infty_0 (\sigma^{\rm Tot}_{\pi^-p}-\sigma^{\rm Tot}_{\pi^+p})/\omega \; dk.

88: %\nonumber

89: \end{eqnarray}

90: The $s$-wave $\pi^-p$ and $\pi^+p$ scattering lengths are denoted

91: by $a_{\pi^-p}$ and $a_{\pi^+p}$ respectively and $\omega=\sqrt{\mu^2+k^2}$, where

92: $k$ is the pion laboratory momentum.

93: 

94: It is well known that eq. (1) is not a precise means to

95: determine the value of the pion-nucleon coupling $f^2$, but

96: it is the natural first step in the process of extracting the value from 

97: the pion-nucleon data. Furthermore, the sum rule makes the connection between the 

98: uncertainties in the data and in the coupling constant more transparent.

99: 

100: It is the aim of the present paper to examine the ingredients of eq. (1), two scattering lengths 

101: and integral $J^-$, and determine the pion-nucleon coupling strength $f^2$. 

102: The implications of the pionic hydrogen measurements to the sum rule are discussed in

103: sect. 2, the $s$-wave $\pi^+p$ scattering length  is addressed in sect.

104: 3 and the integral $J^-$ in sect. 4. Section 5 combines the information to

105: extract a value for $f^2$ and in sect. 6 the conclusions are drawn.  

106: 

107: \section{Pionic hydrogen} 

108: \label{hydrogen}

109: 

110: The accurate measurements of the properties of pionic hydrogen at PSI

111: provide a source of information on the pion-nucleon amplitude very close to the physical 

112: threshold. The strong interaction 

113: level shift $\epsilon_{1s}$, determined through the difference

114: of the electromagnetic and measured transition energy difference

115: \begin{eqnarray}

116: \epsilon_{1s}=E^{\rm em}_{3p-1s} - E^{\rm meas}_{3p-1s},

117: \end{eqnarray}

118: has been measured to a precision of about 0.2 \% \cite{simons}

119: \begin{eqnarray}

120: \epsilon_{1s} = -7.120 \pm 0.008 \pm 0.009 \; \;{\rm eV}.

121: \end{eqnarray}

122: The first error is due to statistics and the second due to systematics.

123: There is a considerable improvement in accuracy compared with the earlier 

124: result \cite{schroder} 

125: \begin{eqnarray}

126: \epsilon_{1s} = -7.108 \pm 0.013 \pm 0.034 \; \;{\rm eV},

127: \end{eqnarray}

128: mainly because the molecular effects are better under control.

129: However, the improvement is not reflected in the extraction

130: of the $\pi^-p$  $s$-wave scattering length. The connection between 

131: the level shift and the scattering lengths is provided

132: by the formula \cite{gasser}

133: \begin{eqnarray}

134: \epsilon_{1s}=-2 \alpha^3 \,\mu^2_c (a^+_{0+}+a^-_{0+}) (1+\delta_\epsilon),

135: \end{eqnarray}

136: where $\mu_c$ is the reduced mass of the $\pi^-p$ system, $\alpha \simeq 1/137.036$ 

137: is the fine structure constant and $a^+_{0+}$, $a^-_{0+}$ are the

138: isoscalar and isovector $s$-wave $\pi$N scattering lengths respectively.

139: The quantity $\delta_\epsilon$ evaluated next-to-leading order

140: in isospin breaking and in the low-energy expansion has

141: the value \cite{gasser}

142: \begin{eqnarray}

143: \delta_\epsilon = (-7.2 \pm 2.9) \times 10^{-2}.

144: \end{eqnarray}

145: The uncertainty of the $\pi^-p$ scattering length determined

146: with eq. (6) is then

147: dominated by the uncertainty in $\delta_\epsilon$, which in turn is 

148: dominated by the largely unknown low-energy constant $f_1$ \cite{gasser}.

149: Potential models produce typically smaller correction factors $\delta_\epsilon$

150: with considerably smaller uncertainties \cite{sigg,elw}. However, here

151: we rely on the chiral perturbation theory result \cite{gasser} for $\delta_\epsilon$

152: and consequently the measured level shift of eq. (4) gives

153: \begin{eqnarray}

154: a_{\pi^-p} = 0.0933 \pm 0.0029 \; \; 1/\mu,

155: \end{eqnarray}

156: if errors in eq. (4) are added linearly.

157: Here the identification $a_{\pi^-p} = a^+_{0+} + a^-_{0+}$ has been made.

158: 

159: The Deser-type formula \cite{deser} relating the isovector $s$-wave scattering 

160: length $a^-_{0+}$ to the level width is \cite{sigg}

161: \begin{eqnarray}

162: \Gamma_{1s}=8 \alpha^3 \, \mu^2_c \,q_0 (1+1/P)[a^-_{0+}(1+\delta_\Gamma)]^2,

163: \end{eqnarray}

164: where $q_0$ is the centre-of-mass momentum of the $\pi^0$ in the charge

165: exchange reaction and $P=1.546\pm0.009$ is the Panofsky ratio \cite{spuller},

166: {\it i.e.} the ratio of the cross sections 

167: $\sigma(\pi^-p\rightarrow \pi^0n)/\sigma(\pi^-p\rightarrow \gamma n)$ at the 

168: threshold. The correction factor $\delta_\Gamma$ has been evaluated in

169: leading order in chiral perturbation theory with the result \cite{zemp}

170: \begin{eqnarray}

171: \delta_\Gamma = (0.6 \pm 0.2) \times 10^{-2}.

172: \end{eqnarray}

173: A potential model calculation \cite{sigg} would give a different

174: sign, but this correction factor is rather small in any case.

175: The factor $\delta_\Gamma$ depends on the low-energy

176: constant $f_2$ and, therefore, the uncertainty is smaller than

177: for the factor $\delta_\epsilon$, which depends on the constant $f_1$.

178: 

179: The $s$-wave isovector scattering length can be solved from eq. (9)

180: \begin{eqnarray}

181: a^-_{0+}=\frac{0.08933}{1+\delta_\Gamma} \, \sqrt{\frac{\Gamma_{1s}}{0.868 \; {\rm eV}}} \; \;1/\mu.

182: \end{eqnarray}

183: The measured result for the width \cite{schroder}

184: $\Gamma_{1s}=0.868 \pm0.040\pm0.038 \; \; {\rm eV}$

185: then gives for the scattering length

186: $a^-_{0+}=0.0888 \pm 0.0040 \; 1/\mu$. The relatively large error bar

187: is largely due to the uncertainty in estimating the Doppler

188: broadening. The new preliminary result for the width \cite{simons2}

189: with improvement in this respect, $\Gamma_{1s} = 0.823 \pm 0.019 \; {\rm eV}$,

190: would give $a^-_{0+} = 0.0865 \pm 0.0010 \; 1/\mu$.

191: 

192: 

193: \section{Discrete phase shift analysis for $\pi^+p$}

194: \label{pin}

195: 

196: For the $\pi^+p$ interaction a discrete phase shift analysis has been performed

197: in the range $k=0.077-0.725$ GeV/c at 77 different momenta \cite{abaev}. 

198: Tromborg corrections \cite{tromborg} have been used to extract the hadronic amplitudes

199: from the experimental data. Forward scattering constraints \cite{pekko} have been applied

200: iteratively in the analysis. Additional constraints from total 

201: inelastic cross sections were used for partial wave inelasticities.

202: Special care has been taken to incorporate in the analysis the experimental resolutions and acceptances. 

203: In this way only a small number of points had to be eliminated due to inappropriate 

204: angular dependence. The normalizations were allowed to float according to experimental

205: information on the systematic uncertainty.

206: Furthermore, the behaviour of the zero trajectories for transversity amplitudes was monitored

207: to keep a smooth variation in the shape of observables and the extrapolation

208: to the physical threshold was stabilized in this manner. 

209: Figure 1 shows the phase shift $\delta_{S31}$ close to the threshold normalized with the product of the 

210: absolute value of the $s$-wave scattering 

211: length $a_{S31}$ and the centre-of-mass momentum $q$. 

212: The result can be parametrized with analytical forms in three different

213: $q^2$ ranges such that in the lowest energy range the effective range

214: approximation is used. The two dividing momenta have been taken as free

215: parameters. It turns out that a two-parameter effective range

216: approximation is valid up to $q \simeq 0.14$ GeV/c.

217: The result for the scattering length $a_{S31}$

218: \begin{eqnarray}

219: a_{S31} \equiv a_{\pi^+p}= -0.0764 \pm 0.0014 \; \; 1/\mu

220: \end{eqnarray}

221: is very stable.

222: This result completes the discussion of the left hand side of eq. (1).

223: The result can be compared with the recent figure of Matsinos {\it et al.}

224: \cite{matsinos} $a_{\pi^+p}=-0.0751 \pm 0.0039 \; 1/\mu$ based on a fit with a low-energy

225: model and with the FA02 solution of the GWU/VPI group \cite{arndt} 

226: $a_{\pi^+p}=-0.0911 \pm 0.0014 \; 1/\mu$. For the KH80 solution

227: \cite{koch} of the Karlsruhe group  $a_{\pi^+p}=-0.1010 \pm 0.0040 \; 1/\mu$.

228: \begin{figure}

229: \resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}

230: {\includegraphics{fig1.eps}}

231: \caption{The $\pi^+p$ $s$-wave phase shift $\delta_{S31}$ normalized with $|a_{S31}| \, q$.

232: The asterix denotes the KH80 value. The result of Matsinos {\it et al.} is shown by the triangle.}

233: \label{fig:1}

234: \end{figure}

235: 

236: 

237: \section{Integral $J^-$}

238: \label{int}

239: 

240: The integral $J^-$ contains input from a number of  sources.

241: Results from total cross section measurements are available in the range

242: 0.16-640 GeV/c for the $\pi^-p$ scattering and 0.16-340 GeV/c for the

243: $\pi^+p$ scattering \cite{durham}. These data have been corrected for the electromagnetic

244: effects up to $k=0.725$ GeV/c using the formalism of Tromborg \cite{tromborg}.

245: The corrections have been published only up to 0.655 GeV/c, but here

246: we employ a smooth extrapolation up to 0.725 GeV/c. The question of electromagnetic

247: corrections above the Tromborg range has been discussed in a number of

248: articles \cite{rix,bc}. Here we do not, however,  correct the data above

249: the limit 0.725 GeV/c, but we estimate the corresponding uncertainty in the value

250: of $J^-$ by making use of the prescription in \cite{elt}. A smooth curve through the

251: experimental points is drawn using the expansion technique \cite{hohler}, which

252: guarantees that forward dispersion relations are satisfied. Details can be found

253: elsewhere \cite{pekko}.

254: 

255: The integral $J^-$ converges relatively slowly and the high-energy behaviour

256: of the cross sections $\sigma_{\pi^\pm p}^{\rm Tot}$ plays a significant role.

257: Here we consider three different Regge type parametrizations for the asymptotic forms, {\it i.e.}

258: forms which give estimates of the total cross sections beyond 350 GeV/c:

259: the parametrizations of H\"ohler \cite{hohler}, Donnachie and Landshoff \cite{dl}

260: and Gauron and Nicolescu \cite{gn}. In the range 10 - 350 GeV/c the recent parametrization 

261: of the Particle Data Group \cite{PDG} has been employed in addition to the Regge

262: forms quoted above and the result from the fit with the expansion technique \cite{pekko}.

263: The results of these parametrizations have been summarized in table 1.

264: The displayed number of significant figures is there only to help

265: in the addition of the contributions of the different momentum ranges.

266: \begin{table}

267: \caption{ Contributions to $J^-$ (mb) of the different high-energy ranges of the laboratory momentum

268: $k$.}

269: \label{tab:1}       % Give a unique label

270: % For LaTeX tables use

271: \begin{center}

272: \begin{tabular}{lll}

273: \hline\noalign{\smallskip}

274: Input & 10-350 GeV/c & 350- GeV/c  \\

275: \noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}

276: H\"ohler \cite{hohler} & 0.08786 & 0.01787 \\

277: Donnachie-Landshoff \cite{dl} & 0.09968 & 0.02514 \\

278: Gauron-Nicolescu \cite{gn} & 0.10665 & 0.02012 \\

279: PDG \cite{PDG} & 0.09587 & - \\

280: Present work  & 0.09609 & - \\

281: \noalign{\smallskip}\hline

282: \end{tabular}

283: \end{center}

284: \end{table}

285: The momentum range from the threshold to 10 GeV/c is split into two at 2.03 GeV/c.

286: For the low-energy section from the threshold to 2.03 GeV/c the experiment covers

287: only part of the range. From the discussion in sects. 2 and 3 we can, 

288: by invoking isospin invariance, deduce values 

289: for the $\pi^\pm p$ total cross sections at the physical threshold with the results

290: $\sigma^{\rm Tot}_{\pi^-p} =5.80 \pm 0.27 \;{\rm mb}$ and 

291: $\sigma^{\rm Tot}_{\pi^+p} = 1.47 \pm 0.05 \;{\rm mb}$.

292: In the range from 0.08 to 0.16 GeV/c there is information

293: on the angular distributions, but no modern total cross section data. For this

294: range we have performed a phase shift analysis with elastic $\pi^\pm p$ input and

295: fixed-$t$ constraints. Also, results from the discrete phase shift analysis for

296: $\pi^+ p$ discussed in sect. 3 have been used as cross checks. 

297: The remaining piece from the threshold to 0.08 GeV/c has been covered

298: by a smooth interpolation. The contributions to integral $J^-$ can then be evaluated with

299: the results displayed in table 2. There, in addition, results from the phase shift

300: analyses of the Karlsruhe group and the GWU-VPI group are shown.

301: \begin{table}

302: \caption{ Contributions to $J^-$ (mb) of the low and intermediate energy ranges of the laboratory momentum

303: $k$.}

304: \label{tab:2}       % Give a unique label

305: % For LaTeX tables use

306: \begin{center}

307: \begin{tabular}{lll}

308: \hline\noalign{\smallskip}

309: Input & 0-2.03 GeV/c & 2.03-10 GeV/c  \\

310: \noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}

311: KH80 \cite{koch} & -1.27853 & 0.10691 \\

312: KA84 \cite{koch2} & -1.31266 & 0.13802 \\

313: FA02 \cite{arndt} & -1.30213 & - \\

314: Present work  & -1.29757 & 0.12046 \\

315: \noalign{\smallskip}\hline

316: \end{tabular}

317: \end{center}

318: \end{table}

319: A detailed discussion of the contributions of different momentum ranges can be found, 

320: {\it e.g.}, in ref. \cite{elt}.

321: 

322: Combining the values from different momentum 

323: slices yields the value for $J^-$ given in table 3. Also, results from some earlier

324: evaluations have been displayed there. 

325: \begin{table}

326: \caption{ The values for the integral $J^-$ (mb). }

327: \label{tab:3}       % Give a unique label

328: % For LaTeX tables use

329: \begin{center}

330: \begin{tabular}{ll}

331: \hline\noalign{\smallskip}

332: Source & $J^-$ (mb)\\

333: \noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}

334: H\"ohler-Kaiser \cite{hohler2} & -1.06 \\

335: Koch \cite{koch3} & -1.077 $\pm$ 0.047 \\

336: Gibbs {\it et al.} \cite{gibbs} & -1.051 $\pm$ 0.005$^{\rm a}$\\

337: Ericson {\it et al.} \cite{elt} & -1.083 $\pm$ 0.032 \\

338: Present work  & -1.060 $\pm$ 0.030\\

339: \noalign{\smallskip}\hline

340: $^{\rm a}$Statistical error only.

341: \end{tabular}

342: \end{center}

343: \end{table}

344: To assign an error bar to our result for $J^-$, we note that

345: the statistical uncertainty is quite small, about  0.007 mb. It is, however,

346: hard to estimate the systematic uncertainty. The systematic normalization

347: uncertainties of the data have been taken into account in the fitting procedure \cite{pekko}.

348: Also, there remain discrepancies in the data, see the discussion, {\it e.g.}, in

349: ref. \cite{hohler2}. The $\Delta$-resonance gives a major contribution to

350: the $J^-$ -integral and in that range the two accurate experiments, Carter {\it et al.} \cite{carter}

351: and Pedroni {\it et al.} \cite{pedroni}, differ slightly, but in a systematic manner.

352: The impact of the difference on the $J^-$ is 0.012 mb. We adopt this as the

353: number reflecting experimental systematic effects.

354: Furthermore, 

355: the forward dispersion relations, which have been imposed as contraints,

356: do need a value for the pion-nucleon coupling constant as input.

357: Here the  pion-nucleon coupling constant has been allowed to vary

358: and the effect on the error bar for the $J^-$ integral is 0.001 mb.

359: For the asymptotic part, where data do not exist, the average of the numbers in table 1

360: has been taken and the corresponding error is chosen such that all the displayed values fall

361: within the errors. This gives as the estimate for the error 0.004 mb.

362: If in the integrand for $J^-$ involving $\sigma^{\rm Tot}_{\pi^-p}-\sigma^{\rm Tot}_{\pi^+p}$

363: a Coulomb correction of the type \cite{elt} is adopted in the range 0.725 - 2.03 GeV/c, the value

364: for $J^-$ changes by 0.6 \%. Adding up all these errors, we obtain the quoted uncertainty 0.030 mb.

365: 

366: 

367: \section{Results and discussion}

368: \label{St}

369: 

370: From eq. (1) the pion-nucleon coupling constant can be extracted with the result

371: \begin{eqnarray}

372: f^2&=& \frac{1}{2} [1-(\frac{\mu}{2 m})^2] \times \; \; \; \; \nonumber \\ 

373:  &  & \; \; \;[\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{\mu}{m})(a_{\pi^- p} - a_{\pi^+ p})\mu - J^-\mu^2].

374: \end{eqnarray}

375: The contribution to $f^2$ from the term involving the difference of

376: the $\pi^-p$ and $\pi^+p$ scattering lengths is about 2/3 and

377: the $J^-$ piece about 1/3.

378: With the scattering lengths and the integral $J^-$ evaluated in sects. 2-4, the 

379: coupling constant becomes

380: \begin{eqnarray}

381: f^2 = 0.075 \pm 0.002.

382: \end{eqnarray}

383: This precision can not compete with the expected accuracy from other methods

384: involving the dispersion relations for the $B$-amplitudes, but we shall use

385: this range of possible values as input for the phase shift analysis

386: with fixed-$t$ constraints.

387: 

388: In the discussion above isospin symmetry has been used only in fixing the

389: threshold values for the total cross sections, a statement valid to

390: ${\cal O}(p^3)$ in chiral perturbation theory. By invoking

391: the isospin invariance we can relate $a_{\pi^- p} - a_{\pi^+ p}

392: = 2 \, a^-_{0+}$, where the isovector $s$-wave scattering length  is accessible through 

393: the atomic width measurement, eq. (11). The numbers for $a^-_{0+}$ quoted in sect. 2,

394: yield the coupling strength in the range $f^2=0.076-0.077$, {\it i.e.} within the error range 

395: quoted above. By making use of isospin invariance one can avoid the

396: question of the consistency of the approach when one is extracting the hadronic $\pi^-p$ 

397: $s$-wave scattering length in chiral perturbation theory and the $\pi^+p$ scattering

398: length in a discrete phase shift analysis exploiting the Tromborg

399: approach for the electromagnetic corrections. We are aware of one low-energy $\pi$N analysis

400: with a complete treatment of both strong and electromagnetic effects

401: to third order in chiral perturbation theory, the work of Fettes and Mei\ss ner \cite{fm}.

402: There, indeed, it is found that nonlinear pion-nucleon-photon coupling terms

403: generate sizeable effects. However, the comparison in ref. \cite{fm} for the

404: low-energy $\pi^+p$ $s$-wave scattering with the Karlsruhe results, which also

405: use Tromborg corrections, shows that the effect is relatively small there.

406: 

407: The potential model \cite{sigg} corrections $\delta_\epsilon = (-2.1 \pm 0.5) \times 10^{-2}$

408: and $\delta_\Gamma = (-1.3 \pm 0.5) \times 10^{-2}$ would lead to coupling

409: values in the range $f^2=0.077-0.078$ in agreement with ref. \cite{elt}.

410: 

411: \section{Conclusions}

412: \label{co}

413: 

414: The GMO sum rule provides a tool to relate experimental information on

415: pion-nucleon scattering from different sources. Also, it is relatively

416: straightforward to analyze the error propagation. With the input from 

417: pionic hydrogen and a discrete phase shift analysis for the $\pi^+p$

418: interaction we

419: obtain for the pion-nucleon coupling constant the value $f^2=0.075 \pm 0.002$.

420: It turns out, that the largest uncertainty 

421: in determining a value for the pion-nucleon coupling constant is

422: currently due to the large uncertainty in the correction factor $\delta_\epsilon$

423: for extracting the the $\pi^- p$ $s$-wave scattering length

424: from the $\epsilon_{1s}$ hadronic level shift measurement. Assuming isospin

425: invariance we can make use of the isovector $s$-wave scattering

426: length $a^-_{0+}$ which will be determined within 1 \% by the PSI group in

427: the future.

428: 

429: 

430: \begin{acknowledgement}

431: We wish to thank 

432: A.M. Green for useful comments on the manuscript.

433: One of us (PM) thanks the Magnus Ehrnrooth Foundation and

434: the Waldemar von Frenckell Foundation for financial support.

435: Support from the Academy of Finland and the Russian Academy of

436: Sciences exchange grant is acknowledged.

437: This work was supported in part by the EU Contract 

438: MRTN-CT-2006-035482, FLAVIAnet.

439: \end{acknowledgement}

440: % BibTeX users please use

441: % \bibliographystyle{}

442: % \bibliography{}

443: %

444: % Non-BibTeX users please use

445: \begin{thebibliography}{}

446: %

447: % and use \bibitem to create references.

448: %

449: \bibitem{gmo}

450: % Format for Journal Reference

451: M.L. Goldberger, H. Miyazawa, R. Oehme, Phys. Rev. \textbf{99}, 986 (1955).

452: \bibitem{hw}

453: J. Hamilton, W.S. Woolcock, Rev. Mod. Phys. \textbf{35}, 737 (1963).

454: \bibitem{simons}

455: L.M. Simons, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A \textbf{20}, 1644 (2005).

456: \bibitem{schroder}

457: H.-Ch. Schr\"oder {\it et al.}, Eur. Phys. J. C \textbf{21}, 473 (2001).

458: \bibitem{gasser}

459: J. Gasser, M.A. Ivanov, E. Lipartia, M. Moj\v zi\v s, A. Rusetsky, 

460: Eur. Phys. J. C \textbf{26}, 13 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0206068].

461: \bibitem{sigg}

462: D. Sigg, A. Badertscher, P.F.A. Goudsmit, H.J. Leisi, G.C. Oades, 

463: Nucl. Phys. A \textbf{609}, 310 (1996).

464: \bibitem{elw}

465: T.E.O. Ericson, B. Loiseau, S. Wycech, Phys. Lett. B

466: \textbf{594}, 76 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0310134].

467: \bibitem{deser}

468: S. Deser, M.L. Goldberger, K. Baumann, W. Thirring, Phys. Rev. \textbf{96}, 774 (1954).

469: \bibitem{spuller}

470: J. Spuller {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{67}, 479 (1977).

471: \bibitem{zemp}

472: P. Zemp, Ph.D. thesis, University of Berne (2004).

473: \bibitem{simons2}

474: L.M. Simons, in arXiv:hep-ph/0610201, p. 8.

475: \bibitem{abaev}

476: V.V. Abaev {\it et al.}, work in progress.

477: \bibitem{tromborg}

478: B. Tromborg, S. Waldenstr\o m, I. \O verb\o , Phys. Rev. D \textbf{15}, 725 (1977).

479: \bibitem{pekko}

480: P. Mets\" a, HIP-2007-20/TH, 2007, unpublished.

481: \bibitem{matsinos}

482: E. Matsinos, W.S. Woolcock, G.C. Oades, G. Rasche, A. Gashi, Nucl. Phys. A

483: \textbf{778}, 95 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0607080].

484: \bibitem{arndt}

485: R.A. Arndt, W.J. Briscoe, I.I. Strakovsky, R.L. Workman, M.M. Pavan,

486: Phys. Rev. C \textbf{69}, 035213 (2004) [arXiv:nucl-th/0311089].

487: \bibitem{koch}

488: R. Koch, E. Pietarinen, Nucl. Phys. A \textbf{336}, 331 (1980).

489: \bibitem{durham}

490: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/hadronic-xsections/hadron.html

491: \bibitem{rix}

492: J. Rix, R.M. Thaler, Phys. Rev. \textbf{152}, 1357 (1966).

493: \bibitem{bc}

494: D.V. Bugg, A.A. Carter, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{48}, 67 (1974).

495: \bibitem{elt} T.E.O. Ericson, B. Loiseau, A.W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. C

496:   \textbf{66}, 014005 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0009312].

497: \bibitem{hohler}

498: G. H\"ohler, Pion-Nucleon Scattering, Landolt-B\"ornstein, Vol. I/9b2 (Springer, Berlin, 1983).

499: \bibitem{dl}

500: A. Donnachie, P.V. Landshoff, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{296}, 227 (1992) [arXiv:hep-ph/9209205].

501: \bibitem{gn} P. Gauron, B. Nicolescu, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{486}, 71

502:   (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0004066].

503: \bibitem{PDG}

504: W.-M. Yao {\it et al.}, J. Phys. G \textbf{33}, 1 (2006).

505: \bibitem{koch2}

506: R. Koch, Z. Phys. \textbf{C29}, 597 (1985).

507: \bibitem{koch3}

508: R. Koch, Karlsruhe TKP 85-5, 1985, unpublished.

509: \bibitem{gibbs} W.R. Gibbs, Li Ai, W.B. Kaufmann, Phys. Rev. C

510:   \textbf{57}, 784 (1998) [arXiv:nucl-th/9704058].

511: \bibitem{hohler2}

512: G. H\"ohler, F. Kaiser, Karlsruhe report, KfK 3027, 1980, unpublished.

513: \bibitem{carter}

514: A.A. Carter, J.R. Williams, D.V. Bugg, P.J. Bussey, D.R. Dance, Nucl. Phys. B \textbf{26}, 445 (1971).

515: \bibitem{pedroni}

516: E. Pedroni {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. A \textbf{300}, 321 (1978).

517: \bibitem{fm}

518: N. Fettes, U.-G. Mei\ss ner, Nucl. Phys. A \textbf{693}, 693 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0101030].

519: \end{thebibliography}

520: \end{document}

521: 

522: