1: \documentstyle[12pt]{article}
2: \input epsf
3: %\def\baselinestretch{1.4}
4:
5: \topmargin -20pt
6: %\topmargin=1.5cm
7: \textwidth 160mm \oddsidemargin 5mm
8: \textheight 220mm \evensidemargin 5mm
9: \begin{document}
10: \begin{titlepage}
11: \thispagestyle{empty}
12: \title{
13: \vspace*{-1cm}
14: \begin{flushright}
15: {\small KEK-TH-742}
16: \end{flushright}
17: \vspace{2.0cm}
18: On the Ambiguity of the Solution of the Muskhelishvili-Omnes Integral Equation }
19: \vspace{4.0cm}
20: \author{Tran N. Truong \\
21: \small \em Centre de Physique Th\'eorique,
22: {\footnote {unit\'e propre 014 du
23: CNRS}}\\
24: \small \em Ecole Polytechnique \\
25: \small \em F91128 Palaiseau, France \\
26: and \\
27: \small \em Institute of Nuclear and Particle Studies, \\
28: \small \em High Energy Accelerator Research Organization,\\
29: \small \em 1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305 - 081 Japan }
30:
31: \date{January 2001}
32:
33: \maketitle
34:
35: \begin{abstract}
36:
37: The solution of the Muskhelishvili-Omnes Integral Equation is ambiguous by a real polynomial. The
38: coefficients of this polynomial can be fixed either by the knowledge of the low energy parameters
39: or by the asymptotic behavior of the form factor. The role of the contact terms of
40: the low energy effective Lagrangian is explicitly analysed.
41:
42:
43:
44: \end{abstract}
45: \end{titlepage}
46:
47: There have been discussions of contact terms in the phenomenological models describing low energy
48: pion phenomena \cite{rudaz, schecter, bando}.
49: They seem to play an important role in analysing the pion form factor
50: and the process $\gamma \pi^0 \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$. The main difference between this model and
51: the usual vector meson model is the existence of a contact term where the photon interacts
52: directly with the charged pions and not by the intermediate of the vector $\rho$ meson.
53: Phenomenological analysis of this contact term in the form factor has recently been given
54: \cite{benayoun}.
55:
56: The purpose of
57: this note is to analyze the existence of the contact term within the spirit of the more general
58: approach to the form factor problem using the Muskhelishvili-Omnes (MO)
59: integral equation \cite{omnes}. It is based on the assumption of the elastic unitarity and
60: dispersion relation for the pion form factor. The main conclusion of our analysis is that the
61: existence of the contact term is in conflict with unitarity in the form of the phase theorem. Its
62: existence can, however, be simulated by a polynomial ambiguity contribution to the
63: solution of the MO equation. This polynomial is interpreted physically as either the correction due
64: to the inelastic contribution to the unitarity relation or the modification of the
65: asymptotic behavior of the form factor.
66:
67:
68: Let us first discuss the solution of this problem from a more general viewpoint. The form factor
69: $V(s)$ is an analytic function with a cut from $4m_\pi^2$ to $\infty$.
70:
71: Assuming that $V(s)$ is polynomially bounded and that $V(s)s^{-(n+1)} \rightarrow 0$ as $s
72: \rightarrow \infty$, $n>0$, we can write the following subtracted dispersion relation:
73: \begin{equation}
74: V(s)=1+a_1s+...a_{n}s^{n}+ \frac{s^{n+1}}{\pi}\int_{4m_\pi^2}^\infty
75: \frac{ImV(z)dz}{(z)^{n+1}(z-s-i\epsilon)}
76: \label{eq:dr}
77: \end{equation}
78: where we have used the Ward identity $V(0)=1$.
79: Around $s=0$, the dispersion integral is of the order
80: $(s)^{n+1}$ and can be neglected, hence the low energy theorem is recovered. Needless to
81: say, $a_n$ are, apart from a factorial factor $n!$, the derivatives of $V(s)$ evaluated at
82: $s=0$. These could be taken from experiments or could be determined by sum rules using some
83: assumptions on the asymptotic behavior of the form factor.
84:
85: For example, if we assume that as $s\rightarrow\infty$, $V(s)/s \to 0$, a once subtraction dispersion
86: relation for $V(s)$ can be written; the first and higher derivatives of $V(s)$ can be written as:
87: \begin{equation}
88: V^{(n)}(0) = \frac{n!}{\pi}\int_{4m_\pi^2}^\infty \frac{ImV(z)dz}{z^{n+1}} \label{eq:der}
89: \end{equation}
90:
91:
92:
93: The mathematical problem is now clear: Find the solution of the integral
94: equation of the MO type for $V(s)$ with its imaginary part given by the elastic
95: unitarity:
96: \begin{equation}
97: ImV(s)= V(s) e^{-i\delta (s)} \sin \delta (s) \label{eq:imo}
98: \end{equation}
99: with the boundary conditions around $s=0$ given by Eq. (\ref{eq:dr}) and where $\delta$ is the
100: the strong P-wave $I=1$ $\pi\pi$ phase shifts.
101:
102: To solve this integral equation Eq. (\ref{eq:dr}) which is of MO type
103: \cite{omnes}, let us define the function
104: $\Omega(s)$ normalized to unity at $s=0$:
105: \begin{equation}
106: \Omega(s)= \exp(\frac{s}{\pi} \int_{4m_\pi^2}^\infty
107: \frac{\delta(z)dz}{z(z-s-i\epsilon)})
108: \label{eq:omn}
109: \end{equation}
110: The solution for our integral equation is:
111: \begin{equation}
112: V(s) = P_n(s)\Omega(s) \label{eq:solo}
113: \end{equation}
114: where $P_n(s)$ is a polynomial in $s$ of order n with real coefficients, $P_n(0)=1$.
115: From eq. (\ref{eq:solo}), the phase of the form factor $V(s)$ is $\delta(s)$ which is also a
116: direct consequence of the unitarity relation \cite{watson}. It will be called in the following as
117: the phase theorem.
118:
119: The ambiguity of the solution of
120: the MO equation due to the polyomial is not surprising because its solution depends on the knowledge
121: of the asymptotic behavior of the form factor.
122: The polynomial could be interpreted as
123: extra parameters which are introduced in the problem without violating the phase theorem; in many
124: cases they can be determined using experimental data at low energy.
125:
126:
127: This is indeed true by expanding the function
128: $\Omega(s)$ in a power series in
129: $s$,
130: and compare it with the derivatives given in Eq. (\ref{eq:solo}) and
131: Eq. (\ref{eq:dr}). The expansion of $\Omega(s)$ in the Taylor's series around $s=0$ is possible
132: because
133: $\Omega(s)$ is an analytic function with a cut from $4m_\pi^2$ to $\infty$.
134:
135: In the special case where only two terms in the series are known, i.e. the pion charge by Ward's
136: indentity and its first derivative $a_1$ which is proportional to the r.m.s. pion radius by
137: experiment, the solution of our integral equation is given by:
138:
139: \begin{equation}
140: V(s)= \{1+ s(a_1-\Omega^{'}(0)) \}\Omega(s) \label{eq:sol}
141: \end{equation}
142: where $\Omega^{'}(0)$ denotes the first derivative of $\Omega(s)$ evaluated at $s=0$
143: and is given by:
144: \begin{equation}
145: \Omega{'}(0)=\frac{1}{\pi} \int_{4m_\pi^2}^\infty \frac{\delta(z)dz}{z^2}
146: \label{eq:dero}
147: \end{equation}
148: The presence of the term $\Omega^{'}(0)$ is to ensure the boundary condition for
149: $V(s)$ is satisfied. If $a_1-\Omega^{'}(0)=0$ there is no need to introduce a momnomial term in
150: the form factor and hence the asymptotic behavior of the form factor is solely determined by
151: $\Omega(s)$. (Using partial fraction for the dispersion integral together with the sum rules Eq.
152: (\ref{eq:der}) the asymptotic behavior of $V(s)$ can be determined).
153:
154: It is straightforward to generalise the solution of Eq. (\ref{eq:dr}) for other values of
155: $n$. For example when $n=2$, the solution for the integral equation Eq.( \ref{eq:dr}) is
156: obtained by adding to the curly bracket on the righthand side of Eq. (\ref{eq:sol}) a
157: term:
158: \begin{equation}
159: s^2(
160: a_2-a_1\Omega^{'}(0)-a_0\frac{\Omega^{''}(0)}{2}+\Omega^{'2}(0))
161: \label{eq:n=2}
162: \end{equation}
163:
164: Let us now look at the experimental data. For a given set of P-wave $\pi\pi$ phase shifts $\delta$,
165: one can, in principle, construct the function $\Omega(s)$ as given by Eq. (\ref{eq:omn}) by the
166: numerical method. We prefer instead to construct this function using the inverse amplitude
167: method or the [0,1] Pad{\'e} approximant method for the one loop Chiral Perturbation Theory for the
168: pion form factor and verify that the resulting phases are in agreement with
169: experiments \cite{truong1}. The function
170: $\Omega(s)$ can be parametrised as follows:
171: \begin{equation}
172: \Omega(s) = \frac{1} {1 -s/s_{R} - {1\over
173: 96\pi^2f_\pi^2}\{(s-4m_\pi^2)
174: H_{\pi\pi}({s}) + {2s/3}\}} \label{eq:vu1}
175: \end{equation}
176: where $f_\pi=0.093 GeV$, and $s_{R}$ is related to the $\rho$ mass squared $m_\rho^2$ by
177: requiring that the real part of the denominator of Eq. (\ref{eq:vu1}) vanishes at the $\rho$
178: mass; $H_{\pi\pi}({s})$ is a well-known integral over the phase space factor:
179: \begin{equation}
180: H_{\pi\pi}(s) = (2 - 2\sqrt{1-4m_\pi^2/ s}) \log{\frac{\sqrt{s}+\sqrt{s-4m_\pi^2}}{
181: 2m_\pi}}+i\pi\sqrt{1-4m_\pi^2/s} \label{eq:H}
182: \end{equation}
183: for $ s>4m_\pi^2$; for other values of s, $H_{\pi\pi} (s)$ can be obtained by analytic
184: continuation. $\Omega(s)$ as given by Eq. (\ref{eq:vu1}) has a ghost at a very large negative value
185: of $s$ with a small residue and is irrelevant for our low energy calculation.
186:
187:
188: Although
189: we do not try the best fit to the experimental data on the P-wave
190: $\pi\pi$ phase shifts, an adequate agreement is obtained between theory and experiment as shown in
191: Fig. (1) where $m_\rho=0.775 GeV$.
192:
193: Eq. (\ref{eq:vu1}) can also be obtained by the vector meson dominace model \cite{gounaris} with the
194: strong
195: $\rho\pi\pi$ coupling constant given by the KSRF relation \cite{ksrf}.
196:
197: If it was assumed that there is no polynomial ambiguity
198: $P_n(s)=1$, we would have:
199: \begin{equation}
200: V(s)=\Omega(s) \label{eq:na}
201: \end{equation}
202:
203: Fitting this expression with the physical value of the $\rho$ mass, the pion rms radius calculated
204: by this expression is too low by more than
205: $10\%$ and the maximum value of the form factor squared at the $\rho$ peak (the $\rho$ leptonic
206: width) is too low by
207: $30\%$, Fig.(2). This implies that the assumed elastic unitarity relation is not good enough. One can
208: either rewrite the integral equation taking into account of the inelastic effect which was
209: previously studied \cite{truong2} or to make more subtractions in the integral equation and keeping
210: the elastic unitarity relation, in order to minimize the high energy contribution. We choose first
211: the latter method. (The two-loop inverse amplitude or the [0,2] Pad{\'e} approximant method are
212: given recently and are found to give excellent agreement with the pion form factor data
213: \cite{hannah}).
214:
215:
216: Let us write a twice subtracted dispersion relation, including the inputs as the pion
217: charge and the experimental value of the pion radius. The integral equation now reads:
218: \begin{equation}
219: V(s) =1+ a_1 s
220: +\frac{s^2}{\pi}\int_{4m_\pi^2}^\infty
221: \frac{V(z)e^{-i\delta(z)}\sin\delta(z)dz}{z^2(z-s-i\epsilon)}
222: \label{eq:rms}
223: \end{equation}
224: where $a_1=1/6(<r^2>)$ with $<r^2>$ is the rms squared radius of the pion. The factor $z^2$ in the
225: denominator of the dispersion integral suppresses the high energy contribution.
226:
227: Using the experimental
228: value
229: $<r^2>=0.439\pm.008 fm^2 $ \cite{na7} , the solution of the integral solution is given by Eq.
230: (\ref{eq:sol})
231: and is numerically equal to \cite{truong3, truong4}
232: \begin{equation}
233: V(s)= (1+0.15s/m_\rho^2)\Omega(s) \label{eq:num}
234: \end{equation}
235: The $\rho$ leptonic width and the square of the modulus of the pion form factor are now in agreement
236: with the experimental data, Fig.(2).
237:
238: The other possibility to get agreement with experimental data is to introduce the inelastic
239: effect which could occur at higher energy. The integral equation now reads:
240: \begin{equation}
241: V(s)=1+ \frac{s}{\pi}\int_{4m_\pi^2}^\infty dz
242: \frac{f^*(z)V(z)+\sigma(z)}{z(z-s-i\epsilon)} \label{eq:ine}
243: \end{equation}
244: where $f(s)=(2i)^{-1}(\eta e^{2i\delta(s)}-1)$, $\eta$ is the inelastic factor ($\eta=1$ for
245: elastic $\pi\pi$ scattering) and $\sigma$ is the inelastic spectral function due to the
246: contribution of higher intermediate states in the unitarity relation. The solution of this integral
247: equation is known:
248: \begin{equation}
249: V(s)=\Omega(s)\{1+\frac{s}{\pi}\int_{s_i}^\infty dz
250: \frac{2Re(\sigma(z)e^{i\delta(z)})}{(1+\eta(z))e^{-i\delta(z)}\Omega(z)}\frac{1}{z(z-s-i\epsilon)}\}
251: \label{eq:moin}
252: \end{equation}
253: $s_i$ is the inelastic threshold and for the pion form factor problem one can take it to be
254: around $1-1.3 GeV^2$. In reality, it could be as high as 2 $GeV^2$ in the $\rho{'}$ resonance where
255: the inelastic effect would become important.
256:
257: The dispersion integral in Eq. (\ref{eq:moin}) is seen to be an analytic
258: function with a cut starting at $s_i$ to $\infty$ and hence it can be expressed as a Taylor's
259: series around $s=0$. The radius of convergence of this series is $s_i$. Hence the RHS of Eq.
260: (\ref{eq:moin}) is simply the solution of the MO equation as given by Eq. (\ref{eq:solo}) and the
261: fit to the experimental data is given by Eq. (\ref{eq:num}).
262:
263: For a feel for the inelastic effect, let us see how does the $\rho{'}(1500)$ , which dominantly decays
264: into
265: $4\pi$, influence the pion form factor. The inelastic spectral function can then be approximated by a
266: delta function in the dispersion integral which yields a term proportional to $\Omega(s)$
267: multiplying with the
268: $\rho{'}$ propagator. This assures the validity of the phase theorem below the inelastic threshold
269: and that neither the $\rho{'}$ propagator alone nor a pure contact term can be written. For $s$ in
270: the $\rho$ region, one can expand the $\rho^{'}$ propagator in a series in $s$ and fit to the
271: experimental data to get the desired result Eq. (\ref{eq:num}).
272:
273: Let us now compare our result with models with a contact term \cite{rudaz, schecter} and, in
274: particular, the hidden local symmetry model \cite{bando}. At the tree level, the hidden local
275: symmetry model gives:
276: \begin{equation}
277: V^{HLS}(s) =-\frac{a}{2}+1+\frac{a}{2}\frac{m_\rho^2}{m_\rho^2-s} \label{eq:hs1}
278: \end{equation}
279: which can be rewritten as:
280: \begin{equation}
281: V^{HLS}(s) =\frac{m_\rho^2+s(a/2-1)}{m_\rho^2-s}
282: \label{eq:hs1bis}
283: \end{equation}
284: In order to make the $\rho$ unstable we could try to replace the factor $m_\rho^2/(m_\rho^2-s)$
285: in Eq. (\ref{eq:hs1}) by $\Omega(s)$ leaving the contact term unchanged. This would violate the
286: phase theorem unless the constant term cancels each other to give a net result which is equal to
287: $\Omega(s)$; this solution does not fit with the experimental data as explained above.
288:
289: We should use instead Eq. (\ref{eq:hs1bis}) and interprete it as the limit large
290: $s$,
291: $V^{HLS}\rightarrow (1-a/2)$ (in the limit of zero width). Then the hidden symmetry solution for
292: the vector form factor must contain a polynomial
293: $P_1(s)$ or:
294: \begin{equation}
295: V^{HLS}=(1+\frac{a/2-1}{m_\rho^2}s)\Omega(s) \label{eq:hs2}
296: \end{equation}
297: Compare this equation with Eq. (\ref{eq:num}) we have $a=2.30$. Within the validity of the above
298: interpretation of the contact term, this result is in agreement with that obtained by the authors of
299: the reference \cite{benayoun} who begin with Eq. (\ref{eq:hs1}), then make the $\rho$ unstable. The
300: unitarisation scheme is done with the $N/D$ method for the P-wave $\pi\pi$ scattering.
301:
302: The limit of large value of $s$ of $V^{HLS}$ should be taken with some reservation, because the
303: inelastic effect interpretation of the polynomial ambiguity is only valid for $s<s_i$, Eq.
304: (\ref{eq:moin}) and $s_i$ is experimentally not very large.
305:
306: Another example of the contact term \cite{rudaz,schecter, bando} is discussed in the $\gamma
307: \pi^0 \to \pi^+\pi^-$ process, in
308: particular, the hidden symmetry model \cite{bando}. In the VMD model, the
309: $\gamma\pi^0
310: \rightarrow
311: \pi^+\pi^-$ is written as:
312: \begin{equation}
313: A^{3\pi}(s,t,u) =\frac{\lambda}{3}(\frac{m_\rho^2}{m_\rho^2-s}+\frac{m_\rho^2}{m_\rho^2-t}+
314: \frac{m_\rho^2}{m_\rho^2-u}) \label{eq:3p1}
315: \end{equation}
316: where $s,t,u$ are the standard invariant kinematics. With a contact term it can be written as:
317: \begin{equation}
318: A^{3\pi}(s,t,u)
319: =\frac{\lambda}{3-c}\{\frac{m_\rho^2}{m_\rho^2-s}+\frac{m_\rho^2}{m_\rho^2-t}+
320: \frac{m_\rho^2}{m_\rho^2-u}-c\} \label{eq:3p2}
321: \end{equation}
322: where $c$ is proportional to the strength of the contact term and $\lambda$ is given by the anomaly:
323: \begin{equation}
324: \lambda=\frac{e}{4\pi^2 f_\pi^3}= 9.7 GeV^{-3} \label{eq:anomaly3}
325: \end{equation}
326: Eq. (\ref{eq:3p2}) can be rearranged to give:
327: \begin{equation}
328: A^{3\pi}(s,t,u)
329: =\frac{\lambda}{3}\{[\frac{m_\rho^2}{m_\rho^2-s}(1+\frac{c}{3-c}\frac{s}{m_\rho^2})]+[s\to t] +[s
330: \to u]\}
331: \label{eq:3p3}
332: \end{equation}
333:
334: Eq. (\ref{eq:3p1}) yields a decay width $\Gamma(\rho\to \pi\gamma)=36 KeV$ which is too small
335: compared with the experimental data. Eq. (\ref{eq:3p2}) with $c=1$ yield, on the other hand, a
336: width which is 9/4 times larger and appears to be in better agreement with the data \cite{caparo,
337: huston}.
338:
339: To make the $\rho$ unstable, we could make a
340: substitution
341: $m_\rho^2/(m_\rho^2-s)$ with
342: $\Omega(s)$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:3p1}) and Eq. (\ref{eq:3p2}), then both resulting equations would
343: violate the phase theorem. Following the spirit of the form factor calculation, one could try to
344: make this replacement in Eq. (\ref{eq:3p3}) but the resulting equation still violates the phase
345: theorem when the P-wave amplitude is projected out from the full amplitude. How to get a correct
346: result which satisfies the elastic unitarity relation or the phase theorem
347: \cite{watson}, is a lenghthy problem and will be dealt in a forthcoming publication \cite{truong5}.
348: We would like to point out however the ambiguity of the corresponding integral equation, which is a
349: generalisation of the MO equation, also exists but its nature is more complicated than that given in
350: Eq. (\ref{eq:sol}).
351:
352: We have shown in this note two methods to get agreement with experimental data. The first one
353: consists in making a twice subtractions in the MO integral equation in order to suppress the high
354: energy contribution in the dispersion integral and hence it allow us to use the approximation of the
355: elastic unitarity for the pion form factor. The second method is to take into account of the
356: inelastic effect which, around the $\rho$ region, can be simulated as the polynomial ambiguity of
357: the solution of the MO equation. In both methods, the extra parameter is determined by the (low
358: energy) rms radius of the pion and hence we can only calculate the $\rho$ leptonic width and
359: also its total width Eq. (\ref{eq:vu1}). (It should be noticed that the rms pion radius can be
360: calculated by a rapidly converging sum rule in terms of the magnitude of the pion form factor factor
361: and the P-wave $\pi\pi$ phase shifts using Eq. (\ref{eq:der}) with $n=1$ \cite{truong4}).
362:
363: Within the frame work of dispersion relation and unitarity which gives rise to the MO equation,
364: there is no room for a constant contact term. Its existence could, however, be introduced as a large
365: energy behavior of the form factor or some higher energy inelastic effect as explained in this
366: note.
367:
368: This work is completed at the Institute for Nuclear and Particle Studies at the KEK High Energy
369: Accelerator Research Organization. The author would like to thank Professors M. Kobayashi
370: and H. Sugawara for hospitality.
371:
372:
373:
374:
375:
376:
377:
378:
379:
380: \newpage
381: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
382: \bibitem{rudaz} S. Rudaz, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 10}, 3857 (1974); Phys. Lett. {\bf 145B}, 281 (1984).
383: \bibitem{schecter} O. Kaymakcalan, S. Rajeev and J. Schecter, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 30}, 594 (1984).
384: \bibitem{bando}
385: M. Bando, T. Kugo and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rep.{\bf 164}, 217 (1988).
386: \bibitem{benayoun} M. Benayoun, S. Eidelman, K. Maltman, H. B. O'Connell, B. Schwartz and A. G.
387: Williams, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C2}, 269 (1998).
388: \bibitem{omnes} N. I. Muskhelishvili, {\it Singular Integral Equations}, (Noordhoff, Groningen,
389: 1953); R. Omn{\`e}s, Nuovo Cimento {\bf 8}, 316 (1958).
390: \bibitem{watson} K. M. Watson, Phys. Rev. {\bf 95}, 228 (1955).
391: \bibitem{truong1} T. N. Truong, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 61}, 2526 (1988).
392: \bibitem{hannah} T. Hannah, Phys. Rev. {\bf D55}, 5613 (1997). Ph. D thesis, Aarhus
393: University (1998).
394: \bibitem{gounaris} G. J. Gounaris and J. J. Sakurai, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 21}
395: 24 (1968).
396: \bibitem{ksrf} K. Kawarabayashi and M. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 16}, 255 (1966);
397: Riazuddin and Fayyazuddin, Phys. Rev. {\bf 147}, 1071 (1966).
398: \bibitem{truong2} T. N. Pham and T. N. Truong, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 16}, 896 (1977).
399: \bibitem{truong3} Le viet Dung and T. N. Truong, Report No hep-ph/9607378.
400: \bibitem{barkov} L. M. Barkov \emph{et al.} Nucl. Phys. {\bf B256}, 365 (1985).
401: \bibitem{aleph} ALEPH Collaboration, R. Barate \emph{et al.}, Z. Phys. C {\bf 76}, 15
402: (1997).
403: \bibitem{proto} S. D. Protopopescu \emph {et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 7}, 1279 (1973).
404: \bibitem{hyams} B. Hyams \emph{et al.} Nucl. Phys. {\bf B64}, 134 (1973).
405: \bibitem{martin} P. Eastabrooks and A. D. Martin, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B79}, 301 (1974).
406: \bibitem{na7} NA7 Collaboration, S. R. Amendolia \emph{et al.}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B277}, 168
407: (1986).
408: \bibitem{caparo} L. Caparo \emph{et al.} Nucl. Phys. B {\bf288} 659 (1987).
409: \bibitem{huston} J. Huston \emph{et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf33} 3199 (1986); T. Jensen \emph{et al.},
410: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 27} 26 (1983).
411: \bibitem{truong5} T. N. Truong (under preparation).
412: \bibitem{truong4} T. N. Truong, preprint (hep-ph/0001271).
413: \end{thebibliography}
414:
415: \newpage
416:
417: {\bf Figure Captions}
418:
419: Fig.1~: The phases of the function $\Omega(s)$ or $V(s)$ in degrees are given as a function of
420: $s(GeV^2)$. The experimental data are taken from references \cite{proto, hyams, martin}.
421:
422:
423: Fig.2~:The square of the modulus of the function $\Omega(s)$ is given as a function of $s$ in
424: $GeV^2$ (dashed line). The square of the modulus of the pion form factor $V(s)$ as given by Eq.
425: (\ref{eq:num}) (solid line). Experimental data are taken from references \cite{barkov, aleph}.
426:
427: \newpage
428: \begin{figure}
429: \epsfbox{pff1.ps}
430: \caption{}
431: \label{Fig.1}
432: \end{figure}
433:
434: \begin{figure}
435: \epsfbox{pff2.ps}
436: \caption{}
437: \label{Fig.2}
438:
439: \end{figure}
440:
441:
442:
443:
444:
445: \end{document}
446:
447:
448:
449:
450:
451:
452:
453:
454:
455:
456:
457:
458:
459:
460:
461:
462:
463:
464:
465:
466:
467:
468:
469:
470:
471:
472:
473:
474: