Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Phenomenology of $D_{s1}$ mesons radiative transitions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that relativistic quark-spin corrections, not the usual electric-dipole overlap, control the D_s1 radiative widths, with the D_s1(2536)→D_sγ amplitude nearly cancelling (about 12 keV) while the D_s1(2460)→D_sγ amplitude…

desk verdict A plausible mechanism for the D_s1 radiative width anomaly, with real predictive content, but the numerical hierarchy rests on a cancellation the paper does not fully control. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01856 v1 pith:VKWC64KO submitted 2025-05-03 hep-ph hep-ex

A.E.Bondar , A.I.Milstein This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords Ds1mesonsradiativetransitionsp-waveheavyquarkspin-orbitmixingrelativisticcorrectionsretardationeffectpotentialmodelBs1andBc1spectroscopy
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 addresses a puzzle in charmed-strange meson physics: of the two J=1 p-wave states D_s1(2460) and D_s1(2536), one has a prominent radiative decay to D_s+γ while the other is essentially invisible, even though older potential-model calculations predicted the opposite ordering. The authors argue that the nonrelativistic electric-dipole operator for the c\bar s system is nearly zero because the charge-to-mass ratios of the two quarks almost cancel, so the photon transition is carried instead by relativistic, quark-spin-dependent corrections. Because the physical states are nearly equal mixtures of total quark spin 0 and 1, these corrections enter with a relative minus sign in the 2536 amplitude and a relative plus sign in the 2460 amplitude; the first nearly cancels and the second adds. With one set of model parameters the paper predicts Γ(D_s1(2460)→D_sγ)=297 keV and Γ(D_s1(2536)→D_sγ)=12 keV, and extends the same calculation to B_s1 and B_c1 radiative widths.

What carries the argument

The decay amplitude is organized by a decomposition of the radiative Hamiltonian into quark-spin operators, H_rad = G_0 + (1/2)S_tot·G_tot + (1/2)Σ·G_Σ, where Σ = S_{\bar s}-S_c is the difference of the antiquark and quark spin operators. The spin-flip piece Σ·G_Σ, normally negligible, becomes comparable to the suppressed electric-dipole piece and supplies the second amplitude t_2 whose relative sign switches the two mesons' widths. A variational Gaussian wave function and a secular equation produce the radial wave functions and the mixing coefficients c_1, c_2 that enter the interference.

What would settle it

A dedicated search for $D_{s1}(2536)\to D_s\gamma$ that measures a partial width above about 15 keV—the paper's own stability range—would falsify the predicted cancellation; so would a measurement of $\Gamma(D_{s1}(2460)\to D_s^*\gamma)/\Gamma(D_{s1}(2460)\to D_s\gamma)$ far from the predicted $104/297$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the radiative width hierarchy of the D_s1 mesons is governed by the spin structure of the relativistic transition operator, not by the usual electric-dipole overlap. In the c\bar s system the nonrelativistic dipole moment d = (\bar e_s/m_s - e_c/m_c)M_R r is suppressed by the accidental closeness of \bar e_s/m_s and e_c/m_c, and it cannot change the total quark spin anyway. The full photon-emission Hamiltonian can be written as H_rad = G_0 + (1/2)S_tot·G_tot + (1/2)Σ·G_Σ, where Σ = S_{\bar s}-S_c; the Σ-dependent piece, normally a small correction, becomes the dominant source of the amplitude t_2 that connects the S=1 admixture of an initial D_s1 state to the S=0 D_s ground state. The calculation finds t_1 and t_2 of the same sign and comparable size, while the physical eigenstates have c_1≈c_2≈0.71; hence the 2536 amplitude c_2 t_1 - c_1 t_2 almost cancels and the 2460 amplitude c_1 t_1 + c_2 t_2 adds. The resulting widths are 297 keV and 12 keV, respectively, explaining the observed suppression of the 2536 photon line.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the listed relativistic and retardation corrections are the only significant spin-dependent photon-emission operators; an uncalculated extra interaction of comparable size would shift $t_1$ or $t_2$ enough to undo the 2536 cancellation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 2536-to-D_sγ width is predicted near zero (0–15 keV), while the 2460-to-D_sγ width is 297 keV, inverting the order that the paper's Table I shows for earlier potential-model calculations.
  • The D_s1(2460)→D_s^*γ width is predicted to be 104 keV and the D_s1(2536)→D_s^*γ width 29 keV, giving a characteristic four-width pattern that can be compared with future measurements.
  • If the 297 keV partial width is correct, the total width of D_s1(2460) should be about 1.5 MeV, a quantity that is in principle measurable.
  • For B_s1 the paper predicts 47 keV and 28 keV to B_sγ and 20 keV and 41 keV to B_s^*γ for the lower and upper states; for B_c1 it predicts 22 keV and 47 keV to B_cγ and 75 keV and 2 keV to B_c^*γ.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the authors do not spell out: the near-zero width of the 2536 line makes it a fine probe of the S=0/S=1 mixing angle, because a measured upper limit near 15 keV would constrain c_1/c_2 much more tightly than the mass splittings alone.
  • The same operator decomposition should transfer to other unequal-mass p-wave meson pairs; the paper's B_c1 numbers, where the upper state nearly stops radiating to B_c^*γ (2 keV) while the lower state radiates freely (75 keV), show that the hierarchy can flip as the quark mass ratio changes.
  • An independent calculation of t_1 and t_2 that includes two-body current operators not present in Eqs. (20)–(21) would test whether the sign and near-equality of the two amplitudes survive beyond the model's operator list.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a nonrelativistic potential model for the p-wave c sbar mesons D_s1(2460) and D_s1(2536), with a Coulomb-plus-linear confinement potential and leading Breit-Fermi relativistic corrections. It derives the radiative transition operator including spin-dependent corrections and retardation, and finds that the nonrelativistic electric dipole amplitude is strongly suppressed by the approximate cancellation of e_s/m_s and e_c/m_c. As a result, relativistic spin-dependent terms dominate, and with the nearly maximal mixing coefficients c1 approximately c2 approximately 0.71, the amplitudes to D_s gamma add for the lower state and cancel for the upper state. The quoted results are Gamma(D_s1(2460) to D_s gamma) = 297 keV and Gamma(D_s1(2536) to D_s gamma) = 12 keV, which the authors argue explains the non-observation of the 2536 radiative decay. The same framework is then applied to D_s1 to D_s* gamma, B_s1 decays, and B_c1 decays, and the predictions are compared with earlier quark-model results.

Significance. If the central mechanism is correct, the paper resolves a long-standing puzzle in the radiative decays of D_s1 mesons and provides a concrete physical explanation for the hierarchy between the 2460 and 2536 channels. The manuscript is explicit about the Hamiltonian, the matrix elements, and the final width formulas, which is a notable strength, and it gives falsifiable predictions for B_s1 and B_c1 transitions that can be tested at future facilities. The main limitation is that the cancellation underlying the small 2536 width requires the relativistic amplitudes to be known to about 20 to 30 percent accuracy, while the Breit-Fermi expansion parameter for the strange quark is not small; the paper does not currently quantify the omitted higher-order terms.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV.A, Eq. (31)] The small width Gamma(D_s1(2536) to D_s gamma) = 12 keV arises as the difference c2 t1 minus c1 t2, so the prediction requires t1 and t2 to be known to roughly the 20 to 30 percent level. However t2 and part of t1 are 1/m_s^2 corrections, and with the variational scale omega_1 = 0.38 GeV and m_s = 0.5 GeV the expansion parameter <p^2>/m_s^2 is of order omega_1^2/m_s^2, roughly 0.6, so the Breit-Fermi expansion is not parametrically controlled. The omitted 1/m_s^4 kinetic, spin-orbit, Darwin, and two-body current terms are not estimated anywhere in the manuscript; the sensitivity study in Section IV.C varies parameters within the same truncated Hamiltonian and therefore does not probe the truncation error. This is load-bearing for the central claim, and the authors should either compute the leading 1/m^4 corrections or provide a quantitative power-counting estimate of their size.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (7)] The statement after Eq. (7) that replacing the full relativistic kinetic correction by the single terms minus (p^2)^2/(8 m_s^3) and minus (p^2)^2/(8 m_c^3) does not significantly affect the numerical results is not documented. Because the same expansion parameter is large, this check is necessary for the reliability of the mixing coefficients c1 and c2 and of the radiative amplitudes. Please provide the numerical comparison, for instance the shifts in the energies and in c1 and c2 when the next kinetic correction is included.
  3. [Introduction and Section IV.C] The experimental input is stated inconsistently. The Introduction reports from Ref. [7] that Gamma(D_s1(2536) to D_s gamma) is less than 8 keV and Gamma(D_s1(2460) to D_s gamma) is less than 2.3 keV, which would be incompatible with the prediction Gamma(D_s1(2460) to D_s gamma) = 297 keV; Section IV.C instead says that the D_s1(2460) to D_s gamma width is experimentally known and uses it to estimate Gamma_tot(D_s1(2460)) of about 1.5 MeV. Please correct the values and limits and state clearly which measured quantities are used in the comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract contains the grammatical error "have no a certain C-parity", and the Introduction contains "withing a potential model"; please correct these typos.
  2. [Eq. (32)] Equation (32) defines k20 = k1 + Delta E2 - Delta E1, but since k1 already contains the recoil correction subtracted from k10, the correct expression should be k20 = k10 + Delta E2 - Delta E1; the recoil correction should be applied to the upper-transition energy separately.
  3. [Section IV.C] The sentence "the corresponding contributions enter with opposite signs (45)" refers to Eq. (31), not Eq. (45); Eq. (45) is the D_s1 to D_s* gamma width formula. Please correct the cross-reference.
  4. [Section IV.C] The claim that in previous works "the ratio of transition probabilities to D_s is determined only by the mixing angle" could be made more precise with a formula or a direct citation; as written it is an unsupported characterization of the earlier literature.
  5. [Table I] Table I reports the entry 1.6 plus or minus 2.3 for Ref. [18] without explaining the asymmetric or one-sided nature of the uncertainty; please clarify the notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model parameters are fixed by meson masses, and the radiative widths are genuine outputs of the derived radiative operator.

full rationale

The paper's parameters b, g, ms, and mc are fixed by comparing predicted meson masses with known experimental values (Eqs. (12), (14), and the statement 'The values of these parameters are fixed by comparing the predictions for the masses of states with known experimental values [9]'), not by the radiative widths that are the targets of the calculation. The mixing coefficients c1 and c2 follow from the secular equation (10) for the spin-orbit Hamiltonian, giving c1 = c2 = 0.71 as a numerical output, not as an input chosen to suppress the 2536 width. The key cancellation in Eq. (31) depends on the computed near equality t1 ≈ t2, which is obtained from the radiative operator Hrad (Eqs. (20)-(22)) and the variational wave functions; no term in t1 or t2 is fitted to the experimental limits quoted for D_s1 -> D_s gamma. The only self-citations are Ref. [7] (Bondar), used for the experimental puzzle, and Ref. [11] (Lee, Milstein, Schumacher), used for the Breit-Fermi Hamiltonian; Ref. [7] explicitly rests on BaBar data [8], and Ref. [11] is an independent published result, so neither is load-bearing in a circular sense. The B_s1 and B_c1 widths are new predictions with no experimental input. Possible concerns about omitted 1/m^4 corrections affect the accuracy of the truncation, but do not make any claimed prediction equivalent to its inputs by construction. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external mass data and benchmarks, and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced. The free parameters are standard quark model inputs, with b and g calibrated to mass data and the target radiative widths left as predictions. The main modeling burden is the assumed completeness of the Breit-Fermi radiative operator and the variational wave functions, neither of which is independently verified in the paper.

free parameters (5)
  • ms (strange constituent quark mass) = 0.5 GeV
    Input from the quark model; used in the dipole suppression estimate and in the mass spectrum calculation.
  • mc (charm constituent quark mass) = 1.7 GeV
    Input from the quark model; fixed by c bar s masses, not by the radiative widths under study.
  • mb (bottom constituent quark mass) = 4.8 GeV
    Input for the B_s1 and B_c1 predictions.
  • b (linear confinement slope) = 0.18 GeV^2
    Free parameter fixed by comparing predicted masses with PDG values, as stated in Sec. II.
  • g (strong coupling factor 4 alpha_s/3) = 0.8 for D_s, 0.7 for B_s, 0.6 for B_c
    Fixed for D_s by mass comparison; changed by hand for B_s and B_c under a claimed natural variation, without an independent fit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Nonrelativistic potential model with Coulomb plus linear confining potential, with U_g a Lorentz vector and U_conf a Lorentz scalar.
    Eq. (3), Sec. II. All spin-dependent corrections follow from this chosen form of the potential.
  • domain assumption Gaussian variational radial wave functions for L=0 and L=1 states.
    Eqs. (11) and (13). The radiative matrix elements are sensitive to these approximate wave functions.
  • domain assumption The physical D_s1(2460) and D_s1(2536) states are identified with the two eigenstates of the fine-structure Hamiltonian in Eqs. (8) to (10).
    Sec. III. The mixing coefficients c1 and c2 are central to the cancellation mechanism.
  • domain assumption The radiative Hamiltonian H_rad in Eq. (20) contains the complete set of relativistic and retardation corrections needed for these transitions.
    Eqs. (20) to (21), Sec. IV. The paper does not estimate the size of omitted higher-order or two-body operators.
  • domain assumption The same formulas apply to B_s1 and B_c1 after substitution of quark masses, charges, and the coupling g.
    Sec. V. No separate derivation is given for those systems.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phenomenology of $D_{s1}$ mesons radiative transitions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VKWC64KO

@misc{pith2026250501856,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phenomenology of $D_s1$ mesons radiative transitions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VKWC64KO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01856}
}
abstract

We discuss radiative transitions $D_{s1}\rightarrow D_s\gamma$ and $D_{s1}\rightarrow D_s^*\gamma$ of $p$-wave mesons. Since $D_{s1}$ mesons have no a certain $C$-parity, and the masses of quarks in these mesons differ significantly, then due to the spin-orbit interaction each of $p$-wave mesons with the total angular momentum $J=1$ is a superposition of states with the total spin of quarks $S_{tot}=0$ and $S_{tot}=1$. We explain why the partial width of $D_{s1}(2460)\to D_s\gamma$ radiative transition is significantly larger than the corresponding value for $D_{s1}(2536)\to D_s\gamma$. We also predict the corresponding partial widths of $B_{s1}$ and $B_{c1}$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

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

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A relativistic potential model, with all parameters taken from meson masses, predicts M1 radiative widths for D and D_s mesons and gives a B_s hyperfine splitting close to the new CMS measurement.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [7]

    We have checked that suc h a replacement does not significantly affect the numerical results, but essentially simplifies the calculation s

    coincides with the Hamiltonian in the model [ 3] with one difference, in our model only the first correction ∆ Hnr to the kinetic energy is taken into account. We have checked that suc h a replacement does not significantly affect the numerical results, but essentially simplifies the calculation s. The eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian with J = 1, L = 1 and Jz...

    work page

  2. [1]

    G. W. F. Drake, Theory of Relativistic Magnetic Dipole Transitions: Lifet ime of the Metastable S-23 State of the Heliumlike Ions , Phys. Rev. A 3 (1971) 908–915

    work page 1971

  3. [2]

    Note that the estimation for the width of Ds1(2460) →Dsγ transition in Ref

    3 KeV, which is strikingly different from the generally accepted expec tations presented in Table I. Note that the estimation for the width of Ds1(2460) →Dsγ transition in Ref. [ 7] was based on the account of the nonrelativistic dipole moment contribution solely. We show that th is assumption is not valid due to importance of relativistic corrections. Tak...

    work page

  4. [3]

    3◦ [5] depending on the ratio of the parameters g and b

    = 35 . 3◦ [5] depending on the ratio of the parameters g and b. For g = 0. 5 and b = 0 it will be −54. 7◦, and for g = 0 and b = 0. 18 it will be

    work page

  5. [4]

    Barnes, S

    T. Barnes, S. Godfrey and E. S. Swanson, Higher charmonia , Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 054026, [hep-ph/0505002]

    arXiv 2005

  6. [5]

    Mixing angle between $^3P_1$ and $^1P_1$ in HQET

    T. Matsuki, T. Morii and K. Seo, Mixing angle between 3P1 and 1P1 in HQET , Prog. Theor. Phys. 124 (2010) 285–292, [ 1001.4248]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  7. [6]

    I. V. Obraztsov and A. I. Milstein, Quadrupole radiation and e+e− pair production in the collision of nonrelativistic nuclei , Phys. Lett. B 820 (2021) 136514, [ 2103.00439]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Godfrey and N

    S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, Mesons in a Relativized Quark Model with Chromodynamics , Phys. Rev. D 32 (1985) 189–231

    work page 1985

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], Review of particle physics , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 3 030001

    2024

  2. [10]

    Q. T. Song, D. Y. Chen, X. Liu and T. Matsuki, Charmed-strange mesons revisited: mass spectra and strong decays, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 054031, [ 1501.03575]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bondar, Why We Do Not See the Radiative Decays of the D+ s1(2536) Meson? , JETP Lett

    A. Bondar, Why We Do Not See the Radiative Decays of the D+ s1(2536) Meson? , JETP Lett. 121 (2025), no. 4 231, [ 2311.15078]. 11

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Aubert,R

    BaBar Collaboration, B. Aubert,R. Barate,M. Bona et al. , A Study of the D*(sJ)(2317) and D(sJ)(2460) Mesons in Inclusive c anti-c Production Near (s)**(1/2) = 10 .6-GeV, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 032007, [hep-ex/0604030]

    2006 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Godfrey, Properties of the charmed P-wave mesons , Phys

    S. Godfrey, Properties of the charmed P-wave mesons , Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 054029, [ hep-ph/0508078]

    2005 arXiv

  6. [14]

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

    1979

  7. [15]

    Lee, A.I

    R.N. Lee, A.I. Milstein, M. Schumacher, Relativistic corrections to the electromagnetic polariza bilities of compound systems, Phys. Rev. A 64 (2001) 032507, [ hep-ph/0101240]

    2001 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Landau, E

    L.D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics, non-relativistic theory , (Pergamon Press, Oxford) (1977)

    1977

  9. [17]

    S. F. Chen, J. Liu, H. Q. Zhou and D. Y. Chen, Electric transitions of the charmed-strange mesons in a relativistic quark model , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020), no. 3 290, [ 2003.07988]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    J. L. Goity and W. Roberts, Radiative transitions in heavy mesons in a relativistic qua rk model , Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 094007, [ hep-ph/0012314]

    2001 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Green, W

    N. Green, W. W. Repko and S. F. Radford, Note on predictions for c¯s quarkonia using a three-loop static potential, Nucl. Phys. A 958 (2017) 71–77, [ 1605.06393]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    S. F. Radford, W. W. Repko and M. J. Saelim, Potential model calculations and predictions for c anti-s quarkonia, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 034012, [ 0903.0551]

    2009 arXiv

  13. [21]

    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. D 94 (2016), no. 7 074012, [ 1607.02812]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    J. G. Korner, D. Pirjol and K. Schilcher, Radiative decays of the P wave charmed mesons , Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 3955–3961, [ hep-ph/9212220]

    1993 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Q. li, R. H. Ni and X. H. Zhong, Towards establishing an abundant B and Bs spectrum up to the second orbital excitations , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 116010, [ 2102.03694]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Godfrey, K

    S. Godfrey, K. Moats and E. S. Swanson, B and Bs Meson Spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016), no. 5 054025, [ 1607.02169]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    S. S. Gershtein, V. V. Kiselev, A. K. Likhoded and A. V. Tk abladze, B(c) spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 3613–3627, [ hep-ph/9406339]

    1995 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Godfrey, Spectroscopy of Bc mesons in the relativized quark model , Phys

    S. Godfrey, Spectroscopy of Bc mesons in the relativized quark model , Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 054017, [hep-ph/0406228]

    2004 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, Properties of heavy quarkonia and Bc mesons in the relativistic quark model , Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 014027, [ hep-ph/0210381]

    2003 arXiv

  20. [28]

    L. P. Fulcher, Phenomenological predictions of the properties of the Bc system, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 074006, [ hep-ph/9806444]

    1999 arXiv

  21. [29]

    E. J. Eichten and C. Quigg, Mesons with Beauty and Charm: New Horizons in Spectroscopy , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2018), no. 5 054025, [ 1902.09735]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    T. y. Li, L. Tang, Z. y. Fang, C. h. Wang, C. q. Pang and X. Li u, Higher states of the Bc meson family , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023), no. 3 034019, [ 2204.14258]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Q. Li, M. S. Liu, L. S. Lu, Q. F. L¨ u, L. C. Gui and X. H. Zhong , Excited bottom-charmed mesons in a nonrelativistic quark model , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019), no. 9 096020, [ 1903.11927]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    X. J. Li, Y. S. Li, F. L. Wang and X. Liu, Spectroscopic survey of higher-lying states of Bc meson family , Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023), no. 11 1080, [ 2308.07206]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [35]

    Therefore, it is seen that for all the cases considered, the heav y-quark approximation works rather good only for the system b¯s where mb ≫ms

    3◦. Therefore, it is seen that for all the cases considered, the heav y-quark approximation works rather good only for the system b¯s where mb ≫ms. VI. CONCLUSION Within the phenomenological approach, predictions are obtained fo r the probabilities of radiative tran- sitions D...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.