Level order of quark systems: The puzzle of the Roper resonance, and related questions

Jean-Marc Richard

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Level order of quark systems: The puzzle of the Roper resonance, and related questions

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that in any local, symmetric quark potential that grows faster than a Coulomb interaction, the first radial excitation of a three-quark state must lie above the first orbital excitation; since the Roper resonance is…

desk verdict A clear, honest review of the Roper puzzle and related quark-model inequalities; no new results, but a useful summary with a proof gap in the central theorem that should be flagged. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07764 v1 pith:LDOAHJ4M submitted 2025-06-09 hep-ph nucl-th

Jean-Marc Richard This is my paper

classification hep-phnucl-th

keywords RoperresonancelevelorderingquarkmodelhypersphericalexpansionradialvsorbitalexcitationsHall-Postinequalitiestetraquarkschromoelectricpotential

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

The paper's central claim is that no simple nonrelativistic quark model with a local, symmetric, flavor-independent potential can reproduce the Roper resonance's low mass. The reason is a level-ordering theorem: as soon as the potential grows faster than a Coulombic $1/r$ interaction, the first radial excitation of a three-quark system lies above the first orbital excitation, whereas the Roper is experimentally degenerate with (or slightly below) the orbital states. The paper reviews supporting evidence, exact calculations, and attempts to evade the theorem, and extends the same spectral-reasoning tools to quark-mass dependence, hadron mass inequalities, and tetraquark stability.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the three-body hyperspherical expansion, truncated to the lowest scalar harmonic. That truncation reduces the three-body Schrödinger equation to a pair of one-dimensional radial equations, (4) and (6), sharing one hypercentral potential $V_0(\rho)$, which is formed from the original interquark potential by a positive-weight angular average; hence a pair potential $v(r) = -a/r + b r$ gives $V_0(\rho) = -A/\rho + B\rho$ with positive $B$. The two-body level-ordering theorem, applied to effective angular momenta $\ell = 3/2$ and $\ell = 5/2$, then yields Eq. (7). This is the engine that turns 'potential grows faster than Coulomb' into 'radial excitation must be the heavier one'.

What would settle it

Compute the exact ground and first excited states of three equal-mass bosons in a potential $V_0(\rho) = -A/\rho + B\rho$ with $B>0$, without truncating the hyperspherical expansion: if the exact first radial excitation comes out below the exact first orbital excitation, the theorem's premise-plus-approximation is not sufficient. Alternatively, a lattice QCD spectrum at physical pion mass with the Roper clearly below the negative-parity states would show that the true dynamics violate the assumptions of local potential models.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The author establishes, as a theorem for reduced one-dimensional equations and as an almost-rigorous statement for the three-body problem, the ordering in Eq. (7): for any local, symmetric potential whose hypercentral average grows faster than $-1/\rho$, the first radial excitation sits above the first orbital excitation, $E_{0,1} > E_{1,0}$. In the quark-model context, the Roper resonance is the first radial excitation of the nucleon, and the negative-parity states $1/2^-$ (1520 MeV) and $3/2^-$ (1535 MeV) are the orbital excitations; the experimental Roper at 1440 MeV is thus lower than the theory wants it to be. The same machinery yields related results: signs of splittings tied to convexity of the pair potential, concavity of energy in inverse masses, Hall-Post inequalities across meson and baryon sectors, and the role of coupling spread in whether tetraquarks bind.

Load-bearing premise

The ordering proof assumes the three-quark wavefunction is well represented by its lowest hyperspherical harmonic and that the averaged potential inherits a positive Laplacian from the two-body force; if higher harmonics, channel coupling, or nonlocal terms move the radial and orbital levels relative to each other, the Roper can drop below the orbital excitation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any hypercentral quark potential growing faster than a Coulomb interaction predicts $E_{0,1} > E_{1,0}$, so the Roper's low mass cannot be explained by such local potential models.
Exact three-body calculations with typical pairwise interquark potentials place the Roper above the negative-parity excitations, and admixtures of a large class of spin-independent three-body forces do not reverse this.
Lattice QCD shows the $E_{0,1} \simeq E_{1,0}$ degeneracy emerging only at very small pion mass, indicating that chiral dynamics are essential to resolving the puzzle.
The sign of the splitting $\Delta = E[56,2^+] - E[70,0^+]$ is controlled by whether the pairwise perturbation is a convex or concave function of $r^2$.
Hall-Post type inequalities imply that heavy quarks cluster and that certain multiquark configurations, such as equal-mass tetraquarks in simple chromoelectric models, are not bound while asymmetric mass configurations may be.

Reading between the lines

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

One extension the paper leaves implicit: the same ordering argument, applied to double-heavy baryons and tetraquarks, predicts which radial-versus-orbital inversions should never occur in local potential models; lattice QCD could target those channels directly.
A testable corollary the paper only gestures at: if the Roper's low mass comes from channel coupling, the gap $E_{0,1} - E_{1,0}$ should move monotonically as the meson-baryon coupling strength is dialed in a coupled-channel calculation, approaching the experimental negative value.
The paper's 'spread of couplings' variational principle suggests a more general rule: asymmetric coupling distributions bind better than symmetric ones, which could be checked in ultracold atom systems with tunable interaction strengths.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line up front: this is a serviceable review of the Roper puzzle and related quark-model ordering theorems, written for a memorial volume. It contains no new results—the central inequality (7) is from Høgaasen and Richard (1983)—but it is a clear, honest restatement of the known situation. The reader's ACCEPT verdict is fair.

What the paper does well: it lays out the two-body theorems with proper rigor, explains the hyperspherical formalism compactly, and connects the Roper problem to other interesting questions: mass dependence of baryon energies, Hall-Post inequalities, and tetraquark stability. The variational arguments in Sec. 6 are correct, and the paper is transparent about what is rigorous and what is heuristic. The self-citation rate is high, but the cited work is peer-reviewed and directly relevant, so that's not a real problem in a review.

The soft spot: Eq. (7) is presented as a general statement about 'any local, symmetric potential growing faster than a Coulombic interaction,' but the three-body proof is not actually a proof. It goes through the hyperspherical truncation to the lowest L=0 and L=1 harmonics, and the paper itself describes it as 'almost rigorous.' The stress-test note is right: the missing piece is an estimate of the mixing from L>=4 harmonics into the two lowest states. The positive Laplacian property of the hypercentral potential is not the weak point; the weak point is that the truncation has to be justified for the specific states in question. The paper does cite exact numerical calculations (ref [15]) that support the Roper ordering, so this is a proof gap rather than a demonstrated counterexample, but the abstract and Sec. 2 may overstate the universality of the claim. A sentence flagging the assumption would fix this.

Minor issue: Eq. (12) has a typo (missing parenthesis and a mangled inequality), but it's cosmetic.

Overall: this review deserves a place in the memorial volume. It's a good summary for anyone who wants a compact statement of why the Roper mass is a problem for simple quark models. Send it to peer review; it should be accepted after minor revisions.

Recommendation: engage with the paper, cite it if you write about the Roper, and don't worry about the proof gap as long as the conditional nature is acknowledged.

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reviews spectral ordering questions in nonrelativistic quark models, centered on the Roper resonance. After recalling that in a pure harmonic-oscillator model the first radial excitation lies twice as high above the ground state as the first orbital excitation, the author restates the two-body theorem that a potential with positive Laplacian gives E(n,l) > E(n-1,l+1) and extends it to three quarks via a hyperscalar truncation. Equations (2)-(7) lead to the central claim: for any local, symmetric potential growing faster than a Coulombic interaction, the first radial baryon excitation E_{0,1} lies above the orbital excitation E_{1,0}, so a simple quark model cannot reproduce the low Roper mass. The paper then reviews splitting patterns of excited N=2 and higher multiplets, convexity and mass inequalities for baryons, Hall-Post-type inequalities relating meson and baryon masses, and a variational argument on the spread of two-body couplings that explains qualitatively why the positronium molecule binds whereas the equal-mass color tetraquark does not. It closes with the observation that lattice QCD shows the Roper degeneracy only at small pion mass, suggesting a role for chiral dynamics and hadron-hadron coupling.

Significance. This is a useful and readable review. Its value is the combination of rigorous two-body results, an 'almost rigorous' three-body argument, and exact numerical checks (Ref. [15]) behind a parameter-free statement: a broad class of central, flavor-independent quark potentials cannot invert the radial-orbital ordering. The Hall-Post, convexity, and spread-of-couplings inequalities are clearly presented and attributed. The author is transparent about the status of each step, and the paper is refreshingly free of over-claimed novelty. If the ordering theorem were fully validated for the exact three-body problem, it would be a definitive no-go result for a large class of constituent quark models; in its present conditional form, the review is still a valuable entry point to the literature and to the phenomenology of the Roper puzzle.

major comments (1)

[Sec. 2, Eqs. (2)-(7)] The universal statement Eq. (7) is derived from the truncated hyperradial equations (4) and (6), which keep only the lowest hyperspherical harmonic. Equations (2)-(3) show that L=4 and higher multipoles are present in the wavefunction and potential, but the text gives no estimate of their magnitude or of their mixing into the states E_{0,1} and E_{1,0}; the label 'almost rigorous' in Sec. 2 concedes precisely this gap. Since the abstract states categorically that 'current quark models cannot explain the location of the Roper resonance', I recommend adding an explicit sentence (and a matching qualification in the abstract) stating that Eq. (7) is a theorem for the hyperscalar-truncated problem, while the exact three-body ordering is supported by explicit numerical calculations such as Ref. [15] and by the two-body theorems of Ref. [16], but is not proven for arbitrary local symmetric potentials. If the author believes the truncation is controlled, a short estimate of the neglected L=4 terms should be provided; otherwise the wording of the abstract should be softened.

minor comments (6)

[Eqs. (11) and (12)] Equations (11) and (12) as printed do not state the intended convexity inequalities: Eq. (11) should presumably be 2 M(m1,m2) ≥ M(m1,m1)+M(m2,m2), and Eq. (12) is missing a closing parenthesis after the first m2, with the RHS apparently intended to be M(m1,m1,m)+M(m2,m2,m). As written, the baryon inequality would be a trivial monotonicity statement and would not match the cited Lieb counterexample [26].
[Eq. (5)] Equation (5) is missing an equals sign, and it uses r^{5/2} in the denominator where ρ^{5/2} is intended; the wavefunction should be written Ψ(ρ,Ω5)=u1(ρ)/ρ^{5/2} P1^{x,y}(Ω5).
[Sec. 6, Eqs. (29)-(30)] The stated values of λ are inconsistent with the definition in Eq. (26): for the color 3-3 coefficients one obtains λ = -1/12, for the 6-6 coefficients λ = +7/24, and for the two-meson threshold λ = -1/3. Since Eq. (28) uses only |λ|, the stability conclusion is unaffected, but the numerical values should be corrected.
[Sec. 2] There is a typo 'a a large class' in the sentence before the discussion of exact 3-body calculations.
[Abstract] The word 'chromelectric' in the abstract appears to be a typo for 'chromoelectric'.
[Sec. 7] The sentence 'It means that the understanding the puzzle requires accounting for the chiral dynamics' is grammatically awkward and stronger than the lattice observation supports; I suggest 'suggests that solving the puzzle requires accounting for chiral dynamics' or similar.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central ordering result is an approximate theorem with a proof gap, not a fit or a definitional identity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain runs from the three-quark Hamiltonian (1) through the hyperspherical expansion (2)-(3) to the truncated radial equations (4) and (6), and then applies the known one-dimensional level-order theorem to obtain Eq. (7). No parameter is fitted to the Roper mass, and Eq. (7) is not a restatement of an input: it is a nontrivial inequality about the model spectrum. The only serious caveat is that the step from the truncated equations to the universal statement 'in any local, symmetric potential growing faster than a Coulombic interaction' is not rigorous, as the text concedes by calling the three-body proof 'almost rigorous' and by calling Eq. (4) an 'excellent approximation.' That is a proof gap, not circularity: the truncation is not defined in terms of the desired ordering, and the paper does not rename a fitted quantity as a prediction. The self-citations, notably [17] for the ordering and [21, 31, 37] for inequalities, are parameter-free mathematical results derived from the Hamiltonian rather than definitions of the conclusion; the present paper also sketches the derivation of the key steps in Eqs. (2)-(7). The Roper conclusion is additionally supported by the exact numerical calculations of Ref. [15]. Accordingly, no circular step is present; the 'almost rigorous' and 'excellent approximation' caveats belong on the correctness-risk axis, not the circularity axis.

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

The paper's conclusions depend on modeling assumptions (nonrelativistic, flavor-independent, local potentials) and standard mathematical tools. No parameters are fitted to data; the potential parameters a,b are generic constants, not tuned to reproduce the Roper.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The baryon is described by a nonrelativistic three-body Hamiltonian with a symmetric, translation-invariant potential (Eq. 1).
Used throughout Sec. 2; relativistic and spin-dependent corrections are discussed only as possible ways out.
domain assumption Color antisymmetry allows the three quarks to be treated as indistinguishable bosons with a symmetric spatial wavefunction.
Sec. 2, paragraph after Eq. (1): 'the color degree of freedom endorses the antisymmetry requirement... one can treat (1) as a model for three bosons.'
domain assumption The hyperspherical expansion can be truncated at the lowest harmonic; the first correction appears only at L=4 and is neglected for level ordering.
Sec. 2, around Eqs. (2)-(4): 'the first correction to the hyperscalar approximation starts only at L=4, so that the single hyperradial equation... is an excellent approximation.' This truncation is load-bearing for Eq. (7).
domain assumption The averaged hypercentral potential V0(ρ) preserves the sign of the Laplacian of the pair potential, so two-body level-order theorems apply to fractional angular momenta 3/2 and 5/2.
Sec. 2: 'this potential is obtained from the interquark potential by an averaging with positive weight that keeps the sign of the Laplacian.'
domain assumption Potential energy is independent of quark masses (flavor independence) for mass inequalities.
Sec. 4: 'We shall restrict ourselves to the case where the potential energy does not depend on the quark masses.'
standard math Variational principle, convexity or concavity of energy as a function of linear parameters, and Hall-Post decompositions are valid.
Secs. 5-6: inequalities (14), (18), (25)-(28) rest on these standard tools.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Level order of quark systems: The puzzle of the Roper resonance, and related questions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LDOAHJ4M

@misc{pith2026250607764,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Level order of quark systems: The puzzle of the Roper resonance, and related questions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LDOAHJ4M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07764}
}

read the original abstract

The problem of ordering of radial vs.\ orbital excitations is reviewed. It is shown that the current quark models cannot explain the location of the Roper resonance which is slightly lower than the lowest negative-parity excitations. We also study some related spectral problems, such as the dependence of the energies on the quark masses, and the possibility of bound states in simple chromelectric models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07764 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Left: Splitting of the N = 2 level of the harmonic oscillator due to an anharmonic correction v(r) of pairwise character treated to first order. Right: ∆′ ̸= ∆ for the lowest splitting, if the perturbation contains a 3-body interaction. where V is symmetric and translation-invariant, not necessarily pairwise. As the color degree of freedom endorses the antisymmetry requirement and the spin-isospin wavefunction is s… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

[15]

Silvestre-Brac and C

B. Silvestre-Brac and C. Gignoux, Study of Light Baryons in the Three Quark Cluster Model: Exact Calculations , Phys. Rev. D, 32 (1985) 743–754

work page 1985
[16]

Grosse and A

H. Grosse and A. J. Martin, Particle Physics and the Schr¨ odinger Equation; new ed., Cambridge monographs on particle physics, nuclear physics, and cosmology, (2005) Cambridge Univ

work page 2005
[1]

L. D. Roper, Evidence for a P 11 Pion-Nucleon Resonance at 556 MeV , Phys. Rev. Lett., 12 (1964) 340–342

work page 1964
[2]

V. D. Burkert and C. D. Roberts, Colloquium: Roper resonance: Toward a solution to the fifty year puzzle , Rev. Mod. Phys., 91 (2019) 011003

work page 2019
[3]

Zweig, Origins of the Quark Model , Baryon 1980

G. Zweig, Origins of the Quark Model , Baryon 1980. Proceedings, 4th International Conference on Baryon Resonances, Toronto, Canada, July 14-16, 1980, (1980)

work page 1980
[4]

V. E. Barnes, Observation of a Hyperon with Strangeness Minus Three , Phys. Rev. Lett., 12 (1964) 204–206

work page 1964
[5]

Morpurgo, Is a non-relativistic approximation possible for the internal dynamics of elementary particles?, Physics Physique Fizika, 2 (1965) 95–105

G. Morpurgo, Is a non-relativistic approximation possible for the internal dynamics of elementary particles?, Physics Physique Fizika, 2 (1965) 95–105

work page 1965
[6]

O. W. Greenberg, Spin and Unitary Spin Independence in a Paraquark Model of Baryons and Mesons , Phys. Rev. Lett., 13 (1964) 598–602

work page 1964

Show all 41 references

[7]

Elementary Particles

R. H. Dalitz, Quark Models for the “Elementary Particles” , Physique des Hautes Energies (High Energy Physics), (1965), 251

1965
[8]

Jones, R

M. Jones, R. H. Dalitz, and R. R. Horgan, Re-analysis of the baryon mass spectrum using the quark shell model , Nuclear Physics B, 129(1) (1977) 45–65

1977
[9]

A. J. G. Hey and R. L. Kelly, Baryon spectroscopy, Phys. Rept., 96 (1983) 71

1983
[10]

Isgur and G

N. Isgur and G. Karl, Hadron spectroscopy and quarks , Phys. Today, 36N11 (1983) 36–43

1983
[11]

Gromes and I

D. Gromes and I. O. Stamatescu, Baryon Spectrum and the Forces Between Quarks , Z. Phys. C, 3 (1979) 43

1979
[12]

C. P. Forsyth and R. E. Cutkosky, A Quark Model of Baryons With Natural Flavor , Z. Phys. C, 18 (1983) 219. 9

1983
[13]

Isgur and G

N. Isgur and G. Karl, Positive Parity Excited Baryons in a Quark Model with Hyperfine Interactions, Phys. Rev. D, 19 (1979) 2653

1979
[14]

K. C. Bowler and B. F. Tynemouth, Symmetry breaking in the harmonic-oscillator quark model, Phys. Rev. D, 27 (1983) 662–664

1983
[17]

Høgaasen and J-M

H. Høgaasen and J-M. Richard, Nucleon Resonances and the Quark Model, Phys. Lett. B, 124 (1983) 520–522

1983
[18]

M. B. Gavela, A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, P. Pene, J. C. Raynal, and S. Sood, Standard solution to roper resonance puzzles , Phys. Rev. D, 21 (1980) 182–185

1980
[19]

Desplanques, C

B. Desplanques, C. Gignoux, B. Silvestre-Brac, P. Gonzalez, J. Navarro, and S. Noguera, The Baryonic spectrum in a constituent quark model including a three-body force, Z. Phys. A, 343 (1992) 331–336

1992
[20]

R. F. Wagenbrunn, L. Y. Glozman, W. Plessas, and K. Varga, Extended Goldstone- boson-exchange constituent quark model , Nucl. Phys. A, 663 (2000) 703–706

2000
[21]

Richard and P

J-M. Richard and P. Taxil, The Ordering of Low Lying Bound States of Three Identical Particles, Nucl. Phys. B, 329 (1990) 310–326

1990
[22]

Stancu and P

F. Stancu and P. Stassart, Negative parity nonstrange baryons , Phys. Lett. B, 269 (1991) 243–246

1991
[23]

Dmitraˇ sinovi´ c and I

V. Dmitraˇ sinovi´ c and I. Salom,O(6) algebraic theory of three nonrelativistic quarks bound by spin-independent interactions , Phys. Rev. D, 97(9) (2018) 094011

2018
[24]

Nussinov, Mass Inequalities in QCD , Phys

S. Nussinov, Mass Inequalities in QCD , Phys. Rev. Lett., 52 (1984) 966

1984
[25]

Richard and P

J-M. Richard and P. Taxil, Comment on the convexity properties of the baryon spec- trum, Phys. Rev. Lett., 54 (1985) 847

1985
[26]

E. H. Lieb, Baryon mass inequalities in quark models , Phys. Rev. Lett., 54 (1985) 1987–1990

1985
[27]

Martin, J-M

A. Martin, J-M. Richard, and P. Taxil, About Convexity Properties of the Baryon Mass Spectrum, Phys. Lett. B, 176 (1986) 224–228

1986
[28]

Quigg and J

C. Quigg and J. L. Rosner, Quantum Mechanics with Applications to Quarkonium , Phys. Rept., 56 (1979) 167–235. 10

1979
[29]

H. J. Lipkin, A Unified Description of Mesons, Baryons and Baryonium , Phys. Lett. B, 74 (1978) 399–403

1978
[30]

D. P. Stanley and D. Robson, Do quarks interact pairwise and satisfy the color hy- pothesis?, Phys. Rev. Lett., 45 (1980) 235–238

1980
[31]

Ader, J-M

J-P. Ader, J-M. Richard, and P. Taxil, Do narrow heavy multi-quark states exist? , Phys. Rev. D, 25 (1982) 2370

1982
[32]

Nussinov and M

S. Nussinov and M. A. Lampert, QCD inequalities, Phys. Rept., 362 (2002) 193–301

2002
[33]

Richard, A

J-M. Richard, A. Valcarce, and J. Vijande, Hall–Post inequalities: Review and appli- cation to molecules and tetraquarks , Annals Phys., 412 (2020) 168009

2020
[34]

Richard, On the masses of mesons and baryons in potential models , Phys

J-M. Richard, On the masses of mesons and baryons in potential models , Phys. Lett. B, 139 (1984) 408–410

1984
[35]

Carlson, L

J. Carlson, L. Heller, and J. A. Tjon, Stability of Dimesons , Phys. Rev. D, 37 (1988) 744

1988
[36]

Aaij, Observation of an exotic narrow doubly charmed tetraquark , Nature Phys., 18(7) (2022) 751–754

R. Aaij, Observation of an exotic narrow doubly charmed tetraquark , Nature Phys., 18(7) (2022) 751–754

2022
[37]

Richard, A

J-M. Richard, A. Valcarce, and J. Vijande, Few-body quark dynamics for doubly heavy baryons and tetraquarks , Phys. Rev. C, 97(3) (2018) 035211

2018
[38]

Mathur, Y

N. Mathur, Y. Chen, S. J. Dong, T. Draper, I. Horvath, F. X. Lee, K. F. Liu, and J. B. Zhang, Roper resonance and S(11)(1535) from lattice QCD , Phys. Lett. B, 605 (2005) 137–143

2005
[39]

Golli, H

B. Golli, H. Osmanovi´ c, S.ˇSirca, and A. ˇSvarc, Genuine quark state versus dynamically generated structure for the Roper resonance , Phys. Rev. C, 97(3) (2018) 035204

2018
[40]

S. Owa, D. B. Leinweber, and A. W. Thomas, Nucleon resonance structure to 2 GeV and the nature of the Roper (2025)

2025
[41]

G. F. Chew, S-Matrix Theory of Strong Interactions without Elementary Particles , Rev. Mod. Phys., 34(3) (1962) 394–401. 11

1962

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [15]

Silvestre-Brac and C

B. Silvestre-Brac and C. Gignoux, Study of Light Baryons in the Three Quark Cluster Model: Exact Calculations , Phys. Rev. D, 32 (1985) 743–754

work page 1985

[2] [16]

Grosse and A

H. Grosse and A. J. Martin, Particle Physics and the Schr¨ odinger Equation; new ed., Cambridge monographs on particle physics, nuclear physics, and cosmology, (2005) Cambridge Univ

work page 2005

[3] [1]

L. D. Roper, Evidence for a P 11 Pion-Nucleon Resonance at 556 MeV , Phys. Rev. Lett., 12 (1964) 340–342

work page 1964

[4] [2]

V. D. Burkert and C. D. Roberts, Colloquium: Roper resonance: Toward a solution to the fifty year puzzle , Rev. Mod. Phys., 91 (2019) 011003

work page 2019

[5] [3]

Zweig, Origins of the Quark Model , Baryon 1980

G. Zweig, Origins of the Quark Model , Baryon 1980. Proceedings, 4th International Conference on Baryon Resonances, Toronto, Canada, July 14-16, 1980, (1980)

work page 1980

[6] [4]

V. E. Barnes, Observation of a Hyperon with Strangeness Minus Three , Phys. Rev. Lett., 12 (1964) 204–206

work page 1964

[7] [5]

Morpurgo, Is a non-relativistic approximation possible for the internal dynamics of elementary particles?, Physics Physique Fizika, 2 (1965) 95–105

G. Morpurgo, Is a non-relativistic approximation possible for the internal dynamics of elementary particles?, Physics Physique Fizika, 2 (1965) 95–105

work page 1965

[8] [6]

O. W. Greenberg, Spin and Unitary Spin Independence in a Paraquark Model of Baryons and Mesons , Phys. Rev. Lett., 13 (1964) 598–602

work page 1964