Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Relativistic effects in $\mbox{M1}$ radiative decays of heavy-light mesons

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A relativistic potential model whose low-velocity limit is the Breit Hamiltonian predicts the M1 radiative widths of heavy-light mesons, with relativistic effects strongly suppressing the D_s* width, and matches the measured B_s hyperfine…

desk verdict A serious relativistic potential-model calculation with a striking B_s prediction, but the abstract overclaims and the D_s* suppression rests on an unverified imported correction. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21466 v1 pith:WNLBARHW submitted 2025-07-29 hep-ph hep-ex

A.E.Bondar , A.I.Milstein This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords M1radiativedecaysheavy-lightmesonsrelativisticpotentialmodelBreitHamiltonianD_s*widthhyperfinesplittingB_smagnetic-dipoletransitions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Relativistic effects are usually treated as small corrections, but this paper argues they control the magnetic-dipole (M1) radiative widths of mesons built from one charm or bottom quark and one light quark. Its relativistic potential model, constructed so that its low-velocity expansion is the Breit Hamiltonian, gives widths for $D^*\to D\gamma$, $D_s^*\to D_s\gamma$, $B^*\to B\gamma$, and $B_s^*\to B_s\gamma$. The decisive case is $D_s^*$: the nonrelativistic magnetic-moment formula gives $0.547$ keV, while the relativistic treatment lowers the width to values consistent with the measured $0.11$ keV. The same model predicts the $B_s^*-B_s$ hyperfine splitting as $48.1$-$49.2$ MeV, close to a recent precise measurement. If the paper is right, the nonrelativistic quark-model formula for the $D_s^*$ magnetic moment is not a valid approximation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-body Hamiltonian $h=\sqrt{m^2+(\boldsymbol\sigma\cdot\boldsymbol\pi)^2}$ for each quark, expanded in the spin and momentum operators; at order $v^2/c^2$ it reproduces the Breit Hamiltonian. Using noncovariant perturbation theory for transverse-photon exchange, the paper derives the spin-spin hyperfine splitting $\Omega$ and the spin-independent level shift $\Delta E_0$. The M1 amplitude is organized around the form factors $F_s,F_c$ and their interaction corrections $\delta F_s,\delta F_c$ in Eqs. (19)-(20); these are evaluated with a single Gaussian variational wave function (Eqs. (22)-(23)), which turns the final expressions into integrals over modified Bessel functions. This machinery is what converts the naive quark magnetic moments into the strongly suppressed widths.

What would settle it

Solve Eq. (21) numerically with the same parameters but without imposing the Gaussian ansatz, and recompute $F_s,F_c,\delta F_s,\delta F_c$; if the resulting $\Gamma(D_s^*\to D_s\gamma)$ leaves the paper's $0.03$-$0.25$ keV range, the claimed suppression is an artifact of the trial wave function.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a potential model built from the relativistic single-quark operator $\sqrt{m^2+(\boldsymbol\sigma\cdot\boldsymbol\pi)^2}$, with a Coulomb plus linear confining potential, describes the measured M1 radiative widths of heavy-light mesons provided the relativistic corrections are kept. Its nonrelativistic reduction is the Breit Hamiltonian, which links the model to the standard two-body electrodynamics. In the amplitude for $D_s^*\to D_s\gamma$, the bare charges divided by masses are replaced by relativistic form factors $F_s$ and $F_c$, and the interaction corrections $\delta F_s$, $\delta F_c$ further reduce the amplitude. With parameters fixed to the $D$ meson spectrum, the model gives $\Gamma(D_s^*\to D_s\gamma)$ between $0.03$ and $0.25$ keV depending on the light-quark mass, in place of the nonrelativistic $0.547$ keV, and predicts $\Gamma(B^*\to B\gamma)=0.076$-$0.106$ keV and $\Gamma(B_s^*\to B_s\gamma)=0.068$-$0.098$ keV.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation rests on assuming that the ground-state wave function is exactly one Gaussian chosen by a single variational condition; all form factors and corrections are evaluated from that ansatz, and no test shows that allowing a more flexible wave function would leave the predicted widths unchanged.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The nonrelativistic value $\Gamma_{nr}(D_s^*\to D_s\gamma)=0.547$ keV is not a reliable estimate, because the cancellation between the light-antiquark and heavy-quark magnetic moments amplifies relativistic corrections.
  • A parameter scan with light-quark masses from 20 to 300 MeV gives $\Gamma(D^{*0}\to D^0\gamma)=13$-$19$ keV and $\Gamma(D^{*+}\to D^+\gamma)=0.14$-$0.57$ keV; the $D^{*+}$ prediction lies below the existing measurement, so a new measurement is called for.
  • For $B$ mesons the model predicts $\Gamma(B^*\to B\gamma)=0.076$-$0.106$ keV and $\Gamma(B_s^*\to B_s\gamma)=0.068$-$0.098$ keV, with much weaker sensitivity to the light-quark mass than in the $D$ sector.
  • The hyperfine splitting $M(B_s^*)-M(B_s)$ comes out at $48.1$-$49.2$ MeV, matching the recent experimental value $49.41\pm0.15$ MeV, and the ratio of $B^*$ to $B_s^*$ splittings is $0.935(10)$, close to the experimental $0.920(3)$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the suppression mechanism is generic, the same form-factor replacement should shift M1 widths in other heavy-light systems such as $B_c$ or excited strange mesons; calculating those would test the model outside the sector it was fitted to.
  • The single-Gaussian ansatz is the uncontrolled part of the calculation; a numerical solution of Eq. (21) or a multi-Gaussian trial function would show whether the factor-of-several suppression of the $D_s^*$ width is robust.
  • A future precise measurement of $\Gamma(D^{*+}\to D^+\gamma)$ would discriminate the parameter sets: the model's $0.14$-$0.57$ keV range sits well below the current central value of $1.33$ keV, so a value near $1$ keV would disagree with all three sets.
  • The assumption that the same coupling $g$ and confinement slope $b$ describe both charm and bottom systems could be tested with the $B_c$ hyperfine splitting, where the heavy-quark limit in Eq. (29) predicts a different parametric behaviour.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a relativistic potential model for heavy-light mesons (D, D_s, B, B_s) whose expansion to order v^2/c^2 reproduces the Breit Hamiltonian. The model parameters are fixed by fitting the D and D_s ground-state masses and hyperfine splittings, and the same parameters are then used to predict the M1 radiative widths Gamma(D* -> D gamma), Gamma(D*_s -> D_s gamma), Gamma(B* -> B gamma), and Gamma(B*_s -> B_s gamma), as well as the B_s hyperfine splitting. The central claim is that relativistic effects, including an interaction-induced correction delta t_1 imported from the authors' earlier work [31], strongly suppress the D*_s width relative to the nonrelativistic quark-model value, bringing it into better agreement with experiment, and that the model also predicts the B_s hyperfine splitting in agreement with the recent CMS measurement.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the paper would provide a nontrivial demonstration that a simple relativistic potential model, together with a single-Gaussian variational ansatz, can resolve a long-standing discrepancy in the D*_s M1 width and make a successful parameter-free prediction for the B_s hyperfine splitting. The model's mass fits are clean, and the predicted B_s splitting (48.1-49.2 MeV versus the CMS value 49.41 +/- 0.15 MeV) is a genuine, nontrivial success. The paper also offers a broad comparison with many existing approaches. However, the advertised consistency with experiment is currently overstated, and the decisive suppression of the D*_s width relies on an interaction correction that is imported without derivation and is quadratically sensitive to cancellations; the variational-ansatz error is also unquantified. These issues must be addressed before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V, Table III and Abstract] The abstract's claim that the results are 'consistent with known experimental data' is contradicted by the model's own output for the directly measured channel Gamma(D*+ -> D+ gamma): Table III gives 0.140-0.570 keV for parameter sets I-III, whereas the experimental value is 1.33 +/- 0.36 keV (CLEO [33]). The authors acknowledge this discrepancy in the text but do not qualify the paper's main claim accordingly; the claim should be revised to state that the model reproduces Gamma(D*0 -> D0 gamma) and the B_s splitting while underestimating Gamma(D*+ -> D+ gamma).
  2. [Section II.C, Eqs. (19)-(20)] The interaction-induced correction delta t_1, which is decisive for the suppression of Gamma(D*_s -> D_s gamma), is taken from Eq. (21) of the authors' earlier paper [31] and is not derived or benchmarked in this manuscript. Because the amplitude t_1 in Eq. (19) is a difference of two comparable terms, the width is quadratically sensitive to the size of the corrections delta F_s and delta F_c in Eq. (20); without an independent derivation, a consistency check, or a numerical benchmark against a known limit, the predicted suppression of the D*_s width is not yet a robust result of this paper.
  3. [Section III, Eqs. (22)-(23)] All predictions are evaluated with a single-Gaussian trial wave function with the variational parameter omega_0, and the paper gives no convergence test against more flexible trial functions and no estimate of the resulting error in the form factors F_s, F_c, delta F_s, and delta F_c. Given the sensitivity of the D*_s width to cancellations between comparable terms, the variational-ansatz uncertainty is load-bearing and should be quantified before the numerical suppression can be considered reliable.
  4. [Section V, Table III] The comparison with experiment for the D*_s width is made by scanning the free parameter m_l and then selecting the case with 'best agreement' with the radiative widths; this introduces a mild circularity into the width comparison. The paper should either determine m_l from the mass fits alone (as stated in the text, the parameters m_s, m_Q, g, and b are chosen to reproduce masses) or provide a full parameter-dependence plot and an uncertainty on m_l, rather than retrospectively selecting the value that matches the widths.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2)] In Eq. (2), the magnetic moment operator contains a typo: the second spin operator should be S_c, giving mu = (e_s/m_s) S_s + (e_c/m_c) S_c, not S_s twice.
  2. [Throughout] The unit 'KeV' should be written as 'keV' (e.g., Eq. (1), Tables III-V); also, 'Izgur-Godfrey' in Section II.B should be 'Isgur-Godfrey'.
  3. [Table II] The column labeled m_l lists values 270, 320, and 454 MeV for the c-s rows, but the text states that m_l is preselected in the range 20-300 MeV; these entries presumably correspond to m_s, and the column header and mass labels should be corrected to avoid confusion.
  4. [Eqs. (37)-(39)] The two mass relations in Eqs. (37)-(38) appear garbled (Eq. (38) has an unbalanced parenthesis), and Eq. (39) lists two numerical ratios without clearly specifying which ratio corresponds to which side of the equations; please recheck the notation.
  5. [Section V, Table IV] The statement that the B_s and B*_s masses are overestimated by 9-10 MeV because 'the effective mass of a quark is not a constant' is qualitative; if this effect is invoked, it should be modeled or at least bounded, since the B_s hyperfine splitting is the paper's advertised success.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Low circularity: the width predictions are computed after fixing parameters to meson masses and the B_s hyperfine splitting is independently confirmed by CMS; the mild burden is the D_s* suppression imported from the authors' own Ref. [31].

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. II.C, after Eq. (19), introducing Eq. (20)]
    "There is also a relativistic correction δt1 to the amplitude t1 in Eq. (19), which follows from Eq. (21) of our paper [31] and is related to the influence of the quark-antiquark interaction on the radiation process. The corrections δFs and δFc to the corresponding form factors in (19), following from the amplitude δt1, read"

    The numerical suppression of Γ(Ds*→Dsγ) from the nonrelativistic 0.547 keV to the observed ~0.1 keV is governed by the δFs and δFc corrections in Eq. (20), which the paper imports from Eq. (21) of the authors' own previous paper [31] without re-derivation or independent benchmark in the present manuscript. Since t1 in Eq. (19) is a difference of two comparable terms, the width is quadratically sensitive to these corrections, so the central Ds* result leans on a self-citation. This is a mild rather than a strict circularity: no parameter is fitted to the Ds* width, and the cited quantity is presented as a derived amplitude from prior work; but the only support offered for the load-bearing correction is the authors' own cited result.

full rationale

The parameter fixing in Sec. V uses only ground-state masses: the values of ms, mQ, g, and b are chosen so that E(S=0) and Ω correspond to the experimental masses of D+, D*+, Ds+, and Ds*+. The radiative widths in Table III are computed afterwards and are not used to tune the model; the paper even reports a clear discrepancy for Γ(D*+) relative to CLEO. The Bs hyperfine splitting in Table IV, 48.1-49.2 MeV vs CMS 49.41±0.15 MeV, is a parameter-free external benchmark that confirms the model has independent predictive content. The a posteriori statement that the best agreement is at the smallest ml is a selection among reported parameter sets, not a fitting of the widths. The only self-citation burden is the δt1/δF correction from Ref. [31] that drives the Ds* suppression; because it is not re-derived here and the result is quadratically sensitive to it, a score of 2 rather than 0 is assigned. The prediction does not reduce by construction, and the external comparison to CMS means the derivation is self-contained enough to avoid a higher score.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are the quark masses, the Coulomb coupling g, and the string tension b, all fixed to experimental meson masses; m_l is scanned by hand. The derivation assumes a Cornell potential with vector and scalar Lorentz structure, a Salpeter-like two-body equation, a single-Gaussian wave function, and uses an interaction correction from the authors' prior paper [31].

free parameters (6)
  • light quark mass m_l = 20, 133, 300 MeV (Table II)
    Pre-selected by hand in the range 20 to 300 MeV; not fit to widths, but the paper reports best agreement at the smallest value.
  • strange quark mass m_s = 270, 320, 454 MeV (Table II)
    Fitted to reproduce the D_s and D_s* masses for each chosen m_l.
  • heavy charm quark mass m_Q = 1805, 1749, 1646 MeV (Table II)
    Fitted together with g and b to reproduce the D and D_s masses.
  • bottom quark mass m_Q(b) = not stated in the text
    Chosen together with g to reproduce the B0 and B*0 masses (Sec. V).
  • Coulomb coupling g = 0.934, 0.91, 0.896
    Fitted to meson masses; the paper treats it as proportional to alpha_s.
  • confinement slope b = 0.100, 0.110, 0.110 GeV^2
    Fitted to meson masses for the linear confining potential.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The quark-antiquark interaction is U(r) = -g/r + br, with U_g a Lorentz vector and U_conf a Lorentz scalar (Eq. 17).
    The spin structure of the hyperfine interaction and the relativistic corrections depend on this assignment; it is standard in quark models but not derived from QCD.
  • domain assumption The two-body wave function satisfies Eq. (21), E Phi = (sqrt(m_s^2+p^2) + sqrt(m_c^2+p^2) - g/r + br) Phi, with no negative-energy components.
    This is the model's relativistic wave equation, a Salpeter-like form assumed rather than derived.
  • ad hoc to paper The correction delta t1 (interaction-induced radiation amplitude) is taken from Eq. (21) of the authors' earlier paper [31] without derivation in this work.
    The D_s* width prediction depends on this correction; a reader cannot verify it from the present text.
  • domain assumption The ground-state wave function is approximated by a single Gaussian, Eqs. (22)-(23), with its width fixed variationally.
    No convergence test or systematic error estimate for the variational ansatz is provided.
  • domain assumption The L=2, S=1 component in the D_s* wave function is neglected (Sec. II).
    The paper asserts it is unimportant for the problem without a quantitative estimate.
  • domain assumption The parameters g and b are universal across charm and bottom systems (Sec. V).
    Assumed to apply to B mesons when extrapolating from D mesons.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relativistic effects in $\mbox{M1}$ radiative decays of heavy-light mesons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WNLBARHW

@misc{pith2026250721466,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relativistic effects in $\mboxM1$ radiative decays of heavy-light mesons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WNLBARHW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21466}
}
abstract

We discuss the $\mbox{M1}$ radiative transitions $D^*\rightarrow D\gamma$, $D_{s}^*\rightarrow D_s\gamma$, $B^*\rightarrow B\gamma$, and $B^*_{s}\rightarrow B_s\gamma$. A relativistic potential model is proposed. The corresponding Hamiltonian, when expanded to terms of the order of $v^2/c^2$, where $v$ are the quark velocities, coincides with the Breit Hamiltonian. This model allows making predictions for the widths of radiative transitions of mesons with one light quark. Taking into account relativistic effects is especially important for the transitions $D_{s}^{*+}\rightarrow D_s^+\gamma$ and $D^{*+}\rightarrow D^+\gamma$, where there is a large compensation in the magnitude of the magnetic moment of these mesons. Our results are consistent with known experimental data.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    A. E. Bondar and A. I. Milstein,Phenomenology of Ds1 mesons radiative transitions,Phys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 11 114019, [2505.01856]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [3]

    V. L. Eletsky and Y. I. Kogan,Calculation ofD∗ →DγandD ∗ →Dπdecay widths from QCD sum rules,Z. Phys. C28(1985) 155

    work page 1985

  3. [4]

    E. I. T. M. Aliev and N. K. Pak,RadiativeD∗ meson decays in QCD sum rules,,Phys. Lett. B334(1994) 169–174

    work page 1994

  4. [5]

    H. G. Dosch and S. Narison,B∗Bπ(γ)couplings andD ∗ →Dπ(γ)decays within a 1/M-expansion in full QCD,Phys. Lett. B368(1996) 163–170, [hep-ph/9510212]

    arXiv 1996

  5. [6]

    W. Y. P. H. S. L. Zhu and Z. S. Yang,D∗ →DγandB ∗ →Bγas derived from QCD sum rules,Mod. Phys. Lett. A12(1997) 3027–3036, [hep-ph/9610412]

    arXiv 1997

  6. [7]

    E. I. T. M. Aliev, D. A. Demir and N. K. Pak,RadiativeB∗ →BγandD ∗ →Dγdecays in light cone QCD sum rules,Phys. Rev. D54(1996) 857–862, [hep-ph/9511362]. 15

    arXiv 1996

  7. [8]

    H. D. Li, C. D. L¨ u, C. Wang, Y. M. Wang, and Y. B. Wei,QCD calculations of radiative heavy meson decays with subleading power corrections,J. High Energy Phys.04(2020) 023, [2002.03825]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [9]

    P. J. O’Donnell and Q. P. Xu,Strong and radiativeD∗ decays,Phys. Lett. B336(1994) 113–118, [hep-ph/9406300]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1994

Show all 38 references
  1. [10]

    M. A. Ivanov and Y. M. Valit,Radiative and hadronic decays of heavy vector mesons,Z. Phys. C67(1995) 633–640

    1995

  2. [11]

    Deandrea, N

    A. Deandrea, N. Di Bartolomeo, R. Gatto, G. Nardulli, and A. D. Polosa,A Constituent quark meson model for heavy meson processes,Phys. Rev. D58(1998) 034004, [hep-ph/9802308]

    1998 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Colangelo, F

    P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, and G. Nardulli,D∗ radiative decays and strong coupling of heavy mesons with soft pions in a QCD relativistic potential model,Phys. Lett. B334(1994) 175–179, [hep-ph/940]

    1994

  4. [13]

    H. B. Deng, X. L. Chen, and W. Z. Deng,Meson Decays in an Extended Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model with Heavy Quark Flavors,Chin. Phys. C38(2014), no. 1 013103, [1304.5279]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [14]

    A. H. Orsland and H. Hogaasen,Strong and electromagnetic decays for excited heavy mesons,Eur. Phys. J. C9(1999) 503–510

    1999

  6. [15]

    Jaus,Semileptonic, radiative, and pionic decays ofB,B ∗ andD,D ∗ mesons,Phys

    W. Jaus,Semileptonic, radiative, and pionic decays ofB,B ∗ andD,D ∗ mesons,Phys. Rev. D53(1996) 1349

    1996

  7. [16]

    J. L. Goity and W. Roberts,Radiative transitions in heavy mesons in a relativistic quark model,Phys. Rev. D64(2001) 094007, [hep-ph/0012314]

    2001 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, and V. O. Galkin,Radiative M1 decays of heavy light mesons in the relativistic quark model,Phys. Lett. B537(2002) 241–248, [hep-ph/0204089]

    2002 arXiv

  9. [18]

    H. M. Choi,Decay constants and radiative decays of heavy mesons in light-front quark model,Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 073016, [hep-ph/0701263]

    2007 arXiv

  10. [19]

    C. Y. Cheung and C. W. Hwang,Strong and radiative decays of heavy mesons in a covariant model,J. High Energy Phys.04(2014) 177, [1401.3917]

    2014 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Becirevic and B

    D. Becirevic and B. Haas,D∗ →DπandD ∗ →Dγdecays: Axial coupling and Magnetic moment ofD ∗ meson,Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011) 1734, [0903.2407]

    2011 arXiv

  12. [21]

    G. C. Donald, C. T. H. Davies, J. Koponen, and G. P. Lepage,Prediction of theD∗ s width from a calculation of its radiative decay in full lattice QCD,Phys. Rev. Lett.112(2014) 16 212002, [1312.5264]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [22]

    C. T. Tran, M. A. Ivanov, P. Santorelli and Q. C. Vo,Radiative decaysD∗ (s) →D (s)γin covariant confined quark model,Chin. Phys. C48(2024), no. 2 023103, [2311.15248]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Pullin and R

    B. Pullin and R. Zwicky,Radiative decays of heavy-light mesons and thef(T) H,H ∗,H1 decay constants,J. High Energy Phys.09(2021) 023, [2106.13617]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Colangelo, F

    P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio and G. Nardulli,Radiative heavy meson transitions,Phys. Lett. B 316(1993) 555–560, [hep-ph/9307330]]

    1993 arXiv

  16. [25]

    F. E. Close and E. S. Swanson,Dynamics and decay of heavy-light hadrons,Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 094004, [hep-ph/0505206]

    2005 arXiv

  17. [26]

    M. Jia, W. Li, S. Y. Pei, X. Y. Du, G. Z. Ning and G. L. Wang,Relativistic effects in the strong and electromagnetic decays of theD∗ meson,Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025), no. 3 282, [2412.10775]. [27]BESIIICollaboration, M. Ablikimet al.,First Experimental Study of the Purely Leptoni...

    2025 arXiv

  18. [28]

    H. M. Pilkuhn,RELATIVISTIC PARTICLE PHYSICS,(Springer-Verlag, New York), (1979)

    1979

  19. [29]

    Lee, A.I

    R.N. Lee, A.I. Milstein, M. Schumacher,Relativistic corrections to the electromagnetic polarizabilities of compound systems,Phys. Rev. A64(2001) 032507, [hep-ph/0101240]. [30]CMSCollaboration,https://inspirehep.net/literature?sort=mostrecent&size=25& page=1&q=CMS-PAS-BPH-24-01...

    2001 arXiv

  20. [32]

    Godfrey and N

    S. Godfrey and N. Isgur,Mesons in a Relativized Quark Model with Chromodynamics,Phys. Rev. D32(1985) 189–231. [33]CLEOCollaboration, J. E. Barteltet al.,Observation of the radiative decay D*+ —>D+ gamma,Phys. Rev. Lett.80(1998) 3919–3923, [hep-ex/971]

    1985

  21. [34]

    J. L. Rosner and M. B. Wise,Meson masses from SU(3) and heavy quark symmetry,Phys. Rev. D47(1993) 343–345

    1993

  22. [35]

    J. L. Goity and C. P. Jayalath,Strong and Electromagnetic Mass Splittings in Heavy Mesons,Phys. Lett. B650(2007) 22–26, [hep-ph/0701245]. 17

    2007 arXiv

  23. [36]

    Karliner and J

    M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner,Status of isospin splittings in mesons and baryons,Phys. Rev. D100(2019), no. 7 073006, [1906.07799]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [37]

    Bhatnagar and E

    S. Bhatnagar and E. Gebrehana,Radiative decays of heavy-light quarkonia throughM1and E1transitions in the framework of the Bethe-Salpeter equation,Phys. Rev. D102(2011), no. 9 094024, [2004.12444]

    2011 arXiv

  25. [38]

    Godfrey, K

    S. Godfrey, K. Moats and E. S. Swanson,BandBs Meson Spectroscopy,Phys. Rev. D94 (2016), no. 5 054025, [1607.02169]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [39]

    Q. F. L¨ u, T. T. Pan, Y. Y. Wang, E. Wang and D. M. Li,Excited bottom and bottom-strange mesons in the quark model,Phys. Rev. D94(2016), no. 7 074012, [1607.02812]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [40]

    V. Kher, N. Devlani and A. K. Rai,Spectroscopy, Decay properties and Regge trajectories of theBandB s mesons,Chin. Phys. C41(2017), no. 9 093101, [1705.08248]

    2017 arXiv

  28. [41]

    −− 0.135 0.102 This work 0.21 - 0.31 0.076 - 0.106 0.068 - 0.098 14 It is useful to compare the hyperfine splitting ratio forB∗0 andB ∗0 s obtained in our model with experiment [30] and with the results of lattice calculations [42]: R= (M(B ∗0)−M(B 0)) (M(B ∗0 s )−M(B 0 s )) ,...

    2010 arXiv

  29. [42]

    Patel, R

    V. Patel, R. Chaturvedi and A. K. Rai,Spectroscopic Properties ofBandBs meson using Screened Potential,2201.01120

    arXiv

  30. [43]

    R. J. Dowdall, C. T. H. Davies, T. C. Hammant and R. R. Horgan,Precise heavy-light meson masses and hyperfine splittings from lattice QCD including charm quarks in the sea, Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 094510, [1207.5149]. 18

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.