1:
2: %------------------------------------
3: % MACROS
4: %------------------------------------
5: %this is pmt20.sty, version August 1998.
6: %by F. J. Yndur\'ain
7: %Universidad Aut\'onoma de Madrid,
8: %Canto Blanco, 28049-Madrid.
9: %e-mail: fjy@delta.ft.uam.es
10: %comments welcome.
11:
12: %---------------------------------------
13: \font\ital=cmti10 %text italic
14:
15: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
16: %Fonts for authors, in references
17:
18: \font\mayusc=cmcsc10 %caps and small caps
19: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
20:
21:
22: %----------------------------------------------------------
23: %Springer \tens, \bvec, \petit fonts.
24:
25: \font \ninebf = cmbx9
26: \font \ninei = cmmi9
27: \font \nineit = cmti9
28: \font \ninerm = cmr9
29: \font \ninesans = cmss10 at 9pt
30: \font \ninesl = cmsl9
31: \font \ninesy = cmsy9
32: \font \ninett = cmtt9
33: \font \fivesans = cmss10 at 5pt
34: \font \sevensans = cmss10 at 7pt
35: \font \sixbf = cmbx6
36: \font \sixi = cmmi6
37: \font \sixrm = cmr6
38: \font \sixsans = cmss10 at 6pt
39: \font \sixsy = cmsy6
40: \font \tams = cmmib10
41: \font \tamss = cmmib10 scaled 700
42: \font \tensans = cmss10
43:
44: %---------------------------------------------------------------
45: % petit-fonts
46: \skewchar\ninei='177 \skewchar\sixi='177
47: \skewchar\ninesy='60 \skewchar\sixsy='60
48: \hyphenchar\ninett=-1
49: \def\newline{\hfil\break}%
50: %-----------------------------------------------------------
51: \catcode`@=11
52: \def\folio{\ifnum\pageno<\z@
53: \uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral-\pageno}%
54: \else\number\pageno \fi}
55: \catcode`@=12 % at signs are no longer letters
56:
57:
58: %--------------------------------------------------------
59: \newfam\sansfam
60: \textfont\sansfam=\tensans\scriptfont\sansfam=\sevensans
61: \scriptscriptfont\sansfam=\fivesans
62: \def\sans{\fam\sansfam\tensans}
63: %-----------------------------------------------------------
64:
65:
66: %-----------------------------------------------------------
67:
68:
69: \def\petit{\def\rm{\fam0\ninerm}%
70: \textfont0=\ninerm \scriptfont0=
71: \sixrm \scriptscriptfont0=\fiverm
72: \textfont1=\ninei \scriptfont1=
73: \sixi \scriptscriptfont1=\fivei
74: \textfont2=\ninesy \scriptfont2=
75: \sixsy \scriptscriptfont2=\fivesy
76: \def\it{\fam\itfam\nineit}%
77: \textfont\itfam=\nineit
78: \def\sl{\fam\slfam\ninesl}%
79: \textfont\slfam=\ninesl
80: \def\bf{\fam\bffam\ninebf}%
81: \textfont\bffam=\ninebf \scriptfont\bffam=\sixbf
82: \scriptscriptfont\bffam=\fivebf
83: \def\sans{\fam\sansfam\ninesans}%
84: \textfont\sansfam=\ninesans \scriptfont\sansfam=\sixsans
85: \scriptscriptfont\sansfam=\fivesans
86: \def\tt{\fam\ttfam\ninett}%
87: \textfont\ttfam=\ninett
88: \normalbaselineskip=11pt
89: \setbox\strutbox=\hbox{\vrule height7pt depth2pt width0pt}%
90: \normalbaselines\rm
91:
92: %------------------------------------------------------
93:
94: \def\bvec##1{{\textfont1=\tbms\scriptfont1=\tbmss
95: \textfont0=\ninebf\scriptfont0=\sixbf
96: \mathchoice{\hbox{$\displaystyle##1$}}{\hbox{$\textstyle##1$}}
97: {\hbox{$\scriptstyle##1$}}{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle##1$}}}}}
98:
99: %-----------------------------------------------------------
100:
101:
102: \def\real{\mathop{\rm Re}}
103: \def\imag{\mathop{\rm Im}}
104:
105: %-----------------------------------
106: .
107:
108: \mathchardef\gammav="0100
109: \mathchardef\deltav="0101
110: \mathchardef\thetav="0102
111: \mathchardef\lambdav="0103
112: \mathchardef\xiv="0104
113: \mathchardef\piv="0105
114: \mathchardef\sigmav="0106
115: \mathchardef\upsilonv="0107
116: \mathchardef\phiv="0108
117: \mathchardef\psiv="0109
118: \mathchardef\omegav="010A
119:
120: %"versal", or slanted upper case greek characters
121:
122: %--------------------------------
123: %The same characters are obtained with the following definitions:
124: \mathchardef\Gammav="0100
125: \mathchardef\Deltav="0101
126: \mathchardef\Thetav="0102
127: \mathchardef\Lambdav="0103
128: \mathchardef\Xiv="0104
129: \mathchardef\Piv="0105
130: \mathchardef\Sigmav="0106
131: \mathchardef\Upsilonv="0107
132: \mathchardef\Phiv="0108
133: \mathchardef\Psiv="0109
134: \mathchardef\Omegav="010A
135:
136: %"versal", or slanted upper case greek characters
137:
138: %---------------------------------------
139:
140: \font\grbfivefm=cmbx5
141: \font\grbsevenfm=cmbx7
142: \font\grbtenfm=cmbx10 %for the greek bf family
143: \newfam\grbfam
144: \textfont\grbfam=\grbtenfm
145: \scriptfont\grbfam=\grbsevenfm
146: \scriptscriptfont\grbfam=\grbfivefm
147:
148: \def\gbf#1{{\fam\grbfam\relax#1}}
149:
150: \font\calbfivefm=cmbsy10 at 5pt
151: \font\calbsevenfm=cmbsy10 at 7pt
152: \font\calbtenfm=cmbsy10 %for the cal bf family
153: \newfam\calbfam
154: \textfont\calbfam=\calbtenfm
155: \scriptfont\calbfam=\calbsevenfm
156: \scriptscriptfont\calbfam=\calbfivefm
157:
158: \def\calbf#1{{\fam\calbfam\relax#1}}
159:
160: %boldface for upper case upright greek characters (\grbf)
161: % and upper case \cal characters (\calbf)
162:
163: %-----------------------------------
164:
165:
166:
167: \def\bvec#1{{\textfont1=\tams\scriptfont1=\tamss
168: \textfont0=\tenbf\scriptfont0=\sevenbf
169: \mathchoice{\hbox{$\displaystyle#1$}}{\hbox{$\textstyle#1$}}
170: {\hbox{$\scriptstyle#1$}}{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle#1$}}}}
171:
172: %boldface for slanted latin and slanted greek characters. The
173: %notation \rvec, reserved for arrow over character; see below
174: %------------------------------------
175:
176: %-----------------------------------------------------------
177: \def\ybf#1{\mathchoice
178: {\pmbf{${\displaystyle#1}$}}
179: {\pmbf{${\displaystyle#1}$}}{\pmbf{${\scriptstyle#1}$}}
180: { \pmbf{${\scriptscriptstyle#1}$}}}
181: \def\pmbf#1{\leavevmode\setbox0=\hbox{#1}%
182: \kern-.02em\copy0\kern-\wd0
183: \kern.04em\copy0\kern-\wd0
184: \kern-.02em\copy0\kern-\wd0
185: \kern-.03em\copy0\kern-\wd0
186: \kern.06em\box0 }
187:
188: %"poor man" boldfaces, with automatic math scaling.
189:
190: %--------------------------------------------------
191: %TEXT MACROS
192: %---------------------------------------------------------
193: %time display with command \timestamp
194:
195: \def\monthname{%
196: \ifcase\month
197: \or Jan\or Feb\or Mar\or Apr\or May\or Jun%
198: \or Jul\or Aug\or Sep\or Oct\or Nov\or Dec%
199: \fi
200: }%
201: \def\timestring{\begingroup
202: \count0 = \time
203: \divide\count0 by 60
204: \count2 = \count0 % The hour, from zero to 23.
205: \count4 = \time
206: \multiply\count0 by 60
207: \advance\count4 by -\count0 % The minute, from zero to 59.
208: \ifnum\count4<10
209: \toks1 = {0}%
210: \else
211: \toks1 = {}%
212: \fi
213: \ifnum\count2<12
214: \toks0 = {a.m.}%
215: \else
216: \toks0 = {p.m.}%
217: \advance\count2 by -12
218: \fi
219: \ifnum\count2=0
220: \count2 = 12
221: \fi
222: \number\count2:\the\toks1 \number\count4 \thinspace \the\toks0
223: \endgroup}%
224:
225: \def\timestamp{\number\day\space
226: \monthname\space\number\year\quad\timestring}%
227: \newskip\abovelistskip \abovelistskip = .5\baselineskip
228: \newskip\interitemskip \interitemskip = 0pt
229: \newskip\belowlistskip \belowlistskip = .5\baselineskip
230: \newdimen\listleftindent \listleftindent = 0pt
231: \newdimen\listrightindent \listrightindent = 0pt
232:
233: \def\datestamp{\number\day\space\monthname\space\number\year}%
234: \def\ustimestamp{\monthname\space\number\day,
235: \space\number\year\quad\timestring}
236: \def\usdatestamp{\monthname\space\number\day,
237: \space\number\year}
238:
239: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------
240:
241: \def\petit{\def\rm{\fam0\ninerm}%
242: \textfont0=\ninerm \scriptfont0=\sixrm \scriptscriptfont0=\fiverm
243: \textfont1=\ninei \scriptfont1=\sixi \scriptscriptfont1=\fivei
244: \textfont2=\ninesy \scriptfont2=\sixsy \scriptscriptfont2=\fivesy
245: \def\it{\fam\itfam\nineit}%
246: \textfont\itfam=\nineit
247: \def\sl{\fam\slfam\ninesl}%
248: \textfont\slfam=\ninesl
249: \def\bf{\fam\bffam\ninebf}%
250: \textfont\bffam=\ninebf \scriptfont\bffam=\sixbf
251: \scriptscriptfont\bffam=\fivebf
252: \def\sans{\fam\sansfam\ninesans}%
253: \textfont\sansfam=\ninesans \scriptfont\sansfam=\sixsans
254: \scriptscriptfont\sansfam=\fivesans
255: \def\tt{\fam\ttfam\ninett}%
256: \textfont\ttfam=\ninett
257: \normalbaselineskip=11pt
258: \setbox\strutbox=\hbox{\vrule height7pt depth2pt width0pt}%
259: \normalbaselines\rm
260: \def\vec##1{{\textfont1=\tbms\scriptfont1=\tbmss
261: \textfont0=\ninebf\scriptfont0=\sixbf
262: \mathchoice{\hbox{$\displaystyle##1$}}{\hbox{$\textstyle##1$}}
263: {\hbox{$\scriptstyle##1$}}{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle##1$}}}}}
264: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
265: % footnotes macros:
266:
267: \let\ts=\thinspace
268: \def\footnoterule{\kern-3pt\hrule width 2cm\kern2.6pt}
269: \newdimen\oldparindent\oldparindent=1.5em
270: \parindent=1.5em
271:
272: \newcount\footcount \footcount=0
273: \def\advftncnt{\advance\footcount by1\global\footcount=\footcount}
274: % automatically numbered footnotes, in petit
275: \def\fnote#1{\advftncnt$^{\the\footcount}$\begingroup\petit
276: \parfillskip=0pt plus 1fil
277: \def\textindent##1{\hangindent0.5\oldparindent\noindent\hbox
278: to0.5\oldparindent{##1\hss}\ignorespaces}%
279: \vfootnote{$^{\the\footcount}$}
280: {#1\nullbox{0mm}{2mm}{0mm}\vskip-9.69pt}\endgroup}
281: %-------------------------------------------------------------------
282:
283:
284: %-------------------------------------------------------------------
285:
286: \def\item#1{\par\noindent
287: \hangindent6.5 mm\hangafter=0
288: \llap{#1\enspace}\ignorespaces}
289: %-------------------------------------------------------------------
290: \def\itemitem#1{\par\noindent
291: \hangindent11.5 mm\hangafter=0
292: \llap{#1\enspace}\ignorespaces}
293: %note the difference with the TeXtbook \item, \itemitem, p. 355
294: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
295: \def\leaderfill{\kern0.5em\leaders
296: \hbox to 0.5em{\hss.\hss}\hfill\kern
297: 0.5em}
298: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
299: \def\hb{\hfill\break}
300: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
301:
302: \def\tdots{$\,\ldots\,$}
303: %dots in text
304: \def\centerrule#1{\centerline{\kern#1\hrulefill\kern#1}}
305: %a rule centered, with margins equal to #1
306:
307: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
308: %boxing it:
309:
310: \def\boxit#1{\vbox{\hrule\hbox{\vrule\kern3pt
311: \vbox{\kern3pt#1\kern3pt}\kern3pt\vrule}\hrule}}
312: %puts a box around it
313:
314: \def\tightboxit#1{\vbox{\hrule\hbox{\vrule
315: \vbox{#1}\vrule}\hrule}}
316: %puts a tight box around it
317:
318: \def\looseboxit#1{\vbox{\hrule\hbox{\vrule\kern5pt
319: \vbox{\kern5pt#1\kern5pt}\kern5pt\vrule}\hrule}}
320: %puts a loose box around it
321:
322: \def\youboxit#1#2{\vbox{\hrule\hbox{\vrule\kern#2
323: \vbox{\kern#2#1\kern#2}\kern#2\vrule}\hrule}}
324: %puts a box around #1 with margins specified by #2
325:
326: %equation in a box:
327:
328:
329:
330:
331:
332: %----------------------------------------------------------
333:
334: %various boxes, and tiles:
335:
336: \def\blacktile#1#2#3{\vrule height#1 depth#2 width#3}
337:
338: \def\nulltile#1#2#3{\setbox0=\null
339: \ht0=#1 \dp0=#2\wd0=#3\box0}
340:
341: \def\whitetile#1#2#3{\setbox0=\null
342: \ht0=#1 \dp0=#2\wd0=#3 \setbox1=
343: \hbox{\tightboxit{\box0}}\lower#2\box1}
344:
345: %\nulltile is identical to \nullbox as described in
346: % the \TeX book, p. 82 (cf. also p.312):
347: \def\nullbox#1#2#3{\setbox0=\null
348: \ht0=#1 \dp0=#2\wd0=#3\box0}
349:
350: %---------------------------------------------------------------
351:
352: %-------------------------------------------------------------------
353:
354: %common abreviations
355:
356: \def\fig{\leavevmode Fig.}
357: \def\figs{\leavevmode Figs.}
358: \def\equ{\leavevmode Eq.}
359: \def\eqs{\leavevmode Eqs.}
360: \def\equs{\leavevmode Eqs.}
361: \def\sect{\leavevmode Sect.}
362: \def\subsect{\leavevmode Subsect.}
363: \def\subsects{\leavevmode Subsects.}
364: \def\sects{\leavevmode Sects.}
365: \def\chap{\leavevmode Ch.}
366:
367: %numbered:
368: \def\equn#1{\ifmmode \eqno{\rm #1}\else \equ~#1\fi}
369: \def\sectn#1{\sect~#1}
370: \def\subsectn#1{\subsect~#1}
371: \def\chapn#1{\chap~#1}
372: %-------------------------------------------------------------
373:
374: %-------------------------------------------------------------------
375:
376: \def\tev{\ifmmode \mathop{\rm TeV}\nolimits\else {\rm TeV}\fi}
377: \def\gev{\ifmmode \mathop{\rm GeV}\nolimits\else {\rm GeV}\fi}
378: \def\mev{\ifmmode \mathop{\rm MeV}\nolimits\else {\rm MeV}\fi}
379: \def\kev{\ifmmode \mathop{\rm keV}\nolimits\else {\rm keV}\fi}
380: \def\ev{\ifmmode \mathop{\rm eV}\nolimits\else {\rm eV}\fi}
381:
382:
383: \def\chidof{\ifmmode
384: \mathop\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}\else $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}\null$\fi}
385:
386: \def\msbar{\ifmmode
387: \mathop{\overline{\rm MS}}\else$\overline{\rm MS}$\null\fi}
388:
389: %------------------------------------------------------------
390:
391: \def\physmatex{P\kern-.14em\lower.5ex\hbox{\sevenrm H}ys
392: \kern -.35em \raise .6ex \hbox{{\sevenrm M}a}\kern -.15em
393: T\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX\null}%
394:
395:
396: %----------------------------------------------------------------
397: \def\ref#1{$^{[#1]}$\relax}
398: %references, in square brackets
399: %------------------------------------------------------------------
400: %Journals
401:
402:
403: \def\ajnyp#1#2#3#4#5{
404: \frenchspacing{\mayusc #1}, {\sl#2}, {\bf #3} ({#4}) {#5}}
405: \def\prajnyp#1#2#3#4#5{
406: \frenchspacing{\mayusc #1}, {\sl#2}, {\bf #3}, {#5} {(#4)}}
407:
408:
409:
410: %-------------------------------------------------------------
411: % MATHEMATICAL MACROS
412:
413:
414: \def\rvec{\mathaccent "717E}
415: %(vector) arrow over character.
416:
417:
418: \def\stackrel#1#2{\buildrel{#1}\over{#2}}
419: %allows stacking of 2 over 1.
420:
421: \def\eqsub{\mathop{=}\limits}
422: %this allows to write under or above, the equality sign,
423: % with an underscore (_) order.
424:
425: \def\simeqsub{\mathop{\simeq}\limits}
426: %the same with the "simeq" sign.
427:
428: \def\congsub{\mathop{\cong}\limits}
429: %the same with the "congruent" sign.
430:
431:
432: \def\rightarrowsub{\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits}
433: %the same under or above an arrow.
434:
435: \def\equivsub{\mathop{\equiv}\limits}
436: %the same with an identity sign
437:
438: \def\simsub{\mathop{\sim}\limits}
439: %the same under, or above a similarity sign.
440:
441: \def\approxsub{\mathop{\approx}\limits}
442: %the same under, or above an approx sign.
443:
444: %-----------------------------------------------------------
445:
446: %---------------------------------------------
447:
448: %-----------------------------------------------------------------
449: \def\ddal{\mathop{\vrule height 7pt depth0.2pt
450: \hbox{\vrule height 0.5pt depth0.2pt width 6.2pt}
451: \vrule height 7pt depth0.2pt width0.8pt
452: \kern-7.4pt\hbox{\vrule height 7pt depth-6.7pt width 7.pt}}}
453: \def\sdal{\mathop{\kern0.1pt\vrule height 4.9pt depth0.15pt
454: \hbox{\vrule height 0.3pt depth0.15pt width 4.6pt}
455: \vrule height 4.9pt depth0.15pt width0.7pt
456: \kern-5.7pt\hbox{\vrule height 4.9pt depth-4.7pt width 5.3pt}}}
457: \def\ssdal{\mathop{\kern0.1pt\vrule height 3.8pt depth0.1pt width0.2pt
458: \hbox{\vrule height 0.3pt depth0.1pt width 3.6pt}
459: \vrule height 3.8pt depth0.1pt width0.5pt
460: \kern-4.4pt\hbox{\vrule height 4pt depth-3.9pt width 4.2pt}}}
461:
462: \def\dal{\mathchoice{\ddal}{\ddal}{\sdal}{\ssdal}}
463:
464: %this produces the d'Alembertian operator,
465: % with correct display, script and scriptscript sizes
466:
467: %--------------------------------------
468:
469: %------------------------------------
470:
471:
472: \mathchardef\lap='0001
473: %this produces the Laplacian (upright uppercase Delta)
474:
475: %-------------------------------------------
476:
477:
478:
479: \def\lsim{\mathop{\setbox0=\hbox{$\displaystyle
480: \raise2.2pt\hbox{$\;<$}\kern-7.7pt\lower2.6pt\hbox{$\sim$}\;$}
481: \box0}}
482: \def\gsim{\mathop{\setbox0=\hbox{$\displaystyle
483: \raise2.2pt\hbox{$\;>$}\kern-7.7pt\lower2.6pt\hbox{$\sim$}\;$}
484: \box0}}
485: %these two represent, respectively,
486: % "less than, or sim", and "biger than, or sim".
487: %to write under these signs,
488: % use the following commands, with #1 whatever goes under.
489:
490: \def\gsimsub#1{\mathord{\vtop to0pt{\ialign{##\crcr
491: $\hfil{{\mathop{\setbox0=\hbox{$\displaystyle
492: \raise2.2pt\hbox{$\;>$}\kern-7.7pt\lower2.6pt\hbox{$\sim$}\;$}
493: \box0}}}\hfil$\crcr\noalign{\kern1.5pt\nointerlineskip}
494: $\hfil\scriptstyle{#1}{}\kern1.5pt\hfil$\crcr}\vss}}}
495:
496: \def\lsimsub#1{\mathord{\vtop to0pt{\ialign{##\crcr
497: $\hfil\displaystyle{\mathop{\setbox0=\hbox{$\displaystyle
498: \raise2.2pt\hbox{$\;<$}\kern-7.7pt\lower2.6pt\hbox{$\sim$}\;$}
499: \box0}}
500: \def\gsim{\mathop{\setbox0=\hbox{$\displaystyle
501: \raise2.2pt\hbox{$\;>$}\kern-7.7pt\lower2.6pt\hbox{$\sim$}\;$}
502: \box0}}\hfil$\crcr\noalign{\kern1.5pt\nointerlineskip}
503: $\hfil\scriptstyle{#1}{}\kern1.5pt\hfil$\crcr}\vss}}}
504: %---------------------------------------------------------------
505:
506:
507:
508: \def\ii{{\rm i}}
509: \def\dd{{\rm d}}
510: %i, d for sqrt(-1) and differential
511:
512: \def\ee{{\rm e}}
513: \def\gammae{\gamma_{\rm E}}
514: %the number e, and Euler's gamma
515:
516:
517:
518: \def\trace{\mathop{\rm Tr}}
519: %trace
520:
521: %----------------------------------------------------------------
522: \def\blacksquare{\hbox{\vrule height1ex width.8ex depth-.2ex}}
523: %square black box
524: %------------------------------------------------------------
525:
526: \def\frac#1#2{{#1\over#2}}
527: \def\dfrac#1#2{{\displaystyle{#1\over#2}}}
528: \def\tfrac#1#2{{\textstyle{#1\over#2}}}
529: \def\ffrac#1#2{\leavevmode
530: \kern.1em \raise .5ex \hbox{\the\scriptfont0 #1}%
531: \kern-.1em $/$%
532: \kern-.15em \lower .25ex \hbox{\the\scriptfont0 #2}%
533: }%
534: %various forms of fractions
535: %-------------------------------
536:
537:
538: %----------------------------------------------------
539: %SOME CONVENIENT, SIMPLE FORMATS FOR BOOKS, BROCHURES AND PREPRINTS
540: %----------------------------------------------------
541:
542: % brochure/preprint with two-sided printing
543: %--------------
544: % numbering of pages at the bottom, centered:
545:
546: \def\brochureb#1#2#3{\pageno#3
547: \headline={\ifodd\pageno{\rheadline}
548: \else\lheadline\fi}
549: \def\rheadline{\hfil -{#2}-\hfil}
550: \def\lheadline{\hfil-{#1}-\hfil}
551: \footline={\hss -- \number\pageno\ --\hss}
552: \voffset=2\baselineskip}
553:
554:
555:
556: %------------------------------------
557: \def\nada{\phantom{M}\kern-1em}
558: \def\brochureendcover#1{\vfill\eject\pageno=1{\nada#1}\vfill\eject}
559:
560: %write this after the cover page of a brochure,
561: % or preprint, for TWO SIDED printing
562: %omit for ONE SIDED PRINTING
563:
564:
565: %to end a brochure/paper with an even-numbered page.
566: %if using \brochureendcover:
567:
568: \def\brochureend{
569: \ifeven\pageno\vfill\eject\else\vfill\eject\null\vfill\eject \fi}
570:
571: %if not using \endbrochurecover: write \bookendchapter
572:
573: %------------------------------------------
574: %-----------------------------------------
575: %For book chapters.
576: % numbering at bottom (leading page not numbered):
577:
578: \def\chapterb#1#2#3{\pageno#3
579: \headline={\ifodd\pageno{\ifnum\pageno=#3\hfil\else\rheadline\fi}
580: \else\lheadline\fi}
581: \def\rheadline{\hfil -{#2}-\hfil}
582: \def\lheadline{\hfil-{#1}-\hfil}
583: \footline={\hss -- \number\pageno\ --\hss}
584: \voffset=2\baselineskip}
585:
586:
587: %numbering at top (leading page not numbered)
588:
589:
590: %-------------------------------------------------------
591: \def\bookendchapter{\ifodd\pageno
592: \vfill\eject\footline={\hfill}\headline={\hfill}\null \vfill\eject
593: \else\vfill\eject \fi}
594: %at the end of the chapter, to finish with an even-numbered page.
595:
596: \def\obookendchapter{\ifodd\pageno\vfill\eject
597: \else\vfill\eject\null \vfill\eject\fi}
598: %at the end of the chapter, to finish with an odd-numbered page.
599:
600: %-------------------------------------
601: %---------------------------------------
602: % For books:
603: \def\booktitle#1{\center
604: \titlbf #1}
605:
606: \def\bookchapter#1{\setbox0=\vbox{
607: \hsize=0.65\hsize\raggedright\tolerance=600\hfuzz=6mm\noindent
608: \noindent{\bigfib #1}}
609: \bigskip
610: \box0
611: \vskip1.7cm
612: \nobreak}
613: %------------------------------------------------------------
614: \def\booksection#1{
615: \setbox0=\vbox{\hsize=0.85\hsize\tolerance=500\raggedright\hfuzz=6mm
616: \noindent{\medfib #1}\medskip}\goodbreak\vskip0.6cm\box0
617: \nobreak
618: \noindent}
619: \def\booksubsection#1{
620: \setbox0=\vbox{\hsize=0.85\hsize\tolerance=400\raggedright\hfuzz=4mm
621: \noindent{\fib #1}\smallskip}\goodbreak\vskip0.45cm\box0
622: \nobreak
623: \noindent}
624: %--------------------------------------------------
625:
626: %--------------------------------------------------
627: % For brochures/papers:
628: \def\brochuretitle#1{\center
629: \twelverm #1}
630:
631:
632: \def\brochurechapter#1{\setbox0=\vbox{
633: \hsize=0.65\hsize\tolerance=600\raggedright\hfuzz=6mm
634: \noindent{\medfib #1}\bigskip}\goodbreak\bigskip\box0\bigskip
635: \nobreak
636: \noindent}
637:
638: \def\brochuresection#1{\booksection{#1}}
639: \def\brochuresubsection#1{\booksubsection{#1}}
640:
641:
642:
643: %--------------------------------------------
644:
645:
646: %---------------------------------------------------
647: % figure captions
648: \def\figura#1#2{\petit{\noindent\fib#1}\ #2}
649: \def\figurasc#1#2{\petit{\noindent\sc#1}\ #2}
650: %---------------------------------------------------
651:
652: %captiontype
653: \def\captiontype{\tolerance=800\hfuzz=1mm\raggedright\noindent}
654:
655: %-----------------------------------------------------
656:
657: %abstracttype INCLUDES size of box (valid also for table of contents),
658: %AND specification of \petit font.
659:
660: \def\abstracttype#1{
661: \hsize0.7\hsize\tolerance=800\hfuzz=0.5mm \noindent{\fib #1}\par
662: \medskip\petit}
663:
664: %--------------------------------------------------
665:
666: %------------------------------------------------------
667: \def\hb{\hfill\break}
668:
669: %FONTS
670:
671: \font\titlbf=cmbx12 at 17pt
672: \font\twelverm=cmr12 %for titles
673: %for titles
674: %-------------------------------
675: \font\citas=cmss8 %for reference in quotations; for running head
676: \font\citassl=cmssi8 %for text in quotations
677: \font\smallsc=cmcsc10 at 9pt %small caps
678: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
679: \font\fib=cmfib8
680: \font\medfib=cmfib8 at 9pt
681: \font\bigfib=cmfib8 at 12pt
682:
683: %for sections and chapter headings
684: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
685: %Fonts for authors, in references
686:
687: \font\sc=cmcsc10 %caps and small caps
688: %--------------------------------------------------------
689:
690: \font\addressfont=cmbxti10 at 9pt%for (professional) address
691:
692:
693: \font\ital=cmti10 %text italic
694:
695:
696: %----------------------------------------------------------------
697: \catcode`@=11 % borrow the private macros of PLAIN (with care)
698:
699: %
700: \newdimen\pagewidth \newdimen\pageheight \newdimen\ruleht
701: \maxdepth=2.2pt \parindent=3pc
702: \pagewidth=\hsize \pageheight=\vsize \ruleht=.4pt
703: \abovedisplayskip=6pt plus 3pt minus 1pt
704: \belowdisplayskip=6pt plus 3pt minus 1pt
705: \abovedisplayshortskip=0pt plus 3pt
706: \belowdisplayshortskip=4pt plus 3pt
707:
708:
709:
710:
711: \newinsert\margin
712: \dimen\margin=\maxdimen
713: %\count\margin=0 \skip\margin=0pt % marginal inserts take up no space
714:
715:
716: %----------------------------------------------------------
717:
718: %margins:\topmargin= ,\bottommargin= ,\leftmargin= ,\rightmargin=
719: %\advancetopmargin= ,\advancebottommargin= ,etc
720:
721: %%Care should be exercised in putting these instructions
722: % AFTER any \magnification!
723:
724: \newdimen\paperheight \paperheight = \vsize
725: \def\topmargin{\afterassignment\@finishtopmargin \dimen0}%
726: \def\@finishtopmargin{%
727: \dimen2 = \voffset % Remember the old \voffset.
728: \voffset = \dimen0 \advance\voffset by -1in
729: \advance\dimen2 by -\voffset % Compute the change in \voffset.
730: \advance\vsize by \dimen2 % Change type area accordingly.
731: }%
732: \def\advancetopmargin{%
733: \dimen0 = 0pt \afterassignment\@finishadvancetopmargin \advance\dimen0
734: }%
735: \def\@finishadvancetopmargin{%
736: \advance\voffset by \dimen0
737: \advance\vsize by -\dimen0
738: }%
739: \def\bottommargin{\afterassignment\@finishbottommargin \dimen0}%
740: \def\@finishbottommargin{%
741: \@computebottommargin % Result in \dimen2.
742: \advance\dimen2 by -\dimen0 % Compute the change in the bottom margin.
743: \advance\vsize by \dimen2 % Change the type area.
744: }%
745: \def\advancebottommargin{%
746: \dimen0 = 0pt\afterassignment\@finishadvancebottommargin \advance\dimen0
747: }%
748: \def\@finishadvancebottommargin{%
749: \advance\vsize by -\dimen0
750: }%
751: \def\@computebottommargin{%
752: \dimen2 = \paperheight % The total paper size.
753: \advance\dimen2 by -\vsize % Less the text size.
754: \advance\dimen2 by -\voffset % Less the offset at the top.
755: \advance\dimen2 by -1in % Less the default offset.
756: }%
757: \newdimen\paperwidth \paperwidth = \hsize
758: \def\leftmargin{\afterassignment\@finishleftmargin \dimen0}%
759: \def\@finishleftmargin{%
760: \dimen2 = \hoffset % Remember the old \hoffset.
761: \hoffset = \dimen0 \advance\hoffset by -1in
762: \advance\dimen2 by -\hoffset % Compute the change in \hoffset.
763: \advance\hsize by \dimen2 % Change type area accordingly.
764: }%
765: \def\advanceleftmargin{%
766: \dimen0 = 0pt \afterassignment\@finishadvanceleftmargin \advance\dimen0
767: }%
768: \def\@finishadvanceleftmargin{%
769: \advance\hoffset by \dimen0
770: \advance\hsize by -\dimen0
771: }%
772: \def\rightmargin{\afterassignment\@finishrightmargin \dimen0}%
773: \def\@finishrightmargin{%
774: \@computerightmargin % Result in \dimen2.
775: \advance\dimen2 by -\dimen0 % Compute the change in the right margin.
776: \advance\hsize by \dimen2 % Change the type area.
777: }%
778: \def\advancerightmargin{%
779: \dimen0 = 0pt \afterassignment\@finishadvancerightmargin \advance\dimen0
780: }%
781: \def\@finishadvancerightmargin{%
782: \advance\hsize by -\dimen0
783: }%
784: \def\@computerightmargin{%
785: \dimen2 = \paperwidth % The total paper size.
786: \advance\dimen2 by -\hsize % Less the text size.
787: \advance\dimen2 by -\hoffset % Less the offset at the left.
788: \advance\dimen2 by -1in % Less the default offset.
789: }%
790: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
791:
792:
793: \def\onepageout#1{\shipout\vbox{ % here we define one page of output
794: \offinterlineskip % butt the boxes together
795: \vbox to 3pc{ % this part goes on top of the 44pc pages
796: \iftitle % the next is used for title pages
797: \global\titlefalse % reset the titlepage switch
798: \setcornerrules % for camera alignment
799: \else\ifodd\pageno \rightheadline\else\leftheadline\fi\fi
800: \vfill} % this completes the \vbox to 3pc
801: \vbox to \pageheight{
802: \ifvoid\margin\else % marginal info is present
803: \rlap{\kern31pc\vbox to\z@{\kern4pt\box\margin \vss}}\fi
804: #1 % now insert the main information
805: \ifvoid\footins\else % footnote info is present
806: \vskip\skip\footins \kern-3pt
807: \hrule height\ruleht width\pagewidth \kern-\ruleht \kern3pt
808: \unvbox\footins\fi
809: \boxmaxdepth=\maxdepth
810: } % this completes the \vbox to \pageheight
811: }
812: \advancepageno}
813:
814: \def\setcornerrules{\hbox to \pagewidth{\vrule width 1pc height\ruleht
815: \hfil \vrule width 1pc}
816: \hbox to \pagewidth{\llap{\sevenrm(page \folio)\kern1pc}%
817: \vrule height1pc width\ruleht depth\z@
818: \hfil \vrule width\ruleht depth\z@}}
819: \newbox\partialpage
820:
821:
822: %-------------------------------------
823: % Page layout
824:
825: %%Care should be exercised in putting the instructions
826: % below AFTER any \magnification!
827: %-----------------------------------
828:
829: %for arbitrary dimensions:
830:
831: \def\setdimensions#1#2{\hsize=#1 \vsize=#2}
832:
833: %----------------------------------
834: \hyphenation{ha-ya-ka-wa acha-sov}
835:
836:
837:
838: %------------------------------------
839: % TEXTO
840: %------------------------------------
841:
842: %\magnification1200
843: \input epsf.sty
844: \raggedbottom
845: \footline={\hfill}
846: \rightline{Revised: \timestamp}
847: \smallskip
848: \rightline{FTUAM 01-08 }
849: \rightline{May, 2001}
850: \rightline{(hep-ph/0106025)}
851: \bigskip
852: \hrule height .3mm
853: \vskip.6cm
854: \centerline{{\twelverm Precision
855: Determination of the Pion Form Factor and Calculation of
856: the Muon $g-2$}}
857: \medskip
858: \centerrule{.7cm}
859: \vskip1cm
860:
861: \setbox9=\vbox{\hsize65mm {\noindent\fib
862: J. F. de Troc\'oniz and F. J.
863: Yndur\'ain}
864: \vskip .1cm
865: \noindent{\addressfont Departamento de F\'{\i}sica Te\'orica, C-XI,\hb
866: Universidad Aut\'onoma de Madrid,\hb
867: Canto Blanco,\hb
868: E-28049, Madrid, Spain.}\hb}
869: \smallskip
870: \centerline{\box9}
871: \bigskip
872: \setbox0=\vbox{\abstracttype{Abstract}
873: We perform a new calculation of the hadronic contributions, $a({\rm Hadronic})$
874: to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, $a_\mu$.
875: For the low energy contributions of order $\alpha^2$ we carry over an analysis of
876: the pion form factor $F_\pi(t)$ using recent data both on $e^+e^-\to\pi^+\pi^-$ and
877: $\tau^+\to \bar{\nu}_\tau \pi^+\pi^0$. In this analysis we take into account that the phase of
878: the form factor is equal to that of $\pi\pi$ scattering.
879: This allows us to profit fully from analyticity properties
880: so we can use also experimental information on $F_\pi(t)$ at spacelike $t$.
881: At higher energy we use QCD to supplement experimental
882: data, including the recent measurements of $e^+e^-\to\;{\rm hadrons}$
883: both around 1 GeV and near the $\bar{c}c$ threshold.
884: This yields a precise determination of the $O(\alpha^2)$ and $O(\alpha^2)+O(\alpha^3)$
885: hadronic part of the photon vacuum polarization pieces,
886: $$10^{11}\times a^{(2)}({\rm h.v.p.})=6\,909\pm64;\quad
887: 10^{11}\times a^{(2+3)}({\rm h.v.p.})=7\,002\pm66$$
888: As byproducts we also get the masses and widths of the $\rho^0,\,\rho^+$, and
889: very accurate values for the charge radius and second coefficient of the pion.
890:
891: Adding the remaining order $\alpha^3$ hadronic contributions we find
892: $$10^{11}\times a^{\rm theory}(\hbox{Hadronic})=
893: 6\,993\pm69\quad(e^+e^-\,+\,\tau\,+\,{\rm spacel.})$$
894: The error above includes
895: statistical, systematic and estimated theoretical errors.
896: The figures given are obtained including $\tau$ decay data;
897: if we restrict ourselves to $e^+e^-$ data,
898: slightly lower values and somewhat higher errors are found.
899:
900: This is to be compared with the figure obtained by subtracting pure electroweak
901: contributions from the recent experimental value,
902: obtained from measurements of the muon gyromagnetic ratio ($g-2$), which reads
903: $$10^{11}\times a^{\rm exp.}(\hbox{Hadronic})=7\,174\pm150.$$
904: }
905: \centerline{\box0}
906: \brochureendcover{Typeset with \physmatex}
907: \pageno=1
908: \brochureb{\smallsc j. f. de troc\'oniz and f. j. yndur\'ain}{\smallsc precision
909: determination of the pion form factor and calculation of
910: the muon $g-2$}{1}
911:
912: \booksection{1. Introduction}
913: The appearance of a new, very precise measurement of the muon magnetic
914: moment\ref{1} has triggered the interest in {\sl theoretical} calculations
915: of this quantity.
916: Particularly, because the experimental figure (we give the result
917: for the anomaly, averaged with older determinations\ref{2})
918: $$10^{11}\times a_\mu(\hbox{exp.})=116\,592\,030\pm150
919: \equn{(1.1)}$$
920: lies slightly above theoretical evaluations based on the standard
921: model, as much as $2.6\sigma$ in some cases.
922:
923: It should be noted that all modern\fnote{By modern we here mean, somewhat arbitrarily,
924: those obtained since 1985.
925: A more complete list of references, including earlier work, may be found in ref.~7.}
926: theoretical determinations\ref{3-7}
927: are compatible among themselves within errors (of order $100\times10^{-11}$)
928: and that, with few exceptions, they are
929: also compatible with the experimental
930: result, (1.1), at the level of $1.5\sigma$ or less. Because of this, it is our feeling
931: that a new, {\sl complete} evaluation would be welcome since,
932: in fact, there exists as yet no calculation
933: that takes fully into account all theoretical constraints and
934: all the new experimental data. These experimental
935: data allow an improved evaluation of the low energy hadronic contributions
936: to $a_\mu$, both directly from $e^+e^-$
937: annihilations (in the $\rho$ region\ref{8} and around the $\phi$
938: resonance\ref{9})
939: and, indirectly, from $\tau$ decays\ref{10} and, also indirectly,
940: from measurements of the pion form factor in the spacelike region.\ref{11}
941: Moreover, the BES\ref{12} data, covering
942: $e^+e^-$ annihilations in the vicinity of $\bar{c}c$ threshold,
943: permit a reliable evaluation of the corresponding hadronic pieces.
944: In fact, the main improvements of the present paper are the calculation of
945: the two pion contribution to the hadronic part of $a_\mu$,
946: using all available experimental information and fulfilling
947: compatibility with all our theoretical knowledge,
948: and the pinning down of the multipion, $KK$ and $\bar{c}c$ contributions.
949: This we do in \sects~3,~4 (in \sect~2 we formulate the problem).
950: In \sect~5 we discuss other hadronic corrections,
951: including one that, as far as we know, has been hitherto neglected,
952: and which, though small ($\sim46\times10^{-11}$)
953: is relevant at the level of accuracy for which we are striving.
954: Finally, in \sect~6 we discuss our results and compare them with experiment.
955:
956: The main outcome of our analysis is an accurate and reliable determination of the
957: hadronic contributions to $a_\mu$ at order $\alpha^2$.
958: In fact, in all regions where there are difficulties
959: we perform at least two evaluations, and take into account
960: their consistency (or lack thereof).
961: Furthermore, we discuss in some detail
962: (including ambiguities) the $O(\alpha^3)$ hadronic contributions.
963:
964: As a byproduct of the low energy calculations we
965: can also give precise values for the $\rho^0$, $\rho^+$
966: masses and widths,
967: $$\eqalign{
968: m_{\rho^0}=772.6\pm0.5\;\mev,\quad \gammav_{\rho^0}=147.4\pm0.8\,\mev;\cr
969: m_{\rho^+}=773.8\pm0.6\;\mev,\quad \gammav_{\rho^+}=147.3\pm0.9\,\mev;\cr
970: }\equn{(1.2)}$$
971: for the P-wave $\pi\pi$ scattering
972: length,
973: $$a_1^1=(41\pm2)\times10^{-3}\,m_{\pi}^{-3},\equn{(1.3)}$$
974: and for the pion mean squared charge radius and second coefficient:
975: $$\eqalign{\langle r^2_\pi\rangle=0.435\pm0.002\;{\rm fm}^2,\;c_\pi=3.60\pm0.03\;\gev^{-4}&
976: \quad (e^+e^-\,+\,\tau\,+\,{\rm spacelike}).\cr
977: \langle r^2_\pi\rangle=0.433\pm0.002\;{\rm fm}^2,\;c_\pi=3.58\pm0.04\;\gev^{-4}&
978: \quad (e^+e^-\,+\,{\rm spacelike}).\cr
979: }\equn{(1.4)}$$
980: We give results both using only direct results on $F_\pi$, from
981: $e^+e^-$ annihilations, or involving also the
982: decay $\tau^+\to\bar{\nu}_\tau\pi^+\pi^0$, which last we consider to be our best estimates.
983:
984: So we write,
985: $$10^{11}\times a(\hbox{Hadronic})=
986: \cases{
987: 6\,993\pm69\quad(e^+e^-\,+\,\tau\,+\,{\rm spacel.})\cr
988: 6\,973\pm99\quad(e^+e^-\,+\,{\rm spacel.})\cr
989: }
990: \equn{(1.5)}$$
991:
992: Note that
993: in $a(\hbox{Hadronic})$ we include {\sl all}
994: hadronic contributions, $O(\alpha^3)$ as well as $O(\alpha^2)$.
995: The errors include the statistical errors, as well as the
996: estimated systematic and theoretical ones.
997: This is
998: to be compared with the value deduced from (1.1) and electroweak corrections
999: $$10^{11}\times a^{\rm exp.}(\hbox{Hadronic})=7\,174\pm150,$$
1000: from which (1.5) differs by $1.1\sigma$.
1001:
1002:
1003: \booksection{2. Contributions to $a_\mu$}
1004: We divide the various contributions to $a_\mu$ as follows:
1005: $$a_\mu=a(\hbox{QED})+a(\hbox{Weak})+a(\hbox{Hadronic}).
1006: \equn{(2.1)}$$
1007: Here $a(\hbox{QED})$ denote the pure quantum electrodynamics corrections, and
1008: $a(\hbox{Weak})$ are the ones due to $W,\,Z$ and Higgs exchange.
1009: The hadronic contributions can, in turn, be split as
1010: $$a(\hbox{Hadronic})=a^{(2)}(\hbox{h.v.p.})+a(\hbox{Other hadronic, $O(\alpha^3)$}).
1011: \equn{(2.2)}$$
1012: $a^{(2)}(\hbox{h.v.p.})$ are the corrections due to the hadronic
1013: photon vacuum polarization contributions (\fig~1),
1014: nominally of order $\alpha^2$ (see \subsects~3.3 and 5.2 for a qualification of this statement).
1015: We will discuss in detail the ``Other hadronic, $O(\alpha^3)$" in \sect~5.
1016:
1017: \topinsert{
1018: \setbox0=\vbox{\hsize9.truecm{\epsfxsize 7.4truecm\epsfbox{1had.eps}}}
1019: \setbox6=\vbox{\hsize 5.5truecm\captiontype\figurasc{Figure 1. }{The order $\alpha^2$
1020: hadronic contributions to the muon magnetic moment.
1021: The blob represents an arbitrary hadronic state.\hb
1022: \phantom{XX}}\hb
1023: \vskip.1cm}
1024: \medskip
1025: \line{\box0\hfil\box6}
1026: \medskip
1027: }\endinsert
1028:
1029:
1030: According to the review of Hughes and Kinoshita\ref{13} one has
1031: $$\eqalign{10^{11}\times a(\hbox{QED})=116\,584\,705&\pm1.8\cr
1032: 10^{11}\times a(\hbox{Weak})=151&\pm4.\cr
1033: }
1034: \equn{(2.3)}$$
1035:
1036:
1037: There is no dispute about these numbers.
1038: If we combine them with (1.1), we can convert this into
1039: a measurement of the hadronic part of the anomaly:
1040: $$10^{11}\times a^{\rm exp.}(\hbox{Hadronic})=7\,174\pm150.\equn{(2.4)}$$
1041: Our task in the present paper is the evaluation of this quantity.
1042:
1043: We now say a few words about the piece $a^{(2)}(\hbox{h.v.p.})$, which is
1044: the most important component of $a(\hbox{Hadronic})$.
1045: As Brodsky and de~Rafael\ref{14} have shown,
1046: it can be written as
1047: $$\eqalign{a^{(2)}(\hbox{h.v.p.})=&12\pi\int_{4m^2_\pi}^\infty \dd t\,K(t)\imag\piv(t),\cr
1048: K(t)=&\dfrac{\alpha^2}{3\pi^2t}\hat{K}(t);\quad \hat{K}(t)=
1049: \int_0^1\dd x\,\dfrac{x^2(1-x)}{x^2+(1-x)t/m^2_\mu}.\cr}
1050: \equn{(2.4a)}$$
1051: Here $\piv$ is the hadronic part of the photon
1052: vacuum polarization function.
1053: An alternate formula is obtained by expressing $\imag \Piv$ in terms of
1054: the ratio
1055: $$R(t)=\dfrac{\sigma^{(0)}(e^+e^-\to{\rm hadrons})}{\sigma^{(0)}(e^+e^-\to\mu^+\mu^-)},
1056: \quad \sigma^{(0)}(e^+e^-\to\mu^+\mu^-)\equiv\dfrac{4\pi\alpha^2}{3t}:$$
1057: $$a^{(2)}(\hbox{h.v.p.})=\int_{4m^2_\pi}^\infty \dd t\,K(t) R(t).
1058: \equn{(2.4b)}$$
1059: The superindex (0) here means `lowest order in the electromagnetic
1060: interactions'.
1061:
1062: At low energy ($t\leq 0.8\,\gev^2$) we can separate the contribution from three pion states
1063: and that from two pions. The first will be discussed in \sect~4.
1064: The two pion contribution in turn can be expressed in terms of the
1065: pion form factor, $F_\pi$,
1066: $$\imag \piv_{2\pi}(t)=\dfrac{1}{48\pi}\left(1-\dfrac{4m^2_\pi}{t}\right)^{3/2}
1067: |F_\pi(t)|^2,\equn{(2.5)}$$
1068: so that,
1069: for the two-pion contribution up to energy squared $t_0$,
1070: $$a_\mu(2\pi; t_0)=\tfrac{1}{4}\int_{4m^2_\pi}^{t_0} \dd t\;
1071: \left(1-\dfrac{4m^2_\pi}{t}\right)^{3/2}K(t)|F_\pi(t)|^2.
1072: \equn{(2.6)}$$
1073:
1074:
1075: \booksection{3. The pion form factor}
1076: \vskip-0.7truecm
1077: \booksubsection{3.1. Theory}
1078: The evaluation of the pion form factor is slightly complicated by the phenomenon
1079: of $\omega-\rho$ interference. This can be solved by considering only the
1080: isospin $I=1$ component, and adding later the $\omega\to2\pi$
1081: and interference
1082: in the standard Gounaris--Sakurai way.
1083: This is equivalent to neglecting, in a first approximation, the breaking of isospin
1084: invariance. We will also neglect for now electromagnetic corrections.
1085: In this approximation the properties of $F_\pi(t)$ are the following:
1086: \item{(i) }{$F_\pi(t)$ is an analytic function of $t$, with a cut
1087: from $4m^2_\pi$ to infinity.}
1088: \item{(ii) }{On the cut, the phase of $F_\pi(t)$ is, because of unitarity, identical to
1089: that of the P-wave, $I=1$, $\pi\pi$ scattering, $\delta_1^1(t)$, and
1090: this equality
1091: holds until the opening of the inelastic threshold at $t=t_0$
1092: (Fermi--Watson final state interaction
1093: theorem).}
1094: \item{(iii) }{For large $t$, $F_\pi(t)\simeq 1/t$. Actually, one knows the coefficient of this
1095: behaviour, but we will not need it here.}
1096: \item{(iv) }{$F(0)=1$.}
1097:
1098: The inelastic threshold occurs, rigorously speaking, at $t=16m^2_\pi$.
1099: However, it is an experimental fact that inelasticity is negligible
1100: until the quasi-two~body channels $\omega\pi,\,a_1\pi\,\dots$ are open.
1101: In practice we will take
1102: $$t_0\simeq 1\;\gev^2,$$
1103: and fix the best value for $t_0$ empirically.
1104: It will be $t_0=1.1\,\gev^2$, and we will see that, if we keep close to
1105: this value, the dependence on $t_0$ is very slight.
1106:
1107: The properties (i-iv) can be taken into account with the well-known
1108: Omn\`es-Muskhelishvili method. We construct a
1109: function $J(t)$ with the proper phase by defining
1110: $$J(t)=\exp\left\{\dfrac{t}{\pi}\int_{4m^2_\pi}^{t_0} \dd s\;
1111: \dfrac{\delta_1^1(s)}{s(s-t)}+
1112: \dfrac{t}{\pi}\int^{\infty}_{t_0} \dd s\;\dfrac{\bar{\delta}_1^1(s)}{s(s-t)}\right\}.
1113: \equn{(3.1a)}$$
1114: We have written the dispersion relation with one subtraction to ensure
1115: that $J(0)=1$.
1116: The singular integrals are understood to be calculated replacing $t\to t+\ii\epsilon$,
1117: $\epsilon>0$, and letting then $\epsilon\to0$.
1118: In particular, we have
1119: $$|J(t)|=\exp\left\{\dfrac{t}{\pi}{\rm P.P.}\int_{4m^2_\pi}^{t_0} \dd s\;
1120: \dfrac{\delta_1^1(s)}{s(s-t)}+
1121: \dfrac{t}{\pi}\int^{\infty}_{t_0} \dd s\;\dfrac{\bar{\delta}_1^1(s)}{s(s-t)}\right\},
1122: \quad 4m^2_\pi\leq t\leq t_0.
1123: \equn{(3.1b)}$$
1124: Defining then the function $G$ by
1125: $$F_\pi(t)=G(t)J(t),\eqno{(3.2)}$$
1126: it follows from properties i-ii that $G(t)$ is analytic with
1127: only the exception of a cut from $t_0$ to infinity,
1128: as we have already extracted the correct phase
1129: below $t=t_0$.
1130:
1131: We can, in \equn~(3.1a), take any value we like for the phase $\bar{\delta}_1^1(t)$, as a change of
1132: it only results in a redefinition of $G$; but it is convenient to
1133: choose $\bar{\delta}_1^1(t)$ so that it joins smoothly $\delta_1^1(t)$ at $t=t_0$
1134: to avoid spurious singularities that would deteriorate the convergence, and
1135: so that $J$ has the correct behaviour at infinity.
1136: Both properties are ensured if we take, simply,
1137: $$\bar{\delta}_1^1(t)=\pi+\left[\delta_1^1(t_0)-\pi\right]\dfrac{t_0}{t}$$
1138: so that $\bar{\delta}_1^1(t_0)=\delta_1^1(t_0)$ and,
1139: for large $t$, $\bar{\delta}_1^1(t)\to \pi$ and we recover the
1140: behaviour $1/t$ of the form factor.
1141: Then we can rewrite more explicitly (3.1) by integrating the piece with $\bar{\delta}_1^1$:
1142: $$J(t)=\ee^{1-\delta_1^1(t_0)/\pi}
1143: \left(1-\dfrac{t}{t_0}\right)^{[1-\delta_1^1(t_0)/\pi]t_0/t}
1144: \left(1-\dfrac{t}{t_0}\right)^{-1}
1145: \exp\left\{\dfrac{t}{\pi}\int_{4m^2_\pi}^{t_0} \dd s\;
1146: \dfrac{\delta_1^1(s)}{s(s-t)}\right\}.
1147: \equn{(3.3)}$$
1148: \medskip
1149: \noindent{3.1.1. \sl The phase $\delta^1_1$}
1150: \medskip
1151: We can apply the effective range theory to the phase $\delta^1_1$. According to
1152: this, the function
1153: $$\psi(t)\equiv \dfrac{2k^3}{t^{1/2}}\cot \delta_1^1(t),\quad k=\dfrac{\sqrt{t-4m^2_\pi}}{2}
1154: \equn{(3.4a)}$$
1155: is analytic in the variable $t$ except for two cuts: a cut from $-\infty$ to $0$, and
1156: a cut from $t=t_0$ to $+\infty$.
1157: To profit from the analyticity properties of $\psi$ we will
1158: make a conformal transformation.\fnote{The
1159: method of conformal transformations is rigorous, simpler and produces better results than
1160: that employed in ref.~4.} We define
1161: $$w=
1162: \dfrac{\sqrt{t}-\sqrt{t_0-t}}{\sqrt{t}+\sqrt{t_0-t}}.
1163: \equn{(3.4b)}$$
1164: When $t$ runs the cuts, $w$ goes around the unit circle.
1165: We may therefore expand $\psi$ in a power series
1166: convergent inside
1167: the unit disc. However, the existence of the $\rho$ resonance implies that
1168: we must have $\cot \delta_1^1(m^2_\rho)=0$. It is therefore convenient to
1169: incorporate this piece of knowledge and expand not $\psi$ itself but the ratio
1170: $\psi(t)/(m^2_\rho-t)\equiv\hat{\psi}(t)$: so we write,
1171: $$\psi(t)=(m^2_\rho-t)\hat{\psi}(t)=(m^2_\rho-t)\left\{b_0+b_1w+
1172: b_2w^2+\cdots\right\}.
1173: \equn{(3.4c)}$$
1174:
1175: The P-wave, $I=1$ $\pi\pi$ scattering length,\fnote{For details on $\pi\pi$
1176: scattering, including analyticity
1177: properties and the Fermi--Watson theorem, see e.g. ref.~15.
1178: More details on the solution of the Omn\`es--Muskhelishvili
1179: equation can be found in N.~I.~Muskhelishvili, {\sl Singular
1180: Integral Equations}, Nordhoof, 1958.} $a_1^1$, is related to $\psi$ by
1181: $$a_1^1=\dfrac{1}{m_\pi\psi(4m^2_\pi)}.
1182: \equn{(3.5a)}$$
1183:
1184: Likewise, from the relation
1185: $$\dfrac{1}{\cot \delta_1^1(t)-\ii}\;\simeqsub_{t\simeq m^2_\rho}\;
1186: \dfrac{\hbox {const.}}{m^2_\rho-t-2k^3\ii/t^{1/2}\hat{\psi}(t)}$$
1187: we find the expression for the rho width:
1188: $$\gammav_\rho=\dfrac{2k^3_\rho}{m^2_\rho\hat{\psi}(m^2_\rho)},
1189: \quad
1190: k_\rho=\tfrac{1}{2}\sqrt{m^2_\rho-4m^2_\pi}.
1191: \equn{(3.5b)}$$
1192: Experimentally,\ref{15}
1193: $a_1^1\simeq (0.038\pm0.003) m^{-3}_\pi$,
1194: and, according to the Particle Data Group Tables,\ref{16}
1195: $m_\rho=769.3\pm0.8;\;\gammav_\rho=150.2\pm0.8\,\mev$. Note, however, that we do {\sl not}
1196: assume the values of $m_\rho,\,\gammav_\rho$.
1197: We only require that $\psi$ has a zero, and will let the fits
1198: fix its location and residue.
1199:
1200: It turns out that, to reproduce the width and scattering length, and to fit
1201: the pion form factor as well (see below), only two terms in the
1202: expansion are needed, so we approximate
1203: $$\delta_1^1(t)={\rm Arc\; cot}\left\{\dfrac{t^{1/2}}{2k^3}
1204: (m^2_\rho-t)\left[b_0+b_1\dfrac{\sqrt{t}-\sqrt{t_0-t}}{\sqrt{t}+\sqrt{t_0-t}}\right]\right\};
1205: \equn{(3.6)}$$
1206: $m_\rho,\,b_0,\,b_1$ are free parameters in our fits.
1207: \medskip
1208: \noindent 3.1.2. {\sl The function $G(t)$}
1209: \medskip
1210: Because we have already extracted the correct phase up to $t=t_0$,
1211: it follows that the function
1212: $G(t)$ is analytic except for a cut from $t=t_0$ to $+\infty$.
1213: The conformal transformation
1214: $$z=\dfrac{\tfrac{1}{2}\sqrt{t_0}-\sqrt{t_0-t}}{\tfrac{1}{2}\sqrt{t_0}+\sqrt{t_0-t}}
1215: \eqno{(3.7a)}$$
1216: maps this cut plane into the unit circle.
1217: So we may write the
1218: expansion,
1219: $$G(t)=1+A_0+c_1z+c_2 z^2+c_3 z^3+\cdots
1220: \equn{(3.7b)}$$
1221: that will be convergent for all $t$ inside the cut plane.
1222: We can implement the condition $G(0)=1$, necessary to ensure
1223: $F_\pi(0)=1$
1224: to each order, by writing
1225: $$A_0=-\left[c_1z_0+c_2 z_0^2+c_3 z_0^3+\cdots\right],\quad
1226: z_0\equiv z|_{t=0}=-1/3.$$
1227:
1228: The expansion then reads,
1229:
1230: $$G(t)=1+c_1(z+1/3)+c_2 (z^2-1/9)+c_3 (z^3+1/27)+\cdots.
1231: \eqno{(3.8)}$$
1232: We will need two-three terms in the expansion, so we will
1233: approximate
1234: $$G(t)=1+
1235: c_1\left[\dfrac{\tfrac{1}{2}\sqrt{t_0}-\sqrt{t_0-t}}{\tfrac{1}{2}\sqrt{t_0}+\sqrt{t_0-t}}
1236: +\tfrac{1}{3}\right]+
1237: c_2\Bigg[\left(\dfrac{\tfrac{1}{2}\sqrt{t_0}-\sqrt{t_0-t}}{\tfrac{1}{2}\sqrt{t_0}+\sqrt{t_0-t}}\right)^2
1238: -\tfrac{1}{9}\Bigg],$$
1239: $c_1,\,c_2$ free parameters.
1240:
1241: An interesting feature of our method is that, even if we only kept {\sl one} term in each of
1242: the expansions (3.6,~8), that is to say, if we took $b_1=c_1=c_2=0$,
1243: we could reproduce the experimental data with only a 15\% error; so
1244: we expect (and this is the case) fast convergence of the series.
1245: It is important also that our expression for $F_\pi(t)$ is valid in the spacelike as well as in the
1246: timelike region, provided only $t<t_0$.
1247: What is more, (3.6,~8) represent the more general expressions compatible with
1248: analyticity, the Fermi--Watson theorem
1249: and the effective range theory, which follow
1250: only from the requirements of unitarity and causality.
1251: Therefore, by employing our expansions,
1252: we do not introduce uncontrolled biases in the analysis, and hence we minimize
1253: the model dependent errors.\fnote{The remaining approximations are
1254: neglect of the inelasticity between $16m^2_\pi$
1255: and $t_0$, experimentally known to be at the $10^{-3}$
1256: level or below, and we have the errors due to the truncation
1257: of the expansions; we will also check that they are small.
1258: By contrast, other functional forms used in in the literature
1259: are either incompatible with the phase of $F_\pi$, or with its
1260: analyticity properties (or both), which
1261: causes biases in the fits. \hb
1262: The errors due to breaking of isospin and electromagnetic corrections will be
1263: discussed below.}
1264:
1265: \booksubsection{3.2. Fits}
1266: In order to fit $F_\pi$, and hence get the $2\pi$ low energy ($4m^2_\pi\leq t\leq0.8\;\gev^2$)
1267: contribution to $a^{(2)}(\hbox{h.v.p.})$, we have
1268: available three sets of data:
1269: \item{$\bullet$}{$e^+e^-\to\pi^+\pi^-$, $t$ timelike (Novosibirsk, ref.~8).}
1270: \item{$\bullet$}{$F_\pi(t)$, $t$ spacelike (NA7, ref.~11).}
1271: \item{$\bullet$}{In addition, one can use data from the decay
1272: $\tau^+\to\bar{\nu}_\tau \pi^+\pi^0$
1273: (Aleph and Opal, ref.~10).}
1274:
1275: For this last
1276: we have to assume isospin invariance,
1277: {\sl and} neglect the
1278: isospin $I=2$ component of $\pi^+\pi^0$, to write the form factor $v_1$
1279: for $\tau$ decay
1280: in terms of $F_\pi$:
1281: $$v_1=\tfrac{1}{12}\left(1-\dfrac{4m^2_\pi}{t}\right)^{3/2}|F_\pi(t)|^2,
1282: \equn{(3.9a)}$$
1283: where, in terms of the weak vector current $V_\mu=\bar{u}\gamma_\mu d$,
1284: and in the exact isospin approximation,
1285: $$\Piv^V_{\mu\nu}=\left(-p^2g_{\mu\nu}+p_\mu p_\nu\right)\Piv^V(t)=
1286: \ii\int\dd^4x\,\ee^{\ii p\cdot x}\langle0|{\rm T}V^+_\mu(x)V_\nu(0)|0\rangle;\quad
1287: v_1=2\pi\imag \Piv^V.
1288: \equn{(3.9b)}$$
1289:
1290:
1291: Before presenting the results of the
1292: fits a few matters have to be discussed.
1293: A first point to clarify is that we will {\sl not} include in the fits the
1294: old data on $F_\pi$ in the
1295: spacelike or timelike regions, or
1296: on pion-pion phase shifts\ref{17}.
1297: We have checked that, if we add the first two sets, the results of the fit
1298: vary very little (see below);
1299: but they cause a bias. This is so because there is incompatibility\fnote{At
1300: the level of $1.5$ to $2\sigma$.}
1301: between old spacelike and timelike data,
1302: and also with data on $\pi\pi$
1303: phase shifts, already noticed in CLY.\ref{4}
1304: Doubtlessly, this is due to the fact that
1305: most old data for spacelike momentum were extracted from processes
1306: with one pion off its mass shell
1307: so that models were necessary to extrapolate to the physical form factor.
1308: In fact, a very important feature of the NA7\ref{11} data
1309: is that they are obtained from scattering of real pions off electrons,
1310: hence we do not require models to extract $F_\pi$ from data.
1311:
1312: The reason for the model dependence of $\pi\pi$ phase shift analyses is that
1313: these are extracted from fits to $\pi N\to\pi\pi N$ scattering and thus
1314: require a model for the pseudoscalar form factor of the nucleon, a model for the
1315: interactions of the nucleon and the final state pions,
1316: and
1317: a model for the dependence of $\pi\pi$ scattering on the mass of
1318: an external pion.
1319: Indeed, different methods of extrapolation result in different sets of
1320: phase shifts,
1321: as can be seen in the experimental papers of Hyams et al. and Protopopescu et al., ref~17,
1322: where five different determinations are given.
1323: However, we will use the scattering length, $a^1_1$, and
1324: employ the $\pi\pi$ phase shifts as a very important {\sl
1325: a posteriori} test of our results.
1326:
1327: We could consider, besides this
1328: information, to include as input the values of several quantities that can be
1329: estimated
1330: with chiral perturbation theory methods, such as $\langle r^2_\pi\rangle$ and
1331: $a^1_1$. We do not do so because
1332: the problem with these calculations is the estimate of their errors,
1333: a difficult matter; so we have preferred to avoid possible biases and
1334: instead {\sl obtain} these quantities as
1335: byproduct of our calculations.
1336: Then we check that the results we get for all of them are in agreement, within errors, with
1337: the chiral perturbation theory results; see below.
1338: With respect to $a^1_1$ we actually constrain it to the region obtained
1339: from $\pi\pi$ scattering
1340: experimental data only; its error is chosen such that it encompasses the various values
1341: given in the different experimental determinations (ref.~17).
1342: We take,
1343: $$a^1_1=(38\pm3)\times 10^{-3}\;m_\pi^{-3}; $$
1344: we will see that the value our best fit returns for this quantity is
1345: satisfactorily close to this, as indeed we get $(41\pm2)\times 10^{-3}\;m_\pi^{-3}$.
1346:
1347:
1348: Another remark concerns the matter of isospin breaking, due to
1349: electromagnetic interactions or the mass difference between $u,\;d$
1350: quarks, that would spoil the equality (3.9a).
1351: It is not easy to estimate this. A large part of the breaking, the
1352: $\omega\to2\pi$ contribution and $\omega-\rho$ mixing,
1353: are taken into account by hand, but this does not exhaust the effects.
1354: For example, merely changing the quark masses from $m_{\pi^+}+m_{\pi^-}$
1355: to $m_{\pi^0}+m_{\pi^0}$, in a Breit--Wigner model for the $\rho$,
1356: shifts $a^{(2)}(\hbox{h.v.p.})$ by $\sim50\times10^{-11}$, so
1357: a deviation of this order should not be surprising.\fnote{The
1358: relevance of isospin breaking in this context was pointed out
1359: by V.~Cirigliano, G.~Ecker and H.~Neufeld, hep-ph/0104267,
1360: 2001.}
1361:
1362:
1363: As stated above, \eqs~(3.9) were obtained neglecting
1364: the mass difference $m_u-m_d$
1365: and electromagnetic corrections,
1366: in particular the $\pi^0 - \pi^+$ mass difference.
1367: We can take the last partially into
1368: account by distinguishing between the pion masses in the
1369: phase space factor in (3.9a).
1370: To do so, write now (3.9b) as
1371: $$\Piv^V_{\mu\nu}=
1372: \ii\int\dd^4x\,\ee^{\ii p\cdot x}\langle0|{\rm T}V^+_\mu(x)V_\nu(0)|0\rangle=
1373: \left(-p^2g_{\mu\nu}+p_\mu p_\nu\right)\Piv^V(t)+p_\mu p_\nu \piv^{S};\quad
1374: v_1\equiv2\pi\imag \Piv^V.
1375: \equn{(3.10a)}$$
1376: We get
1377: $$v_1=\tfrac{1}{12}
1378: \left\{\left[1-\dfrac{(m_{\pi^+}-m_{\pi^0})^2}{t}\right]
1379: \left[1-\dfrac{(m_{\pi^+}+m_{\pi^0})^2}{t}\right] \right\}^{3/2}|F_\pi(t)|^2.
1380: \equn{(3.10b)}$$
1381: To compare with the experimentally measured quantity,
1382: which involves all of $\imag \piv^V_{\mu\nu}$, we have to
1383: neglect the scalar component $\piv^S$, which is proportional to $(m_d-m_u)^2$,
1384: and thus very small.
1385:
1386: To understand the situation we will proceed by steps. First of all, we start by fitting
1387: {\sl separately} $e^+e^-$ and $\tau$
1388: data, in the timelike region, using (3.9a)
1389: (we remark that although in $a(2\pi;\,t\leq0.8\;\gev^2)$ only enter the
1390: values of $F_\pi(t)$ for $4m^2_\pi$ to $0.8\,\gev^2$,
1391: we fit the whole range up to $t=t_0=1.1\,\gev^2$).
1392: Then, we get quite different results:
1393: $$a(2\pi;\,t\leq0.8\;\gev^2)=
1394: \cases{4\,715\pm67\quad (e^+e^-;\;\chidof=106/109=0.96)\cr
1395: 4\,814\pm26\quad (\tau;\;\chidof=52/48=1.09).\cr}
1396: \equn{(3.11a)}$$
1397: This takes into account statistical errors only
1398: for $e^+e^-$, but includes systematic ones
1399: for $\tau$ decay as these are incorporated in the
1400: available data.
1401:
1402: The slight advantage of the first figure in (3.11a)
1403: in what regards the \chidof\
1404: makes one wonder that the difference is really caused by
1405: isospin breaking
1406: (in which case the value obtained from $\tau$ decay should be
1407: rejected) or is due to random fluctuations of the data, as
1408: well as to the systematics of the experiments.
1409: The second explanation has in its favour that, if we include the
1410: {\sl spacelike} data into the fit (but still use (3.9a))
1411: the discrepancy is softened, and we get compatible results:
1412: $$a(2\pi;\,t\leq0.8\;\gev^2)=
1413: \cases{4\,754\pm55\quad (e^+e^-\,+\;{\rm spacelike};\;\chidof=179/154)\cr
1414: 4\,826\pm23\quad (\tau\,+\;{\rm spacelike};\;\chidof=112/93).\cr}
1415: \equn{(3.11b)}$$
1416: This last result allows us to draw the following conclusion: that
1417: part of the discrepancy
1418: between results obtained with $e^+e^-$ and $\tau$ decay is still of statistical origin,
1419: but also it would seem that part is genuine.
1420:
1421:
1422: \topinsert{
1423: \setbox0=\vbox{\hsize15.truecm\hfil{\epsfxsize 13.4truecm\epsfbox{2time_11.eps}}\hfil}
1424: \setbox6=\vbox{\hsize 14truecm\captiontype\figurasc{Figure 2. }{Plot of
1425: the fit to $|F_\pi(t)|^2$, timelike (ref. 8) and spacelike (ref.~11) data. The
1426: theoretical curve actually drawn is that obtained by fitting also $\tau$ data, but
1427: the curve obtained fitting only $e^+e^-$
1428: could not be distinguished from that drawn if we plotted it.
1429: A blowup of the fit in the spacelike region may be seen in Fig.~4.}\hb
1430: \vskip.1cm}
1431: \medskip
1432: \centerline{\box0}
1433: \centerline{\box6}
1434: \medskip
1435: }\endinsert
1436:
1437:
1438:
1439: In an attempt to take into account at least some of the
1440: isospin breaking effects, we have fitted simultaneously
1441: $e^+e^-$, $\tau$ decay, both including spacelike data, allowing for different
1442: values of the mass and width of the
1443: rho (but keeping other parameters,
1444: in particular $c_1$, $c_2$, common for both $e^+e^-$
1445: and $\tau$ fits). We, however, still use (3.9a).
1446: In this case we find convergence of the results; we have\fnote{When
1447: evaluating $a(2\pi;\,t\leq0.8\;\gev^2)$ we of course use the
1448: parameters $m_\rho$, $b_0$, $b_1$ corresponding
1449: to $\rho^0$; see below.}
1450:
1451: $$a(2\pi;\,t\leq0.8\;\gev^2)=
1452: 4\,779\pm30,\quad \chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=
1453: 248/204;\qquad (e^+e^-\,+\tau\,+\;{\rm spacelike}),\equn{(3.12)}$$
1454: which is compatible (within errors) with both numbers in (3.11b).
1455:
1456:
1457:
1458: \topinsert{
1459: \setbox9=\vbox{
1460: \setbox0=\vbox{\hsize16.4truecm\line{\hfil{\epsfxsize 7.5truecm\epsfbox{31aleph.eps}}\hfil
1461: {\epsfxsize 7.5truecm\epsfbox{32opal.eps}}\hfil}}
1462: \setbox6=\vbox{\hsize 13truecm\captiontype\figurasc{Figure 3. }{Plot
1463: of the fits to $v_1(t)$ (histograms), and data from $\tau$ decay (black dots).\hb
1464: Left: Aleph data. Right: Opal data. (ref.~10).}
1465: Note that the theoretical values (histograms) are results of the {\sl same}
1466: calculation, with the same parameters, so the differences between the two fits merely
1467: reflect the slight variations between the two experimental determinations.}
1468: \bigskip
1469: \centerline{\box0}
1470: \centerline{\box6}
1471: \bigskip}
1472: \box9
1473: }\endinsert
1474:
1475: It is to be noted that, if we had not allowed for different masses
1476: and widths for the neutral and charged rho, we would have obtained, in this common fit,
1477: $$10^{11}\times a(2\pi;\,t\leq0.8\;\gev^2)=4\,822\pm30,\qquad \chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=264/206;
1478: \qquad (e^+e^-\,+\,\tau\,+\,{\rm spacelike})$$
1479: i.e., a larger \chidof\ and a value quite different from that obtained
1480: with only $e^+e^-$ and spacelike data.
1481: So it would appear that allowing for different parameters for the neutral and charged rho really
1482: takes into account a good part of the isospin breaking effects.
1483:
1484: Finally, we take into account the kinematical effects of the $\pi^\pm$, $\pi^0$
1485: mass difference repeating the fit using (3.10b) now.\fnote{For consistency
1486: we should also have taken the expresion
1487: $k=\tfrac{1}{2}\{[t-(m_{\pi^+}-m_{\pi^0})^2][t-(m_{\pi^+}+m_{\pi^0})^2]\}^{1/2}$,
1488: altered the threshold to $t=(m_{\pi^+}+m_{\pi^0})^2$
1489: for tau decay and allowed for different scattering lengths.
1490: We have checked that the effect of this on the contribution to $a$ leaves it
1491: well inside our error bars;
1492: we will discuss the results one gets in a separate paper. Note that it makes sense
1493: to still consider the same $c_1$, $c_2$ for $e^+e^-$ and
1494: tau decay as these parameters are associated
1495: with $G$ whose imaginary part vanishes below $t=s_0\sim 1\,\gev^2$
1496: where the effects of isospin breaking should be negligible.}
1497: The result of the fit with $e^+e^-$ data only is of course unchanged,
1498: but we reproduce it to facilitate the comparison and for ease of reference.
1499: We find what we consider our best results:
1500: $$\eqalign{
1501: 10^{11}\times a(2\pi;\,t\leq0.8\;\gev^2)=&\;4\,774\pm31,\quad \chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=246/204;
1502: \qquad (e^+e^-\,+\,\tau\,+\,{\rm spacelike}).\cr
1503: 10^{11}\times a(2\pi;\,t\leq0.8\;\gev^2)=&\;4\,754\pm55,\quad \chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=179/154;
1504: \qquad (e^+e^-\,+\,{\rm spacelike}).\cr
1505: }
1506: \equn{(3.13)}$$
1507: We remark that the results for the evaluation including $\tau$ decays are rather insensitive to
1508: the use of (3.10b),
1509: but what change there is, it goes in the right direction:
1510: the \chidof\ has improved slightly, and the values for the anomaly including the $\tau$
1511: have become slightly
1512: more compatible with the figure obtained using $e^+e^-$ data only.
1513: This makes us confident that most of the effects due to isospin breaking,
1514: both from $u,\,d$ mass differences and from electromagnetic effects (about which we will
1515: say more in
1516: \subsects~3.3 and 5.2) have already been incorporated in our calculation.
1517: The fit may be seen depicted in \fig~2 for $|F_\pi|^2$,
1518: with timelike and
1519: spacelike data, and in \fig~3 for the quantity $v_1$ in $\tau$ decay.
1520:
1521:
1522:
1523: The $\chidof$ of the fits is slightly above unity; in next subsection
1524: we will see that including {\sl systematic}
1525: errors cures the problem.
1526: For example, just adding the systematic normalization error for the spacelike data\ref{11}
1527: gives a shift of the central value of $31\times10^{-11}$ and the
1528: \chidof\ decreases to $152/153$ for the evaluation with
1529: $e^+e^-$ data only. The quality of the fit to the spacelike data
1530: is shown in \fig~4, which is a blowup
1531: of the corresponding part of \fig~2.
1532:
1533:
1534:
1535: \topinsert{
1536: \setbox0=\vbox{\hsize16.4truecm
1537: \line{\hfil{\epsfxsize 7.4truecm\epsfbox{41space_raw.eps}}\hfil
1538: {\epsfxsize 7.4truecm\epsfbox{42space_na7.eps}}\hfil}}
1539: \setbox6=\vbox{\hsize 13truecm\captiontype\figurasc{Figure 4. }{Plot of
1540: the fit to $|F_\pi(t)|^2$ in the spacelike region.
1541: With only statistical errors (left) and including
1542: systematic experimental errors (right).}\hb
1543: \vskip.1cm}
1544: \medskip
1545: \centerline{\box0}
1546: \centerline{\box6}
1547: \medskip
1548: }\endinsert
1549:
1550: The parameters of the fits are also compatible.
1551: We have,
1552: $$\eqalign{
1553: c_1=0.23\pm0.02,\;c _2=-0.15\pm0.03;\;b_0=1.062\pm0.005,\;b_1=0.25\pm0.04
1554: &\quad (e^+e^-\,+\,\tau\,+\,{\rm spacelike});\cr
1555: c_1=0.19\pm0.04,\;c_2=-0.15\pm0.10;\;b_0=1.070\pm0.006,\;b_1=0.28\pm0.06
1556: &\quad (e^+e^-\,+\,{\rm spacelike}).\cr
1557: }
1558: \equn{(3.14)}$$
1559: In the first line the parameters $c_1$, $c_2$ are common for
1560: $\rho^0$, $\rho^+$.
1561: $b_0$ and $b_1$ vary very little; the ones shown
1562: correspond to the values of $m_{\rho^0}$,
1563: $\gammav_{\rho^0}$ as
1564: given below in \equn{(3.15)}.
1565: The values $b_0=\hbox{Constant}$, $b_1=0$ would
1566: correspond to a perfect Breit--Wigner shape for the $\rho$.
1567: Another fact to be mentioned is that including the corrected phase space factor (3.10b)
1568: helps a little to make compatible the parameters for both fits; if we had used (3.9a) we
1569: would have obtained
1570: $$c_1=0.23\pm0.01,\;c _2=-0.16\pm0.03;\;b_0=1.060\pm0.005,\;b_1=0.24\pm0.04
1571: \quad (e^+e^-\,+\,\tau\,+\,{\rm spacelike}).$$
1572:
1573: An important feature of our fit is that the
1574: coefficients decrease with increasing order. This, together with the fact that the
1575: conformal variables $w,\,z$ are of modulus well below unity in the
1576: regions of interest ($4m^2_\pi\leq t\leq0.8\,\gev^2$ for
1577: $w$, $-0.25\,\gev^2\leq t\leq0.8\,\gev^2$ for $z$):
1578: $$-0.57\leq w\leq0.24,\quad -0.38\leq z\leq -0.02,$$
1579: ensures good convergence of the expansions.
1580: We have also checked that including extra terms in the
1581: expansions does not improve the quality of the fits significantly.
1582:
1583: Besides the results for the anomaly we obtain reliable determination of a set of parameters.
1584: We have those pertaining to the rho,
1585: $$\eqalign{m_{\rho^0}=&\;772.6\pm0.5\;\mev,\quad \gammav_{\rho^0}=147.4\pm0.8\,\mev;\cr
1586: m_{\rho^+}=&\;773.8\pm0.6\;\mev,\quad \gammav_{\rho^+}=147.3\pm0.9\,\mev.\cr
1587: }
1588: \equn{(3.15)}$$
1589: The figures are in reasonable agreement with the Particle Data Group values\fnote{It
1590: should be noted that the various determinations
1591: for $m_\rho$ reported by the PDG\ref{16} actually cluster around {\sl several}
1592: different values.} given before.
1593:
1594: The value for the scattering length the fit returns is comfortably close to
1595: the one obtained from $\pi\pi$ phase shifts; we get
1596: $$a_1^1=(41\pm2)\times 10^{-3}\;m_\pi^{-3}.$$
1597: This value of $a^1_1$ is slightly larger, but compatible with recent determinations based on
1598: an analysis of $\pi\pi$ scattering (ACGL) or chiral perturbation theory
1599: (CGL, ABT) that give (ref.~18)
1600: $$a^1_1 =(37.9\pm0.5)\times 10^{-3}\;m_\pi^{-3} {\rm (CGL)};\;
1601: a^1_1 =(37\pm2)\times 10^{-3}\;m_\pi^{-3} {\rm (ACGL)};\;
1602: a^1_1 =(38\pm2)\times 10^{-3}\;m_\pi^{-3} {\rm (ABT)}.$$
1603:
1604:
1605: Also from our fits we obtain the low energy coefficients of the pion form factor,
1606: $$F^2_\pi(t)\simeqsub_{t\to0}1+\tfrac{1}{6}\langle r^2_\pi\rangle t+c_\pi t^2:$$
1607: $$\eqalign{
1608: \langle r^2_\pi\rangle=0.435\pm0.002\;{\rm fm}^2,\;c_\pi=3.60\pm0.03\;\gev^{-4}&
1609: \quad (e^+e^-\,+\,\tau\,+\,{\rm spacelike});\cr
1610: \langle r^2_\pi\rangle=0.433\pm0.002\;{\rm fm}^2,\;c_\pi=3.58\pm0.04\;\gev^{-4}&
1611: \quad (e^+e^-\,+\,{\rm spacelike}).\cr}
1612: \equn{(3.16)}$$
1613: These figures are also compatible with, but much more precise than, the current
1614: estimates:\ref{18}
1615: $$\langle r^2_\pi\rangle=0.431\pm0.026\;{\rm fm}^2,\;c_\pi=3.2\pm1.0\;\gev^{-4}.$$
1616:
1617:
1618: Another remark is that in all these fits we took $t_0=1.1\;\gev^2$.
1619: The dependence of the results on
1620: this parameter, $t_0$, is very slight, provided we remain around this value.
1621: Thus, for example, if we take $t_0=1.2\,\gev^2$ the value of
1622: $a(2\pi;\,t\leq0.8\;\gev^2)$
1623: only increases by $4\times10^{-11}$, and the global $\chi^2$
1624: only varies by one unit.
1625:
1626:
1627: As further checks of the stability and reliability of our results we mention
1628: the following two.
1629: First, we could, as discussed above, have imposed the more stringent values for
1630: $a^1_1$ as given in ref.~18. Now, if for example we take, in accordance with (ACGL) in
1631: this reference, the
1632: value $a^1_1=(37\pm2)\times 10^{-3}\times m_\pi^{-3}$,
1633: instead of the value $a^1_1=(38\pm3)\times 10^{-3}\times m_\pi^{-3}$
1634: that follows from only {\sl experimental} $\pi\pi$ data, the fit deteriorates.
1635: The fit returns the value $a^1_1=(39\pm1)\times 10^{-3}\times m_\pi^{-3}$
1636: for the scattering length,
1637: in (slightly) better agreement with the input;
1638: but we do not consider this an improvement as the global $\chi^2$
1639: increases by 2 units.
1640:
1641: The corresponding value for the contribution to the anomaly changes very little, from the value
1642: $(4774\pm31)\times 10^{-11}$ (Eq.~{(3.13)}) to $(4768\pm 32)\times 10^{-11}$ now,
1643: i.e., a shift of only $6\times 10^{-11}$ with a small increase of the error.
1644: Thus, the results are insensitive to a more stringent input for $a^1_1$
1645: but, because the quality of the fit deteriorates,
1646: we still consider the result with the more relaxed input
1647: $a^1_1=(38\pm3)\times 10^{-3}\times m_\pi^{-3}$ to be less biased.
1648:
1649: Secondly, we have {\sl not} used the experimental phase shifts as input
1650: (except for the values of the scattering length).
1651: So, the values that follow from our expression (3.6), with
1652: the parameters given in (3.14), constitute really a {\sl prediction}
1653: for
1654: $\delta_1^1(t)$.
1655: This can be compared with the existing experimental values for this
1656: quantity,\ref{17} a comparison that may be found in \fig~5.
1657: The agreement is remarkable.
1658: The result one would have obtained if {\sl including}
1659: the phase shifts in the fit may be found after Table~1.
1660:
1661:
1662: \topinsert{
1663: \setbox0=\vbox{\hsize10.8truecm{\noindent\epsfxsize 9.5truecm\epsfbox{5del_pipi.eps}}}
1664: \setbox6=\vbox{\hsize 5.truecm\captiontype\figurasc{Figure 5. }{Our
1665: predicted phase $\pi\pi$ shift, $\delta_1^1$ (in radians), compared
1666: to the experimental values for the same (Solution 1 from
1667: Protopopescu et al., ref.~17).
1668: The experimental errors are of the order of the size of the black dots.
1669: \vskip0.6truecm
1670: }}
1671: \line{{\tightboxit{\box0}}\hfil\box6}
1672: }
1673: \endinsert
1674:
1675:
1676: Before finishing this section we have to clarify the matter of
1677: the $\omega$ and $\omega - \rho$ contribution to $a(2\pi;\,t\leq0.8\;\gev^2)$.
1678: Our fits to $e^+e^-$ data have actually been made including in the function $F_\pi$ as
1679: given above, \equn{(3.2)}, a coefficient to take into account
1680: the $\omega\to2\pi$ contribution. To be precise, we have used the expression
1681: $$F^{\rm all}_\pi(t)=F_\pi(t)\times
1682: \dfrac{1+\sigma\dfrac{m^2_\omega}{m^2_\omega-t-\ii m_\omega\gammav_\omega}}{1+\sigma}
1683: \equn{(3.17)}$$
1684: where the notation is obvious. We take from the PDG\ref{16} the values for
1685: the mass and width of the $\omega$,
1686: $$m_\omega=782.6\pm0.1\;\mev,\quad\gammav_\omega=8.4\pm0.9\;\mev,$$
1687: and the fit gives a mixing parameter $\sigma=(16\pm1)\times10^{-4}$.
1688:
1689: As is known, this Gounnaris--Sakurai\ref{18} parameterization is only
1690: valid for $t\simeq m_{\omega,\rho}^2$ and,
1691: in particular, its extrapolation to $t\sim0$ is not
1692: acceptable.
1693: This effect is very small, less than one part in a thousand.
1694: However, to play it safe, we have also adopted the following alternate procedure:
1695: we have obtained a first approximation to $F_\pi$ by fitting the experimental data
1696: {\sl excluding} the region $0.55\;\gev^2\leq t\leq0.65\;\gev^2$.
1697: Then we have fitted only this region adding there also the $\omega$ piece, as in
1698: (3.17). The resulting value for $a(2\pi;\,t\leq0.8\;\gev^2)$ varies very little;
1699: it decreases by something between $2$ and $12\times10^{-11}$,
1700: depending on the fit.
1701: We may consider this as part of the theoretical error of our calculation,
1702: to be discussed in next subsection.
1703:
1704: To finish this subsection, we present in Table~1 a comparison
1705: both with old results that also use
1706: analyticity properties, and a recent one (which does not).\fnote{A
1707: different case is the analysis of A.~Pich
1708: and J.~Portoles,
1709: Phys. Rev. {\bf D63} 093005, (2001), which also uses the
1710: Omn\`es equation method.
1711: This paper presents unfortunately a number of weak points.
1712: For example, the authors use an incorrect
1713: analyticity structure for $\delta^1_1$ (their equations (8) and (A2),
1714: without left hand cut or inelasticity cut); they also employ
1715: a mere Breit--Wigner to describe the phase in the rho region,
1716: while it is known that the rho deviates from this
1717: (e.g., our term $b_1$).
1718: They also forget the cut at high
1719: energy in their equivalent of our $G$ function.
1720: In what respects their results, the sitation is as follows.
1721: The value Pich and Portol\'es give (in units of $10^{-11}$ and
1722: for the contribution of $2\pi$
1723: at energies below $1.2 \gev^2$) is
1724: $5110\pm60 (PP)$, with a \chidof=33.8/21.
1725: This is substantially higher than all other results:
1726: $5027\pm61\;$ ({ Narison}, $\tau$ and $e^+e^-$ data);
1727: $5044\pm67\; \hbox{(Our result, only timelike}\; \tau$ data), \chidof=53/48,
1728: and
1729: $5004\pm51$ (Our best result, including $e^+e^-$ and spacelike data),
1730: \chidof=213/204.
1731: In the last three we have taken the piece $0.8\leq t\leq 1.2\;\gev^2$, equal
1732: to $230\pm5$, from $e^+e^-$ data.
1733: The result of Davier and H\"ocker (ref.~5), using tau data only, is essentially like
1734: ours. No doubt the bias introduced by the wrong parametrization of
1735: the paper of Pich and Portol\'es is
1736: responsible for their discrepancy.}
1737: \bigskip
1738: \setbox0=\vbox{\petit
1739: \medskip
1740: \setbox1=\vbox{\offinterlineskip\hrule
1741: \halign{
1742: &\vrule#&\strut\hfil#\hfil&\quad\vrule\quad#&
1743: \strut\quad#\quad&\quad\vrule#&\strut\quad#\cr
1744: height2mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
1745: &\hfil$4\,795\pm61$ \hfil&&\hfil N1\hfil&
1746: &\hfil $\tau+e^+e^-$\hfil& \cr
1747: height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
1748: \noalign{\hrule}
1749: height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
1750: &\phantom{\Big|}$4\,730\pm100$&&\hfil N2\hfil&&\hfil$e^+e^-$ \hfil& \cr
1751: \noalign{\hrule}
1752: &\phantom{\Big|}$4\,846\pm50$&&\hfil CLY, AY\ref{4}\hfil&&\hfil$e^+e^-$\hfil& \cr
1753: \noalign{\hrule}
1754: &\phantom{\Big|}$4\,794\pm50$&&\hfil CLY-II\ref{4}\hfil&&\hfil $e^+e^-\,+\,\pi\pi$ ph. shifts
1755: \phantom{l}\hfil& \cr
1756: \noalign{\hrule}
1757: &\phantom{\Big|}$4\,774\pm31$&&\hfil TY1\hfil&&\hfil$\tau+e^+e^-$\hfil&\cr
1758: \noalign{\hrule}
1759: &\phantom{\Big|}$4\,754\pm55$&&\hfil TY2\hfil&&\hfil only $e^+e^-$\hfil&\cr
1760: height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
1761: \noalign{\hrule}}
1762: \vskip.05cm}
1763: \centerline{\box1}
1764: \smallskip
1765: \centerline{\petit Table 1}
1766: \centerrule{6cm}
1767: \medskip
1768: \centerline{\petit Comparison of evaluations of $10^{11}\times a(2\pi;\,t\leq0.8\;\gev^2)$.}
1769: \centerline{\petit N1, N2 are in ref.~7. TY denotes our result here (statistical errors only
1770: for the $e^+e^-$ and spacelike data).}
1771: \medskip}
1772: \box0
1773: \medskip
1774:
1775:
1776:
1777: The difference between the old CLY, AY and the new determinations
1778: is due to a large extent to the influence of the new Novosibirsk and
1779: NA7 data which allow us in particular to obtain a robust
1780: result: the CLY evaluation used only 18
1781: data points!
1782: In this respect, we note that, if we had included the $\pi\pi$ phase shifts in the fit (with
1783: also $\tau$ decay data) we would have obtained $4781\pm29$ for this $2\pi$ contribution,
1784: i.e., a shift of only
1785: 7 units (as compared with a shift of 48 in the CLY-II evaluation).
1786: The value of the scattering length
1787: would be $a^1_1=(43\pm3)\times 10^{-3}m^{-3}_\pi$ now.
1788: The corresponding $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}$,
1789: 276/227 with only statistical errors, is also good.
1790: This is an important proof of the stability of our results against introduction of
1791: extra data.
1792: (However, as explained above, we prefer the result without fitting phase shifts
1793: because of the model-dependence of the last).
1794:
1795: The difference between the
1796: results of Narison (N), who does not take into account the Fermi--Watson theorem or
1797: the spacelike data and TY, who do, is due in good part to, precisely, the influence of the
1798: spacelike data which also help reduce the errors.
1799:
1800: \booksubsection{3.3. Systematic and theoretical errors for the
1801: pion form factor contribution}
1802: Errors included in this work are divided into statistical and systematic.
1803:
1804: Evaluation of the statistical errors is standard: the fit procedure
1805: (using the program MINUIT) provides the full error (correlation)
1806: matrix at the $\chi^2$ minimum. This matrix is used when calculating the
1807: corresponding integral for $a_{\mu}$, therefore incorporating
1808: automatically all the correlations among the various fit parameters.
1809:
1810: In addition, for every energy region, we have considered the errors
1811: that stem from experimental systematics, as well as those originating
1812: from deficiencies of the theoretical analysis.
1813: The experimental systematics covers the errors given by the individual
1814: experiments included in the fits. Also, when conflicting sets
1815: of data exist, the calculation has been repeated, and the given systematic
1816: error bar enlarged to encompass all the possibilities.
1817:
1818: In general, errors (considered as uncorrelated) have been added in quadrature.
1819: The exceptions are explicitly discussed along the text.
1820:
1821: We next discuss the errors that stem from experimental systematics,
1822: as well as those originating from deficiencies of the theoretical analysis
1823: for the $2\pi$ contribution,
1824: in the low energy region
1825: $4m^2_\pi\leq t\leq 0.8\,\gev^2$.
1826: We start with the systematic errors of the data.
1827: They are evaluated by taking them into
1828: account in a new fit.
1829: In this way we find, in units of $10^{-11}$, and neglecting the mass differences corrections
1830: (i.e., using (3.9a) for tau data)
1831: $$\eqalign{\hbox{Exp. Sys.}=&\pm40 \quad (e^+e^-\,+\,\tau)\cr
1832: \hbox{Exp. Sys.}=&\pm66 \quad (e^+e^-).\cr
1833: }$$
1834: To estimate the degree of correlation of the systematic errors pertaining to
1835: several experiments is a difficult task; we choose to consider the full
1836: range from $0$ to $1$.
1837: The error bars given cover all the possibilities.
1838: The \chidof\ of the fit
1839: improves when taking these systematic errors into account to
1840: $$\eqalign{
1841: \chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=214/204&\quad (e^+e^-\,+\,\tau)\cr
1842: \chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=145/154& \quad (e^+e^-).\cr
1843: }$$
1844:
1845: The error given for the
1846: case in which we include the decays of the tau
1847: would be smaller, and the \chidof\ would improve, if we used the correct kinematical formula for
1848: phase space, \equn{(3.10b)};
1849: we would have obtained
1850: $$\hbox{Exp. Sys.}=\pm30;\quad \chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=213/204\quad (e^+e^-\,+\,\tau).$$
1851: In spite of this, we choose to accept the larger error ($\pm40$) as we feel that it includes
1852: residual effects of isospin breaking and electromagnetic corrections,
1853: different for the tau and $e^+e^-$ cases, that we will discuss at the end of this subsection.
1854:
1855: We discuss the systematic and theoretical errors in the higher energy regions
1856: in next section, but we mention here that
1857: the systematic error
1858: ($4\times10^{-11}$) for $2\pi$ between $t=0.8$ and $1.2\,\gev^2$ is added coherently
1859: to the lower energy $2\pi$ piece.
1860:
1861: In addition to this we have several theoretical sources of error.
1862: First, that originating in the approximate character of the Gounnaris--Sakurai
1863: method for including the $\omega$.
1864: This we estimate as discussed at the end of \subsect~3.2, getting
1865: on the average $\pm7\times10^{-11}$.
1866: Then, the dependence of our results on $t_0$ can
1867: be interpreted as a theoretical uncertainty,
1868: that we take equal to $4\times10^{-11}$.
1869: Composing these errors
1870: quadratically, we can complete (3.13) to
1871: $$a(2\pi;\,t\leq0.8\;\gev^2)=
1872: \cases{
1873: 4\,774\pm31\;(\hbox{St.})\pm41\;(\hbox{Sys. +th.})=
1874: 4\,774\pm51\quad (e^+e^-\,+\tau\,+\;{\rm spacelike})\cr
1875: 4\,754\pm55\;(\hbox{St.})\pm66\;(\hbox{Sys. +th.})=
1876: 4\,754\pm86\quad (e^+e^-\,+\;{\rm spacelike}).\cr}
1877: \equn{(3.19)}$$
1878:
1879:
1880: To finish this subsection we will discuss in some detail some matters concerning
1881: to radiative corrections and
1882: isospin breaking in as much as they affect
1883: the error analysis.
1884: We will start with the analysis based on $e^+e^-$ data.
1885: When evaluating the pion form factor we have used formulas, deduced in particular from unitarity
1886: and analyticity,
1887: that only hold if we neglect electromagnetic (e.m.) interactions.
1888: However, experimentalists measure the pion form factor in the real world,
1889: where the $\pi^+\pi^-$ certainly interact electromagnetically.
1890: Not only this, but the initial particles ($e^+e^-$) also interact between themselves,
1891: and with the pions.
1892:
1893: These last electromagnetic interactions, however, can be evaluated
1894: and they are indeed subtracted
1895: when presenting experimental data on $F_\pi$; the uncertainties this
1896: process generates are estimated
1897: and included in the errors provided with the data.
1898: We will thus only discuss the uncertainties associated to
1899: e.m. interactions of the $\pi^+\pi^-$ alone.
1900: These particles may exchange a photon, or radiate a soft photon that is not detected
1901: (see the corresponding figures in \subsect~5.2).
1902: We may then define two quantities: $F^{(0)}_\pi$,
1903: which is the form factor we would have if there were no e.m. interactions;
1904: and $F^{\rm(real)}_\pi$, which is the measured quantity, even after removal of
1905: radiative corrections for initial states or mixed ones.
1906: Actually, $F^{\rm(real)}_\pi$ depends on the experimental setup through
1907: the cuts applied to ensure that no ({\sl hard}\/) photon is emitted.
1908:
1909: Our formalism, as developed in \subsect~3.1, applies to $F^{(0)}_\pi$,
1910: but we fit $F^{\rm(real)}_\pi$.
1911: Therefore, we are introducing an ambiguity
1912: $$F^{\rm(real)}_\pi-F^{(0)}_\pi$$
1913: which is of order $\alpha$.
1914:
1915: The error induced by this ambiguity should be small.
1916: In fact, what enters into $a_\mu$ is the sum of
1917: the contribution of $F_\pi^{(\rm real)}$,
1918: which is what we actually fit, and that of
1919: the state $\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$, which can be obtained from the process
1920: $$e^+e^-\to(\gamma)\to \pi^+\pi^-\gamma.$$
1921: For this reason, we believe that the error
1922: due to the mismatch of $F_\pi^{(\rm real)}$ and $F^{(0)}$
1923: is included in the errors to our fits here;\fnote{In
1924: particular for the evaluation including $\tau$ decay data, see below}
1925: the
1926: estimated error for the $\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$ contribution,
1927: $9\times10^{-11}$, will be evaluated in \subsect~5.2.
1928:
1929:
1930: Tau decay presents the same difficulties, and we expect a similar uncertainty
1931: as for $e^+e^-$ collisions.
1932: But apart from the effect $F^{\rm(real)}_\pi\neq F^{(0)}_\pi$ discussed,
1933: it poses extra problems when relating it to $F_\pi$. To discuss this, we
1934: take first $m_u\neq m_d$, $\alpha=0$; then we choose
1935: $\alpha\neq0$, but $m_u= m_d$. Higher effects, proportional to $\alpha(m_u- m_d)$,
1936: $\alpha^2$ and $(m_u- m_d)^2$
1937: shall be neglected.
1938:
1939: For $\alpha=0$, the masses of $\pi^+$ and $\pi^0$ become equal,
1940: but isospin invariance is still broken.
1941: This means that, in particular, the quantity $\piv^S$ in (3.10a) is nonzero
1942: and therefore the experimentally measured $v_1$ does not coincide with that in
1943: (3.10b). We expect this effect to be small, since it is of second order, $(m_d-m_u)^2$.
1944: If the scale is
1945: the QCD parameter $\lambdav$, then this will be of relative size $10^{-4}$;
1946: but other effects need not be so small.
1947: We have tried to take them into account by allowing for
1948: different parameters for $\rho^+$, $\rho^0$; this produced a
1949: substantial shift, of about $40\times10^{-11}$ for $a_\mu$.
1950:
1951: Then we set $m_u=m_d$ and take e.m. interactions to be nonzero.
1952: Apart from the effects already discussed, this produces
1953: the mass difference between charged and neutral pions.
1954: This we took (partially) into account
1955: when using the modified phase space of (3.10b).
1956: The ensuing effect for $a_\mu$ turned out to
1957: be small, $\sim4\times10^{-11}$.
1958:
1959: Remnants of $\alpha\neq0$ and $m_u\neq m_d$ will likely still
1960: affect the determination of $F_\pi$ from $e^+e^-$ and $\tau$ decay data;
1961: but we feel that accepting the systematic/theoretical error
1962: of $40\times10^{-11}$ covers the related
1963: uncertainty.
1964:
1965:
1966:
1967: \booksection{4. Contributions to $a^{(2)}({\rm h.v.p.})$ from
1968: $t>0.8\,\gev^2$. The full $a^{(2)}({\rm h.v.p.})$}
1969: \vskip-0.7truecm
1970: \booksubsection{4.1. The higher energy contributions, and
1971: the $3\pi$ contribution}
1972: At higher energies we will get a substantial
1973: improvement over determinations based on old data\ref{20}
1974: because of the existence of
1975: very precise measurements from Novosibirsk\ref{9} and Beijing,\ref{12}
1976: gathered in the last two--three years,
1977: which will help remove a large part of the existing errors.
1978: This is particularly true of the region up to $t=3\;\gev^2$ which caused
1979: an important part of the total errors in pre-1998 calculations of $a^{(2)}({\rm h.v.p.})$.
1980: We turn to it next.
1981: \bigskip
1982: \noindent4.1.1. {\sl The region up to $t= 3\;\gev^2$}
1983: \medskip
1984: We consider first the contribution of two, three, four pion, \dots, and
1985: $KK$ intermediate states for $0.8\leq t\leq1.2\,\gev^2$.
1986: In what follows n.w.a. will
1987: mean {\sl narrow width approximation}, r.d.a. {\sl resonance dominance approximation}
1988: (but not narrow approximation) and
1989: s.o.i.c. {\sl sum over individual channels}.
1990: For the n.w.a. we use the standard formula.
1991: Denoting by $\gammav_{ee}(V)$ to the width into $e^+e^-$ of a vector resonance $V$ with
1992: mass $M$, its contribution to $a^{(2)}(\hbox{h.v.p.})$ is given in this approximation by
1993: $$a(V)=\dfrac{3\gammav_{ee}(V)\hat{K}(M^2)}{\pi M}.
1994: \equn{(4.1)}$$
1995: The uncertainty on $a(V)$ is calculated by Gaussian error propagation for
1996: the parameters in (4.1). In practice, it is dominated by the
1997: experimental error of the electronic width.
1998:
1999: \topinsert
2000: {
2001: \setbox0=\vbox{\hsize10.truecm{\epsfxsize 8.5truecm\epsfbox{6_3pi.eps}}\hfil}
2002: \setbox6=\vbox{\hsize 6truecm\captiontype\figurasc{Figure 6. }{Plot of
2003: the fit to the $e^+e^-\to3\pi$ cross section up to\hb $t=1.2\;\gev^2$,
2004: with data from ref.~9.
2005: Continuous line: fit to CMD2 and SND data.
2006: Dashed line: fit to CMD2 and ND.}\hb
2007: \vskip.1cm}
2008: \medskip
2009: \line{\box0\hfil\box6}
2010: }
2011: \endinsert
2012:
2013: \medskip
2014: \setbox1\vbox{\hsize 5truecm \noindent $3\pi$ states, $9m^2_\pi\leq t\leq1.2\;\gev^2$\hb
2015: \hrule\medskip}
2016: \box1
2017:
2018: In the narrow width approximation one gets the $\omega$, $\phi$
2019: contributions:
2020: $$\eqalign{10^{11}\times a(3\pi;\omega)=&348\pm13\cr
2021: 10^{11}\times a(3\pi;\phi)=&62\pm3,\cr}
2022: \equn{(4.2)}$$
2023: but this misses the region between $\omega$ and $\phi$,
2024: and the interference effect just above the last.
2025: So we will use experimental data.\ref{9} This gives
2026: $$10^{11}\times a(3\pi;t\leq1.2\;\gev^2)=438\pm4\,(\hbox{Stat.})\pm11\,(\hbox{Sys.}).
2027: \equn{(4.3)}$$
2028:
2029: The fit to the $3\pi$ experimental cross section, with data from ref.~9, may be found in \fig~6.
2030: The upper curve (continuous line in \fig~6) is a fit to the CMD2 and SND data.
2031: We have used a Breit--Wigner parameterization for the $\omega$ and $\phi$
2032: resonances, plus a constant term
2033: and the exact threshold factor for $3\pi$ states.
2034: The \chidof\ is $63/60$;
2035: we consider this our central result here. The
2036: dashed curve fits instead the data from CMD2 and ND (Dolinsky et al, ref.~20);
2037: the quality of the fit is poorer
2038: ($\chidof=52/37$). It fits better the region between the $\omega$ and $\phi$, but fails to reproduce
2039: the data beyond $1.06\,\gev^2$. In fact, we include the second fit
2040: to estimate the corresponding systematic uncertainty;
2041: the small difference in terms of the integrals between the two fits, $8\times10^{-11}$,
2042: is included into the systematic error.
2043:
2044:
2045:
2046: \bigskip
2047: \setbox1\vbox{\hsize 5.8truecm \noindent $2\pi$ states, $0.8\;\gev^2\leq t\leq1.2\;\gev^2$\hb
2048: \hrule\medskip}
2049: \box1
2050: This $2\pi$ state contribution is
2051: $$10^{11}\times a(2\pi;t\leq1.2\;\gev^2)=230\pm3\pm4.
2052: \equn{(4.4)}$$
2053:
2054: \topinsert
2055: {
2056: \setbox0=\vbox{\hsize9.truecm\hfil{\epsfxsize 7.2truecm\epsfbox{7time_08_12.eps}}\hfil}
2057: \setbox6=\vbox{\hsize 5truecm\captiontype\figurasc{Figure 7. }{Plot of
2058: the fit to $|F_\pi(t)|^2$ in the region $0.8\leq t\leq1.2\;\gev^2$. }\hb
2059: \vskip.1cm}
2060: \line{\box0\hfil\box6}
2061: }
2062: \endinsert
2063:
2064:
2065: The evaluation of the contribution of
2066: the $2\pi$ state has greatly improved (with respect to older calculations)
2067: because of the information from recent Novosibirsk\ref{8} data
2068: on $e^+e^-\to2\pi$.
2069: We have fitted the experimental value of $|F_\pi|^2$ with an expression $1/(bt+a)$,
2070: $a,\,b$ completely free parameters;
2071: the result of this fit may be seen depicted in \fig~7.
2072: (A similar result is obtained if we extended our earlier calculation
2073: of $F_\pi(t)$ to $t\sim1.2\,\gev^2$ by setting
2074: $t_0=1.2$; but we prefer the result based only on experimental data.)
2075: Of the two errors given for the $2\pi$ contribution the first is statistical
2076: and the second, systematic, has been added {\sl coherently}
2077: to the systematic error on the low energy $2\pi$ contribution, as discussed in \subsect~3.3.
2078:
2079: The wiggle in \fig~7 for $t\sim m^2_\phi$ is due to the
2080: interference of the decay $\phi\to2\pi$. This is similar to
2081: the $\omega - \rho$ effect, and has been
2082: treated in a similar manner; we have incorporated
2083: it using the formulas and parameters given by Achasov et al.\ref{9}
2084: The influence of this effect on $a_\mu$ is minute.
2085:
2086:
2087:
2088:
2089: \bigskip
2090: \setbox1\vbox{\hsize 6.truecm \noindent $KK$ states, $0.8\;\gev^2\leq t\leq1.2\;\gev^2$\hb
2091: \hrule\medskip}
2092: \box1
2093:
2094: An important contribution is that of $KK$ states. In the n.w.a., this is given by
2095: the $\phi$:
2096: $$10^{11}\times a(KK; \phi)=332\pm9,\equn{(4.5)}$$
2097: but this is a dangerous procedure here; the vicinity of the $KK$ threshold
2098: distorts the shape of the resonance.
2099: We thus have to calculate this $KK$ contribution directly from experiment.
2100: We have used two fitting procedures.
2101: In the first, we fit simultaneously the $K^+K^-$ and $K_LK_S$ data of Achasov et al.,\ref{9}
2102: with the same
2103: parameters for the $\phi$. We get,
2104:
2105: $$10^{11}\times a(K^+K^-;\,t\leq 1.2\,\gev^2)=185.5\pm1.5\,(\hbox{Stat.})\pm13\,(\hbox{Sys.})
2106: $$
2107: and
2108: $$10^{11}\times a(K_LK_S;\,t\leq 1.2\,\gev^2)=129.5\pm0.7.$$
2109: The quality of the fit, shown in \fig~8, is good ($\chidof=84/82$).
2110:
2111: In the second fitting procedure, we add the
2112: $K_LK_S$ data of Akhmetshin el al.,\ref{9}
2113: obtaining the result
2114: $$10^{11}\times a(K_LK_S;\,t\leq 1.2\,\gev^2)=128.4\pm0.5\,(\hbox{Stat.})\pm2.6\,(\hbox{Sys.}).$$
2115: The fit is now less good,
2116: but the integrals are essentially identical for both fits.
2117: Adding the $KK$ results together we find
2118: $$10^{11}\times a(KK;\,t\leq 1.2\,\gev^2)=314\pm2\,(\hbox{Stat.})\pm13\,(\hbox{Sys.}).
2119: \equn{(4.6)}$$
2120: The systematic errors have been obtained repeating
2121: the fits, including now the systematic errors given by the experiments.
2122:
2123: We mention in passing that the ratio of contributions of $K^+K^-$ and
2124: $K_LK_S$, 1.44,
2125: agrees well with the ratio\ref{16}
2126: $$\dfrac{\gammav(\phi\to K^+K^-)}{\gammav(\phi\to K_LK_S)}=1.46\pm0.03.$$
2127:
2128:
2129:
2130:
2131:
2132: \topinsert{
2133: \setbox9=\vbox{
2134: \setbox0=\vbox{\hsize16.4truecm\line{\hfil{\epsfxsize 7.8truecm\epsfbox{81k0.eps}}\hfil
2135: {\epsfxsize 7.8truecm\epsfbox{82kp.eps}}\hfil}}
2136: \setbox6=\vbox{\hsize 12truecm\captiontype\figurasc{Figure 8. }{Plot
2137: of the fit to the cross section $e^+e^-\to K_LK_S$ (left), and to
2138: $e^+e^-\to K^+K^-$ (right).
2139: Data from ref.~9.}}
2140: \bigskip
2141: \centerline{\box0}
2142: \centerline{\box6}
2143: \bigskip}
2144: \box9
2145: }\endinsert
2146:
2147: \bigskip
2148: \setbox1\vbox{\hsize 9.truecm \noindent Other states: $4\pi,\,5\pi,\,\eta\pi^0\pi^0\cdots$;
2149: $0.8\leq t\leq1.2\;\gev^2$\hb
2150: \hrule\medskip}
2151: \box1
2152:
2153: The four pion contribution, including the quasi-two body state $\omega\pi$, may be obtained from
2154: recent Novosibirsk data,\ref{9} or from the compilation of
2155: Dolinsky et al.\ref{20} If we use the last we get
2156: $$10^{11}\times a(4\pi;t\leq1.2\;\gev^2)=25\pm4;$$
2157: if we fit the data of Akhmetshin et al.\ref{9} we find
2158: $$10^{11}\times a(4\pi;t\leq1.2\;\gev^2)=18\pm3.$$
2159: Of the $4\pi$ contribution most is due to the $\omega\pi^0$ channel; only a small fraction
2160: ($2.4\times10^{-11}$) comes from the $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$
2161: states.
2162: We take, for this $4\pi$ contribution, the figure
2163: $$10^{11}\times a(4\pi;t\leq1.2\;\gev^2)=20\pm5,\equn{(4.7)}$$
2164: which covers all possibilities.
2165:
2166:
2167: The five, six, \tdots, pions as well as $\omega\to\eta+2\pi^0$ contributions are very small.\ref{16,20}
2168: Altogether, they give
2169: $$10^{11}\times a(5\pi,\,6\pi,\,\eta\pi^0\pi^0,\cdots,\;t\leq1.2\;\gev^2)=4\pm2.
2170: \equn{(4.8)}$$
2171:
2172:
2173:
2174: We present the summary of our results
2175: in the important region $0.8\;\gev^2\leq t\leq 1.2$ plus the $3\pi$
2176: contribution below $1.2\;\gev^2$ in the following Table~2:
2177: \bigskip
2178: \setbox0=\vbox{\petit
2179: \medskip
2180: \setbox1=\vbox{\offinterlineskip\hrule
2181: \halign{
2182: &\vrule#&\strut\hfil#\hfil&\quad\vrule\quad#&
2183: \strut\quad#\quad&\quad\vrule#&\strut\quad#\cr
2184: height2mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
2185: &\hfil\phantom{l} Channels\hfil&&\hfil\hfil&
2186: &\hfil Comments\hfil& \cr
2187: height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
2188: \noalign{\hrule}
2189: height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
2190: &\phantom{\Big|}$\pi^+\pi^-$&&\hfil$230\pm3\pm4$\hfil&&\hfil$0.8\leq t\leq 1.2\gev^2$ \hfil& \cr
2191: \noalign{\hrule}
2192: &\phantom{\Big|}$3\pi$&&\hfil$438\pm4\pm11$\hfil&&\hfil$9m^2_\pi\leq t\leq 1.2\gev^2$\phantom{l}\hfil& \cr
2193: \noalign{\hrule}
2194: &\phantom{\Big|}$K^+K^-$&&\hfil$186\pm2\pm13$\hfil&&\hfil\hfil& \cr
2195: \noalign{\hrule}
2196: &\phantom{\Big|}$K_LK_S$&&\hfil$128\pm1\pm2$\hfil&&\hfil\hfil&\cr
2197: \noalign{\hrule}
2198: &\phantom{\Big|}$4\pi$&&\hfil$20\pm5$\hfil&&\hfil including $\omega\pi^0$\hfil&\cr
2199: \noalign{\hrule}
2200: &\phantom{\Big|}Multipion, $\eta+2\pi, \cdots$&&\hfil$4\pm2$\hfil&&\hfil\hfil&\cr
2201: \noalign{\hrule}
2202: &\phantom{\Big|}&\omit&\hfil\hfil&\omit&\hfil\hfil&\cr
2203: \noalign{\hrule}
2204: &\phantom{\Big|}{\sc Total}&&\hfil$1\,006\pm19$\hfil&&Syst. error for $2\pi$
2205: not included &\cr
2206: height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
2207: \noalign{\hrule}}
2208: \vskip.05cm}
2209: \centerline{\box1}
2210: \smallskip
2211: \centerline{\petit Table 2}
2212: \centerrule{6cm}
2213: \medskip
2214: \centerline{Contribution to $a^{(2)}$ of various channels up
2215: to $t=1.2\;\gev^2$ ($2\pi$ below $0.8\,\gev^2$ {\sl not} included).}
2216: \medskip}
2217: \box0
2218: \medskip
2219:
2220:
2221: \setbox1\vbox{\hsize 4.cm \noindent $1.2\;\gev^2\leq t\leq2\;\gev^2$\hb
2222: \hrule\medskip}
2223: \box1
2224:
2225: We consider three determinations:
2226: $$\eqalign{
2227: 270\pm27&\quad \hbox{(Here)}\cr
2228: 278\pm25&\quad \hbox{(s.o.i.c., CLY\ref{4})}\cr
2229: 265\pm22&\quad \hbox{(VMD+QCD; AY)}.\cr}\equn{(4.9)}$$
2230:
2231: The first is obtained from a numerical integration of the data,\ref{20}
2232: with a parabolic fit.
2233: The method referred to as ``VMD+QCD; AY", details of which can be found
2234: in the AY\ref{4} paper, consists in interpolating between a vector meson dominance
2235: (VMD) calculation for quasi-two~body processes ($\omega\pi,\;\rho\pi, \dots$),
2236: plus a Breit--Wigner expression for
2237: two-body channels ($\pi\pi,\,KK$, \dots) at the lower end,
2238: and perturbative QCD at the upper end,
2239: the interpolation being obtained by fitting experimental data (see \fig~9).
2240: Because we want to present a result as model-independent
2241: as possible, we will take as our preferred figure that obtained here from experimental data:
2242: $$10^{11}\times a(1.2\;\gev^2\leq t\leq2\,\gev^2)=270\pm27.\equn{(4.10)}$$
2243:
2244: \topinsert{
2245: \setbox0=\vbox{\hsize9.truecm{\epsfxsize 7.4truecm\epsfbox{9ay_interp.eps}}}
2246: \setbox6=\vbox{\hsize 6.truecm\captiontype\figurasc{Figure 9. }{Experimental
2247: data and various interpolations between the VMD calculation, for small $t$,
2248: and QCD for larger $t$. From AY, ref.~4; data from ref.~20.}\hb
2249: \vskip.1cm}
2250: \medskip
2251: \line{\box0\hfil\box6}
2252: \medskip
2253: }\endinsert
2254:
2255: \bigskip
2256:
2257:
2258:
2259: \setbox1\vbox{\hsize 4cm \noindent $2\;\gev^2\leq t\leq3\;\gev^2$\hb
2260: \hrule\medskip}
2261: \box1
2262:
2263: $$\eqalign{240&\pm3\,(\lambdav)\pm3\,(\hbox{Cond.) ({\rm QCD})}\cr
2264: 250&\pm19\qquad \hbox{(N\ref{7}, r.d.a.; only}\;e^+e^-)\cr
2265: 276&\pm36\qquad \hbox{(N\ref{7}, r.d.a.};\;e^+e^-\,+\,\tau)\cr
2266: 222&\pm5\;\hbox{(St.)}\pm15\;\hbox{(Sys.)}\quad \hbox{(J, exp. data}).\cr}
2267: \equn{(4.11)}$$
2268: (J) here denotes an evaluation, integrating with the trapezoidal rule, of a compilation
2269: of experimental data
2270: supplied by F.~Jegerlehner.
2271:
2272: For the QCD calculations we take the following approximation: for $n_f$ massless quark
2273: flavours,
2274: with charges $Q_f$, we write
2275: $$\eqalign{R^{(0)}(t)=&\;3\sum_fQ_f^2\Bigg\{1+\dfrac{\alpha_s}{\pi}+
2276: (1.986-0.115n_f)\left(\dfrac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\right)^2\cr
2277: +&\;\Big[-6.64-1.20n_f-0.005n_f^2-1.240\dfrac{(\sum_f Q_f)^2}{3(\sum_f Q_f^2)}\Big]
2278: \left(\dfrac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\right)^3\Bigg\}.\cr}
2279: $$
2280: To this one adds mass and nonperturbative corrections.
2281: We take into account the $O(m^{2})$ effect for quarks with
2282: running mass $\bar{m}_i(t)$, which correct $R^{(0)}$ by the amount\fnote{The
2283: corrections of order $m^4$ may be found in
2284: the paper of Narison,\ref{7} together with references.
2285: We have checked that the effect of this correction is smaller than
2286: the errors of the leading terms.}
2287: $$-3\sum_iQ_i^2\bar{m}^2_i(t)\left\{6+28\dfrac{\alpha_s}{\pi}
2288: +(294.8-12.3n_f)\left(\dfrac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\right)^2\right\}t^{-1}.$$
2289: Finally, for the condensates we add
2290: $$\dfrac{2\pi}{3}\left(1-\tfrac{11}{18}\dfrac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\right)\langle\alpha_s G^2\rangle
2291: \sum_f Q^2_f$$
2292: and
2293: $$24\pi^2\left[1-\tfrac{23}{27}\dfrac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\right]m_i\langle\bar{\psi}_i\psi_i\rangle.$$
2294: We neglect the condensates corresponding to heavy quarks ($c,\,b$) and
2295: express those for $u,\,d,\,s$ in terms of
2296: $f^2_\pi m^2_\pi$, $f^2_K m^2_K$ using the well-known PCAC relations.
2297:
2298:
2299: In the QCD calculation, the error labeled ``Cond." is found by
2300: inserting the variation obtained
2301: setting quark and gluon condensates to zero, and that labeled
2302: $\lambdav$ by varying the QCD parameter.
2303: For this parameter
2304: we take the recent determinations\ref{21}
2305: that correspond to the value
2306: $$\alpha_s(M_Z^2)=0.1172\pm 0.003;$$
2307: to be precise, we have taken (in \mev, and to four loops),
2308: $$\lambdav=373\pm80,\;t\leq m_c^2;\quad \lambdav=283\pm50, \;m_c^2\leq t\leq m_b^2;\quad
2309: \lambdav=199\pm30,\;t\geq m_b^2.$$
2310: For the gluon condensate we take $\langle\alpha_s G^2\rangle=0.07\,\gev^4$.
2311:
2312:
2313: The four evaluations give comparable results, with the r.d.a. ones
2314: larger, and presenting also larger errors.
2315: As proved by the reliability of QCD calculations of semileptonic $\tau$ decays,
2316: a similar process in a similar energy range, we think perturbative QCD can be
2317: trusted here,
2318: so we select the corresponding value as our best result.
2319: We write thus
2320: $$10^{11}\times a(2\;\gev^2\leq t\leq3\,\gev^2)=240\pm6,\equn{(4.12)}$$
2321: where we have added linearly the errors due to $\lambdav$ and the condensates.
2322:
2323: As a verification of the reliability of
2324: the calculation, as well as the improvement it presents when compared with earlier determinations, in the
2325: rather involved energy range $0.8\leq t\leq 3\,\gev^2$ (including
2326: here the full $3\pi$ contribution),
2327: we compare our value here (adding, for the occasion,
2328: the channels $\omega,\,\phi\to\pi^0\gamma,\,\eta\gamma$, see \subsect~5.2)
2329: with that obtained by Narison\ref{7} who uses
2330: resonance dominance and s.o.i.c., and to the old CLY\ref{4} evaluation, with s.o.i.c.
2331: and QCD:
2332: $$\eqalign{
2333: 10^{11}\times a(0.8\;\gev^2\leq t\leq3\,\gev^2 +\, \omega\to3\pi)=&1\,559\pm34\;\hbox{(Here)}\cr
2334: 10^{11}\times a(0.8\;\gev^2\leq t\leq3\,\gev^2 +
2335: \,\omega\to3\pi)=&1\,631\pm46\;\hbox{(Narison},\;\tau+e^+e^-)\cr
2336: 10^{11}\times a(0.8\;\gev^2\leq t\leq3\,\gev^2 +\,
2337: \omega\to3\pi)=&1\,675\pm65\;\hbox{(Narison},\;e^+e^-)\cr
2338: 10^{11}\times a(0.8\;\gev^2\leq t\leq3\,\gev^2 +\,
2339: \omega\to3\pi)=&1\,618\pm97\;\hbox{(CLY},\;e^+e^-)\cr}
2340: \equn{(4.13)}$$
2341: The compatibility between the results, using
2342: different methods of
2343: evaluation for many pieces, is reasonable.
2344: \bigskip
2345: \noindent4.1.2. {\sl The region $3\;\gev^2\leq t\leq 4.6^2\;\gev^2$}
2346: \medskip
2347: This is another region where the availability of recent precise data\ref{12}
2348: in the neighbourhood of the
2349: $\bar{c}c$ threshold, previously poorly known,
2350: permits a reliable evaluation.
2351: As a byproduct, we get an experimental validation
2352: of QCD calculations.
2353: \medskip
2354: \goodbreak
2355:
2356:
2357: \setbox1\vbox{\hsize 4.0cm \noindent $3\;\gev^2\leq t\leq2^2\;\gev^2$\hb
2358: \hrule\medskip}
2359: \box1
2360: We use perturbative QCD here and get
2361: $$10^{11}\times a(3 - 2^2\,\gev^2)=120\pm0.8\,(\lambdav)\pm0.8\,(\hbox{Cond.)}.$$
2362:
2363: \bigskip
2364: \goodbreak
2365: \setbox1\vbox{\hsize 4.cm \noindent $2^2\;\gev^2\leq t\leq3^2\;\gev^2$\hb
2366: \hrule\medskip}
2367: \box1
2368: We have now very good recent experimental data.
2369: So we present two determinations:
2370: $$\eqalign{10^{11}\times a(2^2 - 3^2\,\gev^2)=200\pm1\,(\lambdav)&\quad \hbox{(QCD)}\cr
2371: 10^{11}\times a(2^2 - 3^2\,\gev^2)=210\pm3 {\rm (St.)}\pm14{\rm (Sys.)}&\quad \hbox{(Exp. BES)}\cr}$$
2372: We only give the error due to $\lambdav$ here
2373: because that due to the condensates
2374: is negligible. When integrating the BES data we
2375: have used the trapezoidal rule.
2376: If instead we fitted a horizontal line, we would have obtained
2377: $$10^{11}\times a(2^2 - 3^2\,\gev^2)=207\pm2 {\rm (St.)}\pm13{\rm (Sys.)}\quad \hbox{(Exp. BES)}$$
2378: The BES\ref{12} purely experimental result
2379: and the QCD calculation
2380: are compatible, but one has to take into account the
2381: {\sl systematic} errors of the
2382: first. This shows clearly the importance of systematic variations in
2383: $e^+e^-$ annihilations data. We take as our preferred value for the sum
2384: of the two intervals that obtained from the QCD calculations:
2385: $$10^{11}\times a(3\;\gev^2\leq t\leq3^2\,\gev^2)=320\pm2\pm1=320\pm3.\equn{(4.14)}$$
2386:
2387: \goodbreak
2388: \medskip
2389: \setbox1\vbox{\hsize 4.4cm \noindent $3^2\;\gev^2\leq t\leq4.6^2\;\gev^2$\hb
2390: \hrule\medskip}
2391: \box1
2392: We give here the results in units of $10^{-11}$. We separate
2393: the contribution of the $J/\psi$, $\psi'$,
2394: that we calculate in the n.w.a., and the rest. For the first we have,
2395: $$\eqalign{62.0\pm 4.0&\quad J/\psi\cr
2396: 14.8\pm1.3&\quad \psi'\cr}$$
2397: \medskip
2398:
2399: For the remainder we have the following possibilities:
2400: $$\eqalign{91\pm0.4\,(\lambdav)&\quad uds;\;\hbox{(QCD; $3^2\;\gev^2\leq t\leq4.6^2\;\gev^2$)}\cr
2401: 4.0\pm0.4&\quad \psi'',\psi''',\psi^{IV}\;\hbox{(N, r.d.a.)}\cr}$$
2402: \smallskip
2403: \noindent{\sc Total:} $172\pm4\qquad$ (N; QCD+r.d.a.)
2404: \medskip
2405: $$\eqalign{91\pm0.4\,(\lambdav)&\quad uds;\;\hbox{(QCD; $3^2\;\gev^2\leq t\leq4.6^2\;\gev^2$)}\cr
2406: 46.8 - 28.6 \to 38\pm10&\quad\hbox{$\bar{c}c$. (AY, NRQCD)}\cr}$$
2407: \smallskip
2408: \noindent{\sc Total:} $206\pm11\qquad$ (AY; QCD+NRQCD)
2409: \medskip
2410: $$\eqalign{54.7\pm0.3\,(\lambdav)& \quad\hbox{(QCD)}: 3.0^2\leq t\leq 3.7^2\cr
2411: 56\pm0.3\pm3& \quad\hbox{(Exp., BES)}: 3.7^2\leq t\leq 4.6^2\cr}$$
2412: \smallskip
2413: \noindent{\sc Total:} $188\pm4\pm3\qquad$ (Exp., BES+QCD)
2414: \medskip
2415: Here N refers to the paper of Narison\ref{7}, and AY is in ref.~4.
2416: BES are the experimental data from ref.~12. The first error
2417: for them is the statistical, the second the systematic one.
2418:
2419: This region merits a somewhat detailed discussion, as there is
2420: a certain controversy
2421: about it. We have
2422: made the calculation in three different manners.
2423: First, we separate the $u,d,s$ quarks contribution,
2424: that can be evaluated using perturbative QCD.
2425: The contribution of the $\bar{c}c$ states is then evaluated saturating
2426: it by the $\psi$ resonances, in the r.d.a.; this is the result labeled (N, r.d.a.).
2427: This saturation procedure does not produce a good description.
2428:
2429: \topinsert{
2430: \setbox0=\vbox{\hsize16.4truecm{\epsfxsize 15.truecm\epsfbox{10bes.eps}}\hfil}
2431: \setbox6=\vbox{\hsize 13.8truecm\captiontype\figurasc{Figure 10. }{Plot of
2432: BES experimental
2433: data and QCD for the $u,\,d,\,s$ quarks (lower $t$)
2434: and the same plus NRQCD for the $c$ quark contribution, from $t=3.74^2\;\gev^2$
2435: to $4.6^2\;\gev^2$
2436: at the right. Only {\sl systematic} errors shown for experimental data.
2437: Statistical ones are even smaller.}\hb
2438: \vskip.1cm}
2439: \medskip
2440: \centerline{\tightboxit{\box0}}
2441: \medskip
2442: \centerline{\box6}
2443: \medskip
2444: }
2445: \endinsert
2446:
2447: In a second method one separates also the $u,d,s$ contribution; but the
2448: $\bar{c}c$ one is treated differently.
2449: If a resonance is below the channel for open charm production, which is set
2450: at $t=4m^2_c$ (with $c$ the pole mass of the $c$ quark), then it is treated
2451: as a bound state, in the n.w.a. Above $\bar{c}c$ threshold, one uses nonrelativistic QCD
2452: (see AY, ref.~4 and ref.~22).
2453: The two values reported above for such a calculation (AY, NRQCD)
2454: are for two values of the $c$ quark mass: $m_c=1.750\,\gev$, in
2455: which case only the $J/\psi$ should be taken to be
2456: below threshold, and $m_c=1.866\,\gev$ and then both $J/\psi$ and $\psi'$ are
2457: to be added below threshold. This last gives the smallest number (28.6).
2458: The result of the calculation is taken as
2459: the average of both numbers, with half the difference as the estimated error.
2460: In \fig~10 one can see the BES\ref{12} data and the predictions of
2461: QCD and NRQCD, the last for $m_c=1.87\;\gev$.
2462:
2463: The third method, which is the one that yields our preferred number,
2464: $$10^{11}\times a(3^2\;\gev^2\leq t\leq4.6^2\,\gev^2)=
2465: 188\pm4\pm3,\equn{(4.15)}$$
2466: is obtained by using QCD for $u, d, s$ quarks {\sl plus}
2467: $J/\psi,\,\psi'$ below $t=3.7^2$, and experimental data (BES\ref{12}) above that energy.
2468:
2469:
2470: All three methods give overlapping results, within errors,
2471: with the r.d.a. below experiment, and with an
2472: underestimated error, and with the NRQCD calculation reproducing better
2473: the data.
2474: This NRQCD calculation depends strongly on the mass of the $c$ quark and, in fact, one can
2475: turn the argument backwards and {\sl predict}
2476: $m_c$ by requiring equality with the experimental figure. If we do so, we find
2477: $$m_c\simeq1.89\;\gev,$$
2478: a very reasonable estimate consistent with the two loop result,\ref{23}
2479: correct to $O(\alpha_s^4)$, which gives
2480: $m_c=1.866\pm0.20\;\gev$.
2481:
2482:
2483: \bigskip\goodbreak
2484: \noindent4.1.3. {\sl The region $t\geq4.6^2\;\gev^2$}
2485: \medskip
2486: The results from this region have not changed noticeably, but we give them for completeness.
2487: \medskip\goodbreak
2488: \setbox1\vbox{\hsize 4.5cm \noindent $4.6^2\;\gev^2\leq t\leq11.2^2\;\gev^2$\hb
2489: \hrule\medskip}
2490: \box1
2491: For the first $\Upsilonv$ resonances, and in units of $10^{-11}$,
2492: $$\eqalign{0.55\pm0.03&\quad \Upsilonv\cr
2493: 0.18\pm0.01&\quad \Upsilonv'.\cr}$$
2494: Then,
2495: $$88.8\pm1.0\,(\lambdav)\quad udsc:\;\hbox{(QCD)},\;4.6^2\;\gev^2\leq t\leq11.2^2\;\gev^2$$
2496:
2497: $$\eqalign{0.22\pm0.04& \quad \bar{b}b: \hbox{(N, n.w.a.)}, \Upsilonv'',\Upsilonv''',\dots\cr
2498: 0.53\pm0.08& \quad \bar{b}b:\hbox{(AY, NRQCD)}\cr}$$
2499: Adding this, we get
2500:
2501: \noindent{\sc Total:} $90\pm1\qquad$ (N; QCD+n.w.a.)
2502:
2503: \noindent{\sc Total:} $90\pm1\qquad$ (AY; QCD+NRQCD)
2504:
2505: The notation is like for the $c$ threshold region.
2506: The error in the (AY, NRQCD) evaluation is due to the
2507: error in the QCD parameter, $\lambdav$, and the $b$ quark pole mass,
2508: for which we have taken\ref{23} $m_b=5.00\pm0.10\;\gev$.
2509: Both figures are essentially identical and we thus take
2510: $$10^{11}\times a(4.6^2\;\gev^2\leq t\leq11.2^2\,\gev^2)=90\pm1.
2511: \eqno{(4.16)} $$
2512:
2513: \bigskip
2514: \setbox1\vbox{\hsize 5truecm \noindent $11.2^2\;\gev^2\leq t\to\infty\;\gev^2$\hb
2515: \hrule\medskip}
2516: \box1
2517: The use of QCD is mandatory here. The contribution above $\bar{t}t$
2518: threshold is negligible, so we calculate with $n_f=5$ and get,
2519: $$10^{11}\times a(11.2^2\;\gev^2\leq t\to \infty)=21\pm0.1\,(\lambdav).
2520: \equn{(4.17)}$$
2521:
2522:
2523: \booksubsection{4.2. The whole $a^{(2)}({\rm h.v.p.})$}
2524: Our final result for the $O(\alpha^2)$ hadronic
2525: contribution to $a_\mu$ is then
2526: $$10^{11}\times a^{(2)}(\hbox{h.v.p.})=\cases{
2527: 6\,909\pm64\quad (e^+e^-\,+\,\tau\,+\,\hbox{spacel.})\cr
2528: 6\,889\pm96\quad (e^+e^-\,+\,\hbox{spacel.})\cr}
2529: \equn{(4.18)}$$
2530:
2531: To compare with other evaluations we have to add the contribution
2532: $(43\pm4)\times10^{-11}$ of some of
2533: the radiative decays of the $\rho$, $\omega$, $\phi$
2534: (see \sect~5.2) that other authors include. This
2535: comparison is shown, for a few representative calculations,\fnote{A more
2536: complete list of evaluations, including some of the very earliest ones,
2537: may be found in the paper of Narison, ref.~7.} in Table~3.
2538:
2539: \bigskip
2540: \setbox0=\vbox{\petit
2541: \medskip
2542: \setbox1=\vbox{\offinterlineskip\hrule
2543: \halign{
2544: &\vrule#&\strut\hfil#\hfil&\quad\vrule\quad#&
2545: \strut\quad#\quad&\quad\vrule#&\strut\quad#\cr
2546: height2mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
2547: &\hfil\phantom{l} Authors\hfil&&\hfil$10^{11}\times a(\hbox{h.v.p.})$\hfil&
2548: &\hfil Comments\hfil& \cr
2549: height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
2550: \noalign{\hrule}
2551: height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
2552: &\phantom{\Big|}KNO&&\hfil$7\,068\pm174$\hfil&&\hfil$e^+e^-$ only\hfil& \cr
2553: \noalign{\hrule}
2554: &\phantom{\Big|}CLY&&\hfil$7\,100\pm116$\hfil&&\hfil$e^+e^-\,+\,$ spacel.\phantom{l}\hfil& \cr
2555: \noalign{\hrule}
2556: &\phantom{\Big|}CLY-II&&\hfil$7\,070\pm116$\hfil&&\hfil$e^+e^-\,+\,$ sp. + $\pi\pi$ ph. shifts\phantom{l}\hfil& \cr
2557: \noalign{\hrule}
2558: &\phantom{\Big|}ADH&&\hfil$7\,011\pm94$\hfil&&\hfil$e^+e^-\,+\,\tau$\hfil&\cr
2559: \noalign{\hrule}
2560: &\phantom{\Big|}BW&&\hfil$7\,026\pm160$\hfil&&\hfil$e^+e^-$\hfil&\cr
2561: \noalign{\hrule}
2562: &\phantom{\Big|}AY&&\hfil$7\,113\pm103$\hfil&&\hfil$e^+e^-\,+\,$ spacel.\hfil&\cr
2563: \noalign{\hrule}
2564: &\phantom{\Big|}DH&&\hfil$6\,924\pm62$\hfil&&\hfil$e^+e^-\,+\,\tau$\hfil&\cr
2565: \noalign{\hrule}
2566: &\phantom{\Big|}J&&\hfil$6\,974\pm105$\hfil&& &\cr
2567: \noalign{\hrule}
2568: &\phantom{\Big|}N1&&\hfil$7\,031\pm77$\hfil&&\hfil$e^+e^-\,+\,\tau$\hfil&\cr
2569: \noalign{\hrule}
2570: &\phantom{\Big|}N2&&\hfil$7\,011\pm117$\hfil&&\hfil$e^+e^-$ only\hfil& \cr
2571: \noalign{\hrule}
2572: &\phantom{\Big|}TY1&&\hfil$6\,952\pm64$\hfil&&\hfil$e^+e^-\,+\,\tau\,+\,$spacel.\hfil&\cr
2573: \noalign{\hrule}
2574: &\phantom{\Big|}TY2&&\hfil$6\,932\pm96$\hfil&&\hfil$e^+e^-\,+\,$ spacel. only\phantom{l}\hfil&\cr
2575: height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
2576: \noalign{\hrule}}
2577: \vskip.05cm}
2578: \centerline{\box1}
2579: \smallskip
2580: \centerline{\petit Table 3}
2581: \centerrule{6cm}
2582: \medskip
2583: \centerline{KNO: ref.~3; BW: ref.~3; J: ref.~6; CLY, CLY-II, AY: ref.~4; N: ref.~7; DH, ADH: ref.~5.}
2584: \medskip}
2585: \box0
2586: \medskip
2587:
2588:
2589: If we had added also the other radiative contributions ($\pi\pi\gamma$, and the
2590: continuum ${\rm hadron}+\gamma$, cf. \subsect~5.2) we would have found
2591: the hadronic vacuum polarization piece, correct to
2592: order $\alpha^2$ and $\alpha^3$,
2593: $$10^{11}\times a^{(2+3)}(\hbox{h.v.p.})=\cases{
2594: 7\,002\pm66\quad (e^+e^-\,+\,\tau\,+\,\hbox{spacel.})\cr
2595: 6\,982\pm97\quad (e^+e^-\,+\,\hbox{spacel.})\cr}
2596: \equn{(4.19)}$$
2597:
2598: \booksection{5. Higher order hadronic contributions}
2599: \vskip-0.7truecm
2600: \booksubsection{5.1. Hadronic light-by-light contributions}
2601: A contribution in a class by itself is the hadronic light by light one.
2602: So we split
2603: $$a(\hbox{Other hadronic, $O(\alpha^3)$})=a(\hbox{`One blob' hadronic, $O(\alpha^3)$})+
2604: a(\hbox{Hadronic light by light}).\equn{(5.1)}$$
2605:
2606: \topinsert
2607: {
2608: \setbox0=\vbox{\hsize9.truecm{\epsfxsize 7.4truecm\epsfbox{11light.eps}}}
2609: \setbox6=\vbox{\hsize 6.truecm\captiontype\figurasc{Figure 11. }{The
2610: hadronic light by light contributions to the muon magnetic moment.}\hb
2611: \vskip.1cm}
2612: \medskip
2613: \line{\box0\hfil\box6}
2614: \medskip
2615: }
2616: \endinsert
2617:
2618: We will start by considering the last, given diagrammatically by the graph of \fig~11.
2619: This can be evaluated only using {\sl models}.
2620: One can make a chiral model calculation, in the Nambu--Jona-Lasinio
2621: version or the chiral perturbation theory
2622: variety, with a cut-off, or one can use a constituent quark model
2623: in which we replace the blob in \fig~11 by a quark loop (\fig~12).
2624: The result depends on the cut-off (for the chiral calculation) or on the constituent mass chosen
2625: for the quarks.
2626: After the correction of a sign error in the
2627: evaluations of ref.~24 by M.~Knecht and A.~Nyffeler (hep-ph/0111058),
2628: confirmed in M.~Hayakawa and T.~Kinoshita (hep-ph/0112102) we have
2629: $$10^{11}\times a(\hbox{Hadronic light by light})=
2630: 86\pm25\quad \hbox{Chiral calculation; BPP, HKS}.
2631: \equn{(5.2a)}$$
2632: Earlier calculations with the chiral model, using VMD to cure its divergence, gave
2633: (HKS, ref.~24)
2634: $$10^{11}\times a(\hbox{Hadronic light by light})=
2635: 52\pm20\quad \hbox{Chiral calculation (HKS)}.
2636: \equn{(5.2b)}$$
2637:
2638:
2639:
2640: For the constituent quark model we use the results
2641: of Laporta and Remiddi.\ref{25} The contribution to $a_\mu$ of light by light scattering,
2642: with a loop with a fermion of charge $Q_i$, and mass $m_i$ larger than the muon mass, is
2643:
2644: $$a_{l\times l;\,i}=Q_i^4\left({\alpha}\over{\pi}\right)^3
2645: c_{l\times l,\,i},$$
2646: where, to order $(m_\mu/m_i)^4$,
2647:
2648: $$\eqalign{c_{l\times
2649: l,\,i}=&\left(\dfrac{m_\mu}{m_i}\right)^2\left[\tfrac{3}{2}\zeta(3)-\tfrac{19}{16}\right]\cr
2650: +\left(\dfrac{m_\mu}{m_i}\right)^4&\left[-\tfrac{161}{810}\log^2\dfrac{m_i}{m_\mu}
2651: -\tfrac{16189}{48600}\log\dfrac{m_i}{m_\mu}
2652: +\tfrac{13}{18}\zeta(3)-\tfrac{161}{9720}\pi^2-\tfrac{831931}{972000}\right]+\cdots.
2653: \cr}$$
2654:
2655: Taking constituent masses,
2656: $$m_{u,d}=0.33,\quad m_s=0.50,\quad m_c=1.87\quad \gev$$
2657: we find
2658: $$10^{11}\times a(\hbox{Hadronic light by light})=
2659: 46\pm10\quad \hbox{(Quark const. model)}
2660: \equn{(5.2c)}$$
2661: and the error is estimated by varying $m_{u,d}$ by 10\%.
2662:
2663:
2664: \midinsert{
2665: \setbox0=\vbox{\hsize9.truecm{\epsfxsize 7.4truecm\epsfbox{12light_quark.eps}}}
2666: \setbox6=\vbox{\hsize 6.truecm\captiontype\figurasc{Figure 12. }{The
2667: light by light hadronic correction in the constituent quark model.}\hb
2668: \vskip.1cm}
2669: \medskip
2670: \line{\box0\hfil\box6}
2671: \medskip
2672: }\endinsert
2673:
2674: One could also take the estimate of the $\pi^0$ pole from
2675: Hayakawa, Kinoshita and Sanda\ref{24} {\sl and} add
2676: the constituent quark loop, in which case we get
2677: $$10^{11}\times a(\hbox{Hadronic light by light})=
2678: 98\pm22\quad \hbox{(Quark const. model+ pion pole)}:
2679: \equn{(5.2d)}$$
2680: one expects the chiral calculation to be valid for small
2681: values of the virtual photon momenta,
2682: and the constituent model to hold for large values of the same.\fnote{Strictly
2683: speaking, one would also need large momentum of the external photon to get
2684: a really trustworthy
2685: evaluation with the
2686: constituent model.}
2687: Indeed, almost a half of the contribution to $a(\hbox{Hadronic light by light})$
2688: in the chiral calculation comes from a region of momenta above $0.5$ GeV,
2689: where the chiral perturbation theory starts to fail,
2690: while for this range of energies, and
2691: at least for the imaginary part of
2692: (diagonal) light by light scattering,
2693: the quark model reproduces reasonably well the experimental data
2694: (see for example ref.~26 for a recent review of this).
2695:
2696: We will take here the figure, which comprises the relevant determinations,
2697: $$10^{11}\times a(\hbox{Hadronic light by light})= 92\pm20
2698: \equn{(5.2e)}$$
2699:
2700:
2701:
2702: \booksubsection{5.2. Photon radiation corrections to the hadronic
2703: vacuum polarization}
2704: The
2705: $a(\hbox{`One blob' hadronic, $O(\alpha^3)$})$ corrections
2706: are obtained by attaching a photon or fermion loop to the various lines in \fig~1.
2707: They can be further split into two pieces: the piece where both ends
2708: of the photon line are attached to the
2709: hadron blob, $a({\rm h.v.p.},\;\gamma)$, shown in \fig~13, and the rest. So we write,
2710: $$a(\hbox{`One blob' hadronic, $O(\alpha^3)$})=a({\rm h.v.p.},\;\gamma)+
2711: a(\hbox{`One blob' hadronic, rest}).\equn{(5.3)}$$
2712: The last can be evaluated \ref{27} in terms of
2713: the hadronic contributions to the photon vacuum polarization, finding
2714: $$10^{11}\times a(\hbox{`One blob' hadronic, rest})=-101\pm6.\equn{(5.4)}$$
2715: (Note, however, that this result has not, as far as we know, been checked by
2716: an independent calculation).
2717:
2718: \topinsert
2719: {
2720: \setbox0=\vbox{\hsize9.truecm{\epsfxsize 7.truecm\epsfbox{13had_rad.eps}}}
2721: \setbox6=\vbox{\hsize 6.truecm\captiontype\figurasc{Figure 13. }{The
2722: $O(\alpha^3)$ hadronic\hb
2723: correction $a({\rm h.v.p.},\;\gamma)$.}\hb
2724: \vskip.1cm}
2725: \medskip
2726: \line{\box0\hfil\box 6}
2727: \medskip
2728: }\endinsert
2729:
2730: The only contribution that requires further discussion is
2731: that depicted in \fig~13, $a({\rm h.v.p.},\;\gamma)$.
2732: In principle, this contribution can be evaluated straightforwardly
2733: by a generalization of the Brodsky--de~Rafael method.
2734: We can write
2735: $$a^{(2)}({\rm h.v.p.})+a({\rm h.v.p.},\;\gamma)=\int_{4m^2_\pi}^\infty \dd t\,K(t)R^{(2)}(t),
2736: \equn{(5.5)}$$
2737: where
2738: $$R^{(2)}(t)=
2739: \dfrac{\sigma^{(0)}(e^+e^-\to {\rm hadrons})+\sigma^{(2)}(e^+e^-\to {\rm hadrons})+
2740: \sigma^{(0)}(e^+e^-\to {\rm hadrons};\,\gamma)}{\sigma^{(0)}(e^+e^-\to\mu^+\mu^-)}.$$
2741: The notation means that we evaluate the hadron annihilation cross section to second order in
2742: $\alpha$, and we add to it the first order annihilation into hadrons plus a photon.
2743:
2744:
2745: For energy ($t$) large enough,
2746: this can be calculated with the parton model, and
2747: leads to a correction
2748: $\tfrac{3}{4}(\sum_fQ^4_f/\sum_fQ^2_f)\alpha/\pi$
2749: times the parton model evaluation.
2750: Taking then $t\geq1.2\,\gev^2$, this is
2751: $(0.76\pm0.04)\times10^{-11}.$
2752: The error is that due to $\lambdav$ and the masses of $c,\,b$ quarks.
2753: We have excluded the contribution of the radiative decays
2754: of the $J/\psi,\,\psi'\,\upsilonv,\,\upsilonv'$ resonances
2755: since we have taken these into account already (we took the full $e^+e^-$ width for them).
2756:
2757:
2758:
2759:
2760: \topinsert
2761: {
2762: \setbox0=\vbox{\hsize9.8truecm{\epsfxsize 8.truecm\epsfbox{141pipiA.eps}}\hfil}
2763: \setbox1=\vbox{\hsize6.6truecm{\epsfxsize 5.truecm\epsfbox{142pipiB.eps}}\hfil}
2764: \setbox6=\vbox{\hsize 5.truecm\captiontype\figurasc{Figure 14B. }{Diagrams
2765: {\sl not}\hb included in the pion form factor.}\hb
2766: \vskip.1cm}
2767: \setbox5=\vbox{\hsize 7.truecm\captiontype\figurasc{Figure 14A. }{Diagrams
2768: included in the pion form factor.}\hb
2769: \vskip.1cm}
2770: \line{\kern-1truecm\box0\hfil\box1}
2771: \line{\phantom{x}\kern1truecm\box5\hfil\box 6}
2772: \medskip
2773: }
2774: \endinsert
2775:
2776:
2777: Then comes the contribution of small
2778: momenta, $t\leq 1.2\,\gev^2$.
2779: We start by discussing the process involving two pions.
2780: In our determination in \sects~3,~4 of $a^{(2)}({\rm h.v.p.})$,
2781: we made calculations by fitting the experimental cross section $e^+e^-\to\pi^+\pi^-$,
2782: which specifically excludes
2783: radiation of {\sl hard} photons (hard photons defined as those that
2784: are identified experimentally).
2785: Diagrammatically, this means that our evaluations of
2786: \sects~3, 4 included the diagrams of
2787: \fig~14A (where a soft photon is one that
2788: is not detected), but not those of \fig~14B (radiation of a hard photon).
2789: So, we have to include this radiation
2790: into $a({\rm h.v.p.},\;\gamma)$.
2791: This can be easily done if we consider this region to be dominated by the rho,
2792: hence we approximate
2793: $$\sigma^{(0)}(e^+e^-\to {\rm hadrons};\,\gamma)
2794: \simeq \sigma^{(0)}(e^+e^-\to(\rho)\to\pi^+\pi^-\gamma).$$
2795: The last can be evaluated in terms of the branching ratio for the decay
2796: $\rho\to\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$, which is indeed measured experimentally
2797: (see the review of Dolinsky et al., ref.~20)
2798: from the reaction $e^+e^-\to\rho\to\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$.
2799: In the narrow width approximation for the rho,
2800: the contribution to $a_\mu$ is
2801: $$\dfrac{\gammav(\rho\to\pi^+\pi^-\gamma)}{\gammav_\rho}\,
2802: \dfrac{3\gammav_{ee}(\rho)\hat{K}(m^2_\rho)}{\pi m_\rho}.\equn{(5.6a)}$$
2803: In this way, we find
2804: $$10^{11}\times a({\rm h.v.p.},\;\pi^+\pi^-\gamma)=45\pm 7\quad \hbox{(n.w.a.)},\equn{(5.6b)}$$
2805: and the error is that induced
2806: by the experimental error in the width $\gammav(\rho\to\pi^+\pi^-\gamma)$.
2807:
2808:
2809: We will elaborate a bit more on this contribution.
2810: The final state interaction of the
2811: $\pi^+\pi^-$ in the state $\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$ is very strong.
2812: The pions are produced in an S-wave, which presents a wide enhancement\ref{15}
2813: in the energy region
2814: $E_{\pi^+\pi^-}\simeq0.6\pm0.2\;\gev$.
2815: However, this is only a small part of the
2816: contribution to the rate for $\pi\pi\gamma$.
2817: According to Dolinsky et al.,\ref{20} pp.~126~ff., most of the effect would be
2818: due to Bremsstrahlung by the pions.
2819: Above procedure to estimate this, in terms of the $\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$ decay
2820: of the $\rho$ would be exact only if the experimental cuts made for
2821: identifying this decay, and to measure the pion form factor were the same.
2822: A more accurate procedure is as follows.
2823: We write
2824: $$a(\pi^+\pi^-\gamma,\;t\leq1.2)=\int_{4m^2_\pi}^{1.2}\dd t\,
2825: K(t)R_{\pi^+\pi^-\gamma}(t)
2826: \equn{(5.7a)}$$
2827: where
2828: $$R_{\pi^+\pi^-\gamma}(t)=B(t,E_\gamma)R_{\pi^+\pi^-}(t)$$
2829: and the Bremsstrahlung factor $B$ is given by\ref{28}
2830: $$\eqalign{B(t,E_\gamma)=&\;\dfrac{8t^{1/2}\alpha}{\pi(t-4m^2_\pi)^{3/2}}
2831: \int^{k_m}_{E_\gamma} \dfrac{\dd k}{k}I(k),\cr
2832: I(k)=&\;k_m\left(\dfrac{t-2m^2_\pi}{2t^{1/2}}-k\right)\log\dfrac{1+\xi}{1-\xi}
2833: -\left[k_m(\tfrac{1}{2}t^{1/2}-k)-k^2\right]\xi.
2834: \cr}
2835: \equn{(5.7b)}$$
2836: Here $\xi=[(k_m-k)/(\tfrac{1}{2}t^{1/2}-k)]^{1/2}$, $k_m=(t-4m^2_\pi)/2t^{1/2}$ is the maximum
2837: energy of the photon and, finally, $E_\gamma$ is the minimum energy for photon detection.
2838:
2839:
2840: To evaluate $E_\gamma$, we have to look at the setup of experiments measuring
2841: the pion form factor. Typically, one takes that no (hard) photon has been emitted
2842: when the angle between the pion momenta differs from $\pi$ by less than a small
2843: given amount, $\eta_0$.
2844: The energy cut is, in this case,
2845: $$E_\gamma=\dfrac{\sqrt{t-4m^2_\pi}}{2}\,\eta_0.$$
2846: The effective $\eta_0$ depends on the specific cuts made in each experiment;
2847: those in ref.~8 are covered if we take $\eta_0=0.15\pm0.05$.
2848: Using this we find the result, for this range of $\eta_0$, of
2849: $$10^{11}\times a(\pi^+\pi^-\gamma,\;t\leq1.2)=46\pm0.5\pm9.
2850: \equn{(5.8)}$$
2851:
2852: The first error corresponds
2853: to the error in the integral
2854: of $|F_\pi|^2$ and the second
2855: is induced by the dispersion in the values of $\eta_0$ of the various
2856: experiments.
2857: (5.8) is practically identical to the n.w.a. result, \equn{(5.6b)} (which of course is a satisfactory
2858: result).
2859: The reason for this agreement is that,
2860: when {\sl detecting} $\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$, the energy cut
2861: made, $E_\gamma=50\;\mev$ (Dolinsky et al., ref.~20), turns out to be very similar to the average
2862: energy cut made when measuring the pion form factor.
2863:
2864: A similar analysis ought to be made, in principle, for other
2865: radiative intermediate states like $3\pi+\gamma$ and $KK+\gamma$,
2866: which can be estimated in terms of the corresponding decays of
2867: the $\omega$ and $\phi$, but they give a contribution
2868: below the $10^{-11}$ level and we neglect them.
2869:
2870:
2871:
2872: The lowest energy contributions to $\sigma^{(0)}(e^+e^-\to\,{\rm hadrons};\gamma)$
2873: are those of the intermediate states $\pi^0\gamma$ and $\eta\gamma$,
2874: \fig~15. At energies below the rho mass, one can evaluate the first (the only one
2875: that gives a sizable contribution) by relating
2876: the process to the
2877: decay $\pi^0\to2\gamma$.
2878: We write an effective interaction, corresponding to the vertex factor in the Feynman rules of
2879: $$\dfrac{\ii G_\pi}{2m_\pi}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}k_1^\alpha k_2^\beta;$$
2880: with it
2881: $$\gammav(\pi^0\to2\gamma)=\dfrac{G^2_\pi m_\pi}{256\pi}$$
2882: so that $G^2_\pi=4.6\times10^{-5}$.
2883: Then, with $e$ the electron charge,
2884: $$\imag \piv^{\pi\gamma}(t)=
2885: \dfrac{G^2_\pi t}{384\pi e^2 m^2_\pi}\left(1-\dfrac{m^2_\pi}{t}\right)^3.$$
2886: This gives a very small contribution to $a_\mu$, about $0.76\times10^{-11}$
2887: if we integrate up to $t^{1/2}\simeq 0.7\,\gev$, and $0.96\times10^{-11}$
2888: if we go to $t^{1/2}\simeq 0.84\,\gev$
2889: (the integral only grows logarithmically).
2890: We only integrate up to the rho, i.e., to $t^{1/2}=0.7\;\gev$ with this pointlike model.
2891:
2892:
2893: \topinsert
2894: {
2895: \setbox0=\vbox{\hsize8.2truecm{\epsfxsize 6.7truecm\epsfbox{15piG.eps}}}
2896: \setbox6=\vbox{\hsize 5.5truecm\captiontype\figurasc{Figure 15. }{The
2897: $\pi^0\gamma$, $\eta\gamma$ contribution to $a({\rm h.v.p.},\;\gamma)$.}\hb
2898: \vskip.1cm}
2899: \medskip
2900: \line{\box0\hfil\box6}
2901: \medskip
2902: }
2903: \endinsert
2904:
2905: Around the $\rho$ region we have to take into account
2906: the excitation of this resonance, which produces
2907: the corresponding enhancement.
2908: This piece can be obtained in terms of the radiative width $\rho\to\pi^0\gamma$.
2909: More important is the $\omega\to\pi^0\gamma$
2910: process which gives $(33\pm2)\times10^{-11}$.
2911: Likewise, the contribution of the $\eta\gamma$ state
2912: is evaluated in terms of the decay $\phi\to\eta\gamma$.
2913: Finally, the contribution from $\pi^0\pi^0\gamma$ is taken from ref.~29.
2914: Collecting all of this, we get
2915: $$\eqalign{
2916: 10^{11}\times a({\rm h.v.p.},\;\rho\to\pi^0\gamma)=&\;4\pm1\cr
2917: 10^{11}\times a({\rm h.v.p.},\;\rho\to\eta\gamma)=&\;1.1\pm0.4\cr
2918: 10^{11}\times a({\rm h.v.p.},\;\omega\to\pi^0\gamma)=&\;33\pm2\cr
2919: 10^{11}\times a({\rm h.v.p.},\;\phi\to\eta\gamma)=&\;5\pm1;\cr
2920: \hbox{\sc Total}:\quad&\;43\pm4\cr}
2921: \equn{(5.9a)}$$
2922: we have included the lower energy contribution of $\pi^0\gamma$ into
2923: $a({\rm h.v.p.},\;\rho\to\pi^0\gamma)$ and,
2924: because we are relying on models, we added the errors {\sl linearly}.
2925: For the $\pi\pi\gamma$ states,
2926: \smallskip
2927: $$\eqalign{
2928: 10^{11}\times a({\rm h.v.p.},\;\pi^+\pi^-\gamma)=&\;46\pm9\cr
2929: 10^{11}\times a({\rm h.v.p.},\;\pi^0\pi^0\gamma)=&\;2\pm0.3;\cr
2930: }
2931: \equn{(5.9b)}$$
2932: and, for the high energy piece,
2933: $$\eqalign{
2934: 10^{11}\times a({\rm hadrons}+\gamma,\;t\geq1.2\,\gev^2)=&
2935: 1\pm0.5.\cr
2936: \cr}
2937: \equn{(5.9c)}$$
2938: Adding other contributions that are below the $10^{-11}$ level
2939: ($\epsilon(700)\gamma\sim0.7\times 10^{-11}$, etc.) we get the total
2940: effect of the states ${\rm hadrons}+\gamma$,
2941: $$10^{11}\times a({\rm hadrons}+\gamma)=93\pm11.
2942: \equn{(5.10)}$$
2943:
2944:
2945:
2946:
2947: \booksection{6. Conclusions}
2948: We present first, for ease of reference, Table~4 with a summary of the
2949: results obtained for $a{\rm (h.v.p.)}$ in
2950: the previous sections.
2951:
2952: \topinsert{
2953: \setbox0=\vbox{
2954: \medskip
2955: \setbox1=\vbox{\petit \offinterlineskip\hrule
2956: \halign{
2957: &\vrule#&\strut\hfil\quad#\quad\hfil&\vrule#&\strut\hfil\quad#\quad\hfil&
2958: \vrule#&\strut\hfil\quad#\quad\hfil&\vrule#&\strut\hfil\quad#\quad\hfil\cr
2959: height2mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
2960: &\hfil Channel\hfil&&\hfil Energy range\hfil&
2961: &\hfil Method of calculation\hfil&
2962: &\hfil ${\hbox{Contribution to}\atop{\textstyle 10^{11}\times a({\rm h.v.p.})}}$\hfil& \cr
2963: height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
2964: \noalign{\hrule}
2965: height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
2966: &$\pi^+\pi^-$&&\vphantom{\Big|}$t\leq 0.8\,\gev^2$&
2967: &\hfil Fit to $e^+e^-\,+\,\tau\,+\,{\rm spacel.}$ data\hfil&&
2968: $4\,774\pm51$& \cr
2969: \noalign{\hrule}
2970: height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
2971: &\vphantom{\Big|}$\pi^+\pi^-$
2972: \phantom{\big|}&&\phantom{\Big|}$0.8\leq t\leq 1.2\,\gev^2$&
2973: &\hfil Fit to exp. $e^+e^-$ data \hfil&&$230\pm5$& \cr
2974: \noalign{\hrule}
2975: height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
2976: &$3\pi$&&\vphantom{\Big|}$t\leq 1.2\,\gev^2$&
2977: &\hfil B.--W. + const. fit to $e^+e^-$ data\hfil&&$438\pm12$& \cr
2978: \noalign{\hrule}
2979: height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
2980: &\vphantom{\Big|}$2K$&&$t\leq 1.2\,\gev^2$&
2981: &\hfil B.--W. + const. fit to $e^+e^-$ data\hfil&&$314\pm13$& \cr
2982: \noalign{\hrule}
2983: height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
2984: &\vphantom{\Big|}$4\pi,\;5\pi,\;\eta\pi,\dots$&
2985: &$t\leq 1.2\;\gev^2$&&\hfil Fit to $e^+e^-$ data \hfil&&$24\pm5$& \cr
2986: \noalign{\hrule}
2987: height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
2988: &\vphantom{\Big|}Inclusive&&$1.2\,\gev^2\leq t\leq2\,\gev^2$&
2989: &\hfil Fit to $e^+e^-$ data\hfil&&$270\pm27$& \cr
2990: height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
2991: \noalign{\hrule}
2992: height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
2993: &\vphantom{\Big|}$J/\psi,\,\psi';\,\upsilonv,\,\upsilonv'$ && &&\hfil N.w.a. \hfil&&$77.5\pm4.4$&
2994: \cr
2995: \noalign{\hrule}height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
2996: &\vphantom{\Big|}Inclusive&&$3.7^2\,\gev^2\leq t\leq 4.6^2\,\gev^2$&
2997: &\hfil Fit to experimental $e^+e^-$ data \hfil&&$56\pm3$& \cr
2998: \noalign{\hrule}height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
2999: &\vphantom{\Big|}Inclusive; $uds$ &&$2\,\gev^2\leq t\leq 3.7^2\gev^2$&
3000: &\hfil Perturbative QCD \hfil&&$615\pm9$& \cr
3001: \noalign{\hrule}height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
3002: &\vphantom{\Big|}Inclusive; $udsc$ &&$4.6^2\,\gev^2\leq t\leq 11.2\,\gev^2$&
3003: &\hfil Perturbative QCD \hfil&&$89\pm1$& \cr
3004: \noalign{\hrule}height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
3005: &\vphantom{\Big|}$b$ quark&&$10.1^2\,\gev^2\leq t\leq 11.2^2\,\gev^2$&
3006: &\hfil Nonrelativistic QCD \hfil&&$0.5\pm0.1$& \cr
3007: \noalign{\hrule}height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
3008: &\vphantom{\Big|}Inclusive&&$11.2^2\,\gev^2\leq t\leq \infty$&
3009: &\hfil Perturbative QCD \hfil&&$21\pm0.1$& \cr
3010: \noalign{\hrule}height1mm&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr
3011: &\vphantom{\Big|}$\gamma+$ hadrons&&\hfil Full range\hfil&&\hfil Various methods \hfil&&$93\pm11$& \cr
3012: \noalign{\hrule}}
3013: \vskip.05cm}
3014: \centerline{\box1}
3015: \smallskip
3016: \centerline{\petit Table~4}
3017: \centerrule{6cm}
3018: \medskip
3019: \noindent{Summary of contributions to $a^{(2+3)}$, with what we consider the
3020: more reliable methods,
3021: as used in the present work. ``B.--W. + const." means a Breit--Wigner fit, including the correct
3022: phase space factors, plus a constant; note that only for the four narrow resonances
3023: $J/\psi,\,\psi';\,\upsilonv,\,\upsilonv'$
3024: we use the n.w.a. The errors are
3025: uncorrelated except those for QCD calculations
3026: (that have to be added linearly) and those for the $2\pi$ states,
3027: for whose treatment we refer to the text.
3028: The errors given include statistical, systematic
3029: and (estimated) theoretical errors. For the details of the final states $\gamma+$ hadrons
3030: we refer to \eqs~(5.9).}
3031: \medskip}
3032: \box0
3033: \bigskip
3034: }\endinsert
3035:
3036: Taking into account all
3037: contributions, and errors, we
3038: complete the best values for the h.v.p. piece, and the whole hadronic
3039: part of the anomaly:
3040: $$10^{11}\times a^{(2+3)}({\rm h.v.p.})=\cases{
3041: 7\,002\pm66\quad(e^+e^-\,+\,\tau\,+\,{\rm spacel.})
3042: \cr
3043: 6\,982\pm97\quad (e^+e^-\,+\,{\rm spacel.}),\cr
3044: }
3045: \equn{(6.2)}$$
3046: and adding the other radiative and light-by-light corrections,
3047: $$10^{11}\times a(\hbox{Hadronic})=
3048: \cases{
3049: 6\,993\pm69\quad(e^+e^-\,+\,\tau\,+\,{\rm spacel.})\cr
3050: 6\,973\pm99\quad(e^+e^-\,+\,{\rm spacel.})\cr
3051: }
3052: \equn{(6.3)}$$
3053: \equn{(6.3)} is of course the main outcome of the present paper.
3054: Because, even after adding systematic and theoretical errors
3055: the evaluation including $\tau$ decay data is more precise,
3056: we may consider it to provide the best result for $a(\hbox{Hadronic})$ available at present.
3057:
3058:
3059: We can add to (6.3) the pure electroweak contributions and present the result
3060: as the standard model prediction for $a_\mu$:
3061: $$10^{11}\times a_\mu=
3062: 116\,591\,849\pm69\quad(e^+e^-\,+\,\tau\,+\,{\rm spacel.})
3063: \equn{(6.4)}$$
3064:
3065:
3066:
3067: \topinsert{
3068: \setbox0=\vbox{\hsize16.4truecm
3069: \epsfxsize 12truecm\epsfbox{162g_allB.eps}}
3070: \centerline{\box0}
3071: \setbox1=\vbox{\hsize13 truecm\figurasc{Figure 16. }{Theoretical results on
3072: $a({\rm Hadronic})\times10^{-11}$, and experiment.}}
3073: \bigskip
3074: \centerline{\box1}
3075: \centerrule{5truecm}
3076: \medskip
3077: {\petit\noindent J: ref.~6: N1: ref.~7, data from $e^+e^-\,+\,\tau$.
3078: N2: id., $e^+e^-$ only. T1, T2: this paper with data from $e^+e^-\,+\,\tau$
3079: or data from $e^+e^-$ only, respectively (including syst. and th.
3080: errors).}
3081: }\endinsert
3082: \bigskip
3083:
3084: We will next compare our results with other recent evaluations of the
3085: same quantities
3086: in \fig~16,
3087: together with the experimental band.
3088: (They are shown incorporating the
3089: contribution of the $\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$ and $\pi^0\pi^0\gamma$ channels).
3090:
3091:
3092: A further point to emphasize is the importance of using, in the low energy region,
3093: parametrizations of $F_\pi(t)$ compatible with unitarity and analyticity.
3094: Only in this way we can incorporate data on $F_\pi(t)$ for spacelike $t$
3095: into the fits.
3096: As discussed in \subsect~3.2, these data not only provide
3097: a substantial shift for $a_\mu$ (of $39\times10^{-11}$ in the
3098: evaluation with $e^+e^-$ data only)
3099: but, by so doing, allow compatibility of these with the results from $\tau$ decay,
3100: hence allowing a combination of the two in a meaningful way:
3101: this permits an important reduction of the errors of the calculation.\fnote{Or,
3102: put conversely, not using data at spacelike $t$ for $F_\pi$ implies a hidden error
3103: of about $40\times10^{-11}$.}
3104:
3105:
3106: To finish this section, we can add a few words on prospects for improvements.
3107: In our view they are rather dim
3108: in the sense that it is not easy to see how one could
3109: get an error estimate clearly below the $70\times10^{-11}$ mark,
3110: when taking into account systematic and theoretical errors.
3111: In fact, the central values have
3112: moved little, and the errors have
3113: not improved much, since 1985.
3114: It is true that experiments planned or in progress can clear further the
3115: region between $1.2$ and $3\;\gev^2$.
3116: However, a serious improvement of the very important low energy region
3117: for
3118: $\pi\pi$ is unlikely: as our evaluations show,
3119: one can get a fit to {\sl all} data relevant for the hadronic component of
3120: $a_\mu$, with a \chidof\ of unity
3121: and verifying {\sl all} theoretical constraints,
3122: with an error of at least $51\times10^{-11}$, already for $t\leq0.8\,\gev^2$
3123: (see \equn{(3.19)}).
3124: In this respect the improvement obtained by adding $\tau$ decay data, although not negligible,
3125: is minor:
3126: statistical errors are smaller, but
3127: theoretical ones are increased.
3128:
3129:
3130:
3131:
3132:
3133:
3134: \vfill\eject
3135:
3136: \booksection{Acknowledgments}
3137: The authors are indebted to G.~Cvetic, F.~Jegerlehner and S.~Narison for
3138: several illuminating discussions and, for the last two, for information concerning
3139: their work on the subject.
3140: Discussions with J.~Vermaseren (who helped with
3141: a critical reading of the manuscript) are
3142: acknowledged for several matters; in particular,
3143: those concerning the $O(\alpha^3)$ hadronic
3144: contributions have been very helpful.
3145:
3146: It is also a pleasure to record our indebtedness to
3147: Achim Stahl (Opal) and Andreas H\"ocker (Aleph) for providing us with
3148: the corresponding data listings, and for very useful information about them.
3149: Thanks are also due to S.~I.~Eidelman for the same reason ($4\pi$ data).
3150:
3151: The financial support of CICYT is gratefully acknowledged.
3152: \booksection{References}
3153: {\petit
3154: \item{1.-}{\prajnyp{H.N. Brown et al.}{Phys. Rev. Letters}{86}{2001}{2227}.}
3155: \item{2.-}{\prajnyp{J. Bailey et al.}{Nucl. Phys.}{B150}{1979}{1}.}
3156: \item{3.-}{(KNO): \prajnyp{T. Kinoshita, B. Nizi\'c and Y. Okamoto}{Phys. Rev.}{D32}{1985}{736};
3157: (DM): \prajnyp{S. Dubnicka and L.~Martinovic}{Phys. Rev.}{D42}{1990}{7884};
3158: (BW): \prajnyp{D. H. Brown and W. A. Worstell}{Phys. Rev.}{D54}{1996}{3237};.}
3159: \item{4.-}{(CLY): \prajnyp{A. Casas, C. L\'opez and F. J. Yndur\'ain}{Phys. Rev.}{D32}{1985}{736};
3160: (AY): \prajnyp{K. Adel and F.~J.~Yndur\'ain}{Rev. Acad. Ciencias (Esp.)}{92}{1998}{113}
3161: (hep-ph/9509378).}
3162: \item{5.-}{(ADH): \prajnyp{R. Alemany, M. Davier and A. H\"ocker}{Eur. Phys. J.}{C2}{1998}{123};
3163: \prajnyp{(DH): M. Davier and A.~H\"ocker}{Phys. Letters}{B435}{1998}{419}.}
3164: \item{6.-}{(EJ): \prajnyp{S. Eidelman and F.~Jegerlehner}{Z. Phys.}{C67}{1995}{585};
3165: (J): {\sc F.~Jegerlehner,} DESY 01-028 (hep-ph/0104304),
3166: Symposium in honor of A.~Sirlin, New York University, 2000.}
3167: \item{7.-}{\/(N): {\sc S. Narison}, PM/01-13 (hep-ph/0103199).}
3168: \item{8.-}{\/Novosibirsk, $\rho$ region:\prajnyp{L.~M.~Barkov et al.}{Nucl. Phys.}{B256}{1985}{365};
3169: {\sc R. R. Akhmetsin et al.} Budker INP 99-10 (hep-ex/9904027)}
3170: \item{9.-}{\/Novosibirsk, $\omega$ and $\phi$ region, $KK$ and $3\pi$: (CMD2)
3171: \prajnyp{R. R. Akhmetshin et al.}{Phys. Letters}{B466}{1999}{385 and 392};
3172: ibid., {\bf B434} (1998) 426 and ibid., {\bf B476} (2000) 33. (SND)
3173: \prajnyp{M.~N.~Achasov et al.}{Phys. Rev.}{D63}{2001}{072002};
3174: {\sc M.~N.~Achasov et al.,} {\sl Phys. Letters} {\bf B462} (1999) 365 and
3175: Preprint Budker INP 98-65, 1998 (hep-ex/9809013).
3176: $\phi\to2\pi$: \prajnyp{M.~N.~Achasov et al.}{Phys. Letters}{B474}{2000}{188}.}
3177: \item{10.-}{Aleph: \prajnyp{R. Barate et al.}{Z.Phys.}{C76}{1997}{15};
3178: Opal: \prajnyp{K.~Ackerstaff et al.}{Eur.Phys.J.}{C7}{1999}{571}.}
3179: \item{11.-}{NA7: \prajnyp{S. R. Amendolia et al.}{Nucl. Phys.}{B277}{1986}{168}.}
3180: \item{12.-}{BES: {\sc J. Z. Bai et al}, hep-ex/0102003.}
3181: \item{13.-}{\prajnyp{V. W. Hughes and T. Kinoshita}{Rev. Mod. Phys.}{71}{1999}{S133}.}
3182: \item{14.-}{\prajnyp{S. J. Brodsky and E. de Rafael}{Phys. Rev.}{168}{1968}{1620}.}
3183: \item{15.-}{\/{\sc B. R. Martin, D. Morgan and G.~Shaw}, {\sl
3184: Pion-Pion Interactions in particle Physics}, Academic Press, New York 1976.}
3185: \item{16.-}{Particle Data Group: \prajnyp{D. E. Groom et al.}{Eur. Phys. J.}{C15}{2000}{1}.}
3186: \item{17.-}{$F_\pi$, spacelike data: \prajnyp{C.~J.~Bebek et al.}{Phys. Rev.}{D17}{1978}{1693};
3187: $F_\pi$, timelike data:
3188: \prajnyp{D.~Bollini et al.}{Nuovo Cimento Lett.}{14}{1977}{418};
3189: \prajnyp{A.~Quenzer et al.}{Phys. Letters}{76B}{1978}{512}.
3190: $\pi\pi$ phase shifts: \prajnyp{B.~Hyams et al}{Nucl. Phys.}{B64}{1973}{134} and
3191: \prajnyp{S.~D.~Protopopescu et al.}{Phys. Rev.}{D7}{1973}{1279}.}
3192: \item{18.-}{$a^1_1$. (CGL): \prajnyp{G.~Colangelo,
3193: J.~Gasser and H.~Leutwyler}{Nucl. Phys.}{B603}{2001}{125};
3194: (ACGL): {\sc B.~Ananthanarayan, G.~Colangelo, J.~Gasser and H.~Leutwyler},
3195: hep-ph/0005297;
3196: (ABT):
3197: \prajnyp{G.~Amor\'os, J.~Bijnens and P.~Talavera}{Nucl. Phys.}{B585}{2000}{329} and
3198: Erratum, LU TP 00-11, 2001.
3199: $\langle r^2_\pi\rangle,\,c_\pi$:
3200: \prajnyp{G. Colangelo, M.~Finkelmeir and R.~Urech}{Phys. Rev.}{D54}{1996}{4403}.}
3201: \item{19.-}{\prajnyp{G. J. Gounnaris and J. J. Sakurai}{Phys. Rev. Letters}{21}{1968}{244}.}
3202: \item{20.-}{$KK$\/: \prajnyp{P. M. Ivanov et al.}{Phys. Letters}{107B}{1981}{297}; $3\pi$:
3203: \prajnyp{A.~Cordier et al.}{Nucl. Phys.}{B172}{1980}{13}; $4\pi$ and more:
3204: \prajnyp{G.~Cosme et al.}{Nucl. Phys.}{B152}{1979}{215}. For a review, see
3205: \prajnyp{S. Dolinsky et al.}{Phys. Reports}{C202}{1991}{99}, and work quoted there.
3206: All these references
3207: give results for energies below $t=2\,\gev^2$.
3208: Between $2$ and $9\;\gev^2$, see
3209: \prajnyp{C. Bacci et al.}{Phys. Letters}{86B}{1979}{234}.}
3210: \item{21.-}{\prajnyp{S. Bethke}{J. Phys.}{G26}{2000}{R27};
3211: {\sc J.~Santiago and F. J. Yndur\'ain}, FTUAM 01-01, 2001 (hep-ph/0102247);
3212: {\sc D. Strom}, ``Electroweak measurements on the $Z$ resonance",
3213: Talk presented at the 5th Int. Symposium on Radiative Corrections, RadCor2000,
3214: Carmel, Ca., September 2000.}
3215: \item{22.-}{\prajnyp{K. Adel and F.~J.~Yndur\'ain}{Phys. Rev.}{92}{1998}{113}.
3216: For a clear exposition of NRQCD calculations see \prajnyp{N.~Brambilla, A.~Pineda,
3217: J.~Soto and A.~Vairo}{Nucl. Phys.}{B566}{2000}{275}.}
3218: \item{23.-}{\prajnyp{S.~Titard and
3219: F.~J.~Yndur\'ain}{Phys. Rev.}{D49}{1994}{6007}, to one loop;
3220: \prajnyp{A. Pineda and F.~J.~Yndur\'ain}{Phys. Rev.}{D58}{1998}{094022}
3221: and ibid., {\bf D61}, 077505 (2000), to two loops.}
3222: \item{24.-}{\/(BPP):
3223: \prajnyp{J. Bijnens, E. Pallante and J. Prades}{Nucl. Phys.}{B474}{1996}{379};
3224: (HKS, HK): \prajnyp{M.~Hayakawa, T.~Kinoshita and A.~I.~Sanda}{Phys. Rev.}{D54}{1996}{3137};
3225: \prajnyp{M.~Hayakawa and T.~Kinoshita}{Phys. Rev.}{D57}{1998}{465}.}
3226: \item{25.-}{\prajnyp{S. Laporta and E. Remiddi}{Phys. Letters}{B301}{1993}{440}.}
3227: \item{26.-}{\/{\sc F.~Barreiro}, {\sl Photon Structure},
3228: Plenary talk, Proc. Int. Europhysics Conf. on
3229: Highe Energy Physics, Tampere, 1999 (Huitu et al. Eds.). Published by IOP, Bristol, U.~K.}
3230: \item{27.-}{\prajnyp{B. Krause}{Phys. Letters}{B390}{1997}{392}.}
3231: \item{28.-}{\prajnyp{P. Singer}{Phys. Rev.}{130}{1963}{2441} and Erratum,
3232: {\bf 161}, 1694 (1967).}
3233: \item{29.-}{\prajnyp{M. N. Achasov et al.}{Phys. Letters}{B486}{2000}{29}.}
3234: \item{}{}
3235: }
3236: \bookendchapter
3237:
3238: \bye
3239:
3240:
3241:
3242:
3243:
3244:
3245:
3246:
3247:
3248:
3249:
3250:
3251:
3252:
3253:
3254:
3255:
3256:
3257: