hep-ph0203053/qed3
1: �qed3�����������������������������������������������������������TEXT*TEX�w���������>2�������������������������
2: %%only change the website address - 18/4/2000
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4: %%
5: %% ws-p8-50x6-00.tex : 20-11-97
6: %% This Latex2e file rewritten from various sources for use in the
7: %% preparation of the (smaller [8.50''x6.00'']) single-column proceedings 
8: %% Volume, latest version by R. Sankaran with acknowledgements to Susan 
9: %% Hezlet and Lukas Nellen. Please comments to:rsanka@wspc.com.sg
10: %%
11: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
12: %
13: \documentclass{article}
14: %\usepackage{fleqn,espcrc1}
15: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
16: \usepackage{graphicx}%style pour inserer figures en eps
17: \usepackage{here}%pour inserer figures et tables a emplacement 
18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}
20: \newcommand{\AmS}{{\protect\the\textfont2
21:   A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}
22: \textwidth 16cm
23: \textheight 23.cm
24: \topmargin -2.5cm
25: \oddsidemargin 0.3cm
26: \evensidemargin 0cm
27: 
28: \textwidth 15.5cm
29: \textheight 22cm
30: \topmargin -1.5cm
31: %page de gauche: + agrandit la marge.
32: \oddsidemargin .2cm
33: %page de droite:pas actif si width et gauche deja fixes
34: \evensidemargin -1.0cm
35: 
36: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
37: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
38: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
39: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
40: \def\bq{\begin{quote}}
41: \def\eq{\end{quote}}
42: \def\ve{\vert}
43: \def\bear{\begin{array}}
44: \def\ear{\end{array}}
45: \def\nnb{\nonumber}
46: \def\ga{\left(}
47: \def\dr{\right)}
48: \def\aga{\left\{}
49: \def\adr{\right\}}
50: \def\lb{\lbrack}
51: \def\rb{\rbrack}
52: \def\Bg{\Big{[}}
53: \def\Bd{\Big{]}}
54: \def\Bbg{\Bigg{[}}
55: \def\Bbd{\Bigg{]}}
56: \def\rar{\rightarrow}
57: \def\Lrar{\Longrightarrow}
58: \def\llrar{\longleftrightarrow}
59: \def\nnb{\nonumber}
60: \def\la{\langle}
61: \def\ra{\rangle}
62: \def\nin{\noindent}
63: \def\ba{\begin{array}}
64: \def\ea{\end{array}}
65: \def\bm{\overline{m}}
66: \def\ind{\indexentry}
67: \def\c{\clubsuit}
68: \def\s{\spadesuit}
69: \def\b{\bullet}
70: \def\T{\mbox{\bf T}}
71: \def\TR{\mbox{\bf Tr}}
72: \def\als{\alpha_s}
73: \def\as{\ga \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\dr}
74: \def\asb{\ga \frac{\overline\alpha_s}{\pi}\dr}
75: \def\alsb{\overline{\alpha}_s}
76: \def\mb{\overline{m}}
77: \def\msb{\overline{MS}}
78: \def\eps{\epsilon}
79: \def\lam{\lambda}
80: \def\Lam{\Lambda}
81: \def\A{A^\mu(x)}
82: \def\G{G_{\rho\mu}}
83: \def\pr{\partial}
84: \def\hp{\hat{p}}
85: \def\gam5{\gamma_5}
86: \def\al{\alpha} 
87: \def\be{\beta}
88: \newcommand{\lgm}{{\,\rm ln }}
89: \newcommand{\Break}{ \right. \nonumber \\ &{}& \left. }
90: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
91: \begin{document}
92: \begin{center}
93: \section*{{Probing High-Energy Physics with High-precision QED measurements}
94: \footnote{Talk presented
95:  at the 1st High-Energy
96: Physics Madagascar International Conference Series (HEP-MAD'01), 27th sept-5th Oct. 2001,
97: Antananarivo (to be published by World Scientific, Singapore).}}
98: 
99: \vspace*{1.5cm}
100: {\bf Stephan Narison} \\
101: \vspace{0.3cm}
102: Laboratoire de Physique Math\'ematique\\
103: Universit\'e de Montpellier II\\
104: Place Eug\`ene Bataillon\\
105: 34095 - Montpellier Cedex 05, France\\
106: Email: qcd@lpm.univ-montp2.fr\\
107: \vspace*{1.5cm}
108: {\bf Abstract} \\ \end{center}
109: \vspace*{2mm}
110: \noindent{I summarize our {\it self-contained} determinations of the
111: lowest order hadronic contributions
112: \cite{SN,SN2} to the anomalous magnetic moments $a_{\mu,\tau}$ of the muon and tau
113: leptons, the running QED coupling $\alpha(M_Z)$ and the muonium hyperfine splitting $\nu$. 
114: Using an average estimate of the light-by light scattering contribution: $a_\mu(LL)=85(18)\times 10^{-11}$,
115: we deduce:
116: $a_\mu^{SM} =116~591~861(78)\times 10^{-11}$,
117: $a_\tau^{SM} =117~759(7)\times 10^{-8}$, giving: $
118: a_\mu^{SM}-a_\mu^{exp}=162(170)\times 10^{-11}$. We also obtain:
119: $\alpha^{-1}(M_Z)=128.926(25)$
120: and the Fermi energy splitting: $\nu_F^{SM}=4~459~031~783(229)~{\rm
121: Hz}$. Lower bounds
122: on some new physics are given, while
123: $\nu_F^{SM}$ leads e.g. to
124: $m_\mu/m_e=206.768~276(11)$ in remarkable agreement with the data.}
125: %\vfill\eject
126: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
127: \section{Introduction}
128: QED is at present the gauge theory where perturbative calculations are the most precise known today.
129: Therefore, accurate measurements of QED processes are expected to give strong constraints 
130: on different electroweak
131: models and to reveal some eventual deviations from the standard model (SM) predictions \footnote{For 
132: general discussions on astroparticle physics and supersymmetric models, see e.g. \cite{ELLIS,PERAZZI}.}.
133: In the following, I will discuss the effects of the hadronic and QCD contributions to three classical
134: QED processes which are: the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon and tau leptons, the running QED
135: coupling
136: $\alpha(M_Z)$ and the muonium hyperfine splitting $\nu$. These hadronic contributions are one of the
137: main sources of uncertainties into these processes. Using a dispersion relation, it is remarkable to
138: notice that the different  lowest order hadronic contributions for these three processes can be
139: expressed in a closed form as a convolution of the
140: $e^+e^-\rar$ hadrons cross-section $\sigma_H(t)$ with a QED kernel function
141: $K(t)$ which depends on each observable:
142: 
143: \bea
144: {\cal O}_{\rm had}=\frac{1}{4\pi^3}\int_{4m^2_\pi}^\infty dt~K_{\cal O}(t)~\sigma_H(t)~,
145: \eea
146: where:
147: \beq
148: {\cal O}_{\rm had}~\equiv~
149: a_{l,\rm had}~,~~~\Delta\alpha_{\rm had}\times 10^5~~~{\rm or}~~~
150: \Delta\nu_{\rm had}~.
151: \eeq
152: \begin{itemize}
153: \item~For the anomalous magnetic moment $a_{l,\rm had}$, $K_{a_l}(t\geq 0)$ is
154: the well-known kernel function \cite{GOURDIN}:
155: \bea\label{kernel}
156: K_{a_l}(t)&=&\int_0^1 dx\frac{x^2(1-x)}{x^2+\ga{t}/{m_l^2}\dr(1-x)}~,
157: \eea
158: where $m_l$ is the lepton mass. It behaves for large  $t$ as:
159: \beq
160: K_{a_l}(t\gg m_l^2)\simeq \frac{m^2_l}{3t}~.
161: \eeq
162: \item~For the QED running coupling $\Delta\alpha_{\rm had}\times 10^5$, the
163: kernel is (see e.g. \cite{JEGER}):
164: \beq
165: K_\alpha(t)=\ga\frac{\pi}{\alpha}\dr\ga\frac{M^2_Z}{ M^2_Z-t}\dr~,
166: \eeq
167: where $\alpha^{-1}(0)=137.036$ and $M_Z=91.3$ GeV. It behaves for large  $t$
168: like a constant.
169: \item~For the muonium hyperfine splitting $\Delta\nu_{\rm had}$, the kernel
170: function is (see e.g \cite{HFS}):
171: \beq
172: K_\nu=-\rho_\nu\Bigg{[}\ga
173: {x_\mu}+2\dr\ln\frac{1+v_\mu}{1-v_\mu}-\ga
174: {x_\mu}+\frac{3}{2}\dr\ln x_\mu\Bigg{]}
175: \eeq
176: where:
177: \beq
178: \rho_\nu= 2\nu_F\frac{m_e}{m_u}~,~~~~~x_\mu=\frac{t}{4m_\mu^2}~~~~~v_\mu=\sqrt{1-\frac{1}{x_\mu}}~,
179: \eeq
180: and we take (for the moment) for a closed comparison with \cite{HFS} \footnote{In the
181: next section, we shall extract this value from the analysis.}, the value of the Fermi energy splitting:
182: \beq\label{eqhfs}
183: \nu_F=445~903~192~0.(511)(34)~{\rm Hz}~.
184: \eeq
185: It behaves for large  $t$ as:
186: \beq
187: K_{\nu}(t\gg m_\mu^2)\simeq \rho_\nu\ga\frac{m^2_\mu}{t}\dr\ga\frac{9}{2}\ln
188: \frac{t}{m^2_\mu}+\frac{15}{4}\dr~.
189: \eeq
190: The different asymptotic behaviours of these kernel functions will influence on
191: the relative weights of different regions contributions in the evaluation of the above integrals.
192: \end{itemize}
193: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
194: \section{Input and Numerical Strategy}
195: \nin
196:  The
197: different data input and QCD parametrizations  of the cross-section
198: $\sigma_H(t)$ have been discussed in details in \cite{SN} (herereferred as SN1)  and corresponding
199: discussions will not be repeated here. The sources of these data are quoted in the last column of Table 1
200: from SN1 and Table 2 from \cite{SN2} (herereferred as SN2) are classified according to the estimate in
201: different regions.  We shall only sketched briefly the numerical strategy here:
202: \begin{itemize}
203: \item~Our result from the $I=1$
204: isovector channel below 3 GeV$^2$ is the mean value of the one using
205: $\tau$-decay and
206: $e^+e^-$ data. In both cases, we have used standard trapezo\"\i dal rules and/or least
207: square fits of the data in order to avoid theoretical model dependence parametrization of the pion form
208: factor. Correlations among different data have been taken in the compilations of \cite{DAVIE}
209: used in this paper. In the region
210: $(0.6-0.8)$ GeV$^2$ around the
211: $\omega$-$\rho$ mixing, we use in both cases $e^+e^-$ data in order to take
212: properly the $SU(2)_F$ mixing. The $SU(2)$ breaking in the remaining regions
213: are taken into account by making the average of the two results from $\tau$-decay
214: and $e^+e^-$ and by
215: adding into the errors the distance between this mean central value with the one from
216: each data.
217: \item~For the $I=0$ isoscalar channel below 3 GeV$^2$, we use the contributions
218: of the resonances $\omega(782)$ and $\phi(1020)$ using narrow width
219: approximation (NWA). We add to these contributions, the
220: sum of the exclusive channels from 0.66 to 1.93 GeV$^2$. Above 1.93 GeV$^2$, we include
221: the contributions of the $\omega(1.42),~\omega(1.65)$ and
222: $\phi(1.68)$ using a Breit-Wigner form of the resonances. 
223: \item~For the heavy quarkonia, we include the contributions of known $J/\psi$
224: (1S to 4.415) and $\Upsilon$ (1S to 11.02) families and use a NWA. We have added the effect of the
225: $\bar tt$ bound state using the leptonic width of $(12.5\pm 1.5)$ keV given in \cite{YND}.
226: \item~Away from thresholds, we use perturbative QCD plus negligible quark and gluon
227: condensate contributions, which is expected to give a good parametrization
228: of the cross-section. These different expressions are given in SN1. However, as the relative r\^ole of
229: the QCD continuum is important in the estimate of $\Delta\alpha_{\rm had}$, we have added, to the usual
230: Schwinger interpolating factor at order $\alpha_s$ for describing the heavy quark spectral function, the
231: known $\alpha_s^2m_Q^2/t$ corrections given in SN1. However, in the region we are working, these
232: corrections are tiny.
233: \item~On the $Z$-mass, the integral for $\Delta\alpha_{\rm had}$ has a pole, such that this contribution
234: has been separated in this case from the QCD continuum. Its value comes from the Cauchy principal
235: value of the integral.
236: \end{itemize}
237: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
238: \section{Lowest order hadronic contributions}
239: 
240: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
241: \subsection{Muon and tau anomalies}
242: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
243: We show in Table 1 the details of the different hadronic contributions
244: from each channels and from different energy regions for the muon and tau anomalies. 
245: Taking the average of the results in Table 1 and adding further systematics due to an eventual deviation
246: from the CVC assumption and from the choice of the QCD continuum threshold for the light flavours, one
247: deduce the final estimate from an average of the $e^+e^-$ and $\tau$-decay data \cite{SN}:
248: \bea\label{final}
249: a_\mu^{had}(l.o)&=&7020.6(75.6)\times 10^{-11}~,~~
250: a_\tau^{had}(l.o)=353.6(4.0)\times 10^{-8}~,
251: \eea
252: \begin{itemize}
253: \item The
254: main error (80\% when added quadratically) in our previous determinations comes from the $\rho$-meson
255: region below 0.8 GeV$^2$. Hopefully, improved
256: measurements of this region are feasible in the near future.
257: \item The second source of errors 
258: comes from the region around
259: $M_\tau$ for the inclusive $\tau$-decay and between 1 GeV to $M_{\tau}$  for the $e^+e^-$ data. These
260: errors are about half of the one from the region below 0.8 GeV$^2$ in most different determinations.
261: They can be reduced by improved measurements of inclusive $\tau$-decay near $M_\tau$ $(I=1)$ and by
262: improving the measurements of the odd multi-pions and $\bar KK, ~\bar KK\pi,...$ channels in
263: the $I=0$ channels from $e^+e^-$ data.
264: \item The
265: contributions of the whole region above 3 GeV$^2$ induce much smaller errors (7\% of the total).
266: There is a quite good consensus between different determinations in this energy region.
267: \item These predictions agree within the errors with previous predictions quoted in SN1 \cite{SN} and
268: recent estimates given in
269: \cite{JEGER}--\cite{PALOMA}.
270: \end{itemize}
271: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
272: \subsection{Running QED coupling}
273: Using the same data as for the anomalous magnetic moment, one can deduce from Table 2:
274: \bea\label{runalfa}
275: \Delta\alpha_{\rm had}&=&2763.4(16.5)\times 10^{-5}~.
276: %\Delta\nu_{\rm had}&=&232.5(3.2)~\rm{Hz}~.
277: \eea
278: Also a detailed comparison of each region of energy with the most recent
279: work of \cite{YND} shows the same features (agreement and slight difference) like in the case of
280: $a_\mu$ in SN1  due to the slight difference in the
281: parametrization of the data and spectral function.
282: However, the final results are comparable. Finally, one
283: can remark that due to the high-energy constant
284: behaviour of the QED kernel function in this case, the
285: low-energy region is no longer dominating. 
286:  For $a_\mu$, the contribution of the
287: $\rho$-meson below 1 GeV is 68\% of the total contribution, while the sum of the QCD continuum is only
288: 7.4\% (see e.g. SN1). Here the situation is almost reversed: the contribution of the
289: $\rho$-meson below 1 GeV is only 2\%, while the sum of the QCD-continuum is 73.6\%. 
290: %\vfill\eject
291: \small{\begin{table*}[H]
292: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{.pc}
293: %\newlength{\digitwidth} \settowidth{\digitwidth}{\rm 0}
294: \catcode`?=\active \def?{\kern\digitwidth}
295: \begin{center}
296: \caption{Determinations of $a_l^{had}(l.o)$ using combined $e^+e^-$
297: and inclusive $\tau$ decay data (2nd and 4th columns) and averaged $e^+e^-$ data (3rd column).}
298: \begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{}l@{\extracolsep{\fill}}llll}
299: %\begin{tabular}[h]{ccc}
300: \hline
301: &\\
302: \multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf Region in GeV$\bf ^2$}
303:  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\bf a_\mu^{had}(l.o)\times 10^{11}$}
304:   & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$\bf a_\tau^{had}(l.o)\times 10^{8}$}
305: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf Data input} \\
306: &\\
307: \hline\\
308: %\cline{1-5} 
309: %\cline{4-4}
310:                  & \multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf ${\bf\tau}$+$\bf e^+e^-$}
311: & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$\bf e^+e^-$} 
312:                  & \multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf ${\bf\tau}$+$\bf e^+e^-$}\\ 
313: {\bf Light Isovector}&&&\\
314: %&\\
315: $4m_\pi^2\rar 0.8$&$4794.6\pm 60.7$&$4730.2\pm 99.9$&$165.8\pm 1.5$&\cite{DAVIE,ALEPH,OPAL}\\
316: $0.8\rar 2.1$&$494.9\pm 15.8$&$565.0\pm 54.0$&$28.7\pm 1.1$&\cite{ALEPH,OPAL}\\
317: $2.1\rar 3.$&$202.0\pm 29.7$&$175.9\pm 16.0$&$17.0\pm 2.6$&\cite{ALEPH,OPAL}\\
318: %&&&\\
319: \it Total Light I=1&$\it 5491.5\pm 69.4$&$\it 5471.1\pm 114.7$&$\it 211.5\pm 3.2$\\
320: %\hline\\
321: %&&&\\
322: \bf Light Isoscalar&&\\
323: {\it Below 1.93 }&\\
324: %&\\
325: $\omega$&$387.5\pm 13$&$387.5\pm 13$&$15.3\pm 0.5$&NWA \cite{PDG}\\
326: $\phi$&$393.3\pm 9.9$&$393.3\pm 9.9$&$21.0\pm 0.5$&NWA \cite{PDG}\\
327: $0.66\rar 1.93$&$79.3\pm 18.7$&$79.3\pm 18.7$&$4.3\pm 1.1$&$\sum{\rm exclusive}$ \cite{DOL}\\
328: {\it From 1.93 to 3~} &\\
329: $\omega(1.42),~\omega(1.65)$&$31.3\pm 6.8$&$31.3\pm 6.8$&$2.6\pm 0.7$&BW \cite{DM2,PDG}\\
330: $\phi(1.68)$&$42.4\pm 18.2$&$42.4\pm 18.2$&$3.8\pm 1.3$&BW \cite{DM2,DM1,PDG}\\
331: {\it Total Light I=0 }&$\it 933.8\pm 31.5$ &$\it 933.8\pm 31.5$&$\it 47.0\pm 2.0$&\\
332: %&&\\
333: \bf Heavy Isoscalar&&\\
334: %&\\
335: $J/\psi(1S\rar 4.415)$&$87.0\pm 4.7$&$87.0\pm 4.7$&$13.08\pm 0.69$&NWA \cite{PDG}\\
336: $\Upsilon(1S\rar 11.020)$&$0.95\pm 0.04$&$0.95\pm 0.04$&$0.23\pm 0.01$&NWA \cite{PDG}\\
337: \it Total Heavy I=0&$\it 88.0\pm 4.7$&$\it 88.0\pm 4.7$&$\it 13.3\pm 0.7$\\
338: %&&\\
339: \bf QCD continuum&&\\
340: $3.\rar (4.57)^2$&$407.0\pm 2.3$&$407.0\pm 2.3$&$49.4\pm 0.3$&$(u,d,s)$ \\
341: $(4.57)^2\rar (11.27)^2$&$95.3\pm 0.5$&$95.3\pm 0.5$&$27.3\pm 0.1$&$(u,d,s,c)$ \\
342: $(11.27)^2\rar 4M^2_t$&$20.5\pm 0.1$&$20.5\pm 0.1$&$5.87\pm 0.01$&$(u,d,s,c,b)$ \\
343: $4M^2_t\rar \infty$&$\approx 0.$&$\approx 0.$&$\approx 0.$&$(u,d,s,c,b,t)$\\
344: \it Total QCD Cont.&$\it 522.8\pm 2.4$&$\it 522.8\pm 2.4$&$\it 82.6\pm 0.3$&\\
345: &\\
346: \hline
347: &\\
348: &7036.1(76.4)&7015.7(119.1)&354.4(3.8)&\\
349: &\\
350: \hline\\
351: \end{tabular*}
352: \end{center}
353: \end{table*}}
354: \nin
355: %\vfill\eject
356: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
357: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
358: For this reason,
359: improvement due to the new Novosibirsk $e^+e^-$ data \cite{NOVO} in the low-energy region is not 
360: significant, as we have explicitly checked. At present, new BES data
361: \cite{BES} in the
362: $J/\psi$ region are also available, which can be alternatively used.  Below the $J/\psi$ resonances, the BES
363: data are in excellent agreement with the QCD parametrization to order $\alpha_s^3$ used here for 3 flavours,
364: justifying the accuracy of your input. Above the $J/\psi$ resonances, the parametrization used here (sum of
365: narrow resonances +QCD continuum away from thresholds) can also be compared with these data. On can
366: notice that, in the resonance regions, the BES data are more accurate than previous ones, which may
367: indicate that our quoted errors in Table 1 for the $J/\psi$ family contributions are overestimated. In
368: addition, the threshold of the QCD continuum which we have taken above the $J/\psi$ resonances, matches
369: quite well with the one indicated by the BES data. Our estimate of $\Delta\alpha_{\rm had}$ is compared with
370: recent predictions respectively in Fig. 1 from SN2 \cite{SN2} (references to the authors are in
371: \cite{JEGER,YND,DAVIE,ALFA}) where one can notice a very good agreement.
372: 
373: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
374: \small{\begin{table*}[H]
375: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.pc}
376: \newlength{\digitwidth} \settowidth{\digitwidth}{\rm 0}
377: \catcode`?=\active \def?{\kern\digitwidth}
378: %\begin{center}
379: \caption{Lowest order determinations of $\Delta\alpha_{\rm had}\times 10^{5}$ and
380: $\Delta\nu_{\rm had}~\rm{[Hz]}$ using combined $e^+e^-$
381: and inclusive $\tau$ decay data (2nd and 4th columns) and averaged $e^+e^-$ data (3rd and 5th columns).}
382: \begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{}l@{\extracolsep{\fill}}lllll}
383: %\begin{tabular}[h]{ccc}
384: \hline
385: &\\
386: \multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf Region in GeV$\bf ^2$}
387:  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\bf \Delta\alpha_{\rm had}\times 10^{5}$}
388:   & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\bf \Delta\nu_{\rm had}~\rm{[Hz]}$}
389: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf Data} \\
390: &\\
391: \hline\\
392: %\cline{1-5} 
393: %\cline{4-4}
394:                  & \multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf ${\bf\tau}$+{$\bf e^+e^-$}}
395: & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$\bf e^+e^-$} 
396:                  & \multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf ${\bf\tau}$+$\bf e^+e^-$}
397: & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$\bf e^+e^-$}\\ 
398: {\bf Light Isovector}&&&\\
399: %&\\
400: $4m_\pi^2\rar 0.8$&$314.5\pm 2.3$&$302.7\pm 7.1$&$152.9\pm 1.8$&$148.4\pm
401: 3.1$&\cite{DAVIE,ALEPH,OPAL}\\
402: $0.8\rar 2.1$&$77.2\pm 3.4$&$82.0\pm 5.4$&$12.1\pm 0.5$&$16.9\pm 1.9$&\cite{ALEPH,OPAL}\\
403: $2.1\rar 3.$&$62.3\pm 9.2$&$53.6\pm 4.9$&$7.8\pm 1.2$&$6.7\pm 0.6$&\cite{ALEPH,OPAL}\\
404: %&&&\\
405: \it Total Light I=1&$\it 454.0\pm 10.6$&$\it 438.2\pm 10.2$&$\it 172.8\pm 2.2$&$\it 172.1\pm 3.7$\\
406: %\hline\\
407: %&&\\
408: \multicolumn{1}{l}{\it Average }
409: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\it 446.1\pm 10.4\pm 7.9$}
410: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\it 172.5\pm 3.0\pm 0.3$}
411: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} \\
412: %&&&\\
413: %&\\
414: \bf Light Isoscalar&&\\
415: {\it Below 1.93 }&\\
416: %&\\
417: \multicolumn{1}{l}{$\omega$}
418: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$31.5\pm 1.1$}
419: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$12.7\pm 0.4$}
420: & \multicolumn{1}{l}{NWA \cite{PDG}}\\
421: \multicolumn{1}{l}{$\phi$}
422: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$52.3\pm 1.2$}
423: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$13.7\pm 0.3$}
424: & \multicolumn{1}{l}{NWA \cite{PDG}}\\
425: \multicolumn{1}{l}{$0.66\rar 1.93$}
426: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$11.6\pm 3.0$}
427: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$2.7\pm 0.7$}
428: & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$\sum{\rm excl.}$ \cite{DOL}}\\
429: {\it From 1.93 to 3~} &\\
430: \multicolumn{1}{l}{$\omega(1.42),~\omega(1.65)$}
431: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$9.4\pm 1.4$}
432: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$1.2\pm 0.2$}
433: & \multicolumn{1}{l}{BW \cite{DM2,PDG}}\\
434: \multicolumn{1}{l}{$\phi(1.68)$}
435: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$14.6\pm 4.6$}
436: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$1.7\pm .5$}
437: & \multicolumn{1}{l}{BW \cite{DM2,DM1,PDG}}\\
438: \multicolumn{1}{l}{\it Total Light I=0}
439: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$119.0\pm 5.9$}
440: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$32.1\pm 1.0$}
441: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{}\\
442: \bf Heavy Isoscalar&&\\
443: %&\\
444: \multicolumn{1}{l}{$J/\psi(1S\rar 4.415)$}
445: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$116.3\pm 6.2$}
446: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$4.0\pm 0.2$}
447: & \multicolumn{1}{l}{NWA \cite{PDG}}\\
448: \multicolumn{1}{l}{$\Upsilon(1S\rar 11.020)$}
449: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$12.7\pm 0.5$}
450: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$0.1\pm 0.0$}
451: & \multicolumn{1}{l}{NWA \cite{PDG}}\\
452: \multicolumn{1}{l}{$T(349)$}
453: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$-(0.1\pm 0.0)$}
454: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\approx 0$}
455: & \multicolumn{1}{l}{NWA \cite{PDG,YND}}\\
456: \multicolumn{1}{l}{\it Total Heavy I=0}
457: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$128.9\pm 6.2$}
458: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$4.1\pm .2$}
459: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{}\\
460: %&&\\
461: \bf QCD continuum&&\\
462: \multicolumn{1}{l}{$3.\rar 4.57^2$}
463: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$330.1\pm 1.0$}
464: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$17.5\pm.1$}
465: & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$(u,d,s)$}\\
466: \multicolumn{1}{l}{$4.57^2\rar 11.27^2$}
467: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$503.0\pm 1.0$}
468: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$5.0\pm .1$}
469: & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$(u,d,s,c)$}\\
470: \multicolumn{1}{l}{$11.27^2\rar (M_Z-3~{\rm GeV})^2$}
471: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$2025.7\pm 2.0$}
472: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$1.3\pm 0.0$}
473: & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$(u,d,s,c,b)$}\\
474: \multicolumn{1}{l}{$(M_Z+3~{\rm GeV})^2\rar 4M_t^2$}
475: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$-(794.6\pm 0.6)$}
476: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\approx 0$}
477: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$-$}\\
478: \multicolumn{1}{l}{$Z$-pole}
479: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$29.2\pm .5$}
480: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\approx 0$}
481: & \multicolumn{1}{l}{ppal value \cite{YND}}\\
482: \multicolumn{1}{l}{$4M_t^2\rar\infty$}
483: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$-(24.0\pm 0.1)$}
484: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\approx 0$}
485: & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$(u,d,s,c,b,t)$}\\
486: \multicolumn{1}{l}{\it Total QCD Cont.}
487: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$2069.4\pm 5.2$}
488: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$23.8\pm 1.4$}
489: & \multicolumn{1}{l}{}\\
490: \hline
491: &\\
492: \multicolumn{1}{l}{\bf Final value}
493: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\bf 2763.4\pm 16.5$}
494: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\bf 232.5\pm 3.2$}
495: & \multicolumn{1}{l}{}\\
496: &\\
497: \hline\\
498: \end{tabular*}
499: %\end{center}
500: \end{table*}}
501: \nin
502: 
503: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
504: \begin{figure}[hbt]
505: \begin{center}
506: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{stephan.eps}
507: \caption{Recent determinations of $\Delta\alpha_{\rm had}$ and $\alpha^{-1}(M_Z)$. The dashed vertical
508: line is the mean central value.}
509: \end{center}
510: \end{figure}
511: \nin 
512: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
513: \subsection{The muonium hyperfine splitting}
514: Our final result for $\Delta\nu_{\rm had}$ comes from Table 2 of SN2 \cite{SN2}:
515: \beq\label{nu}
516: \Delta\nu_{\rm had}=(232.5\pm 3.2)~{\rm Hz}
517: \eeq
518: and is shown in Table 3 in comparison with other determinations, where there is an excellent
519: agreement with the most recent determination \cite{HFS}. Here, due to the $(\ln t)/t$ behaviour of
520: the kernel function, the contribution of the low-energy region is dominant. However, the $\rho$-meson
521: region contribution below 1 GeV is 47\% compared with 68\% in the case of $a_\mu$, while the QCD
522: continuum is about 10\% compared to 7.4\% for $a_\mu$. The accuracy of our result is mainly due to the
523: use of the
524: $\tau$-decay data, explaining the similar accuracy of our final result with the one in \cite{HFS} using
525: new Novosibirsk data. The agreement with \cite{HFS} can be understood from the agreement of
526: the averaged correlated $e^+e^-$ and $\tau$-decay data compiled in \cite{DAVIE} with the new Novosibirsk
527: data used in
528: \cite{HFS}. However, we differ with DH98 \cite{ALFA} in the treatment of the QCD contribution
529: \footnote{For more details, see \cite{SN}.}. For light quarks,
530: QCD is applied in the region where non-perturbative contributions are inessential. For heavy quarks, 
531: perturbative QCD is applied far from heavy quark thresholds, where it can be unambiguously
532: used.
533: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
534: \begin{table}[hbt]
535: \begin{center}
536: % space before first and after last column: 1.5pc
537: % space between columns: 3.0pc (twice the above)
538: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.5pc}
539: % -----------------------------------------------------
540: % adapted from TeX book, p. 241
541: %\newlength{\digitwidth} \settowidth{\digitwidth}{\rm 0}
542: %\catcode`?=\active \def?{\kern\digitwidth}
543: % -----------------------------------------------------
544: \caption{Recent determinations of $\Delta\nu_{\rm had}$}
545: \label{tab:effluents}
546: %\begin{tabular}[H]{ll}
547: \begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{}l@{\extracolsep{\fill}}ll}
548: \hline
549: &\\
550: Authors&$\Delta\nu_{\rm had}$ [Hz]\\
551: &\\
552: \hline
553: &\\
554: FKM 99 \cite{FAUST}&$240\pm 7$\\
555: CEK 01 \cite{HFS}&$233\pm 3$\\
556: SN 01 \cite{SN2}&$232.5\pm 3.2$\\
557: &\\
558: \hline
559: \end{tabular*}
560: \end{center}
561: \end{table}
562: \nin
563: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
564: \section{Theory of the muon and tau anomalies and new physics}
565: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
566: \subsection{QED and EW contributions to $a_\mu$}
567: The QED up to 8th order and EW including two-loop
568: corrections \footnote{References to original works can be found in \cite{SN,JEGER,GM2}.} are:
569: \bea
570: a_\mu^{QED}&=&116~ 584~ 705.7(2.9)\times 10^{-11}~,~~~~~~
571: a_\mu^{EW}=151(4)\times 10^{-11}~.
572: \eea
573: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
574: \subsection{Higher order hadronic contributions to $a_\mu$}
575: 
576: Higher order hadronic contributions have been discussed first in \cite{CALMET}. They can
577: be divided into two classes \footnote{For more details of the following discussions, see \cite{SNB}.}. The
578: first one involves the vacuum polarization and can be related to the measured $e^+e^-\rar$ hadrons total
579: cross-section, similar to the lowest order contribution.
580: After rescaling the result in \cite{CALMET,KRAUSE}, one obtains \cite{SN}:
581: \beq
582: a_\mu^{had}(h.o.)_{V.P}=-101.2(6.1)\times 10^{-11}~,
583: \eeq
584: The second class is the light-by-light scattering diagram.
585: Contrary to the case of vacuum polarizations, this contribution is not yet fully
586: related to a direct measurable quantity. In order to estimate this contribution,
587: one has to introduce some theoretical models. The ones used at present are based on
588: chiral perturbation \cite{KINO2} and ENJL model \cite{BIJ}. To both are added
589: vector meson dominance and phenomenological parametrization
590: of the pion form factors.
591: The different contributions are summarized in Table \ref{tab: lbyl},
592: where the first two come from the boson and quark (constituent) loops, while the last
593: one is due to meson pole exchanges. The first two contributions are quite sensitive to the
594: effects of rho-meson attached at the three off-shell photon legs which reduce the contributions
595: by about one order of magnitude (!). The third one with pseudoscalar meson exhanges (anomaly)
596: gives so far the most important contribution. There is a complete agreement between the two
597: model estimates (after correcting the sign of the pseudoscalar and axial-vector contributions
598: \cite{KNECHT}), which may indirectly indicate that the results obtained are model-independent\footnote{See
599: however
600: \cite{WISE}.}. Neverthless, there are still some reamining subtle issues to be understood (is the
601: inclusion of a quark loop a double counting ?, why the inclusion of the rho-meson decreases drastically
602: the quark and pion loop contributions ? is a single meson dominance justified?..).
603: The results in Refs. \cite{KINO2} and \cite{BIJ}, after correcting the sign of the pseudoscalar and axial-vector
604: contributions as suggested in \cite{KNECHT},
605: are given in the table:
606: \begin{table*}[H]
607: %[hbt]
608: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.5pc}
609: %\newlength{\digitwidth} \settowidth{\digitwidth}{\rm 0}
610: \catcode`?=\active \def?{\kern\digitwidth}
611: \begin{center}
612: \caption{{$\bf a_\mu^{had}(h.o)_{LL}\times 10^{11}$}}
613: \label{tab: lbyl}
614: %\begin{tabular*}{ccc}
615: \begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{}l@{\extracolsep{\fill}}lll}
616: 
617: \hline
618: &\\
619: Type of diagrams&{\bf
620: Ref. \cite{KINO2}}&{\bf Ref. \cite{BIJ} }\\
621: &&\\
622: \hline
623: &&\\
624: $\pi^-$ loop&$-4.5(8.1)$&$-19(13)$\\
625: % &&\\
626: quark loop&9.7(11)&21(3)\\
627: %&\\
628: $\pi^0,\eta,\eta'$ poles&82.7(6.4)&85(13)\\
629: %&\\
630: axial-vector pole&1.74&2.5(1.0)\\
631: %&\\
632: scalar pole&$^{*)}$&$-6.8(2.0)$\\
633: &\\
634: \hline
635: &\\
636: Total&82.8(15.2)&82.7(18.8)\\
637: &\\
638: \hline
639: \end{tabular*}
640: \end{center}
641: {\scriptsize$^{*)}$ We have added here the result from \cite{BIJ}.}
642: 
643: \end{table*}
644: \nin
645: while a naive constituent quark model gives \cite{YND} using the result of \cite{LAPORTA}:
646: \beq
647: a_\mu^{had}(h.o)_{LL}=92(20)\times 10^{-11}~.
648: \eeq
649: Due to the unknown real value of the virtual photon momenta entering into the calculation, it can happen that
650: none of the previous approaches describes accurately the LL effect \footnote{I thank Eduardo de Rafael and
651: Paco Yndurain for some clarifying communications on this point.}.  Therefore, for a conservative estimate,
652: we take an arithmetical average of the three determinations:
653: \beq
654: a_\mu^{had}(h.o)_{LL}=84.7(18.0)\times 10^{-11}~.
655: \eeq
656: One can notice, for the muon, a strong cancellation between the higher order
657: vacuum polarisation and the light by light scattering contributions.
658: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
659: \subsection{The total theoretical contributions}
660: Summing up different contributions, the present theoretical status in the standard
661: model is \cite{SN}:
662: \bea
663: a_\mu^{SM}&=&116~ 584~ 840.2(19.6)\times 10^{-11}+a_\mu^{had}(l.o)\nnb\\
664: &=&116~591~860.8(78.1)\times
665: 10^{-11}~,
666: \eea
667: where $a_\mu^{had}(l.o)$ is the lowest order hadronic contributions evaluated in SN1 \cite{SN} (see Eq.
668: (\ref{final})). Comparing this SM prediction with the measured value \cite{GM2}:
669: \beq\label{exp}
670: a_\mu^{exp}=116~ 592~ 023 (151)\times 10^{-11}~,
671: \eeq
672: we deduce:
673: \beq\label{range}
674: a_\mu^{new}\equiv a^{exp}_\mu-a^{SM}_\mu=162(170)\times 10^{-11}~.
675: \eeq
676: If the future data will be accurate by $\pm 40\times 10^{-11}$, while the theoretical errors are almost
677: unchanged due to different limitations discussed previously, then the error in $ a_\mu^{new}$ will be reduced
678: by a factor 2, giving a chance to detect a 2$\sigma$ deviation from SM if any. Combined with the mean value of
679: existing determinations of
680: $a_\mu(l.o)^{had}$ given in SN1 \cite{SN}, which gives: $a_\mu^{new}=175(170)\times
681: 10^{-11}$, one can deduce the conservative range: 
682: \beq
683: -56\leq a_\mu^{new}\times 10^{11}\leq 393~~(90\%~{\rm CL})~.
684: \eeq
685: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
686: \subsection{Bounds on some new physics from $a_\mu$}
687: This result gives, for a supersymmetric model with degenerate sparticle mass, a lower bound of about 113 GeV
688: \footnote{For more recent detailed discussions, see e.g. \cite{ELLIS,NATH} and references quoted
689: there.}, while the compositeness and the leptoquark scales are constrained to be above 1 TeV. Bound on
690: the sparticle mass is comparable with present experimental bound from LEP data. The one of the
691: leptoquarks is much larger than the present lower bounds of about
692: $(200\sim 300)$~GeV from direct search experiments at HERA and Tevatron. We expect that these different bounds
693: will be improved in the near future both from accurate measurements of $a_\mu$ and of $e^+e^-$ data necessary
694: for reducing the theoretical errors in the determinations of the hadronic contributions, being the major
695: source of the theoretical uncertainties.
696: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
697: \subsection{Tau anomaly}
698: In the same way, the higher order hadronic contributions read \cite{SN,SNGM2}
699: \beq
700: a_\mu^{had}(h.o)_{VP}=7.6(0.2)\times 10^{-8}~,~~~
701: a_\mu^{had}(h.o)_{LL}=23.9(5.1)\times 10^{-8}~,
702: \eeq
703: which, in the $\tau$ case, the two effect add each others. Adding the other contributions, one obtains \cite{SN}:
704: \bea\label{atau}
705: a_\tau^{SM}&=117~759.1(6.7)\times 10^{-8}~.
706: \eea
707: This value can be compared with the present (inaccurate) experimental one
708: \cite{TAYLOR}:
709: \beq
710: a_\tau^{exp}=0.004\pm 0.027\pm 0.023~,
711: \eeq
712: which, we wish, will be improved in the near future.
713: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
714: \section{The QED running coupling $\alpha(M_Z)$}
715: To the lowest order hadronic contribution in Eq. (\ref{runalfa}), we add the radiative corrections
716:  taken by adding the effects of the radiative modes
717: $\pi^0\gamma,~\eta\gamma,\pi^+\pi^-\gamma,...$. We estimate such effects to be:
718: \beq
719: \Delta\alpha_{\rm had}=(6.4\pm 2.7)\times 10^{-5}
720: \eeq
721: by taking the largest range spanned by the two estimates in \cite{YND} and \cite{DAVIE}. Using the QED contribution to three-loops \cite{JEGER}:
722: \beq
723: \Delta\alpha_{\rm{QED}}=3149.7687\times 10^{-5}~,
724: \eeq
725: and the Renormalization Group Evolution of the QED coupling:
726: \beq
727: \alpha^{-1}(M_Z)=\alpha^{-1}(0)\Big{[}
728: 1-\Delta\alpha_{\rm{QED}}-\Delta\alpha_{\rm had}\Big{]}~,
729: \eeq
730: one obtains the final estimate:
731: \beq\label{alfa2}
732: \alpha^{-1}(M_Z)=128.926(25)~,
733: \eeq 
734: which we show in Fig 1 for a comparison with recent existing determinations. One can notice
735: an improved accuracy of the different recent determinations \cite{JEGER,DAVIE,YND,ALFA}. We expect 
736: that with this new improved estimate of
737: $\alpha(M_Z)$, present lower bound of 114 GeV from LEP data on the Higgs mass can be improved.
738: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
739: \section{Muonium hyperfine splitting}
740: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
741: Adding to this result in Eq. (\ref{nu}) from SN2 \cite{SN2} , the QED contribution up to fourth order, the
742: lowest order electroweak contribution
743: \cite{HFS}, and an estimate of the higher order
744: weak and hadronic contributions
745: \cite{POPOV}:
746: \bea
747: &&\Delta\nu_{\rm QED}=4~270~819(220)~{\rm Hz}~,
748: \Delta\nu_{\rm weak}(l.o)=-\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}m_em_\mu\ga\frac{3}{4\pi\alpha}\dr\nu_F
749: \simeq
750: -65~{\rm Hz}~,\nnb\\
751: &&|\Delta\nu_{\rm weak}(h.o)|\approx 0.7~{\rm Hz}~,~~~~~~~~
752: \Delta\nu_{\rm had}(h.o)\simeq 7(2)~{\rm Hz}~,
753: \eea
754: one obtains the Standard Model (SM)  prediction:
755: \bea
756: \nu_{\rm SM}\equiv \nu_F+\Delta\nu_{\rm QED}+\Delta\nu_{\rm weak}+\Delta\nu_{\rm had}+
757: \Delta\nu_{\rm had}(h.o)~.
758: \eea
759: If one uses the relation:
760: \beq\label{nuf}
761: \nu_F=\rho_F\ga\frac{\mu_\mu}{\mu^e_{B}}\dr \frac{1}{(1+m_e/m_\mu)^3}~:~~~~~~~~~
762: \rho_F=\frac{16}{3}(Z\alpha)^2 Z^2cR_\infty~,
763: \eeq
764: and
765: $Z=1$ for muonium, $\alpha^{-1}(0)$=137.035 999 58(52) \cite{GM2}, $cR_\infty$ =3 289 841 960 368(25)
766: kHz
767: \cite{MOHR}, one would obtain:
768: \beq
769: \nu_{\rm SM}=4~463~302~913(511)(34)220)~{\rm Hz}~,
770: \eeq
771:  where the two first errors are due to the one of the Fermi splitting energy. The first largest one
772: being induced by the one of the ratio of the magnetic moments. The third error is due to the 4th order QED
773: contribution where, one should notice that, unlike the case of $a_\mu$, the dominant errors come from the
774: QED calculation which should then be improved. This prediction can be compared with the precise data~\cite{EXP}:
775: \beq
776: \nu_{\rm exp}=4~463~302~776(51)~{\rm Hz}~.
777: \eeq
778: Therefore, at present, we find, it is more informative to extract the Fermi splitting energy $\nu_F$
779: from a comparison of the Standard Model (SM) prediction with the experimental value of $\nu$. Noting
780: that
781: $\nu_F$ enters as an overall factor in the theoretical contributions, one can rescale the previous
782: values and predict the ratio:
783: \bea
784: {\nu_{\rm SM}\over\nu_F}=1.000~957~83(5)~.
785: \eea
786: Combining this result with the previous experimental value of $\nu$, one can deduce the
787: SM prediction:
788: \beq\label{nf}                   
789: \nu_F^{SM}=4~459~031~783(226)~{\rm Hz}~,
790: \eeq
791: where the error is dominated here by the QED contribution at fourth order.
792: However, this result is a
793: factor two more precise than the determination in \cite{HFS} given in Eq. (\ref{eqhfs}), where the
794: main error  in Eq. (\ref{eqhfs}) comes from the input values of
795: the magnetic moment ratios. Using this result in Eq. (\ref{nf}) into the expression:
796: \beq
797: \nu_F=\rho_F\ga\frac{m_e}{m_\mu}\dr\frac{1}{(1+m_e/m_\mu)^3}\ga
798: 1+a_\mu\dr~,
799: \eeq
800: where $\rho_F$ is defined in Eq. (\ref{nuf}),
801: and $a_\mu=1.165~920~3(15)\times 10^{-3}$ \cite{GM2},  
802: one can extract a value of the ratio of the muon over the electron mass:
803: \beq\label{emuon}
804: \frac{m_\mu}{m_e}=206.768~276(11)~,
805: \eeq
806: to be compared with the PDG value $206.768~266(13)$ using the masses in MeV units, and with the one
807: from
808: \cite{HFS}:
809: $206.768~276(24)$. In Ref. \cite{EXP}, an accuracy two times better than the present result has
810: been also obtained. However, in that case, the errors in the QED contributions may have been
811: underestimated. After inserting the previous value of
812: $m_e/m_\mu$ into the alternative (equivalent) relation given in Eq. (\ref{nuf}),
813: one can deduce the ratio of magnetic moments:
814: \beq\label{muratio}
815: \frac{\mu_\mu}{\mu^e_{B}}=4.841~970~47(25)\times 10^{-3}~,
816: \eeq
817: compared to the one obtained from the PDG values of $\mu_\mu/\mu_p$ and $\mu_p/\mu^e_B$ \cite{PDG}:
818: $
819: {\mu_\mu}/{\mu^e_{B}}=4.841~970~87(14)\times 10^{-3}~.
820: $
821: In both applications, the results in Eqs. (\ref{emuon}) and (\ref{muratio}) are in excellent agreement with
822: the PDG values. These remarkable agreements can give strong constraints to some
823: contributions beyond the Standard Model and are interesting to be explored. 
824: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
825: \section{Conclusions}
826: We have evaluated the lowest order hadronic and QCD contributions $a_l^{had}({l.o})$, $\Delta\alpha_{\rm
827: had}$ and
828: $\Delta\nu_{\rm had}$ respectively to the anomalous magnetic moment, QED
829: running coupling and to the muonium hyperfine splitting. Our self-contained results given in Eqs. (\ref{final}),
830: (\ref{runalfa}) and (\ref{nu}), obtained  within the same strategy and data input, are in excellent agreement with
831: existing determinations and are quite accurate. We have also revised the estimate
832: of the light by light scattering contributions to $a_{\mu,\tau}$, and
833: have explored some phenomenological consequences of these results. 
834: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
835: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
836: \bibitem{SN}(SN1) S. Narison, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 513}, 53 (2001); Erratum-ibid. B
837: {\bf 256}, 414 (2002) [hep-ph/0103199, version 5] and references therein.
838: \bibitem{SN2}(SN2) S. Narison, hep-ph/0108065.
839: \bibitem{ELLIS}John Ellis, these proceedings and references therein.
840: \bibitem{PERAZZI}Elena Perazzi, these proceedings.
841: \bibitem{GOURDIN}M. Gourdin and E. de Rafael, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 10}, 667 (1969). 
842: %and references therein.
843: \bibitem{JEGER} (J 01) F. Jegerlehner, hep-ph/0104304 and references therein;
844: W.J. Marciano and B.L. Roberts, hep-ph/0105056.
845: \bibitem{HFS}(CEK 01) A.Czarnecki, S. Eidelman and S.G. Karshenbiom, hep-ph/0107327 and references therein.
846: \bibitem{DAVIE} (ADH 98) R. Alemany, M. Davier and A. H\"ocker, {\it Eur. Phys.~J.}
847: C {\bf 2}, 123 (1998).
848: \bibitem{YND}(YT 01) J.F. de Troc\'oniz and F.J. Yndurain, hep-ph/0111258; hep-ph/0107318; hep-ph/0107318.
849: \bibitem{GM2}The muon g-2 collaboration, H.N. Brown et al., {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 86}, 2227 (2001); 
850: A.Czarnecki and W.J. Marciano {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 86},  013014 (2001); V.W. Hughes and T. Kinoshita,
851: {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 71, 2}, S133 (1999).
852: \bibitem{PALOMA}J.E. Palomar, hep-ph/0202203.
853: \bibitem{ALEPH}The ALEPH collaboration, R. Barate et al., 
854: {\it Eur. Phys. J.} C {\bf 76}, 15 (1997); C {\bf 4}, 409 (1998); A. Hocker,
855: hep-ex/9703004.
856: \bibitem{OPAL} The OPAL collaboration, K. Ackerstaff et al., {\it Eur. Phys. J.} C {\bf 7}, 571 (1999).
857: \bibitem{PDG}PDG 2000, D.E. Groom et al., {\it Eur.
858: Phys. J.} C {\bf 15}, 1 (2000).
859: \bibitem{DOL}S. Dolinsky et al., {\it Phys. Rep.} C {\bf 202}, 99 (1991).
860: \bibitem{DM2}The DM2 collaboration, A. Antonelli et al., {\it Z. Phys.} C {\bf 56}, 15 (1992);
861: D. Bisello et al., {\it Z. Phys.} C {\bf 39}, 13 (1988).
862: \bibitem{DM1}The DM1 collaboration, F. Mane et al., {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 112}, 178 (1982);
863: A. Cordier et al., {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 110}, 335 (1982).
864: \bibitem{NOVO}The CMD collaboration, R.R. Akhmetshin et al., {\it Nucl. Phys.} A {\bf 675}, 424c (2000);
865: S.I. Serednyakov,  {\it Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.)} B {\bf 96}, 197 (2001).
866: \bibitem{BES}The BES collaboration, J.Z. Bai et al., {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 84}, 594 (2000);
867: hep-ex/0102003.
868: \bibitem{ALFA}(DH 98) M. Davier and A. Hoecker, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 435}, 419 (1998); (MOR 01)
869: A.D. Martin, J. Outhwaite and M.G. Ryskin, hep-ph/0012231; (BP 01) H. Burkhardt and B. Pietrzyk, LAPP-EXP
870: 2001-03 (2001).
871: \bibitem{FAUST}(FKM 99) R.N. Faustov, A. Karimkhodzhaev and A.P. Martynenko, {\it Phys. Rev. } A{\bf 59},
872: 2498 (1999). 
873: \bibitem{CALMET} 
874: J. Calmet, S. Narison, M. Perrottet and E. de Rafael, 
875: {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 49}, 21 (1977); {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 161 },  283 (1976);
876: S. Narison, {\it Th\`ese de 3\`eme cycle}, Marseille (1976).
877: \bibitem{SNB}S. Narison, {\it QCD as a theory of hadrons}, Cambridge Univ. Press (to
878: appear).
879: \bibitem{KRAUSE}B. Krause, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 390}, 392 (1997).
880: \bibitem{KINO2} M. Hayakawa and T. Kinoshita, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 57}, 465 (1998);  hep-ph/0112102.
881: \bibitem{BIJ}J. Bijnens, E. Pallante and J. Prades, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 474}, 379 (1996);
882: hep-ph/0112255.
883: \bibitem{KNECHT}M. Knecht and A. Nyffeler, hep-ph/0111058; M. Knecht, A. Nyffeler,
884: M. Perrottet and E. de Rafael, hep-ph/0111059; see also: \cite{KINO2,BIJ} and I. Blokland, A.
885: Czarnecki and K. Melnikov, hep-ph/0112117. 
886: \bibitem{WISE} M. Ramsey-Musolf and M.B. Wise, hep-ph/0112255.
887: \bibitem{LAPORTA}S. Laporta and E. Remiddi, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 301}, 440 (1993).
888: \bibitem{NATH}U. Chattopadhyay, A. Corsetti and P. Nath, hep-ph/0202275.
889: \bibitem{SNGM2}S. Narison, {\it J. Phys. (Nucl. Phys.)} G {\bf 4}, 1840 (1978).
890: \bibitem{TAYLOR}L. Taylor, {\it Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.)} B {\bf 76}, 273 (1999).
891: \bibitem{POPOV}S.G. Karshenboim, {\it Z. Phys.} D {\bf 36}, 11 (1996).
892: %\bibitem{HUGHES}V.W. Hughes and T. Kinoshita, {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 71, 2}, S133 (1999).
893: \bibitem{MOHR}P.J. Mohr and B.N. Taylor, {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 72},
894: 351 (2000).
895: \bibitem{EXP}W. Liu et al., {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 82}, 711 (1999); F.G. Mariam et al.,
896: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 49}, 993 (1982).
897: \end{thebibliography}
898: \end{document}
899: �������@��@���abel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
900:            {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
901:             \leftmargin\labelwidth
902:             \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
903:             \@openbib@code
904:             \usecounter{enumiv}%
905:             \let\p@enumiv\���x����H�H����(EG(����H�H����(����d�������'��������������`������@����������������������������V��
906: 
907: ��
908: 
909: Monaco����b�4�(h@��xl�*PI�@�"D	�%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%���LaTeX���*;���� TeX output 2002.03.05:2102�����������������������������������������HW
910: 덑 
911: 1prepostscript userdict /AI3_noCropMarks true put 
912: ��\N�ff����cmbx12ProbingffHigh-EnergyPhysicswithHigh-precisionQED���measurementsff=K`y�
913: ���
914: ���cmr101@�"V�
915: ���
916: ���cmbx10StephanTNarison1�DzLabGoratoireUUdePhysiqueMathGematique���{"UniversitGeUUdeMontpGellierII�!PlaceUUEugGeneBataillon�w34095UU-MontpGellierCedex05,F*rance�%Email:qqcd@lpm.univ-montp2.fr6ۍ�Ƃ AbstractǍI%summarize%our�':�
917: ���
918: ���cmti10self-c}'ontained%ϲdeterminationsofthelowest%orderhadroniccontributions[1�,2%]totheanomalousPmagneticmoments
919: b>�
920: ���
921: ���cmmi10a	0er�������cmmi7;ofthemuonandtauleptons,RtherunningQEDOcoupling	z(MZp[)andthemuoniumhypGernesplitting�.9Usinganaverageestimateofthelight-bylightscatteringcontribu-tion:"a\(LL)=85(18)�S
922: !",�
923: ���
924: ���cmsy1010^O!�������cmsy7�ٓR�������cmr711,ֶwe
925: deduce:a^SaM{=116591861(78)�S10^�11,ֶa^SaM=117
926: 759(7)10^�8
927: t,
928: >ۍgiving:a^SaM͏��,a^exp=162(170)10^�11.-W*ealsoobtain:	z^�1
929: (MZp[)=128:926(25)andtheF*ermienergysplitting:Pr^�SaMbFN=4ī459031783(229)Hzs.LowerībGoundsonsomenewphysicsaregiven,while^�SaMbF��leadsUUe.g.qtom\=mec=206:768276(11)inremarkqableagreementwiththedata.!č1LIntros3ductionQEDѻisatpresentthegaugetheorywherepGerturbativecalculationsarethemostpreciseknowntoGday*.Therefore,(accuratedmeasurementsofQEDCproGcessesareexpectedtogivestrongconstraintsondierentelectroweakmoGdelsandtorevealsomeeventualdeviationsfromthestandardmoGdel(SM)predictionsva^2Բ.'vInvathefollowing,Iv(willdiscusstheeectsofthehadronicandQCDcontributionstothreeclassicaloQEDKproGcesseswhichare:)theanomalousmagneticmomentofthemuonandtauleptons,7therunningVQEDVcoupling	z(MZp[)andthemuoniumhypGernesplitting�.vThesehadroniccontributionsareioneofthemainsourcesofuncertaintiesintotheseproGcesses.Usingadispersionrelation,QitisremarkqabletonoticethatthedierentlowestorderhadroniccontributionsforthesethreeproGcessescan4bGeexpressedinaclosedformasaconvolution4ofthee^+e^�	!hadronscross-sectionH(t)withaQEDUUkernelfunctionK�(t)whichdepGendsoneachobservqable:'%�gOhad=<$	@1Kw��fe�	(֍4[ٟr3cc�u�
930: ���
931: ���cmex10Zi c1@4m�Z�������cmr52O
932: \�������cmmi5.rdtUUKO_(t)H(t);=i(1)?where:yOhadn8mal
933: `;had;had8105|ror!ghad :=j(2)	B։��ff�g	J="5-:Aa�������cmr61L|{Y�������cmr8TJalkpresenÎtedatthe1stHigh-EnergyPhysicsMadagascarInternationalConferenceSeries(HEP-MAD'01),"
934: 27th	�sept-5thXOct. 2001,AnÎtananarivoX(tob<republishedbÎyWJorldScientic,Singap<rore).	>"5-:2LܽFJorXgeneraldiscussionsonastroparticlephÎysicsandsup<rersymmetricmodels,seee.g. [3@,4\].���߳1��������������������������������������������*HW
935: 덠
936: ø"F*orUUtheanomalousmagneticmomental
937: `;hadC,KalB(t0)UUisthewell-knownkernelfunction[5�]:$�=KalB(t)�H=�`fcZi�`g1@�0�އdx<$x^2|s(18�x)33w��fe�Tu	(֍xr2S+8(ot=m:2vl
938: D*)!C(18�x)Z1;+(3);TwhereUUmlgistheleptonmass.qItbGehavesUUforlargetas:B�-KalB(tm2፴l|s)'<$Km^2vlKw��fe�
939: D*	(֍Sܲ3t:,(4)䛍ø"F*orUUtheQEDrunningcouplinghad810^5|s,thekernelis(seee.g.q[6�]):�AK(t)=`<$
940: #/	/w��fe�o	(֍`9^<$)ZM^2bZ!Ȳw��fe�:	(֍M:2bZ;�8tB^OQ;,(5)Y~whereUU	z^�1
941: (0)=137:036andMZ	7s=91:3GeV.ItbGehavesforlargetlikeaconstant.荍ø"F*orUUthemuoniumhypGernesplittinghad
942: Q˲,thekernelfunctionis(seee.g[7�]):iN�K=�ɟ\"yȲ(]Wx+82)28Jln<$=k|18+v=k|w��fe�n	(֍18�v\F�8^	Tx+<$l3lw��fe��	(֍2	G^1Oln;Ox\\#,(6)where:0�=2F<$Pmew��fe�	(֍muc;UQx#ٲ=<$OtKw��fe�$y	(֍4mr2\n(v=s��fe�"Hf18�<$v1lw��fe�ݟ	(֍x.ϐ;,(7)~andIwetake(forthemoment)foraclosedcomparisonwith[7�]^3=,LthevqalueoftheF*ermienergy��splitting:�વF	l=445UU9031920:(511)(34)Hzr:,(8)r]ItUUbGehavesforlargetas:�v:Kɲ(tm2፴\)'q\ DMPm^2፴Pn��fe�$x	(֍Dt\!(O^<$1>91>w��fe��	(֍29ln<$ItDPw��fe�$x	(֍mr2\nU+<$l15lw��fe�
943: �	(֍4H^xf:,(9)ThedierentasymptoticbGehavioursofthesekernelfunctionswillin
944: uenceontherelativeweightsUUofdierentregionscontributionsintheevqaluationoftheabGoveintegrals. º2InputffandNumericalStrategy²The)dierentdatainputandQCDparametrizationsofthecross-sectionH(t)havebGeendiscussedindetailsin[1�](herereferredasSN1)andcorrespGondingdiscussionswillnotberepeatedhere.Thesources,ofthesedataarequotedinthelastcolumnofT*able1fromSN1andTable2from[2�](her-ereferred[asSN2)areclassiedaccordingtotheestimateindierentregions._W*eshallonlysketchedbrie
945: yUUthenumericalstrategyhere:эø"@#Our_resultfromtheI='1isovector_channelbGelow3GeV^2Ҳisthemeanvqalueoftheoneusingĵ!Dz-decayande^+e^�
946: data.InbGothcases,8xwehaveusedstandardtrapGezoqdalrulesand/orleastsquare;tsofthedatainordertoavoid;theoreticalmoGdeldependenceparametrizationofthepionformfactor.CorrelationsamongdierentdatahavebGeentakeninthecompilationsof[8�]usedMinthispapGer.oIntheregion(0:6(E�0:8)MGeV^2zaroundthe![ٲ-mixing,Nweuseinbothcasesĵe^+e^�
947: dataKinordertotakepropGerlytheS�U(2)F	mixing.nTheSU(2)breakingintheremainingregions$aretakenintoaccountbymakingtheaverageofthetworesultsfrom!Dz-decayande^+e^�IJandEbyaddingintotheerrorsthedistancebGetweenthismeancentralvqaluewiththeonefromeachUUdata.Ÿ]O��ff�g	J="5-:3LܽInXthenextsection,wÎeshallextractthisvaluefromtheanalysis.���߳2��]�����������������������������������������1HW
948: 덠
949: ø#6\F*ortheI=10isoscalarchannelbGelow3GeV^2|s,ѩweusethecontributionsoftheresonances��ĵ![ٲ(782)@and(1020)usingnarrowwidthapproximation(NWA).W*eaddtothesecontributions,thesumoftheexclusivechannelsfrom0.66to1.93GeV^2|s.^AbGove1.93GeV^2|s,"weincludethecontributionsUUofthe![ٲ(1:42);!(1:65)UUand(1:68)usingaBreit-Wignerformoftheresonances.K�ø"5|F*ortheheavyquarkonia,weincludethecontributionsofknownJh�= (1Sto4.415)and(1StoD11.02)familiesanduseaNWA.W*ehaveDaddedtheeectofthe'AbttbGoundstateusingtheleptonicUUwidthof(12:581:5)UUkeVgivenin[9�].ø"AwayTfromthresholds,weusepGerturbativeQCD3plusnegligiblequarkandgluoncondensatecontributions,޲whichisexpGectedtogiveagoodparametrizationofthecross-section.!ThesedierentXexpressionsaregiveninSN1.However,əastherelativer^oleoftheQCD@continuumisimpGortantintheestimateofhad
950: Q˲,"wehaveadded,"totheusualSchwingerinterpGolatingfactoratIDorders~fordescribingtheheavyquarkspGectralfunction,?theknown^	z2፴sm^2bQ;=tcorrectionsgivenUUinSN1.qHowever,intheregionweareworking,thesecorrectionsaretiny*.ø!.²On}theZ�-mass,theintegralforhadɲhasapGole,suchthatthiscontributionhasbGeenseparatedinthiscasefromtheQCDcontinuum.pItsvqaluecomesfromtheCauchyprincipalvalueoftheintegral. ׍º3LowestfforderhadroniccontributionsN�������cmbx123.1$pMuon�andtauanomaliesuT²W*eshowinTable1thedetailsofthedierenthadroniccontributionsfromeachchannelsandfromdierent*energyregionsforthemuonandtauanomalies.cT*akingtheaverageoftheresultsinT*able1and0addingfurthersystematicsduetoaneventual0deviationfromtheCVC0assumptionandfromthechoice}loftheQCD}bcontinuumthresholdforthelight
951: avours,ronededucethenalestimatefromanaverageUUofthee^+e^�
952: Vand!Dz-decaydata[1�]:;Jahad
953: (l2`:o)z=�7020:6(75:6)810�11<;URahad
954: (l2`:o)=353:6(4:0)810�8ɵ;+(10)øIJThe=mainerror(80%whenaddedquadratically)inourpreviousdeterminationscomesfromthe��ĵ-mesonregionbGelow0.8GeV^2|s.rHopefully*,improvedmeasurementsofthisregionarefeasibleinUUthenearfuture.øIJTheL~secondsourceoferrorscomesfromtheregionaroundM	Kfortheinclusive!Dz-decayandbGetween1GeVutoM	forthee^+e^�BIJdata.Theseerrorsareabouthalfoftheonefromtheregions}bGelow0.8GeV^2inmostdierentdeterminations.?TheycanbGereducedbyimprovedmeasurementsO<ofinclusive!Dz-decaynearMNq(I=1)andbyimprovingthemeasurementsoftheoGddUUmulti-pionsandx䍑9KK(;x䍑K5RK�[;:::channelsintheI=0channelsfrome^+e^�
955: Vdata.øIJThehcontributionsofthewholeregionabGove3GeV^2	inducemuchsmallererrors(7%ofthetotal).qThereUUisaquitegoGodUUconsensusbGetweenUUdierentdeterminationsinthisenergyregion.øIJTheseڹpredictionsagreewithintheerrorswithpreviouspredictionsquotedinSN1[1�]andrecentestimatesUUgivenin[6�]{[11
956: �].I3.2$pRunning�QEDcouplinguT²UsingUUthesamedataasfortheanomalousmagneticmoment,onecandeducefromT*able2:;�had�"G=�e2763:4(16:5)810�5ɵ:+(11);Also]adetailedcomparisonofeachregionofenergywiththemostrecentworkof[9�]showsthesame��featuresI(agreementandslightdierence)likeinthecaseofa	s
957: inSN1duetotheslightdierence���߳3�������������������������������������������#'HW
958: 덠
959: ²in-theparametrizationofthedataandspGectralfunction..OHowever,the-nalresultsarecomparable.��Finally*,onecanremarkthatduetothehigh-energyconstantbGehaviouroftheQED
960: kernelfunctioninZthiscase,thelow-energyregionisnolongerdominating.4F*ora\,thecontributionofthe-mesonbGelow1GeVis68%ofthetotalcontribution,$whilethesumoftheQCDcontinuumisonly7.4%(seee.g.QESN1).Herethesituationisalmostreversed:Athecontributionofthe-mesonbGelow1GeVisonly2%,UUwhilethesumoftheQCD-continuumUUis73.6%.n+T*able+1:sDeterminationsofa^hadvl
961: (l2`:o)usingcombinede^+e^�
962: d,andinclusivedecaydata(2ndand4th��columns)UUandaveragedUUe^+e^�
963: Vdata(3rdcolumn).�덍 B4{��ff1J=t:�	���	���cmbx9RegioninGeV-= Et�������cmbx62�Pa-=hadh;�������cmmi6
964: Mo�	���	���cmr9(l5"�	���	���cmmi9:o)8�	���	���cmsy910-=11	a-=hadh
965: M(l:o)810-=8~ѥDatainput5��ffh+e-=+ne-=q%�������cmsy6��e-=+ne-=�	+e-=+ne-=�LighCtIsovector4m-=2h%!0:8h4794:6860:7�4730:2899:9	165:881:5w[8,T12UP,T13]0:8!2:1h494:9815:8�565:0854:0	28:781:1w[12	?,T13UP]2:1!3:h202:0829:7�175:9816:0	17:082:6w[12	?,T13UP]"j�	���	���cmti9TJotalN<LightI=1h54916:5D869:4�54716:1D8114:7	2116:5D83:2LighCtIsoscalarBelowN<1.93!h387:5813�387:5813	15:380:5wNWAT[14	?]h393:389:9�393:389:9	21:080:5wNWAT[14	?]0:66!1:93h79:3818:7�79:3818:7	4:381:1w̟Pűexclusiv9e�[15	?]FJromN<1.93to3!R(1:42);!(1:65)h31:386:8�31:386:8	2:680:7wBWT[16	?,14UP](1:68)h42:4818:2�42:4818:2	3:881:3wBWT[16	?,17UP,14]TJotalN<LightI=0h9336:8D831:5�9336:8D831:5	476:0D82:0HeaCvyIsoscalarJX�= R(1S!4:415)h87:084:7�87:084:7	13:0880:69wNWAT[14	?](1S!11:020)h0:9580:04�0:9580:04	0:2380:01wNWAT[14	?]TJotalN<HeavyI=0h886:0D84:7�886:0D84:7	136:3D80:7QCDconCtinuum3:!(4:57)-=2h407:082:3�407:082:3	49:480:3w(u;d;s)(4:57)-=2m!(11:27)-=2h95:380:5�95:380:5	27:380:1w(u;d;s;c)(11:27)-=2m!4M-=�2hth20:580:1�20:580:1	5:8780:01w(u;d;s;c;b)4M-=�2htQ!1h0:�0:	0:w(u;d;s;c;b;t)TJotalN<QCDCont.h5226:8D82:4�5226:8D82:4	826:6D80:35��ffh7036.1(76.4)�7015.7(119.1)	354.4(3.8)5��ffF:or=>thisreason,8impro9vement=>duetothenewNo9vosibirsk=>e-=+ne-=�
966: Wdata[18	?]inthelo9w-energyregionisnotsignican9t,�~asHwehaveexplicitlychecked.Atpresent,�~newBESAdata[19	?]intheJX�= Mregionarealsoav|railable,whic9hcanbAealternativelyused.<BelowtheJX�= Bresonances,itheBESrdataareinexcellentagreementwiththeScQCDSSparametrizationtoorder-=Ǿ3hsusedherefor3
967: a9vours,bjustifyingSctheaccuracyofy9ourinput.֝AbAovetheLJX�= lresonances,Ztheparametrizationusedhere(sumofnarro9wresonances+QCDLcontinuumawayfromthresholds)XcanalsobAecomparedwiththesedata.P{Oncannoticethat,�Xintheresonanceregions,theBESdataaremoreaccuratethanpreviousones,>hwhic9hmayindicatethatourquotederrorsinT:able1fortheJX�= 4familycon9tributionsareoverestimated.LInaddition,1thethresholdoftheQCDcontinuumwhichwehavetak9enbabAovetheJX�= (resonances,,matchesquitewellwiththeoneindicatedbytheBESRdata.Ourestimateofhadxis1comparedwithrecen9tpredictionsrespAectivelyinFig.q1fromSN2[2](referencestotheauthorsare���߳4�������������������������������������������6HW
968: 덠
969: inT[6,9R,8,20UP])whereonecannoticeav9erygoAodTagreement.}qWh²T*able2:!Lowestorderdeterminationsofhadnr10^5	'uandhadͲ[Hz]('usingcombinede^+e^�kand��inclusiveUUwdecaydata(2ndand4thcolumns)andaveragede^+e^�
970: Vdata(3rdand5thcolumns).�̍ 1ٚ��ff1��RegioninGeV-=2�(hadUK810-=5had\g[Hz]Data5��fft+e-=+ne-=��9e-=+ne-=��<+e-=+ne-=�:Śe-=+ne-=�LighCtIsovector4m-=2h%!0:8t314:582:3�9302:787:1�<152:981:8:Ś148:483:1y[8,T12UP,T13]0:8!2:1t77:283:4�982:085:4�<12:180:5:Ś16:981:9y[12	?,T13UP]2:1!3:t62:389:2�953:684:9�<7:881:2:Ś6:780:6y[12	?,T13UP]TJotalN<LightI=1t4546:0D810:6�94386:2D810:2�<1726:8D82:2:Ś1726:1D83:7AÎverage�-4466:1D810:487:9qE1726:5D83:080:3LighCtIsoscalarBelowN<1.93!�͆31:581:1 Y*12:780:4yNWAT[14	?]�͆52:381:2 Y*13:780:3yNWAT[14	?]0:66!1:93�͆11:683:0")2:780:7yPexcl:E[15	?]FJromN<1.93to3!R(1:42);!(1:65)�9:481:4")1:280:2yBWT[16	?,14UP](1:68)�͆14:684:6$(1:78:5yBWT[16	?,17UP,14]TJotalN<LightI=0�}119:085:9 Y*32:181:0HeaCvyIsoscalarJX�= R(1S!4:415)�}116:386:2")4:080:2yNWAT[14	?](1S!11:020)�͆12:780:5")0:180:0yNWAT[14	?]TH(349)��(0:180:0),A0yNWAT[14	?,9R]TJotalN<HeavyI=0�}128:986:2$(4:18:2QCDconCtinuum3:!4:57-=2�}330:181:0")17:58:1y(u;d;s)4:57-=2m!11:27-=2�}503:081:0$(5:08:1y(u;d;s;c)11:27-=2m!(M�ZG�83TGeVK)-=2�-2025:782:0")1:380:0y(u;d;s;c;b)(M�ZG+83TGeVK)-=2m!4M-=�2ht�K�(794:680:6),A0�Z�-pAole�29:28:5,A0yppalTv|ralue[9]4M-=�2htQ!1��(24:080:1),A0y(u;d;s;c;b;t)TJotalN<QCDCont.�-2069:485:2 Y*23:881:45��ffFinalvhalue�2763:4816:5232:583:25��ff3.3$pThe�m�uoniumhyp`�ernesplittingOurTnalresultforhad\gcomesfromT:able2ofSN2[2]:��had=(232:583:2)THzC(12)andissho9wninT:able3incomparisonwithotherdeterminations,lwherethereisanexcellentagreementwith��themostrecen9tdetermination[7].Here,duetothe(ln	?t)=tbAehaviourofthekernelfunction,thecontributionofmsthelo9w-energyregionisdominant.zHowever,the-mesonregioncontributionbAelow1GeVmIis47%comparedwith68%inthecaseofa���, whiletheQCDcon9tinuumisabAout10%comparedto7.4%fora�.8TheaccuracyofLWourresultismainlyduetotheuseofthe-deca9ydata,Zexplainingthesimilaraccuracyofournalresultwithjtheonein[7]usingnewNo9vosibirskjdata.wTheagreemen9twith[7]canbAeunderstoodfromtheagreemen9tof5}thea9veraged5}correlatede-=+ne-=�	|and-deca9ydatacompiledin[8]withthenewNovosibirskdatausedin[7].���߳5��	Ћ�����������������������������������������M#HW
971: 덠ZU��b)t2illustration stephan.eps scaled 0.54866. 0.54866. ��²Figureӛ1:0Recentdeterminationsofhad%fand	z^�1
972: (MZp[).FThedashedverticallineisthemeancentral��vqalue.��Ho9wever,weɹdierwithDH98[20	?]inthetreatmen9toftheQCDɋcontribution-=4`.9F:orlightquarks,QCDɋis��applied%intheregionwherenon-pAerturbativ9econtributionsareinessential.UF:orheavyquarks,pAerturbativeQCDTisappliedfarfromhea9vyquarkthresholds,whereitcanbAeunambiguouslyused.�dLύ�T*ableUU3:qRecentdeterminationsofhad5ŸL͉��fffd��Authors�whad [Hz]���ffFKMUU99[21
973: �]�w24087CEKUU01[7�]�w23383SNUU01[2�]�w232:583:2���ff)º4Theoryffofthemuonandtauanomaliesandnewphysics阍4.1$pQED�andEWcon�tributionsto)g�������cmmi12a2�������cmmi8ۣTheTQEDupto8thorderandEWincludingt9wo-loAopTcorrections-=5
974: UOare:�Ua=QER!Dv#=�116T584705:7(2:9)810=�11;
975: a=ER!W=151(4)10=�11:C(13)4.2$pHigher�orderhadroniccon�tributionstoa̿Higherorderhadroniccon9tributionshavebAeendiscussedrstin[22	?].,Theycanbedividedin9totwoclassesŸ-=6	i.sThe2{rstonein9volves2{thev|racuumpAolarizationandcanberelatedtothemeasurede-=+ne-=�		u!hadronstotalcross-section,Tsimilartothelo9westTordercon9tribution.pAfterrescalingtheresultin[22	?,24UP],oneobtains[1]:��a=had (h:o:)�Vc:P=�101:2(6:1)810=�11;C(14)Ÿ	&i��ff�g	J="5-:4LܽFJorXmoredetails,see[1@].	>"5-:5LܽReferencesXtooriginalwÎorkscanb<refoundin[1@,6\,10U`]."5-:6LܽFJorXmoredetailsofthefolloÎwingdiscussions,see[23].���߳6�������������������������������������������`HW
976: 덠
977: TheOsecondclassistheligh9t-by-lightOscatteringdiagram.ˬCon9trarytothecaseofv|racuumpAolarizations,^Xthis��con9tributionisnotyetfullyrelatedtoadirectmeasurablequantity:.YInordertoestimatethiscontribution,one8hastoin9troAducesometheoreticalmodels.gTheonesusedatpresen9tarebasedonchiralpAerturbation[25	?]andENJLmoAdel[26	?]..HT:obothareaddedv9ectormesondominanceandphenomenologicalparametrizationof%thepionformfactors.Thedieren9tcontributionsaresummarizedinT:able4,Ywherethersttwocomefrom{^thebAosonandquark(constituen9t)loops,whilethelastoneisduetomesonpoleexc9hanges.NTherstt9wo=contributionsarequitesensitivetotheeectsofrho-mesonattachedatthethreeo-shellphotonlegswhic9hreducethecontributionsbyabAoutoneorderofmagnitude(!).'8Thethirdonewithpseudoscalarmesonexhanges(anomaly)giv9essofarthemostimpAortantcontribution.ThereisacompleteagreementbAetweentheNt9womoAdelestimates(aftercorrectingthesignofthepseudoscalarandaxial-vectorcontributions[27	?]),whic9hvWmayindirectlyindicatethattheresultsobtainedaremoAdel-independen9t-=7*.?zNeverthless,therearestillsome_reaminingsubtleissuestobAeunderstood(istheinclusionofaquarkloopadoublecoun9ting?,*whytheinclusionjoftherho-mesondecreasesdrasticallythequarkandpionloAopcon9tributions? isasinglemesondominancejjustied?..).]TheresultsinRefs.[25	?]and[26],/aftercorrectingthesignofthepseudoscalarandaxial-v9ectorTcontributionsassuggestedin[27	?],aregiveninthetable:�P{Vl�hֲT*ableUU4:qa^%f$�������cmbx7had፴7(h:o)LL
978: ȸ810^11O捍Ÿщ��ff1T9ypAeTofdiagrams�jRef.[25
979: ^]07KRef.[26
980: ^]5��ffR-=�	loAop�j�4:5(8:1)07K�19(13)quarkTloAop�j9.7(11)07K21(3)R-=0}Q;R;-=0pAoles�j82.7(6.4)07K85(13)axial-v9ectorTpAole�j1.7407K2.5(1.0)scalarTpAole�j-=)07K�6:8(2:0)5��ffT:otal�j82.8(15.2)07K82.7(18.8)5��ffX!#Ÿr0n�������cmsy5)FWZehaveaddedheretheresultfrom[26].whileTanaiv9econstituentquarkmoAdelgives[9]usingtheresultof[29	?]:��UPa=had (h:o)�LL
981: 9=92(20)810=�11:C(15)Duexbtotheunkno9wnrealv|ralueofthevirtualphotonmomentaenteringintothecalculation,itcanhappAenthat��noneCofthepreviousapproac9hesdescribAesaccuratelytheLLC|eect-=8n/.
982: Therefore,Oforaconserv|rativeestimate,w9eTtakeanarithmeticalaverageofthethreedeterminations:��#a=had (h:o)�LL
983: 9=84:7(18:0)810=�11:C(16)OneJcannotice,Ԉforthem9uon,astrongcancellationbAet9weenJthehigherorderv|racuumpolarisationandthe��ligh9tTbylightscatteringcontributions.4.3$pThe�totaltheoreticalcon�tributionsSummingTupdieren9tcontributions,thepresenttheoreticalstatusinthestandardmoAdelis[1]:|6a=SQlM�.=�G116T584840:2(19:6)810=�11+a=had (l&9:o)���.=�G116T591860:8(78:1)810=�11;C(17)Ÿf��ff�g	J="5-:7LܽSeeXhoÎwever[28].	>"5-:8LܽIXthankEduardodeRafaelandPÎacoYndurainforsomeclarifyingcommunicationsonthisp<roint.���߳7��|�����������������������������������������jHW
984: 덠
985: whereha-=hadh (l&9:o)isthelo9westhorderhadroniccon9tributionsev|raluatedinSN1[1](seeEq.(10)).Comparinghthis��SMTpredictionwiththemeasuredv|ralue[10	?]:q�4Ya=expR=116T592023(151)810=�11;C(18)w9eTdeduce:�a=newa=exp!�8a=SQlM\=162(170)10=�11:C(19)
986: IfDthefuturedatawillbAeaccurateb9y40-10-=�11
987: g,@whileDthetheoreticalerrorsarealmostunchangedduetodieren9tlimitationsdiscussedpreviously:,kthentheerrorina-=newh@willbAereducedbyafactor2,kgivingac9hance:todetecta2LdeviationfromSM3ifany:.gCombinedwiththemeanv|ralueofexistingdeterminationsofa���(l&9:o)-=hadtgiv9enTinSN1[1],whichgives:pa-=newh=175(170)810-=�11
988: g,Tonecandeducetheconserv|rativerange:�7�56a=new:w810=11
989: g393*(90%TCLY)T:C(20)24.4$pBounds�onsomenewph�ysicsfroma̿Thisresultgiv9es,forasupAersymmetricmodelwithdegeneratesparticlemass,alo9werboundofabout113GeV<֟-=9g},<whilethecompAositenessandtheleptoquarkscalesareconstrainedtobeabo9ve<1T:eV.Boundonthesparticle\massiscomparablewithpresen9texpAerimentalbAoundfromLEPVdata.Theoneoftheleptoquarksism9uchflargerthanthepresen9tlowerbAoundsofabout(200300)fGeVffromdirectsearc9hexperimen9tsatHERAandST:ev|ratron.pWeexpAectthatthesedieren9tboundswillbeimpro9vedinthenearfuturebAothfromaccuratemeasuremen9tspofa�pandofe-=+ne-=�	2datanecessaryforreducingthetheoreticalerrorsinthedeterminationsoftheThadroniccon9tributions,bAeingthema�jorsourceofthetheoreticaluncertainties.24.5$pT�au�anomalyInTthesamew9ay:,Tthehigherorderhadroniccon9tributionsread[1,31UP]Z]a=had (h:o)�V8P=7:6(0:2)810=�8
990: ;
991: ʦa=had(h:o)�LL
992: 9=23:9(5:1)10=�8
993: ;C(21)whic9h,TintheScase,thetwoeectaddeachothers.pAddingtheothercontributions,oneobtains[1]:�ka=SQlM�|=117T759:1(6:7)810-=�8
994: :C(22)ThisTv|raluecanbAecomparedwiththepresen9t(inaccurate)experimen9talone[32	?]:�a=expR=0:00480:0270:023T;C(23)whic9h,Twewish,willbAeimprovedinthenearfuture.*º5TheffQEDrunningcouplingg�ff����cmmi12xXQ�ff����cmr12(M(Z
995: )阍T:oGthelo9westGorderhadroniccon9tributioninEq.X(11),TweaddtheradiativecorrectionstakenbyaddingtheeectsToftheradiativ9emoAdesR-=0}Q
996: �;R
997: ;-=+o-=�
998: ;:::.pW:eTestimatesuc9heectstobAe:�had=(6:482:7)10=�5C(24)b9y#>takingthelargestrangespannedbythetwoestimatesin[9]and[8].F-UsingtheQED"con9tributiontothree-loAopsT[6]:�o�QED=3149:7687810=�5
999: ;C(25)
1000: andTtheRenormalizationGroupEv9olutionoftheQEDcoupling:�ǟ=�1	(M�Z)=ǟ=�1(0)&`h18��QEDo�hadG&`iK;C(26)qoneTobtainsthenalestimate:�Lǟ=�1	(M�Z)=128:926(25)T;C(27)whic9hweshowinFig1foracomparisonwithrecentexistingdeterminations.Onecannoticeanimprovedaccuracy
1001: ofthedieren9trecentdeterminations[6,8,9,20J].W:eexpAectthatwiththisnewimpro9ved
1002: estimateofT(M�Z),presen9tlowerbAoundof114GeVfromLEPdataontheHiggsmasscanbeimpro9ved.Ÿb��ff�g	J="5-:9LܽFJorXmorerecenÎtdetaileddiscussions,seee.g. [3@,30U`]andreferencesquotedthere.���߳8�����	��������������������������������������{HW
1003: 덠
1004: º6Muoniumffhyps3ernesplitting阍AddingttothisresultinEq.:P(12)fromSN2[2],qtheQEDtcon9tributionuptofourthorder,thelo9westtorder��electro9weakTcontribution[7],andanestimateofthehigherorderweakandhadroniccontributions[33	?]:JፍJ�QED=4T270819(220)Hz6;w9eakUI(l&9:o)=�-ꍑ33G�F33H��fe�
1005: ]u	k�?p9e?��aH�u2m�em�&`-ꍑ}i3
1006: H��fe�-M'm4RA&`&�F'�65Hz6;GJjw9eakUI(h:o)j0:7THz6;5JhadG(h:o)'7(2)THz;C(28)foneTobtainstheStandardMoAdel(SM)prediction:ldk�SM
1007: X�F-+8�QEDo+w9eakc+hadUK+hadG(h:o)T:C(29)IfToneusestherelation:Rm`�F=�F&^-ꍑ�9H��fe�\'mhe.BX(&^-ꍑAY1'ryH��fe�9?'m(18+m�e=m���)j3g:Q�F=-ꍑ16H��fe�	?'mO38((Z�)=2*Z=2ΏcR�1
1008: ;C(30)and>Zzm=օ1form9uonium,Hǟ-=�1	(0)=137.03599958(52)[10	?],cR�1=3289841960368(25)kHz[34	?],onew9ould��obtain:�7�SM
1009: X=4T463302913(511)(34)220)Hz6;C(31)3whereףthet9woףrsterrorsareduetotheoneoftheF:ermisplittingenergy.TherstlargestonebAeinginducedb9yNtheoneoftheratioofthemagneticmoments.Thethirderrorisduetothe4thorderQEDNcontributionwhere,yoneshouldnoticethat,unlik9ethecaseofa���,thedominan9terrorscomefromtheQEDcalculationwhic9hTshouldthenbAeimproved.pThispredictioncanbAecomparedwiththeprecisedata[35	?]:f�
1010: m�expC=4T463302776(51)Hz6:C(32)Therefore,^zat0presen9t,we0nd,itismoreinformativ9etoextracttheF:ermisplittingenergy�FPfromacomparison��ofztheStandardMoAdel(SM)spredictionwiththeexperimen9talv|ralueof�q.'Notingthat�F	entersasanoverallfactorTinthetheoreticalcon9tributions,onecanrescalethepreviousv|raluesandpredicttheratio:{-ꍒ�H�SM�HH��fe�'m}%�F�=1:000T95783(5):C(33)mCom9biningTthisresultwiththepreviousexpAerimentalv|ralueof�q,onecandeducetheSMprediction:f�J=�qSQlMF=4T459031783(226)Hz6;C(34)whereJtheerrorisdominatedhereb9ytheQEDJcontributionatfourthorder.
1011: However,X@thisresultisafactor��t9womoreprecisethanthedeterminationin[7]giv9eninEq.6z(8), -wherethemainerrorinEq.(8)comesfromtheTinputv|raluesofthemagneticmomen9tratios.pUsingthisresultinEq.(34)in9totheexpression:m�B�F=�F&^-ꍑ>m�e9H��fe�
1012: &6'mm�&^-ꍑB31(SH��fe�9?'m(18+m�e=m���)j3d(hC18+a���)�Q\;C(35)where�F	+JisdenedinEq.U(30),
1013: anda�=1:1659203(15)10-=�3[10	?],onecanextractav|ralueoftheratiooftheTm9uonovertheelectronmass:-ꍒ�Sm��SH��fe�
1014: &6'm{m�e�ð=206:768T276(11);C(36)ҍto=bAecomparedwiththePDG=v|ralue206:768266(13)usingthemassesinMeVunits,Handwiththeonefrom[7]:O206:768276(24).ZInRef.[35	?],anaccuracyt9wotimesbAetterthanthepresen9tresulthasbeenalsoobtained.Ho9wever,inJthatcase,theerrorsintheQED-con9tributionsmayhavebAeenunderestimated.uSAfterinsertingthe3�previousv|ralueofm�e=m�3�in9tothealternative(equiv|ralent)relationgiveninEq.us(30),:konecandeducetheratioTofmagneticmomen9ts:r-ꍒ�Dx��H��fe�\'mhe.B�Hs=4:841T97047(25)810=�3
1015: ;C(37)=icomparedNtotheoneobtainedfromthePDGNv|raluesof���=�pand�pZ=-=e.B	[14	?]:�")=-=e.B=4:84197087(14)410-=�3^:ǞInbAothapplications,)theresultsinEqs.(36)and(37)areinexcellen9tagreementwiththePDGNJv|ralues.TheseNhremark|rableagreemen9tscangivestrongconstraintstosomecontributionsbAeyondtheStandardMoAdelandTarein9terestingtobAeexplored.���߳9�����
1016: ��������������������������������������HW
1017: 덠
1018: º7Conclusions阍W:eha9veev|raluatedthelowestorderhadronicandQCDÿcontributionsa-=had?l (l&9:o	),!had
1019: andhadrespAectiv9ely��tojtheanomalousmagneticmomen9t,QED7runningcouplingandtothemuoniumhypAernesplitting.kOurself-con9tained%resultsgiveninEqs.(10),ӕ(11)and(12),obtainedwithinthesamestrategyanddatainput,areindexcellen9tagreementwithexistingdeterminationsandarequiteaccurate.uW:ehavealsorevisedtheestimateof
1020: Utheligh9tbylightscatteringcontributionstoa�;v,andhaveexploredsomephenomenologicalconsequencesofTtheseresults.ºReferences阍[1]H(SN1)jS.Narison,MPhys.4Lett.B)513,53(2001);uErratum-ibid.B)256,414(2002)[hep-ph/0103199,Hv9ersionT5]andreferencestherein.��[2]H(SN2)TS.Narison,hep-ph/0108065.[3]HJohnTEllis,theseproAceedingsandreferencestherein.[4]HElenaTP9erazzi,theseproAceedings.[5]HM.TGourdinandE.deRafael,Nucl.N<Phys.B10,667(1969).[6]H(JR01)tF.Jegerlehner,hep-ph/0104304andreferencestherein;W.J.MarcianoandB.L.RobAerts,hep-��Hph/0105056.[7]H(CEKT01)A.Czarnec9ki,S.EidelmanandS.G.Karshenbiom,hep-ph/0107327andreferencestherein.[8]H(ADHT98)R.Aleman9y:,M.DavierandA.H`ocker,Eur.N<Phys.J.TC2,123(1998).[9]H(YTT01)J.F.deT:roAc`onizandF.J.Yndurain,hep-ph/0111258;hep-ph/0107318;hep-ph/0107318.
1021: P[10]HThem9uong-2collabAoration,:H.N.Brownetal.,:Phys.Rev.Lett.86,:2227(2001);>A.Czarnec9kiandW.J.��HMarcianogPhys.[Rev.DG86,0013014(2001);¶V.W.HughesandT.Kinoshita,Rev.[Mod.Phys.g71,2,0S133H(1999).��
1022: P[11]HJ.E.TP9alomar,hep-ph/0202203.
1023: P[12]HTheALEPHڿcollabAoration,R.Barateetal.,Eur.uPhys.J.Cڿ76,15(1997);PCڿ4,409(1998);PA.HoAc9ker,��Hhep-ex/9703004.
1024: P[13]HTheTOP:ALcollabAoration,K.Ac9kerstaTetal.,Eur.N<Phys.J.TC7,571(1999).
1025: P[14]HPDGT2000,D.E.GroAometal.,Eur.N<Phys.J.TC15,1(2000).
1026: P[15]HS.TDolinskyetal.,Phys.N<Rep.C202,99(1991).
1027: P[16]HThe/DDM2collabAoration,5A.An9tonellietal.,Z.fPhys.C/>56,15(1992);<=D.Biselloetal.,Z.fPhys.C/>39,H13T(1988).
1028: P[17]HTheeDM1collabAoration,iF.Maneetal.,Phys.ULett.Bc112,178(1982);!mA.Cordieretal.,Phys.ULett.BH110,T335(1982).
1029: P[18]HTheCMDcollabAoration,R.R.Akhmetshinetal.,Nucl.Phys.A675,424c(2000);.S.I.Seredn9yakov,HNucl.N<Phys.(Proc.N<Suppl.)TB96,197(2001).
1030: P[19]HTheTBEScollabAoration,J.Z.Baietal.,Phys.N<Rev.Lett.T84,594(2000);hep-ex/0102003.
1031: P[20]H(DHa;98)aiM.Da9vierandA.HoAecker,fPhys.Lett.Ba;435,419(1998);b(MORa;01)A.D.Martin,J.Outh9waiteHandM.G.Ryskin,Ohep-ph/0012231;z(BPp01)H.BurkhardtandB.Pietrzyk,LAPP-EXPp2001-03(2001).
1032: P[21]H(FKMT99)R.N.F:austo9v,A.KarimkhoAdzhaevandA.P.Mart9ynenko,TPhys.N<Rev.cA59,2498(1999).
1033: P[22]HJ.Calmet,ӌS.Narison,M.P9errottetandE.deRafael,Rev.Mod.Phys.49,ӌ21(1977);ނPhys.Lett.B161H,T283(1976);S.Narison,ThÎeseN<de3emecycle,TMarseille(1976).
1034: P[23]HS.TNarison,QCDN<asatheoryofhadrons,TCam9bridgeUniv.Press(toappAear).
1035: P[24]HB.TKrause,Phys.N<Lett.B390,392(1997).
1036: P[25]HM.THa9yak|rawaandT.Kinoshita,Phys.N<Rev.D57,465(1998);hep-ph/0112102.
1037: P[26]HJ.TBijnens,E.P9allanteTandJ.Prades,Nucl.N<Phys.B474,379(1996);hep-ph/0112255.���310��Y�����������������������������������������HW
1038: 덠
1039: 
1040: P[27]HM.DKnec9htandA.Nyeler,hep-ph/0111058;=M.Knecht,A.Nyeler,M.P9errottetandE.deRafael,��Hhep-ph/0111059;Tseealso:p[25	?,26UP]andI.Blokland,A.Czarnec9kiandK.Melnikov,hep-ph/0112117.��
1041: P[28]HM.TRamsey-MusolfandM.B.Wise,hep-ph/0112255.
1042: P[29]HS.TLapAortaandE.Remiddi,Phys.N<Lett.B301,440(1993).
1043: P[30]HU.TChattopadh9yay:,A.CorsettiandP.Nath,hep-ph/0202275.
1044: P[31]HS.TNarison,J.N<Phys.(Nucl.Phys.)TG4,1840(1978).
1045: P[32]HL.TT:a9ylor,Nucl.N<Phys.(Proc.N<Suppl.)TB76,273(1999).
1046: P[33]HS.G.TKarshen9bAoim,Z.N<Phys.D36,11(1996).
1047: P[34]HP:.J.TMohrandB.N.Ta9ylor,Rev.N<Mod.Phys.T72,351(2000).
1048: P[35]HW.TLiuetal.,Phys.N<Rev.Lett.T82,711(1999);F.G.Mariametal.,Phys.N<Rev.Lett.T49,993(1982).���311����G;����HK�
1049: ��u�
1050: ���
1051: ���cmex10Z�������cmr5ٓR�������cmr7K`y�
1052: ���
1053: ���cmr10O
1054: \�������cmmi5	0er�������cmmi7
1055: b>�
1056: ���
1057: ���cmmi100n�������cmsy5O!�������cmsy7
1058: !",�
1059: ���
1060: ���cmsy10XQ�ff����cmr12N�ff����cmbx12g�ff����cmmi12|{Y�������cmr8Aa�������cmr62�������cmmi8;�������cmmi6q%�������cmsy6"V�
1061: ���
1062: ���cmbx10�':�
1063: ���
1064: ���cmti10N�������cmbx12o�	���	���cmr95"�	���	���cmmi9�	���	���cmsy9t:�	���	���cmbx9 Et�������cmbx6"j�	���	���cmti9%f$�������cmbx7)g�������cmmi12�������@��@���&G>�����PREC���"rTEX���.*FMT���:DVI2��F�����%����|&����%|�� ��%� �%� �%$� �$%h� �7t&� �N&\� �a&� �k%� �|&x�	 �&�\�
1065:  �%� �S% �%��������������������������������������������������������������