1: %

2: \documentclass[prd,showkeys,twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

3: %\documentclass[preprint,showkeys,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

4: 

5: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities

6: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}

7: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}

8: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B

9: 

10: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

11: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point

12: \usepackage{bm}% bold math

13: 

14: 

15: \renewcommand{\d}{\mathrm{d}}

16: \renewcommand{\Re}{\mathrm{Re\:}}

17: \renewcommand{\Im}{\mathrm{Im\:}}

18: \newcommand{\e}{\mathrm{e}}

19: 

20: %\nofiles

21: 

22: \begin{document}

23: 

24: \title{Derivative dispersion relations above the physical threshold}

25: 

26: \author{R.F. \'Avila}

27: \affiliation{%

28: Instituto de Matem\'atica, Estat\'{\i}stica e

29: Computa\c c\~ao Cient\'{\i}fica\\

30: Universidade Estadual de Campinas, UNICAMP\\

31: 13083-970 Campinas, SP, Brazil}

32: \author{M.J. Menon}

33: \email{menon@ifi.unicamp.br}

34: \affiliation{%

35: Instituto de F\'{\i}sica Gleb Wataghin\\

36: Universidade Estadual de Campinas, UNICAMP\\

37: 13083-970 Campinas, SP, Brazil}

38: 

39: \date{\today}% It is always \today, today,

40:              %  but any date may be explicitly specified

41: 

42: 

43: \begin{abstract}

44: We discuss some formal and practical aspects related to the 

45: replacement of Integral Dispersion Relations (IDR) by derivative 

46: forms, \textit{without high-energy approximations}. We first 

47: demonstrate that, for a class of functions with physical interest

48: as forward scattering amplitudes, this replacement can be analytically

49: performed, leading to novel Extended Derivative Dispersion Relations

50: (EDDR), which, in principle, are valid for any energy above the

51: physical threshold. We then verify the equivalence between the IDR and

52: EDDR by means of a popular parametrization for total cross sections 

53: from proton-proton and antiproton-proton scattering and compare the 

54: results with those obtained through other representations for the 

55: derivative relations. Critical aspects on the limitations of the whole

56: analysis, from both formal and practical points of view, are also 

57: discussed in some detail.

58: \end{abstract}

59: 

60: \pacs{ 13.85.Dz, 13.85.Lg, 13.85.-t}

61: 

62: \keywords{

63: elastic hadron scattering; dispersion relations; high energies}

64: 

65: \vspace{0.5cm}

66: 

67: \centerline{Published in \textit{Brazilian Journal of Physics} \textbf{37}, 358

68: (2007)}

69: 

70: \vspace{0.5cm}

71: 

72: \maketitle

73: 

74: 

75: 

76: 

77: \section{Introduction}

78: 

79: Elastic hadron scattering constitutes a hard challenge for QCD. The

80: problem concerns the large distances involved (confinement), which

81: renders difficult the development of a formal nonperturbative

82: calculational scheme for scattering states, able to describe soft

83: diffractive processes. At this stage Analyticity, Unitarity, Crossing

84: and their consequences, still represent a fundamental framework for

85: the development of theoretical ideas, aimed to reach efficient

86: descriptions of the experimental data involved. In this context,

87: dispersion relations, connecting real and imaginary parts of the

88: scattering amplitude, play an important role as a useful mathematical

89: tool, in the simultaneous investigation of particle-particle and

90: antiparticle-particle scattering.

91: 

92: Dispersion relations in integral form, for hadronic amplitudes, were

93: introduced in the sixties, as consequences of the Cauchy's theorem and

94: the analytic properties of the scattering amplitude, dictated by 

95: unitarity \cite{idr1,idr2,bc}. However, two kinds of limitations

96: characterize this \textit{integral} approach: (1) its nonlocal 

97: character (in order to evaluate the real part, the imaginary part must

98: be known in all the integration space); (2) the restricted class of 

99: functions that allows analytical integration. Later on it was shown

100: that, for hadronic forward elastic scattering 

101: \textit{in the region of high and asymptotic energies}, these integral

102: relations can be replaced by derivative forms \cite{fddr,bks,kn}. 

103: Since then, the formal replacement of integral by derivative relations

104: and their practical use have been widely discussed in the literature

105: \cite{ed,hk,hjk,bd,ddr-others,kf,kf-blois}, mainly in the seminal 

106: papers by Kol\'a\v{r} and Fischer \cite{kf,kf-blois}. See  

107: Ref. \cite{am04} for a recent critical review on the subject.

108: 

109: Despite the  results that have been obtained with the 

110: \textit{derivative} approach, the high-energy condition (specifically,

111: center-of-mass energies above 10 - 20 GeV) turns out difficult any

112: attempt to perform global fits to the experimental data connecting 

113: information from low and high energy regions. A first step in this 

114: direction appears in Ref. \cite{cms}, where  new representations for

115: the derivative relations, extended to low energies, have been

116: introduced by Cudell, Martynov and Selyugin and to which we shall 

117: refer in what follows. However, a rigorous formal extension of the 

118: derivative dispersion relations down to the physical threshold,

119: providing a complete analytical equivalence between integral and 

120: differential approaches, is still missing and that is the point we are

121: interested in.

122: 

123: In this work, we first demonstrate that, for a class of functions of 

124: physical interest as forward elastic scattering amplitudes, the 

125: integral relations can be analytically replaced by derivative forms

126: without the high-energy approximation. Therefore, in principle, for

127: this class of functions, derivative relations hold for any energy 

128: above the physical threshold. We then check the consistences of the

129: results obtained with the integral relations and the extended 

130: derivative dispersion relations  by means of a simple analytical 

131: parametrization for the total cross sections from proton-proton ($pp$)

132: and antiproton-proton ($\bar{p}p$) scattering (highest energy interval

133: with available data). In addition, we compare the results with those 

134: obtained through the standard derivative relations (high-energy 

135: condition) and the derivative representation by 

136: Cudell-Matynov-Selyugin. We shall show that, above the physical 

137: threshold, only the extended relations lead to exactly the same 

138: results as those obtained with integral forms. We proceed with a 

139: critical discussion on the limitations of our analysis from both 

140: formal and practical points of view.

141: 

142: The manuscript is organized as follows. In Sec. \ref{sec:DR} we recall

143: the main formulas and some conditions involving the 

144: \textit{Integral Dispersion Relations} (IDR), the \textit{standard 

145: Derivative Dispersion Relations} (sDDR) and the 

146: \textit{Cudell-Martynov-Selyugin representations} (CMSr); we also

147: present, in certain detail, the replacement of IDR by the 

148: \textit{Extended Derivative Dispersion Relations} (EDDR). In Sec. 

149: \ref{sec:pra} we check the consistences and exemplify the 

150: applicability of all these results in simultaneous fits to the total 

151: cross section and the ratio $\rho$ of the real to imaginary parts of 

152: the forward amplitude, from $pp$ and $\bar{p}p$ scattering. In Sec.

153: \ref{sec:critical} we present a critical discussion on all the 

154: obtained results. The conclusions and some final remarks are the 

155: contents of Sec. \ref{sec:conclusions}.

156: 

157: 

158: \section{Dispersion Relations \label{sec:DR}}

159: 

160: \subsection{Integral Dispersion Relations \textrm{(IDR)}}

161: 

162: First, it is important to recall that Analyticity, Unitarity and 

163: Crossing lead to IDR for the scattering amplitudes in terms of a 

164: \textit{crossing symmetric variable}. For an elastic process, 

165: $m + m \rightarrow m + m$, in the forward direction, this variable 

166: corresponds to the energy of the incident particle in the laboratory

167: system, $E$ \cite{idr1}. In this context and taking into account

168: polynomial boundedness, the one subtracted IDR for crossing even ($+$)

169: and odd ($-$) amplitudes, in the physical region 

170: ($E:m \rightarrow \infty$), read \cite{idr1,idr2,bc}

171: 

172: \begin{equation}

173: \Re F_{+}(E)= K + \frac{2E^{2}}{\pi}P\!\!\!\int_{m}^{+\infty}

174: \!\!\!\d E'

175: \frac{1}{E'(E'^{2}-E^{2})}\Im F_{+}(E'),

176: \label{eq:idre}

177: \end{equation}

178: \begin{equation}

179: \Re F_{-}(E)=  \frac{2E}{\pi}P\!\!\!\int_{m}^{+\infty} \!\!\!

180: \d E'

181: \frac{1}{(E'^{2}-E^{2})}\Im F_{-}(E'),

182: \label{eq:idro}

183: \end{equation}

184: where $K$ is the subtraction constant.

185: 

186: The connections with the hadronic amplitudes for crossed channels,

187: such as $pp$ and $\bar{p}p$ elastic scattering,

188: are given by the usual definitions:

189: 

190: \begin{equation}

191: F_{pp} = F_{+} + F_{-} \qquad

192: F_{\bar{p}p} = F_{+} - F_{-}.

193: \label{eq:3}

194: \end{equation}

195: 

196: 

197: The main practical use of the IDR concerns simultaneous investigations

198: on the total cross section (Optical Theorem) and the ratio $\rho$ of 

199: the real to imaginary parts of the forward amplitude, which is also 

200: our interest here. In terms of the crossing symmetric variable $E$ 

201: these physical quantities are given, respectively, by \cite{bc}

202: 

203:  \begin{equation}

204: \sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}

205: =\frac{4\pi}{\sqrt{E^2-m^2}} \Im F(E,\theta_{\mathrm{lab}}=0),

206: \label{eq:tcs}

207: \end{equation}

208: 

209: \begin{equation}

210: \rho(E) = \frac{\Re F(E,\theta_{\mathrm{lab}}=0)}

211: {\Im F(E,\theta_{\mathrm{lab}}=0)},

212: \label{eq:rho}

213: \end{equation}

214: where $\theta_{\mathrm{lab}}$ is the scattering angle in the 

215: laboratory system.

216: 

217: 

218: \subsection{Standard Derivative Dispersion Relations 

219: \textrm{(sDDR)}\label{sec:SDDR}}

220: 

221: Basically, at high energies, the replacement of IDR by sDDR is 

222: analytically performed by considering the limit $m \rightarrow 0$ in

223: Eqs. (\ref{eq:idre}) and (\ref{eq:idro}) \cite{bks,am04}. It should be

224: recalled that an additional high-energy approximation is considered in

225: these integral equations, when they are expressed in terms of the 

226: center-of-mass energy squared $s =2(m^2 + mE)$ and not $E$ \cite{bks}.

227: However, based on a rigorous replacement (discussed in 

228: Sec. \ref{sec:EDDR}), we consider the derivative relations in terms of

229: the crossing symmetric variable $E$. In this case the sDDR read  

230: \cite{bks,kf,am04}

231: 

232: \begin{equation}

233: \Re F_{+}(E)= K +

234: E\tan\left[\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\ln E} \right]

235: \frac{\Im F_{+}(E)}{E},

236: \label{eq:sddre}

237: \end{equation}

238: 

239: \begin{equation}

240: \Re F_{-}(E)

241: =\tan\left[\frac{\pi}{2}

242: \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\ln E} \right]

243: \Im F_{-}(E).

244: \label{eq:sddro}

245: \end{equation}

246: 

247: Necessary and sufficient conditions for the convergence of the

248: above tangent series have been established by Kol\'a\v{r} and Fischer,

249: in particular through the following theorem \cite{kf}:

250: 

251: \newtheorem{guess}{Theorem \label{theo:1}}

252: \begin{guess}

253: Let $f: R^1 \rightarrow R^1$. The series

254: 

255: \begin{eqnarray}

256: \tan\left[\frac{\pi}{2} \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x} \right] f(x)

257: \nonumber

258: \end{eqnarray}

259: converges at a point $x \in R^1$ if and only if the series

260: \begin{eqnarray}

261: \sum_{n=o}^{\infty} f^{(2n + 1)}(x)

262: \nonumber

263: \end{eqnarray}

264: is convergent.

265: \end{guess}

266: 

267: For example, in the case of $f(x) = e^{\gamma x}$, $\gamma$ a real 

268: constant, the ratio test demands $|\gamma| < 1$ for the series to be 

269: absolutely convergent (which will be our interest in 

270: Sec. \ref{sec:pra}).

271: 

272: 

273: \subsection{Cudell-Martynov-Selyugin Representations 

274: \textrm{(CMSr)}\label{sec:CMSR}}

275: 

276: Recently, the following representations have been introduced for the

277: derivative dispersion relations \cite{cms}

278: 

279: \begin{eqnarray}

280: \Re F_{+}(E)&=& K +

281: E\tan\left[\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\ln E} \right]

282: \frac{\Im F_{+}(E)}{E} \nonumber \\

283: &&-

284: \frac{2}{\pi}

285: \sum_{p=0}^{\infty}

286: \frac{C_+(p)}{2p+1}\left(\frac{m}{E}\right)^{2p},

287: \label{eq:cmsre}

288: \end{eqnarray}

289: where,

290: 

291: \begin{displaymath}

292: C_+(p)=\frac{\e^{-\xi D_\xi}}{2p+1+D_\xi}

293: \left[\Im F_+(E)-E\Im F'_+(E)\right].

294: \end{displaymath}

295: and

296: 

297: \begin{eqnarray}

298: \Re F_{-}(E)&=&

299: -E\cot\left[\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\ln E} \right]

300: \frac{\Im F_{-}(E)}{E} \nonumber \\

301: &-&

302: \frac{2}{\pi}

303: \sum_{p=0}^{\infty}

304: \frac{C_-(p)}{2p+1}\left(\frac{m}{E}\right)^{2p+1},

305: \label{eq:cmsro}

306: \end{eqnarray}

307: where

308: 

309: \begin{displaymath}

310: C_-(p)=\frac{\e^{-\xi D_\xi}}{2p+D_\xi}

311: \left[\Im F'_+(E)\right],

312: \end{displaymath}

313: and $\xi=\ln(E/m)$ and

314: $D_\xi=\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\xi}$.

315: 

316: We note the presence of correction terms in the form of infinity

317: series, which go to zero as the energy increases, leading to the

318: sDDR, Eqs. (\ref{eq:sddre}-\ref{eq:sddro}).

319: We shall use this representation in Sec.~\ref{sec:pra}, where

320: their applicability is discussed in detail.

321: 

322: 

323: \subsection{Extended Derivative Dispersion Relations 

324: \textrm{(EDDR)}\label{sec:EDDR}}

325: 

326: In this section we present our analytical replacement of the IDR by 

327: derivative forms without the high-energy approximation. We also 

328: specify the class of functions for which this replacement can be 

329: formally performed.

330: 

331: Let us consider the even amplitude, Eq. (\ref{eq:idre}). Integrating

332: by parts we obtain

333: 

334: \begin{eqnarray}

335: \label{eq:10}

336: \Re F_+(E)&=&

337: K - \frac{E}{\pi}\ln\left|\frac{m-E}{m+E}\right|\frac{\Im F_+(m)}{m} \\

338: &&-\frac{E}{\pi}\int_{m}^{\infty}

339: {\ln\left|\frac{E'-E}{E'+E}\right|

340: \frac{\d}{\d E'}\frac{\Im F_+(E')}{E'}\d E'}.

341: \nonumber

342: \end{eqnarray}

343: 

344: Following Ref. \cite{cms}, we define $E'=m \e^{\xi'}$ and 

345: $E=m \e^{\xi}$, so that the integral term in the above formula is 

346: expressed by

347: 

348: \begin{equation}

349: \label{eq:11}

350: \frac{m\e^\xi}{\pi} \int_{m}^{\infty}

351: \ln \coth\left(\frac{1}{2}|\xi'-\xi|\right)

352: \frac{\d}{\d \xi'}g(\xi')\d \xi',

353: \end{equation}

354: where $g(\xi')=\Im F(m\e^{\xi'})/(m\e^{\xi'})$.

355: Expanding the logarithm in the integrand in powers of $x=\xi'-\xi$,

356: \begin{displaymath}

357: \ln \left(\cot \frac{1}{2}|x|\right)

358: =\ln\left(\frac{1+\e^{-|x|}}{1-e^{-|x|}}\right)

359: =2\sum_{p=0}^{\infty}\frac{\e^{-(2p+1)|x|}}{2p+1},

360: \end{displaymath}

361: and assuming that

362: 

363: \begin{eqnarray}

364: \frac{\d}{\d\xi'}g(\xi') \equiv \tilde{g}(\xi')

365: \nonumber

366: \end{eqnarray}

367: is an analytic function of its argument,

368: we perform the expansion

369: \begin{eqnarray}

370: \tilde{g}(\xi')&=&

371: \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\left.

372: \frac{{\mathrm{d}}^{n}}{{\mathrm{d}}\xi'^{n}}\tilde{g}(\xi')

373: \right|_{\xi'=\xi}\frac{(\xi'-\xi)^n}{n!}

374: \nonumber \\

375: & = & \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{\tilde{g}^{(n)}(\xi)}{n!}(\xi'-\xi)^n.

376: \nonumber

377: \end{eqnarray}

378: 

379: Substituting the above formulas in Eq.~(\ref{eq:11}) and integrating 

380: term by term, \textit{under the assumption of uniform convergence of 

381: the $\tilde{g}(\xi')$ series}, we obtain 

382: 

383: \begin{displaymath}

384: \frac{2m\e^\xi}{\pi}

385: \sum_{p=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{2p+1}

386: \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}

387: \frac{1}{k!}\frac{\d^{k}}{\d \xi^k}\tilde{g}(\xi)

388: I_{kp},

389: \end{displaymath}

390: where

391: \begin{widetext}

392: \begin{eqnarray}

393: I_{kp}=\int_{0}^{\infty}\e^{-(2p+1)|\xi'-\xi|}(\xi'-\xi)^k\d \xi'

394: =

395: \frac{1}{(2p+1)^{k+1}}[((-1)^k+1)k!-(-1)^k\Gamma(k+1,(2p+1)\xi)]

396: \nonumber

397: \end{eqnarray}

398: \end{widetext}

399: and $\Gamma$ is the incomplete gamma function

400: $\Gamma(a,z)=\int_{z}^\infty t^{a-1}\e^{-t}\ \mathrm{d} t$.

401: 

402: With this procedure and from $\xi=\ln (E/m)$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:10}) is 

403: expressed by

404: \begin{widetext}

405: \begin{eqnarray}

406: \Re F_+(E)&=&

407: K-

408: \frac{E}{\pi}\ln\left|\frac{m-E}{m+E}\right|\frac{\Im F_+(m)}{m}

409: +\frac{4E}{\pi}\sum_{p=0}^{\infty}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}

410: \frac{1}{(2p+1)^{2k+2}}

411: \frac{\d^{2k+1}}{\d(\ln E)^{2k+1}}\frac{\Im F_{+}(E)}{E}

412: \nonumber \\

413: &&+\frac{2E}{\pi}

414: \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\sum_{p=0}^{\infty}

415: \frac{(-1)^{k+1}\Gamma(k+1,(2p+1)\xi)}{(2p+1)^{k+2}k!}

416: \frac{\d^{k+1}}{\d (\ln E)^{k+1}}

417: \frac{\Im F_+(E)}{E}, \nonumber

418: \end{eqnarray}

419: which can be put in the final form

420: 

421: \begin{equation}

422: \Re F_{+}(E)=

423: K+E\tan\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}\ln

424: E}\right)\frac{\Im F_+(E)}{E}

425: +\Delta^+(E,m),

426: \label{eq:eddre}

427: \end{equation}

428: 

429: where the correction term $\Delta^{+}$ is given by

430: \begin{eqnarray}

431: \Delta^{+}(E,m)=

432: -\frac{E}{\pi}\ln\left|\frac{m-E}{m+E}\right|\frac{\Im F_+(m)}{m}

433: +\frac{2E}{\pi}

434: \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\sum_{p=0}^{\infty}

435: \frac{(-1)^{k+1}\Gamma(k+1,(2p+1)\ln(E/m))}{(2p+1)^{k+2}k!}

436: \frac{\d^{k+1}}{\d (\ln E)^{k+1}}

437: \frac{\Im F_+(E)}{E}.

438: \nonumber

439: \end{eqnarray}

440: 

441: With analogous procedure for the odd relation we obtain

442: 

443: \begin{equation}

444: \Re F_{-}(E)=

445: \tan\left(\frac{\pi}{2}

446: \frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}\ln E}\right)\Im F_-(E)

447: +\Delta^-(E,m),

448: \label{eq:eddro}

449: \end{equation}

450: where

451: 

452: \begin{eqnarray}

453: \Delta^-(E,m)=

454: -\frac{1}{\pi}\ln\left|\frac{m-E}{m+E}\right|\Im F_-(m)

455: +\frac{2}{\pi}

456: \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\sum_{p=0}^{\infty}

457: \frac{(-1)^{k+1}\Gamma(k+1,(2p+1)\ln(E/m))}{(2p+1)^{k+2}k!}

458: \frac{\d^{k+1}}{\d (\ln E)^{k+1}}

459: \Im F_-(E).

460: \nonumber

461: \end{eqnarray}

462: \end{widetext}

463: 

464: Equations (\ref{eq:eddre}) and (\ref{eq:eddro}) are the novel

465: EDDR, which are valid, in principle, for any energy

466: \textit{above} the physical threshold, $E = m$.

467: 

468: We note that the

469: correction terms $\Delta ^\pm \rightarrow 0$ as $E \rightarrow 

470: \infty$, leading, in this case, to the sDDR, Eqs. (\ref{eq:sddre})

471: and (\ref{eq:sddro}). We also note that the structure of the CMSr, 

472: Eqs. (\ref{eq:cmsre}) and (\ref{eq:cmsro}), are similar to the above

473: results, but without the logarithm terms. These terms come from the 

474: evaluation of the primitive at the lower limit in the integration by 

475: parts.

476: 

477: Since Theorem \ref{theo:1} insures the uniform convergence of the 

478: series expansion associated with

479: \begin{equation}

480: \tilde{g} = \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\ln E} \frac{\Im F(E)}{E}

481: \end{equation}

482: the condition imposed by this Theorem defines the class of functions 

483: for which the EDDR hold. For example, that is the case for 

484: $f(x) = e^{\gamma x}$, $0 < \gamma < 1$, referred to in 

485: Sec. \ref{sec:SDDR}. Other conditions are discussed by Kol\'a\v{r} and

486: Fischer \cite{kf}.

487: 

488: 

489: \section{Practical Equivalences between the Integral and

490: the Derivative Approaches} \label{sec:pra}

491: 

492: In this section we verify and discuss the consistences between the 

493: analytical structures of the IDR and the EDDR in a specific example: 

494: the connections of the total cross section with the $\rho$ parameter 

495: from $pp$ and $\bar{p}p$ scattering. Firstly, it is important to note

496: that the efficiency of both integral and derivative approaches in the 

497: description of the experimental data, depends, of course, on the 

498: theory available, namely the input for the imaginary part of the 

499: amplitude. In the absence of a complete model, valid for any energy 

500: above the physical threshold, we shall consider only as a 

501: \textit{framework}, a Pomeron-Reggeon parametrization for the 

502: scattering amplitude \cite{cmg,ckk}. For $pp$ and $\bar{p}p$ 

503: scattering this analytical model assumes nondegenerate contributions

504: from the even ($+$) and odd ($-$) secondary reggeons 

505: ($a_2$/$f_2$ and $\rho$/$\omega$, respectively), together with a 

506: simple pole Pomeron contribution:

507: 

508: \begin{equation}

509: \Im F(E)=

510: XE^{\alpha_{\tt I\!P}(0)}+Y_+E^{\alpha_+(0)}+\tau Y_-E^{\alpha_-(0)},

511: \label{eq:15}

512: \end{equation}

513: where $\tau=+1$ for $pp$ and $\tau=-1$ for $\bar{p}p$. As usual, the 

514: Pomeron and the even/odd reggeon intercepts are expressed by

515: 

516: \begin{equation}

517: \alpha_{\tt I\!P}(0)=1+\epsilon, \qquad

518: \alpha_{+/-}(0)=1-\eta_{+/-}.

519: \label{eq:16}

520: \end{equation}

521: 

522: We stress that the Pomeron-Reggeon phenomenology is intended for the 

523: high-energy limit (rigorously, $E$ or $\sqrt s \rightarrow \infty$). 

524: Its use here, including the region of low energies, has only a 

525: framework character. However, as we shall show, this model is 

526: sufficient for a comparative analysis of the consistences. We shall 

527: return to this aspect in Sec. \ref{sec:critical}.

528: 

529: In what follows, the point is to treat simultaneous fits to the total 

530: cross section and the $\rho$ parameter from $pp$ and $\bar{p}p$ 

531: scattering and compare the results obtained with both IDR and EDDR.

532: Schematically, with parametrization (\ref{eq:15}-\ref{eq:16}) we 

533: determine $\Im F_{+/-}(E)$ through Eq. (\ref{eq:3}) and then 

534: $\Re F_{+/-}(E)$ either by means of the IDR,

535: Eqs. (\ref{eq:idre}-\ref{eq:idro}) or the EDDR,

536: Eqs. (\ref{eq:eddre}-\ref{eq:eddro}). Returning to Eq. (\ref{eq:3}) we

537: obtain $\Re F_{pp}(E)$ and $\Re F_{\bar{p}p}(E)$ and, at last,  

538: Eqs. (\ref{eq:tcs}) and (\ref{eq:rho}) lead to the analytical 

539: connections between $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(E)$ and $\rho(E)$ for both 

540: reactions. Moreover, through the same procedure, we shall also compare

541: the above results with those obtained by means of both the sDDR,

542: Eqs. (\ref{eq:sddre}-\ref{eq:sddro}) and the CMSr,

543: Eqs. (\ref{eq:cmsre}-\ref{eq:cmsro}). We first present the fit 

544: procedure and then discuss all the obtained results.

545: 

546: 

547: \subsection{Fitting and Results \label{sec:fit}}

548: 

549: For the experimental  data on $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(s)$ and 

550: $\rho(s)$, we made use of the Particle Data Group archives \cite{pdg},

551: to which we added the values of $\rho$ and $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ 

552: from $\bar{p}p$ scattering at 1.8 TeV, obtained by the E811 

553: Collaboration \cite{cavila}. The statistical and systematic errors 

554: were added in quadrature. The fits were performed through the 

555: CERN-Minuit code, with the estimated errors in the free parameters 

556: corresponding to an increase of the $\chi^2$ by one unit. To fit the 

557: data as function of the center-of-mass energy, we express the lab 

558: energy in the corresponding formulas in terms of $s$, namely 

559: $E = (s - 2m^2)/2m$.

560: 

561: We included all the data above the physical threshold, $\sqrt s > 2m

562: \approx 1.88$ GeV, that is, we did not perform any kind of data 

563: selection. Since the ensemble has a relatively large number of 

564: experimental points just above the threshold, the statistical quality

565: of the fit is limited by the model used here as framework. In fact,

566: with the these choices and procedures we obtained reasonable 

567: statistical results (in terms of the $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom)

568: only for an energy cutoff of the fits at  $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 

569: 4 GeV. However, we stress that our focus here is in tests on the 

570: consistences among the different relations and representations and 

571: not, strictly, on the statistical quality of the fits (we shall return

572: to this point in Sec. \ref{sec:critical}).

573: 

574: In each of the four cases (IDR, sDDR, CMSr and EDDR), we consider two 

575: variants of the fits, one neglecting the subtraction constant (that 

576: is, taking $K = 0$) and the other considering the subtraction constant

577: as a free fit parameter. The numerical results and statistical 

578: information on the fits are displayed in Table \ref{tab:1} ($K=0$) and 

579: Table \ref{tab:2} ($K$ free). The corresponding curves together with 

580: the experimental data are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:1} ($K=0$) and Fig. 

581: \ref{fig:2} ($K$ free).

582: 

583: 

584: \begin{table*}[!]

585: \begin{center}

586: \caption{Simultaneous fits to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$,

587: from $pp$ and $\bar{p}p$ scattering, for

588: $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 4 GeV

589: (270 data points), with $K = 0$ and using Integral Dispersion Relations (IDR),

590: standard Derivative Dispersion Relations (sDDR), Cudell-Martynov-Selyugin

591: representations (CMSr) and the Extended Derivative Dispersion Relations (EDDR).}

592: \label{tab:1}

593: \begin{ruledtabular}

594: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}

595: & IDR & sDDR & CMSr & EDDR  \\

596: \hline

597: $X$ (mb)   & 1.662  $\pm$ 0.033  & 1.497  $\pm$ 0.032  & 1.563  $\pm$ 0.033  &1.662  $\pm$ 0.033 \\

598: $Y_+$ (mb) & 4.089  $\pm$ 0.058  & 3.800  $\pm$ 0.041  & 3.892  $\pm$ 0.047  &4.089  $\pm$ 0.058 \\

599: $Y_-$ (mb) &-2.143  $\pm$ 0.084  &-1.947  $\pm$ 0.070  &-2.039  $\pm$ 0.076  &-2.143 $\pm$ 0.084 \\

600: $\epsilon$ & 0.0884 $\pm$ 0.0021 & 0.0975 $\pm$ 0.0021 & 0.0939 $\pm$ 0.0021 &0.0884 $\pm$ 0.0020 \\

601: $\eta_+$   & 0.3797 $\pm$ 0.0099 & 0.3209 $\pm$ 0.0076 & 0.3427 $\pm$ 0.0087 &0.3797 $\pm$ 0.099 \\

602: $\eta_-$   & 0.569  $\pm$ 0.011  & 0.5583 $\pm$ 0.0098 & 0.567  $\pm$ 0.010  &0.569  $\pm$ 0.011 \\

603: $\chi^2$   & 382.1               & 365.4               & 325.9               &382.1 \\

604: $\chi^2/DOF$ & 1.45                & 1.38                & 1.23                & 1.45\\

605: \end{tabular}

606: \end{ruledtabular}

607: \end{center}

608: \end{table*}

609: 

610: 

611: \begin{table*}[!]

612: \begin{center}

613: \caption{Same as Table \ref{tab:1} but considering the subtraction constant $K$ as

614: a free fit parameter.}

615: \label{tab:2}

616: \begin{ruledtabular}

617: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}

618: & IDR & sDDR & CMSr & EDDR  \\

619: \hline

620: $X$ (mb)   & 1.598  $\pm$ 0.034  & 1.598  $\pm$ 0.034  & 1.598  $\pm$ 0.034  & 1.598  $\pm$ 0.034\\

621: $Y_+$ (mb) & 3.957  $\pm$ 0.053  & 3.957  $\pm$ 0.053  & 3.957  $\pm$ 0.053  & 3.957  $\pm$ 0.053\\

622: $Y_-$ (mb) &-2.082  $\pm$ 0.080  &-2.083  $\pm$ 0.079  &-2.084  $\pm$ 0.080  &-2.082  $\pm$ 0.080\\

623: $\epsilon$ & 0.0919 $\pm$ 0.0021 & 0.0919 $\pm$ 0.0021 & 0.0919 $\pm$ 0.0022 & 0.0919 $\pm$ 0.0021\\

624: $\eta_+$   & 0.3554 $\pm$ 0.0098 & 0.3555 $\pm$ 0.0097 & 0.3555 $\pm$ 0.0098 & 0.3554 $\pm$ 0.0098\\

625: $\eta_-$   & 0.569  $\pm$ 0.010  & 0.569  $\pm$ 0.010  & 0.569  $\pm$ 0.010  & 0.569  $\pm$ 0.010\\

626: $K$        &-2.27   $\pm$ 0.28   & 2.28   $\pm$ 0.33   & 1.00   $\pm$ 0.29   &-2.27   $\pm$ 0.28\\

627: $\chi^2$   & 315.4               & 314.6               & 314.2               & 315.4\\

628: $\chi^2/DOF$ & 1.20              & 1.20                & 1.19                &  1.20\\

629: \end{tabular}

630: \end{ruledtabular}

631: \end{center}

632: \end{table*}

633: 

634: 

635: \begin{figure}[!]

636: \includegraphics[width=8.cm,height=6.cm]{am06f1a.eps}

637: \includegraphics[width=8.cm,height=6.cm]{am06f1b.eps}

638: \caption{Results of the simultaneous fit to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and

639: $\rho$ from $pp$ and $\bar{p}p$ scattering, by means of

640: Integral Dispersion Relations (IDR),

641: standard Derivative Dispersion Relations (sDDR), Cudell-Martynov-Selyugin

642: representation (CMSr) and the Extended Derivative Dispersion Relations (EDDR)

643: and considering the subtraction constant $K = 0$ (Table \ref{tab:1}). The curves corresponding

644: to IDR (solid) and EDDR (dot-dashed) coincide. } \label{fig:1}

645: \end{figure}

646: 

647: 

648: \begin{figure}[!]

649: \includegraphics[width=8.cm,height=6.cm]{am06f2a.eps}

650: \includegraphics[width=8.cm,height=6.cm]{am06f2b.eps}

651: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{fig:1} but considering the subtraction constant $K$ as

652: a free fit parameter (Table \ref{tab:2}).} \label{fig:2}

653: \end{figure}

654: 

655: 

656: \subsection{Discussion}

657: 

658: The main goal of this section is to discuss the consistences among

659: the results obtained by means of distinct analytical connections 

660: between the real and imaginary parts of the amplitude. However, some

661: phenomenological consequences can also be inferred from this study, as

662: discussed in what follows.

663: 

664: From Tables \ref{tab:1} and \ref{tab:2} we see that, as expected, the

665: best statistical results are obtained with the subtraction constant 

666: $K$ as a free fit parameter. However, as we shall show, taking $K=0$ 

667: gives suitable information not only on the practical equivalence

668: between the IDR and the differential forms (sDDR, CMSr and EDDR), but 

669: also on the important role played by the subtraction constant. For 

670: that reason we shall treat separately the cases  $K=0$ and $K$ as a 

671: fit parameter.

672: 

673: 

674: \subsubsection{Neglecting the subtraction constant}

675: 

676: From Table \ref{tab:1} we see that, for $K=0$, the numerical results

677: obtained with the IDR and the EDDR are exactly the same, up to four 

678: figures and that this does not occur in the case with the sDDR and the

679: CMSr neither. That is an important result since it demonstrates the 

680: accuracy of our analytical results for the extended derivative 

681: relations.

682: 

683: We note that the high values of $\chi^2/DOF$, in all the cases, are 

684: consequences of the specific analytical model considered (intended for 

685: the high-energy region) and the energy cutoff used. We add the fact 

686: that we did not performed any data selection, but used all the 

687: available data	from the PDG archives. However, as already commented

688: this disadvantage has no influence in our main goal, namely tests of

689: consistences.

690: 

691: The effects of the equivalences (IDR and EDDR) and differences (IDR

692: and sDDR or CMSr) in the description of the experimental data are 

693: shown in Fig. \ref{fig:1}. The curves corresponding to IDR (solid) and 

694: EDDR (dot-dashed) coincide at all the energies above the threshold and 

695: we see that even with the fit cutoff at 

696: $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} = 4$ GeV, the description of the experimental 

697: data below this point is reasonably good in both cases. On the other 

698: hand, the differences between the exact results (IDR and EDDR) and the 

699: sDDR or CMSr are remarkable for $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(s)$ at the

700: highest energies and for $\rho(s)$ in the region of low energies 

701: (below $\sqrt s \approx 10$ GeV).

702: 

703: In the case of the total cross section, the results with sDDR and CMSr

704: indicate a faster increase with the energy then those with the IDR and 

705: EDDR. We stress the importance of this point, since it gives different 

706: solutions for the well known puzzle between the CDF data \cite{cdf} 

707: and the E710/E811 data \cite{e710,e811} at $\sqrt s = 1.8$ TeV; in 

708: this respect, we see that the exact results (IDR and EDDR) favor the 

709: E811/E710 results. In particular the values for the Pomeron intercept 

710: read (Table \ref{tab:1}): $\alpha_{\tt I\!P}(0) = 1.0884 \pm 0.0021$ 

711: (IDR and EDDR), $1.0975 \pm 0.0021$ (sDDR) and $1.0939 \pm 0.0021$ 

712: (CMSr).

713: 

714: 

715: \subsubsection{Subtraction constant K as a free fit parameter}

716: 

717: With $K$ as a free fit parameter our results demonstrate, once more, 

718: an effect that we have already  noted before \cite{am04}, namely the 

719: high-energy approximation can be absorbed by the subtraction constant.

720: In fact, from Fig. \ref{fig:2} we see that in this case, the 

721: differences between the sDDR/CMSr and the exact results IDR/EDDR,

722: practically disappear. From Table \ref{tab:2} we can identify the 

723: subtraction constant as the responsible for this complementary effect:

724: the numerical values of the fit parameters and errors are practically

725: the same in all the four cases, except for the values of $K$, that is,

726: in practice, the differences are absorbed by this parameter. We 

727: conclude that the subtraction constant affects the fit results even in

728: the region of the highest energies; this effect is due to the

729: correlations among the free parameter in the fit procedure, as

730: previously observed \cite{am04,alm03}. Of course, also in this case 

731: the numerical values obtained with the IDR and EDDR are exactly the 

732: same, including the value of the subtraction constant up to four 

733: figures (Table \ref{tab:2}).

734: 

735: In particular, we note that all the four variants indicate the same 

736: result for the intercept of the Pomeron, namely 

737: $\alpha_{\tt I\!P}(0) = 1.0919 \pm 0.0021$. The corresponding result 

738: for the total cross section lies nearly between the CDF and E811/E710 

739: results, barely favoring the last ones (Figure \ref{fig:2}).

740: 

741: 

742: \section{Critical Remarks \label{sec:critical}}

743: 

744: We have demonstrated that for the class of functions defined by

745: Theorem \ref{theo:1}, IDR can be formally replaced by differential 

746: operators without any high-energy approximation; we have also verified 

747: the equivalence between the integral and extended derivative results, 

748: in the particular case of a simple phenomenological parametrization

749: for $pp$ and $\bar{p}p$ scattering. Despite the encouraging results

750: reached the whole analysis has limitations from both formal and

751: practical points of view. In what follows we summarize the main

752: critical points, giving references where more details can be found and 

753: providing also suggestions for further investigations. Since the EDDR 

754: involve two contributions, the tangent operators (sDDR) and the 

755: correction terms $\Delta^{+/-}(E, m)$, we shall consider the two cases

756: separately. We also present some critical remarks on the

757: Pomeron-Reggeon model used in Sect. \ref{sec:pra} as a practical 

758: framework.

759: 

760: 

761: \subsection{sDDR}

762: 

763: First, let us discuss some aspects related to the dispersion approach

764: as it has been treated and widely used in the literature till now,

765: namely the sDDR, Eqs. (\ref{eq:sddre}) and (\ref{eq:sddro}). As 

766: commented in Sect. \ref{sec:SDDR}, these equations are obtained

767: by considering the limit $m \rightarrow 0$ in the IDR,

768: Eqs. (\ref{eq:idre}) and (\ref{eq:idro}).

769: This condition is a critical one, which puts serious practical

770: and formal limitations in any use of the sDDR, because that means to 

771: go to lower energies by passing through different thresholds, 

772: resonances, poles, up to $E = 0$! In this sense, the expression of the

773: tangent operator as an integral from $E = 0$ to $E = \infty$ does not 

774: guarantee any local character for the differential approach (or the 

775: corresponding integral), even in the case of convergence of the 

776: series. In other words, this representation of the non-local operator

777: (integral) in terms of local operators (tangent series), does not 

778: guarantee the non-locality of the result. Moreover, the representation

779: does not apply near the resonances \cite{ed} and the convergence of 

780: the series has been discussed in several works leading some authors to

781: argue that, in a general sense, the mathematical condition for the 

782: convergence ``excludes all cases of physical interest" \cite{ed}. 

783: These and other aspects were extensively discussed in the seventies 

784: and eighties \cite{ed,hk,hjk,bd,ddr-others,kf,kf-blois} and some

785: points have been recently reviewed in \cite{am04}.

786: 

787: However, there is a fundamental point developed by some authors that

788: enlarger the practical applicability of the sDDR under some special

789: conditions \cite{ed,kf}. As stated by Kol\'a\v{r} and Fischer 

790: \cite{kf-blois}, in discussing the replacement of IDR by sDDR we must

791: distinguish two formulations: (1) to consider the case of asymptotic 

792: energies and a finite number of terms in the tangent series; (2) to 

793: consider finite energies and an infinity number of terms in the series.

794: The former case applies for smooth behaviors of the amplitude (as it

795: is the case at sufficiently high energies, specifically 

796: $\sqrt s >$ 10 - 20 GeV).

797: That includes a wide class of functions of physical interest, mainly

798: if only the first term can be considered \cite{ed,kf} (see \cite{acmm06}

799: for a recent analysis even beyond the forward direction).

800: The later case, however, is critical for at least two reasons. First,

801: because the condition of convergence of the series 

802: (Theorem \ref{theo:1}) limits the class of functions of practical 

803: applicability. Secondly and more importantly, since the high-energy 

804: approximation is enclosed, all the strong limitations referred to 

805: before applies equally well to this case. In conclusion, the class of 

806: functions for which the sDDR have a practical applicability depends 

807: strongly on the formalism considered and is narrower in the case of 

808: finite energies, namely entire functions in the logarithm of the energy.

809: 

810: \subsection{EDDR}

811: 

812: Let us now discuss the EDDR, with focus on the role of the correction

813: terms $\Delta^{+/-}(E, m)$ in Eqs. (\ref{eq:eddre}) and 

814: (\ref{eq:eddro}). First we note that these infinity series are 

815: analytically associated with the fixed lower limit $m$ in the integral

816: representation and they correspond to the contributions that are 

817: neglected in the high-energy approximation ($m \rightarrow 0$). For 

818: example, for the even case we have the formal identity

819: \begin{eqnarray}

820: \tan\left(\frac{\pi}{2}

821: \frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}\ln E}\right)\frac{\Im F_+(E)}{E}

822: + \frac{\Delta^+(E,m)}{E}

823: = \nonumber \\

824: =\frac{2E}{\pi}P\!\!\!\int_{m}^{+\infty}

825: \!\!\!\d E'

826: \frac{1}{E'(E'^{2}-E^{2})}\Im F_{+}(E'),

827: \nonumber

828: \end{eqnarray}

829: which means that all the physical situation concerns the region

830: \textit{above} the physical threshold $E = m$. Therefore, from a formal

831: point of view, the critical points raised above on the sDDR

832: (tangent operator only), concerning the infinity series in the region 

833: $E:0 \rightarrow m$, do not apply in this case and the critical point 

834: here concerns only the convergence of the correction series and their 

835: practical applicability.

836: 

837: On the one hand, from a formal point of view (as already discussed at 

838: the end of Sect. \ref{sec:EDDR}), the convergence of the correction 

839: series is ensured by Theorem \ref{theo:1} and that means a narrower 

840: class of functions than that associated only with entire functions in 

841: the logarithm of the energy. This restriction is due to the infinity 

842: number of derivatives in $\ln s$.

843: We shall give and discuss some examples in what follows.

844: 

845: From a practical point of view, it is obvious that the efficiency 

846: and/or real applicability of not only the derivative approach (EDDR),

847: but also the integral one (IDR), depends on the specific physical 

848: problem involved. In this scenario (the physical problem) we expect to

849: find some specific limitations that are independent of the formal 

850: aspects referred to above and these aspects demands also some comments.

851: In principle and in a \textit{general sense}, if we attempt to apply

852: dispersion techniques directly to the experimental data (related to 

853: the imaginary part of a function), we are faced with the problem of

854: error propagation from the experimental uncertainties. Even if we can

855: ``reproduce" the experimental behavior by means of suitable analytical 

856: parameterizations, with statistical errors inferred for the free 

857: parameters, these errors should, in principle, be propagated too. In 

858: this case, the infinity series in both sDDR and EDDR have certainly 

859: limited usefulness (see for example \cite{hjk,bd} for the sDDR case).

860: However, if error propagation from the fit results is not of interest 

861: or can be neglected, and, most importantly, one has a ``correct" or 

862: acceptable model for the imaginary part of the amplitudes, then we are 

863: restricted only to the the formal conditions discussed above and the 

864: derivative approach becomes reliable, including the correction series 

865: (Theorem \ref{theo:1}).

866: 

867: Let us now discuss the specific physical problem that motivated the

868: present analysis. As commented in our introduction and in Sect. 

869: \ref{sec:DR}, we focused the dispersion techniques in the context of 

870: hadron scattering, in special in the elastic case, for which a complet 

871: theory is still absent. The main goal concerns the connections between 

872: total cross section and the $\rho$ parameter for energies above 

873: $\sqrt s$ = 5 - 10 GeV.  In terms of dispersion techniques the usual 

874: way to treat the subject is by means of IDR, sDDR and the analyticity 

875: prescriptions for even and odd amplitudes (and recently the CMSr).

876: In this specific case, besides the absence of a pure QCD treatment, 

877: the subject is characterized by three kinds of problems: 

878: (1) formal justification of the usual phenomenology;

879: (2) approximated descriptions of the experimental data by 

880: phenomenological models;

881: (3) experimental data available (problems (2) and (3) are certainly 

882: connected). Since these problems affect the practical applicability 

883: and efficiency of the dispersion techniques, let us shortly discuss 

884: some aspects involved.

885: 

886: (1) As it is well know, the usual phenomenology for the total cross 

887: sections is based on the reggeon concepts and involves distinct 

888: contributions from Pomerons and secondaries Reggeons. In this context,

889: analytical parameterizations for the total cross sections are 

890: characterized by power and logarithm functions of the energy 

891: (Reggeons, simple, double and triple pole Pomerons) and the fits are 

892: performed not below  $\sqrt s$ = 5 GeV. We note that all these 

893: contributions belong to the class of functions defined by Theorem 

894: \ref{theo:1} (the tangent series can be summed leading to closed 

895: analytical results) and they have been used and investigated in several

896: works \cite{cms,ckk,alm03,compete}. However, as we have already

897: pointed out \cite{am04}, the central problem here concerns the fact 

898: that these contributions are formally justified only for asymptotic 

899: energies ($E$ or $s$ $\rightarrow \infty$), which certainly is not the

900: case for the energies considered. The applicability of these models 

901: seems to be justified only under the hypothesis that the accelerators 

902: have already reached the energies that can be considered asymptotic in 

903: the mathematical context, which seems to us a dangerous assumption.

904: 

905: (2 - 3) A close look at the bulk of experimental data available shows 

906: that these ensembles present several discrepancies due to spurious 

907: data, normalization problems and other effects. In this respect, 

908: recent analysis have pointed out the necessity of some screening 

909: criterion in order to select the ``correct" experimental information.

910: We shall not discuss this question here because it seems to us an open

911: problem. But the point is that this fact puts serious limitations in 

912: any interpretation of statistical tests of the fits, as the popular 

913: $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom and, consequently, not only in the

914: efficiency of the phenomenological descriptions, but also

915: in the possible selection of the best phenomenological model.

916: 

917: 

918: At last let us return to the applicability of the EDDR, now in this 

919: context. Despite of all the above problems, the known and usual 

920: phenomenological approach is characterized by analytical 

921: parameterizations for the imaginary parts of the amplitude and 

922: statistical tests on the quality of the fit. In this case, with 

923: specific analytical representations for the total cross sections, 

924: without error propagation from the fit parameters and in the Regge 

925: context we understand that the correction terms, we have introduced, 

926: can have a suitable applicability in the context of the dispersion

927: techniques. The point is that the class of functions for which they 

928: hold includes all the usual Regge parameterizations and since the 

929: high-energy approximations is absent the fits can be formally extend 

930: to lower energies. However to reach a good statistical description of 

931: the data, specifically near the threshold, demands a ``correct" model

932: for the imaginary part of the amplitude, which, to our knowledge is 

933: still lacking. We shall return to this point in what follows.

934: 

935: 

936: \subsection{Pomeron-reggeon parametrization}

937: 

938: Based on all the above limitations in the phenomenological context, we

939: have chosen one of the possible (and popular) models in order to check

940: the equivalences (and differences) among the different dispersion 

941: representations analyzed in this work. Although, as demonstrated in 

942: Sect. \ref{sec:pra}, this choice is sufficient for our aim, some 

943: drawnbacks involved demand additional comments.

944: 

945: In the mathematical context, as demonstrated by Kol\'a\v{r} and 

946: Fischer \cite{kf}, some formal results, theorems and representations

947: for the derivative relations were obtained under the assumption of the 

948: Froissart-Martin bound, $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}} < c\ln^2 s$, but other 

949: forms of sDDR do not require this bound. Therefore, since the simple 

950: pole Pomeron contribution, that dominates at the asymptotic energies,

951: violates this bound, the model assumed is not an example in full 

952: agreement with the totality of the formal results. However, as already 

953: exemplified (Sect. \ref{sec:SDDR}), the model belongs to the class of 

954: functions defined by Theorem \ref{theo:1} and therefore, in this 

955: restrictive sense it seems to us to be an acceptable choice.

956: 

957: In the formal phenomenological context, when applied below asymptotic

958: (infinity) energies, the model suffers from all the drawbacks already 

959: discussed. Despite of this, its use above, let us say, 

960: $\sqrt s$ = 10 GeV, could be explained (not justified) by the fact 

961: that the Regge approach is the only known formalism, able to describe 

962: some global characteristics of the soft scattering. What is presently 

963: expected is the development of a microscopic theory able to justify 

964: its efficiency.

965: 

966: Now let us focus in the low energy region, above the physical 

967: threshold, $2m_p \approx$ 1.88 GeV $< \sqrt s \leq$ 10 GeV and discuss

968: the usefullness and practical applicability of the EDDR. To our 

969: knowledge, there is no model proposed for this interval and that could

970: explain the fact that fit procedures, even through IDR, make use of 

971: energy cutoffs at $\sqrt s \approx$ 5 GeV (\cite{ua4} is a typical 

972: example). In this sense, the usefulness of the correction terms 

973: $\Delta^{+/-}(E, m)$ could be questioned. However, we understand that

974: the lack of a phenomenological approach for that region may also be a 

975: mirror of the present stage, characterized by a focus (probably 

976: excessive) on the highest and asymptotic energies (the great 

977: expectations from the Tevatron, RHIC, LHC). In our oppinion, 

978: independently of the fact that the ``asymptopia" might be resolved or 

979: not in a short term, the connection between resonance region (above 

980: the physical threshold) and the high-energy region (above 10 GeV) 

981: still remains a fundamental problem demanding  solution. In this 

982: respect we understand that the EDDR can play an important role in 

983: further investigations.

984: 

985: Concerning the practical applicability of the extended relations in 

986: this region, it is obviously limited, due to the lack of a ``correct" 

987: or accepted analytical model for the imaginary part of the amplitude. 

988: One way to circumvent this problem could be the introduction

989: of a different parametrization for this particular region. That was 

990: the procedure used in Ref. \cite{cms}; although without justification 

991: or explicit reference to the analytical form used, the authors

992: obtained reasonable fit results. However, beyond the lack of any 

993: physical meaning, this procedure puts limitations on the equivalence

994: between integral and derivative representations.

995: 

996: Based on the above facts and aimed only to check and compare the 

997: results obtained through different dispersion representations, we

998: considered the Pomeron-Reggeon parametrization extended up to the low

999: energy region, with a fit cutoff at $\sqrt s$ = 4 GeV. Certainly the 

1000: statistical results displayed in Tables \ref{tab:1} and \ref{tab:2} 

1001: indicate that the confidence level is very low and even a look at 

1002: Figs. \ref{fig:1} and \ref{fig:2} shows that the data near the 

1003: resonance are not adequately described. As a consequence the 

1004: numerical results in Tables \ref{tab:1} and \ref{tab:2} may be 

1005: questionable on physical grounds. However, we insist that all the 

1006: figures in these Tables are fundamental for a definite check of all 

1007: the analytical representations investigated (which is the only aim of

1008: Sect. \ref{sec:pra}). At last we note that one may think that it might

1009: be possible to find a suitable function, in agreement with the 

1010: convergence condition and able to fit all the experimental data of 

1011: interest on secure statistical grounds; that would be enough for our 

1012: tests of consistences. We are not sure about this possibility, but

1013: the point is that the use of a known and popular parametrization, 

1014: even with limited efficiency, can bring new insights for further 

1015: developments mainly because it gives information

1016: on what should be improved.

1017: 

1018: 

1019: \section{Conclusions and final remarks} \label{sec:conclusions}

1020: 

1021: We have obtained novel analytical expressions for the derivative

1022: dispersion relations, without high-energy approximations. The

1023: mathematical results

1024: are valid for the class of functions specified by

1025: Theorem \ref{theo:1}.

1026: In principle, their applicability can be extended to any area

1027: that makes use of dispersion techniques, with possible additional

1028: constraints, dictated by the analytical and experimental conditions

1029: involved. In special, under aadequate circumstances, the local 

1030: character of the derivative operators may be a great advantage.

1031: 

1032: For scattering amplitudes belonging to the class of functions

1033: defined by Theorem \ref{theo:1}, the EDDR are valid for

1034: any energy above the physical threshold.

1035: Since the experimental data on the total cross sections

1036: indicate a smooth variation with the energy (without oscillations

1037: just above the physical threshold and a smooth systematic increase 

1038: above $\sqrt s \approx 20$ GeV), this class includes the majority of

1039: functions of physical interest. Using as framework a popular 

1040: Pomeron-Reggeon parametrization for the total cross sections,

1041: we have checked the numerical equivalence between the results obtained

1042: with the IDR (finite lower limit $m$) and the EDDR, as well as the 

1043: differences associated with the sDDR and the CMSr. We have also 

1044: presented a critical discussion on the limitations of the whole 

1045: analysis from both formal and practical points of view.

1046: 

1047: 

1048: We stress that, as in the case of IDR, the practical

1049: efficiency of the EDDR in the reproduction of the experimental data on

1050: $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ depends on the model considered. 

1051: Here, in order only to check the consistences among the different

1052: analytical forms, we made use of a particular Pomeron-Reggeon 

1053: parametrization, for which a cutoff at $\sqrt s =$ 4 GeV was 

1054: necessary. For example, by considering

1055: the full nondegenerated case (four contributions, each one from each

1056: meson trajectory, $a_2, f_2, \rho, \omega$), this cutoff can be reduced

1057: \cite{digi}, or the $\chi^2/DOF$ can be reduced for the same cutoff.

1058: Despite the limitations of our practical example 

1059: (Sec. \ref{sec:critical}), some interesting phenomenological aspects 

1060: could be inferred. In particular, although already noted 

1061: \cite{am04,alm03}, we have called the attention to the role of the 

1062: subtraction constant as a practical ``regulator", in the replacement 

1063: of IDR by derivative forms, a fact that is clearly identified in 

1064: Table \ref{tab:2}: the high-energy approximation is absorbed by the

1065: constant. In this respect, we have demonstrated that this artifice, 

1066: which lack physical meaning, can be avoided by the direct use of the 

1067: EDDR. However, this observation does not depreciate the important role 

1068: of the subtraction constant as a free fit parameter, since the best 

1069: statistical results are obtained in this context (Tables \ref{tab:1} 

1070: and \ref{tab:2}). In particular, we note that the effect of this 

1071: parameter is to provide a slight higher value for the Pomeron 

1072: intercept, $\alpha_{\tt I\!P}(0) \approx 1.088$ ($K=0$) and

1073: $\alpha_{\tt I\!P}(0) \approx 1.092$ ($K$ free).

1074: 

1075: 

1076: To our knowledge, a well established theoretical approach for total

1077: cross sections just above the physical threshold and in the region

1078: connecting low and high energies is still absent. In this sense,

1079: despite all the limitations discussed, we hope that the local analytical

1080: operators, developed here for these regions, can contribute, as a

1081: formal mathematical tool, for further developments on the subject.

1082: 

1083: \begin{acknowledgments}

1084: 

1085: We are thankful to FAPESP for financial support

1086: (Contracts No.03/00228-0 and No.04/10619-9).

1087: 

1088: \end{acknowledgments}

1089: 

1090: 

1091: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1092: 

1093: \bibitem{idr1}

1094: M.L.~Goldberger, Y.~Nambu, and R.~Oehme, Ann. Phys. \textbf{2}, 226

1095: (1957); P.~S\"oding,

1096: Phys. Lett. \textbf{8}, 285 (1964).

1097: 

1098: \bibitem{idr2}

1099: A.~Martin, Nuovo Cimento \textbf{42}, 930 (1966);

1100: \textbf{44}, 1219 (1966);

1101: H.~Epstein, V.~Glaser, and A.~Martin, Comm. Math. Phys. \textbf{13},

1102: 257 (1969).

1103: 

1104: 

1105: \bibitem{bc}

1106: M.M.~Block and R.N.~Cahn, Rev. Mod. Phys.  \textbf{57}, 563 (1985).

1107: 

1108: \bibitem{fddr}

1109: N.V.~Gribov and A.A.~Migdal, Yad. Fiz. \textbf{8}, 1002 (1968)

1110: [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. \textbf{8}, 583 (1969)];

1111: J.B.~Bronzan, in: Argonne Symposium on the Pomeron,

1112: ANL/HEP-7327 (1973) p. 33; J.D.~Jackson, in: 1973 Scottish Summer 

1113: School, LBL-2079 (1973) p. 39.

1114: 

1115: \bibitem{bks}

1116: J.B.~Bronzan, G.L.~Kane, and U.P.~Sukhatme, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{49},

1117: 272 (1974).

1118: 

1119: \bibitem{kn}

1120: K.~Kang and B.~Nicolescu, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{11}, 2461 (1975).

1121: 

1122: \bibitem{ed}

1123: G.K.~Eichmann and J.~Dronkers, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{52}, 428 (1974).

1124: 

1125: \bibitem{hk}

1126: J.~Heidrich and E.~Kazes, Lett. Nuovo Cimento \textbf{12},

1127: 365 (1975).

1128: 

1129: \bibitem{hjk}

1130: G.~H\"ohler, H.P.~Jakob, and F.~Kaiser, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{58},

1131: 348 (1975).

1132: 

1133: \bibitem{bd}

1134:  A.~Bujak and O.~Dumbrajs, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Phys. \textbf{2},

1135: L129 (1976).

1136: 

1137: \bibitem{ddr-others} I.~Vrko\v{c}, Czech. Math. J. \textbf{35},

1138: 59 (1985);

1139: M.J.~Menon, A.E.~Motter, and B.M.~Pimentel, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{451} 207 (1999);

1140: Yu.~S. Vernov, M.N.~Mnatsakanova, Physics of Particles and

1141: Nuclei \textbf{32}, 589 (2001).

1142: 

1143: \bibitem{kf}

1144: J.~Fischer and P.~Kol\'a\v{r}, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{64}, 45 (1976);

1145: Phys. Rev. D \textbf{17}, 2168 (1978);

1146: P.~Kol\'a\v{r} and J.~Fischer, J.  Math. Phys. \textbf{25}, 2538 (1984);

1147: J.~Fischer and P.~Kol\'a\v{r}, Czech. J. Phys. B \textbf{37}, 297 (1987).

1148: 

1149: \bibitem{kf-blois}

1150: P.~Kol\'a\v{r} and J.~Fischer, in \textit{Proc. Blois Workshop

1151: on Elastic and Diffractive Scattering, Prague, 2002}, edited by

1152: V.~Kundrat and P.~Zavada (IOP, Prague, 2002), p. 305.

1153: 

1154: \bibitem{am04}

1155: R.F.~\'Avila and M.J.~Menon, Nucl. Phys. A \textbf{744}, 249 (2004).

1156: 

1157: \bibitem{cms}

1158: J.R.~Cudell, E.~Martynov, and O.~Selyugin, hep-ph/0307254; E.~Martynov

1159: J.R.~Cudell, and O.~Selyugin,

1160: Eur. Phys. J. C \textbf{33}, 533 (2004); hep-ph/0311019.

1161: 

1162: 

1163: \bibitem{cmg}

1164: R.J.M.~Covolan, J.~Montanha , and K.~Goulianos, Phys. Lett. B

1165: \textbf{389}, 176 (1996).

1166: 

1167: \bibitem{ckk}

1168: J.R.~Cudell, K.~Kang, and S.K.~Kim, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{395}, 311

1169: (1997).

1170: 

1171: 

1172: \bibitem{pdg}

1173: S.~Eidelman et al., Phys. Lett. B \textbf{592}, 1 (2004) and 2005 partial

1174: update for the 2006 edition available on the PDG www pages

1175: (URL http://pdg.lbl.gov).

1176: 

1177: 

1178: \bibitem{cavila} E811 Collaboration, C.~Avila et al., Phys. Lett.

1179: B \textbf{537}, 42 (2002).

1180: 

1181: \bibitem{cdf}

1182: CDF Collaboration, F.~Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D \textbf{50}, 5550 (1993).

1183: 

1184: \bibitem{e710}

1185: E710 Collaboration, N.A.~Amos et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{68},

1186: 2433 (1992).

1187: 

1188: \bibitem{e811}

1189: E811 Collaboration, C.~Avila et al., Phys. Lett. B \textbf{445}, 419

1190: (1999).

1191: 

1192: \bibitem{alm03}

1193: R.F.~\'Avila, E.G.S.~Luna, and M.J.~Menon, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{67},

1194: 054020 (2003).

1195: 

1196: 

1197: \bibitem{compete}

1198: COMPETE Collaboration, J.R.~Cudell et al., Phys. Rev. D \textbf{61},

1199: 034019 (2000);

1200: Phys. Rev. D \textbf{63}, 0599901(E) (2001).

1201: 

1202: 

1203: \bibitem{acmm06}

1204: R.F. \'Avila, S.D. Campos, M.J. Menon, and J. Montanha,

1205: Eur. Phys. J. C  \textbf{47}, 171 (2006); hep-ph/0603035.

1206: 

1207: \bibitem{ua4}

1208: UA4/2 Collaboration, C. Augier et al., Phys. Lett B \textbf{315}, 503

1209: (1993).

1210: 

1211: 

1212: \bibitem{digi} R.F. \'Avila and M.J. Menon, in

1213: \textit{Sense of Beauty in Physics -- A volume in honour

1214: of Adriano Di Giacomo}, edited by M.~D'Elia, K.~Konishi, E.~Meggiolaro

1215: and P.~Rossi (Edizioni Plus, Pisa University Press, Pisa, 2006),

1216: p. 153; hep-ph/0601194.

1217: 

1218: 

1219: \end{thebibliography}

1220: 

1221: \end{document}

1222: 

1223: