1: \documentclass[proceedings]{JHEP3}
2:
3: \PrHEP{PrHEP hep2001} % Do not change this one
4: \conference{International Europhysics Conference on HEP}
5: \usepackage{epsfig} % please use epsfig for figures
6: \def\gev{\ifmmode \mathop{\rm GeV}\nolimits\else {\rm GeV}\fi}
7: \def\mev{\ifmmode \mathop{\rm MeV}\nolimits\else {\rm MeV}\fi}
8:
9: \title{Precision Determination
10: of the Muon $g_{\mu}-2$ and $\bar{\alpha}_{\rm Q.E.D.}(M^2_{Z})$
11: \footnote{To appear in the Proceedings of the Budapest 2001 EPS HEP
12: Conference}}
13:
14: \author{J. F. de Troc\'oniz and \speaker{F. J. Yndur\'ain}\\
15: Dept. de F\'{\i}sica Te\'orica, C-XI,\\
16: Universidad Aut\'onoma de Madrid,\\
17: E-28049, Cantoblanco (Madrid), Spain.\\
18: E-mail: \email{fjy@delta.ft.uam.es}}
19:
20: \abstract{We present a summary of the results of two recent precise
21: calculations of the muon anomalous magnetic moment and the electromagnetic
22: coupling on the $Z$.}
23:
24: \begin{document}
25:
26: \section{Introduction}
27: We present a summary of the results of two recent precise
28: calculations of the muon anomalous magnetic moment ($g_{\mu}-2$)~\cite{g2} and
29: the electromagnetic coupling on the $Z$ ($\bar{\alpha}_{\rm Q.E.D.}(M^2_{Z})$)~\cite{az}.
30: The main sources of uncertainty are underlined.
31:
32: \section{Calculation of the muon $g_{\mu}-2$}
33: The appearance of a new, very precise measurement of the muon magnetic
34: moment~\cite{uno} has triggered the interest in theoretical calculations
35: of this quantity.
36: Particularly, because the experimental figure (we give the result
37: for the anomaly, averaged with older determinations~\cite{dos})
38: \begin{equation}
39: a_\mu(\hbox{exp.})= \frac{g_{\mu}-2}{2}= (116\,592\,030\pm150)\times 10^{-11}
40: \label{amu}
41: \end{equation}
42: lies slightly above theoretical evaluations based on the standard
43: model, as much as $2.6\sigma$ in some cases.
44:
45: It should be noted that all modern theoretical
46: determinations~\cite{tres,four,six}
47: are compatible among themselves within errors (of order $100\times10^{-11}$)
48: and that, with few exceptions, they are
49: also compatible with the experimental
50: result, at the level of $1.5\sigma$ or less. Because of this, it is our feeling
51: that a new, complete evaluation would be welcome since,
52: in fact, there exists as yet no calculation
53: that takes fully into account all theoretical constraints and
54: all the new experimental data. These
55: data allow an improved evaluation of the low energy hadronic contributions
56: to $a_\mu$, both directly from $e^+e^-$
57: annihilations (in the $\rho$ region~\cite{ocho} and around the $\omega$ and $\phi$
58: resonances~\cite{nine})
59: and, indirectly, from $\tau$ decays~\cite{diez} and, also indirectly,
60: from measurements of the pion form factor in the spacelike region~\cite{once}.
61: We have also used perturbative QCD in the region $s \geq 2\,\gev^2$
62: (away from quark thresholds).
63: In particular, the recent LEP $\tau\to\nu_\tau+{\rm hadrons}$,
64: and BES $e^+e^-\to{\rm hadrons}$ data justify the QCD result for
65: $2\,\gev^2 \leq s\leq 3^2\,\gev^2$.
66: Moreover, the BES~\cite{doce} data, covering
67: $e^+e^-$ annihilations in the vicinity of $\bar{c}c$ threshold,
68: permit a reliable evaluation of the corresponding hadronic pieces.
69: Last but not least, the next order radiative corrections have
70: been taken into account.
71: %The numbers corresponding to the hadron vacuum polarization (h.v.p.)
72: %contribution, in the relevant
73: %energy slices, are given in Table~\ref{alfatab}.
74:
75: In the next sections we concentrate in the two most delicate pieces, from the point of
76: view of the final uncertainty: the pion form factor and the hadronic light-by-light
77: scattering contributions.
78:
79: %\TABLE{
80: %\begin{tabular}{cccc}
81: %& & & \\
82: %\hline\hline
83: %Channel& Energy range&$10^{11}\times a_{\mu}(\hbox{h.v.p.})$&
84: %$-10^5 \times \Delta_{\rm had}\alpha$\\
85: %\hline
86: %$\pi^+\pi^-$&
87: %$s\leq 0.8\,\gev^2$&
88: %$4774\pm51$&
89: %$307.6\pm3.6$\\
90: %\hline
91: %$\pi^+\pi^-$&
92: %$0.8\leq s\leq 1.2\,\gev^2$&
93: %$230\pm5$&
94: %$27.3\pm0.6$\\
95: %\hline
96: %$3\pi$&
97: %$s\leq 1.2\,\gev^2$&
98: %$438\pm12$&
99: %$39.5\pm1.5$\\
100: %\hline
101: %$2K$&
102: %$s\leq 1.2\,\gev^2$&
103: %$314\pm13$&
104: %$41.6\pm1.3$\\
105: %\hline
106: %$4\pi,\;5\pi,\;\eta\pi\pi$,...&
107: %$s\leq 1.2\;\gev^2$&
108: %$24\pm5$&
109: %$2.9\pm0.7$\\
110: %\hline
111: %Inclusive&
112: %$1.2\,\gev^2\leq s\leq 2\,\gev^2$&
113: %$270\pm27$&
114: %$53.1\pm5.3$\\
115: %\hline
116: %Inclusive; $uds$ &
117: %$2\,\gev^2\leq s\leq 3.7^2\gev^2$&
118: %$615\pm9$&
119: %$330.2\pm2.4$\\
120: %\hline
121: %$J/\psi,\,\psi',\,\Upsilon,\,\Upsilon$ & &
122: %$78\pm4$&
123: %$104.4\pm5.0$\\
124: %\hline
125: %Inclusive&
126: %$3.7^2\,\gev^2\leq s\leq 4.6^2\,\gev^2$&
127: %$56\pm3$&
128: %$111.8\pm5.5$\\
129: %\hline
130: %Inclusive; $udsc$ &
131: %$4.6^2\,\gev^2\leq s\leq 10.1^2\,\gev^2$&
132: %$89\pm1$&
133: %$479.2\pm0.9$\\
134: %\hline
135: %$b$ quark&
136: %$10.1^2\,\gev^2\leq s\leq 11.2^2\,\gev^2$&
137: %$0.5\pm0.1$&
138: %$8.7\pm0.6$\\
139: %\hline
140: %Incl.; $udscb (t)$&
141: %$11.2^2\,\gev^2\leq s\leq \infty$&
142: %$21\pm0.1$&
143: %$1\,228.3\pm3.4$\\
144: %\hline
145: %$\gamma+$ hadrons&
146: %Full range&
147: %$93\pm11$&
148: %$8.5\pm0.9$\\
149: %\hline
150: %\hline
151: %\end{tabular}
152: %\caption{Summary of the contributions to
153: %$10^{11}\times a_{\mu}(\mbox{h.v.p.})$, and
154: %$-10^5 \times \Delta_{\rm had}\alpha(M^2_Z)$.
155: %\label{alfatab}}}
156:
157: \subsection{The pion form factor}
158: To obtain $F_\pi(s)$ we fit the
159: recent Novosibirsk data~\cite{ocho} on $e^+e^-\to\pi^+\pi^-$ and the
160: tau decay data of Aleph and Opal~\cite{diez}.
161: We take into account, at least partially, isospin breaking effects
162: by allowing different masses and widths for the $\rho^0$, $\rho^+$ resonances.
163: Moreover, and to get a good grip in the low energy region where
164: data are inexistent or very poor,
165: we also fit $F_\pi(s)$ at spacelike $s$~\cite{once}.
166: This is possible in our approach because we use an expression for $F_\pi$
167: that takes fully into account its analyticity properties.
168: To be precise, we use the Omn\`es-Muskhelishvili method.
169: We write
170: $$F_\pi(s)=G(s)J(s).$$
171: Here $J$ is expressed in terms of the P-wave $\pi\pi$ phase shift, $\delta_1^1$, as
172: $$J(s)=e^{1-\delta_1^1(s_0)/\pi}
173: \left(1-\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^{[1-\delta_1^1(s_0)/\pi]s_0/s}
174: \left(1-\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^{-1}
175: \exp\left\{\frac{s}{\pi}\int_{4m^2_\pi}^{s_0} \ ds'\;
176: \frac{\delta_1^1(s')}{s'(s'-s)}\right\}.$$
177: $s_0$ is the energy at which inelasticity starts becoming important (in practice, above the
178: percent level); we will take $s_0=1.1\,\gev^2$ in actual calculations.
179:
180:
181: Because of the equality of the phase of $J(s)$ and the phase of $F_\pi(s)$ below $s=s_0$, it
182: follows that $G(s)$ will be an analytic function also for
183: $4m^2_\pi\leq s\leq s_0$, so in the whole $s$ plane except in a cut from
184: $s=s_0$ to $+\infty$. If we now make the conformal transformation
185: $$z=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{s_0}-\sqrt{s_0-s}}{\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{s_0}+\sqrt{s_0-s}}$$
186: then, as a function of $z$, $G$ will be analytic in the unit disk and we can thus
187: write a convergent Taylor series for it.
188: Incorporating the condition $G(0)=1$, that follows from $F_\pi(0)=1$,
189: and undoing the transformation, we have
190: $$G(s)=1+
191: c_1\left[\frac{\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{s_0}-\sqrt{s_0-s}}{\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{s_0}+\sqrt{s_0-s}}
192: +\frac{1}{3}\right]+
193: c_2\Bigg[\left(\frac{\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{s_0}-\sqrt{s_0-s}}{\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{s_0}+\sqrt{s_0-s}}\right)^2
194: -\frac{1}{9}\Bigg]+\cdots,$$
195: $c_1,\,c_2,\,\dots$ free parameters. Actually, only two terms will be necessary to fit the data.
196:
197: To obtain $J$,
198: we use the effective range theory to write
199: $$\cot \delta_1^1(s)= \frac{s^{1/2}}{2k^3}(m^2_\rho-s)\hat{\psi}(s),\quad k=\frac{\sqrt{s-4m^2_\pi}}{2};$$
200: where we have extracted the zero corresponding to the rho resonance.
201: The effective range function $\hat{\psi}(s)$ is analytic in the full $s$ plane
202: except for a cut for $[-\infty,0]$ and the inelastic cut $[s_0,+\infty]$.
203: We can profit from this analyticity by making again a conformal transformation
204: into the unit circle, which is now given by
205: $$w=
206: \frac{\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0-s}}{\sqrt{s}+\sqrt{s_0-s}}.$$
207: We expand $\hat{\psi}$ in a convergent series of powers of $w$;
208: undoing the transformation we have
209: $$\delta_1^1(s)={\rm Arc\; cot}\left\{\frac{s^{1/2}}{2k^3}
210: (m^2_\rho-s)\left[b_0+b_1\frac{\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{s_0-s}}{\sqrt{s}+\sqrt{s_0-s}}+
211: \cdots\right]\right\}.$$
212: For the actual fits, only $b_0,\,b_1$, and $m_\rho$ are needed as
213: parameters.
214:
215: We give results both using only $F_\pi$ from
216: $e^+e^-$ annihilations, or involving also the
217: decay $\tau^+\to\bar{\nu}_\tau\pi^+\pi^0$, which last we consider to be our best estimates:
218:
219: \begin{equation}
220: 10^{11}\times a_{\mu}(2\pi;\,t\leq0.8\;\gev^2)=\;
221: \cases{
222: 4\,774\pm31,\quad ({\rm TY1:}\ e^+e^-\,+\,\tau\,+\,{\rm spacelike}).\cr
223: 4\,754\pm55,\quad ({\rm TY2:}\ e^+e^-\,+\,{\rm spacelike}).\cr
224: }
225: \label{rls}
226: \end{equation}
227:
228: As a byproduct of the calculation we
229: can also give precise values for the $\rho^0$, $\rho^+$
230: masses and widths or the pion electromagnetic radius; see~\cite{g2}.
231:
232: \subsection{Hadronic light-by-light contributions}
233: A contribution to $a_{\mu}$ in a class by itself is the hadronic light-by-light scattering.
234: It can be evaluated only using models.
235: One can make a chiral model calculation, in the Nambu--Jona-Lasinio
236: version or the chiral perturbation theory variety, with a cut-off, or one can use a constituent
237: quark model.
238: The result depends on the cut-off (for the chiral calculation) or on the constituent mass chosen
239: for the quarks. What is worse, for the chiral model,
240: a recent calculation~\cite{dseven} has challenged even its sign.
241: The variation from one model to the other is too large for comfort.
242: We take as a typical value for the chiral calculation~\cite{tfour},
243: $$10^{11}\times a_{\mu}(\hbox{Hadronic light-by-light})=
244: -86\pm25\quad \hbox{(Chiral calculation; BPP, HKS)}.$$
245: In the calculation by~\cite{dseven} one simply reverses the sign.
246:
247: For the constituent quark model we use the results
248: of Laporta and Remiddi~\cite{tfive}. The contribution to $a_\mu$ of light-by-light scattering,
249: with a loop with a fermion of charge $Q_i$, and mass $m_i$ larger than the muon mass, is
250: $$10^{11}\times a_{\mu}(\hbox{Hadronic light-by-light})=
251: +92\pm20\quad \hbox{(Quark const. model)}$$
252: and the error is estimated by varying $m_{u,d}$ by 10\%.
253: This is essentially the same result following the chiral model calculation
254: by~\cite{dseven}.
255:
256: Besides the sign problem, the
257: variations are unfortunate; one expects the chiral calculation to be valid for small
258: values of the virtual photon momenta,
259: and the constituent model to hold for large values of the same.
260: Thus, almost half of the contribution to $a_{\mu}(\hbox{Hadronic light-by-light})$
261: in the chiral calculation comes from a region of momenta above $0.5$ GeV,
262: where the chiral perturbation theory starts to fail,
263: while for this range of energies, and
264: at least for the imaginary part of
265: (diagonal) light-by-light scattering,
266: the quark model reproduces reasonably well the experimental data.
267: Because of the uncertainties, we will give results with the extreme choices.
268:
269: \subsection{Results}
270: Our results for the hadronic part of the anomaly
271: depend on which model one believes for the
272: hadronic light-by-light contribution,
273: discussed in the previous section.
274: So we write,
275:
276: \begin{equation}
277: 10^{11}\times a_{\mu}(\hbox{Hadronic})=
278: \cases{
279: 6\,993\pm69\quad({\rm TY1};\; {\rm Q.c.m.})\cr
280: 6\,815\pm71\quad({\rm TY1};\; {\rm Ch.m. (BPP,HKS)})\cr
281: \phantom{x}\cr
282: 6\,973\pm99\quad({\rm TY2};\; {\rm Q.c.m.})\cr
283: 6\,795\pm100\quad({\rm TY2};\; {\rm Ch.m. (BPP,HKS)})\cr
284: }
285: \label{rsl}
286: \end{equation}
287:
288: Note that
289: in $a_{\mu}(\hbox{Hadronic})$ we include all
290: hadronic contributions, $O(\alpha^3)$ as well as $O(\alpha^2)$.
291: In eqn.~(\ref{rsl}) ``Q.c.m." means that the light-by-light hadronic contribution was
292: calculated with the quark constituent model, and ``Ch.m." that a chiral model was used.
293: The errors include the statistical errors, as well as the
294: estimated systematic and theoretical ones.
295: This is
296: to be compared with the value deduced from eqn.~(\ref{amu}) and electroweak corrections
297: $$10^{11}\times a_{\mu}^{\rm exp.}(\hbox{Hadronic})=7\,174\pm150,$$
298: from which eqn.~(\ref{rsl}) differs by something between $1.1\sigma$ and $2.1\sigma$.
299: Our numbers are compared to other evaluations in Fig.~\ref{figura}.
300: Whether these results should be interpreted as providing
301: further experimental validation of the standard model, or one can consider
302: them as ``harbingers of new physics", we will
303: leave for the reader to decide.
304:
305: \FIGURE{
306: \mbox{
307: \epsfig{file=161g_allA.eps,%
308: width=7.0cm,clip=}
309: \hskip 0.0cm
310: \epsfig{file=162g_allB.eps,%
311: width=7.0cm,clip=}}
312: \caption{(Left) Theoretical results on $a_{\mu}({\rm Hadronic})\times10^{-11}$, and
313: experiment. The chiral calculation result used for the hadronic light-by-light
314: contribution. (Right) The same, but with the quark model result for the
315: hadronic light-by-light contribution. Labels as in references~\cite{tres,four,six}.
316: TY1 and TY2 refer to the results in eqns.~(\ref{rls}) and (\ref{rsl}). \label{figura}}}
317:
318: \section{Calculation of $\bar{\alpha}_{\rm Q.E.D.}$ on the $Z$}
319: With a simple change of integration kernel
320: the previous analysis can be extended to evaluate the hadronic
321: contribution to the QED running coupling, $\bar{\alpha}_{\rm Q.E.D.}(s)$, in
322: particular for $s=M^2_Z$; an important quantity that enters
323: into precision evaluations of electroweak observables.
324:
325: By using a dispersion relation one can write this hadronic
326: contribution at energy squared $s$ as
327: \begin{equation}
328: \Delta_{\rm had} \alpha(s) =-\frac{s\alpha}{3\pi}
329: \int_{4m^2_\pi}^\infty
330: dt\;\frac{R(t)}{t(t-s)}
331: \label{bdr}
332: \end{equation}
333: with
334: $$R(t)=\frac{\sigma(e^+e^-\to{\rm hadrons};\,t)}{\sigma^{(0)}(e^+e^-\to\mu^+\mu^-;\,t)},
335: \quad \sigma^{(0)}(e^+e^-\to\mu^+\mu^-;\,t)\equiv\frac{4\pi\alpha^2}{3t}$$
336: and the integral in eqn.~(\ref{bdr}) has to be understood as a principal part integral.
337: This is similar to the Brodsky--de~Rafael expression for the hadronic
338: contribution to the muon magnetic moment anomaly,
339: $$a_{\mu}(\hbox{h.v.p.})= \int_{4m^2_\pi}^\infty dt\,K(t) R(t).$$
340:
341: Therefore, we can carry over all the work from the previous section
342: with the simple replacement
343: $$K(t)\to-\frac{s\alpha}{3\pi}\frac{1}{t(t-s)}.$$
344: %The corresponding evaluations, in the various relevant energy regions,
345: %are shown in Table~\ref{alfatab}.
346: We find to next to leading order in $\alpha$,
347: $$10^5\times\Delta_{\rm had}\alpha(M_Z^2)=
348: 2740\pm12$$
349: or, excluding the top quark contribution,
350: $$10^5\times\Delta_{\rm had}\alpha^{(5)}(M_Z^2)=
351: 2747\pm12.$$
352: %Adding the known pure QED corrections,
353: %the running QED coupling, in the momentum scheme is
354: %$$\bar{\alpha}_{\rm Q.E.D.}(M_Z^2)=
355: %\frac{1}{128.965\pm0.017}.$$
356:
357: Other recent determinations can be found in~\cite{six,dseis}.
358:
359: \section{Conclusions}
360: In conclusion, we have performed a detailed evaluation of the hadronic contributions to the muon
361: $g_{\mu}-2$~\cite{g2}, and to the running electromagnetic coupling~\cite{az}.
362:
363: In the case of the muon $g_{\mu}-2$ an important limitation of the attainable accuracy is the
364: light-by-light scattering contribution; in particular, a third chiral model
365: calculation is required to clear the sign controversy.
366:
367: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
368: \bibitem{g2}
369: J.F. de Troc\'oniz and F.J. Yndur\'ain, hep-ph/0106025.
370: \bibitem{az}
371: J.F. de Troc\'oniz and F.J. Yndur\'ain, hep-ph/0107318.
372: \bibitem{uno}
373: H.N. Brown et al., Phys. Rev. Letters {\bf 86} (2001) 2227.
374: \bibitem{dos}
375: J. Bailey et al., Nucl. Phys. {\bf B150} (1979) 1.
376: \bibitem{tres}
377: (KNO): T. Kinoshita, B. Nizi\'c and Y. Okamoto, Phys. Rev. {\bf D32}
378: (1985) 736;
379: (DM): S. Dubnicka and L.~Martinovic, Phys. Rev. {\bf D42} (1990) 7884;
380: (BW): D. H. Brown and W. A. Worstell, Phys. Rev. {\bf D54} (1996) 3237.
381: \bibitem{four}
382: (CLY): A. Casas, C. L\'opez and F. J. Yndur\'ain, Phys. Rev. {\bf D32}
383: (1985) 736;
384: (AY): K. Adel and F.~J.~Yndur\'ain, Rev. Acad. Ciencias (Esp.) {\bf 92}
385: (1998) 113 (hep-ph/9509378).
386: %\bibitem{five}
387: (ADH): R. Alemany, M. Davier and A. H\"ocker, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C2}
388: (1998) 123;
389: (DH): M. Davier and A.~H\"ocker, Phys. Letters {\bf B435} (1998) 419.
390: %\bibitem{siete}
391: (N): S. Narison, PM/01-13 (hep-ph/0103199).
392: \bibitem{six}
393: (EJ): S. Eidelman and F.~Jegerlehner, Z. Phys. {\bf C67} (1995) 585;
394: (J): F.~Jegerlehner, DESY 01-028 (hep-ph/0104304),
395: Symposium in honor of A.~Sirlin, New York University, 2000.
396: \bibitem{ocho}
397: Novosibirsk, $\rho$ region: L.~M.~Barkov et al., Nucl. Phys. {\bf B256}
398: (1985) 365;
399: R. R. Akhmetsin et al., Budker INP 99-10 (hep-ex/9904027).
400: \bibitem{nine}
401: Novosibirsk, $\omega$ and $\phi$ region, $KK$ and $3\pi$: (CMD2)
402: R. R. Akhmetshin et al., Phys. Letters {\bf B466} (1999) 385 and 392;
403: ibid., {\bf B434} (1998) 426 and ibid., {\bf B476} (2000) 33. (SND)
404: M.~N.~Achasov et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf D63} (2001) 072002;
405: M.~N.~Achasov et al., Phys. Letters {\bf B462} (1999) 365 and
406: Preprint Budker INP 98-65, 1998 (hep-ex/9809013).
407: $\phi\to2\pi$: M.~N.~Achasov et al., Phys. Letters {\bf B474} (2000) 188.
408: \bibitem{diez}
409: Aleph: R. Barate et al., Z.Phys. {\bf C76} (1997) 15;
410: Opal: K.~Ackerstaff et al., Eur.Phys.J. {\bf C7} (1999) 571.
411: \bibitem{once}
412: NA7: S. R. Amendolia et al., Nucl. Phys. {\bf B277} (1986) 168.
413: \bibitem{doce}
414: BES: J. Z. Bai et al, hep-ex/0102003.
415: \bibitem{dseven}
416: M. Knecht and A. Nyffeler, hep-ph/0111058; M. Knecht, A. Nyffeler,
417: M. Perrottet and E. de~Rafael, hep-ph/0111059.
418: \bibitem{tfour}
419: (BPP): J. Bijnens, E. Pallante and J. Prades, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B474}
420: (1996) 379;
421: (HKS, HK): M.~Hayakawa, T.~Kinoshita and A.~I.~Sanda, Phys. Rev. {\bf D54}
422: (1996) 3137;
423: M.~Hayakawa and T.~Kinoshita, Phys. Rev. {\bf D57} (1998) 465.
424: \bibitem{tfive}
425: S. Laporta and E. Remiddi, Phys. Letters {\bf B301} (1993) 440.
426: \bibitem{dseis}
427: (MOR): A.~D. Martin, J. Outhwaite and M. G. Ryskin, Phys. Letters, {\bf B492}
428: (2000){69}, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C19} (2001) 681;
429: (BP): H.~Burkhardt and B.~Pietrzyk, LAPP-EXP 2001-03 (2001).
430: \end{thebibliography}
431: \end{document}
432: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
433: