1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%%%%% template.tex for PTPTeX.cls <ver.0.9> %%%%%
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4: \documentclass[seceq]{ptptex}
5: %\documentclass[letter]{ptptex}
6: %\documentclass[seceq,supplement]{ptptex}
7: %\documentclass[seceq,addenda]{ptptex}
8: %\documentclass[seceq,errata]{ptptex}
9: %\documentclass[seceq,preprint]{ptptex}
10:
11: \usepackage{graphicx}
12: %\usepackage{wrapft}
13: \usepackage{epsfig}
14:
15: %%%%% Personal Macros %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
16:
17: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
18:
19: %\pubinfo{Vol.~11X, No.~X, Mmmmm YYYY}%Editorial Office will fill in this.
20: %\setcounter{page}{} %Editorial Office will fill in this.
21: %\def\ptype{p} %Editorial Office will fill in this.
22: %\def\ptpsubject{} %Editorial Office will fill in this.
23: %\def\pageinfo{X-X} %Editorial Office will fill in this.
24: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------
25: %\nofigureboxrule %to eliminate the rule of \figurebox
26: %\notypesetlogo %comment in if to eliminate PTPTeX
27: %---- When [preprint] you can put preprint number at top right corner.
28: %\preprintnumber[3cm]{%<-- [..]: optional width of preprint # column.
29: %KUNS-1325\\PTPTeX ver.0.8\\ August, 1997}
30: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------
31:
32: \markboth{% %running head for odd-page (authors' name)
33: K.~Igi and M.~Ishida%
34: }{% %running head for even-page (`short' title)
35: On the Discrepancy of $pp$, $\bar pp$ Total Cross Sections
36: at $\sqrt s = 1.8$TeV}
37:
38: \title{% %You can use \\ for explicit line-break
39: On the Discrepancy of $pp$, $\bar pp$ Total Cross Sections
40: at $\sqrt s = 1.8$TeV between E710, E811 and CDF
41: }
42:
43: %\subtitle{Subtitle} %use this when you want a subtitle
44:
45: \author{% %Use \scshape for the family name
46: Keiji \textsc{Igi} and Muneyuki \textsc{Ishida}$^a$
47: }
48:
49: \inst{% %Affiliation, neglected when [addenda] or [errata]
50: Theoretical Physics Laboratory, RIKEN, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan\\
51: $^a$Department of Physics, School of Science and Engineering, Meisei University,
52: Hino, Tokyo 191-8506, Japan
53: }
54:
55: %\publishedin{% %Write this ONLY in cases of addenda and errata
56: %Prog.~Theor.~Phys.\ \textbf{XX} (19YY), page.}
57:
58: %\recdate{Mmmmm DD, YYYY}% %Editorial Office will fill in this.
59:
60: \abst{% %this abstract is neglected when [addenda] or [errata]
61: Based on the previous approach, we have investigated a possibility to
62: resolve the discrepancy between the E710, E811 and CDF at $\sqrt s =1.8$TeV,
63: using the experimental data of the $pp$, $\bar pp$ total cross sections
64: $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$ and $\rho^{(+)}$ ratio up to the SPS
65: experiments ($\sqrt s = 0.9$TeV) as inputs.
66: We predict $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{\bar pp}$ and $\rho^{\bar pp}$ at the Tevatron energy
67: ($\sqrt s=1.8$TeV) as $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{\bar pp}=75.9\pm 1.0$mb, $\rho^{\bar pp}=0.136\pm 0.005$.
68:
69: It turns out that only the data of E710 is consistent with the
70: prediction in the one standard deviation.
71: So we can conclude that E710 is preferable but we can exclude neither CDF nor E811 results.
72: }
73:
74: \begin{document}
75:
76: \maketitle
77:
78: \section{Introduction}
79:
80: Recently\cite{[1]}, we have searched for the simultaneous best fit of the
81: average of $\bar pp$, $pp$ total cross sections( $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$ ), and the ratio
82: of the real to imaginary part of the forward scattering amplitude( $\rho^{(+)}$ )
83: for 70GeV $<$ $P_{lab}$ $<$ $P_{large}$ as inputs in terms of high-energy
84: parameters $c_0$, $c_1$, $c_2$ and $\beta_{P^\prime}$ constrained by the FESR
85: with $N(\simeq 10$GeV).
86: %
87: Block and Halzen\cite{[2],BH} also reached to the similar conclusions independently
88: based on duality in a different approach. We first chose $P_{large} =2100$GeV
89: corresponding to the ISR region( $\sqrt s \simeq 60$GeV ). Secondly we chose
90: $P_{large}=2\times 10^6$GeV corresponding to the Tevatron energy( $\sqrt s \simeq 2$TeV ).
91: We then predicted $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$ and $\rho^{(+)}$ at the LHC and the high-energy
92: cosmic-ray energy regions. It turned out that the prediction of $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$
93: agrees with $pp$ experimental data at the cosmic-ray regions\cite{[3],[4],[5]} within
94: errors in the first case( ISR ). It has to be noted that the energy range of
95: predicted $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$, $\rho^{(+)}$ is several orders of magnitude larger
96: than the energy regions of $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$, $\rho^{(+)}$ input.
97: If we use data up to Tevatron( the second case ), the situation has been much improved
98: although there are some systematic uncertainty coming from discrepancy of
99: the data between E710\cite{E710}, E811\cite{E811} and CDF\cite{CDF} at $\sqrt s =1.8$TeV\cite{[1]}.
100: Finally we concluded that the precise measurements of $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{pp}$
101: in the coming LHC experiments will resolve this discrepancy at $\sqrt s = 1.8$TeV.
102:
103: The purpose of this paper is to investigate a possibility to resolve
104: this discrepancy using the experimental data of $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$ and $\rho^{(+)}$
105: up to the SPS experiments ($\sqrt s = 0.9$TeV).
106:
107: \section{The general approach}
108:
109: As in the previous paper\cite{[1]}, let us first consider
110: the crossing-even forward scattering amplitude defined by
111: \begin{eqnarray}
112: F^{(+)}(\nu ) &=& \frac{f^{\bar pp}(\nu )+f^{pp}(\nu )}{2}\ \
113: {\rm with}\ \ Im\ F^{(+)}(\nu )=\frac{k\ \sigma^{(+)}_{\rm tot}(\nu )}{4\pi}\ .
114: \label{eq1}
115: \end{eqnarray}
116:
117: We also assume
118: \begin{eqnarray}
119: Im\ F^{(+)}(\nu ) &=& Im\ R(\nu )+ Im\ F_{P^\prime}(\nu )\nonumber\\
120: &=& \frac{\nu}{M^2}\left( c_0 + c_1 {\rm log}\frac{\nu }{M} + c_2 {\rm log}^2\frac{\nu }{M} \right)
121: + \frac{\beta_{P^\prime}}{M}\left( \frac{\nu}{M} \right)^{\alpha_{P^\prime}}\ \ \ \ \
122: \label{eq2}
123: \end{eqnarray}
124: at high energies ($\nu > N$).
125: It is to be noted that $c_0$, $c_1$, $c_2$ and $\beta_{P^\prime}$ are dimensionless.
126: We have defined the functions $R(\nu )$ and $F_{P^\prime} (\nu )$
127: by replacing $\mu$ by M in Eq.~(3) of ref.~\citen{[6]}.
128: Here, $M$ is the proton( anti-proton) mass and $\nu ,\ k$ are the incident proton(anti-proton)
129: energy, momentum in the laboratory system, respectively.
130:
131: Since the amplitude is crossing-even, we have
132: \begin{eqnarray}
133: R(\nu ) &=& \frac{i\nu}{2M^2}\left\{ 2c_0+c_2\pi^2
134: + c_1 \left({\rm log}\frac{e^{-i\pi}\nu }{M}+{\rm log}\frac{\nu}{M}\right) \right. \nonumber\\
135: && \left. + c_2 \left({\rm log}^2\frac{e^{-i\pi}\nu }{M} + {\rm log}^2\frac{\nu}{M}\right) \right\}\ ,\ \ \ \ \ \ \
136: \label{eq3}\\
137: F_{P^\prime}(\nu ) &=& -\frac{\beta_{P^\prime}}{M}
138: \left( \frac{(e^{-i\pi}\nu /M)^{\alpha_{P^\prime}}
139: +(\nu /M)^{\alpha_{P^\prime}}}{{\rm sin}\pi\alpha_{P^\prime}} \right),
140: \label{eq4}
141: \end{eqnarray}
142: and subsequently obtain
143: \begin{eqnarray}
144: Re\ R(\nu ) &=& \frac{\pi\nu}{2M^2}\left(
145: c_1 + 2 c_2 {\rm log}\frac{\nu}{M} \right)\ ,\ \ \
146: \label{eq5}\\
147: Re\ F_{P^\prime}(\nu ) &=& -\frac{\beta_{P^\prime}}{M}
148: \left( \frac{\nu}{M}\right)^{0.5}\ ,\ \ \
149: \label{eq6}
150: \end{eqnarray}
151: substituting $\alpha_{P^\prime} =\frac{1}{2}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq4}).\\
152:
153: \underline{FESR}: The FESR corresponding to $n=1$ \cite{[7],[8]} is:
154: \begin{eqnarray} &&
155: \int_0^M \nu Im\ F^{(+)}(\nu )d\nu
156: + \frac{1}{4\pi}\int_0^{\overline{N}} k^2 \sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}(k)dk \nonumber\\
157: & &= \int_0^N \nu Im\ R(\nu ) d\nu
158: + \int_0^N \nu Im\ F_{P^\prime}(\nu ) d\nu \ \ \ . \ \ \
159: \label{eq7}
160: \end{eqnarray}
161: We call Eq.~(\ref{eq7}) as the FESR which we use in our analysis.\\
162:
163: \underline{The $\rho^{(+)}$ ratio}: The $\rho^{(+)}$ ratio,
164: the ratio of the real to imaginary part of
165: $F^{(+)}(\nu )$ was obtained from Eqs.~(\ref{eq2}), (\ref{eq5}) and (\ref{eq6}) as
166: \begin{eqnarray}
167: \rho^{(+)}(\nu ) &=& \frac{Re\ F^{(+)}(\nu )}{Im\ F^{(+)}(\nu )}
168: = \frac{Re\ R(\nu )+Re\ F_{P^\prime}(\nu )}{Im\ R(\nu )+Im\ F_{P^\prime}(\nu )} \nonumber\\
169: &=& \frac{ \frac{\pi\nu}{2M^2}\left( c_1+2c_2 {\rm log} \frac{\nu}{M} \right)
170: -\frac{\beta_{P^\prime}}{M}\left(\frac{\nu}{M}\right)^{0.5} }{
171: \frac{k\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}(\nu)}{4\pi} }\ .\ \ \
172: \label{eq8}
173: \end{eqnarray}
174: Although the numerator of Eq.~(\ref{eq8}) becomes large for large values of $\nu$,
175: a real constant has to be introduced in principle since the dispersion
176: relation for $Re~F^{(+)}(\nu )$
177: requires a single subtraction constant $F^{(+)}(0)$\cite{[9],[2]}. So,
178: we also add $F^{(+)}(0)$ in the numerator as
179: \begin{eqnarray}
180: \rho^{(+)}(\nu ) &=& \frac{ \frac{\pi\nu}{2M^2}\left( c_1+2c_2 {\rm log} \frac{\nu}{M} \right)
181: -\frac{\beta_{P^\prime}}{M}\left(\frac{\nu}{M}\right)^{0.5} + F^{(+)}(0) }{
182: \frac{k\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}(\nu)}{4\pi} }\ .\ \ \
183: \label{eq9}
184: \end{eqnarray}
185: As will be discussed in the Appendix, the introduction of this constant
186: slightly
187: modifies the value of $\rho^{(+)}(\nu )$ although it will not affect the value of
188: $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$. So, we use the Eq.~(\ref{eq9}) as the value of
189: $\rho^{(+)}(\nu )$ in this analysis.
190:
191: The FESR, Eq.~(\ref{eq7}), has some problem. i.e., there are the so-called
192: unphysical regions coming from boson poles below the $\bar pp$ threshold.
193: So, the contributions from unphysical regions of the first term of the right-hand side
194: of Eq.~(\ref{eq7}) have to be calculated.
195: These contributions can be estimated to be an order of
196: 0.1\% compared
197: with the second term.\cite{[1]}
198: Thus, it can easily be neglected.
199:
200: Therefore, the FESR,
201: the formula of $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$(Eqs.~(\ref{eq1}) and (\ref{eq2}))
202: and the $\rho^{(+)}$ ratio (Eq.~(\ref{eq9})) are our starting points.
203: Armed with the FESR, we express high-energy parameters
204: $c_0,c_1,c_2,\beta_{P^\prime}$ in terms of the integral of total cross sections up to
205: $N$.
206: Using this FESR as a constraint for $\beta_{P^\prime}=\beta_{P^\prime}(c_0,c_1,c_2)$,
207: there are four independent parameters including $F^{(+)}(0)$.
208: We then search for the simultaneous best fit to the data points of $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}(k)$
209: and $\rho^{(+)}(k)$ for 70GeV$\le k \le P_{large}$ corresponding to the SPS energy
210: ($P_{large}\simeq 0.43\times 10^6$GeV ($\sqrt s=0.9$TeV)),
211: to determine the values of $c_0,c_1,c_2$ and $F^{(+)}(0)$ giving the least $\chi^2$.
212: We thus predict the $\sigma_{\rm tot}$ and $\rho^{(+)}$
213: in the Tevatron energy region ($\sqrt s=1.8$TeV).
214:
215: \section{Predictions for $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$ and $\rho^{(+)}$ at $\sqrt s =
216: 1.8$TeV}
217:
218: Using the data up to $\sqrt s = 0.9$TeV ( SPS ), we predict $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$
219: and $\rho^{(+)}$ at the Tevatron energy ( $\sqrt s = 1.8$TeV ).\\
220:
221: \underline{Analysis 1}:\ \ \ As was explained in the general approach (\S 2),
222: both $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$ and $Re~F^{(+)}$ data
223: in $70{\rm GeV} < k < P_{large} = 4.3\times 10^5{\rm GeV} (\sqrt s = 0.9{\rm TeV}$ )
224: are fitted simultaneously through the formula of
225: $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$ ( Eqs.~(\ref{eq1}) and (\ref{eq2}))
226: and the $\rho^{(+)}$ ratio ( Eq.~(\ref{eq9})) with the FESR ( Eq.~(\ref{eq7})) as a
227: constraint.
228:
229: The $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}(k)$ data points are obtained by averaging
230: $\sigma^{\bar pp}_{\rm tot}$ and $\sigma^{pp}_{\rm tot}$ data points\cite{PDG}
231: when they are listed at the same value of $k$. For the details of data treatment
232: of $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$ and $Re~F^{(+)}$, see ref.~\citen{[1]}.
233: %
234: The FESR gives us
235: \begin{eqnarray}
236: 8.87 &=& c_0 + 2.04 c_1 + 4.26 c_2 + 0.367 \beta_{P^\prime}
237: \label{eqFESR}
238: \end{eqnarray}
239: (Eq.~(12) of ref.~\citen{[1]}),
240: where we use the central value of $\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_0^{\overline{N}}
241: k^2 \sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}(k)=3403\pm 20$GeV\footnote{
242: This value is obtained by numerically
243: integrating the experimental $k^2 \sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}=k^2 (\sigma_{\rm tot}^{\bar pp}
244: +\sigma_{\rm tot}^{pp})/2$. See, ref.~\citen{[1]} for details.
245: }
246: for $\overline{N}=10$GeV in Eq.~(\ref{eq7}).
247:
248: The result of the fit is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
249: The values of parameters and resulting $\chi^2$ are given in Tables \ref{tab1} and \ref{tab2},
250: respectively.
251:
252: \begin{figure}
253: \includegraphics{fzSPS.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art
254: \caption{\label{fig1}
255: Predictions for $\sigma^{(+)}$ and $\rho^{(+)}$ in terms of
256: the Analysis 1.
257: The fit is done for the data up to SPS energy, in the region
258: 70GeV$\le$ $k$ $\le$ $4.3\times10^5$GeV(11.5GeV $\le \sqrt s \le$ 0.9TeV)
259: which is shown by the arrow.
260: Total cross section $\sigma^{(+)}_{\rm tot}$ in
261: (a) all energy region, versus log$_{10}P_{lab}/$GeV,
262: (b) low energy region (up to ISR energy), versus $P_{lab}/$GeV and
263: (c) high energy (Tevatron-collider, LHC and cosmic-ray energy) region,
264: versus center of mass energy $E_{cm}$ in TeV unit.
265: (d) gives the $\rho^{(+)}(=Re\ F^{(+)}/Im\ F^{(+)})$ in high energy region,
266: versus $E_{cm}$ in terms of TeV.
267: The thin dot-dashed lines represent the one standard deviation
268: of $c_2$.(See the caption in Table \ref{tab1}.) The corresponding values of parameters are
269: $(c_2,c_1,c_0,\beta_{P^\prime},F^{(+)}(0))=
270: (0.0466\pm 0.0047,-0.161\mp 0.077,6.27\pm 0.31,7.45\mp 0.48,12.65\pm 0.69)$.
271: }
272: \end{figure}
273:
274: \begin{table}
275: \caption{
276: The values of parameters in the best fit to the data up to SPS energy ($\sqrt s=0.9$TeV)
277: in the analysis 1(fit to the data in $70{\rm GeV} < k < P_{large} = 4.3\times 10^5{\rm GeV}$ ).
278: The error estimations are done as follows: The $c_2$ is fixed with
279: a value deviated a little from the best-fit value, and then the $\chi^2$-fit
280: is done by three parameters $c_0$, $c_1$ and $F^{(+)}(0)$,
281: where $\beta_{P^\prime}$ is represented by the other parameters through FESR(Eq.~(\ref{eqFESR})).
282: When the resulting $\chi^2$ is larger than the least $\chi^2$ of the four-parameter fit by one,
283: the corresponding value of $c_2$ gives one standard deviation.
284: The higher and lower dot-dashed lines in Fig.~\ref{fig1}
285: represent this deviation of $c_2$.
286: The errors of the other parameters are estimated through similar procedures.
287: }
288: \begin{center}
289: \begin{tabular}{c|ccccc|}
290: & $c_2$ & $c_1$ & $c_0$ & $\beta_{P^\prime}$ & $F^{(+)}(0)$ \\
291: \hline
292: Analysis 1 & $0.0466\pm 0.0047$ & $-0.161\mp 0.078$ & $6.27\pm 0.33$ & $7.45\mp 0.51$ & $12.65\pm 5.66$\\
293: \hline
294: \end{tabular}
295: \end{center}
296: \label{tab1}
297: \end{table}
298:
299: \begin{table}
300: \caption{ The values of $\chi^2$ for the fit to data in
301: $70{\rm GeV} < k < P_{large} = 4.3\times 10^5{\rm GeV}$(Analysis 1):
302: $N_F$ and $N_\sigma (N_\rho )$ are the degree of freedom and
303: the number of $\sigma^{(+)}_{\rm tot}(\rho^{(+)})$ data points in the fitted energy region.
304: }
305: \begin{center}
306: \begin{tabular}{c|ccc|}
307: & $\chi^2/N_F$
308: & $\chi^2_{\sigma}/N_{\sigma}$ & $\chi^2_{\rho}/N_{\rho}$ \\
309: \hline
310: Analysis 1 & 8.1/20 & 5.7/17 & 2.4/8\\
311: \hline
312: \end{tabular}
313: \end{center}
314: \label{tab2}
315: \end{table}
316:
317: In terms of the best-fit values of parameters in Table \ref{tab1}
318: the predictions at $\sqrt s = 1.8$TeV are obtained as
319: \begin{eqnarray}
320: \sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)} &=& 75.9 \pm 1.0\ {\rm mb},\ \
321: \rho^{(+)} = 0.136 \pm 0.005\ , \ \
322: \label{eq10}
323: \end{eqnarray}
324: where the errors correspond to the
325: one standard deviation of $c_2$, since
326: the $c_2$log$^2(\nu /M)$-term in Eq.~(\ref{eq2}) is most relevant for predicting
327: $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$ in high energy region. (See the caption in Table \ref{tab1}.)
328:
329:
330: The equation (\ref{eq10}) has to be compared with the experimental values at $\sqrt s =
331: 1.8$TeV;
332: \begin{eqnarray}
333: \sigma_{\rm tot}^{\bar pp}(E811) &=& 71.71 \pm 2.02\ {\rm mb},\ \nonumber\\
334: \sigma_{\rm tot}^{\bar pp}(E710) &=& 72.8 \pm 3.1\ {\rm mb},\ \nonumber\\
335: \sigma_{\rm tot}^{\bar pp}(CDF) &=& 80.03 \pm 2.24\ {\rm mb},\ \
336: \label{eq11}
337: \end{eqnarray}
338: where we note that the difference between $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{\bar pp}$ and
339: $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$ is negligible at the relevant energy.
340: It is worthwhile to notice that only the data of E710\cite{E710} is consistent with the
341: prediction, Eq.~(\ref{eq10}) in the one standard deviation ( $72.8+3.1=75.9$ ).
342:
343: If one tolerates two standard deviations, both CDF\cite{CDF} ($80.03-2.24\times 2=75.55$)
344: and E811\cite{E811}($71.71+2.02\times 2=75.75$) are consistent with the predictions Eq.~(\ref{eq10}).
345: So we can conclude that E710 is preferable but we can exclude neither CDF nor
346: E811 results.
347:
348: The predictions at LHC energy ($\sqrt s = 14$TeV) in terms of the best fit
349: values of high-energy parameters in Table \ref{tab1} are
350: \begin{eqnarray}
351: \sigma_{\rm tot}^{pp} &=& 107.2 \pm 2.8\ {\rm mb},\ \
352: \rho^{pp} = 0.128 \pm 0.005\ , \ \
353: \label{eq12}
354: \end{eqnarray}
355: where the errors correspond to one standard deviation of $c_2$.
356: We should note that Eq.~(\ref{eq12}) is consistent with the recent prediction by
357: Block and Halzen\cite{BH},
358: $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{pp} = 107.3 \pm 1.2\ {\rm mb},\ \
359: \rho^{pp} = 0.132 \pm 0.001$.\\
360:
361: \underline{An interesting observation}:\ \ \ \
362: We can make the following interesting observation.
363: We fitted
364: the data for $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$ and $\rho^{(+)}$ above 70GeV,
365: as is shown by the arrow
366: in the Fig.~1(a), Fig.~1(d) to predict higher-energy data.
367: It is interesting
368: to observe that the prediction of $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$ are also in good agreement
369: with experiments, even below 70GeV.
370: The reason is as follows: The requirement of FESR,
371: Eq.~(\ref{eq7}) is nearly equal to require that the theoretical value of $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$ is
372: nearly equal to the experimental value at the upper limit of the integral
373: $N=10$GeV since higher side of the integral is enhanced because of $k^2$
374: in the integral.
375:
376: Because of this observation, we can apply the same formula to fit the data in the lower energy region
377: than in the analysis 1.\\
378:
379: \underline{Analysis 2}:\ \ \ \ Data
380: in $10{\rm GeV} < k < P_{large} = 4.3\times 10^5{\rm GeV}
381: (4.54{\rm GeV} < \sqrt s < 0.9{\rm TeV}$ )
382: are fitted through the same formula in the analysis 1.
383: Additionally 15(2) data points are included in $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}\ ( Re~F^{(+)} )$.
384:
385: The result of the fit is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}.
386: The values of parameters and resulting $\chi^2$ are given in Tables \ref{tab3} and \ref{tab4},
387: respectively.
388:
389: \begin{figure}
390: \includegraphics{N10SPS.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art
391: \caption{\label{fig2}
392: Predictions for $\sigma^{(+)}$ and $\rho^{(+)}$ in terms of
393: the Analysis 2.
394: The fit is done for the data up to SPS energy, in the region
395: 10GeV$\le$ $k$ $\le$ $4.3\times10^5$GeV(4.54GeV $\le \sqrt s \le$ 0.9TeV)
396: which is shown by the arrow.
397: For each figure, see the caption in Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
398: The thin dot-dashed lines represent the one standard deviation
399: of $c_2$.(See the caption in Table \ref{tab1}.) The corresponding values of parameters are
400: $(c_2,c_1,c_0,\beta_{P^\prime},F^{(+)}(0))=
401: (0.0479\pm 0.0037,-0.186\mp 0.056,6.38\pm 0.21,7.26\mp 0.31,10.19\pm 0.31)$.
402: }
403: \end{figure}
404:
405: \begin{table}
406: \caption{
407: The values of parameters in the best fit to the data up to the SPS energy ($\sqrt s=0.9$TeV)
408: in the analysis 2(fit to the data in $10{\rm GeV} < k < P_{large} = 4.3\times 10^5{\rm GeV}$ ).
409: We obtain smaller error of $F^{(+)}(0)$
410: than in analysis 1(Table \ref{tab1}), since, as is seen in Eq.~(\ref{eq9}),
411: $F^{(+)}(0)$ has sizable effects only in the low energy region.
412: For errors, see the caption in Table \ref{tab1}.
413: }
414: \begin{center}
415: \begin{tabular}{c|ccccc|}
416: & $c_2$ & $c_1$ & $c_0$ & $\beta_{P^\prime}$ & $F^{(+)}(0)$ \\
417: \hline
418: Analysis 2 & $0.0479\pm 0.0037$ & $-0.186\mp 0.057$ & $6.38\pm 0.22$ & $7.26\mp 0.33$ & $10.19\pm 1.72$\\
419: \hline
420: \end{tabular}
421: \end{center}
422: \label{tab3}
423: \end{table}
424:
425: \begin{table}
426: \caption{ The values of $\chi^2$ for the fit to data in
427: $10{\rm GeV} < k < P_{large} = 4.3\times 10^5{\rm GeV}$(Analysis 2).
428: For
429: $N_F$ and $N_\sigma (N_\rho )$, see the caption in Table.~\ref{tab2}.
430: }
431: \begin{center}
432: \begin{tabular}{c|ccc|}
433: & $\chi^2/N_F$
434: & $\chi^2_{\sigma}/N_{\sigma}$ & $\chi^2_{\rho}/N_{\rho}$ \\
435: \hline
436: Analysis 2 & 14.1/37 & 8.8/32 & 5.3/10\\
437: \hline
438: \end{tabular}
439: \end{center}
440: \label{tab4}
441: \end{table}
442:
443: The predictions at LHC energy ($\sqrt s = 14$TeV) in terms of the best fit
444: values of high-energy parameters in Table \ref{tab3} are
445: \begin{eqnarray}
446: \sigma_{\rm tot}^{pp} &=& 107.8 \pm 2.4\ {\rm mb},\ \
447: \rho^{pp} = 0.129 \pm 0.004\ , \ \
448: \label{eq13}
449: \end{eqnarray}
450: where the errors correspond to the one standard deviation of $c_2$.
451: Essentially the same prediction are obtained as Eq.~(\ref{eq12}) of the analysis 1,
452: although the errors are slightly smaller.
453: Our result is stable independently of the choices of the fitting energy range.
454:
455:
456: \section{Concluding remarks}
457:
458: In \S 3, we have investigated a possibility to resolve the discrepancy
459: between E710, E811 and CDF, using the experimental data of $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$
460: and $\rho^{(+)}$ up to the SPS experiments ($\sqrt s = 0.9$TeV).
461:
462: We came to the conclusion that only the data of E710 is consistent with
463: the prediction, Eq.~(\ref{eq10}) in the one standard deviation although we can
464: exclude neither CDF nor E811 results in the two standard deviations. In our
465: previous paper, ref.~\citen{[1]} we concluded that the precise measurements
466: of $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{pp}$ in the coming LHC measurements will resolve this
467: discrepancy at $\sqrt s =1.8$TeV.
468: It would still be worthwhile , however, to fix this problem in the
469: CDF and D0 experiments, since these values play an important role to search
470: for $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$ and $\rho^{(+)}$ in the higher energy regions.
471:
472:
473:
474: %\section*{Acknowledgements}
475: %We would like to thank ...........
476:
477:
478: \appendix
479: \section{Reanalysis of our predictions at the LHC ($\sqrt s$=14TeV)
480: with $F^{(+)}(0)$ parameter} %Empty argument \section{} yields `Appendix'.
481:
482: In our previous work\cite{[1]},
483: we exploited the experimental data $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$
484: and $\rho^{(+)}$ above $P_{lab}$=70GeV up to Tevatron energy ($\sqrt s=1.8$TeV)
485: to predict $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$
486: and $\rho^{(+)}$ in the LHC region, based on Eq.~(\ref{eq8}) of $\rho^{(+)}$, not by Eq.~(\ref{eq9}).
487: Although
488: the effect of the parameter $F^{(+)}(0)$ in the new formula (Eq.~(\ref{eq9}))
489: is not large
490: in the high energy region, we show the results of the analyses based on Eq.~(\ref{eq9})
491: here for completeness.
492:
493: Corresponding to ref.~\citen{[1]}
494: two independent analyses are done: one includes the E710$/$E811 data at $\sqrt s$=1.8TeV
495: denoted as fit 2 in ref.~\citen{[1]},
496: and the other includes the CDF datum of $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$ at the same energy
497: denoted as fit 3 in ref.~\citen{[1]}.
498: %
499: The results of the simultaneous fit to $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$
500: and $\rho^{(+)}$ are compared with the previous results\cite{[1]}
501: in Fig.~\ref{Ap}. The fit to $\rho^{(+)}$ is slightly improved in the lower energy region, while
502: the result of $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$ is almost the same as the previous one.
503: %
504: \begin{figure}
505: \includegraphics{fzAppendix.eps}
506: \caption{\label{Ap} Predictions for $\sigma^{(+)}$ and $\rho^{(+)}$
507: compared with the previous results:
508: The new results using $F^{(+)}(0)$ parameter are shown by right figures, (b) and (d), respectively,
509: which are compared with the left figures, (a) and (c), of the previous analyses.\cite{[1]}
510: Predictions in terms of the fit 2(3) are shown by
511: green(blue) lines, and
512: the thin dot-dashed lines represent the one standard deviation of $c_2$.
513: (See the caption in Table \ref{tab1}.)
514: The corresponding values of parameters are given in Table \ref{ap1}. }
515: \end{figure}
516: %
517: The obtained values of parameters and the resulting $\chi^2$ are given in
518: Table \ref{ap1} and Table \ref{ap2},
519: respectively.
520: %
521: \begin{table}
522: \caption{
523: The best-fit values of parameters in the
524: fit 2 (fit up to Tevatron-collider energy including E710/811 data) and
525: fit 3 (including CDF datum).
526: The errors here correspond to the one standard deviation of $c_2$.
527: (See the caption in Table \ref{tab1} .)
528: }
529: \begin{center}
530: \begin{tabular}{c|ccccc|}
531: & $c_2$ & $c_1$ & $c_0$ & $\beta_{P^\prime}$ & $F^{(+)}(0)$ \\
532: \hline
533: fit 2 & $0.0424\pm 0.0041$ & $-0.099\mp 0.069$ & $6.04\pm 0.28$ & $7.61\mp 1.55$ & $12.48\pm 0.73$\\
534: fit 3 & $0.0496\pm 0.0043$ & $-0.205\mp 0.072$ & $6.44\pm 0.29$ & $7.20\mp 0.81$ & $12.78\pm 0.72$\\
535: \hline
536: \end{tabular}
537: \end{center}
538: \label{ap1}
539: \end{table}
540:
541: \begin{table}
542: \caption{ The values of $\chi^2$ for the fit 2 and fit 3.
543: $N_F$ and $N_\sigma (N_\rho )$ are the degree of freedom and
544: the number of $\sigma^{(+)}_{\rm tot}(\rho^{(+)})$ data points in the fitted energy region.
545: }
546: \begin{center}
547: \begin{tabular}{c|ccc|}
548: & $\chi^2/N_F$
549: & $\chi^2_{\sigma}/N_{\sigma}$ & $\chi^2_{\rho}/N_{\rho}$ \\
550: \hline
551: fit 2 & 11.6/22 & 7.9/18 & 3.7/9\\
552: fit 3 & 10.9/22 & 8.7/18 & 2.1/9\\
553: \hline
554: \end{tabular}
555: \end{center}
556: \label{ap2}
557: \end{table}
558:
559: The fit to $\rho^{(+)}$ in the lower energy region is improved in comparison with the previous result,
560: as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{Ap}. Correspondingly
561: much smaller $\chi^2_\rho$ is obtained in Table \ref{ap2}, which is
562: compared with the previous values, $\chi^2_\rho$=8.4(6.9) for fit 2(3)\cite{[1]}.
563:
564: Predicted values of $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$ and $\rho^{(+)}$
565: at LHC energy($\sqrt s$=14TeV) and at cosmic-ray energy ($P_{lab}$=$5\times 10^{20}$eV)
566: are given in Table \ref{ap3}.
567:
568: \begin{table}
569: \caption{
570: The predictions of $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$ and $\rho^{(+)}$
571: at the LHC energy $\sqrt{s}=E_{cm}=14$TeV($P_{lab}$=1.04$\times 10^8$GeV), and
572: at a very high energy $P_{lab}=5\cdot 10^{20}$eV
573: ($\sqrt s$=$E_{cm}$=967TeV.)
574: in the cosmic-ray region. The errors correspond to one standard deviation of $c_2$.
575: }
576: \begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc|}
577: & $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$({\scriptsize $\sqrt s$=14TeV})
578: & $\rho^{(+)}$({\scriptsize $\sqrt s$=14TeV})
579: & $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{(+)}$({\scriptsize $P_{lab}$=$5\cdot 10^{20}$eV})
580: & $\rho^{(+)}$({\scriptsize $P_{lab}$=$5\cdot 10^{20}$eV})\\
581: \hline
582: fit 2 & $104.2\pm 2.3$mb & $0.123\pm 0.004$
583: & $191\pm 8$mb & $0.100\pm 0.003$\\
584: fit 3 & $109.3\pm 2.4$mb & $0.130\pm 0.004$
585: & $206\pm 8$mb & $0.105\pm 0.003$\\
586: \hline
587: %our pred. & $106.3\pm 5.1_{\rm syst} \pm 2.4_{\rm stat}$mb
588: % & $0.126\pm 0.007_{\rm syst}\pm 0.004_{\rm stat}$
589: % & $196\pm 15_{\rm syst} \pm 8_{\rm stat}$mb
590: % & $0.102\pm 0.004_{\rm syst}\pm 0.003_{\rm stat}$\\
591: %\hline
592: \end{tabular}
593: \label{ap3}
594: \end{table}
595:
596: The predictions combining the two results in Table \ref{ap3} are
597: \begin{eqnarray}
598: \sigma_{\rm tot}^{\bar pp} &=& 106.8\pm 5.1_{\rm syst} \pm 2.4_{\rm stat}\ {\rm mb},\ \
599: \rho^{\bar pp} = 0.127\pm 0.007_{\rm syst}\pm 0.004_{\rm stat}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \nonumber\\
600: \sigma_{\rm tot}^{pp} &=& 198\pm 16_{\rm syst} \pm 8_{\rm stat}\ {\rm mb},\ \
601: \rho^{pp} = 0.103\pm 0.004_{\rm syst}\pm 0.003_{\rm stat}\ \ \ \ \ \ \
602: \label{Aeq1}
603: \end{eqnarray}
604: at the LHC energy($\sqrt s=E_{cm}=14$TeV) and the cosmic-ray energy ($P_{lab}=5\times 10^{20}$eV),
605: respectively.
606: The above results are almost the same as the previous ones,
607: Eq.~(13) of ref.~\citen{[1]}.
608: %Systematic errors are taken as differences of two predictions in the best fits.
609: Here we obtain fairly large systematic uncertainty again
610: coming from the data treatment at the Tevatron-energy.
611:
612:
613: %\section{Second Appendix}
614:
615:
616: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
617: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
618: % Some macros are available for the bibliography:
619: % o for general use
620: % \JL : general journals \andvol : Vol (Year) Page
621: % o for individual journal
622: % \AJ : Astrophys. J. \NC : Nuovo Cim.
623: % \ANN : Ann. of Phys. \NPA, \NPB : Nucl. Phys. [A,B]
624: % \CMP : Commun. Math. Phys. \PLA, \PLB : Phys. Lett. [A,B]
625: % \IJMP : Int. J. Mod. Phys. \PRA - \PRE : Phys. Rev. [A-E]
626: % \JHEP : J. High Energy Phys. \PRL : Phys. Rev. Lett.
627: % \JMP : J. Math. Phys. \PRP : Phys. Rep.
628: % \JP : J. of Phys. \PTP : Prog. Theor. Phys.
629: % \JPSJ : J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \PTPS : Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.
630: % Usage:
631: % \PRD{45,1990,345} ==> Phys.~Rev.\ \textbf{D45} (1990), 345
632: % \JL{Nature,418,2002,123} ==> Nature \textbf{418} (2002), 123
633: % \andvol{B123,1995,1020} ==> \textbf{B123} (1995), 1020
634: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
635: \bibitem{[1]} K.~Igi and M.~Ishida, Phys.~Lett.~B {\bf 622} (2005), 286
636: \bibitem{[2]} M.~M.~Block and F.~Halzen, Phys.~Rev.~D {\bf 72} (2005),
637: 036006: Erratum 039902.
638: \bibitem{BH} M.~M.~Block and F.~Halzen, hep-ph/0510238.
639: \bibitem{[3]} M.~Honda et al. (Akeno Collab.), Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~{\bf 70} (1993), 525.
640: \bibitem{[4]} R.~M.Baltrusaitis et al. (Fly's Eye Collab.), Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~{\bf 52} (1984), 1380
641: \bibitem{[5]} M.~M.~Block, F.~Halzen and T.~Stanev, Phys.~Rev.~D{\bf 62} (2000), 077501.
642: \bibitem{E710} N.~A.~Amos, et al., E-710 Collaboration, Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~{\bf 68} (1992), 2433.
643: \bibitem{E811} C.~Avila, et al., E-811 Collaboration, Phys.~Lett.~B {\bf 445} (1999), 419.
644: \bibitem{CDF} F.~Abe, et al., CDF Collaboration, Phys.~Rev.~D {\bf 50} (1994), 5550.
645: \bibitem{[6]} K.~Igi and M.~Ishida, Phys.~Rev.~D {\bf 66} (2002), 034023.
646: \bibitem{[7]} K.~Igi and S.~Matsuda, Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~{\bf 18} (1967), 625.
647: \bibitem{[8]} R.~Dolen, D.~Horn and C.~Schmid, Phys.~Rev.~{\bf 166} (1968), 1768.
648: \bibitem{[9]} M.~M.~Block and R.~N.~Cahn, Rev.~Mod.~Phys.~{\bf 57} (1985), 563.
649: \bibitem{PDG} Particle Data Group, S.~Eidelman et al.,
650: Phys.~Lett.~B~{\bf 592} (2004), 313.
651: \end{thebibliography}
652: \end{document}
653:
654:
655:
656:
657:
658:
659:
660:
661:
662:
663:
664:
665:
666:
667: