# Improved dispersion relations for γγ→ππ

**ABSTRACT** We perform a dispersive theoretical study of the reaction

γγ→ππ emphasizing the low

energy region. The large source of theoretical uncertainty to calculate

the γγ→ππ total cross

section for s≳0.5 GeV within the dispersive approach is removed.

This is accomplished by taking one more subtraction in the dispersion

relations, where the extra subtraction constant is fixed by considering

new low energy constraints, one of them further refined by taking into

consideration the f(980) region. This allows us to make

sharper predictions for the cross section for s≲0.8 GeV, below the

onset of D-wave contributions. In this way, were new more precise data

on γγ→ππ available one

might then distinguish between different parameterizations of the

ππ isoscalar S-wave. We also elaborate on the width of the σ

resonance to γγ and provide new values.

**0**Bookmarks

**·**

**17**Views

- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]

**ABSTRACT:**Two photon decays of scalar mesons f_0(980), a_0(980), \sigma(600) in the quark Nambu - Jona - Lasinio (NJL) model are calculated. The contributions of the meson loops are taken into account along with the quark loops (Hartree - Fock approximation). This corresponds to the next order of the 1/N_c expansion, where N_c=3 is the number of quark colors. It is shown that the meson and quark loops give comparable contributions to the amplitude. Moreover, in the process f_0(980)-> \gamma \gamma the kaon loop plays the dominant role. A similar situation takes place in the decay \phi -> f_0(980) \gamma \cite{physrev}. Our results are in satisfactory agreement with the recent experimental data.10/2008; - SourceAvailable from: arxiv.org[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]

**ABSTRACT:**We perform an amplitude analysis of the world published data on γγ→π+π- and π0π0. These are dominated in statistics by the recently published results from Belle on the charged pion channel. Nevertheless, having only limited angular information, a range of solutions remain possible. We present two solutions with Γ(f0(980)→γγ)=0.42 and 0.10keV, and Γ(f2(1270)→γγ)=3.14±0.20 and 3.82 ± 0.30keV, respectively: the former being the solution favoured by χ2, the latter at the edge of acceptability. Models of the structure of the f0(980) predict two photon widths to be between 0.2 and 0.6keV, depending on its composition as mainly K̄K, s̄s or qq̄qq. Presently available data cannot yet distinguish unambiguously between these predictions. However, we show how forthcoming results on γγ→π0π0 can not only discriminate between, but also refine, these classes of partial wave solutions.European Physical Journal C 06/2008; 56(1):1-16. · 5.25 Impact Factor - SourceAvailable from: ArXiv[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]

**ABSTRACT:**The light scalar mesons, discovered over forty years ago, became a challenge for the naive quark-antiquark model from the outset. At present the nontrivial nature of these states is no longer denied practically anybody. Two-photon physics has made a substantial contribution to understanding the nature of the light scalar mesons. Recently, it entered a new stage of high statistics measurements. We review the results concerning two-photon production mechanisms of the light scalars, based on the analysis of current experimental data.Physics-Uspekhi 05/2009; · 1.87 Impact Factor

Page 1

arXiv:0708.1659v2 [hep-ph] 6 Nov 2007

Improved dispersion relations for γγ → π0π0

Jos´ e A. Ollera, Luis Rocaaand Carlos Schata,b

aDepartamento de F´ ısica. Universidad de Murcia. E-30071, Murcia. Spain.

bCONICET and Departamento de F´ ısica, FCEyN, Universidad de Buenos Aires,

Ciudad Universitaria, Pab.1, (1428) Buenos Aires, Argentina.

oller@um.es , luisroca@um.es , schat@df.uba.ar

Abstract

We perform a dispersive theoretical study of the reaction γγ → π0π0emphasizing the low energy

region. The large source of theoretical uncertainty to calculate the γγ → π0π0total cross section for

√s ? 0.5 GeV within the dispersive approach is removed. This is accomplished by taking one more

subtraction in the dispersion relations, where the extra subtraction constant is fixed by considering

new low energy constraints, one of them further refined by taking into consideration the f0(980) region.

This allows us to make sharper predictions for the cross section for√s ? 0.8 GeV, below the onset

of D-wave contributions. In this way, were new more precise data on γγ → π0π0available one might

then distinguish between different parameterizations of the ππ isoscalar S-wave. We also elaborate on

the width of the σ resonance to γγ and provide new values.

Page 2

1Introduction

The reaction γγ → π0π0measured in ref.[1] offers the interesting prospects of having a two-body hadronic

final state and the important role of final state interactions in S-wave enhanced due to the null charge

of the π0. These two facts make this process very suited for learning about the non-trivial ππ isospin

(I) 0 S-wave. In addition, it was taken as an especially appropriate ground test for Chiral Perturbation

Theory (χPT) [2, 3], since at lowest order this process is zero and at next-to-leading order (one loop) is

a prediction free of any counterterm [4, 5]. However, the one loop χPT prediction departs very rapidly

from data just above the threshold and only the order of magnitude was rightly foreseen. A two loop

calculation in ref.[6, 7] was then undertaken with better agreement with data [1]. The three counterterms

that appear at O(p6) are fixed by the resonance saturation hypothesis. Other approaches supplying higher

orders to one loop χPT by taking into account unitarity and analyticity followed [8, 9, 10]. Ref.[10] is a

Unitary χPT calculation in production processes [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15] and was able to provide a good

simultaneous description of γγ → π0π0, π+π−, ηπ0, K+K−and K0¯ K0from threshold up to rather high

energies, s1/2? 1.5 GeV. This approach was also used in ref.[16] to study the η → π0γγ decay.

We concentrate here on the dispersive method of refs.[17, 18, 19]. We critically review and extend

it, so as we are able to drastically reduce the uncertainty due to the not-fixed phases above the K¯K

threshold of the I = 0 S-wave γγ → ππ amplitude. This is accomplished by using an I = 0 S-wave

Omn` es function that is continuous under changes in the phase function employed for its evaluation

above the K¯K threshold. Equivalently, one can introduce an additional subtraction in the dispersion

relation to evaluate the I = 0 S-wave γγ → ππ amplitude to those considered in ref.[17, 18, 19, 8].

This new subtraction constant is fixed by considering simultaneously three constraints instead of the two

employed in the previous references. As a result of this much reduced uncertainty, the total cross section

σ(γγ → π0π0) might be used to distinguish between different S-wave I = 0 phase shift parameterizations

once new more precise experimental data become available. We also perform calculations of the width

Γ(σ → γγ), taking from the literature different σ resonance parameters, and compare with the value of

ref.[17]. Other papers dedicated to calculate the two photon decay widths of hadronic resonances are

[20].

The content of the paper is as follows. In section 2 we discuss the dispersive method of ref.[18] and

extend it to calculate with higher accuracy the cross section γγ → π0π0. The resulting σ(γγ → π0π0)

and Γ(σ → γγ) are given in section 3. We elaborate our conclusions in section 4.

2Dispersive approach to γγ → π0π0

In refs.[17, 18, 19] an interesting approach was established to calculate in terms of a dispersion relation

the γγ → (ππ)IS-wave amplitudes, FI(s), where the two pions have definite isospin I. Notice that for

γγ → π0π0, due to the null charge of π0, there is no Born term, fig.1. One then expects, as remarked

in ref.[18], that only the S-wave would be the important partial wave at low energies,√s ? 0.7 GeV.

For γγ → π+π−, where there is a Born term due to the exchange of charged pions, the D-waves have

a relevant contribution already at rather low energies due to the smallness of the pion mass. In the

following, we shall restrict ourselves to the S-wave contribution to γγ → π0π0. The explicit calculation of

ref.[10] indicates that the D-wave contribution at√s ≃ 0.65 GeV is smaller than a 10% in σ(γγ → π0π0),

and it rapidly decreases for lower energies.

The function FI(s) is an analytic function on the complex s−plane except for two cuts along the real

axis. The right hand cut happens for s ≥ 4m2

hand cut, in turn, runs for s ≤ 0 and is due to unitarity in crossed channels. Let us denote by LI(s) the

π, with mπthe pion mass, and is due to unitarity. The left

2

Page 3

P

P−

p1

p2

k2

k1

P

γ

γ

P

P

P+

P+

P+

P+

P−

P−

P−

Figure 1: Born term contribution to γ(k1)γ(k2) → P+(p1)P−(p2).

complete left hand cut contribution. Then the function FI(s)−LI(s), by definition, only has right hand

cut. Next, refs.[17, 18, 19] consider the Omn` es function ωI(s),

?

π

4m2

ωI(s) = exp

s

?∞

π

φI(s′)

s′(s′− s)ds′

?

,(2.1)

with φI(s) the phase of FI(s) modulo π, chosen in such a way that φI(s) is continuous and φI(4m2

Because of the choice of the phase function φI(s) in eq.(2.1), the function FI(s)/ωI(s) has no right hand

cut. Then refs.[17, 18, 19] perform a twice subtracted dispersion relation for (FI(s) − LI(s))/ωI(s),

FI(s) = LI(s) + aIωI(s) + cIsωI(s) +s2

π) = 0.

πωI(s)

?∞

4m2

π

LI(s′)sinφI(s′)

s′2(s′− s)|ωI(s′)|ds′.(2.2)

On the other hand, Low’s theorem [21] requires FI→ BI(s) for s → 0, with BI the Born term contri-

bution, shown in fig.1. If we write LI= BI+ RI, with RI→ 0 for s → 0, as can always be done, then

Low’s theorem implies also that FI− LI→ 0 for s → 0 and hence aI= 0.

For the exotic I = 2 S-wave one can invoke Watson’s final state theorem#1so that φ2(s) = δπ(s)2, the

I = 2 S-wave ππ phase shifts. For I = 0 the same theorem guarantees that φ0(s) = δπ(s)0for s ≤ 4m2

with δπ(s)0the S-wave I = 0 ππ phase shifts and mKthe kaon mass. Here one neglects the inelasticity

due to the 4π and 6π states below the two kaon threshold, an accurate assumption as indicated by

experiment [22, 23]. Above the two kaon threshold, sK= 4m2

a priori due to the onset of inelasticity. This is why ref.[17] took for s > sKthat either φ0(s) ≃ δπ(s)0

or φ0(s) ≃ δπ(s)0− π, in order to study the size of the uncertainty induced for low energies. It results,

however, that this uncertainty increases dramatically with energy such that for√s = 0.5, 0.55, 0.6 and

0.65 GeV it is 20, 45, 92 and 200%, see fig.3 of ref.[17].

The reason for this behaviour is the use of the function ω0(s) in eq.(2.2). The I = 0 S-wave phase

shift δπ(s)0has a rapid increase by π around sK= 4m2

on top of the K¯K threshold. Let us denote by ϕ(s) the phase of the ππ → ππ I = 0 S-wave strong

amplitude, modulo π, such that it is continuous and ϕ(4m2

with δπ(s)0and δπ(s)2. Now, if one uses ϕ(s) instead of φ0(s) in eq.(2.1) for illustration, the function

ω0(s) is discontinuous in the transition from δπ(sK)0→ π−ǫ to δπ(sK)0→ π+ǫ, with ǫ → 0+. In the first

case |ω0(s)| has a zero at sK, while in the latter it becomes +∞. This discontinuity is illustrated in fig.3

by considering the difference between the dot-dashed and dashed lines. This discontinuous behaviour of

ω0(s) under small (even tiny) changes of δπ(s)0around sK, was the reason for the controversy regarding

the value of the pion scalar radius ?r2?π

#1This theorem implies that the phase of FI(s) where there is no inelasticity is the same, modulo π, as the one of the

isospin I S-wave ππ elastic strong amplitude.

K,

K, the phase function φ0(s) cannot be fixed

K, due to the narrowness of the f0(980) resonance

π) = 0. This phase is shown in fig.2 together

sbetween [24, 25, 26] and [27]. This controversy was finally solved

3

Page 4

in ref.[28] where it is shown that Yndur´ ain’s method is compatible with the solutions obtained by solving

the Muskhelishvili-Omn` es equations for the scalar form factor [29, 30, 31]. The problem arose because

refs.[24, 25] overlooked the proper solution and stuck to an unstable one.

400

600

80010001200 1400

1600

s1/2 (MeV)

0

100

200

300

400

δπ(s)0 (degrees)

central value of [22]

PY [38]

CGL [37]

Sol. A of [23]

Sol. B of [23]

Sol. C of [23]

Sol. D of [23]

Sol. E of [23]

Kaminski et al. [32]

BNL-E865 Coll. [33]

NA48/2 Coll. [34]

I=2

I=2, [35]

I=2, [36]

300

350

400

450

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

BNL-E865 Coll. [33]

NA48/2 Coll. [34]

PY [38]

CGL [37]

ϕ (δπ(sK)0< π)

ϕ (δπ(sK)0> π)

Figure 2: The phase shifts δπ(s)0and δπ(s)2and the phase ϕ(s). Experimental data are from refs.[32, 23, 33, 34]

for I = 0 and refs.[35, 36] for I = 2. The insert is the comparison of CGL [37] and PY [38] with the accurate data

from Ke4[33, 34].

0200400

600

s1/2 (MeV)

80010001200

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

|ω0| for δπ(sK)<π

|ω0| for δπ(sK)>π

|Ω0| for δπ(sK)>π

Figure 3: |ω0(s)|, eq.(2.1), with δπ(sK)0< π, dashed-line, and δπ(sK)0> π, dot-dashed line. The solid line is

|Ω0(s)|, eq.(2.3), for the latter case. Here ϕ(s) is used as φ0(s) in eqs.(2.1) and (2.3) for illustrative purposes.

Inelasticity is again small for 1.1 ?√s ? 1.5 GeV being compatible with zero experimentally [22, 23].

As remarked in refs.[24, 28], one can then apply approximately Watson’s final state theorem and for

F0(s) this implies that φ0(s) ≃ δ(+)(s) modulo π. Here δ(+)(s) is the eigenphase of the ππ, K¯K I = 0

S-wave S-matrix such that it is continuous and δ(+)(sK) = δπ(sK)0. In refs.[25, 28] it is shown that

δ(+)(s) ≃ δπ(s)0 or δπ(s)0− π, depending on whether δπ(sK)0 ≥ π or < π, respectively. In order to

fix the integer factor in front of π in φ0(s) ≃ δ(+)(s) modulo π, one needs to devise an argument to

follow the possible trajectories of φ0(s) in the narrow region 1 ?√s ? 1.1 GeV, where inelasticity is not

negligible. The remarkable physical effects happening there are the appearance of the f0(980) resonance

on top of the K¯K threshold and the cusp effect of the latter that induces a discontinuity at sKin the

4

Page 5

derivative of observables, this is clearly visible in fig.2. Between 1.05 to 1.1 GeV there are no further

narrow structures and observables evolve smoothly. Approximately half of the region between 0.95 and

1.05 GeV is elastic and φ0(s) = δπ(s)0(Watson’s theorem), so that it raises rapidly. Above 2mK≃ 1 GeV

up to 1.05 GeV the function φ0(s) can keep increasing with energy, as δπ(s)0or ϕ(s) for δπ(sK)0≥ π,

and this is also always the case for the corresponding phase function of the strange scalar form factor

of the pion [28]. It is also the behaviour for φ0(s) corresponding to the explicit calculation of ref.[10].

The other possibility is a change of sign in the slope at sKdue to the K¯K cusp effect such that φ0(s)

starts a rapid decrease in energy, like ϕ(s) for δπ(sK)0< π, fig.2. Above√s = 1.05 GeV, φ0(s) matches

smoothly with the behaviour for√s ? 1.1 GeV where it is constraint by Watson’s final state theorem.

As a result of this matching, for√s ? 1 GeV either φ0(s) ≃ δπ(s)0or φ0(s) ≃ δπ(s)0− π, corresponding

to an increasing or decreasing φ0(s) above sK, respectively. There is then left an ambiguity of π in φ0(s)

for 1.5 GeV ?√s >√sK. Our argument also justifies the similar choice of phases in ref.[17] above sK

to estimate uncertainties. Let us define the switch z to characterize the behaviour of φ0(s) for s > sK

such that z = +1 if φ0(s) rises with energy and z = −1 if it decreases. Above 1.5 GeV the phase function

employed has little effect in our energy region and we use the same asymptotic phase function as in

ref.[28], tending either to 2π (z = +1) or π (z = −1) for s → +∞. It allows a large uncertainty of ≃ 2π

at√s = 1.5 GeV, that only shrinks logarithmically for higher energies. This uncertainty is included in

our error analysis. Further details are given in ref.[28].

Next, we define, the function Ω0(s), similarly as done in ref.[28],

?

where θ(z) = +1 for z = +1 and 0 for z = −1 and s1is the point at which φ0(s1) = π. The latter is the

only point where the imaginary part of Ω0(s) vanishes around sKand this fixes the position of the zero.

Now, we perform the same twice subtracted dispersion relation as in eq.(2.2) but for (F0(s)−L0(s))/Ω0(s) ,

F0(s) = L0(s) + c0sΩ0(s) +s2

πΩ0(s)

4m2

π

Ω0(s) =1 − θ(z)s

s1

?

exp

?

s

π

?∞

4m2

π

φ0(s′)

s′(s′− s)ds′

?

,(2.3)

?∞

L0(s′)sinφ0(s′)

s′2(s′− s)|Ω0(s′)|ds′+ θ(z)ω0(s)

ω0(s1)

s2

s2

1

(F0(s1) − L0(s1)) . (2.4)

In the previous equation we introduce φ0(s) that is defined as the phase of Ω0(s). Let us note that in

the case z = +1 the phase of Ω0(s) for s > s1is not φ0(s) but φ0(s)−π, due to the factor 1−(s+iǫ)/s1

in Ω0(s), eq.(2.3). Since φ2(s), because of Watson’s final state theorem, is given by δπ(s)2, which is small

and smooth [35, 36], fig.2, the issue of the discontinuity in ω2(s) under changes in parameterizations

does not rise and we use the dispersion relation in eq.(2.2). It is worth mentioning that our eq.(2.4) for

z = +1 is equivalent to take a three times subtracted dispersion relation for (F0(s) − L0(s))/ω0(s), two

subtractions are taken at s = 0 and another one at s1. We could have taken the three subtractions at

s = 0, although we find more convenient eq.(2.4) which is physically motivated by the use of the Omn` es

function eq.(2.3) that is continuous under changes in the parameterization of the I = 0 S-wave S-matrix.

When eq.(2.3) is used with ϕ(s) instead of φ0(s) for δπ(sK)0> π the solid curve in fig.3 is obtained,

which is again close to the dashed line for δπ(sK)0< π.

We denote by FN(s) the S-wave γγ → π0π0amplitude and by FC(s) the γγ → π+π−one. The

relations between F0, F2and FN(s), FC(s) in our isospin convention are

?2

We have the unknown constants c0, c2and F0(s1)−L0(s1), the latter for z = +1. To determine them

we impose:

FN(s) = −1

√3F0+

3F2, FC(s) = −1

√3F0−

?1

6F2.(2.5)

5

Page 6

1. FC(s) − BC(s) vanishes linearly in s for s → 0 and we match the coefficient to the one loop χPT

result [4, 5].

2. FN(s) vanishes linearly for s → 0 as well and the coefficient can be obtained again by matching with

one loop χPT [4, 5].

3. For I = 0 and z = +1 one has still F0(s1)−L0(s1). The value of this constant can be restricted taking

into account that FN(s) has an Adler zero, due to chiral symmetry. This zero is located at sA= m2

one loop χPT and moves to sA= 1.175m2

πin two loop χPT [6]. This implies about a 20% correction,

that prevents us from taking a definite value for sA. In turn, we obtain that the value of the resulting

cross section σ(γγ → π0π0) around the f0(980) resonance is quite sensitive to the position of the Adler

zero, because it controls the size of F0(s1) − L0(s1). The latter appears in the last term in eq.(2.4), the

one that dominates F0(s) around the f0(980) position since Ω0(s1) = 0. Though the dispersive method

is devised at its best for lower energies, it is also clear that it should give at least the proper order of

magnitude for σ(γγ → π0π0) in the f0(980) region.#2Being conservative, we shall restrict the values

of F0(s1) − L0(s1) so as the cross section at s1is less than 10 times the experimental value around the

f0(980) region, σ(γγ → π0π0) < 400 nb.

Regarding LI(s), it is expected to be dominated at low energies by the Born term in isospin I because

of the smallness of the pion mass. The Born term originates by the exchanges in the t and u channels

(γπ → γπ) of charged pions, fig.1. Other crossed exchanges of vector and axial vector resonances are

relatively suppressed for FI(s) due to the larger masses of the members of the JPC= 1−−, 1++and 1+−

multiplets so that their associated left hand cut singularities are further away. Among them, the 1++

axial vector exchange contributions are the dominant ones in γπ±→ γπ±and already appear at the one

loop level in χPT. The 1−−and 1+−exchanges start one order higher. As already remarked in ref.[8],

the authors of refs.[18, 19], and later on also ref.[17], overlooked the axial vector exchange contributions

altogether and hence they are missing an essential part in the study of the low energy γγ → π0π0. Indeed,

once the 1++axial vector exchange contributions are considered the cross section in the latter references

would increase significantly at low energies. For instance, at√s = 0.5 GeV one has more than a 20%

increase compared to the case in which only the Born term and the 1−−vector resonances exchanges

are considered. At low energies the influence of the 1+−axial vector nonet is much smaller than that

of the 1++and 1−−multiplets. In the following, LI(s) is modelled by the Born terms and the crossed

exchanges of the 1++, 1−−, and 1+−resonance multiplets, evaluated from chiral Lagrangians. Explicit

expressions for the distinct contributions to LI(s) will be given elsewhere [41].

πin

3Results

In this section we show the results that follow by the use of eq.(2.4) for I = 0 and eq.(2.2) for I = 2.

Since the main contribution in the low energy region to Ω0(s) and ω2(s) comes from the low energy

ππ phase shifts, one needs to be as precise as possible for low energy ππ scattering data. The small

I = 2 S-wave ππ phase shifts, which induce small final state interaction corrections anyhow, can be

parameterized in simple terms and our fit compared to data can be seen in fig.2. For the I = 0 S-wave

ππ, we take the parameterizations of ref.[37] (CGL) and ref.[38] (PY). Both agree with data from Ke4

decays [33, 34] and span to a large extend the band of theoretical uncertainties in the I = 0 S-wave ππ

phase shifts [22, 23, 32]. PY, similarly to refs.[42, 43, 44], runs through the higher values of δπ(s)0, while

CGL does through lower values, see fig.2. We shall use CGL up to 0.8 GeV, since this is the upper limit

of its analysis, and the K-matrix of Hyams et al. [22] above that energy. The latter corresponds to the

energy dependent analysis of the experimental data of the same reference. On the other hand, PY is

#2E.g., other models [10, 39, 40] having similar physical mechanisms describe that energy region very well indeed.

6

Page 7

used up to 0.9 GeV, since at that energy this parameterization agrees well inside errors with [22], and

above 0.9 GeV the K-matrix of ref.[22] is taken. Given the input functions φI(s) and LI(s), the constants

c2, c0and F0(s1) − L0(s1) can be fixed by the three conditions explained at the end of section 2. The

γγ → π0π0S-wave amplitude FN(s), eq.(2.5), can then be calculated and the total cross section is given

by σ(γγ → π0π0) =

the uncertainty of the cross section due to the variation of φ0(s) above sKas commented in the previous

section. For z = +1 one has the solid line while for z = −1 the dashed line results, both are very close.

This should be compared with the dot-dashed line that is obtained from the approach of refs.[17, 18, 19].

The uncertainty now, by employing eq.(2.4) instead of eq.(2.2) for I = 0, is drastically reduced. This

improvement also implies that our results can be compared with data for√s ? 0.5 GeV. We also show

by the gray band around the solid line the mild influence in our calculations of the uncertainty in the

location of the Adler zero, restricted so that σ(γγ → π0π0) < 400 nb at the f0(980) region (experiment

is ≃ 40 nb).

28

γγ π0π0

β

64πs|FN(s)|2, with β(s) =

?1 − 4m2

π/s. We show in fig.4 the drastic reduction in

250

300

350

400

450 500

s1/2 (MeV)

550

600

650

700

750

800

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

σ (nb)

δπ(sK) > π, eq.(2.4)

δπ(sK) > π, eq.(2.2)

δπ(sK) < π, eq.(2.2)

Figure 4: The solid line corresponds to z = +1 and the error band is the uncertainty by requiring that σ(γγ →

π0π0) < 400 nb at s1. This line should be compared with the dot-dashed one that would result from the formalism

of ref.[17], including axial vector exchanges. Finally, the dashed line corresponds to z = −1.

Our final σ(γγ → π0π0) is shown in fig.5. We give the corresponding results for CGL(solid) and

PY(dashed), where the band around every line stems from the uncertainties in our approach, which

comprise: the errors in the Hyams et al. [22], CGL and PY parameterizations (those of the last two

indeed dominate the width of the bands), to use either φ0(s) ≃ δπ(s)0or δπ(s)0− π for s > sK, the

uncertainty in the asymptotic phase and to restrict σ(γγ → π0π0) < 400 nb in the f0(980) region for

z = +1. On top of that, we evaluate the conditions 1 and 2 above from the expressions given by one loop

χPT either by employing fπ= 92.4 MeV or f ≃ 0.94fπ, where the former is the pion decay constant and

the latter is the same but in the SU(2) chiral limit [3]. This amounts to around a 12% of uncertainty in

the evaluation of c0and c2, due to the square dependence on fπ. Note that both choices, fπor f, are

consistent with the precision of the one loop calculation and the variation in the results is an estimate for

higher order corrections. However, the error induced in σ(γγ → π0π0) is much smaller than that from

the other sources of uncertainty and can be neglected when added in quadrature.

7

Page 8

In the same figure the dotted line corresponds to one loop CHPT [4, 5] and the dot-dashed one to the

two loop result [6, 7]. The latter is closer to our results but still one observes that the O(p8) corrections

would be sizable. It is worth stressing that if the axial vector exchanges were removed, as in refs.[17, 19],

then our curves would be smaller. This corresponds to the dot-dot-dashed line in fig.5 which is very close

to that of ref.[17] when employing φ0(s) ≃ δπ(s)0− π for s > sK. This curve is evaluated making use of

CGL and ref.[22]. The three experimental points [1] in the region 0.45 − 0.6 GeV agree well with this

curve. However, once the axial vector are included the curve rises. These three points lie around 1.5

sigmas below the CGL result band, and by more than two sigmas below the PY one. This clearly shows

that more precise experimental data on γγ → π0π0could be used to distinguish between different S-

wave parameterizations. In turn, the next three experimental σ(γγ → π0π0) points, those lying between

0.6−0.75 GeV, agree better when the axial vector resonance contributions are taken into account, as one

should do. As a result of this discussion, more precise experimental data for γγ → π0π0are called for.

250

300

350

400

450 500

s1/2 (MeV)

550

600

650

700

750

800

0

4

8

12

16

20

σ (nb)

γγ π0π0

PY

CGL

χPT to one loop

χPT to two loops

Figure 5: Final results for the γγ → π0π0cross section. Experimental data are from the Crystal Ball Coll. [1],

scaled by 1/0.8, as |cosθ| < 0.8 is measured and S-wave dominates. The solid line corresponds to CGL and the

dashed one to PY. The dot-dot-dashed line results after removing the axial vector exchange contributions. The

band along each line represents the theoretical uncertainty. The dotted line is the one loop χPT result [4, 5] and

the dot-dashed one the two loop calculation [6].

In terms of the calculated FN(s) one can evaluate the σ coupling to γγ, called gσγγ. The dispersion

relation to calculate F0(s) is only valid on the first Riemann sheet. If evaluated on the second Riemann

sheet there would be an extra term due to the σ pole. However, the relation between F0(s) and?F0(s),

F0(s + iǫ) − F0(s − iǫ) = −2iF0(s + iǫ)ρ(s + iǫ)T0

with 4m2

elastic amplitude on the second Riemann sheet and T0

I(s) is the one on the physical Riemann sheet. Due to

continuity when changing from one sheet to the other, F0(s−iǫ) =?F0(s+iǫ) , TI=0

?F0(s) = F0(s)?1 + 2iρ(s)TI=0

8

the latter on the second sheet, can be easily established by using unitarity above the ππ threshold,

II(s − iǫ) ,

II(s) is the I = 0 S-wave ππ

(3.6)

π≤ s ≤ 4m2

K, ρ(s) = β(s)/16π and ǫ → 0+. In the equation above T0

I

(s−iǫ) = TI=0

II(s+iǫ) .

Then, eq.(3.6) can be rewritten as

II (s)?

.(3.7)

Page 9

Around the σ pole, sσ,

TI=0

II

=

g2

sσ− s,?F0(s) =

√2 factor in?F0(s) to match with the gσππ normalization used (the so

g2

σγγ

g2

σππ

28π

σππ

√2gσγγgσππ

sσ− s

, (3.8)

with gσππthe σ coupling to two pions such that Γ = |gσππ|2β/16πM, for a narrow enough scalar resonance

of mass M. Notice as well the

called unitary normalization [42, 43, 44]). Then from eqs.(3.7) and (3.8) it follows that

= −1

?β(sσ)

?2

F0(sσ)2,(3.9)

Let us stress that this equation gives the ratio between the residua of the S-wave I = 0 γγ → ππ and

ππ → ππ amplitudes at the σ pole position.

In order to derive specific numbers for the previous ratio in terms of our dispersive approach one needs

to introduce sσ. We take two different values for sσ= (Mσ−iΓσ/2)2. From the studies of Unitary χPT

[42, 43, 44, 45] one has Mσand Γσaround the interval 425-440 MeV. The other values that we will use

are from ref. [46], Mccl

σ

= 441+16

σ

= 544+18

the following, values that employ the σ pole position of ref.[46]. The corresponding ratios of the residua

given in eq.(3.9) are:

????

gσππ

−8MeV and Γccl

−25MeV, where the superscript ccl indicates, in

gσγγ

gσππ

gσγγ

????

=(2.10 ± 0.25) × 10−3, sσfrom ref.[45] ,

????

????

=(2.06 ± 0.14) × 10−3, sσfrom ref.[46] .(3.10)

Both numbers are very similar despite that the imaginary parts of the two s1/2

result of [17], with which we shall compare our results later, corresponds to the ratio in eq.(3.10) being

20% bigger at (2.53 ± 0.09) × 10−3with sσof ref.[46].

These ratios of residua at the σ pole position are the well defined predictions that follow from our

improved dispersive treatment of γγ → (ππ)I. However, the radiative width to γγ for a wide resonance

like the σ, though more intuitive, has experimental determinations that are parameterization dependent.

This is due to the non-trivial interplay between background and the broad resonant signal. An unam-

biguous definition is then required [17, 19]. We employ, as in ref.[17], the standard narrow resonance

width formula in terms of gσγγdetermined from eq.(3.9) by calculating the residue at sσ,

σ

differ by ∼ 20%. The

Γ(σ → γγ) =|gσγγ|2

16πMσ

.(3.11)

Nevertheless, the determinations of the radiative widths from this expression and those from common

experimental analyses can differ substantially. The following example makes this point clear.

From ref.[45] one obtains |gσππ| = 2.97 −3.01 GeV, corresponding to the square root of the residua of

the I = 0 S-wave ππ amplitude, as in eq.(3.8). If similarly to eq.(3.11), one uses the formula,

Γσ=|gσππ|2β(Mσ)

16πMσ

,(3.12)

the resulting width lies in the range 309 − 319 MeV, that is around a 30% smaller than Γσ≃ 430 MeV

from the pole position of ref.[45]. This is due to the large width of the σ meson which makes the |gσππ|

extracted from the residue of TI=0

II, eq.(3.8), be smaller by around a 15% than the value needed in

9

Page 10

eq.(3.12) to obtain Γσ≃ 430 MeV. Similar effects are then also expected in order to extract Γ(σ → γγ)

from the eq.(3.11). Equations similar to this are usually employed in phenomenological fits to data, e.g.

see ref.[47], but with |gσγγ| determined along the real axis. As a result of this discussion, one should allow

a (20−30)% variation between the results obtained from eq.(3.11) and those from standard experimental

analyses that still could deliver a γγ → ππ amplitude in agreement with our more theoretical treatment

for physical values of s.

We shall employ the following values for |gσππ|. First we take |gσππ| = 2.97−3.01 GeV [42, 43, 44, 45].

With this value the resulting two photon width from eqs.(3.10) and (3.11) is

Γ(σ → γγ) = (1.8 ± 0.4) KeV .

σ [46] is larger by a factor ∼ 1.3 than Γσfrom ref.[45].

(3.13)

We also consider a larger value for |gσππ| since Γccl

One value is

|gσππ|ccl

(1)≃ |gσππ|

?Γccl(σ → ππ)

Γ(σ → ππ)

?1

2

= (1.127 ± 0.022)|gσππ| = (3.35 ± 0.08) GeV . (3.14)

This corresponds to the scenario discussed previously in eq.(3.12) with a value 15% lower than

?16πMσΓccl

obtained by reproducing Γccl

σ from the pole position using eq.(3.12). If we evaluate with these couplings

the σ → γγ width one obtains from eqs.(3.10) and (3.11), respectively,

Γccl

(1)(σ → γγ)

Γccl

(2)(σ → γγ)

Recently, ref.[17] calculated a value Γ(σ → γγ) = (4.09 ± 0.29) KeV also employing sσfrom ref.[46].

This value is larger than Γccl

(2)(σ → γγ) in the previous equation, despite that |gσππ| there used is 3.86 GeV,

very close to |gσππ|ccl

calculating Γ(σ → γγ), except for an extra factor |β(sσ)| ∼ 0.95 in ref.[17]. Of course, they are written

in a different notation.#3The reason for this remaining difference is two fold. As already mentioned

above, ref.[17] does not include axial vector exchanges in evaluating γγ → (ππ)I. It is this omission that

accounts for half of the 20% difference in the ratio of residua, eq.(3.10), mentioned above. The other 10%

comes from improvements delivered by our extra subtraction and our slightly different inputs. Using the

same value for |gccl

eq.(3.16)) than that in [17].

As a summary of the σ → γγ considerations, from our dispersive approach and sσ of refs.[45, 46]

we obtain a value for the ratio of the residua |gσγγ/gσππ| ∼ (2.1 ± 0.25) × 10−3. This number follows

unambiguously from our study. Other more intuitive, but convention dependent quantities, like the

σ → γγ width calculated from eq.(3.11), are less well determined. These depend critically on the input

value for |gσππ|2and sσ, though they are not required in our dispersive study of γγ → π0π0. We then

determine the values: i) Γ(σ → γγ) = (1.8 ± 0.4) KeV with sσ and |gσππ| ∼ 3 GeV from ref.[45]; ii)

Γccl

(2)(σ → γγ) = (3.0 ± 0.3) KeV which come by considering sσ

of ref.[46] with an estimated |gσππ| = 3.4 and 3.9 GeV, respectively. Other values could be obtained

from eq.(3.11) by plugging different sσ and |gσππ| in eq.(3.9) in order to estimate |gσγγ|. One should

require that these values are provided from a ππ S-wave I = 0 strong amplitude in agreement with the

experimental phase shifts, see fig.2.

|gσππ|ccl

(2)=

σ

β(Mσ)

?1/2

= (3.93 ± 0.08) GeV ,(3.15)

= (2.1 ± 0.3) KeV ,

(3.0 ± 0.3) KeV .= (3.16)

(2). It is worth stressing that both our eq.(3.11) and eq.(7) of ref.[17] are equivalent for

σππ| as in [17], our resulting value for Γ(σ → γγ) would be around a 40% smaller (as in

(1)(σ → γγ) = (2.1 ± 0.3) KeV and Γccl

#3We want to thank M.R. Pennington for a detailed comparison of his results with ours and interesting discussions.

10

Page 11

4Conclusions

We have undertaken a dispersive study of the γγ → π0π0reaction. Our approach is based on that of

refs.[18, 19, 17] but using a better behaved Omn` es function for the I = 0 S-wave ππ channel. As a

result, we have been able to reduce drastically the uncertainty regarding the φ0(s) used in this Omn` es

function above the K¯K threshold. Our improvement is equivalent to take three subtractions instead of

the two originally proposed in refs.[18, 19, 17]. We have then used two low energy conditions and a third

constraint in the form of a bound on the f0(980) region so as to fix the three subtraction constants. This

has allowed us to present more accurate results, which might be used to discriminate between different

ππ I = 0 S-wave parametrizations, once more precise data on σ(γγ → π0π0) become available. Further

improvements at the theoretical level rest on a more precise determination of φ0(s) above sKand a more

systematic calculation of LI(s).

We have calculated the ratio of the residua |gσγγ/gσππ| = (2.1±0.25)×10−3with sσfrom refs.[45, 46].

The σ width to γγ was also studied and we stressed its dependence on the sσand |gσππ|2employed, not

used in our dispersive study of γγ → π0π0. One value obtained is Γ(σ → γγ) = (1.8 ± 0.4) KeV with

sσand |gσππ| ≃ 3 GeV from ref.[45]. The others values take sσas given in ref.[46] with Γ(σ → γγ) =

(2.1 ± 0.3) KeV for |gσππ| = 3.4 GeV, and Γ(σ → γγ) = (3.0 ± 0.3) KeV for |gσππ| = 3.9 GeV. The last

two numbers for Γccl(σ → γγ) tell us that the uncertainties in its calculation are still rather large and a

further improvement requires to know precisely |gccl

σππ| from ref.[37].

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank E. Oset for useful communications. This work has been supported in part by the

MEC (Spain) and FEDER (EC) Grants FPA2004-03470 and Fis2006-03438, the Fundaci´ on S´ eneca (Mur-

cia) grant Ref. 02975/PI/05, the European Commission (EC) RTN Network EURIDICE Contract No.

HPRN-CT2002-00311 and the HadronPhysics I3 Project (EC) Contract No RII3-CT-2004-506078. C.S.

acknowledges the Fundaci´ on S´ eneca by funding his stay at the Departamento de F´ ısica de la Universidad

de Murcia, and the latter by its warm hospitality.

References

[1] H. Marsiske et al. [Crystal Ball Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D41, 3324 (1990).

[2] S. Weinberg, Physica A96, 327 (1979).

[3] J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 158, 142 (1984); Nucl. Phys. B250, 465 (1985).

[4] J. Bijnens and F. Cornet, Nucl. Phys. B296, 557 (1988).

[5] J. F. Donoghue, B. R. Holstein and Y. C. Lin, Phys. Rev. D37, 2423 (1988).

[6] S. Bellucci, J. Gasser and M. E. Sainio, Nucl. Phys. B423, 80 (1994).

[7] J. Gasser, M. A. Ivanov and M. E. Sainio, Nucl. Phys. B728, 31 (2005).

[8] J. F. Donoghue and B. Holstein, Phys. Rev. D48, 137 (1993).

[9] A. Dobado and J. R. Pel´ aez, Z. Phys. C57, 501 (1993).

[10] J. A. Oller and E. Oset, Nucl. Phys. A629, 739 (1998).

[11] J. A. Oller, Phys. Lett. B426, 7 (1998).

[12] T. S. H. Lee, J. A. Oller, E. Oset and A. Ramos, Nucl. Phys. A643 (1998) 402.

[13] U. G. Meissner and J. A. Oller, Nucl. Phys. A 679, 671 (2001).

11

Page 12

[14] J. A. Oller, E. Oset and J. E. Palomar, Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 114009.

[15] E. Oset, J. A. Oller and U. G. Meissner, Eur. Phys. J. A12, 435 (2001).

[16] E. Oset, J. R. Pel´ aez and L. Roca, Phys. Rev. D67, 073013 (2003).

[17] M. R. Pennington, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 011601.

[18] D. Morgan and M. R. Pennington, Z. Phys. C37, 431 (1988); (E)-ibid. C39, 590 (1988); Phys. Lett.

B272, 134 (1991).

[19] M. R. Pennington, pag.18 in L. Maiani, G. Panchieri and N. Paver, eds., The DAΦNE Physics

Handbook (INFN, Frascati, 1992).

[20] J. Babcock and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D14 (1976) 1286; S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev.

D32 (1985) 189; T. Barnes, Phys. Lett. B165, 434 (1985); S. Narison and G. Veneziano, Int. J.

Mod. Phys. A4 (1989) 2751; Z. P. Li, F. E. Close and T. Barnes, Phys. Rev. D43 (1991) 2161;

C. R. Munz, Nucl. Phys. A609 (1996) 364; N. N. Achasov, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 65 (2002) 546 [Yad.

Fiz. 65, 573 (2002)]; S. Krewald, R. H. Lemmer and F. P. Sassen, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 016003;

S. Rodriguez and M. Napsuciale, Phys. Rev. D71, 074008 (2005); C. Hanhart, Yu. S. Kalashnikova,

A. E. Kudryavtsev and A. V. Nefediev, Phys. Rev. D75 (2007) 074015; G. Mennessier, P. Minkowski,

S. Narison and W. Ochs, arXiv:hep-ph/0707.4511.

[21] F. E. Low, Phys. Rev. 96, 1428 (1954); M. Gell-Mann and M. L. Goldberger, Phys. Rev. 96, 1433

(1954).

[22] B. Hyams et al., Nucl. Phys. B64, 134 (1973).

[23] G. Grayer et al., Nucl. Phys. B 75 (1974) 189.

[24] F. J. Yndur´ ain, Phys. Lett. B578, 99 (2004); (E)-ibid B586, 439 (2004).

[25] F. J. Yndur´ ain, Phys. Lett. B612, 245 (2005).

[26] F. J. Yndur´ ain, arXiv:hep-ph/0510317.

[27] B. Ananthanarayan, I. Caprini, G. Colangelo, J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. B602, 218

(2004).

[28] J. A. Oller and L. Roca, Phys. Lett. B651, 139 (2007).

[29] J. F. Donoghue, J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B343, 341 (1990).

[30] B. Moussallam, Eur. Phys. J. C14, 111 (2000).

[31] U. G. Meißner and J. A. Oller, Nucl. Phys. A679, 671 (2001).

[32] R. Kaminski, L. Lesniak and K. Rybicki, Z. Phys. C 74, 79 (1997).

[33] S Pislak et al. [BNL-E865 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 221801; Phys. Rev. D67, 072004

(2003).

[34] L. Masetti [NA48/2 Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0610071.

[35] M. J. Losty et al., Nucl. Phys. B69 (1974) 185.

[36] W. Hoogland et al., Nucl. Phys. B126 (1977) 109.

[37] G. Colangelo, J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B603, 125 (2001).

[38] J. R. Pel´ aez and F. J. Yndur´ ain, Phys. Rev. D68, 074005 (2003); Phys. Rev. D71, 074016 (2005).

[39] N. N. Achasov, Proceedings of the 14th International Seminar on High Energy Physics: Quarks 2006,

St. Petersburg, Russia.

[40] G. Mennessier, Z. Phys. C16, 241 (1983).

[41] J. A. Oller, L. Roca and C. Schat, in preparation.

12

Page 13

[42] J. A. Oller and E. Oset, Nucl. Phys. A620, 438 (1997); (E)-ibid. A652 (1999) 407.

[43] J. A. Oller and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D60, 074023 (1999).

[44] A. Dobado and J. R. Pel´ aez, Phys. Rev. D56, 3057 (1997); J. A. Oller, E. Oset and J. R. Pel´ aez,

Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3452 (1998); J. A. Oller, E. Oset and J. R. Pel´ aez, Phys. Rev. D59, 074001

(1999); (E)-ibid. D60, 099906 (1999), D75, 099903 (2007).

[45] J. A. Oller, Nucl. Phys. A727 (2003) 353.

[46] I. Caprini, G. Colangelo and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 132001.

[47] T. Mori et al. [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D75 (2007) 051101.

13

#### View other sources

#### Hide other sources

- Available from ArXiv
- Available from arxiv.org
- Available from Jose A. Oller · Jul 16, 2014