Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: the fundamental theory of strong interactions , quantum chromodynamics ( qcd ) , possesses an exact @xmath8 local gauge symmetry ( the color symmetry ) and an approximate global @xmath9 symmetry for @xmath10 massless quark flavours ( the chiral symmetry ) . for sufficiently low temperature and density quarks and gluons are confined into colorless hadrons ( i.e. , @xmath8 invariant configurations ) . thus , it is the chiral symmetry which predominantly determines hadronic interactions in the low - energy region . effective field theories which contain hadrons as degrees of freedom rather than quarks and gluons have been developed along two lines which differ in the way in which chiral symmetry is realized : linear @xcite and non - linear @xcite . in the non - linear realization , the so - called non - linear sigma model , the scalar states are integrated out , leaving the pseudoscalar states as the only degrees of the freedom . on the other hand , in the linear representation of the symmetry , the so - called linear sigma model , both the scalar and pseudoscalar degrees of freedom are present .    in this work , we consider the linear representation of chiral symmetry . an exactly linearly realized chiral symmetry implies that the qcd eigenstates come in degenerate pairs , the so - called chiral partners . chiral partners have the same quantum numbers with the exception of parity and g - parity  for example , the scalar states sigma and pion and the vector states @xmath11 and @xmath12 , respectively , are chiral partners . experimental data in vacuum and at sufficiently low temperatures and densities of matter , however , show that the mass degeneracy is lifted , because the chiral @xmath13 symmetry is broken in two ways : explicitly and spontaneously .    due to the @xmath14 anomaly @xcite , the @xmath15 symmetry is broken explicitly by quantum effects to @xmath16 . in the case of small but nonzero degenerate quark masses , the latter is explicitly broken to @xmath17 . if the quark masses are not degenerate , the @xmath17 symmetry is furthermore explicitly broken to @xmath18 , corresponding to baryon number conservation . qcd also possesses discrete symmetries such as the charge conjugation ( _ c _ ) , parity ( _ p _ ) and time reversal ( _ t _ ) symmetry ( _ cpt _ ) , which are to a very good precision separately conserved by strong interactions . this fact offers further constraints in the construction of effective models of qcd . [ a review of a possible , although small , _ cp _ violation in strong interactions may be found e.g.in ref .  @xcite . ]    in addition to the explicit breaking of axial symmetry @xmath19 due to nonzero quark masses , the latter symmetry is also spontaneously broken in vacuum by the non - vanishing expectation value of the quark condensate : @xmath20  @xcite . this symmetry breaking mechanism leads to the emergence of @xmath21 pseudoscalar goldstone bosons , as well as of massive scalar states representing the chiral partners of the goldstone bosons . for @xmath22 , the three lightest mesonic states , the pions , are identified with these goldstone bosons of qcd . their non - vanishing mass arises due to the explicit breaking of the chiral symmetry , rendering them pseudo - goldstone bosons . in this paper we study an @xmath23 linear sigma model which contains scalar ( @xmath3 , @xmath24 ) and pseudoscalar ( @xmath25 , @xmath26 ) , and in addition also vector ( @xmath27 , @xmath28 ) and axial - vector ( @xmath29 , @xmath30 ) degrees of freedom . usually , such models are constructed under the requirement of local chiral invariance @xmath9 , with the exception of the vector meson mass term which renders the local symmetry a global one @xcite . in a slight abuse of terminology , we will refer to these models as locally chirally invariant models in the following . a study of the qcd phase transition and its critical temperature @xmath31 within such a model can be found e.g.  in ref . @xcite . however , as shown in refs . @xcite , the locally invariant linear sigma model fails to simultaneously describe meson decay widths and pion - pion scattering lengths in vacuum . as outlined in ref . @xcite , there are at least two ways to solve this issue . one way is to utilize a model in which the ( up to the vector meson mass term ) local invariance of the theory is retained while higher - order terms are added to the lagrangian @xcite . the second way which is pursued here is the following : we construct a linear sigma model with global chiral invariance containing all terms up to naive scaling dimension four @xcite . the global invariance allows for additional terms to appear in our lagrangian in comparison to the locally invariant case presented e.g.  in ref . we remark that , introducing a dilaton field , one can argue @xcite that chirally invariant terms of higher order than scaling dimension four should be absent .    in ref . @xcite , we have presented a first study of meson decays and pion - pion scattering lengths in vacuum in the framework of the globally invariant linear sigma model . we have distinguished two different assignments for the scalar fields @xmath32 and @xmath33 : ( _ i _ ) they may be identified with @xmath1 and @xmath2 which are members of a nonet that in addition consists of @xmath34 and @xmath35 ; ( _ ii _ ) they may be identified with @xmath5 and @xmath6 which are members of a decuplet that in addition consists of @xmath36 , @xmath37 , and @xmath38 , where the additional scalar - isoscalar state emerges from the admixture of a glueball field @xcite . in the following , we will refer to assignment ( _ i _ ) as scenario i , and to assignment ( _ ii _ ) as scenario ii . in the latter , scalar mesons below 1 gev are not ( predominantly ) quark - antiquark states . their spectroscopic wave functions might contain a dominant tetraquark or mesonic molecular contribution @xcite . the correct assignment of the scalar quark - antiquark fields of the model to physical resonances is not only important as a contribution to the ongoing debate about the nature of these resonances , but it is also vital for a study of the properties of hadrons at nonzero temperature and density , where the chiral partner of the pion plays a crucial role @xcite .    it is important to stress that the theoretical @xmath3 and @xmath4 fields entering the linear sigma model describe pure quark - antiquark states , just as all the other fields ( @xmath25 , @xmath26 , @xmath27 , @xmath28 , @xmath29 , @xmath30 ) . this property can be easily proven by using well - known large-@xmath39 results @xcite : the mass and the decay widths of both @xmath3 and @xmath4 fields scale in the model as @xmath40 and @xmath41 , respectively .    in this paper we first investigate the consequences of scenario i on various decay widths and pion - pion scattering lengths . this assignment is disfavored because a consistent description of all experimental data can not be achieved . to reach this conclusion , vector and axial - vector degrees of freedoms play an important role . on the one hand their decays ( such as @xmath42 and @xmath43 ) and the role of the @xmath11 meson in @xmath0 scattering provide strong constraints , on the other hand they affect , indirectly but sizably , some decay channels , such as @xmath44 . we then present a study of scenario ii . although the latter is not yet conclusive because additional scalar fields ( glueball , tetraquark ) are not yet taken into account , our preliminary results for the decay widths ( albeit not for the scattering length @xmath7 ) are consistent with the data . the paper is organized as follows : in sec . ii we present the lagrangian of our model and discuss the parameters which are known to very good precision and thus do not enter the fit of the decay widths and the scattering lengths . in sec . iii we present the formulas for the decay widths and the pion - pion scattering lengths which will be used to fit the remaining parameters and to compare the results to experimental data . this fit and comparison are discussed in sec . iv , both for scenario i and scenario ii . in sec . v we summarize our results in the conclusions and give an outlook to future work . in the appendix , we show the explicit form of our lagrangian in terms of the meson fields . the lagrangian of the globally invariant linear sigma model with @xmath45 symmetry for @xmath23 reads @xcite : @xmath46-m_{0}^{2 } \mathrm{tr}(\phi^{\dagger}\phi)-\lambda_{1}[\mathrm{tr}(\phi^{\dagger}% \phi)]^{2 } -\lambda_{2}\mathrm{tr}(\phi^{\dagger}\phi)^{2}\nonumber\\ &   -\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{tr}[(l^{\mu\nu})^{2}+(r^{\mu\nu})^{2}]+\frac{m_{1}^{2}% } { 2 } \mathrm{tr}[(l^{\mu})^{2}+(r^{\mu})^{2}]+\mathrm{tr}[h(\phi+\phi ^{\dagger})]\nonumber\\ &   + c(\det\phi+\det\phi^{\dagger})-2ig_{2}(\mathrm{tr}\{l_{\mu\nu}[l^{\mu } , l^{\nu}]\ } + \mathrm{tr}\{r_{\mu\nu}[r^{\mu},r^{\nu}]\})\nonumber\\ &   -2g_{3}\left [   \mathrm{tr}\left (   \left\ {   \partial_{\mu}l_{\nu}-iea_{\mu } [ t^{3},l_{\nu } ] + \partial_{\nu}l_{\mu}-iea_{\nu}[t^{3},l_{\mu}]\right\ } \{l^{\mu},l^{\nu}\}\right )   \right . \nonumber\\ &   \hspace*{0.65 cm } + \left . \mathrm{tr } \left (   \left\ {   \partial_{\mu}% r_{\nu}-iea_{\mu}[t^{3},r_{\nu } ] + \partial_{\nu}r_{\mu}-iea_{\nu}[t^{3}% , r_{\mu}]\right\ }   \{r^{\mu},r^{\nu}\}\right )   \right ] \nonumber\\ &   + \frac{h_{1}}{2}\mathrm{tr}(\phi^{\dagger}\phi)\mathrm{tr}[(l^{\mu})^{2 } + ( r^{\mu})^{2}]+h_{2}\mathrm{tr}[(\phi r^{\mu})^{2}+(l^{\mu}\phi)^{2 } ] + 2h_{3}\mathrm{tr}(\phi r_{\mu}\phi^{\dagger}l^{\mu}).\nonumber\\ &   + g_{4}\left\ {   \mathrm{tr}\left [   l^{\mu}l^{\nu}l_{\mu}l_{\nu}\right ] + \mathrm{tr}\left [   r^{\mu}r^{\nu}r_{\mu}r_{\nu}\right ]   \right\ } + g_{5}\left\ {   \mathrm{tr}\left [   l^{\mu}l_{\mu}l^{\nu}l_{\nu}\right ] + \mathrm{tr}\left [   r^{\mu}r_{\mu}r^{\nu}r_{\nu}\right ]   \right\ } \nonumber\\ &   + g_{6}\mathrm{tr}\left [   r^{\mu}r_{\mu}\right ]   \,\mathrm{tr}\left [ l^{\nu}l_{\nu}\right ]   + g_{7}\left\ {   \mathrm{tr}[l^{\mu}l_{\mu } ] \,\mathrm{tr}[l^{\nu}l_{\nu}]+\mathrm{tr}[r^{\mu}r_{\mu}]\,\mathrm{tr } [ r^{\nu}r_{\nu}]\right\ }   \;. \label{lagrangian}%\end{aligned}\ ] ] note that the locally chirally invariant linear sigma model emerges from the globally invariant lagrangian ( [ lagrangian ] ) by setting @xmath47 @xmath48 .    in eq . ( [ lagrangian ] ) , @xmath49 contains scalar and pseudoscalar mesons , where @xmath50 , @xmath51 are the generators of @xmath52 in the fundamental representation and @xmath53 denotes the non - strange content of the @xmath25 meson . vector and axial - vector mesons are contained in the left - handed and right - handed vector fields :    @xmath54    respectively . the covariant derivative @xmath55\ ] ] couples scalar and pseudoscalar degrees of freedom to vector and axial - vector ones as well as to the electromagnetic field @xmath56 . note that local chiral invariance requires @xmath57 . the left - handed and right - handed field strength tensors ,    @xmath58 -\left\ { \partial^{\nu}l^{\mu}-iea^{\nu}[t^{3},l^{\mu}]\right\ }   \;,\\ r^{\mu\nu }   &   = \partial^{\mu}r^{\nu}-iea^{\mu}[t^{3},r^{\nu } ] -\left\ { \partial^{\nu}r^{\mu}-iea^{\nu}[t^{3},r^{\mu}]\right\ }   \;,\end{aligned}\ ] ]    respectively , couple vector and axial - vector mesons to the electromagnetic field @xmath56 . explicit breaking of the global symmetry is described by the term tr@xmath59\equiv h_{0}\sigma$ ] @xmath60 . the chiral anomaly is described by the term @xmath61 @xcite . the model has been extended to include the nucleon field and its putative chiral partner ; for details , see refs . @xcite .    in the pseudoscalar and ( axial-)vector sectors the identification of mesons with particles listed in ref . @xcite is straightforward , as already indicated in eqs . ( [ scalars ] ) and ( [ vectors1])-([vectors ] ) : the fields @xmath26 and @xmath53 correspond to the pion and the @xmath62 counterpart of the @xmath25 meson , @xmath63 , with a mass of about @xmath64 mev . this value can be obtained by `` unmixing '' the physical @xmath25 and @xmath65 mesons , which also contain @xmath66 contributions . the fields @xmath67 and @xmath68 represent the @xmath69 and @xmath70 vector mesons , respectively , while the fields @xmath71 and @xmath72 represent the @xmath73 and @xmath74 axial - vector mesons , respectively . ( in principle , the physical @xmath27 and @xmath29 states also contain @xmath66 contributions , however their admixture is negligibly small . ) unfortunately , the identification of the @xmath3 and @xmath24 fields is controversial , the possibilities being the pairs @xmath75 and @xmath76 . as mentioned in the introduction , we will refer to these two assignments as scenarios i and ii , respectively . we discuss the implications of these two scenarios in the following . one may raise the question whether vector meson dominance ( vmd ) is still respected in the globally invariant linear sigma model ( [ lagrangian ] ) . as outlined in ref . @xcite , there are two ways to realize vmd in a linear sigma model . the standard version of vmd was introduced by sakurai @xcite and considers vector mesons as yang - mills gauge fields @xcite . the gauge symmetry is explicitly broken by the vector meson masses . another realisation of vmd was first explored by lurie @xcite whose theory contained a lagrangian which was globally invariant . it is interesting to note that lurie s lagrangian contained direct couplings of the photon to pions and @xmath11 mesons , as well as a @xmath11-@xmath77 coupling . it was shown in ref . @xcite that the two representations of vmd are equivalent if the @xmath11-@xmath77 coupling @xmath78 equals the photon-@xmath11 coupling @xmath79 ( the so - called `` universal limit '' ) . it was also shown that , if the underlying theory is globally invariant , the pion form factor at threshold @xmath80 for _ any _ value of the above mentioned couplings . on the other hand , in sakurai s theory @xmath81 unless one demands @xmath82 , or other parameters are adjusted in such a way that @xmath80 . in other words , for _ any _ globally invariant model , and thus also for ours , one has the liberty of choosing different values for the photon-@xmath11 and @xmath11-@xmath77 couplings , without violating vmd . the lagrangian ( [ lagrangian ] ) contains 16 parameters . however , the parameters @xmath83 with @xmath84 ... , @xmath85 are not relevant for the results presented here so that the number of undetermined parameters decreases to eleven :    @xmath86    the squared tree - level masses of the mesons in our model contain a contribution arising from spontaneous symmetry breaking , proportional to @xmath87 . the value @xmath88 is the vacuum expectation value of the @xmath3 field and coincides with the minimum of the potential that follows from eq . ( [ lagrangian ] ) . the @xmath3 field is the only field with the quantum numbers of the vacuum , @xmath89 , i.e. , the condensation of which does not lead to the breaking of parity , charge conjugation , and lorentz invariance . the potential for the @xmath3 field reads explicitly @xmath90 and its minimum is determined by @xmath91   \phi - h_{0}\ ; \text{. } \label{minimum}%\ ] ] spontaneous symmetry breaking corresponds to the case when the potential @xmath92 assumes its minimum for a nonvanishing value @xmath93 . in order to determine the fluctuation of the @xmath3 field around the new vacuum , one shifts it by its vacuum expectation value @xmath94 , @xmath95 . the shift leads also to @xmath53-@xmath29 and @xmath26-@xmath30 mixing terms and thus to non - diagonal elements in the scattering matrix . these terms are removed from the lagrangian by shifting the @xmath29 and @xmath30 fields as follows : @xmath96 where we defined the quantities @xmath97    note that the field renormalisation of @xmath53 and @xmath26 guarantees the canonical normalization of the kinetic terms . this is necessary in order to interpret the fourier components of the properly normalized one - meson states as creation or annihilation operators @xcite . note also that the @xmath11 and @xmath27 masses as well as the @xmath29 and @xmath12 masses are degenerate in the globally as well as in the locally invariant model . once the shift @xmath95 and the transformations ( [ shifts ] ) have been performed , the mass terms of the mesons in the lagrangian ( [ lagrangian ] ) read : @xmath98   = m_{\pi}^{2}+2cz^{2}% \;,\label{eta}\\ m_{a_{0}}^{2 }   &   = m_{0}^{2}+c+\left (   \lambda_{1}+3\frac{\lambda_{2 } } { 2}\right )   \phi^{2}\;,\label{a0}\\ m_{\pi}^{2 }   &   = z^{2}\left [   m_{0}^{2}-c+\left (   \lambda_{1}+\frac { \lambda_{2}}{2}\right )   \phi^{2}\right ]   \overset{(\ref{minimum})}{=}% \frac{z^{2 } h_{0}}{\phi}\;,\label{pion}\\ m_{\omega}^{2 }   &   = m_{\rho}^{2}=m_{1}^{2}+\frac{\phi^{2}}{2}(h_{1}% + h_{2}+h_{3})\;,\label{rho}\\ m_{f_{1}}^{2 }   &   = m_{a_{1}}^{2}=m_{1}^{2}+g_{1}^{2}\phi^{2}+\frac{\phi^{2}% } { 2 } ( h_{1}+h_{2}-h_{3})\;\text{. } \label{a1}%\end{aligned}\ ] ] in appendix a we show the lagrangian in the form when all shifts have been explicitly performed . from eqs . ( [ rho ] ) and ( [ a1 ] ) we obtain : @xmath99    the pion decay constant , @xmath100 is determined from the axial current , @xmath101    the large-@xmath39 dependence of the parameters is given by @xmath102 we remind the reader that a vertex of @xmath103 quark - antiquark mesons scales as @xmath104 . as a consequence , the parameters @xmath105 , @xmath106 scale as @xmath107 , because they are associated with a three - point vertex of quark - antiquark vector fields ( of the kind @xmath108 ) . similarly , the parameters @xmath109 , @xmath110 , @xmath111 scale as @xmath41 , because they are associated with quartic terms such as @xmath112 and @xmath113 . the parameter @xmath114 is suppressed by a factor @xmath39 although it enters quadratic mass - like terms . this is due to the fact that the axial anomaly is suppressed in the large-@xmath39 limit . as is evident from eq . ( [ eta ] ) , the @xmath115 meson would also be a goldstone boson for @xmath116 . the parameters @xmath117 , @xmath118 also describe quartic interactions , but are further suppressed by a factor @xmath119 because of the trace structure of the corresponding terms in the lagrangian . the quantities @xmath120 , @xmath121 are mass terms and therefore scale as @xmath40 . then the pion decay constant @xmath100 scales as @xmath122 . the quantity @xmath123 scales as @xmath122 in order that @xmath124 scales as @xmath40 as expected . note that without any assumptions about the @xmath3 , @xmath4 , and @xmath29 , @xmath12 fields , we immediately obtain that their masses scale as @xmath40 and their decay widths as @xmath41 , as we shall see in the following section . therefore , they must also correspond to quark - antiquark degrees of freedom . there are , however , also approaches to the phenomenology of low - lying axial - vector mesons , such as the one in ref . @xcite , where the bethe - salpeter equation is used to unitarize the scattering of vector and pseudoscalar mesons . here , the bethe - salpeter kernel is given by the lowest - order effective lagrangian . this leads to the dynamical generation of resonances , one of which has a pole mass of 1011 mev and is consequently assigned to the @xmath74 meson . this unitarized approach is used in ref . @xcite to study the large-@xmath39 behaviour of the dynamically generated resonances , with the conclusion that the @xmath74 resonance is not a genuine quark - antiquark state .    however , it was shown in ref . @xcite that , while unitarizing the chiral lagrangian by means of a bethe - salpeter study allows one to find poles in the complex plane and identify them with physical resonances , it does not necessarily allow one to make a conclusion about the structure of those resonances in the large-@xmath39 limit . in order to be able to draw correct conclusions , a bethe - salpeter study requires at least one additional term of higher order not included in the lagrangian of refs . alternatively , the inverse amplitude method of refs . @xcite can be used .    a very similar approach to the one in refs . @xcite was also used in ref . @xcite where a very good fit to the @xmath125 decay data from the aleph collaboration @xcite was obtained by fine - tuning the subtraction point of a loop diagram . note , however , that detuning the subtraction point by 5% will spoil the agreement with experimental data . alternately , these data may be described by approaches with the @xmath74 meson as an explicit degree of freedom , such as the one in ref . @xcite , where @xmath74 is a quark - antiquark state and where the experimental @xmath74 spectral function is fitted very well . in ref . @xcite , @xmath126 mev and a full width @xmath127 @xmath128 mev are obtained . note that our results , as will be shown later , give very good results on the @xmath74 phenomenology , for example in the @xmath129 and @xmath130 decay channels , see sec . iv.a.3 .    for the following discussion , it is interesting to note that the @xmath11 meson mass , @xmath131 can be split into two contributions : the term @xmath121 which does not depend on the chiral condensate , and the term @xmath132 which depends quadratically on the condensate and vanishes in the chirally restored phase . we shall require that none of the two contributions be negative : in fact , a negative @xmath121 would imply that the system is unstable when @xmath133 ; a negative @xmath134 would imply that spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking decreases the @xmath11 mass . this is clearly unnatural because the breaking of chiral symmetry generates a sizable effective mass for the light quarks , which is expected to positively contribute to the meson masses . this positive contribution is a feature of all known models ( such as the nambu  jona - lasinio model and constituent quark approaches ) . indeed , in an important class of hadronic models ( see ref .  @xcite and refs .  therein ) the only and obviously positive contribution to the @xmath11 mass is proportional to @xmath87 ( i.e. , @xmath135 ) .      instead of the eleven parameters in eq . ( [ param ] ) , it is technically simpler to use the following , equivalent set of eleven parameters in the expressions for the physical quantities : @xmath136 the quantities @xmath124 , @xmath137 , @xmath138 are taken as the mean values for the masses of the @xmath77 , @xmath11 , and @xmath12 meson , respectively , as given by the pdg @xcite : @xmath139 mev , @xmath140 mev , and @xmath141 mev . while @xmath124 and @xmath137 are measured to very good precision , this is not the case for @xmath138 . the mass value given above is referred to as an `` educated guess '' by the pdg @xcite . therefore , we shall also consider a smaller value , as suggested e.g.  by the results of ref . we shall see that , although the overall picture remains qualitatively unchanged , the description of the decay width of @xmath12 into @xmath142 can be substantially improved .    as outlined in ref . @xcite ,  the mass of the @xmath53 meson can be calculated using the mixing of strange and non - strange contributions in the physical fields @xmath25 and @xmath143 : @xmath144 where @xmath145 denotes a pure @xmath146 state and @xmath147 @xcite . in this way , we obtain the value @xmath148 mev . given the well - known uncertainty of the value of @xmath149 , one could also consider other values , e.g. , @xmath150 , as published by the kloe collaboration @xcite . in this case , @xmath151 mev . the variation of the @xmath53 mass does not change the results significantly . the quantities @xmath88 and @xmath152 are linked to the pion decay constant as @xmath153 mev . therefore , the following six quantities remain as free parameters : @xmath154 the masses @xmath155 and @xmath156 depend on the scenario adopted for the scalar mesons .    at the end of this subsection we report three useful formulas which link the parameters @xmath105 , @xmath111 , and @xmath157 of the original set ( [ param ] ) to the second set of parameters ( [ param2 ] ) [ see also eq . ( [ z ] ) ] : @xmath158   \text{. } \label{m1eq}%\end{aligned}\ ] ] in this section , we quote the formulas for the decay widths and the @xmath0 scattering lengths and specify their dependence on the parameters @xmath155 , @xmath156 , @xmath152 , @xmath106 , @xmath118 , and @xmath110 . using the scaling behavior ( [ largen ] ) we obtain that all strong decays and scattering lengths scale as @xmath41 , as expected .    for future use we introduce the momentum function @xmath159 in the decay process @xmath160 , with masses @xmath161 , respectively , the quantity @xmath162 represents the modulus of the three - momentum of the outgoing particles @xmath163 and @xmath114 in the rest frame of the decaying particle @xmath164 . the theta function ensures that the decay width vanishes below threshold . the decay width for @xmath42 reads @xmath165 ^{3/2 } \left [   g_{1 } z^{2 } + \left (   1-z^{2}\right )   \frac{g_{2}}{2}\right ] ^{2 } \text{. } \label{rhopionpion}%\ ] ] the experimental value is @xmath166 mev @xcite . the small experimental error can be neglected and the central value is used as a further constraint allowing us to fix the parameter @xmath106 as function of @xmath152 : @xmath167 note that all input values in eq . ( [ g2z ] ) are experimentally known @xcite . the parameter @xmath168 is fixed via eq . ( [ g1 ] ) .    as apparent from eq . ( [ g2z ] ) , two solutions for @xmath106 are obtained . the solution with the positive sign in front of the square root may be neglected because it leads to unphysically large values for the @xmath169 decay width , which is another quantity predicted by our study that also depends on @xmath106 [ see eq . ( [ a1rhopion ] ) ] . for example , the value @xmath170 ( see below ) would lead to @xmath171 which in turn would give @xmath172 gev  clearly an unphysically large value . therefore , we will take the solution for @xmath106 with the negative sign in front of the square root . in this case , reasonable values for both @xmath106 ( see table  [ table1 ] ) and @xmath173 ( see sec.iv.a.3 ) are obtained . the decay width @xmath175 reads @xmath176   ^{2}\;\text{. } \label{f1a0pion}%\ ] ]    there is a subtle point to comment on here . when the quark - antiquark @xmath4 state of our model is identified as the @xmath2 meson of the pdg compilation ( scenario i ) , then this decay width can be used to fix the parameter @xmath110 as function of @xmath177 @xmath178 , by using the corresponding experimental value @xmath179 mev @xcite.@xmath180 again , there are two solutions , just as in the case of the parameter @xmath106 . how strongly the somewhat uncertain experimental value of @xmath181 influences the possible values of @xmath110 , depends on the choice of the sign in front of the square root in eq . ( [ h2z ] ) . varying @xmath182 within its experimental range of uncertainty changes the value of @xmath110 by an average of 25% if the negative sign is chosen , but the same variation of @xmath182 changes @xmath110 by an average of only 6% if the positive sign is considered . this is due to the fact that the solution with the positive square root sign yields larger values of @xmath183 , while the solution with the negative sign leads to @xmath184 . the absolute change of @xmath110 is the same in both cases . our calculations have shown that using the negative sign in front of the square root yields a too small value of the @xmath25-@xmath65 mixing angle @xmath185 . this follows by inserting @xmath110 into eq . ( [ a0etapion ] ) so that it is removed as a degree of freedom ( i.e. , replaced by @xmath152 ) and calculating the mixing angle @xmath149 from eq . ( [ a0etapion0 ] ) using the experimental value of the @xmath186 decay amplitude from ref .  @xcite . for this reason , we only use the positive sign in front of the square root in eq . ( [ h2z ] ) , i.e. , the constraint leading to higher values of @xmath110 . then @xmath187 is obtained , in very good agreement with the central value quoted by the kloe collaboration @xcite , @xmath188 ( see also section iv.a.1 ) . it may be interesting to note that only the ( disregarded ) lower value of @xmath110 leads to the expected behaviour of the parameter @xmath118 which [ according to eq . ( [ largen ] ) ] should be large-@xmath39 suppressed : the lower value of @xmath110 yields @xmath189 whereas the higher value of @xmath110 yields @xmath190 ( see table _ _ [ table1 ] ) . note that if the quark - antiquark @xmath4 meson of our model is identified as the @xmath6 meson of the pdg compilation ( scenario ii ) then the described procedure of replacing @xmath110 by @xmath152 using eq . ( [ h2z ] ) is no longer applicable because the decay @xmath174 is kinematically not allowed and its counterpart @xmath191 has not been measured . our @xmath23 lagrangian contains the unphysical field @xmath53 . however , by making use of eq . ( [ phi ] ) and invoking the ozi rule , it is possible to calculate the decay amplitude for the physical process @xmath193 as @xmath194 from eq . ( [ lagrangian ] ) the formula for the decay amplitude containing the non - strange @xmath53 field is @xmath195   ( m_{a_{0}}% ^{2}-m_{\pi}^{2}-m_{\eta}^{2 } ) \right\ }   \text{. } \label{a0etapion}%\ ] ]    note that eq . ( [ a0etapion ] ) contains the unmixed mass @xmath196 which enters when expressing the coupling constants in terms of the parameters ( [ param2 ] ) , as well as the physical mass @xmath197 mev . the latter arises because the derivative couplings in the lagrangian lead to the appearance of scalar invariants formed from the four - momenta of the particles emerging from the decay , which can be expressed in terms of the physical ( invariant ) masses . the decay width @xmath198 follows from eq . ( [ a0etapion0 ] ) by including a phase space factor:@xmath199   ^{2}\text{. } \label{a0etapion2}%\ ] ]    in the case of scenario i , in which @xmath200 , we shall compare the decay amplitude @xmath201 , eq . ( [ a0etapion0 ] ) , with the corresponding experimental value deduced from crystal barrel data : @xmath202 mev @xcite . this is preferable to the use of the decay width quoted by the pdg @xcite for @xmath2 , which refers to the mean peak width , an unreliable quantity due to the closeness of the kaon - kaon threshold .    in the case of scenario ii , in which @xmath203 , it is also possible to calculate the decay width @xmath204 , using the ozi rule . the amplitude @xmath205 is obtained following the same steps as in the previous case , eq . ( [ a0etapion]):@xmath206 ( m_{a_{0}}^{2}-m_{\pi}^{2}-m_{\eta^{\prime}}^{2 } ) \right\ }   \ ; , \label{a0etapion00}\ ] ] where the difference compared to eqs . ( [ a0etapion0 ] ) and ( [ a0etapion ] ) is the prefactor @xmath207 and the physical @xmath65 mass @xmath208 mev . the corresponding decay width reads:@xmath209   ^{2}\text{. } \label{a0eta'pion2}%\ ] ]      we obtain the following formula for the @xmath43 decay width:@xmath210 ^{3}\text{. } \label{a1piongamma}%\ ] ] note that the @xmath43 decay width depends only on the renormalisation constant @xmath152 . using @xmath211 mev @xcite , one obtains @xmath212 unfortunately , the experimental error for the quantity @xmath213 is large . given that almost all quantities of interest depend very strongly on @xmath152 , a better experimental knowledge of this decay would be useful to constrain @xmath152 . in the study of scenario i this decay width will be part of a @xmath214 analysis , but still represents the main constraint for @xmath152 . we obtain the following formula : @xmath216   ( m_{\sigma}^{2}- 2\ , m_{\pi}^{2})\right\ }   ^{2}\;. \label{sigmapionpion}%\end{aligned}\ ] ] it is apparent from eqs . ( [ largen ] ) that the sigma decay width decreases as the number of colours @xmath39 increases . thus , the sigma field in our model is a @xmath217 state @xcite . in scenario i we have assigned the @xmath3 field as @xmath1 , correspondingly we are working with the assumption that @xmath1 [ as well as @xmath2 ] is a @xmath217 state . in scenario ii , the same assumption is valid for the @xmath5 and @xmath6 states . note that in eq . ( [ sigmapionpion ] ) the first term in braces arises from the scalar @xmath219 vertex , while the second term comes from the coupling of the @xmath3 to the @xmath12 , which becomes a derivatively coupled pion after the shift ( [ shifts ] ) . because of the different signs , these two terms interfere destructively . as the decay width of a light @xmath3 meson into two pions can be very well reproduced in the linear sigma model without vector mesons ( corresponding to the case @xmath220 ) , this interference prevents obtaining a reasonable value for this decay width in the present model with vector mesons , see sec . this problem does not occur for a heavy @xmath3 meson , see sec . iv.b.3 and ref . @xcite .      the formula for the decay width reads@xmath222   ^{2}\text{. } \label{a1sigmapion}%\ ] ] let @xmath224 be the four - momentum of the @xmath12 meson , @xmath225 the four - momentum of the @xmath11 meson and @xmath226 the four - momentum of the pion . then the following formula for the @xmath223 decay width is obtained : @xmath227   \text { , } \label{a1rhopion}%\ ] ]    where @xmath228 is the vertex following from the relevant part of the lagrangian ( [ lagrangian ] ) that reads@xmath229 \right\}\ ] ]    and @xmath230    thus , we have @xmath231 \right . \\ &   \hspace*{1.3cm}-\left .   3\,\frac{g_{1}g_{2}(g_{1}^{2}-h_{3})}{m_{a_{1}}% ^{2}}\left (   m_{a_{1}}^{2}-m_{\rho}^{2}-m_{\pi}^{2}+2m_{a_{1}}e_{\pi}\right ) \right\ }   \text{,}\\ ( h_{\mu\nu}k_{1}^{\nu})^{2 }   &   = z^{4}f_{\pi}^{2}\left\ {   ( g_{1}^{2}% -h_{3})^{2}m_{\rho}^{2}+\frac{g_{1}^{2}g_{2}^{2}}{4m_{a_{1}}^{4}}[(m_{\pi}% ^{2}-m_{\rho}^{2})^{2}(m_{\pi}^{2}+m_{\rho}^{2}-2m_{a_{1}}^{2})+(m_{\pi}% ^{2}+m_{\rho}^{2})m_{a_{1}}^{4}\right . \\ &   \hspace*{1.3cm}\left . -4(m_{a_{1}}^{2}-m_{\rho}^{2}-m_{\pi}^{2})m_{a_{1}% } ^{2}e_{\rho}e_{\pi}]+\frac{g_{1}g_{2}(g_{1}^{2}-h_{3})}{m_{a_{1}}^{2}}\left [ ( m_{a_{1}}^{2}-m_{\pi}^{2})m_{a_{1}}e_{\rho}-2m_{a_{1}}m_{\rho}^{2}\left ( e_{\pi}+\frac{e_{\rho}}{2}\right )   \right ]   \right\ }   \text{,}\\ ( h_{\mu\nu}p^{\mu})^{2 }   &   = z^{4}f_{\pi}^{2}\left\ {   ( g_{1}^{2}-h_{3}% ) ^{2}m_{a_{1}}^{2}+\frac{g_{1}^{2}g_{2}^{2}}{4m_{a_{1}}^{4}}[(m_{a_{1}}% ^{2}-m_{\pi}^{2})^{2}(m_{a_{1}}^{2}+m_{\pi}^{2}-2m_{\rho}^{2})+(m_{\pi}% ^{2}+m_{a_{1}}^{2})m_{\rho}^{4}\right . \\ &   \hspace*{1.3cm}\left .   -4(m_{a_{1}}^{2}-m_{\rho}^{2}-m_{\pi}^{2})m_{a_{1}% } ^{2}e_{\rho}e_{\pi}]+\frac{g_{1}g_{2}(g_{1}^{2}-h_{3})}{m_{a_{1}}^{2}% } [ 2m_{a_{1}}^{2}e_{\rho}e_{\pi}-(m_{a_{1}}^{2}-m_{\rho}^{2}-m_{\pi}% ^{2})m_{a_{1}}^{2}]\right\ }   \;,\\ ( h_{\mu\nu}p^{\mu}k_{1}^{\nu})^{2 }   &   = ( g_{1}^{2}-h_{3})^{2}z^{4}f_{\pi}% ^{2}m_{a_{1}}^{2}e_{\rho}^{2}\;\text{.}%\end{aligned}\ ] ] the partial wave decomposition @xcite leads to the following formula for the s - wave @xmath232 pion - pion scattering length @xmath7 ( in units of @xmath233):@xmath234\right\ }   -\frac{5}{8}\frac { z^{2}m_{\sigma}^{2}-m_{\pi}^{2}}{f_{\pi}^{2}}\right . \nonumber\\ &   \hspace*{1 cm } -\frac{3}{2}\left\ {   g_{1}^{2}z^{2}\phi\frac{m_{\pi}^{2}% } { m_{a_{1}}^{4}}\left [   2m_{a_{1}}^{2 } + m_{\rho}^{2}-\frac{\phi^{2}}{2 } ( h_{1}+h_{2}+h_{3})\right ]   -\frac{z^{2}m_{\sigma}^{2}-m_{\pi}^{2}}{2\phi } \right\ }   ^{2}\frac{1}{4m_{\pi}^{2}-m_{\sigma}^{2}}\nonumber\\ &   \hspace*{1 cm } + \left . \left\ {   g_{1}^{2}z^{2}\phi\frac{m_{\pi}^{2}% } { m_{a_{1}}^{4}}\left [   m_{\rho}^{2}-\frac{\phi^{2}}{2}(h_{1}+h_{2}% + h_{3})\right ]   + \frac{z^{2}m_{\sigma}^{2}-m_{\pi}^{2}}{2\phi}\right\ } ^{2}\frac{1}{m_{\sigma}^{2}}\right )   \text{. } \label{a00}%\end{aligned}\ ] ] we use the value @xmath235 in accordance with the 2003 and 2004 data from the na48/2 collaboration @xcite . an analogous calculation leads to the s - wave @xmath236 pion - pion scattering length @xmath237 : @xmath238   \right . \nonumber\\ &   \hspace*{1 cm } -\left . \left\ {   g_{1}^{2}z^{2}\phi\frac{m_{\pi}^{2}% } { m_{a_{1}}^{4}}\left [   m_{\rho}^{2}-\frac{\phi^{2}}{2}(h_{1}+h_{2}% + h_{3})\right ]   + \frac{z^{2}m_{\sigma}^{2}-m_{\pi}^{2}}{2\phi}\right\ } ^{2}\frac{1}{m_{\sigma}^{2}}\right )   \text{. } \label{a02}%\end{aligned}\ ] ] the experimental result for @xmath237 from the na48/2 collaboration is @xmath239 @xcite . note that the @xmath0 scattering lengths were also studied away from threshold in ref . @xcite , in a model quite similar to ours . in this section we discuss two different interpretations of the scalar mesons . the following subsection describes the results obtained when @xmath1 and @xmath2 are interpreted as scalar quarkonia ( scenario i ) . then we discuss the results obtained when @xmath5 and @xmath6 are interpreted as scalar quarkonia ( scenario ii ) .        as a first step we utilize the central value of the experimental result @xmath240 mev @xcite in order to express the parameter @xmath106 as a function of @xmath152 via eq . ( [ g2z ] ) . moreover , we fix the mass @xmath241 gev @xcite and we also use the central value @xmath242 mev to express @xmath110 as a function of @xmath152 . the results are practically unaffected by the 6% uncertainty in @xmath243 originating from the uncertainty in @xmath182 , see eq . ( [ h2z ] ) .    as a result , the set of free parameters in eq . ( [ param3 ] ) is further reduced to three parameters : @xmath244 note that in this scenario the field @xmath3 is identified with the resonance @xmath1 , but the experimental uncertainty on its mass is so large that it does not allow us to fix @xmath155 . we therefore keep @xmath155 as a free parameter . we now determine the parameters @xmath152 , @xmath118 , and @xmath155 using known data on the @xmath43 decay width ( [ a1piongamma ] ) and on the @xmath0 scattering lengths @xmath7 and @xmath237 reported in eqs . ( [ a00 ] ) and ( [ a02 ] ) . this is a system of three equations with three variables and can be solved uniquely . we make use of the @xmath214 method in order to determine not only the central values for our parameters but also their error intervals : @xmath245 the errors for the model parameters are calculated as the square roots of the diagonal elements of the inverted hessian matrix obtained from @xmath246 . the minimal value is obtained for @xmath247 , as expected given that the parameters are determined from a uniquely solvable system of equations . the values of the parameters are as follows : @xmath248    clearly , the error intervals for @xmath155 and @xmath118 are very large . fortunately , it is possible to constrain the @xmath118 error interval as follows . as described at the end of sec . ii.b , the @xmath11 mass squared contains two contributions   the bare mass term @xmath121 and the quark condensate contribution ( @xmath249 ) . the contribution of the quark condensate is special for the globally invariant sigma model ; in the locally invariant model @xmath137 is always equal to @xmath157 @xcite . each of these contributions should have at most the value of 775.49 mev ( @xmath250 ) because otherwise either the bare mass or the quark condensate contribution to the rho mass would be negative , which appears to be unphysical . a plot of the function @xmath251 see eq . ( [ m1eq ] ) , for the central values of @xmath252 and @xmath253 mev is shown in fig . [ m1f ] .     as function of @xmath118 , constrained at the central value of @xmath252 . the black dot marks the position of central values @xmath190 and @xmath254 mev.,width=377 ]    note that varying the value of @xmath255 within its experimental boundaries would only very slightly change @xmath118 by @xmath256 and this parameter is thus unaffected by the experimental error for @xmath257 . if the value of @xmath157 was known exactly , then eq .  ( [ m1eq ] ) would allow us to constrain @xmath118 via @xmath152 . however , given that at this point we can only state that @xmath258 , for each @xmath152 one may consider all values of @xmath118 between two boundaries , one obtained from the condition @xmath259 and another obtained from the condition @xmath260 . for example , using the central value of @xmath252 , we obtain @xmath261 . the lower boundary follows from @xmath262 and the upper boundary from @xmath263 , see fig . note that the central value @xmath190 from eq . ( [ ksquared ] ) corresponds to @xmath254 mev . if the minimal value of @xmath264 is used , then @xmath265 is obtained from @xmath262 and @xmath266 from @xmath263 . thus , @xmath267 for @xmath264 . analogously , @xmath268 is obtained for the maximal value @xmath269 .    clearly , each lower boundary for @xmath118 is equivalent to @xmath270 and each upper boundary for @xmath118 is equivalent to @xmath263 . thus , in the following we will only state the values of @xmath152 and @xmath157 ; @xmath118 can always be calculated using eq . ( [ m1eq ] ) . in this way , the dependence of our results on @xmath157 and thus on the origin of the @xmath11 mass will be exhibited . the value of @xmath155 can be constrained in a way similar to @xmath118 using the scattering length @xmath7 ; the scattering length @xmath237 possesses a rather large error interval making it unsuitable to constrain @xmath155 . figure [ a00a02f ] shows the different values for @xmath7 and @xmath271 depending on the choice of @xmath152 and @xmath157 . [ h ]    a00a02-paper.eps    it is obvious that the value of @xmath7 is only consistent with the na48/2 value @xcite , if @xmath155 is in the interval [ 288 , 477 ] mev , i.e. , @xmath272 mev . this value for @xmath155 follows if the parameters @xmath152 and @xmath157 are varied within the allowed boundaries . if we only consider the @xmath7 curve that is obtained for the central values of @xmath152 and @xmath157 , a much more constrained value of @xmath273 mev follows from fig . [ a00a02f ] . we will be working with the broader interval of @xmath155 . even then , constraining @xmath157 to the interval @xmath274 $ ] , the error bars for @xmath155 are reduced by at least a factor of three in comparison to the result ( [ ksquared ] ) following from the @xmath214 calculation . we summarize our results for the parameters @xmath152 and @xmath155 : @xmath275 the central values of all parameters of the original set ( [ param ] ) are given in table _ _ [ table1 ] . they follow from the @xmath214  fit ( @xmath155 , @xmath118 ) , via decay width constraints ( @xmath110 , @xmath106 ) , and from eqs . ( [ sigma ] )  ( [ a1 ] ) and ( [ g1 ] )  ( [ h3 ] ) . the central values of @xmath152 , @xmath155 , and @xmath118 , eq . ( [ ksquared ] ) , have been used to calculate all other parameters . we neglect the errors , apart from those of @xmath157 , which in this scenario vary in a large range . [ c]|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|__parameter _ _ & @xmath155 & @xmath118 & @xmath110 & @xmath111 & @xmath105 & @xmath106 & @xmath276 & @xmath157 & @xmath117 & @xmath109 & @xmath114 & @xmath277 + _ value _ & 332 mev & -68 & 80 & 2.4 & 6.4 & 3.1 & 210 mev & 652@xmath278 mev & -14 & 33 & 88744 mev@xmath279 & @xmath280 mev@xmath281 +    note that the values of @xmath237 depend strongly on the choice of the parameters @xmath152 and @xmath157 . whereas for the central values of @xmath152 and @xmath157 this scattering length is constant and has the value @xmath282 , its value increases if @xmath152 and @xmath157 are considered at their respective boundaries , see fig . [ a00a02f ] . the value of @xmath152 alone allows us to calculate certain decay widths in the model . for example , as a consistency check we obtain @xmath283 mev which is in good agreement with the experimental result . also , given that the @xmath284 decay amplitude only depends on @xmath152 , it is possible to calculate the value of this amplitude , eq . ( [ a0etapion ] ) . for @xmath252 , we obtain @xmath285 mev for the decay amplitude @xmath286 involving the physical @xmath25 field if the @xmath25-@xmath65 mixing angle of @xmath287 @xcite is taken . the crystal barrel data @xcite read @xmath288 mev and hence there is an approximate discrepancy of 20% . if the kloe collaboration @xcite value of @xmath150 is considered , then the value of @xmath289 mev follows  in perfect agreement with the crystal barrel value . from this we conclude that this scenario prefers a relatively large value of the @xmath290-@xmath65 mixing angle . in fact , if we use the crystal barrel value @xmath288 mev as input , we would predict @xmath291 for the central value of @xmath152 as well as @xmath292 and @xmath293 for the highest and lowest values of @xmath152 , respectively , i.e. , @xmath294 . this is in excellent agreement with the kloe collaboration result @xmath295 . the sigma decay width @xmath296 depends on all three parameters @xmath152 , @xmath157 ( originally @xmath118 ) , and @xmath155 . in fig . [ sigmaf1 ] we show the dependence of this decay width on the sigma mass for fixed values of @xmath152 and @xmath157 , varying the latter within their respective boundaries .    [ h ]    sigmazerfall-paper.eps    generally , the values that we obtain are too small when compared to the pdg data @xcite and to other calculations of the sigma meson decay width , such as the one performed by leutwyler _ @xcite who found @xmath297 mev and pelez _ et al . _ @xcite  who found @xmath298 mev . the largest values for the decay width that we were able to obtain within our model are for the case when @xmath152 is as small as possible , @xmath264 , and @xmath135 , i.e. , when the @xmath11 mass is solely generated by the quark condensate . as seen above , for this case the scattering lengths allow a maximum value @xmath299 mev , for which @xmath300 mev . in all other cases , the decay width is even smaller . however , as will be discussed in sec . iv.a.3 , the case @xmath135 leads to the unphysically small value @xmath301 and should therefore not be taken too seriously . as apparent from fig . [ a00a02f ] , excluding small values of @xmath157 would require smaller values for @xmath155 in order to be consistent with the scattering lengths . according to fig . [ sigmaf1 ] , however , this in turn leads to even smaller values for the decay width . hence , we conclude that the isoscalar meson in our model can not be @xmath1 , thus excluding that this resonance is predominantly a @xmath217 state and the chiral partner of the pion . then the interpretation of the isospin - one state @xmath2 as a ( predominantly ) quarkonium state is also excluded . the only choice is to consider scenario ii , see sec . iv.b , i.e. , to interpret the scalar states above 1 gev , @xmath5 and @xmath6 , as being predominantly quarkonia . if the decay width of @xmath5 can be described by the model , this would be a very strong indication that these higher - lying states can be indeed interpreted as ( predominantly ) @xmath217 states . note that very similar results about the nature of the light scalar mesons were also found using different approaches : from an analysis of the meson behaviour in the large-@xmath39 limit in refs . @xcite and @xcite as well as from lattice studies , such as those in refs . @xcite . we remark that the cause for preventing a reasonable fit of the light sigma decay width is the interference term arising from the vector mesons in eq . ( [ sigmapionpion ] ) . in the unphysical case without vector meson degrees of freedom , a simultaneous fit of the decay width and the scattering lengths is possible @xcite . we first consider the decay width @xmath302 . for a given @xmath138 , this decay width depends only on @xmath152 . the pdg quotes a rather large band of values , @xmath303 mev . for @xmath141 mev , our fit of meson properties yields @xmath304 . the ensuing region is shown as shaded area in fig . [ a1rhopif ] . for @xmath141 mev , @xmath305 decreases from 2.4 gev to 353 mev , if @xmath152 varies from 1.47 to 1.87 . we also observe from fig . [ a1rhopif ] that the range of values for @xmath152 , which give values for @xmath302 consistent with the experimental error band , becomes larger if one considers smaller masses for the @xmath12 meson . we have taken @xmath306 mev and @xmath307 mev , the latter being similar to the values used in refs . @xcite and @xcite . repeating our calculations , we obtain a new range of possible values for @xmath152 , @xmath308 for @xmath309 mev and @xmath310 for @xmath311 mev . for the respective central values of @xmath152 we then compute @xmath312 mev ( @xmath313 ) and @xmath314 mev ( @xmath315 ) , in good agreement with experimental data . all other results remain valid when @xmath138 is decreased by about 100 mev . most notably , the @xmath1 decay width remains too small . [ h ]    a1rhopion-paper1.eps    we also consider the @xmath221 decay width . experimental data on this decay channel @xcite are inconclusive . the value @xmath316 mev is obtained for the central values of @xmath152 , @xmath157 , @xmath155 , and @xmath182 ( which was used to constrain @xmath110 via @xmath152 ) . taking the limit @xmath135 pulls the value of @xmath317 down to practically zero , regardless whether @xmath318 or @xmath319 . this is an indication that the @xmath135 limit , where @xmath137 is completely generated from the quark condensate , can not be physical . note that the case @xmath320 and @xmath262 , i.e. , where the quark condensate contribution to the @xmath11 mass vanishes , leads to a rather large value of @xmath321 , e.g. , for the central value of @xmath322 mev the value of @xmath323 mev follows . interestingly , this picture persists even if lower values of @xmath138 are considered . improving experimental data for this decay channel would allow us to further constrain our parameters . so far , the values of the scattering lengths used in our fit , @xmath324 and @xmath325 @xcite , account for the small explicit breaking of isospin symmetry due to the difference of the up and down quark masses . however , in our model the isospin symmetry is exact . thus , one should rather use the isospin - exact values @xmath326 and @xmath327 @xcite . in this section we will briefly show that the conclusions reached so far remain qualitatively unchanged if the isospin - exact values for the scattering lengths are considered .    performing the @xmath214 fit , eq . ( [ chi ] ) , with @xmath328 , @xmath329 and @xmath330 as experimental input yields @xmath331  unchanged in comparison with the previous case ( @xmath152 is largely determined by @xmath332 which is the same in both @xmath214 calculations ) , @xmath333 , and @xmath334 mev . note that in this case the errors are much smaller than previously . the reason is that the mean value of @xmath155 is almost on top of the two - pion decay threshold and thus leads to an artificially small error band . for such small values of @xmath335 the decay width @xmath336 is at least an order of magnitude smaller than the physical value , but even for values of @xmath335 up to 500 mev ( not supported by our error analysis ) the decay width never exceeds 150 mev , see fig . [ sigmaf1 ] .        a possible way to resolve the problem of the unphysically small two - pion decay width of the sigma meson is to identify the fields @xmath3 and @xmath4 of the model with the resonances @xmath5 and @xmath6 , respectively . thus , the scalar quarkonium states are assigned to the energy region above 1 gev . in the following we investigate the consequences of this assignment . however , the analysis can not be conclusive for various reasons :    1 . the glueball field is missing . many studies find that its role in the mass region at about @xmath337 gev is crucial , since it mixes with the other scalar resonances . the light scalar mesons below 1 gev , such as @xmath1 and @xmath2 , are not included as elementary fields in our model . the question is if they can be dynamically generated from the pseudoscalar fields already present in our model by solving a bethe - salpeter equation . if not , they should be introduced as additional elementary fields from the very beginning [ see also the discussion in ref . 3 .   due to absence of the resonance @xmath1 , the @xmath0 scattering length @xmath338 can not be correctly described at tree - level : whereas @xmath237 stays always within the experimental error band , @xmath7 clearly requires a light scalar meson for a proper description of experimental data because a large value of @xmath155 drives this quantity to the weinberg limit ( @xmath339 ) which is outside the experimental error band .    despite these drawbacks , we turn to a quantitative analysis of this scenario .      as in scenario i , the parameter @xmath106 can be expressed as a function of @xmath152 by using the @xmath42 decay width ( [ rhopionpion ] ) . however , the parameter @xmath110 can no longer be fixed by the @xmath340 decay width : the @xmath341 meson is now identified with the @xmath6 resonance listed in ref . @xcite , with a central mass of @xmath342 mev , and thus @xmath343 is too light to decay into @xmath341 and @xmath77 . one would be able to determine @xmath243 from the ( energetically allowed ) decay @xmath344 , but the corresponding decay width is not experimentally known .    instead of performing a global fit , it is more convenient to proceed step by step and calculate the parameters @xmath345 explicitly . we vary @xmath346 within the experimentally known error band @xcite and check if our result for @xmath347 is in agreement with experimental data . we first determine @xmath152 from @xmath43 , eq.([a1piongamma ] ) , and obtain @xmath348 . we then immediately conclude that the @xmath223 decay width , eq.([a1rhopion ] ) , will remain the same as in scenario i because this decay width depends on @xmath152 ( which is virtually the same in both scenarios ) and @xmath106 [ which is fixed via @xmath349 , eq . ( [ g2z ] ) , in both scenarios ] . the parameter @xmath118 , being large-@xmath39 suppressed , will be set to zero in the present study . we then only have to determine the parameter @xmath110 . this is done by fitting the total decay width of the @xmath6 meson to its experimental value @xcite , @xmath350    although kaons have not been included into the calculations , we can easily evaluate the decay into @xmath351 by using flavour symmetry @xmath352^{2}\ ; , \label{a0kk2 } \\ a_{a_{0}kk}(z , h_{2 } ) & = &   \frac{1}{2 z f_\pi}\left\ { m_{\eta_{n}}^{2}-m_{a_{0}}^{2 } + \left ( 1 - \frac{1}{z^2 } \right )   \left [   1-\frac{1}{2 } \frac{z^{2}\phi^{2}}{m_{a_{1}}^{2}}(h_{2}-h_{3})\right ]    ( m_{a_{0}}^{2}-2m_{k}^{2 } )   \right\}\ ; .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the remaining , experimentally poorly known decay width @xmath353 can be calculated from the sequential decay @xmath354 note that the first decay step requires the @xmath11 to be slightly below its mass - shell , since @xmath355 . we denote the off - shell mass of the @xmath11 meson by @xmath356 . from the lagrangian ( [ lagrangian ] ) we obtain the following formula for the @xmath357 decay width : @xmath358   \;.\ ] ] the full decay width @xmath359 is then obtained from the following equation : @xmath360 where @xmath361 is the mass distribution of the @xmath11 meson , which is taken to be of relativistic breit - wigner form : @xmath362 where @xmath363 mev and @xmath140 mev @xcite . ( in general , one should use the theoretical quantity @xmath349 , which is itself a function of @xmath356 , instead of @xmath364 , see for instance ref . @xcite and refs .  therein this is , however , numerically irrelevant in the following . ) the normalization constant @xmath365 is chosen such that @xmath366 in agreement with the interpretation of @xmath367 as the probability that the off - shell @xmath11 meson has a mass between @xmath356 and @xmath368    inserting eqs . ( [ a0etapion2 ] ) , ( [ a0etapion2 ] ) , ( [ a0kk2 ] ) , and ( [ a0omegapionpion2 ] ) into eq . ( [ a01450 ] ) , we can express @xmath243 as a function of @xmath152 , analogously to eq . ( [ g2z ] ) where @xmath106 was expressed as a function of @xmath152 . similar to that case , we obtain two bands for @xmath243 , @xmath369 and @xmath370 , the width of the bands corresponding to the uncertainty in determining @xmath152 , @xmath348 . both bands for @xmath243 remain practically unchanged if the @xmath371 experimental uncertainty of @xmath372 is taken into account and thus we only use the mean value @xmath373 mev in the following . since @xmath374 is assumed to be zero , eq . ( [ m1eq ] ) allows to express @xmath375 as a function of @xmath152 , @xmath376 ( we neglect the experimental uncertainties of @xmath377 , and @xmath378 ) . the result is shown in fig .  [ m1s2f ] . the first band of ( lower ) @xmath110 values should be discarded because it leads to @xmath379 . the second set of ( higher ) values leads to @xmath380 only if the lower boundary for @xmath152 is 1.60 rather than 1.46 . thus , we shall use the set of larger @xmath110 values and take the constraint @xmath380 into account by restricting the values for @xmath152 to the range @xmath381 . as can be seen from fig . [ m1s2f ] , this sets a lower boundary for the value of @xmath375 , @xmath382 mev . thus , in this scenario we obtain @xmath383 mev . the values for the other parameters can be found in table [ table2 ] ( only central values are shown with the exception of @xmath157 where the corresponding uncertainties are stated as well ) . [ h ! ]    m1s2.eps    [ c]|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|__parameter _ _ & @xmath118 & @xmath110 & @xmath111 & @xmath105 & @xmath106 & @xmath120 & @xmath157 & @xmath117 & @xmath109 & @xmath114 & @xmath123 + _ value _ & 0 & 4.7 & 2.4 & 6.4 & 3.1 & -811987 mev@xmath279 & 720@xmath384 mev & -3.6 & 84 & 88747 mev@xmath279 & @xmath280 mev@xmath281 +    @xmath385    note that @xmath386 in agreement with the expectations from the large-@xmath39 limit , eq .  ( [ largen ] ) . the value of @xmath387 mev is sizable and constitutes a dominant contribution to the @xmath11 mass . this implies that non - quark contributions , for instance a gluon condensate , play a decisive role in the @xmath11 mass generation .    as a final step , we study the ratios @xmath388 and @xmath389 their experimental values read @xcite @xmath390    using the central value @xmath252 and @xmath391 for the @xmath392 mixing angle , we obtain @xmath393 and @xmath394 . the latter is in very good agreement with the experiment , the former a factor of two larger . note , however , that according to eqs . ( [ a0etapion0 ] ) and ( [ a0etapion00 ] ) the value of the ratio @xmath395 is proportional to @xmath396 . if a lower value of the angle is considered , e.g. , @xmath397 , then we obtain @xmath398 for the central value of @xmath152 and the central value of @xmath399 in eq . ( [ a01450 ] ) . taking @xmath319 and the upper boundary @xmath400 mev results in @xmath401 , i.e. , in agreement with the experimental value . therefore , our results in this scenario favour a smaller value of @xmath149 than the one suggested by the kloe collaboration @xcite . it is possible to calculate the decay width @xmath402  using eq . ( [ a0omegapionpion2 ] ) . we have obtained a very small value @xmath403 mev . from eq . ( [ a0etapion2 ] ) we obtain @xmath404 89.5 mev , such that the ratio @xmath405 , in contrast to the results of ref . @xcite . it is now possible to calculate the width for the @xmath406 decay using eq . ( [ sigmapionpion ] ) . the decay width depends on the @xmath5 mass , @xmath152 , @xmath118 , and @xmath110 which is expressed via @xmath152 using eq . ( [ a01450 ] ) . the values of the latter three are listed in table _ _ [ table2 ] . in fig . [ f0pionpionf ] we show the decay width as a function of the mass of @xmath407 . assuming that the two - pion decay dominates the total decay width , we observe a good agreement with the experimental values if @xmath408 mev . other contributions to the decay width are likely to reduce this upper bound on @xmath409 somewhat . nevertheless , the correspondence with the experiment is a lot better in this scenario where we have identified @xmath5 rather than @xmath1 as the ( predominantly ) isoscalar @xmath217 state . note that this result has been obtained using the decay width of the @xmath6 meson ( in order to express @xmath110 via @xmath152 ) , which is also assumed to be a scalar @xmath217 state in this scenario . it is remarkable that vector mesons are crucial to obtain realistic values for the decay width of @xmath407 : without vector mesons , the decay width is @xmath410 gev and thus much too large . this is why scenario ii has not been considered in the standard linear sigma model . [ h ]    f0pionpion.eps    the four - body decay @xmath411 can also be studied . similarly to the @xmath412 decay , we view @xmath413 as a sequential decay of the form @xmath414 . the lagrangian ( [ lagrangian ] ) leads to@xmath415   \text { , } \label{f0rhorho}%\ ] ] where @xmath416 and @xmath417 are the off - shell masses of the @xmath11 mesons . the decay width @xmath418 is then given by @xmath419 with @xmath420 from eq . ( [ f0rhorho ] ) and @xmath361 from eq . ( [ drho ] ) .    using the previous values for the parameters we obtain that the @xmath421 contribution for the decay is small : @xmath422 mev . ( the error comes from varying @xmath152 between 1.6 and 1.88 . ) @xcite quotes 54 mev for the total @xmath423 decay width . since ref . @xcite ascertains that about 26% of the total @xmath423 decay width originates from the @xmath421 decay channel , our result is consistent with these findings . we have presented a linear sigma model with vector mesons and global chiral invariance . the motivation for considering global invariance rather than the standard sakurai model with local chiral invariance ( with the exception of the vector - meson mass term ) was that the latter fails to describe some important low - energy meson decay processes correctly , most notably the two - pion decay width of the @xmath11 meson @xcite . this lagrangian describes mesons as pure quarkonium states . as shown in sec . iv.a , the resulting low - energy phenomenology is in general in good agreement with experimental data  with one exception : the model fails to correctly describe the @xmath424 decay width . this led us to conclude that @xmath1 and @xmath2 can not be predominantly @xmath217 states .    assigning the scalar fields @xmath3 and @xmath4 of the model to the @xmath5 and @xmath6 resonances , respectively , improves the results for the decay widths considerably . we have obtained @xmath425-@xmath426 mev for @xmath427-@xmath428 mev ( see fig .  [ f0pionpionf ] ) . thus , the scenario in which the scalar states above 1 gev , @xmath5 and @xmath6 , are considered to be ( predominantly ) @xmath217 states appears to be favoured over the assignment in which @xmath1 and @xmath2 are considered ( predominantly ) @xmath217 states . however , a more detailed study of this scenario is necessary , because a glueball state with the same quantum numbers mixes with the quarkonium states . this allows to include the experimentally well - known resonance @xmath36 into the study .    of course , interpreting @xmath5 and @xmath6 as @xmath217 states leads to question about the nature of @xmath1 and @xmath2 . their presence is necessary for the correct description of @xmath0 scattering lengths that differ from experiment for too large values of the isoscalar mass ( see sec . we distinguish two possibilities : ( i ) they can arise as ( quasi-)molecular states . this is possible if the attraction in the @xmath0 and @xmath351 channels is large enough . in order to prove this , one should solve the corresponding bethe - salpeter equation in the framework of scenario ii . in this case @xmath1 and @xmath2 can be classified as genuinely dynamically generated states and should not appear in the lagrangian , see the discussion in ref .  @xcite . if , however , the attraction is not sufficient to generate the two resonances @xmath1 and @xmath2 we are led to the alternative possibility that ( ii ) these two scalar states must be incorporated into the model as additional tetraquark states . in this case they shall appear from the very beginning in the lagrangian and should not be considered as dynamically generated states . of course , the isoscalar tetraquark , quarkonium , and glueball will mix to produce @xmath429 and @xmath430 , and the isovector tetraquark and quarkonium will mix to produce @xmath431 and @xmath432 . the issue of restoration of chiral symmetry at nonzero temperature and density is one of the fundamental questions of modern hadron and nuclear physics , see , e.g. , refs . linear sigma models constitute an effective approach to study chiral symmetry restoration because they contain from the onset not only pseudoscalar and vector mesons , but also their chiral partners with which they become degenerate once the chiral symmetry has been restored . once vacuum phenomenology is reasonably well reproduced within our model , we also plan to apply it to studies of chiral symmetry restoration at nonzero temperatures and densities . another important check of the model is the description of the aleph data for the decay of the @xmath125 lepton into two and three pions @xcite . in this way , we will have a better constraint on the parameters of the model , e.g.  the value for the @xmath12 mass . an extension of the model to @xmath433 can be performed @xcite ; with the exception of the strange quark condensate , no further free parameters will arise in this extension . however , much more data are available for the strange mesons , which constitute an important test for the validity of our approach . the authors thank j.  schechter , f.  sannino , j.r . pelez , s.gallas , and s.  strber for valuable discussions . the work of d.p .  was partially supported by the foundation `` polytechnical society '' . the work of d.p .  and f.g . was partially supported by bmbf . the work of d.h.r.was supported by the extreme matter institute emmi . this work was ( financially ) supported by the helmholtz international center for fair within the framework of the loewe program launched by the state of hesse . this is the final form of the lagrangian ( [ lagrangian ] ) that is obtained after the shifts ( [ shifts ] ) and the renormalisation of the pseudoscalar wave functions ; @xmath434 ; @xmath435 ; ( @xmath436)@xmath437 marks the third component of the vector @xmath436 . note that the term @xmath438 contains the ( axial-)vector four - point vertices [ the terms @xmath439 in the lagrangian ( [ lagrangian ] ) ] . we do not give the explicit form of @xmath438 because it is not relevant for the results that are presented in this paper . @xmath440   \sigma^{2}\\ &   + \,\frac{1}{2}\,(z\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi}+g_{1}z\vec{\rho}^{\mu}\times \vec{\pi}-g_{1}f_{1}^{\mu}\vec{a}_{0}-g_{1}wz\partial^{\mu}\eta\vec{a}% _ { 0}-g_{1}\sigma\vec{a}_{1}^{\mu}-g_{1}wz\sigma\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi})^{2}\\ &   + \,\frac{1}{2}\,(z\partial^{\mu}\eta - g_{1}\sigma f_{1}^{\mu}-g_{1}% wz\sigma\partial^{\mu}\eta - g_{1}\,\vec{a}_{1}^{\mu}\cdot\vec{a}_{0}% -g_{1}wz\,\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi}\cdot\vec{a}_{0})^{2}\\ &   -\,\frac{1}{2}\,\left [   m_{0}^{2}-c+\left (   \lambda_{1}+\frac{\lambda_{2}% } { 2}\right )   \phi^{2}\right ]   z^{2}\vec{\pi}^{2}-\frac{1}{2}\,\left [ m_{0}^{2}+c+\left (   \lambda_{1}+\frac{\lambda_{2}}{2}\right )   \phi^{2}\right ] z^{2}\eta^{2}\\ &   + \,\frac{1}{2}\,[\partial^{\mu}\vec{a}_{0}+g_{1}\vec{\rho}^{\mu}\times \vec{a}_{0}+g_{1}zf_{1}^{\mu}\vec{\pi}+g_{1}wz^{2}\vec{\pi}\partial^{\mu}% \eta+g_{1}z\eta\,\vec{a}_{1}^{\mu}+g_{1}wz^{2}\eta\,\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi } ] ^{2}\\ &   -\,\frac{1}{2}\,\left [   m_{0}^{2}+c+\left (   \lambda_{1}+\frac{3}{2}% \lambda_{2}\right )   \phi^{2}\right ]   \vec{a}_{0}^{2}-\frac{\lambda_{2}}% { 2}[(\sigma\vec{a}_{0}+z^{2}\eta\,\vec{\pi})^{2}+z^{2}\vec{a}_{0}^{2}\vec{\pi } ^{2}-z^{2}(\vec{a}_{0}\cdot\vec{\pi})^{2}]\\ &   -\,\frac{1}{4}\,\left (   \lambda_{1}+\frac{\lambda_{2}}{2}\right ) \,(\sigma^{2}+\vec{a}_{0}^{2}+z^{2}\eta^{2}+z^{2}\vec{\pi}^{2})^{2}-\left ( \lambda_{1}+\frac{\lambda_{2}}{2}\right )   \,\phi\sigma\,(\sigma^{2}+\vec { a}_{0}^{2}+z^{2}\eta^{2}+z^{2}\vec{\pi}^{2})\\ &   -\,\lambda_{2}\phi\vec{a}_{0}\cdot(\sigma\vec{a}_{0}+z^{2}\eta\,\vec{\pi } ) -\frac{1}{4}\,(\partial^{\mu}\omega^{\nu}-\partial^{\nu}\omega^{\mu}% ) ^{2}+\frac{m_{1}^{2}}{2}\,(\omega^{\mu})^{2}\\ &   -\,\frac{1}{4}\,[\partial^{\mu}\vec{\rho}^{\nu}-\partial^{\nu}\vec{\rho } ^{\mu}+g_{2}\vec{\rho}^{\mu}\times\vec{\rho}^{\nu}+g\,_{2}\vec{a}_{1}^{\mu } \times\vec{a}_{1}^{\nu}+g_{2}wz\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi}\times\vec{a}_{1}^{\nu } + g_{2}wz\vec{a}_{1}^{\mu}\times\partial^{\nu}\vec{\pi}\\ &   + \,g_{2}w^{2}z^{2}(\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi}\ ) \times(\partial^{\nu}\vec{\pi } ) ] ^{2}\\ &   + \,\frac{m_{1}^{2}}{2}(\vec{\rho}^{\mu})^{2}-\frac{1}{4}\,(\partial^{\mu } f_{1}^{\nu}-\partial^{\nu}f_{1}^{\mu})^{2}+\frac{m_{1}^{2}+g_{1}^{2}\phi^{2}% } { 2}\,(f_{1}^{\mu})^{2}+\frac{m_{1}^{2}+g_{1}^{2}\phi^{2}}{2}\,(\vec{a}% _ { 1}^{\mu})^{2}\\ &   -\,\frac{1}{4}\,[\partial^{\mu}\vec{a}_{1}^{\nu}-\partial^{\nu}\vec{a}% _ { 1}^{\mu}+g_{2}\vec{\rho}^{\mu}\times\vec{a}_{1}^{\nu}+g_{2}wz\vec{\rho}% ^{\mu}\times\partial^{\nu}\vec{\pi}+g_{2}\vec{a}_{1}^{\mu}\times\vec{\rho } ^{\nu}+g_{2}wz(\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi})\times\vec{\rho}^{\nu}]^{2}\\ &   -\,g_{1}^{2}\,\phi\,\vec{a}_{1\mu}\cdot\lbrack\vec{\rho}^{\mu}\times z\vec{\pi}-f_{1}^{\mu}\vec{a}_{0}-wz\vec{a}_{0}\,\partial^{\mu}\eta]\\ &   -\,g_{1}^{2}wz\,\phi\,\partial_{\mu}\vec{\pi}\cdot\,[z\vec{\rho}^{\mu } \times\vec{\pi}-f_{1}^{\mu}\vec{a}_{0}-wz\partial^{\mu}\eta\,\vec{a}% _ { 0}]+g_{1}^{2}\,\phi f_{1\mu}\,(\vec{a}_{1}^{\mu}\cdot\vec{a}_{0}% + wz\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi}\cdot\vec{a}_{0})\\ &   + \,g_{1}^{2}wz\,\phi\,\partial_{\mu}\eta\,(\vec{a}_{1}^{\mu}\cdot\vec { a}_{0}+wz\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi}\cdot\vec{a}_{0})\\ &   + \,g_{1}^{2}\,\phi\,\sigma\,[(f_{1}^{\mu})^{2}+2wzf_{1\,\mu}\partial^{\mu } \eta+w^{2}z^{2}(\partial^{\mu}\eta)^{2}]\\ &   + \,g_{1}^{2}\,\phi\,\sigma\,[(\vec{a}_{1}^{\mu})^{2}+2wz\vec{a}_{1\mu}% \cdot\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi}+w^{2}z^{2}(\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi})^{2}]\\ &   -\,\frac{1}{2}\,\frac{g_{1}^{2}\phi^{2}}{\,m_{a_{1}}^{2}}\,z^{2}% \,(\partial_{\mu}\eta\partial^{\mu}\eta+\partial_{\mu}\vec{\pi}\cdot \partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi})\\ &   + ea_{\mu}\{(\vec{a}_{0}\times\partial^{\mu}\vec{a}_{0})_{3}+z^{2}(\vec{\pi } \times\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi})_{3}-4(\vec{\rho}^{\mu\nu}\times\vec{\rho}% _ { \nu})_{3}-4[(\vec{a}_{1\nu}+zw\partial_{\nu}\vec{\pi})\times\vec{a}_{1}% ^{\mu\nu}]_{3}\\ &   + g_{1}\{2z(f_{1}^{\mu}+zw\partial^{\mu}\eta)(\vec{a}_{0}\times\vec{\pi } ) _ { 3}+z(\sigma+\phi)[(\vec{a}_{1}^{\mu}+zw\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi } ) \times\vec{\pi}]_{3}\\ &   + \eta\lbrack\vec{a}_{0}\times(\vec{a}_{1}^{\mu}+zw\partial^{\mu } \vec{\pi})]_{3}-a_{0}^{3}(a_{0}^{1}\rho^{\mu1}+a_{0}^{2}\rho^{\mu2})-z^{2}% \pi^{3}(\pi^{1}\rho^{\mu1}+\pi^{2}\rho^{\mu2})\\ &   + \rho^{\mu3}[(a_{0}^{1})^{2}+(a_{0}^{2})^{2}+z^{2}(\pi^{1})^{2}+z^{2}% ( \pi^{2})^{2}]\}\\ &   + 4g_{2}\{[\vec{\rho}_{\nu}^{2}+\vec{a}_{1\nu}^{2}+z^{2}w^{2}\left ( \partial_{\nu}\vec{\pi}\right)^{2}+zw\vec{a}_{1\nu}\cdot\partial^{\nu}% \vec{\pi}]\rho^{\mu3}+2\vec{\rho}_{\nu}\cdot(\vec{a}_{1}^{\nu}+zw\partial ^{\nu}\vec{\pi})\times(a_{1}^{\mu3}+zw\partial^{\mu}\pi^{3})\\ &   -(\vec{\rho}_{\nu}\cdot\vec{\rho}^{\mu}+\vec{a}_{1\nu}\cdot\vec{a}_{1}% ^{\mu}+zw\vec{a}_{1\nu}\cdot\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi}+zw\vec{a}_{1}^{\mu}% \cdot\partial_{\nu}\vec{\pi}+z^{2}w^{2}\partial_{\nu}\vec{\pi}\cdot \partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi})\rho^{\nu3}\\ &   -(\vec{\rho}^{\mu}\cdot\vec{a}_{1\nu}+\vec{a}_{1}^{\mu}\cdot\vec{\rho}% _ { \nu}+zw\vec{\rho}^{\mu}\cdot\partial_{\nu}\vec{\pi}+zw\vec{\rho}_{\nu}% \cdot\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi})a_{1}^{\nu3}\}\}\\ &   + \frac{e^{2}}{2}a_{\mu}a^{\mu}[(a_{0}^{1})^{2}+(a_{0}^{2})^{2}+z^{2}% ( \pi^{1})^{2}+z^{2}(\pi^{2})^{2}+4(\rho^{\nu1})^{2}+4(\rho^{\nu2})^{2}\\ &   + 4(a_{1\nu}^{1}+zw\partial_{\nu}\pi^{1})^{2}+4(a_{1\nu}^{2}+zw\partial _ { \nu}\pi^{2})^{2}]\\ &   -2e^{2}a_{\mu}a_{\nu}[\rho^{\mu1}\rho^{\nu1}+\rho^{\mu2}\rho^{\nu2}% + ( a_{1}^{\mu1}+zw\partial^{\mu}\pi^{1})(a_{1}^{\nu1}+zw\partial^{\nu}\pi ^{1})\\ &   + ( a_{1}^{\mu2}+zw\partial^{\mu}\pi^{2})(a_{1}^{\nu2}+zw\partial^{\nu}% \pi^{2})]+{\mathcal{l}}_{h_{1,2,3}}+\mathcal{l}_{g_{3}}+\mathcal{l}_{4}%\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath441\\ &   + 2zw(f_{1\mu}\partial^{\mu}\eta+\vec{a}_{1\mu}\cdot\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi } ) \}\\ &   + \left (   \frac{h_{1}}{4}+\frac{h_{2}}{4}+\frac{h_{3}}{4}\right )   \phi ^{2}(\omega_{\mu}^{2}+\vec{\rho}_{\mu}^{2})+\left (   \frac{h_{1}}{4}% + \frac{h_{2}}{4}-\frac{h_{3}}{4}\right )   \phi^{2}(f_{1\mu}^{2}+\vec{a}_{1\mu } ^{2})\\ &   + ( h_{2}+h_{3})\omega_{\mu}[(\sigma+\phi)\vec{a}_{0}+z^{2}\eta\vec{\pi } ] \cdot\vec{\rho}^{\mu}\\ &   + ( h_{2}-h_{3})[(\sigma+\phi)\vec{a}_{0}+z^{2}\eta\vec{\pi}]\cdot\lbrack f_{1\mu}\vec{a}_{1}^{\mu}+zw(\vec{a}_{1\mu}\partial^{\mu}\eta+f_{1\mu}% \partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi})+z^{2}w^{2}(\partial_{\mu}\eta)(\partial^{\mu}\vec { \pi})]\\ &   + ( h_{2}+h_{3})z(\vec{a}_{0}\times\vec{\pi})\cdot(\omega_{\mu}\vec{a}% _ { 1}^{\mu}+zw\omega_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi})\\ &   + ( h_{2}-h_{3})z(\vec{a}_{0}\times\vec{\pi})\cdot(f_{1\mu}\vec{\rho}^{\mu } + zw\vec{\rho}_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}\eta)\\ &   + h_{3}z[\eta\vec{a}_{0}-(\sigma+\phi)\vec{\pi}]\cdot\lbrack\vec{\rho}_{\mu } \times(\vec{a}_{1}^{\mu}+zw\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi})]\\ &   -\frac{h_{3}}{2}\{(\vec{a}_{0}\times\vec{\rho}^{\mu})^{2}-[\vec{a}% _ { 0}\times(\vec{a}_{1}^{\mu}+zw\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi})]^{2}+z^{2}(\vec{\pi } \times\vec{\rho}^{\mu})^{2}-z^{2}[\vec{\pi}\times(\vec{a}_{1}^{\mu } + zw\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi})]^{2}\}\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath442\\ &   + ( \partial_{\mu}f_{1\nu}+zw\partial_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}\eta)[\omega^{\mu } f_{1}^{\nu}+\omega^{\nu}f_{1}^{\mu}+\vec{\rho}^{\mu}\cdot\vec{a}_{1}^{\nu } + \vec{\rho}^{\nu}\cdot\vec{a}_{1}^{\mu}+zw(\omega^{\mu}\partial^{\nu}% \eta+\omega^{\nu}\partial^{\mu}\eta+\vec{\rho}^{\mu}\cdot\partial^{\nu}% \vec{\pi}+\vec{\rho}^{\nu}\cdot\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi})]\\ &   + \partial_{\mu}\vec{\rho}_{\nu}\cdot\lbrack\omega^{\mu}\vec{\rho}^{\nu } + \omega^{\nu}\vec{\rho}^{\mu}+f_{1}^{\mu}\vec{a}_{1}^{\nu}+f_{1}^{\nu}\vec { a}_{1}^{\mu}+zw(\vec{a}_{1}^{\mu}\partial^{\nu}\eta+\vec{a}_{1}^{\nu}% \partial^{\mu}\eta+f_{1}^{\mu}\partial^{\nu}\vec{\pi}+f_{1}^{\nu}\partial ^{\mu}\vec{\pi})+z^{2}w^{2}(\partial^{\mu}\eta\partial^{\nu}\vec{\pi}% + \partial^{\nu}\eta\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi})]\\ &   + ( \partial_{\mu}\vec{a}_{1\nu}+zw\partial_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}\vec{\pi } ) \cdot\lbrack f_{1}^{\mu}\vec{\rho}^{\nu}+f_{1}^{\nu}\vec{\rho}^{\mu}% + \omega^{\mu}\vec{a}_{1}^{\nu}+\omega^{\nu}\vec{a}_{1}^{\mu}+zw(\vec{\rho } ^{\mu}\partial^{\nu}\eta+\vec{\rho}^{\nu}\partial^{\mu}\eta+\omega^{\mu } \partial^{\nu}\vec{\pi}+\omega^{\nu}\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi})]\}\\ &   + 4eg_{3}a_{\mu}\{\omega_{\nu}[(\vec{\rho}^{\mu}\times\vec{\rho}^{\nu}% ) _ { 3}+(\vec{a}_{1}^{\mu}\times\vec{a}_{1}^{\nu})_{3}+zw(\partial^{\mu}\vec { \pi}\times\vec{a}_{1}^{\nu})_{3}+zw(\vec{a}_{1}^{\mu}\times\partial^{\nu}% \vec{\pi})_{3}+z^{2}w^{2}(\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi}\times\partial^{\nu}\vec{\pi } ) _ { 3}]\\ &   + ( f_{1\nu}+zw\partial_{\nu}\eta)[(\vec{\rho}^{\mu}\times\vec{a}_{1}^{\nu } ) _ { 3}+(\vec{a}_{1}^{\mu}\times\vec{\rho}^{\nu})_{3}+zw(\vec{\rho}^{\mu}% \times\partial^{\nu}\vec{\pi})_{3}+zw(\partial^{\mu}\vec{\pi}\times\vec{\rho } ^{\nu})_{3}]\}\end{aligned}\ ] ]                                  c.  amsler and f.  e.  close , phys .  lett . b * 353 * , 385 ( 1995 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/9505219 ] ; w.  j.  lee and d.  weingarten , phys . d * 61 * , 014015 ( 2000 ) [ arxiv : hep - lat/9910008 ] ; f.  e.  close and a.  kirk , eur . j.  c * 21 * , 531 ( 2001 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0103173 ] ; f.  giacosa , t.  gutsche , v.  e.  lyubovitskij and a.  faessler , phys .  rev . d * 72 * , 094006 ( 2005 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0509247 ] ; f.  giacosa , t.  gutsche , v.  e.  lyubovitskij and a.  faessler , phys . b * 622 * , 277 ( 2005 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0504033 ] . r.  l.  jaffe , phys . d * 15 * , 267 ( 1977 ) ; r.  l.  jaffe , phys . d * 15 * , 281 ( 1977 ) ; l.  maiani , f.  piccinini , a.  d.  polosa and v.  riquer , phys .  rev . lett .  * 93 * , 212002 ( 2004 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0407017 ] ; a.  h.  fariborz , r.  jora and j.  schechter , phys . d * 72 * , 034001 ( 2005 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0506170 ] ; f.  giacosa , phys . d * 74 * , 014028 ( 2006 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0605191 ] ; a.  h.  fariborz , r.  jora and j.  schechter , phys . d * 76 * , 114001 ( 2007 ) [ arxiv:0708.3402 [ hep - ph ] ] ; f.  giacosa , phys .  rev . d * 75 * , 054007 ( 2007 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0611388 ] ; g.  t hooft , g.  isidori , l.  maiani , a.  d.  polosa and v.  riquer , phys . b * 662 * , 424 ( 2008 ) [ arxiv:0801.2288 [ hep - ph ] ] ; t.  kojo and d.  jido , phys . d * 78 * , 114005 ( 2008 ) [ arxiv:0802.2372 [ hep - ph ] ] ; t.  kojo and d.  jido , arxiv:0807.2364 [ hep - ph ] . g.  t hooft , nucl . b * 72 * , 461 ( 1974 ) ; e.  witten , nucl . b * 160 * , 57 ( 1979 ) ; s.  r.  coleman , `` 1/n , '' published in erice subnuclear 1979:0011 ; r.  f.  lebed , czech . j.  phys . * 49 * , 1273 ( 1999 ) [ arxiv : nucl - th/9810080 ] . j.  r.  pelaez , phys . 92 * , 102001 ( 2004 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0309292 ] ; j.  r.  pelaez , aip conf . * 814 * , 670 ( 2006 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0510118 ] ; j.  r.  pelaez and g.  rios , phys . lett .  * 97 * , 242002 ( 2006 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0610397 ] . n.  mathur _ et al . _ , phys . d * 76 * , 114505 ( 2007 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0607110 ] ; t.  draper , t.  doi , k.  f.  liu , d.  mankame , n.  mathur and x.  f.  meng , pos * lattice2008 * , 108 ( 2008 ) [ arxiv:0810.5512 [ hep - lat ] ] . b.  bloch - devaux [ na48/2 collaboration ] , presentation at the panic08 conference , eilat ( israel ) , 9 - 14 november 2008 . f.  giacosa and g.  pagliara , phys . c * 76 * , 065204 ( 2007 ) [ arxiv:0707.3594 [ hep - ph ] ] . c.  a.  baker _ _ , phys . b * 563 * , 140 ( 2003 ) . d.  v.  bugg , eur . j.  c * 52 * , 55 ( 2007 ) [ arxiv:0706.1341 [ hep - ex ] ] . a.  abele _ et al . _ [ crystal barrel collaboration ] , eur .  phys . j.   c * 21 * , 261 ( 2001 ) . a. habersetzer , f. giacosa and d. h. rischke , in preparation .
Abstract:

Answer: we present a two - flavour linear sigma model with global chiral symmetry and vector and axial - vector mesons . we calculate @xmath0 scattering lengths and the decay widths of scalar , vector , and axial - vector mesons . it is demonstrated that vector and axial - vector meson degrees of freedom play an important role in these low - energy processes and that a reasonable theoretical description requires globally chirally invariant terms other than the vector meson mass term . an important question for meson vacuum phenomenology is the quark content of the physical scalar @xmath1 and @xmath2 mesons . we investigate this question by assigning the quark - antiquark @xmath3 and @xmath4 states of our model with these physical mesons . we show via a detailed comparison with experimental data that this scenario can describe all vacuum properties studied here except for the decay width of the @xmath3 , which turns out to be too small . we also study the alternative assignment @xmath5 and @xmath6 for the scalar mesons . in this case the decay width agrees with the experimental value , but the @xmath0 scattering length @xmath7 is too small . this indicates the necessity to extend our model by additional scalar degrees of freedom .