Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 43 references

The Effect of Extended Cornell Potential on Heavy and Heavy-Light Meson Masses Using Series Method

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that extending the Cornell potential with an inverse-square term and solving the N-dimensional radial Schrödinger equation by power series yields improved masses for charmonium, bottomonium, and heavy-light mesons.

desk verdict The paper's central claim collapses: the inverse-square coefficient d is re-fitted per state, so each tabulated mass comes from a different Hamiltonian. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09131 v1 pith:VJVRCQMQ submitted 2019-08-24 hep-ph

M. Abu-shady , H. M. Fath-Allah This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords SchrödingerequationCornellpotentialheavymesonsheavy-lightpowerseriesmethodmesonmassspectraquarkoniumN-dimensionalradial
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

This paper tries to establish that an extended Cornell potential, which adds a quadratic term and an inverse-square term to the usual Coulomb-plus-linear potential, can describe the masses of heavy and heavy-light mesons more accurately than earlier potential-model calculations. The authors solve the N-dimensional radial Schrödinger equation with a power-series ansatz, obtain a closed-form energy formula, fix two potential parameters from selected experimental masses, and then compute the remaining states of the spectrum. They report total errors of 0.162 GeV for charmonium, 0.074 GeV for bottomonium, and as low as 0.00001 GeV for heavy-light systems, and they state that these results improve on recent Cornell-potential treatments. A reader would care because a simple potential model that produces a whole meson ladder from a few experimental inputs is a practical way to estimate states that have not been measured yet. The paper also claims that going to five spatial dimensions raises every computed mass, which it interprets as stronger binding in higher-dimensional space.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the power-series solution of the N-dimensional radial Schrödinger equation. The radial wavefunction is written as $R(r)=e^{-\alpha r^2-\beta r}F(r)$, with $F(r)=\sum_k c_k r^{k+\sigma}$ and the offset $\sigma$ chosen to avoid degeneracies. Substituting this ansatz converts the differential equation into a recursion for the coefficients, and requiring the series to terminate produces the energy eigenvalue formula (Eq. (14)) together with the quantization condition (Eq. (18)). The inverse-square coefficient $d$ enters through the term $8\mu d$, and it is precisely that contribution which removes the earlier restriction to $n=0$. Meson masses are then computed from $M=m_q+m_{\bar q}+E_{n,l}$, with quark masses and two potential parameters taken from experiment.

What would settle it

Compute every charmonium state with $a$ and $b$ fixed to the values in Table 1 and with $d$ set once from Eq. (11) using the 1S state, then compare the resulting total error with the reported 0.162 GeV; if the error grows substantially, the claimed improvement depends on per-state refitting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the quark-antiquark interaction $V(r)=a r^2+b r-\frac{c}{r}+\frac{d}{r^2}$, with positive parameters $a,b,c,d$, reproduces quarkonium and heavy-light meson spectra when the N-dimensional radial Schrödinger equation is solved by a terminating power series. The added inverse-square term is the load-bearing novelty: it changes the quantization condition from $(3n+2l)(3n+2l+2N-4)-4l(l+N-2)=0$, which the paper says leaves $n=0$ as the only acceptable radial state, to $(3n+2l)(3n+2l+2N-4)-4l(l+N-2)-8\mu d=0$, which allows $n$ and $l$ to vary freely. With $a$ and $b$ fixed from two experimental states per meson and $d$ set by the quantization condition, the model generates the full S, P, D ladder and, according to the paper, lowers the total deviation from experiment to 0.162 GeV for charmonium, 0.074 GeV for bottomonium, and 0.00001-0.00003 GeV for the heavy-light systems. The paper further claims that in $N=5$ dimensions all computed masses increase, corresponding to stronger binding in higher dimensions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that $d$ in the potential is a fixed physical parameter, but the paper appears to evaluate $d$ separately for each state through Eq. (11), which would mean the potential is refit state by state rather than being one potential for the whole meson.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the extended potential is right, the same series solution can generate radial excitations for any quarkonium or heavy-light system without numerical integration.
  • The corrected quantization condition (Eq. (18)) removes the $n=0$ obstruction in the earlier series treatment, so a full ladder of S, P, and D states becomes available.
  • At $d=0$ the potential reduces to the extended Cornell potential treated by earlier Nikiforov-Uvarov calculations, so those results are included as a limiting case.
  • The reported total errors, if accepted, mean the model predicts unmeasured excited states, such as the 2P charmonium state listed as unknown in Table 1, with an estimated precision comparable to the measured low-lying states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves open whether $d$ can be fixed once per meson; if it can, the model becomes a genuine predictive spectral tool, and testing that is the first follow-up.
  • Because the inverse-square term is what lifts the quantization constraint, the series method may extend to other power-law combinations whose coefficient recursion closes in a similar way.
  • The reported rise of masses with dimensionality suggests a concrete, testable consequence: higher-dimensional quarkonium should bind more deeply and could dissociate at different temperatures, which bears on extra-dimension searches.
  • The comparisons in the paper use energy levels only; a sharper test would compute hyperfine splittings or leptonic widths from the same wavefunctions, observables the current paper does not address.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the mass spectra of heavy and heavy-light mesons using an extended Cornell potential V(r)=a+b/r+cr+d/r^2. The authors solve the N-dimensional radial Schrödinger equation by a power-series ansatz and derive an energy eigenvalue formula, Eq. (14). They then compute charmonium, bottomonium, D_s, and related heavy-light meson masses by relating the meson mass to the quark masses plus the eigenvalue, Eq. (16). The parameters a and b are fixed by fitting Eq. (16) to selected experimental masses, and the parameter d is stated to be calculated from Eq. (11). The paper reports total errors in Tables 1-6, compares with several earlier works, and claims improved agreement with experiment; it also discusses the dependence of the masses on the spatial dimensionality N.

Significance. If the model were shown to describe all states of a meson family with one fixed potential and without fitting the same states that are compared, the result could be a useful phenomenological contribution to quarkonium spectroscopy. The paper also correctly identifies a technical defect in the polynomial-termination condition of Ref. [6] and extends the calculation to heavy-light systems, which is a legitimate goal. However, as presented, the central claim is not established: the state-dependent determination of d and the fitting of potential parameters to the same experimental masses mean that the reported agreement is largely a fitting artifact. The manuscript therefore does not provide a credible prediction of the meson spectra from a single extended Cornell potential.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3, Eqs. (11), (18)] The central issue is the state dependence of the parameter d. Eq. (11), restated as Eq. (18), reads (3n+2l)(3n+2l+2N-4)-4l(l+N-2)-8μd=0, and Section 3 states that the value of d is calculated using Eq. (11). Because this relation contains n and l, d takes a different value for every state, so each entry in the P.W. columns of Tables 1-6 is computed with a different Hamiltonian V(r)=a+b/r+cr+d_{n,l}/r^2. With a fixed d, Eq. (18) would constrain n and l, reproducing the very defect the authors attribute to Ref. [6]; the constraint is removed only by re-fitting d per state. The reported spectra are therefore not eigenvalues of a single extended Cornell potential, and the comparison with experiment is not a test of the model's predictive power.
  2. [§4, Tables 1-6] The total errors quoted in Tables 1-6 are not defined, and the fitting procedure makes them uninformative. Section 3 states that a and b are determined by inserting experimental masses for selected states into Eq. (16); for example, charmonium uses the 2S and 2P states and bottomonium uses the 1S and 2S states. Those fitted states contribute zero or near-zero error by construction, so the total errors (0.162 GeV for charmonium, 0.074 GeV for bottomonium, and the much smaller values for the heavy-light mesons) measure fitting flexibility rather than predictive accuracy. The improvement claim in the abstract requires an error evaluation on states that were not used in the fit, or at minimum a clearly defined leave-one-out procedure.
  3. [§2, Eqs. (4)-(14)] The derivation of the energy eigenvalue is not reproducible from the manuscript. After substituting the ansatz Eq. (3) and the series Eq. (5), the displayed Eq. (6) is garbled and the explicit recurrence relation for the coefficients is not written. The relations Eqs. (7)-(11) are stated as consequences of equating coefficients, but without the recurrence and the polynomial-termination condition the reader cannot verify the energy formula Eq. (14). The authors should supply the full recurrence, the termination condition, and the intermediate steps leading to Eqs. (7)-(11) and Eq. (14).
  4. [§3-§4, experimental input states] The manuscript does not clearly specify which experimental masses are used to fix a and b for each meson family. For charmonium the text says the 2S and 2P states are used, but Table 1 lists no experimental value for 2P; for other families several entries in the Experimental columns are also marked '-'. Without this information, the reader cannot determine which states are fitted and which are genuine predictions, and the error totals in Tables 1-6 cannot be audited.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (15)] Eq. (15) is garbled as M=mq+qm; it should be written as M=m_q+m_{\bar q}+E with the quark and antiquark masses clearly identified.
  2. [Tables 1-6, parameter units] The units of the potential parameters are not stated consistently; for example, Table 1 lists a=0.058 GeV and b=0.3366 GeV, but in Eq. (1) the terms a, b/r, cr, and d/r^2 require different dimensions. The units of a, b, c, and d should be specified explicitly.
  3. [General presentation] The manuscript contains numerous typographical and formatting errors, including missing symbols in equations, inconsistent notation for the Schrödinger equation, and incomplete reference entries; these issues make the paper difficult to read and should be corrected throughout.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The reported 'improved agreement' is partly by construction: a and b are fitted to experimental masses of the same states, and d is re-calculated for each state from Eq. (11), so the tabulated masses are not eigenvalues of a single fixed extended Cornell potential.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, paragraph beginning 'The potential parameters a and b for various mesons are determined using Eq. (16)'; Tables 1-6]
    "The potential parameters a and b for various mesons are determined using Eq. (16). In case of charmonium, the values of a and b are calculated by solving two algebraic equations in a and b, which are obtained by inserting experimental values of M for 2S, 2P in Eq. (16)."

    The parameters a and b are fitted to experimental masses of states that then appear in the same tables used to compute the quoted total errors (0.162, 0.074, 0.00003, 0.00001 GeV). The fitted states therefore match by construction, so part of the claimed 'agreement with experimental data' and 'improvement' over other works is guaranteed by the fit rather than by the predictive power of the potential. Some un-fitted states do remain, which keeps the circularity partial.

  2. self definitional [Section 3, sentence 'The value of parameter d...'; Eq. (11) and Eq. (18)]
    "The value of parameter d was calculated by using Eq. (11). ... (3n+2l)(3n+2l+2N-4)-4l(l+N-2)-8μd=0 (18)"

    Eq. (11)/(18) is the recurrence-condition constraint that contains n and l. The paper chooses d from this same condition for each state separately, so d is not a fixed parameter of one Hamiltonian V(r)=a+b/r+c r+d/r^2. With a fixed d, Eq. (18) would still restrict n and l, reproducing the defect attributed to Ref. [6]; the constraint is removed only by letting d vary from state to state. Thus the 'extended Cornell potential' is redefined for every tabulated state, and the improved agreement measures the flexibility of per-state tuning rather than the spectrum of a single potential.

full rationale

The paper is not entirely circular: the power-series solution of the N-dimensional Schrödinger equation is a genuine analytical derivation, and the tables contain many states that were not directly fitted (e.g., higher S/P states and the N=5 columns) which provide independent content. However, the central quantitative claims are partially forced by the paper's own fitting procedure. Section 3 states that a and b are obtained by solving two algebraic equations from experimental masses of specific states in the same families, and the quoted total errors include those fitted states, so some agreement is guaranteed by construction. More seriously, the inverse-square coefficient d is not fixed as a potential parameter but is computed for each state from Eq. (11), the same condition that contains n and l. Eq. (18) still restricts n and l unless d is adjusted per state, so the removal of the n=0-only constraint found in Ref. [6] is achieved by allowing the Hamiltonian to change from state to state. The tabulated P.W. masses are therefore not eigenvalues of a single fixed extended Cornell potential, and the reported 'improvement' is partly a fitting artifact. The self-citations in the reference list are not load-bearing for the mass calculation itself and do not add to the score. Overall, there is partial circularity: some 'predictions' reduce by construction to fitted inputs, but the series method and un-fitted states keep the paper from being wholly equivalent to its inputs; score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on quark masses chosen by hand, potential parameters fitted to experimental masses, and a termination condition that appears to make d state-dependent. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • m_c (charm quark mass) = 1.48 GeV
    Chosen from the range 1.2-1.8 GeV cited in the literature; treated as input, not fitted to the meson spectra.
  • m_b (bottom quark mass) = 4.823 GeV
    Chosen from the range 4.8-5.3 GeV; treated as input.
  • m_s (strange quark mass) = 0.419 GeV
    Input from literature.
  • m_u = m_d (up/down quark mass) = 0.220 GeV
    Input from literature; used for light quarks in heavy-light mesons.
  • a (potential parameter) = e.g., 0.058 GeV^2 for charmonium, 0.1698 GeV^2 for bottomonium
    Determined by solving two algebraic equations that match selected experimental meson masses for each family.
  • b (potential parameter) = e.g., 0.3366 GeV for charmonium, 0.7131 GeV for bottomonium
    Determined together with a using selected experimental masses.
  • d (inverse-square potential coefficient) = Not tabulated
    Calculated from Eq. (11), the quantization condition; appears to be state-dependent, which would make the potential unphysical.
  • c (potential parameter) = Not reported
    The Coulomb-like coefficient in Eq. (1) is never tabulated; its role and fitted value are unclear.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The N-dimensional radial Schrödinger equation with a spherically symmetric potential describes quark-antiquark bound states.
    Used in Section 2 as the starting equation; this is the standard non-relativistic quark model assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The power series solution can be truncated to a polynomial using the termination condition Eq. (18), yielding discrete energy eigenvalues.
    The paper asserts this without deriving the recurrence structure or showing that the infinite series terminates for the chosen potential.
  • ad hoc to paper The potential parameters are state-independent for a given meson family.
    This is implicitly assumed when fitting a and b to two states and using them for all states, but the paper's use of Eq. (11) to set d for each state appears to violate it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Effect of Extended Cornell Potential on Heavy and Heavy-Light Meson Masses Using Series Method." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VJVRCQMQ

@misc{pith2026190809131,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Effect of Extended Cornell Potential on Heavy and Heavy-Light Meson Masses Using Series Method},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VJVRCQMQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09131}
}
read the original abstract

The effect of an extended Cornell potential on mass spectra of heavy and heavy-light mesons is studied. The Cornell potential is extended to include quadratic potential and inverse quadratic potential. The N-radial Schrodinger equation is solved by using series method. The results for charmonium and bottomonium, and light-heavy meson masses are obtained. A comparison with other recent works is discussed. The present results are improved in comparison with other recent works and are in good agreement with experimental data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [6]

    Abu-Shady, T

    M. Abu-Shady, T . A. Abdel-Karim, and Sh, Y. Ezz-Alarab J. of the Egyption Mathematical, 27, 14 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    A-Shady, Int

    M. A-Shady, Int. J. Appl. Math. Theor. Phys. 2, 16 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [2]

    R(r) is wave function

    The solution of the Schr ̈ dinger equation for a given potential using the power series technique In N-dimensional Hilbert space, the SE for two particles interacting via spherically symmetric potential (1) can be written as in [6] * − ( ) 2 ( − − − )+ ( ) 0 (2) where is the angular momentum quantum number, N denotes dimensionality and = is the reduced ma...

    work page

  4. [3]

    By using Eq

    Mass spectra of heavy and heavy-light mesons In this section, w e calculate spectra of the heavy quarkonium and heavy - light mesons that have quark and antiquark flavor , the mass of quarkonium is calculated in the 3-dimensional (N=3), so we apply the following relation M=mq+ qm , (15) where m is bare quark mass for quarkonium . By using Eq. (14), we can...

    work page

  5. [4]

    The quark-antiquark interaction potential, which consists of harmonic, linear and coulomb potential terms

    Results and Discussion Kumar and Chand [6] calculated the mass spectra of ̅ and ̅ within series solution to the N- dimensional radial schr ̈dinger equation for the quark– antiquark interaction potential. The quark-antiquark interaction potential, which consists of harmonic, linear and coulomb potential terms. There is a defect in this research. 1- The fol...

    work page

  6. [5]

    E. M. Khokha, M. A. Shady, and T. A. A. Karim, Int. J. Theor. Appl. Math. 2, 86 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Mutuk, Adv

    H. Mutuk, Adv. High Ener. Phys., 2018, 5961031, (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    R. Rani, S. B. Bhardwaj, and F. Chand, Cummu. Theor. Phys. 70, 179(2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Kumar and F

    R. Kumar and F. Chand, Phys. Scr. 85, 055008 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    L. Gr. Ixaru, H. De. Meyer, G. V. Berghe, Phys. Rev. E 61, 3151 (2002)

    2002

  3. [11]

    Sandin, M

    P. Sandin, M. ̈ gren, and M. Gulliksson, Phys. Rev. E 93, 033301 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Z. Wang, Q. Chen, Comput, Phys. Commun. 179, 49 (2005)

    2005

  5. [13]

    Das, Elect

    T. Das, Elect. J. of Theor. Phys. 13, 207 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    G. Chen, Z. Naturforsch. 59, 875 (2004)

    2004

  7. [15]

    A.N. Ikot, O. A. Awoga, and A. D. Antia, Chin. Phys. 22, 020304 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    Agboola, Phys

    D. Agboola, Phys. Scr. 80, 065304 (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    Hassanabadi, S

    H. Hassanabadi, S. Zarrinkamar and A. A. Rajabi, Commun. Theor. Phys. 55, 541 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    Roy and P

    B. Roy and P. Roy, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 35 3961 (2002)

    2002

  11. [19]

    A Rajabi, Iran

    A. A Rajabi, Iran. J. Phys. Res. 6, 145 (2006)

    2006

  12. [20]

    S. H. Dong, M. L. Cassou,Y. Jiang and W.C. Qiang, Phys. Scr: 71, 436 (2005)

    2005

  13. [21]

    S. M. IKhdair and R Sever. J. Mol. Struct. THEOCHEM 806, 155 (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    S. M. IKhdair and S M and R. Sever Ann. Phys. 17, 897( 2008)

    2008

  15. [23]

    N. V. Masksimenko, S. M. Kuchin, Russ. Phys. J. 54, 57 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Ghalenovi, A

    Z. Ghalenovi, A. A. Rajabi, S. Qin, H. Rischke, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 29, 1450106 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    B. J. Vigo-Aguir,T. E. Simos, Int. J. Quantum Chem.103,278 (2005)

    2005

  18. [26]

    Kumar and F

    R. Kumar and F. Chand, Commun. Theor. Phys. 59, 528 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    Hassanabadi, S

    H. Hassanabadi, S. Rahmani, and S. Zarrinkamar, Phys. Rev. D 90, 074024 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, and V. O. Galkin, Phys. Rev. D 67, 014027 (2003)

    2003

  21. [29]

    Gupta and I

    P. Gupta and I. Mehrotra, J. Mod. Phys. 3, 1530 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    Godfrey and K

    S. Godfrey and K. Moats, Phys. Rev. D 90, 117501 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    S. S. Gershtein, V. V. Kiselev, A. K. Likhoded, and A. V. Tkabladze, Phys. Rev. D 51, 3613 (1995)

    1995

  24. [32]

    Godfrey and K

    S. Godfrey and K. Moats, and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 94, 054025 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Godfrey and K

    S. Godfrey and K. Moats, Phys. Rev. D 92, 054034 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Godfrey and K

    S. Godfrey and K. Moats, Phys. Rev. D 93, 034035 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    S. M. Kuchin and N.V. Maksimenko, Univ. J. Phys. Apple. 7,295 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    R. M. Barnett et al (Particle Data Group) Phys. Rev. D 541 (1996)

    1996

  29. [37]

    Kumar Ray and P

    A. Kumar Ray and P. C. Vinodkumar, Pramana J. Phys. 66, 958 014027 (2006)

    2006

  30. [38]

    Beringer, et al, Phys

    J. Beringer, et al, Phys. Rev. D 86, 010001 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    K. A. Olive, et al., Chin. Phys. C 38, 090001 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    ATLAS and CMS Collabs. (J. Kretzsch mar), Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 273275, 541 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Abu -Shady, E

    M. Abu -Shady, E. M. Khokha, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2018, 7032041 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Abu-Shady, T

    M. Abu-Shady, T. A. Abdel -Karim, and E. M. Khokha, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2018, 7356843 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Roy and D.K

    S. Roy and D.K. Choudhury, Canadian J. Phys. 94, 1282 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.