1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsf]{article}
2: \textheight 24.3cm
3: \textwidth 17.6cm
4: \topmargin -3cm
5: \hoffset -1.8cm
6: \headsep 1.5cm
7: \headheight 1.5cm
8: \newcommand{\lsm}{L$\sigma$M}
9: \newcommand{\lsms}{\mbox{\scriptsize L$\sigma$M}}
10: \newcommand{\qllsm}{QLL$\sigma$M}
11: \newcommand{\cls}{\mbox{\scriptsize CL}}
12: \newcommand{\cms}{\mbox{\scriptsize CM}}
13: \newcommand{\qts}{\mbox{\scriptsize QT}}
14: \newcommand{\slw}{K^+\rightarrow\pi^0e^+\nu}
15: \newcommand{\refc}[1]{Ref.~\cite{#1}}
16: \newcommand{\ha}{\frac{1}{2}}
17: \newcommand{\dfp}{d^4\:\!\!p}
18: \newcommand{\dbarfp}{\,\bar{}\:\!\!\!\!d\;\!^4\:\!\!p}
19: \newcommand{\abs}[1]{\left| #1\right|}
20: \newcommand{\av}[1]{\left<#1\right>}
21: \newcommand{\bk}[2]{\left<#1|#2\right>}
22: \newcommand{\bko}[3]{\left<#1|#2|#3\right>}
23: \newcommand{\bm}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}
24: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
25: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
26: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
27: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
28: \newcommand{\eqr}[1]{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}
29: \newcommand{\eqrs}[2]{Eqs.~(\ref{#1}) and (\ref{#2})}
30: \newcommand{\fnd}[2]{\frac{\textstyle #1}{\textstyle #2}}
31: \newcommand{\xrm}[1]{{\textstyle \mbox{\rm #1}}}
32: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\mbox{$\left\langle #1\right|$}}
33: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{\mbox{$\left| #1\right\rangle$}}
34: \newcommand{\bracket}[2]{\mbox{$\left\langle #1\left| #2\right.\right\rangle$}}
35: \newcommand{\fsigma}{\mbox{$f_{0}$(600)}}
36: \newcommand{\fn}{\mbox{$f_{0}$(980)}}
37: \newcommand{\ft}{\mbox{$f_{0}$(1370)}}
38: \newcommand{\ff}{\mbox{$f_{0}$(1500)}}
39: \newcommand{\fs}{\mbox{$f_{0}$(1710)}}
40: \begin{document}\baselineskip .7cm
41: \title{\bf Meson Form Factors and \\ the Quark-Level Linear $\sigma$ Model}
42: \author{
43: Michael D.\ Scadron$^{\,a}\!\!$\,,
44: Frieder Kleefeld$^{\,b}\!\!$\,,
45: George Rupp$^{\,b}\!\!$\,, and
46: Eef van Beveren$^{\,c}\!\!$ \\[5mm]
47: $^{a}${\footnotesize\it Physics Department, University of Arizona, Tucson,
48: AZ 85721, USA} \\ {\footnotesize\tt scadron@physics.arizona.edu} \\[.3cm]
49: $^{b}${\footnotesize\it Centro de F\'{\i}sica das Interac\c{c}\~{o}es
50: Fundamentais, Instituto Superior T\'{e}cnico, P-1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal} \\
51: {\footnotesize{\tt kleefeld@cfif.ist.utl.pt},
52: {\tt george@ajax.ist.utl.pt} (corresponding author)} \\[.3cm]
53: $^{c}${\footnotesize\it Departamento de F\'{\i}sica, Universidade de Coimbra,
54: P-3004-516 Coimbra, Portugal} \\ {\footnotesize\tt eef@teor.fis.uc.pt} \\[5mm]
55: {\small PACS numbers: 12.40.-y, 11.30.Rd, 13.40.Gp, 13.40.Hq, 13.20.Cz,
56: 13.20.Eb, 13.25.Es, 12.40.Vv} \\ [.3cm]
57: {\small hep-ph/0211275}
58: }
59: \date{\today}
60: \maketitle
61:
62: \begin{abstract}
63: The quark-level linear $\sigma$ model (\lsm) is employed to compute a variety
64: of electromagnetic and weak observables of light mesons, including pion and
65: kaon form factors and charge radii, charged-pion polarizabilities, semileptonic
66: weak $K_{\ell3}$ decay, semileptonic weak radiative pion and kaon form factors,
67: radiative decays of vector mesons, and nonleptonic weak $K_{2\pi}$ decay.
68: The agreement of all these predicted observables with experiment is striking. In
69: passing, the tight link between the \lsm\ and vector-meson dominance is
70: shown. Some conclusions are drawn on the \lsm\ in connection with lattice and
71: renormalization-group approaches to QCD.
72: \end{abstract}
73: \section{Survey of L\bm{\sigma}M and chiral Goldberger--Treiman relations}
74: For the past eight years, there has been much experimental \cite{PDG02} and
75: theoretical \cite{TH95_99} activity, as well as combined workshops
76: \cite{WS00_02},
77: concerning isoscalar scalar mesons in general, and the $\sigma$ meson in
78: particular. Very recently, we have employed electromagnetic (e.m.) and weak
79: processes to conclude that the mostly nonstrange $\bar{n}n$ resonances are the
80: \fsigma\ and the \ft, while the \fn\ and the \ff\ are mainly $\bar{s}s$
81: \cite{KBRS02}. In the present paper, we study meson ($\pi$,$K$) form factors
82: in general, and specialize at a later stage to a specific scheme, namely the
83: quark-level linear $\sigma$ model (\lsm).
84:
85: Nonperturbatively solving \cite{DS95} the strong-interaction Nambu-type gap
86: equations
87: $\delta f_\pi=f_\pi$ and $\delta\hat{m}=m$ (where $f_\pi$ is the pion decay
88: constant and $\hat{m}$ is the nonstrange constituent quark mass) in quark-loop
89: order, regularization schemes lead to the NJL \cite{NJL61} and $Z=0$
90: compositeness \cite{SWS62_98} relations
91: \be
92: m_\sigma \; = \; 2\hat{m} \;\;\; , \;\;\; g \; = \; \frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{N_c}}\;,
93: \label{comp}
94: \ee
95: with $\hat{m}\sim M_N/3$ and meson-quark coupling $g=2\pi/\sqrt{3}=3.628$. For
96: a more detailed description of the quark-level \lsm, see the Appendix. Here, we
97: survey instead meson form factors and related data in a \lsm\ context for
98: strong, e.m., and weak interactions.
99:
100: This chiral \lsm\ is based on the quark-level pion and kaon Goldberger--Treiman
101: relations (GTRs)
102: \begin{equation}
103: f_{\pi}\,g \; = \; \hat{m} \;= \; \ha(m_u+m_d) \;\;\; , \;\;\; f_K\,g \; = \;
104: \ha(m_s+\hat{m}) \; ,
105: \label{gtrs}
106: \end{equation}
107: for $f_{\pi}\approx93$ MeV ($f_\pi\approx90$ MeV in the chiral limit (CL)
108: \cite{CS81}), $f_K/f_{\pi}\approx1.22$, and $m_s\approx1.44\,\hat{m}$ (from
109: \eqr{gtrs}). We begin in Sec.~2 by studying meson vector form factors and
110: their measured charge radii. In
111: Sec.~3 we survey charged-pion polarizabilities for
112: $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow\pi\pi$, and compare the results with the \lsm\
113: predictions. In
114: Sec.~4 we study the semileptonic weak $K_{l3}$ decays and the form factor
115: $f_+(k^2)$ evaluated at $k^2=0$. Then in Sec.~5 we examine the radiative
116: semileptonic weak form factors for $\pi^+\rightarrow e^+\nu\gamma$ and
117: $K^+\rightarrow e^+\nu\gamma$ decays, with the observed pion second axial-vector
118: form factor implying a pion charge radius $r_{\pi}\sim0.6$ fm, also found in
119: Sec.~2 from data \cite{D82} and from the theoretical \lsm. In Sec.~6 we return
120: to the \lsm\ and its link with vector-meson dominance (VMD). Finally, in Sec.~7
121: we begin by studying the $\Delta I\!=\!1/2$ rule for two-pion decays of the
122: kaon in connection with the $\sigma$ as the pion's chiral partner, and end
123: by showing that the mass of the now experimentally confirmed scalar $\kappa$
124: meson is consistent with the observed $K\rightarrow2\pi$ decay rate. We
125: summarize our results and draw our conclusions in Sec.~8.
126:
127: \section{Meson vector form factors and charge radii}
128: The charged-pion and kaon e.m.\ vector currents are defined as
129: \begin{eqnarray}
130: \bko{\pi^+(q')}{V^{\mu}_{em}(0)}{\pi^+(q)}
131: \; & = & F_\pi (k^2) \; (q' + q)^{\mu} \; , \nonumber \\
132: \bko{K^+(q')}{V^{\mu}_{em}(0)}{K^+(q)} & = & F_K (k^2) \;
133: (q' + q)^{\mu} \; ,
134: \label{pikcur}
135: \end{eqnarray}
136: with $k_\mu = q'_\mu - q_\mu$. The former pion form factor $F_\pi (k^2)$
137: can be --- perturbatively --- characterized by the (constituent) quark $udu$
138: and $dud$ loop graphs of Fig.~1a, while the charged-kaon form factor
139: \begin{figure}[ht]
140: \unitlength1cm
141: \epsfxsize= 11.5cm
142: \epsfysize= 9cm
143: \centerline{\epsffile{gampipi_em.eps}}
144: \caption{VPP quark triangle graphs.} \label{figgampipi3}
145: \end{figure}
146: $F_K (k^2)$ is in a similar manner determined by the $usu$ and $sus$ loop
147: graphs depicted in Fig.~1b. Even if each of the diagrams in Fig.~1
148: appears to be linearly divergent by naive power counting, gauge invariance
149: enforces every single quark triangle (QT) to be merely logarithmically
150: divergent.
151: After evaluation of spin traces, the form factors in \eqr{pikcur} can be
152: brought to the form (with color number $N_c = 3$)
153: \begin{eqnarray}
154: \label{fpiqt}
155: F_\pi (k^2)_{\qts} & = & - \, 4ig^2 N_c \, \left( +
156: \,\frac{2}{3} \, I(k^2,m^2_u,m^2_d,m_\pi^2)
157: + \,\frac{1}{3} \, I(k^2,m^2_d,m^2_u,m_\pi^2) \right) \; , \\
158: F_K (k^2)_{\qts} & = & - 4ig^2 N_c \, \left( +
159: \,\frac{2}{3} \, I(k^2,m^2_u,m^2_s,m_K^2)
160: + \,\frac{1}{3} \, I(k^2,m^2_s,m^2_u,m_K^2) \right) \; .
161: \label{fkqt}
162: \end{eqnarray}
163: The integral $I(k^2,m^2_q,m^2_{{}_Q},M^2)$ is defined by
164: \begin{eqnarray} \lefteqn{I(k^2,m^2_q,m^2_{{}_Q},M^2) \quad =} \nonumber \\
165: & = & \frac{i \pi^2}{(2\pi)^4} \, \frac{1}{2} \int^1_0 dv \int^1_v du \,
166: \frac{k^2 u + 2 \, ( M^2 - (m_q - m_{{}_Q})^2 ) (1-u)}{m^2_Q -
167: \Big( M^2 + m^2_Q - m^2_q\Big) u + M^2 u^2 + \frac{1}{4} \,
168: (v^2 - u^2) k^2} \nonumber \\ & & \nonumber \\
169: & & + \; \int^1_0 dx \; \int d\!\!{}^{- 4} p\; \Big[ p^2 - m^2_Q +
170: \Big( M^2 + m^2_Q - m^2_q\Big) x - M^2 x^2
171: \Big]^{-2} \; ,
172: \label{ikmqq}
173: \end{eqnarray}
174: where $d\!\!{}^{- 4} p = d^4p \; (2\pi)^{-4}$.
175:
176: The perturbative QT expressions (\ref{fpiqt})--(\ref{ikmqq})
177: in the CL (i.e. $M\rightarrow 0$) should be compared to
178: a CL non-perturbative L$\sigma$M result \cite{DS95,PS83}
179: \begin{eqnarray}
180: \label{fpilsm}
181: F_\pi (k^2)^{\cls}_{\lsms} & = & - 4 i
182: g^2 N_c \, \int^1_0 dx \int d\!\!{}^{- 4} p\; \Big[ p^2 - \hat{m}^2 +
183: x (1-x) k^2 \Big]^{- 2} \; , \\
184: F_K (k^2)^{\cls}_{\lsms} & = & - 4 i
185: g^2 N_c \,\int^1_0 dx \int d\!\!{}^{- 4} p\; \Big[ p^2 - m_{us}^2 +
186: x (1-x) k^2 \Big]^{- 2} \; ,
187: \label{fklsm}
188: \end{eqnarray}
189: where $m_{us} = (m_s + \hat{m})/2$. The logarithmic divergence of these
190: expressions has been guaranteed through a rerouting procedure \cite{PS83,HS91}.
191: When $k^2=0$, these form factors become automatically normalized to unity,
192: i.e.,
193: \begin{eqnarray}
194: \label{fpilsm0}
195: F_\pi (0)^{\cls}_{\lsms} & = & - 4 i
196: g^2 N_c \, \int d\!\!{}^{- 4} p\; \Big[ p^2 - \hat{m}^2
197: \Big]^{- 2} \; = \; 1 \; , \\
198: F_K (0)^{\cls}_{\lsms} & = & - 4 i
199: g^2 N_c \, \int d\!\!{}^{- 4} p\; \Big[ p^2 - m_{us}^2
200: \Big]^{- 2} \; = \; 1 \; ,
201: \label{fklsm0}
202: \end{eqnarray}
203: due to the GTRs in \eqr{gtrs}, and the definition of the pion and kaon decay
204: constants $\bko{0}{A^\mu_3}{\pi^0} = i f_\pi q^\mu$,
205: $\bko{0}{A^\mu_{4-i5}}{K^+} = i\sqrt{2} f_K q^\mu$, with $f_\pi \approx
206: 93$ MeV and $f_K/f_\pi \approx 1.22$ \cite{DS95,HS91}.
207:
208: In contrast, the perturbative QT results yield in the CL
209: \begin{eqnarray}
210: \label{fpiqt0}
211: F_{\pi^+}(0)^{\cls}_{\qts} & = & - 4 i g^2
212: N_c \, \int d\!\!{}^{- 4} p \; \Big[ p^2 - \hat{m}^2
213: \Big]^{-2} \; , \\ & & \nonumber \\
214: F_{K^+} (0)^{\cls}_{\qts} & = & - 4 i g^2
215: N_c \, \Bigg\{ \int d\!\!{}^{- 4} p \; \Big[\Big(p^2 - \hat{m}^2
216: \Big) \, \Big(p^2 - m^2_s\Big)\Big]^{-1}
217: \nonumber \\ & & \nonumber \\
218: & & \qquad\qquad\quad -\, \frac{i\pi^2}{(2\pi)^4} \; \frac{1}{2\,
219: (m_s+\hat{m})^2} \; \Bigg( m^2_s + \hat{m}^2
220: - \frac{2 m^2_s \hat{m}^2}{m^2_s - \hat{m}^2} \;\ln \left|
221: \frac{m^2_s}{\hat{m}^2} \right|
222: \Bigg) \Bigg\} \; , \nonumber \\
223: \label{fkqt0}
224: \end{eqnarray}
225: being --- up to an finite constant correction term in the case of the kaon ---
226: normalized by the logarithmically divergent gap equations (LDGEs)
227: (see \refc{TH95_99}, seventh paper)
228: \begin{eqnarray}
229: \label{ldgen}
230: 1 & = & - 4 i g^2 N_c \, \int d\!\!{}^{- 4} p
231: \; \Big[ p^2 - \hat{m}^2 \Big]^{-2} \; , \\
232: 1 & = & - 4 i g^2 N_c \, \int d\!\!{}^{- 4} p \; \Big[\Big(p^2 -
233: \hat{m}^2 \Big) \; \Big(p^2 - m^2_s \Big)\Big]^{-1} \; .
234: \label{ldges}
235: \end{eqnarray}
236: To proceed, given Eqs.~(\ref{fpilsm}) and (\ref{fklsm}), the meson
237: charge radii are computed in the L$\sigma$M as
238: \begin{eqnarray}
239: \av{r_{\pi^+}^2}^{\cls}_{\lsms} \; = \; 6 \left.
240: \frac{dF_\pi (k^2)}{dk^2} \right|_{k^2 = 0} & = & \frac{ - i 4 N_c
241: g^2 \, (- 2)}{(2\pi)^4} \,\int_0^1 dx \, 6 x (1-x) \,\int d\!\!{}^{- 4}
242: p \,\, \Big[ p^2 - \hat{m}^2 \Big]^{-3} \nonumber \\
243: & = & \frac{ 8 i N_c}{(2\pi)^4} \, g^2 \, (\frac{-i\pi^2}{2
244: \hat{m}^2}) \; = \; \frac{N_c}{4\pi^2 f^2_\pi} \; \approx \; (0.61\:
245: \mbox{fm})^2
246: \label{rpilsm}
247: \end{eqnarray}
248: and (the obvious $SU(3)$ extension)
249: \begin{eqnarray}
250: \av{r_{K^+}^2}^{\cls}_{\lsms} \; = \; 6 \left.
251: \frac{dF_K (k^2)}{dk^2} \right|_{k^2 = 0} & = & \frac{ - i 4 N_c g^2
252: \, (- 2)}{(2\pi)^4} \,\int_0^1 dx \, 6 x (1-x) \int d\!\!{}^{- 4} p \,
253: \Big[ p^2 - m_{us}^2 \Big]^{-3} \nonumber \\
254: & = & \frac{ 8 i N_c}{(2\pi)^4} \, g^2 \,
255: (\frac{-i\pi^2}{2 m_{us}^2}) \; = \; \frac{N_c}{4\pi^2 f^2_K} \;
256: \approx \; (0.49\: \mbox{fm})^2 \, .
257: \label{rklsm}
258: \end{eqnarray}
259: Here we have evaluated the charge radii in the CL \cite{DS95,CS81,BRS98}, with
260: $f^{\cls}_\pi \approx 90$ MeV, $f^{\cls}_K \approx 110$ MeV.
261:
262: At this point we may return to the perturbative QT results (\ref{fpiqt}) and
263: (\ref{fkqt}), from which we derive in the CL
264: \begin{eqnarray}
265: \label{rpiqt}
266: \av{r_{\pi^+}^2}^{\cls}_{\qts} & = & \frac{g^2
267: N_c}{4 \pi^2 \hat{m}^2} \quad \stackrel{!}{=} \quad
268: \av{r_{\pi^+}^2}^{\cls}_{\lsms} \; , \\
269: & & \nonumber \\
270: \av{r_{K^+}^2}^{\cls}_{\qts} & = & \frac{g^2
271: N_c}{4 \pi^2 m_{us}^2} \nonumber \\
272: & & \nonumber \\
273: & & \times \; \frac{1}{12} \; \frac{1}{( m^2_s - \hat{m}^2)^2} \;
274: \Bigg\{ \hat{m}^4 - 3 \hat{m}^3 m_s - 5 \hat{m}^2 m^2_s -
275: 15 \hat{m} m_s^3 - 2 m^4_s \nonumber \\
276: & & \nonumber \\
277: & & \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
278: + \; 2\,\frac{\hat{m}^6 + 3\hat{m}^5 m_s + 6 \hat{m} m_s^5 +
279: 2 m_s^6}{m^2_s - \hat{m}^2} \; \ln\left| \, \frac{m^2_s}{\hat{m}^2} \,
280: \right| \Bigg\} \nonumber \\ & & \nonumber \\
281: & = & \frac{g^2 N_c}{4 \pi^2 \hat{m}^2} \; \left( 1 -
282: \frac{5}{6} \delta + \frac{3}{5} \delta^2 - \frac{4}{9}
283: \delta^3 + \frac{22}{63} \delta^4 - \frac{2}{7} \delta^5 + \ldots
284: \right) \; ,
285: \label{rkqt}
286: \end{eqnarray}
287: with $m_s = (1+ \delta) \hat{m}$, i.e., $\delta = (m_s/\hat{m}) - 1
288: \approx 0.44$. The coefficients of the presented Taylor expansion in the
289: SU(3)-breaking parameter $\delta$ coincide with the ones given in \refc{AB87},
290: while our full result is also in agreement with the expressions originally
291: derived by Tarrach \cite{T79}. Taking into account the first three terms of
292: this expansion, we may estimate the ratio $r_K/r_\pi$ to be
293: \begin{equation} \frac{\av{r_{K^+}^2}}{\av{r_{\pi^+}^2}} \;\approx\; 1 \, - \,
294: \frac{5}{6} \, \delta + \frac{3}{5} \, \delta^2 \; \approx \; 0.750 \quad
295: \mbox{or} \quad \frac{\av{r_{K^+}}}{\av{r_{\pi^+}}} \; \approx \; 0.866 \; .
296: \label{rkdrpi}
297: \end{equation}
298: Here we note that the observed pion charge radius is \cite{D82}
299: \begin{equation}
300: r_\pi \; = \; (0.642 \pm 0.002)\ \mbox{fm}\; ,
301: \label{rpiex}
302: \end{equation}
303: and the analogue charged-kaon charge radius is \cite{PDG02}
304: \begin{equation}
305: r_K \; = \; (0.560 \pm 0.031)\: \mbox{fm}\; .
306: \label{rkex}
307: \end{equation}
308: If we take the experimental value $r_{\pi^+}\approx0.64$ fm from \eqr{rpiex},
309: the latter ratio (\ref{rkdrpi}) implies $<r_{K^+}> \; \approx \; 0.556$ fm,
310: which is compatible with \eqr{rkex}.
311:
312: In summary, the more detailed perturbative results of Eqs.~(\ref{fpiqt}),
313: (\ref{fkqt}), (\ref{ikmqq}), (\ref{fpiqt0}), (\ref{fkqt0}), (\ref{rpiqt}),
314: and (\ref{rkqt}) are compatible with the simpler non-perturbative
315: (SU(3)-symmetry) scheme of Eqs.~(\ref{fpilsm})--(\ref{fklsm0}), (\ref{rpilsm}),
316: and (\ref{rklsm}) above. Thus, no
317: further renormalization needs be considered in either case. Note, too, that
318: these detailed or simple field-theory versions of the charged-pion form factor
319: can be recovered in an even simpler fashion by using a once-subtracted
320: dispersion relation for the pion charge radius, yielding in the CL
321: \begin{equation}
322: r^2_\pi \; = \; \frac{6}{\pi} \, \int_0^\infty \frac{dq^2 \,
323: \Im F_\pi(q^2)}{(q^2)^2} \; = \; \frac{N_c}{4\pi^2
324: (f^{\cls}_\pi)^2} \; = \; \frac{1}{\hat{m}^2} \; ,
325: \label{rpicl}
326: \end{equation}
327: where we use \cite{DS95} the GTRs \eqr{gtrs}, along with $g=2\pi/\sqrt{N_c}$
328: from \eqr{comp}. This suggests that the tightly bound ``fused'' $\bar{q}q$ pion
329: charge radius in the CL is
330: \begin{equation}
331: r^{\cls}_\pi \; = \; \frac{1}{\hat{m}} \; = \;
332: \frac{197.3 \; \mbox{MeV fm}}{325 \; \mbox{MeV}} \; \approx \; 0.61\:
333: \mbox{fm} \; ,
334: \end{equation}
335: with $\hat{m}_{\cls} \approx 325$ MeV $\sim M_N/3$, as
336: expected from the GTR $m_{\cls} = f^{\cls}_\pi
337: g \approx 90$ MeV $\times 3.628 \; \approx \; 325$ MeV.
338: \section{Charged-pion polarizabilities for \bm{\gamma\gamma\rightarrow\pi\pi}}
339: For $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow\pi\pi$ low-energy scattering, and using
340: units $10^{-42}$ cm$^{3}$ and effective potential $V=-(\alpha_{\pi}E^2+
341: \beta_{\pi}B^2)/2$, Kaloshin \em et al.\ \em \/extracted the observed charged
342: (c) electric and magnetic polarizabilities as
343: \bea
344: (\alpha-\beta)^c & = & 6.6 \pm 1.2 \; \cite{KS94}
345: \label{amb} \\
346: (\alpha+\beta)^c & = & 0.37 \pm 0.08 \; \cite{KPS94,KPS95} \; ,
347: \; 0.23 \pm 0.09 \; \cite{KPS94,KPS95} \; ,
348: \label{apb}
349: \eea
350: i.e., $\alpha\!-\!\beta$ by employing a combined fit to Crystal-Ball
351: \cite{CRYSTAL90} and MARK-II \cite{MARKII90} data, and $\alpha\!+\!\beta$ by
352: fitting CELLO \cite{CELLO92} and MARK-II data, respectively. Adding
353: \eqrs{amb}{apb} gives
354: \be
355: \alpha^c \; = \; 3.45 \pm 0.60 \; .
356: \label{ac}
357: \ee
358: To compare this ``form factor'' to theoretical form-factor predictions, we
359: first use $\alpha=e^2/4\pi$ and scale up the potential by $4\pi$. Then
360: $\alpha^c$ in \eqr{ac} becomes
361: \be
362: \alpha_{\pi^+} \; = \; (2.75 \pm 0.50) \times 10^{-4}\:\mbox{fm}^3 \;.
363: \label{apiex}
364: \ee
365: Using the latter scale, the model-independent value is \cite{T73}
366: \be
367: \alpha_{\pi^+} \; = \; \frac{\alpha}{8\pi^2m_{\pi}f^2_{\pi}}\:\gamma \; ,
368: \label{apith}
369: \ee
370: where $\gamma\equiv F_A(0)/F_V(0)$ is a form-factor ratio found in Sec.~5 to
371: be $2/3$ in the \lsm. Thus,
372: \be
373: \alpha_{\pi^+}^{\lsms} \; = \; \frac{\alpha}{12\pi^2m_{\pi}f^2_{\pi}}
374: \; \approx \; 3.9 \times 10^{-4}\:\mbox{fm}^3
375: \label{apilsm}
376: \ee
377: is reasonably near the data in \eqr{apiex} above. It is, moreover, quite close
378: to e.g.\ the prediction $3.6 \times 10^{-4}\:\mbox{fm}^3$ of a quark
379: confinement model that also yields good results for heavy-meson semi\-leptonic
380: form factors \cite{IM92}. Another consistency check is the
381: detailed quark-plus-meson-loop analysis of \refc{L81}:
382: \be
383: \alpha_{\pi^+}^{\lsms} \; = \; \frac{\alpha}{8\pi^2m_{\pi}f^2_{\pi}} \; - \;
384: \frac{\alpha}{24\pi^2m_{\pi}f^2_{\pi}} \; = \;
385: \frac{\alpha}{12\pi^2m_{\pi}f^2_{\pi}} \; ,
386: \label{apilsmd}
387: \ee
388: requiring $\gamma^{\lsms}=2/3$ from \eqr{apith}.
389:
390: Finally we comment on low-energy $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow2\pi^0$ scattering,
391: where there is no pole term, and the neutral polarizabilities $\alpha_{\pi^0}$,
392: $\beta_{\pi^0}$ are much smaller than $\alpha_{\pi^+}$, $\beta_{\pi^+}$. In
393: \refc{KS86} it was shown that a $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow2\pi^0$ cross section
394: of $\sim10$ nb (generated by a $\sigma$(700) meson pole) reasonably anticipated
395: the later 1990 Crystal-Ball data \cite{CRYSTAL90} in the 0.3--0.7 GeV range.
396:
397: \section{Semileptonic weak \bm{K_{\ell3}} decay and form-factor scale
398: \bm{f_+(0)}}
399: The semileptonic weak $\slw$ ($K_{\ell3}$) decay width is measured as
400: \cite{PDG02}
401: \be
402: \Gamma(\slw) \; = \; \frac{\hbar}{\tau_{K^+}}\,(4.87\pm0.06)\% \; = \;
403: (25.88\pm0.32)\times10^{-16}\:\mbox{MeV} \;.
404: \label{slwex}
405: \ee
406: Taking a $q^2$ form-factor dependence $f_+(q^2)=
407: f_+(0)[1+\lambda_+q^2/m^2_{\pi}]$, the standard $V\!-\!A$ (vector here) weak
408: current predicts a $K_{\ell3}$ decay width ($y = m^2_{\pi^0}/m^2_{K^+}$,
409: $m_e = m_{\nu} = 0$; see also Ref.~\cite{S91})
410: \begin{eqnarray} \lefteqn{\Gamma(K^+ \rightarrow \,\pi^0 e^+ \, \nu) \; =
411: \; \frac{G_F^2 \, |V_{us}|^2 \, m^5_{K^+}}{2 \, \pi^3 \; 768} \; f^2_{+} (0)
412: \, \Bigg\{ 1- \, 8 \, y + 8 \, y^3 - \, y^4 - \, 12 \, y^2 \,
413: \ln y} \nonumber \\
414: & & + \, \Bigg( \frac{2}{5}\, \left( 1 - \, 15\, y - \, 80 \, y^2 +
415: \, 80\, y^3 + 15\, y^4 - \, y^5 \, \right) \, -\, 24 \, y^2 \,
416: \left( 1 + \, y \, \right)\, \ln y \Bigg)
417: \; y^{-1} \; \lambda_{+} \nonumber \\
418: & & + \Bigg( \frac{1}{15}\, \left( 1 - \, 24\, y - \, 375 \, y^2 +
419: \, 375\, y^4 + 24 \, y^5 - \, y^6 \, \right) -\, 4 \, y^2 \,
420: \left( 3 + \, 8\,y + 3\, y^2 \, \right)\, \ln y \, \Bigg)
421: \; y^{-2} \; \lambda^2_{+} \Bigg\} \nonumber \\
422: & = & \frac{G_F^2\,|V_{us}|^2\, m^5_{K^+}}{2 \, \pi^3 \, 768} \,
423: f^2_{+} (0) \Big( 0.5792 \,+ \; 0.1600 \;
424: \frac{m_{K^+}^2}{m^2_{\pi^0}} \; \lambda_{+} \, + \; 0.01770 \;
425: \frac{m_{K^+}^4}{m^4_{\pi^0}} \; \lambda^2_{+} \Big)
426: \nonumber \\ & = & f^2_{+} (0) \;
427: (25.90 \pm 0.07)\times 10^{-16}\;\mbox{MeV} \; ,
428: \label{slwth}
429: \end{eqnarray}
430: where $G_F=11.6639\times10^{-6}$ GeV$^{-2}$, $V_{us}=0.2196\pm0.0026$,
431: and $\lambda_+= 0.0278\pm0.0019$ \cite{PDG02}. If we neglect here the term
432: quadratic in $\lambda_+$, as e.g.\ done in Ref.~\cite{S91}, the leading
433: factor in \eqr{slwth} becomes 25.80 instead of 25.90.
434: Moreover, accounting for a nonvanishing electron mass yields a totally
435: negligible correction of the order of 0.001\%. In any case, comparison with
436: the data in \eqr{slwex} clearly shows that the form-factor scale $f_+(0)$ must
437: be near unity. However, electroweak radiative corrections to $\Gamma(\slw)$
438: are \em not \em \/negligible on the scale of the experimental errors in
439: $V_{us}$ and $\lambda_+$, giving rise to an enhancement of $|V_{us}|$ by more
440: than 2\% \cite{MS93}, suggesting that $f_+(0)$ should be a trifle less
441: than unity.
442:
443: As a matter of fact, the nonrenormalization theorem \cite{AG64} \em requires
444: \em \/the form factor $f_+(q^2)$ to be close to unity when $q^2=0$.
445: Furthermore, in the infinite-momentum frame (IMF), tadpole graphs are
446: suppressed and so
447: \cite{FF65}
448: \be
449: 1 - f^2_+(0) \; = \; {\cal O}(\delta^2) \; \approx \; 6\%
450: \label{fpmo}
451: \ee
452: is second order in $SU(3)$-symmetry breaking. Of similar order are, for
453: example, $(m_\pi/m_K)^2=7.7\%$,
454: and $(1-f_K/f_\pi)^2=5\%$, for $f_K/f_{\pi}=1.22$.
455:
456: Next we follow the (constituent) quark-model triangle graph of Fig.~2, with
457: \begin{figure}[ht]
458: \unitlength1cm
459: \epsfxsize= 5.5cm
460: \epsfysize= 4cm
461: \centerline{\epsffile{kpienu.eps}}
462: \caption{Quark-loop contribution to $K^+ \rightarrow \pi^0 \,\, e^+ \,\nu$.}
463: \label{figkpienu1}
464: \end{figure}
465: \be
466: \sqrt{2}\bko{\pi^0}{V_{\mu}^{4-i5}}{K^+} \; = \; f_+(t)(p_K+p_{\pi})_{\mu} \, +
467: \, f_-(t)(p_K-p_{\pi})_{\mu} \; .
468: \label{vfif}
469: \ee
470: Note that, for this process, the $f_-$ form factor can be disposed of, since
471: it is weighted by $m_e\ll m_K$ \cite{S91}, giving rise to a $m^2_e/m^2_K$
472: suppression of the corresponding contributions to $\Gamma(\slw)$.
473: To test $SU(2)$-symmetry breaking in $K_{\ell3}$ decays as in
474: \eqrs{slwth}{vfif} above, we note the present data consistency \cite{PDG02} of
475: $\lambda_+(K^+_{e3})=0.0278\pm0.0019$, $\lambda_+(K^0_{e3})=0.0291\pm0.0018$,
476: $\lambda_+(K^+_{\mu3})=0.033\pm0.010$, and $\lambda_+(K^0_{\mu3})=
477: 0.033\pm0.005$. Then, expanding in the $SU(3)$-breaking parameter $\delta=
478: (m_s/\hat{m})-1$ (as already used to obtain \eqr{rkdrpi}) and working in the
479: soft-pion CL, the Feynman graph of Fig.~\ref{figkpienu1} predicts \cite{PS84}
480: (recall the value of the meson-quark coupling $g\approx3.628$ in \eqr{comp})
481: \be
482: f_+(0) \; = \; 1 \, - \, \frac{g^2\delta^2}{8\pi^2} \; \approx \;
483: 0.968 \; .
484: \label{fkp0}
485: \ee
486: This value slightly below unity is not only in agreement with the
487: nonrenormalization theorem \eqr{fpmo}, as $1-f^2_+(0)=1-(0.968)^2=6.3\%$, but
488: also quantitatively compatible with \eqrs{slwex}{slwth}, if we account for the
489: mentioned radiative corrections contributing with about $-2\%$ to $f_+(0)$, and
490: the experimental errors in $V_{us}$ and $\lambda_+$.
491:
492: \section{Semileptonic weak radiative form factors for \bm{\pi^+\rightarrow
493: e^+\nu\gamma} and \bm{K^+\rightarrow e^+\nu\gamma}}
494:
495: From \refc{PDG02}, the $\pi^+\rightarrow e^+\nu\gamma$ and $K^+\rightarrow
496: e^+\nu\gamma$ matrix elements are
497: \bea
498: M_V & = & \frac{-e\,G_F\,V_{qq'}}{\sqrt{2}\,m_P} \, \epsilon^\mu\ell^\nu
499: F^P_V\, \epsilon_{\mu\nu\sigma\tau}\,k^\sigma q^\tau \; ,
500: \label{mv} \\[2mm]
501: M_A & = & \frac{-ie\,G_F\,V_{qq'}}{\sqrt{2}\,m_P} \, \epsilon^\mu\ell^\nu
502: \{F^P_A\, [(s-t)g_{\mu\nu}-q_\mu k_\nu] + R^P t\,g_{\mu\nu} \} \; ,
503: \label{ma}
504: \eea
505: where $V_{qq'}$ is the corresponding Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM)
506: mixing-matrix
507: element, $\epsilon^\mu$ is the photon polarization vector, $\ell^\nu$ is the
508: lepton-neutrino current, $q$ and $k$ are the meson and photon four-momenta,
509: respectively, with $s=q\cdot k$, $t=k^2$, and $P$ stands for $\pi$ or $K$.
510: The weak vector (pion) form factor $F^\pi_V$ in \eqr{mv} and the second
511: axial vector form factor $R^\pi$ in \eqr{ma} are model independent
512: \cite{VI58}, with $F^\pi_V$ determined only by conserved vector
513: currents (CVC), and $R^\pi$ related via the pion charge radius ($r_{\pi}=
514: 0.642\pm0.002$ fm) to partially conserved (pion) axial currents (PCAC).
515: Specifically, $F^\pi_V$ was long ago determined by CVC \cite{VI58},
516: viz.\
517: \be
518: F^\pi_V(0) \; = \; \frac{\sqrt{2}m_{\pi^+}}{8\pi^2f_{\pi}} \; \approx \;
519: 0.027 \; ,
520: \label{fpiv0}
521: \ee
522: reasonably close to data \cite{PDG02} $0.017\pm0.008$. Furthermore, PCAC
523: predicts (PCAC is manifest in the \lsm\ \cite{GML60,AFFR73})
524: \be
525: R^\pi \; = \; \frac{1}{3}m_{\pi^+}f_{\pi^+}r^2_{\pi^+} \; = \; 0.064\pm0.001\;,
526: \label{Rpi}
527: \ee
528: where $f_{\pi^+}=130.7\pm0.1$ MeV \cite{PDG02} and we use
529: $r_{\pi^+}=0.642\pm0.002$ fm. Then \eqr{Rpi} is near data \cite{E89}
530: $R^\pi=0.059\raisebox{-0.7mm}{$\stackrel{+0.009}{\scriptstyle -0.008}$}\:$.
531:
532: To apply the \lsm\ theory, we consider the quark-plus-meson-loop graphs of
533: Fig.~\ref{figpigamenu1}.
534: \begin{figure}[ht]
535: \unitlength1cm
536: \epsfxsize= 11.5cm
537: \epsfysize= 4cm
538: \centerline{\epsffile{pigamenu.eps}}
539: \caption{Quark- and meson-loop contribution to
540: $\pi^+\rightarrow\gamma\,\,e^+\,\nu$.}
541: \label{figpigamenu1}
542: \end{figure}
543: Then the ratio $\gamma=F_A(0)/F_V(0)$ is predicted as \cite{BS92}
544: \be
545: \gamma^{\lsms} \; = \; 1 - \frac{1}{3} \; = \; \frac{2}{3} \; , \\[-5mm]
546: \label{glsm}
547: \ee
548: with
549: \be
550: F^\pi_A(0) \; = \; \sqrt{2}\,m_\pi[(8\pi^2f_\pi)^{-1}-(24\pi^2f_\pi)^{-1}] \; =
551: \; \sqrt{2}\,\frac{m_\pi}{12\pi^2f_\pi} \; \approx \; 0.0179 \; .
552: \label{fpia0}
553: \ee
554: Thus, the form-factor ratio of \eqr{fpia0} divided by \eqr{fpiv0} gives
555: $\gamma^{\lsms}=0.0179/0.027\approx0.66$, compatible with \eqr{glsm} and with
556: data \cite{PDG02}:
557: \be
558: \gamma_{\mbox{\scriptsize data}} \; = \; \frac{0.0116\pm0.0016}{0.017\pm0.008}
559: \;=\; 0.68 \pm 0.33 \; .
560: \label{gdata}
561: \ee
562: With hindsight, this ratio $\gamma^{\lsms}=2/3\,$ is near the original
563: current-algebra (CA) estimate $0.6$ found in \refc{DMO67}, and exactly the same
564: $\gamma$ found in \eqr{apith} from the \lsm\ \eqr{apilsmd}.
565:
566: Extending the above \lsm\ picture to $SU(3)$ symmetry, we first assume a
567: scalar nonet pattern below 1 GeV (e.g.\ $f_0$(600), $\kappa$(800),
568: $f_0$(980), $a_0$(980)) as found from a kinematic IMF scheme \cite{S82_92},
569: or from a dynamical coupled-channel unitarized model \cite{BR86}. Then the
570: $K^+\rightarrow e^+\nu\gamma$ quark-plus-meson \lsm\ form-factor loop
571: amplitudes predict \cite{KSB93} at $k^2=0$
572: \be
573: |F^K_V(0)+F^K_A(0)|_{\lsms} \; \approx \; 0.109+0.044 \; = \; 0.153 \; ,
574: \label{fkva0lsm}
575: \ee
576: close to the $K^+\rightarrow e^+\nu\gamma$ data \cite{PDG02}
577: \be
578: |F^K_V(0)+F^K_A(0)|_{\mbox{\scriptsize data}} \; = \; 0.148\pm0.010 \;.
579: \label{fkva0exp}
580: \ee
581: An $SU(3)$ \lsm\ theory is reasonably detailed \cite{DS98} due to resonances
582: below 1 GeV, but the \lsm\ kaon form-factor sum in \eqr{fkva0lsm} is easily
583: tested via the data in \eqr{fkva0exp}. The same is true for the pion
584: form-factor values in Eqs.~(\ref{fpiv0}--\ref{gdata}), partly based on the
585: measured pion charge radius \cite{D82} $r_\pi=0.642\pm0.002$ fm.
586:
587: \section{Vector-meson dominance: \lsm\ via VPP and VPV or PVV loops}
588: We first confirm the (crucial) value of the pion charge radius \cite{D82}
589: $r_\pi=0.642\pm0.002$ fm via Sakurai's vector-meson-dominance (VMD) prediction
590: \cite{S60}
591: \be
592: r_\pi \; = \; \frac{\sqrt{6}}{m_\rho} \; \approx \; 0.63\:\mbox{fm} \; .
593: \label{rpivmd}
594: \ee
595: Recall that the tightly bound $\bar{q}q$ chiral pion in \eqr{rpicl}, with
596: constituent
597: quark mass $\hat{m}\approx325$ MeV (near $\hat{m}\approx M_N/3$), has CL charge
598: radius $r^{\cls}_\pi=1/\hat{m}\approx0.61$ fm. So the close agreement between
599: \eqrs{rpivmd}{rpicl} means we must take the VMD scheme along with the \lsm\ as
600: the basis of our chiral theory.
601:
602: The $\rho^0$ form factor predicts, from $udu+dud$ quarks loops in the CL
603: (see Fig.~\ref{figrhopipi1}),
604: \begin{figure}[ht]
605: \unitlength1cm
606: \epsfxsize= 11.5cm
607: \epsfysize= 4cm
608: \centerline{\epsffile{rhopipi.eps}}
609: \caption{Vector-mesonic VPP quark triangle graphs.} \label{figrhopipi1}
610: \end{figure}
611: \be
612: g_{\rho\pi\pi} \; = \; -i4N_c\,g^2g_\rho\,\int\dbarfp\,(p^2-\hat{m}^2)^{-2} \;
613: = \; g_\rho \; ,
614: \label{grhopipi}
615: \ee
616: by virtue of the LDGE \eqr{ldgen} \cite{HS91}. Then, folding in the mesonic
617: $\pi$-$\sigma$-$\pi$ loop changes the VMD prediction (\ref{grhopipi}) only
618: slightly to \cite{BRS98}
619: \be
620: g_{\rho\pi\pi} \; = \; g_\rho + \frac{1}{6}\:g_{\rho\pi\pi} \; = \;
621: \frac{6}{5}\: g_\rho \; ,
622: \label{grho}
623: \ee
624: compatible with the observed couplings $g_{\rho\pi\pi}\approx6.04$ and
625: $g_\rho\approx5.01$, since (for $p_{\cms}=358$ MeV)
626: \bea
627: \Gamma_{\rho\pi\pi} & = & \frac{p^3_{\cms}\,g^2_{\rho\pi\pi}}{6\pi m^2_{\rho}}
628: \; = \; 149.2\pm0.7 \:\mbox{MeV} \;\; \Longrightarrow \;\; g_{\rho\pi\pi}
629: \approx 6.04 \\
630: \Gamma_{\rho ee} & = & \frac{e^4\,m_\rho}{12\pi g^2_\rho}
631: \; = \; 6.85\pm0.11 \:\mbox{keV} \;\; \Longrightarrow \;\; g_\rho \approx
632: 5.01 \; ,
633: \label{Grhopie}
634: \eea
635: with $e\approx0.3028$ (i.e., $\alpha\approx1/137$). Also, the quark-loop VPV or
636: PVV (see Fig.~\ref{figvpigam1}) amplitudes are \cite{DLS99}, using
637: $\Gamma_{VPV}=p^3|F_{VPV}|^2/12\pi$,
638: \be
639: \begin{array}{l} \displaystyle
640: |F(\rho\!\rightarrow\!\pi\gamma)| \; = \; \frac{eg_\rho}{8\pi^2f_\pi}
641: \; \approx \; 0.207\:\mbox{GeV}^{-1} \;\;,\;\;
642: |F(\omega\!\rightarrow\!\pi\gamma)| \; = \; \frac{eg_\omega}{8\pi^2f_\pi}
643: \; \approx \; 0.704\:\mbox{GeV}^{-1} \;\;,\;\; \\[2mm] \displaystyle
644: |F(\pi^0\!\rightarrow\!2\gamma)| \; = \; \frac{\alpha}{\pi f_\pi} \; = \;
645: \frac{e^2}{4\pi^2f_\pi} \; \approx \; 0.025\:\mbox{GeV}^{-1} \; ,
646: \label{frhoomegapi}
647: \end{array}
648: \ee
649: for $g_\rho\approx5.01$ and $g_\omega\approx17.06$, very close to the data
650: $0.222\pm0.012$ GeV$^{-1}$ \cite{PDG02}, $0.698\pm0.014$ GeV$^{-1}$
651: \cite{BEI96}, $0.0252\pm0.0009$ GeV$^{-1}$ \cite{PDG02},
652: respectively. Equivalently, VMD predicts at tree level $|F_{\rho\pi\gamma}|\,
653: e/g_\rho=|F_{\omega\pi\gamma}|\,e/g_\omega=|F_{\pi^0\gamma\gamma}|/2$, then
654: compatible with the \lsm\ quark loops in \eqr{frhoomegapi}.
655: \begin{figure}[ht]
656: \unitlength1cm
657: \epsfxsize= 15.0cm
658: \epsfysize= 3.5cm
659: \centerline{\epsffile{vpigam.eps}}
660: \caption{PVV quark triangle graphs for $\rho\rightarrow \pi\,\gamma$,
661: $\omega\rightarrow\gamma\,\pi^0$, and $\pi^0\rightarrow \gamma\,\gamma$.}
662: \label{figvpigam1}
663: \end{figure}
664:
665: %In spite of the close compatibility between the quark-level \lsm\ and VMD, as
666: %in the PVV amplitudes (\ref{frhoomegapi}) and the VMD ratio (\ref{grhode}), or
667: %$g_{\pi^02\gamma} \approx2(e/g_\rho)g_{\rho\pi\gamma}\approx2(e/g_\omega)
668: %g_{\omega\pi\gamma}\approx0.025$ GeV$^{-1}$ with $g_\rho\approx5.03$ and
669: %$g_\omega\approx 17.06$, the analogue $g_\phi\approx13.24$ does \em not \em
670: %\/reasonably predict the kaon-loop amplitudes, nor data. However, in
671: %form-factor language, the VMD version of $F_V$ at $k^2=0$ is \cite{BS92}
672: %\be
673: %F_V^{\mbox{\scriptsize VMD}}(0) \; = \;
674: %\frac{\sqrt{2}}{eg_\rho}\,F_{\rho\pi\gamma}
675: %m^+_\pi \; = \; 0.0285\pm0.0013 \; ,
676: %\label{fvvmd}
677: %\ee
678: %which is compatible with the CVC value of $0.027$ in \eqr{fpiv0} above.
679:
680: \section{Nonleptonic weak \bm{K_{2\pi}$ $\Delta I\!=\!1/2\,} rule and
681: scalar \bm{\sigma}, \bm{\kappa} mesons}
682: The well-known \cite{PDG02} $\Delta I=1/2$ rule
683: $\Gamma(K_S\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-)/\Gamma(K^+\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^0)\approx450$
684: for nonleptonic weak $K_{2\pi}$ decays suggests \cite{MLS90} that the
685: parity-violating (PV) amplitude $\bko{2\pi}{H^{pv}_w}{K_S}$ could be dominated
686: by the $\Delta I=1/2$ weak transition $\bko{\sigma}{H^{pv}_w}{K_S}$. The
687: $\sigma$-pole graph of Fig.~\ref{figkssigma1},
688: \begin{figure}[ht]
689: \unitlength1cm
690: \epsfxsize= 5.5cm
691: \epsfysize= 3.5cm
692: \centerline{\epsffile{kspvsigpipi.eps}}
693: \caption{Parity-violating two-pion decay of $K_S$ dominated by $\sigma$ pole.}
694: \label{figkssigma1}
695: \end{figure}
696: with \lsm\ coupling $\bk{2\pi}{\sigma}=m^2_\sigma/2f_\pi$ for $m_\sigma$ near
697: $m_K$ and $\Gamma_\sigma\sim m_\sigma$, predicts \cite{KS91}
698: \be
699: |\bko{2\pi}{H^{pv}_w}{K_S}| \; = \; \left|\frac{2\bk{2\pi}{\sigma}
700: \bko{\sigma}{H^{pv}_w}{K_S}}{m^2_K-m^2_\sigma+im_\sigma\Gamma_\sigma}\right| \;
701: \approx \; \frac{1}{f_\pi}\,\left|\bko{\sigma}{H^{pv}_w}{K_S}\right| \; .
702: \label{ksigma}
703: \ee
704: But pion PCAC (manifest in the \lsm) requires, using the weak chiral commutator
705: $[Q_5+Q,H_w]=0$,
706: \be
707: |\bko{2\pi}{H^{pv}_w}{K_S}|\rightarrow\frac{1}{f_\pi}\,
708: |\bko{\pi}{[Q_5^\pi,H_w]}{K_S}| \; \approx \;
709: \frac{1}{f_\pi}\,\left|\bko{\pi^0}{H^{pc}_w}{K_L}\right| \; ,
710: \label{kskl}
711: \ee
712: with both pions being consistently reduced in \refc{KS92}. To reconfirm
713: \eqr{kskl}, one considers the $\Delta I=1/2$ weak tadpole graph, giving
714: \be
715: |\bko{2\pi}{H^{pv}_w}{K_S}| \;=\; \frac{|\bko{0}{H_w}{K_S}
716: \bk{K_S2\pi}{K_S}|}{m^2_K}\;,
717: \label{tadpole}
718: \ee
719: and then one invokes the Weinberg-Osborn \cite{WO66_70} strong chiral coupling
720: $|\bk{K_S2\pi}{K_S}|=m^2_{K_S}/2f^2_\pi$, together with the usual PCAC relation
721: $|\bko{0}{H^{pv}_w}{K_S}|=|2f_\pi\bko{\pi^0}{H^{pc}_w}{K_L}|$, to recover
722: \eqr{kskl} \cite{PTSE02}.
723:
724: In either case, equating \eqr{kskl} to \eqr{ksigma} leads to
725: \be
726: \left|\bko{\sigma}{H^{pv}_w}{K_S}\right| \; \approx \;
727: \left|\bko{\pi^0}{H^{pc}_w}{K_L}\right|\;,
728: \label{ksigmapi}
729: \ee
730: suggesting that the $\pi$ and $\sigma$ mesons are ``chiral partners'', at least
731: for nonleptonic weak interactions. But of course, Secs.~1--6 above also show
732: that the $\pi$ and the $\sigma$ are chiral partners for strong,
733: e.m., and semileptonic weak interactions, as well.
734: To compare this chiral-partner $K\rightarrow\pi$ transition with $K_{2\pi}$
735: data, we return to the PCAC equation (\ref{kskl}) to write, for $f_\pi\approx
736: 93$ MeV,
737: \be
738: |\bko{2\pi}{H^{pv}_w}{K_S}| \; \approx \;
739: \frac{1}{f_\pi}\,\left|\bko{\pi^0}{H^{pc}_w}{K_L}\right|
740: \; \approx \; 38\times10^{-8}\:\mbox{GeV} \; ,
741: \label{kskld}
742: \ee
743: midway between the observed $K_S\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-$ and
744: $K_S\rightarrow\pi^0\pi^0$ amplitudes
745: \be
746: \left|M^{+-}_{K_S\rightarrow\pi\pi}\right|_{\mbox{\scriptsize PDG}} \; = \;
747: m_{K_S}\,\left[\frac{8\pi\Gamma^{K_S}_{+-}}{q}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}} \; = \;
748: (39.1\pm0.1)\times10^{-8}\:\mbox{GeV} \; ,
749: \label{mkpipippdg}
750: \ee
751: \be
752: \left|M^{00}_{K_S\rightarrow\pi\pi}\right|_{\mbox{\scriptsize PDG}} \; = \;
753: m_{K_S}\,\left[\frac{16\pi\Gamma^{K_S}_{00}}{q}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}} \; = \;
754: (37.1\pm0.2)\times10^{-8}\:\mbox{GeV} \; ,
755: \label{mkpipi0pdg}
756: \ee
757: suggesting $|\bko{\pi^0}{H_w^{pc}}{K_L}|\approx3.58\times10^{-8}$ GeV$^2$.
758: In fact, when one statistically averages \em eleven \em \/first-order weak
759: data sets for $K_S\rightarrow2\pi$, $K\rightarrow3\pi$,
760: $K_L\rightarrow2\gamma$, $K_L\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-$,
761: $K^+\rightarrow\pi^+e^+e^-$, $K^+\rightarrow\pi^+\mu^+\mu^-$, and
762: $\Omega^-\rightarrow\Xi^0\pi^-$, one finds \cite{LS02}
763: \be
764: \left|\bko{\pi^0}{H_w^{pc}}{K_L}\right| \; = \;
765: \left|\bko{\pi^+}{H_w^{pc}}{K^+}\right| \; = \;
766: (3.59\pm0.05)\times10^{-8}\:\mbox{GeV}^2 \; .
767: \label{hpik}
768: \ee
769:
770: To induce theoretically at the quark level the $\Delta I\!\!=\!\!1/2$
771: $\:s\rightarrow d$ single-quark-line (SQL) transition scale $\beta_w$ in a
772: model-independent manner, one considers the second-order weak
773: (see Fig.~\ref{figkbark1})
774: \begin{figure}[ht]
775: \unitlength1cm
776: \epsfxsize= 5.5cm
777: \epsfysize= 4cm
778: \centerline{\epsffile{kbark.eps}}
779: \caption{$\bar{K}^0\leftrightarrow K^0$ SQL graph. Each dot represents the SQL
780: weak scale $\beta_w$.} \label{figkbark1}
781: \end{figure}
782: $K_L\!-\!K_S$ mass difference $\Delta m_{LS}$ diagonalized to \cite{SEC95_96}
783: \be
784: 2\beta_w^2 \; = \; \frac{\Delta m_{LS}}{m_K} \; = \;
785: (0.70126\pm0.00121)\times10^{-14} \;\; \Longrightarrow \;\; |\beta_w| \;
786: \approx \; (5.9214\pm0.0051)\times10^{-8} \; .
787: \label{betaw}
788: \ee
789: Then using \eqr{hpik}, one predicts from the soft-meson theorem, or from
790: Cronin's chiral Lagrangian \cite{C67},
791: \be
792: \left|\bko{\pi^0}{H^{pc}_w}{K_L}\right|\;=\;2\beta_wm^2_{K_L}\frac{f_K}{f_\pi}
793: \; = \; (3.5785\pm0.0031)\times10^{-8}\:\mbox{GeV}^2 \; ,
794: \label{cronin}
795: \ee
796: given $f_K/f_\pi\approx1.22$. This SQL scale $\beta_w$ in \eqr{betaw} and the
797: $K\rightarrow\pi$ weak amplitude in \eqr{cronin} (or in \eqr{hpik}),
798: correspond to a ``truly weak'' interaction, which Weinberg \cite{W73} shows
799: cannot be transformed away in the electroweak standard model.
800:
801: To test the latter weak scale (\ref{cronin}) (or the similar data averages
802: (\ref{hpik}), we first re-express the neutral chiral-partner relation
803: (extended to the $\kappa$ transition \cite{KS91}) as
804: \be
805: \bko{\pi^0}{H_w^{pc}}{K^0} \: = \: \bko{\sigma}{H_w^{pv}}{K^0} \: = \:
806: \bko{\pi^0}{H_w^{pv}}{\kappa^0} \: = \:
807: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,3.58\times10^{-8}\:\mbox{GeV}^2 \: = \:
808: 2.53\times10^{-8}\:\mbox{GeV}^2 \; .
809: \label{hpikappa}
810: \ee
811: We fix this $\kappa^0\rightarrow\pi^0$ weak transition (\ref{hpikappa}) to
812: the weak PV $K^0$ tadpole graph of Fig.~\ref{kzerotadpole}, via the
813: $K^0\rightarrow$ vacuum PCAC scale, as
814: \begin{figure}[ht]
815: \unitlength1cm
816: \epsfxsize= 5.5cm
817: \epsfysize= 3.8cm
818: \centerline{\epsffile{kappazeropizero.eps}}
819: \caption{Parity-violating weak $K^0$ tadpole graph for
820: $\kappa^0\rightarrow\pi^0$ transition.}
821: \label{kzerotadpole}
822: \end{figure}
823: \be
824: \left|\bko{0}{H_w^{pv}}{K^0}\right| \; = \; \frac{2f^2_\pi}{1-m^2_\pi/m^2_K}
825: \,\left|\bko{2\pi^0}{H_w^{pv}}{K^0}\right| \; = \;
826: 0.51\times10^{-8} \: \mbox{GeV}^3 \; ,
827: \label{ktadpoleexp}
828: \ee
829: using $\left|\bko{2\pi^0}{H_w^{pv}}{K^0}\right|=26.26\times10^{-8}$ GeV from
830: data, while eliminating the 4\% $\,\Delta I\!=\!3/2$ component (see \refc{W73},
831: third paper). Then Fig.~\ref{kzerotadpole} predicts the amplitude magnitude
832: \be
833: \left|\bko{\pi^0}{H_w^{pv}}{\kappa^0}\right| \; = \;
834: \frac{\left|\bko{0}{H_w^{pv}}{K^0}\right|}{m^2_{K^0}}\:
835: g_{\kappa^0K^0\pi^0} \; \approx \; 2.53\times10^{-8}\:\mbox{GeV}^2 \; ,
836: \label{ktadpole}
837: \ee
838: scaled to \eqr{hpikappa} above, \em provided \em \/one uses the \lsm\
839: coupling, for $f_\pi=92.4$ MeV \cite{PDG02},
840: \be
841: |g_{\kappa^0K^0\pi^0}| \; = \; \frac{m^2_\kappa-m^2_K}{4f_\pi} \; = \;
842: 1.229 \: \mbox{GeV}\;,
843: \label{gkappakpi}
844: \ee
845: corresponding to a $\kappa$ mass of 838 MeV. This value is not too
846: distant from our earlier $m_\kappa=$ 730--800 MeV predictions
847: \cite{S82_92,BR86}, and the very recent E791 observed mass $m_\kappa\approx$
848: 800 MeV \cite{A02}. Moreover, the $SU(3)$ analogue to \eqr{gkappakpi}, i.e.,
849: $|g_{\sigma\pi\pi}|=(m^2_\sigma-m^2_\pi)/2f_\pi$ suggests $m_\sigma=687$ MeV,
850: reasonably near the predicted CL-\lsm\ value \cite{DS95,S99} $m_\sigma=650$
851: MeV.
852:
853: \section{Summary and conclusions}
854: In Sec.~1 we reviewed the solution of the \lsm\ at the quark-loop level. In
855: Sec.~2 we used $SU(2)$, $SU(3)$ Goldberger--Treiman quark relations to
856: normalize the
857: $\pi$ and $K$ form factors to unity at $k^2=0$, after which we differentiated
858: these form factors to predict the \lsm\ charge radii, both being compatible
859: with data. Next in Sec.~3 we briefly reviewed e.m.\ charged-pion
860: polarizabilities for $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow\pi\pi$, and compared them with
861: \lsm\ predictions. In Sec.~4 we used quark loops to match the observed form
862: factor $f_+(0)$. In Sec.~5 we showed that the \lsm\ form factors $F_V^\pi$,
863: $R^\pi$, $F_V^K+F_A^K$, and the ratio $F_A^\pi/F_V^\pi$ are all in agreement
864: with the measured values. Then in Sec.~6 we compared tree-level VMD with \lsm\
865: VPP and PVV quark loops. Both theories agree well with data. Finally, in Sec.~7
866: we successfully extended this \lsm\ picture to nonleptonic weak decays,
867: in particular to the $\Delta I\!=\!1/2$-dominated $K_{2\pi}$ decays and
868: inferred $\sigma$(687) and $\kappa$(838) masses. All our main results are
869: summarized in Table~\ref{results}, in confrontation with experiment.
870: \begin{table}[ht]
871: \begin{center}
872: \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|}
873: \hline\hline & & \\ [-0.3cm]
874: & L$\sigma$M (CL) & experiment \\
875: \hline & & \\ [-0.3cm]
876: $\av{r_{\pi^{+}}}$ & 0.61 fm & (0.642$\pm$0.002) fm \cite{D82}
877: \\ [.25cm]
878: $\av{r_{K^{+}}}$ & 0.49 fm & (0.560$\pm$0.031) fm \cite{PDG02}
879: \\ [.25cm]
880: $\alpha_{\pi^{+}}$ & 3.9$\times 10^{-4}$ fm$^{3}$ &
881: (2.75$\pm$0.50)$\times 10^{-4}$ fm$^{3}$ \\
882: & & (see Sec.~3)\\ [.2cm]
883: $f_{+}(0)$ & 0.968 & (see discussion in Sec.~4) \\ [.25cm]
884: $R^{\pi}$ & 0.064$\pm$0.001 &
885: 0.059$^{+0.009}_{-0.008}$ \cite{E89} \\ [.25cm]
886: $F^{\pi}_{A}$ & 0.0179 & 0.0116$\pm$0.0016 \cite{PDG02} \\ [.25cm]
887: $F^{\pi}_{V}$ & 0.027 & 0.017$\pm$0.008 \cite{PDG02} \\ [.15cm]
888: $\gamma^{\pi}\; =\;\fnd{F^{\pi}_{A}(0)}{F^{\pi}_{V}(0)}$ &
889: $\frac{2}{3}$ & 0.68$\pm$0.33 \cite{PDG02} \\ [.35cm]
890: $\abs{F^{K}_{V}(0)+F^{K}_{A}(0)}$ & 0.153 &
891: 0.148$\pm$0.010 \cite{PDG02} \\ [.25cm]
892: $\abs{F\left(\rho\rightarrow\pi\gamma\right)}$ & 0.207 GeV$^{-1}$ &
893: (0.222$\pm$0.012) GeV$^{-1}$ \cite{PDG02} \\ [.25cm]
894: $\abs{F\left(\omega\rightarrow\pi\gamma\right)}$ & 0.704 GeV$^{-1}$ &
895: (0.698$\pm$0.014) GeV$^{-1}$ \cite{BEI96} \\ [.25cm]
896: $\abs{F\left(\pi^{0}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma\right)}$ & 0.025 GeV$^{-1}$ &
897: (0.0252$\pm$0.0009) GeV$^{-1}$ \cite{PDG02} \\ [.25cm]
898: $\abs{\bko{2\pi}{H^{pv}_{w}}{K_{S}}}$ & 38$\times 10^{-8}$ GeV &
899: $\left.\begin{array}{ll}
900: (39.1\pm 0.1)\times 10^{-8} \mbox{ GeV} & (\pi^{+}\pi^{-}) \\
901: (37.1\pm 0.2)\times 10^{-8} \mbox{ GeV} & (\pi^{0}\pi^{0}) \\
902: \end{array}\right\}$ \cite{PDG02}\\ [.45cm]
903: $m_{\kappa}$ & 838 MeV & 797$\pm$19$\pm$43 MeV \cite{A02} \\
904: \hline\hline
905: \end{tabular}
906: \end{center}
907: \caption[]{Confrontation of the \lsm\ in the chiral limit with experiment.}
908: \label{results}
909: \end{table}
910:
911: Next, we discuss low-energy QCD. While an exact match via the \lsm\ is not
912: possible, QCD at the 1-GeV scale generates a dynamical quark mass
913: \cite{ESB84_97} $m_{\mbox{\scriptsize dyn}}=[4\pi\alpha_s\left<-\bar{\psi}\psi
914: \right>_{\mbox{\scriptsize1 GeV}}/3]^{1/3}\approx320$ MeV, near the \lsm\ quark
915: mass $\hat{m}=2\pi f_\pi/\sqrt{3}\approx325$ MeV in the CL. Such approximate
916: agreement also holds for the quark condensate as well. Moreover, the frozen
917: coupling strength in QCD at infrared freeze-out \cite{MS92} is
918: $\alpha_s=\pi/4$, with $\alpha_s^{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}=(4/3)\alpha_s=\pi/3$.
919: This exactly matches the \lsm\ strength $\alpha_{\lsms}=g^2/4\pi=\pi/3$, with
920: $g=2\pi/\sqrt{3}$. Also, QCD with $\alpha_s(m_\sigma)=\pi/4$ leads to
921: \cite{ES84} $m^2_\sigma/m^2_{\mbox{\scriptsize dyn}}=\pi/\alpha_s(m_\sigma)
922: \approx4$, simulating the NJL--\lsm\ value $m^2_\sigma/\hat{m}^2=4\,$ in the CL.
923: Lastly, the chiral restoration temperature $T_c$ computed in $N_f\!=\!2$
924: lattice simulations gives \cite{K01} $T_c=173\pm8$ MeV, close to the \lsm\
925: value \cite{BCSKB85_95} $T_c=2f_\pi\approx180$ MeV in the CL.
926:
927: To conclude, we mention a very recent large-$N_c$ renormalization-group-flow
928: analysis of the quark-level \lsm\ \cite{MSPD02}, using the Schwinger
929: proper-time regularization, which finds (for $f_\pi=93$ MeV) $\lambda=23.6$,
930: $g=3.44$, $m_q=320$ MeV, and $m_\sigma=650$ MeV, strikingly close to our above
931: theoretical values $\lambda=8\pi^2/3=26.3$, $g=2\pi/\sqrt{3}\approx3.628$,
932: $m_q=325$ MeV, and $m_\sigma=650$ MeV, respectively. Therefore, our present
933: results, as well as our recent findings in \refc{KBRS02}, appear to confirm
934: the assumption of the authors of \refc{MSPD02}: \em ``We assume the linear
935: $\sigma$ model to be a valid description of Nature below scales of 1.5 GeV.''
936: \em \\[1cm]
937: {\bf Acknowledgments.} \\[1mm]
938: The authors are indebted to A.~E.~Kaloshin for valuable information on pion
939: polarizabilities. This work was partly supported by the
940: {\em Funda\c{c}\~{a}o para a Ci\^{e}ncia e a Tecnologia} (FCT)
941: of the {\em Minist\'{e}rio do Ensino Superior, Ci\^{e}ncia e Tecnologia} of
942: Portugal, under Grant no.\ PRAXIS XXI/\-BPD/\-20186/\-99 and under contract
943: number CERN/\-P/\-FIS/\-43697/\-2001.
944:
945: \clearpage
946:
947: \appendix
948: {\noindent \Large\bf APPENDIX}
949: \section{Tree-level L\bm{\sigma}M}
950: From the $SU(2)$ \lsm\ of \refc{S01} one knows the interacting Lagrangian
951: density relative to the true vacuum \cite{DS95}:
952: \begin{equation}
953: {\cal L}^{\mbox{\scriptsize int}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize\lsm}} = g\,\bar{\psi}
954: (\sigma+i\gamma_5\vec{\tau}\cdot\vec{\pi})\psi\,+\,g'\,\sigma\,(\sigma^2+\pi^2)
955: \,-\,\frac{\lambda}{4}\,(\sigma^2+\pi^2)^2 \, - \, f_\pi g\,\bar{\psi}\psi \; .
956: \label{lsm}
957: \end{equation}
958: A tree-level theory then implies the chiral relations in the CL
959: \cite{GML60,AFFR73}, with constituent quark mass $m_q$,
960: \be
961: g \; = \; \frac{m_q}{f_\pi} \;\;\; , \;\;\; g' \; = \;
962: \frac{m^2_\sigma}{2f_\pi} \; = \; \lambda\,f_\pi \; .
963: \label{ggprime}
964: \ee
965: \section{Bootstrapping \bm{g_{\sigma\pi\pi}\rightarrow g'} and \bm{
966: \lambda_ {\mbox{\scriptsize box}}\rightarrow\lambda_{\mbox{\scriptsize tree}}}}
967: The $\sigma\pi\pi$ or $\sigma\sigma\sigma$ $\,u,d$ \/quark triangle graphs
968: \cite{DS95,S01} induced by ${\cal L}^{\mbox{\scriptsize int}}_{\lsms}$ in
969: \eqr{lsm} implies in the CL
970: \be
971: g_{\sigma\pi\pi} \; = \; - 8 i g^3 N_c m_q \int d\!\!{}^{- 4} p\; \Big[ p^2 -
972: \hat{m}^2 \Big]^{- 2} \; = \; 2gm_q \; ,
973: \label{quarktriangle}
974: \ee
975: due to the LDGE (\ref{ldgen}). Then the GTR \eqr{gtrs}, together with
976: $m_\sigma=2m_q$, reduces \eqr{quarktriangle} to
977: \be
978: g_{\sigma\pi\pi} \; = \; 2gm_q \; = \; \frac{m^2_\sigma}{2f_\pi} \; = \; g' \;,
979: \label{gboot}
980: \ee
981: the tree-level cubic meson \lsm\ coupling in \eqr{ggprime}. Also the
982: $\pi\pi\pi\pi$ (or $\sigma\sigma\sigma\sigma$, $\pi\pi\sigma\sigma$) quark box
983: graph \cite{DS95,S01} generates in the CL
984: \be
985: \lambda_{\mbox{\scriptsize box}} \; = \; - 8 i g^4 N_c \int d\!\!{}^{- 4}p\;
986: \Big[ p^2 - \hat{m}^2 \Big]^{- 2} \; = \; 2g^2 \; = \; \frac{g'}{f_\pi} \; = \;
987: \lambda_{\mbox{\scriptsize tree}} \; ,
988: \label{quarkbox}
989: \ee
990: again due to the LDGE (\ref{ldgen}). Note that the cubic and quartic \lsm\ tree
991: couplings in \eqr{ggprime} are dynamically loop-generated in
992: \eqrs{quarktriangle}{quarkbox}, respectively. Both are analytic,
993: nonperturbative bootstrap procedures \cite{DS95}.
994:
995: \section{Dim-reg.\ lemma generating quark and \bm{\sigma} mass}
996: The Nambu $\delta m_q=m_q$ (constituent-) quark mass-gap tadpole graph
997: \cite{DS95,S01} generates quark mass. However, this quadratically divergent
998: term, subtracted from the LDGE (\ref{ldgen}), in fact scales to quark mass \em
999: independently \em \/of quadratically divergent terms, by virtue of the
1000: dimensional-regularization (dim-reg.) lemma \cite{DS95}
1001: \be
1002: I \; = \; \int d\!\!{}^{- 4}p\;\left[\frac{m^2}{(p^2-m^2)^2} \, - \,
1003: \frac{1}{p^2-m^2}\right] \; = \; \lim_{\ell\rightarrow2}\frac{im^{2\ell-2}}
1004: {(4\pi)^\ell}\left[\Gamma(2-\ell)+\Gamma(1-\ell)\right] \; = \;
1005: -im^2(4\pi)^{-2} \; ,
1006: \label{dimreg}
1007: \ee
1008: due to the gamma-function \em identity \em \/$\Gamma(2-\ell)+\Gamma(1-\ell)=
1009: \Gamma(3-\ell)/(1-\ell)\rightarrow-1$ as $\ell\rightarrow2$. To reconfirm this
1010: dim-reg.-lemma ``trick'' (\ref{dimreg}), we invoke the partial-fraction \em
1011: identity \em
1012: \be
1013: \frac{m^2}{(p^2-m^2)^2} \, - \, \frac {1}{p^2-m^2} \; = \; \frac{1}{p^2}\,
1014: \left[\frac{m^4}{(p^2-m^2)^2} \, - \, 1 \right] \; ,
1015: \label{partfrac}
1016: \ee
1017: integrated via $\int d\!\!{}^{- 4}p$ as in the $I$ integral on the l.h.s.\ of
1018: \eqr{dimreg}. Then dropping the massless-tadpole integral $\int d\!\!{}^{- 4}p/
1019: p^2=0$ (as done in dimensional, analytic, zeta-function, and Pauli--Villars
1020: regularizations \cite{DS95,DSR98}), and Wick rotating
1021: $d^4p=i\pi^2p^2_{\mbox{\scriptsize E}}dp^2_{\mbox{\scriptsize E}}$, the
1022: Euclidean integral becomes
1023: \be
1024: I \; = \; -\frac{im^4}{(4\pi)^2}\int_0^\infty\frac{dp^2_{\mbox{\scriptsize E}}}
1025: {(p^2_{\mbox{\scriptsize E}}+m^2)^2} \; = \; -\frac{im^2}{(4\pi)^2} \; ,
1026: \label{euclidean}
1027: \ee
1028: identical to the r.h.s.\ of \eqr{dimreg}.
1029:
1030: In order to further justify the neglect of $\int d\!\!{}^{- 4}p/p^2$, we invoke
1031: the Karlson trick \cite{K54} (long advocated by Schwinger)
1032: \be
1033: \frac{d}{dm^2}\int\frac{d^4p}{p^2-m^2} \; = \; \int\frac{d^4p}{(p^2-m^2)^2}\;,
1034: \label{karlson}
1035: \ee
1036: and compute \cite{DS02}
1037: \be
1038: (2\pi)^4\frac{dI}{dm^2} \; = \; \int\frac{d^4p}{(p^2-m^2)^2} \, + \,
1039: 2m^2 \int\frac{d^4p}{(p^2-m^2)^3}\,-\,\frac{d}{dm^2}\int\frac{d^4p}{p^2-m^2}\;,
1040: \label{didm2}
1041: \ee
1042: with the first and third terms cancelling due to \eqr{karlson}. Then the
1043: remaining, finite second term in \eqr{didm2} gives
1044: \be
1045: (2\pi)^4\frac{dI}{dm^2} \; = \; 2m^2\left(-\frac{i\pi^2}{2m^2}\right) \; = \;
1046: -i\pi^2 \; ,
1047: \label{second}
1048: \ee
1049: which is the \em same \em \/result as differentiating the dim-reg.\ lemma
1050: (\ref{dimreg}):
1051: \be
1052: (2\pi)^4\frac{dI}{dm^2} \; = \; (-i\pi^2)\frac{dm^2}{dm^2} \; = \; -i\pi^2 \; .
1053: \label{ddimreg}
1054: \ee
1055: So far we have only assumed $\int d\!\!{}^{- 4}p/p^2$ is independent of $m^2$,
1056: so that $(d/dm^2)\int d\!\!{}^{- 4}p/p^2=0$.
1057:
1058: But to demonstrate that the $\int\!dm^2$ integration constant \em vanishes, \em
1059: i.e., $\int d^4p/p^2=\Lambda^2=0$, we invoke the implied dimensional-analysis
1060: relations
1061: \be
1062: \int\frac{d^4p}{p^2} \; = \; 0 \; , \;\;
1063: \int\frac{d^4p}{p^2-m^2} \; \propto \; m^2 \; , \;\;
1064: \int\frac{d^4p}{p^2-m^2_\sigma} \; \propto \; m^2_\sigma
1065: \label{dimanal}
1066: \ee
1067: to solve B.~W.~Lee's null-tadpole sum \cite{L72}, which characterizes the true
1068: vacuum for $N_f=2$ as \cite{DS95}
1069: \be
1070: (2m_q)^4N_c \; = \; 3m^4_\sigma
1071: \label{true}
1072: \ee
1073: (with the factor of 3 due to $\sigma$-$\sigma$-$\sigma$ combinatorics)
1074: in the CL $m_\pi=0$, meaning $N_c=3$ when $m_\sigma=2m_q$.
1075:
1076: Thus, $\int\!d^4p/p^2$ indeed vanishes as suggested \cite{DS95,DSR98}.
1077: Then appendices A, B, and C loop-generate \eqr{comp} via the LDGE \eqr{ldgen}
1078: and the dim.-reg.\ lemma \eqr{dimreg} \cite{DS95,S01} .
1079:
1080: \clearpage
1081:
1082: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1083:
1084: \bibitem{PDG02}
1085: K.~Hagiwara {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group Collaboration],
1086: %``Review of particle physics,''
1087: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf66}, 010001 (2002).
1088: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%
1089:
1090: \bibitem{TH95_99}
1091: See e.g.:
1092: R.~Delbourgo and M.~D.~Scadron,
1093: %``Dynamical Generation Of The SU(2) Linear Sigma Model,''
1094: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 10}, 251 (1995) [hep-ph/9910242];
1095: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910242;%%
1096: N.~A.~Tornqvist,
1097: %``Understanding the scalar meson $q \bar{q}$ nonet,''
1098: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 68}, 647 (1995) [hep-ph/9504372];
1099: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9504372;%%
1100: N.~A.~T\"{o}rnqvist and M.~Roos,
1101: %``Resurrection of the Sigma Meson,''
1102: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 76}, 1575 (1996) [hep-ph/9511210];
1103: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9511210;%%
1104: M.~Harada, F.~Sannino, and J.~Schechter,
1105: %``Simple Description of Pion-Pion Scattering to 1 GeV,''
1106: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 1991 (1996) [hep-ph/9511335];
1107: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9511335;%%
1108: S.~Ishida, M.~Ishida, H.~Takahashi, T.~Ishida, K.~Takamatsu, and T.~Tsuru,
1109: %``An Analysis of pi pi scattering phase shift and existence of sigma (555)
1110: %particle,''
1111: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 95}, 745 (1996) [hep-ph/9610325];
1112: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9610325;%%
1113: R.~Delbourgo, M.~D.~Scadron, and A.~A.~Rawlinson,
1114: %``Regularizing the quark-level linear sigma model,''
1115: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 13}, 1893 (1998) [hep-ph/9807505];
1116: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807505;%%
1117: R.~Delbourgo and M.~D.~Scadron,
1118: %``Dynamical generation of linear sigma model SU(3) Lagrangian
1119: %and meson nonet mixing,''
1120: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf A13}, 657 (1998) [hep-ph/9807504];
1121: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807504;%%
1122: Eef~van Beveren and George~Rupp,
1123: %``Comment on `Understanding the scalar meson q anti-q nonet',''
1124: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 10}, 469 (1999) [hep-ph/9806246].
1125: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806246;%%
1126:
1127: \bibitem{WS00_02}
1128: See e.g.: Kyoto workshop, June 2000; Paris workshop, Sept.\ 2001; Montpellier
1129: workshop, July 2002; Coimbra workshop, Sept.\ 2002.
1130:
1131: \bibitem{KBRS02}
1132: Frieder~Kleefeld, Eef~van Beveren, George~Rupp, and Michael~D.~Scadron,
1133: %``Identifying the quark content of the isoscalar scalar mesons f0(980),
1134: %f0(1370), and f0(1500) from weak and electromagnetic processes,''
1135: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 034007 (2002) [hep-ph/0109158].
1136: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109158;%%
1137:
1138: \bibitem{DS95}
1139: See \refc{TH95_99}, first paper.
1140:
1141: \bibitem{NJL61}
1142: Y.~Nambu and G.~Jona-Lasinio,
1143: %``Dynamical Model of Elementary Particles Based On An Analogy
1144: %With Superconductivity,''
1145: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 122}, 345 (1961).
1146: %%CITATION = PHRVA,122,345;%%
1147:
1148: \bibitem{SWS62_98}
1149: A.~Salam,
1150: %``Lagrangian Theory Of Composite Particles,''
1151: Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf 25}, 224 (1962);
1152: %%CITATION = NUCIA,25,224;%%
1153: S.~Weinberg,
1154: %``Elementary Particle Theory Of Composite Particles,''
1155: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 130}, 776 (1963);
1156: %%CITATION = PHRVA,130,776;%%
1157: M.~D.~Scadron,
1158: %``Comments on compositeness in the SU(2) linear sigma model,''
1159: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 5307 (1998) [hep-ph/9712425].
1160: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712425;%%
1161:
1162: \bibitem{CS81}
1163: M.~D.~Scadron,
1164: %``Current Algebra, Pcac And The Quark Model,''
1165: Rept.\ Prog.\ Phys.\ {\bf 44}, 213 (1981);
1166: %%CITATION = RPPHA,44,213;%%
1167: S.~A.~Coon and M.~D.~Scadron,
1168: %``Goldberger-Treiman Discrepancy And The Momentum Variation Of The Pion-
1169: %Nucleon Form Factor And Pion Decay Constant,''
1170: Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf 23}, 1150 (1981). \\
1171: %%CITATION = PHRVA,C23,1150;%%
1172: These authors show that a once-subtracted dispersion relation requires
1173: $1\!-\!f^{\cls}_\pi/f_\pi\!=\!m^2_\pi/8\pi^2f^2_\pi \approx 0.03$, so the
1174: observed $f_\pi\approx93$ MeV corresponds to $f^{\cls}_\pi\approx90$ MeV.
1175:
1176: \bibitem{D82}
1177: A statistical oscillator scheme of
1178: A.~F.~Grashin and M.~V.~Lepeshkin,
1179: %``Nuclear Scaling And Elastic Form-Factor For Hadrons,''
1180: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 146}, 11 (1984),
1181: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B146,11;%%
1182: accurately fitting both nucleon and pion form factors over a wide range
1183: $0<q^2<5$ GeV$^2$, then refines the early
1184: E.~B.~Dally {\it et al.},
1185: %``Elastic Scattering Measurement Of The Negative Pion Radius,''
1186: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 48}, 375 (1982)
1187: %%CITATION = PRLTA,48,375;%%
1188: pion-charge-radius data from $r_\pi=0.663\pm0.023$ fm to $0.633\pm0.008$ fm,
1189: and the new PDG result $r_\pi=0.672\pm 0.008$ fm \cite{PDG02} to
1190: $0.642\pm0.002$ fm. Also note that the PDG of 2002 did not fold in the above
1191: result of Grashin and Lepeshkin.
1192:
1193: \bibitem{PS83}
1194: N.~Paver and M.~D.~Scadron,
1195: %``Pi $\to$ E Neutrino Gamma Decay: A Challenge To The Quark Model?,''
1196: Nuovo Cim.\ A {\bf 78}, 159 (1983);
1197: %%CITATION = NUCIA,A78,159;%%
1198: also see E.~Ruiz Arriola,
1199: %``Pion structure at high and low energies in chiral quark models,''
1200: hep-ph/0210007.
1201: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210007;%%
1202:
1203: \bibitem{HS91}
1204: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D43,2439;%%
1205: T.~Hakioglu and M.~D.~Scadron,
1206: %``Vector Meson Dominance, One Loop Order Quark Graphs, And The Chiral Limit,''
1207: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 43}, 2439 (1991).
1208: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D43,2439;%%
1209:
1210: \bibitem{BRS98}
1211: A.~Bramon, Riazuddin, and M.~D.~Scadron,
1212: %``Double counting ambiguities in the linear sigma model,''
1213: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 24}, 1 (1998)
1214: [hep-ph/9709274].
1215: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709274;%%
1216:
1217: \bibitem{AB87}
1218: C.~Ayala and A.~Bramon,
1219: %``SU(3) Breaking In Pseudoscalar Meson Form-Factors,''
1220: Europhys.\ Lett.\ {\bf 4}, 777 (1987).
1221: %%CITATION = EULEE,4,777;%%
1222:
1223: \bibitem{T79}
1224: R.~Tarrach,
1225: %``Meson Charge Radii And Quarks,''
1226: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 2}, 221 (1979);
1227: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C2,221;%%
1228: S.~B.~Gerasimov,
1229: %``Meson Structure Constants In A Model Of The Quark Diagrams,''
1230: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 29}, 259 (1979) (Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf32}, 156
1231: (1980))
1232: [Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 29}, 513 (1979)].
1233: %%CITATION = YAFIA,29,513;%%
1234: Also see
1235: V.~Bernard, B.~Hiller, and W.~Weise,
1236: %``Pion Electromagnetic Polarizability And Chiral Models,''
1237: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 205}, 16 (1988).
1238: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B205,16;%%
1239:
1240: \bibitem{KS94}
1241: A.~E.~Kaloshin and V.~V.~Serebryakov,
1242: %``Pi+ And Pi0 Polarizabilities From Gamma Gamma $\to$ Pi Pi Data On The Base
1243: %Of S Matrix Approach,''
1244: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 64}, 689 (1994)
1245: [hep-ph/9306224].
1246: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9306224;%%
1247:
1248: \bibitem{KPS94}
1249: A.~E.~Kaloshin, V.~M.~Persikov, and V.~V.~Serebryakov,
1250: %``First Estimates Of The (Alpha + Beta)**Pi From Two Photon Experiments,''
1251: Phys.\ Atom.\ Nucl.\ {\bf 57}, 2207 (1994)
1252: [Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 57N12}, 2298 (1994)]
1253: [hep-ph/9402220].
1254: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9402220;%%
1255:
1256: \bibitem{KPS95}
1257: A.~E.~Kaloshin, V.~M.~Persikov, and V.~V.~Serebryakov,
1258: %``Another look at the angular distributions of the gamma gamma $\to$ pi pi
1259: %reactions,''
1260: hep-ph/9504261.
1261: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9504261;%%
1262:
1263: \bibitem{CRYSTAL90}
1264: H.~Marsiske {\it et al.} [Crystal Ball Collaboration],
1265: %``A Measurement Of Pi0 Pi0 Production In Two Photon Collisions,''
1266: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 41}, 3324 (1990).
1267: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D41,3324;%%
1268:
1269: \bibitem{MARKII90}
1270: J.~Boyer {\it et al.} [MARK-II Collaboration],
1271: %``Two Photon Production Of Pion Pairs,''
1272: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 42}, 1350 (1990).
1273: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D42,1350;%%
1274:
1275: \bibitem{CELLO92}
1276: H.~J.~Behrend {\it et al.} [CELLO Collaboration],
1277: %``An Experimental Study Of The Process Gamma Gamma $\to$ Pi+ Pi-,''
1278: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 56}, 381 (1992).
1279: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C56,381;%%
1280:
1281: \bibitem{T73}
1282: M.~V.~Terentev,
1283: %``Pion Polarizability, Virtual Compton-Effect And Pi $\to$ E Nu Gamma Decay,''
1284: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf16}, 87 (1973)
1285: [Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 16}, 162 (1972)].
1286: %%CITATION = YAFIA,16,162;%%
1287:
1288: \bibitem{IM92}
1289: M.~A.~Ivanov and T.~Mizutani,
1290: %``Pion and kaon polarizabilities in the quark confinement model,''
1291: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 45}, 1580 (1992);
1292: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D45,1580;%%
1293: M.~A.~Ivanov, P.~Santorelli, and N.~Tancredi,
1294: %``The semileptonic form factors of B and D mesons in the quark confinement
1295: %model,''
1296: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ A {\bf 9}, 109 (2000)
1297: [hep-ph/9905209].
1298: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905209;%%
1299:
1300: \bibitem{L81}
1301: A.~I.~Lvov,
1302: %``Pion Polarizabilities In The Sigma Model With Quarks,''
1303: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 34}, 289 (1981)
1304: [Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 34}, 522 (1981)].
1305: %%CITATION = SJNCA,34,289;%%
1306:
1307: \bibitem{KS86}
1308: A.~E.~Kaloshin and V.~V.~Serebryakov,
1309: %``Resonance Production In The Gamma Gamma $\to$ Pi Pi Process And Low-Energy
1310: % Parameters,''
1311: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 32}, 279 (1986).
1312: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C32,279;%%
1313:
1314: \bibitem{S91}
1315: M.~D.~Scadron,
1316: \em Advanced Quantum Theory, \em
1317: Springer-Verlag (1991),
1318: see \/Eq.~(13.48);
1319: R.~E.~Marshak, Riazuddin, and C.~P.~Ryan,
1320: \em Theory of Weak Interactions in Particle Physics, \em
1321: Wiley-Interscience, NY (1969), see Eq.~(5.112).
1322:
1323: \bibitem{MS93}
1324: W.~J.~Marciano and A.~Sirlin,
1325: %``Radiative corrections to pi(lepton 2) decays,''
1326: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 71}, 3629 (1993);
1327: %%CITATION = PRLTA,71,3629;%%
1328: V.~Cirigliano, M.~Knecht, H.~Neufeld, H.~Rupertsberger, and P.~Talavera,
1329: %``Radiative corrections to K(l3) decays,''
1330: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 23}, 121 (2002)
1331: [hep-ph/0110153].
1332: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110153;%%
1333:
1334: \bibitem{AG64}
1335: M.~Ademollo and R.~Gatto,
1336: %``Nonrenormalization Theorem For The Strangeness Violating Vector Currents,''
1337: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 13}, 264 (1964).
1338: %%CITATION = PRLTA,13,264;%%`
1339:
1340: \bibitem{FF65}
1341: S.~Fubini and G.~Furlan,
1342: %``...,''
1343: Physics {\bf4}, 229 (1965).
1344: %%CITATION = ...;%%
1345:
1346: \bibitem{PS84}
1347: N.~Paver and M.~D.~Scadron,
1348: %``Nonrenormalization Theorem For The K(L3) Form-Factor And The Quark Model,''
1349: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 30}, 1988 (1984).
1350: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D30,1988;%%
1351:
1352: \bibitem{VI58}
1353: V.~G.~Vaks and B.~L.~Ioffe,
1354: %``...,''
1355: Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf10}, 342 (1958).
1356: %%CITATION = ...;%%
1357:
1358: \bibitem{GML60}
1359: M.~Gell-Mann and M.~L\'{e}vy,
1360: %``The Axial Vector Current In Beta Decay,''
1361: Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf 16}, 705 (1960).
1362: %%CITATION = NUCIA,16,705;%%
1363:
1364: \bibitem{AFFR73}
1365: V.~de Alfaro, S.~Fubini, G.~Furlan, and C.~Rossetti,
1366: in {\it Currents in Hadron Physics},
1367: North-Holland Publ., Amsterdam, Chap.\ 5 (1973).
1368:
1369: \bibitem{E89}
1370: S.~Egli {\it et al.} [SINDRUM Collaboration],
1371: %``Measurement Of The Decay Pi+ $\to$ E+ Electron-Neutrino E+ E- And Search
1372: %For A Light Higgs Boson,''
1373: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 222}, 533 (1989).
1374: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B222,533;%%
1375:
1376: \bibitem{BS92}
1377: A.~Bramon and M.~D.~Scadron,
1378: %``Pi $\to$ E Neutrino Gamma Revisited,''
1379: Europhys.\ Lett.\ {\bf 19}, 663 (1992).
1380: %%CITATION = EULEE,19,663;%%
1381:
1382: \bibitem{DMO67}
1383: T.~Das, V.~S.~Mathur, and S.~Okubo,
1384: %``Low-Energy Theorem in the Radiative Decays of Charged Pions,''
1385: Phys.\ Rev. Lett.\ {\bf19}, 859 (1967).
1386: %%CITATION = PRLTA,19,859;%%
1387:
1388: \bibitem{S82_92}
1389: M.~D.~Scadron,
1390: %``Spontaneous Breakdown And The Scalar Nonet,''
1391: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D26}, 239 (1982);
1392: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D26,239;%%
1393: N.~Paver and M.~D.~Scadron,
1394: %``Possible Dynamical Mechanism Generating SU(3) And SU(2) Symmetry Breaking,''
1395: Nuovo Cim.\ A {\bf 79}, 57 (1984),
1396: %%CITATION = NUCIA,A79,57;%%
1397: see Eq.~32b.
1398:
1399: \bibitem{BR86}
1400: E.~van Beveren, T.~A.~Rijken, K.~Metzger, C.~Dullemond, G.~Rupp, and
1401: J.~E.~Ribeiro,
1402: %``A Low Lying Scalar Meson Nonet In A Unitarized Meson Model,''
1403: Z.\ Phys.\ {\bf C30}, 615 (1986).
1404: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C30,615;%%
1405:
1406: \bibitem{KSB93}
1407: R.~E.~Karlsen, M.~D.~Scadron, and A.~Bramon,
1408: %``SU(3) Structure Dependence In Pi $\to$ E Neutrino Gamma And K $\to$ E
1409: %Neutrino Gamma Decays,''
1410: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 8}, 97 (1993).
1411: %%CITATION = MPLAE,A8,97;%%
1412:
1413: \bibitem{DS98}
1414: See e.g.\ \refc{TH95_99}, seventh paper.
1415:
1416: \bibitem{S60}
1417: J.~J.~Sakurai,
1418: %``Theory Of Strong Interactions,''
1419: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 11}, 1 (1960).
1420: %%CITATION = APNYA,11,1;%%
1421:
1422: \bibitem{DLS99}
1423: R.~Delbourgo, D.~S.~Liu, and M.~D.~Scadron,
1424: %``Meson PVV interactions are determined by quark loops,''
1425: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 14}, 4331 (1999) [hep-ph/9905501].
1426: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905501;%%
1427:
1428: \bibitem{BEI96}
1429: M.~Benayoun, S.~I.~Eidelman, and V.~N.~Ivanchenko,
1430: %``A search for anomalous contribution in e+ e- $\to$ pi0/eta gamma
1431: %annihilations,''
1432: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 72}, 221 (1996).
1433: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C72,221;%%
1434:
1435: \bibitem{MLS90}
1436: T.~Morozumi, C.~S.~Lim, and A.~I.~Sanda,
1437: %``Chiral Weak Dynamics,''
1438: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 65}, 404 (1990).
1439: %%CITATION = PRLTA,65,404;%%
1440:
1441: \bibitem{KS91}
1442: R.~E.~Karlsen and M.~D.~Scadron,
1443: %``Chiral Symmetry And Meson Loop Model For Nonleptonic K And D Weak Decays,''
1444: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 6}, 543 (1991);
1445: %%CITATION = MPLAE,A6,543;%%
1446:
1447: \bibitem{KS92}
1448: R.~E.~Karlsen and M.~D.~Scadron,
1449: %``Pcac Consistency. 1: Kaon Two And Three Body Nonleptonic Weak Decays,''
1450: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 45}, 4108 (1992).
1451: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D45,4108;%%
1452:
1453: \bibitem{WO66_70}
1454: S.~Weinberg,
1455: %``Pion Scattering Lengths,''
1456: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 17}, 616 (1966);
1457: %%CITATION = PRLTA,17,616;%%
1458: H.~Osborn,
1459: %``Chiral SU(3) X SU(3) Theorems For Pseudoscalar-Pseudoscalar Scattering
1460: %Amplitudes,''
1461: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 15}, 501 (1970).
1462: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B15,501;%%
1463:
1464: \bibitem{PTSE02}
1465: A.~D.~Polosa, N.~A.~Tornqvist, M.~D.~Scadron, and V.~Elias,
1466: %``Weak-interaction evidence for a broad sigma(500-600) resonance,''
1467: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 17}, 569 (2002)
1468: [hep-ph/0005106];
1469: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005106;%%
1470: Also see:
1471: E.~van Beveren, F.~Kleefeld, G.~Rupp, and M.~D.~Scadron,
1472: %``Remarks on the f0(400-1200) scalar meson as the dynamically generated chiral
1473: %partner of the pion,''
1474: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 17}, 1673 (2002)
1475: [hep-ph/0204139].
1476: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204139;%%
1477:
1478: \bibitem{LS02}
1479: J.~Lowe and M.~D.~Scadron,
1480: %``Consistently computing the K $\to$ pi long distance weak transition,''
1481: hep-ph/0208118.
1482: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208118;%%
1483:
1484: \bibitem{SEC95_96}
1485: M.~D.~Scadron and V.~Elias,
1486: %``Kaon Delta I = 1/2 Rule, K(L) - K(S) Mass Difference And Old Fashioned
1487: %Perturbation Theory,''
1488: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 10}, 1159 (1995);
1489: %%CITATION = MPLAE,A10,1159;%%
1490: S.~R.~Choudhury and M.~D.~Scadron,
1491: %``CP Violation And $\delta I=1/2$ Enhancement In $K$ Decays,''
1492: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53}, 2421 (1996), see Eq.~(24).
1493: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D53,2421;%%
1494:
1495: \bibitem{C67}
1496: J.~A.~Cronin,
1497: %``Phenomenological Model Of Strong And Weak Interactions In Chiral U(3) X
1498: %U(3),''
1499: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 161}, 1483 (1967), see Eq.~(48).
1500: %%CITATION = PHRVA,161,1483;%%
1501:
1502: \bibitem{W73}
1503: S.~Weinberg,
1504: %``Current Algebra And Gauge Theories. 1,''
1505: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 8}, 605 (1973);
1506: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D8,605;%%
1507: %``Nonabelian Gauge Theories Of The Strong Interactions,''
1508: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 31}, 494 (1973).
1509: Also see
1510: %%CITATION = PRLTA,31,494;%%
1511: B.~H.~McKellar and M.~D.~Scadron,
1512: %``Quark - Tadpole Transitions And The Delta I = 1/2 Rule In K Decays,''
1513: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 27}, 157 (1983).
1514: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D27,157;%%
1515:
1516: \bibitem{A02}
1517: E.~M.~Aitala {\it et al.} [E791 Collaboration],
1518: %``Dalitz plot analysis of the decay D+ $\to$ K- pi+ pi+ and study of the K pi
1519: %scalar amplitudes,''
1520: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89}, 121801 (2002)
1521: [hep-ex/0204018].
1522: %%CITATION = PRLTA,89,121801;%%
1523:
1524: \bibitem{S99}
1525: See e.g.\
1526: M.~D.~Scadron,
1527: %``Scalar sigma meson via chiral and crossing dynamics,''
1528: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 6}, 141 (1999) [hep-ph/9710317].
1529: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710317;%%
1530:
1531: \bibitem{ESB84_97}
1532: See e.g.:
1533: V.~Elias and M.~D.~Scadron,
1534: %``On-Shell Constraints For Perturbative And Nonperturbative Quark Masses In
1535: %QCD,''
1536: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 30}, 647 (1984);
1537: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D30,647;%%
1538: L.~R.~Babukhadia, V.~Elias, and M.~D.~Scadron,
1539: %``Linear sigma model linkage with nonperturbative QCD,''
1540: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 23}, 1065 (1997)
1541: [hep-ph/9708431].
1542: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9708431;%%
1543:
1544: \bibitem{MS92}
1545: A.~C.~Mattingly and P.~M.~Stevenson,
1546: %``QCD Perturbation Theory At Low-Energies,''
1547: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 69}, 1320 (1992)
1548: [hep-ph/9207228].
1549: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9207228;%%
1550:
1551: \bibitem{ES84}
1552: V.~Elias and M.~D.~Scadron,
1553: %``Scalar Boson Masses In Dynamically Broken Gauge Theories,''
1554: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 53}, 1129 (1984).
1555: %%CITATION = PRLTA,53,1129;%%
1556:
1557: \bibitem{K01}
1558: F.~Karsch, E.~Laermann, and A.~Peikert,
1559: %``Quark mass and flavor dependence of the QCD phase transition,''
1560: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 605}, 579 (2001)
1561: [hep-lat/0012023].
1562: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0012023;%%
1563:
1564: \bibitem{BCSKB85_95}
1565: D.~Bailin, J.~Cleymans, and M.~D.~Scadron,
1566: %``Gap Equation For The Chiral Symmetry Restoration Transition,''
1567: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 31}, 164 (1985);
1568: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D31,164;%%
1569: J.~Cleymans, A.~Kocic, and M.~D.~Scadron,
1570: %``Chiral Symmetry Constraints On The Critical Temperature In QCD,''
1571: {\em ibid} \/{\bf 39}, 323 (1989);
1572: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D39,323;%%
1573: N.~Bilic, J.~Cleymans, and M.~D.~Scadron,
1574: %``Relating the pion decay constant to the chiral restoration temperature,''
1575: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 10}, 1169 (1995)
1576: [hep-ph/9402201];
1577: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9402201;%%
1578: M.~D.~Scadron and P.~Zenczykowski,
1579: %``Chiral phase transitions,''
1580: Hadronic Journal, in press (2002)
1581: [hep-th/0106154].
1582: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0106154;%%
1583:
1584: \bibitem{MSPD02}
1585: J.~Meyer, K.~Schwenzer, H.~J.~Pirner, and A.~Deandrea,
1586: %``Renormalization group flow in large N(c),''
1587: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 526}, 79 (2002)
1588: [hep-ph/0110279], see Table 1;
1589: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110279;%%
1590: H.~J.~Pirner,
1591: %``Evolving QCD,''
1592: hep-ph/0209221.
1593: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209221;%%
1594:
1595: \bibitem{S01}
1596: M.~D.~Scadron,
1597: %``Dynamically Generating The Quark-Level SU(2) Linear Sigma Model,''
1598: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 32}, 4093 (2001);
1599: %%CITATION = APPOA,B32,4093;%%
1600: %``Quark level linear sigma model (L sigma M) via loop graphs,''
1601: Kyoto sigma workshop, June 2000,
1602: hep-ph/0007184.
1603: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007184;%%
1604:
1605: \bibitem{DSR98}
1606: See \refc{TH95_99}, sixth paper.
1607:
1608: \bibitem{K54}
1609: E.~Karlson,
1610: %``?,''
1611: Ark.\ Phys.\ {\bf7}, 21 (1954).
1612: %%CITATION = ??;%%
1613:
1614: \bibitem{DS02}
1615: R.~Delbourgo and M.~D.~Scadron,
1616: %``On the amelioration of quadratic divergences,''
1617: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 17}, 209 (2002)
1618: [hep-ph/0202104].
1619: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202104;%%
1620:
1621: \bibitem{L72}
1622: B.~W.~Lee,
1623: \em Chiral Dynamics, \em
1624: Gordon and Breach, NY, 1972, p.\ 12.
1625: \end{thebibliography}
1626: \end{document}
1627: