Open Physics 2024; 22: 20240004

Research Article

Arezu Jahanshir*, Ekwevugbe Omugbe, Joseph Ngene Aniezi, Ifeanyi Jude Njoku,
Clement Atachegbe Onate, Edwin Samson Eyube, Samuel Olugbade Ogundeji, Chinonso Mbamara,
Raphael Mmaduka Obodo, and Michael Chukwudi Onyeaju

Heavy mesons mass spectroscopy under a spin-

dependent Cornell potential within the
framework of the spinless Salpeter equation
https://doi.org/10.1515/phys-2024-0004 mesons and may be used to predict other spectroscopic
received January 10, 2024; accepted March 07, 2024 parameters.
Abstract: The energy bound-state solutions of the spinless Keywords: meson spectroscopy, spin–orbit coupling, Cornell
Salpeter equation (SSE) have been obtained under a spin-depen- potential, Salpeter equation
dent Cornell potential function via the Wentzel–Kramers–
Brillouin approximation. The energy levels were applied to pre-
dict the mass spectra for the charmonium, bottomonium, and
bottom-charmed mesons. The relativistic corrections for the 1 Introduction
angular momentum quantum number l > 0, total angular
momentum quantum numbers j = l , j = l ± 1 , and the radial The discovery of the electron by Thomson [1] in 1897 and
quantum numbers n = 1–4 improve the mass spectra. The the nucleus by Rutherford [2] in 1911 gave a fairly complete
results agree fairly with experimental data and theoretic results picture of the atomic structure. However, decades after
reported in existing works, where the authors utilized different these discoveries, several other elementary particles have
forms of the inter-quark potentials and methods. The deviation been discovered with the aid of modern equipment such as
of the obtained masses for the charmonium and bottomonium particle colliders, detectors, and accelerators. These ele-
from the observed data yields a total percentage error of 3.32 mentary particles that are the composite of much smaller
and 1.11%, respectively. The results indicate that the accuracy particles are referred to as quarks. Quarks form the building
of the masses is correlated with the magnitude of masses for blocks of matter, and their dynamical existence has been
the charm and bottom quarks. The SSE together with the phe- confirmed via experimental works on deep inelastic scat-
nomenological spin-dependent Cornell potential provides an tering of electrons and neutrons [3]. The standard model of
adequate account of the mass spectroscopy for the heavy elementary particles forms the basis for the understanding of
particle physics, where the quarks have six flavors, namely,
the up (u ), down (d ), top (t ), bottom (b), strange (s ), and charm
 (c ) quarks; six leptons such as the electron (e ), muon (μ), tau
* Corresponding author: Arezu Jahanshir, Department of Physics and
Engineering Sciences, Buein Zahra Technical University, Buein Zahra,
(τ ), and their respective neutrinos (νe , νμ, ντ ); the gauge; and
Iran, e-mail: [email protected] the Higgs bosons. The quarks and leptons interact via the unified
Ekwevugbe Omugbe, Joseph Ngene Aniezi, Chinonso Mbamara, electroweak forces and the strong quantum chromo-dynamics
Raphael Mmaduka Obodo: Department of Physics, University of (QCD) force. The strong QCD force is responsible for the binding
Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Umuagwo, P.M.B. 1038, Imo of quarks into protons and neutrons, while the interaction
State, Nigeria
between the leptons is mediated by the electromagnetic force.
Ifeanyi Jude Njoku: Department of Physics, Federal University of
Technology Owerri, P.M.B.1526, Ihiagwa, Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria The weak nuclear force is associated with particle decay.
Clement Atachegbe Onate: Department of Physical Sciences, Bowen The bound states of three quarks give rise to the baryons,
University, Iwo, Osun State, Nigeria while the quark–antiquark pairs constitute the mesons. Both the
Edwin Samson Eyube: Department of Physics, Faculty of Physical Sciences, baryons and mesons are grouped into hadrons. The hadrons
Modibbo Adama University, P.M.B. 2076, Yola, Adamawa State, Nigeria
with ½ integer spin are fermions and obey the Fermi-Dirac
Samuel Olugbade Ogundeji: Department of Physics and Astronomy,
Iowa state University, Ames, United States of America
statistics, while bosons possess spin 0, 1 and obey the
Michael Chukwudi Onyeaju: Theoretical Physics Group, Department of Bose–Einstein statistics. The properties of these elementary par-
Physics, University of Port Harcourt, Choba, Rivers State, Nigeria ticles have garnered research interest among particle physicists

Open Access. © 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
2  Arezu Jahanshir et al.

in recent years. These properties have been observed using V (r ) = Vc(r ) + VSS(r ) + VLS(r ) + VT(r ) , (1)
heavy machinery [4], and some were predicted theoretically where Vc(r ) is the Cornell potential. The functions VSS(r ) , VLS(r ) ,
before their experimental discovery. In this regard, the bound- and VT(r ) are the spin–spin, spin–orbit, and tensor channels,
state solutions of the wave equations under the inter-quark respectively. The respective potential functions are repre-
potentials have been utilized to predict the mass spectroscopy sented as [22,24]
and decay properties of the elementary particles. The most uti-
lized potential energy is the Cornell potential, which is the com- 4αs
Vc(r ) = − + br , (2)
bination of the Coulomb’s energy and a linear function. The 3r
Coulomb’s energy is responsible for the short-range gluon 32παs
VSS(r ) = δ̅ σ (r )〈S̅ ·S̅ 〉, (3)
exchange interaction between a quark and its antiquark, while 9m qm q̅
the linear function is in charge of quark confinement. The addi-
1 ⎛ 2αs b⎞
tion of spin components to the Cornell potential allows for rela- VLS(r ) = − 〈L̅ ·S̅ 〉, (4)
m qm q̅ ⎝ r 3 2r ⎠
tivistic corrections and results in the hyperfine splitting between
the s-wave singlet and triplet states. The multiple triplet splitting 4αs
VT(r ) = 〈T̅ 〉, (5)
occurs for any angular momentum quantum number l > 0. m qm q̅ r 3
Li et al. [5] predicted the charmonium (cc̅ ) mass spectra
using the coupled-channel model and the screened potential where αs , b, m q , and m q̅ are the coupling constant, linear
model in the mass region below 4 GeV . Their results agreed confinement parameter, the mass of quark, and its anti-
with the masses of the cc̅ meson obtained with a quenched quark, respectively. In (3), the Dirac delta function has
2 2

potential model and literature data [6]. Mutuk [7] investigated been used as a Gaussian function (δ̅ σ (r ) = (σ / π )3e −σ r ).
the mass spectra and decay constants of vector and pseudos- The operators in Eqs. (3)–(5) are diagonal in | j , l , s〉 with
calar heavy-light mesons within the framework of the QCD the respective spin–spin ((S̅ ·S̅ )) spin–orbit (L̅ ·S̅ ) and tensor
sum rule and the quark model. The numerical results were in (T̅ ) matrix elements given by refs [22,24]
good agreement compared to observed data and other theo- s(s + 1) 3
〈S̅ ·S̅ 〉 = − , (6)
retical works. The charmonia spectra have been investigated 2 4
using the non-relativistic quark model and matrix-Numerov 1
method [8,9]. Chaturvedi and Rai [10], in a recent work, inves- 〈L̅ ·S̅ 〉 = ( j ( j + 1) − l (l + 1) − s(s + 1)) , (7)
2
tigated the electromagnetic transitions, mass spectroscopy,
and decay rates of the bottom-charm (bc̅ ) meson within the 6(〈L̅ ·S̅ 〉)2 + 3〈L̅ ·S̅ 〉 − 2s(s + 1)l (l + 1)
〈n3l j|T̅ |n3l j〉 = − . (8)
context of the non-relativistic QCD. Several authors [11–28] 6(2l − 1)(2l + 3)
have carried out extensive studies on the mesons bound-state The notations s , l , and j = l + s denote the spin number,
solutions and applied them to obtain their spectroscopic para- orbital quantum number, and the total angular momentum
meters. The results in the references therein were compared to quantum number, respectively. The spin–spin coupling gives
experimental data of the particle data group [29–31], and the rise to the s-wave (l = 0) hyperfine splitting between the triplet
results were predicted using different QCD-inspired potentials, (s = 1 ) and singlet (s = 0) states. For l > 0, and j = l ± 1, j = l ,
phenomenological potentials, and theoretical methods. we have the multiplets splitting for the p , d , f , g , and h triplets
In this work, we investigate the hyperfine mass spectra quantum states. The n represents the principal quantum number.
splitting of the heavy mesons within the framework of the The spin-dependent potentials in (4) and (5) give the mass shifts and
semi-relativistic spinless Salpeter equation (SSE). Previously, are obtained from leading-order perturbation theory [14,24]. The
the mass spectra of the heavy mesons have been obtained in operator 〈T̅ 〉 can be described by the non-vanishing diagonal matrix
previous studies [32,33] using the SSE without considering the element for l > 0 and correspond to the spin triplet states [21].
spin components and relativistic corrections for the inter-quark
potentials. The results in the references therein revealed that the
semi-relativistic equation provides a satisfying account for the 2 Energy spectrum of the SSE with
meson mass spectroscopy. Motivated by these facts, we report
for the first time the approximate analytical and numerical
spin-dependent Cornell potential
mass spectra splitting of the heavy mesons under the SSE via the WKB approximation
with a phenomenological spin-dependent Cornell potential
via the Wentzel–Kramers–Brillouin (WKB) approximation. To obtain an approximate analytical solution, we truncate
In this study, we considered the interactions potential the Gaussian function to a harmonic function for r ≪ 1 fm
function given by via a Taylor series expansion around r = 0. The Gaussian
 Heavy mesons mass spectroscopy under a spin-dependent Cornell potential  3

2 2
function can be expressed as e −σ r ∼ 1 − σ 2r 2 . In the femto- pμ(r )
meter scale, this approximation is important for quark ⎛ 1 (l + 1/2)2 ⎞ (19)
interactions [28]. = 2μ ∼ (V (r ) − Enl )2 − (V (r ) − Enl ) −
⎜
. ⎟

⎝ 2m 2μr 2 ⎠
Using this approximation, the potential in (1) can be
simplified as To obtain the energy equation for the modeled potential,
we employed the WKB energy quantization condition for two
Q N
V (r ) = − + br + 3 − Pr 2 + Ωs , (9) real turning points r1 and r2 via the integral equation:
r r
r2
where 1⎞
∫pμ(r )dr = π ⎛⎝n + 2⎠
, ℏ = 1. (20)
4αs b(L̅ ·S̅ ) r1
Q= + , (10)
3 2m qm q̅ It is worth stating that we have added a Langer’s cor-
2αs (L̅ ·S̅ ) 4αs (T̅ ) rection [36] to the centrifugal potential using the transfor-
N= + , (11) mation l (l + 1) → (l + 1/2)2 . This correction in the WKB
m qm q̅ m qm q̅
approximation admits the exact energy eigenvalues for
P = σ 2Ωs , (12) soluble potentials and ensures that the wave function is
16παs well behaved near the origin.
Ωs = (σ / π )3(s(s + 1) − 1.5) . (13) Inserting the momentum into the WKB quantization
9m qm q̅
integral in (20) with the potential energy given by (1), we
The spinless SSE equation for describing a two-body obtained
system is given as [34,35] r2
A B C D E
⎛ ⎞
2μ ∫ r6
− 4 + 3 + 2 −
r r r r
+ Λr 4 − Fr 3 + Gr 2 + Hr + K dr
⎜ ∑ −∆ + mi2 + V (r ) − Enl ⎟ξ (r , θ , φ) = 0, (21)
r1
∆ = ∇2, (14)
⎝i = 1,2 ⎠ 1
= π ⎛n + ⎞,
⎝ 2⎠
where
where
ξ (r , θ , φ) = ψnl (r )Ylm (θ , φ) . (15) N2 2QN 2N Ωs − 2NEnl Q 2 + 2Nb
A= 2m∼ , B = 2m ∼ , C = 2m∼ − N, D = ∼
2m
− L,
The notations ∇ 2 , V (r ), Enl , and ξ (r , θ , φ) represent the 2QΩs + 2PN − 2QEnl b 2 − 2P Ωs + 2PEnl
E= 2m∼ − Q, F = 22Pb
m∼ , G= ∼
2m
+ P,
Laplacian, the potential function, total energy, and the total
2bΩs + 2PQ − 2bEnl (E − Ω )2 − 2Qb P2
wave function, respectively. H= 2m∼ − b, K = nl 2sm∼ + Enl − Ωs , Λ = ∼,
2m
For interaction between particles, the summation in Eq. (l + 1 / 2)2
L= 2μ
.
(14) can further be expanded via Taylor series to order two:
Using coordinate transformation q = 1/r , Eq. (21)
∆ ∆2 reduces to
∑ −∆ + mi2 = m1 + m2 − − , (16)
i = 1,2 2μ 8η3 q2
C D E Λ F G
where
− 2μ ∫ Aq 2 − B +
q
+ 2 − 3 + 8 − 7 + 6 +
q q q q q
q1
1/3
H K
η = μ⎛ m m 1 − 23μ2 ⎞ .
m1m2 mm
μ= , + 4 (22)
m1 + m2 ⎝ 1 2 ⎠ q5 q
Eq. (14) can further be reduced to a Schrödinger-like 1
equation [35] dq = π ⎛n + ⎞.
⎝ 2⎠
⎛ 1 d2 1 To solve Eq. (22) analytically, the multiple turning
⎜− 2
+ V (r ) − Enl − ∼ (V (r ) − Enl )2
⎝ 2μ dr 2m points need to be reduced to two via a Pekeris-type approx-
(17)
3 imation around q = 0. Let q = y + δ with δ (1/q ) assumed to
(l + 1/2)2 ⎞ ∼= η .
+ ψnl (r ) = 0, ℏ = 1, m
⎟
2
2μr ⎠ μ2 be the characteristic distance between the quark and anti-
quark pairs. The inverse power terms can be obtained
Eq. (17) can be written as a momentum eigenvalue equation using the Taylor series expansion to the second order:
((Pˆ )2 + pμ2(r ))ψnl (r ) = 0, (18) y −k k (k + 1) −k − 2 2
q −k = δ −k ⎛1 + ⎞ ∼ δ −k − kδ −k − 1y + δ y
⎝ δ⎠ 2! (23)
where P̂ is the radial momentum operator and pμ(r ) is the
meson momentum eigenvalue given as + Ο (y 3 ) ,
4  Arezu Jahanshir et al.

Table 1: Calculated parameters of interaction potential function

Parameters Potential free parameters

Charmonium Bottomonium Bc Meson

Mass (GeV) mc = m c̅ = 1.530a mb = m b̅ = 5.250a mc = 1.530, mb = 5.25 0

αs 30.1602 27.7862 41.1745
δ (GeV) 0.05846 0.0796 0.0796
b (GeV 2) 0.1416 0.1702 0.2710
σ (GeV) ‒0.1294 0.1356 0.1356

Note: aWe choose the bottom and charm masses from the obtained range [29] 1.2 < m c < 1.8 GeV and 4.5 < mb < 5.4 GeV .

Table 2: S and P-states mass spectrum of charmonium meson in GeV

State Present [24] [18] [16] [11] [22] Expt. [30]

n 2s + 1 L j J PC

J /ψ(13S1) 1‒‒ 3.520 3.094 3.0413 3.096 3.126 3.0851 3.097 ± (6 × 10‒6)
ηc (11S 0) 0‒ + 3.293 2.989 3.1404 2.981 3.033 2.9904 2.984 ± 0.0004
ψ(23S1) 1‒‒ 3.902 3.681 3.7017 3.685 3.701 3.6821 3.686 ± (6 × 10‒5)
ηc (21S0)* 0‒ + 3.638 3.602 3.6610 3.635 3.666 3.6465 3.638 ± (1.1 × 10‒3)
ψ(33S 1) 1‒‒ 4.194 4.129 4.0502 4.039 4.055 4.1002 4.039 ± 10‒3
ηc (31S 0) 0‒ + 3.895 4.058 4.1347 3.989 4.158 4.0719
ψ(43S1)* 1‒‒ 4.421 4.514 4.4185 4.427 4.415 4.4394 4.421 ± (4 × 10‒3)
ηc (41S 0) 0‒ + 4.091 4.448 4.4136 4.401 4.415 4.4209
ψ(53S1) 1‒‒ 4.600 4.863 4.6591 4.837 4.585 4.63 ± (6 × 10‒3)
ηc (51S 0) 0‒ + 4.242 4.799 4.6618 4.811 4.607
ψ(63S1) 1‒‒ 5.804 5.185 4.8801 5.167 4.733
ηc (61S 0) 0‒ + 5.175 5.124 4.8825 5.155 4.754
χc 1 (13P1)* 1++ 3.511 3.468 3.5036 3.511 3.487 3.5004 3.511 ± (5 × 10‒5)
χc 2 (13P2) 2++ 3.545 3.480 3.4888 3.555 3.522 3.5514 3.556 ± 7 × 10‒5
χc0 (13P0) 0++ 3.466 3.428 3.4137 3.413 3.407 3.3519 3.415 ± 3 × 10‒4
h c (11P1) 1+ ‒ 3.298 3.470 3.5180 3.525 3.502 3.5146 3.525 ± (1.1 × 10‒4 )
χc 1 (23P1) 1++ 3.895 3.938 3.8072 3.906 3.786 3.9335 3.872 ± (6 × 10‒5)
χc 2 (23P2)* 2++ 3.923 3.955 3.9151 3.949 3.905 3.9798 3.923 ± 1 × 10‒3
χc0 (23P0) 0++ 3.856 3.897 3.7646 3.870 3.899 3.8357 3.922 ± 1.8 × 10‒3
h c (21P1) 1+ ‒ 3.642 3.943 3.8239 3.926 3.8210 3.9446
χc 1 (33P1) 1++ 4.188 4.338 4.1210 4.319 4.1230 4.3179 4.147 ± (3 × 10‒3)
χc 2 (33P2) 2++ 4.212 4.358 4.1514 4.354 4.144 4.3834
χc0 (33P0) 0++ 4.155 4.296 4.0804 4.301 4.120 4.2167
h c (31P1) 1+ ‒ 3.899 4.344 4.1368 4.337 4.1640 4.3339
χc 1 (43P1) 1++ 4.416 4.696 4.4005 4.728 4.3730 4.6203
χc 2 (43P2) 2++ 4.436 4.718 4.4298 4.763 4.411 4.7367
χc0 (43P0) 0++ 4.388 4.653 4.3621 4.698 4.362 4.5518
h c (41P1) 1+ ‒ 4.094 4.704 4.1455 4.744 4.4200 4.6395
 Heavy mesons mass spectroscopy under a spin-dependent Cornell potential  5

where 1 ⎛ 63F 80Λ 48G 35H 24K 15E

ℵ= − 9 − 7 − 6 − 5 + 4
3 3q 2
3q 6 8q 3q 2 W δ⎝ 8 δ δ δ δ δ
q −1 = δ − + δ3 ,
δ2
q −2 = δ2
−
δ3
+ δ4
, q −3 = (25)
8D 3C ⎞
10 15q 6q 2 15 24q 10q 2 21 35q 15q 2 − 3 − 2 ,
δ3
− δ 4 + δ 5 , q −4 = δ 4 − δ 5 + δ 6 , q −5 = δ5
− δ6 + δ7
, δ δ ⎠
28 48q 21q 2 36 63q 28q 2 45
q −6 = δ 6 − δ 7 + δ 8 , q −7 = δ 7 − δ 8 + δ 9 , q −8 = δ8
− 1 ⎛ 36F 45Λ 28G 21H 15K 10E
T= − 8 − 6 − 5 − 4 + 3
80q 36q 2
+ δ 10 . W ⎝ δ7 δ δ δ δ δ
δ9 (26)
6D 3C
Inserting the terms q −k (k = 1–8)) into (22) with alge- − 2 − + B ⎞,
δ δ ⎠
braic simplifications gives
q2 28F 36Λ 21G 15H 10K 6E 3D
W= 9
− 10 − 8 − 7 − 6 + 5 − 4
δ δ δ δ δ δ δ
− 2μW ∫ − q 2 + ℵq − T dq
3C
(27)
q1 − 3 − A.
q1 (24) δ
1
= 2μW ∫ (q2 − q )(q − q1) dq = π ⎛n + ⎞, The turning points (q1, q2 ) in (24) are obtained by sol-
⎝ 2⎠
q2
ving the − q 2 + ℵq − T = 0, which is a requirement in the
where WKB approximation for the momentum to vanish at the
classical turning points:

Table 3: D, F, and G-states mass spectrum of charmonium meson in GeV

State Present [24] [18] [16] [11] [22] Expt. [30]

n 2s + 1 L j J PC

ψ2(13D2) 2‒‒ 3.520 3.772 3.46047 3.795 3.3480 3.8077

ψ3 (13D 3) 3‒‒ 3.575 3.755 3.51402 3.813 3.307 3.8146
ψ1(13D1) 1‒‒ 3.461 3.775 3.40228 3.783 3.374 3.7853 3.774 ± 4 × 10‒4
ηc 2 (11D 2) 2‒ + 3.306 3.765 3.47795 3.807 3.3760 3.8073
ψ2(23D2) 2‒‒ 3.902 4.188 3.81161 4.190 3.8010 4.1737 3.824 ± (5 × 10‒4 )
ψ3 (23D 3) 3‒‒ 3.949 4.176 3.86300 4.220 3.797 4.1829
ψ1(23D1) 1‒‒ 3.852 4.188 3.75606 4.150 3.800 4.1504
ηc 2 (21D2) 2‒ + 3.649 4.182 3.82825 4.196 3.8360 4.1737
ψ2 (33D 2) 2‒‒ 4.195 4.557 4.12502 4.544 4.1350 4.5588
ψ3 (33D 3) 3‒‒ 4.234 4.549 4.17431 4.574 4.163 4.5725
ψ1(33D1) 1‒‒ 4.152 4.555 4.07208 4.507 4.113 4.5258
ηc 2 (31D2) 2‒ + 3.905 4.553 4.14085 4.549 4.176 4.5597
χc 3 (13F3) 3++ 3.532 4.012 3.46746 4.068 3.375 4.0440
χc4 (13F4) 4++ 3.609 4.036 3.54185 4.093 3.315 4.0374
χc 2 (13F2) 2++ 3.454 3.990 3.38961 4.041 3.403 4.0424
ηc 3 (11F3) 3+ ‒ 3.319 4.017 3.48494 4.071 3.403 4.0411
χc 3 (23F3) 3++ 3.913 4.396 3.81815 4.400 3.823 4.3744
χc4 (23F4) 4++ 3.978 4.415 3.88949 4.434 3.814 4.3711
χc 2 (23F2) 2++ 3.846 4.378 3.74376 4.361 3.812 4.3699
ηc 3 (21F3) 3+ ‒ 3.660 4.400 3.83479 4.406 3.858 4.3723
ψc4 (13G4) 4‒‒ 3.549 4.343 4.2506
ψc5(13G5) 5‒‒ 3.647 4.357 4.2369
ψc 3 (13G 3) 3‒‒ 3.450 4.321 4.2582
ηc4 (11G4) 4‒ + 3.336 4.345 4.2471
Total error ( χ ) 3.32% 1.98% 1.64% 1.30% 1.33% 1.53%
6  Arezu Jahanshir et al.

Table 4: S and P-states mass spectrum of bottomonium meson in GeV

State Present [17] [16] [18] [11] [14] [24] Expt. [30]

n 2s + 1 L j J PC

Υ (13S1) 1‒‒ 9.906 9.465 9.460 9.49081 9.525 9.4600 9.4600 9.460 ± (2.6 × 10‒4 )
ηb (11S 0) 0‒ + 9.916 9.402 9.398 9.43601 9.472 9.3900 9.4280 9.399 ± (2 × 10‒3)
Υ (23S1) 1‒‒ 10.240 10.003 10.023 10.01257 10.049 10.0150 9.9790 10.023 ± (3.1 × 10‒4 )
ηb(21S0) 0‒ + 10.251 9.976 9.990 9.99146 10.028 9.9900 9.9550
Υ (33S1) 1‒‒ 10.504 10.354 10.355 10.32775 10.371 10.3430 10.3590 10.355 ± (5 × 10‒4 )
ηb(31S0) 0‒ + 10.517 10.336 10.329 10.1386 10.360 10.3260 10.3380
Υ (43S1) 1‒‒ 10.715 10.635 10.586 10.5461 10.598 10.5970 10.6830 10.579 ± (1.2 × 10‒3)
ηb (41S 0) 0‒ + 10.729 10.623 10.573 10.3236 10.592 10.5840 10.6630
Υ (53S1) 1‒‒ 10.883 10.878 10.851 10.82628 10.870 10.8110 10.9750 10.885 ± (2.6 × 10‒3) ± (1.6 × 10‒3)
ηb(51S0) 0‒ + 10.899 10.869 10.869 10.4977 10.790 10.8000 10.9560
Υ (63S1)* 1‒‒ 11.020 11.102 11.061 10.97061 11.022 10.9970 11.2430 11.020 ± (4 × 10‒3)
ηb(61S0) 0‒ + 11.036 11.097 11.088 10.6615 10.961 10.9880 11.2260 11.014 [17]
χb1 (13P1) 1++ 9.906 9.876 9.892 9.87371 9.875 9.9030 9.8190 9.893 ± (2.6 × 10‒4 ) ± (3.1 × 10‒4 )
χb2 (13P2)* 2++ 9.912 9.897 9.912 9.89083 9.903 9.921 9.825 9.912 ± (2.6 × 10‒4 ) ± (3.1 × 10‒4 )
χb0 (13P0) 0++ 9.898 9.847 9.859 9.8432 9.840 9.864 9.806 9.859 ± (4.2 × 10‒4 ) ± (3.1 × 10‒4 )
hb(11P1) 1+ ‒ 9.918 9.882 9.900 9.87919 9.884 9.9090 9.8210 9.899 ± (8 × 10‒4 )
χb1 (23P1) 1++ 10.240 10.246 10.255 10.21695 10.229 10.249 10.2170 10.255 ± (2.2 × 10‒4 ) ± (5 × 10‒4 )
χb2 (23P2) 2++ 10.245 10.261 10.268 10.22961 10.254 10.246 10.224 10.269 ± (2.2 × 10‒4 ) ± (5 × 10‒4 )
χb0 (23P0)* 0++ 10.233 10.226 10.233 10.19625 10.202 10.220 10.205 10.233 ± (4 × 10‒4 ) ± (5 × 10‒4 )
hb(21P1) 1+ ‒ 10.254 10.250 10.260 10.22153 10.237 10.254 10.220 10.260 ± (1.2 × 10‒3)
χb1 (33P1) 1++ 10.504 10.538 10.541 10.1378 10.339 10.515 10.553 10.514 ± (7 × 10‒4 )
χb2 (33P2) 2++ 10.509 10.550 10.550 10.1405 10.406 10.528 10.560 10.524 ± (8 × 10‒4 )
χb0 (33P0) 0++ 10.498 10.522 10.521 10.1342 10.299 10.490 10.540 10.500 [17]
hb(31P1)* 1+ ‒ 10.519 10.541 10.544 4.14695 10.362 10.5190 10.556 10.519 [17]
χb1 (43P1) 1++ 10.715 10.788 10.802 10.3229 10.571 10.853
χb2 (43P2) 2++ 10.719 10.798 10.812 10.3255 10.637 10.860
χb0 (43P0) 0++ 10.710 10.775 10.781 10.3193 10.532 10.840
hb(41P1) 1+ ‒ 10.731 10.790 10.804 10.3242 10.594 10.855

ℵ 1
q1 = − ℵ2 − 4T , (28)
2 2 The mass spectra are obtained from the relation between
ℵ 1 the quark masses and the energy eigenvalue:
q2 = + ℵ2 − 4T . (29)
2 2 Mnl = m q + m q̅ + Enl . (32)
Solving (24), we obtained
q1
π
∫ (q2 − q )(q − q1) dq = (q − q2)2 .
8 1
(30)
q2 3 Numerical results and discussion
Comparing Eqs. (24) and (30), the condition for the
The energy bound-state solution of the SSE under a spin-
energy-level equation is obtained as
dependent Cornell potential has been obtained via the semi-
ℵ2 2 ⎛ 1 classical WKB approximation method. The potential para-
−T= n + ⎞. (31) meters (αs , b, δ , σ ) were obtained by fitting the obtained
4 μW ⎝ 2⎠
 Heavy mesons mass spectroscopy under a spin-dependent Cornell potential  7

Table 5: D, F, and G-states mass spectrum of bottomonium meson in GeV

n 2s + 1 L j J PC Present [17] [16] [18] [11] [14] [24] Expt. [30]

Υ2(13D2) 2‒‒ 9.911 10.147 10.161 10.1126 10.096 10.153 10.075 10.164 ± (1.4 × 10‒3)
Υ3(13D3) 3‒‒ 9.921 10.155 10.166 9.73855 9.849 10.157 10.073 10.172 [17]
Υ1(13D1) 1‒‒ 9.900 10.138 10.154 9.72905 9.666 10.146 10.074 10.155 [17]
ηb2 (11D2) 2‒ + 9.923 10.148 10.163 9.7355 9.767 10.153 10.074 10.165 [17]
Υ2 (23D 2) 2‒‒ 10.244 10.449 10.443 9.94259 10.071 10.432 10.424
Υ3(23D3) 3‒‒ 10.253 10.455 10.449 9.94704 10.175 10.436 10.423
Υ1(23D1) 1‒‒ 10.235 10.441 10.435 9.93775 9.996 10.425 10.423
ηb2 (21D2) 2‒ + 10.258 10.450 10.445 9.94405 10.093 10.432 10.424
Υ2 (33D 2) 2‒‒ 10.508 10.705 10.711 10.1391 10.345 10.733
Υ3(33D3) 3‒‒ 10.516 10.711 10.717 10.1435 10.446 10.733
Υ1 (33D 1) 1‒‒ 10.501 10.698 10.704 10.1344 10.272 10.731
ηb2 (31D2) 2‒ + 10.523 10.706 10.713 10.1405 10.368 10.733
χb3 (13F3) 3++ 9.918 10.355 10.346 9.7361 9.754 10.340 10.287
χb4 (13F4) 4++ 9.932 10.358 10.349 9.74242 9.896 10.340 10.291
χb2 (13F2) 2++ 9.904 10.350 10.343 9.72948 9.642 10.338 10.283
ηb3 (11F3) 3+ ‒ 9.931 10.355 10.347 9.73759 9.778 10.339 10.288
χb3 (23F3) 3++ 10.251 10.619 10.614 9.94462 10.081 10.607
χb4 (23F4) 4++ 10.263 10.622 10.617 9.9508 10.219 10.609
χb2 (23F2) 2++ 10.239 10.615 10.610 9.93815 9.971 10.604
ηb3 (21F3) 3+ ‒ 10.265 10.619 10.615 9.94608 10.104 10.607
Υ4 (13G4) 4‒‒ 9.929 10.531 10.512
Υ5(13G5) 5‒‒ 9.946 10.532 10.514
Υ3(13G 3) 3‒‒ 9.911 10.529 10.511
ηb4 (11G4) 4‒ + 9.941 10.530 10.513
Total error ( χ ) 1.11% 0.20% 0.11% 3.85% 0.96% 0.13% 0.66%

mass spectra with the corresponding experimental masses of quark–antiquark pairs. The Coulomb part of the potential
the particle data group in Tables 2–5. We present the para- in the absence of tensor and spin orbit components domi-
meters in Table 1. The quantum states in the asterisk corre- nates at short distances, whereas the linear component is
spond to the points where the potential parameters are fitted prominent at large distances.
using (32). To check for accuracy, the potential parameters The total errors are obtained using the following for-
were obtained for random quantum numbers for the s-wave mula:
singlet and triplet states and also the hyperfine triplet states Z exp
M − M theo
100
(l > 0, j ≥ 0) where we choose the parameters that reproduce χ= ∑ nl exp nl , (33)
Z i=1 Mnl
minimum total errors. Also, to obtain potential parameters
exp
for the bottom-charmed meson, we assumed a constant where Z, Mnl , and Mnltheo are the respective number of
characteristic distance (δ ) and spin-dependent constant (σ ) experimental data points, experimental masses, and theo-
due to the limited availability of experimental data. For the retically obtained masses. In Table 2, the mass spectra of
bottomonium and charmonium mesons, we solved four poly- charmonium for the s-wave increase as the quantum
nomial equations simultaneously with the help of Maple number increases with the singlet states bounded below
software, while two non-linear equations were solved for the triplet states. The J /ψ(13S1) and ηc (11S0) are higher than
the bottom-charmed meson to obtain the parameters αs the experimentally determined values. However, the other
and b. The variation of the potential function with distance s-wave masses are in agreement with the experimental
for the heavy mesons is plotted in Figure 1(a–c). The potential masses [30] and the masses obtained using other inter-
curves for the triplet and singlet states account for linear quark potential functions and methods reported in the
confinement and short-range gluon exchange between the existing literature [11,16,18,22,24]. In comparison with
8  Arezu Jahanshir et al.

Figure 1: (a–c) Variation of potential function with distance: (a) charmonium, (b) bottomonium, and (c) bottom-charm mesons for spin numbers s = 0
and s = 1 .

experimental data, the masses χc2 (13P2), χc0 (13P0), ψ1(13D1) , the masses of the particle data group [30]. The p-states
and ψ2(23D2 ) with hyperfine splitting and relativistic cor- masses were found to agree with the ones obtained earlier.
rections l > 0, j = l , j = l ± 1 and s = 1 as shown in Tables 2 However, the masses for d quantum states presented in
and 3 were found to be more accurate compared to the Table 5 fairly compare with the observed masses [30]. Gen-
masses (h c (11P1), ηc2 (11D2 ), and ηc2 (21D2 ) for the quantum erally, the masses increase with the increase in the radial
states (l > 0, s = 0, j = l ). The charmonium masses for the quantum number. Using Eq. (33), the bottomonium mass
s, p, d, and f states increase with the increase in the radial spectra deviation from experimental data yields a total
quantum number and were found to deviate from the percentage error of approximately 1.11%, which indicates
experimental masses by a total error of 3.32%. an improvement over the results in the study by Mansour
In Table 4, the bottomonium masses for the s and and Gamal [18] and comparable to the total percentage
p-quantum states are presented. The low-lying quantum error of 0.96% in the study by Mansour and Gamal [11]
states masses are higher than the observed values. As the and 0.66% in the study by Soni et al. [24]. It can be seen
quantum number increases, the masses Υ (53S1) and that the percentage error is higher for the charmonium
ηb(61S0) were found to be in good agreement compared meson due to its light reduced mass. In Tables 6 and 7,
to other works in the existing literature [11,14,16–18] and the masses obtained for the bottom-charmed mesons
 Heavy mesons mass spectroscopy under a spin-dependent Cornell potential  9

Table 6: S and P states mass spectrum of bottom-charmed meson Table 7: D, F, and G-states mass spectrum of bottom-charmed meson
in GeV in GeV

State Present [16] [11] [24] Expt. [31] n 2s + 1 L j J PC Present [16] [11] [24]

n 2s + 1 L j J PC 13D2 2‒‒ 6.228 7.025 6.299 6.997

13D 3 3‒‒ 6.278 7.029 6.429 6.990
13S1 1‒‒ 6.225 6.333 6.313 6.321
13D1 1‒‒ 6.177 7.021 6.200 6.998
(11S0)* 0‒ + 6.275 6.272 6.276 6.272 6.275
11D2 2‒ + 6.291 7.026 6.308 6.994
2 3S 1 1‒‒ 6.783 6.882 6.867 6.900
2 3D 2 2‒‒ 6.787 7.399 6.852 7.403
(21S 0)* 0‒ + 6.842 6.842 6.841 6.864 6.842
2 3D 3 3‒‒ 6.829 7.405 6.975 7.399
3 3S 1 1‒‒ 7.216 7.258 7.308 7.338
2 3D 1 1‒‒ 6.742 7.392 6.759 7.403
31S0 0‒ + 7.283 7.226 7.281 7.306
21D2 2‒ + 6.856 7.400 6.861 7.401
43S1 1‒‒ 7.556 7.609 7.660 7.714
3 3D 2 2‒‒ 7.220 7.741 7.29 7.764
41S 0 0‒ + 7.631 7.585 7.634 7.684
3 3D 3 3‒‒ 7.256 7.750 7.409 7.764
5 3S 1 1‒‒ 7.826 7.947 7.941 8.054
3 3D 1 1‒‒ 7.181 7.732 7.205 7.762
51 S 0 0‒ + 7.907 7.928 7.917 8.025
31D 2 2‒ + 7.296 7.743 7.302 7.762
63 S 1 1‒‒ 8.042 8.168 8.368
13F3 3++ 6.244 7.269 6.326 7.242
61S0 0‒ + 8.130 8.144 8.340
13F4 4++ 6.312 7.277 6.501 7.244
13P1 1++ 6.218 6.743 6.281 6.705
13F2 2++ 6.175 7.273 6.182 7.234
13P2 2++ 6.248 6.761 6.366 6.712
11F3 3+ ‒ 6.307 7.268 6.335 7.241
13P0 0++ 6.178 6.699 6.223 6.686
23F3 3++ 6.801 7.616 6.876 7.615
11P1 1+ ‒ 6.280 6.750 6.290 6.706
23F4 4++ 6.859 7.617 7.041 7.617
23P1 1++ 6.777 7.134 6.836 7.165
23F2 2++ 6.740 7.618 6.741 7.607
23P2 2++ 6.803 7.157 6.917 7.173
21F3 3+ ‒ 6.870 7.615 6.885 7.614
23P0 0++ 6.743 7.146 6.782 7.146
13G4 4‒‒ 6.265 7.489
21P1 1+ ‒ 6.847 7.147 6.846 7.168
13G5 5‒‒ 6.353 7.482
33P1 1++ 7.211 7.500 7.278 7.555
13G 3 3‒‒ 6.178 7.497
33P2 2++ 7.233 7.524 7.355 7.565
11G4 4‒ + 6.328 7.487
33P0 0++ 7.182 7.474 7.227 7.536
31P1 1+ ‒ 7.287 7.510 7.287 7.559
43P1 1++ 7.552 7.844 7.631 7.905
energy equation was then used to obtain the mass spectra
43P2 2++ 7.571 7.867 7.704 7.915
0++ 7.527 7.817 7.583 7.885 for the heavy mesons. The mass spectra were found to be
43P0
41P1 1+ ‒ 7.634 7.853 7.640 7.908 in good agreement with the ones obtained by other
methods. The charmonium masses deviated from the
experimental values with a total percentage error of
increases with the increase in the radial quantum number 3.32%. Also, the bottomonium masses deviated by 1.11%,
and were found to be in good agreement with the results in which indicates an improvement compared to the results
previous studies [11,16,24]. It is important to state that the in the study by Mansour Gamal [18] and comparable to the
accuracy of the mass spectra is dependent on obtaining a works reported in the existing literature [11,24]. The errors
good fit for the phenomenological potential function. This were found to reduce significantly for the bottomonium
allows for the adjustment of the potential parameters such meson due to its heavier mass. The points at which the
that the predictions correspond as good as possible to other fitting was carried out may be responsible for the low
theoretic works and observed data. accuracy of the masses for the low-lying quantum states.
However, the SSE together with the phenomenological
spin-dependent Cornell potential provides an adequate
account of the mass spectroscopy for the heavy mesons
4 Conclusions and may be used to predict other spectroscopic parameters
if the wave function can be obtained.
The energy bound-state solution of the SSE has been
obtained under a spin-dependent Cornell potential energy Funding information: The authors state no funding
function using the WKB approximation approach. The involved.
10  Arezu Jahanshir et al.

Author contributions: The authors confirm contribution to [17] Godfrey S, Moats K. Bottomonium mesons and strategies for their
this article as follows: study conception and design: Arezu observation. Phys Rev D. 2015;92:054034.
Jahanshir, Ekwevugbe Omugbe; data collection: Ekwevugbe [18] Mansour H, Gamal A. Meson spectra using Nikiforov-Uvarov
method. Result Phys. 2022;33:105203.
Omugbe, Joseph Ngene Aniezi, Ifeanyi Jude Njoku, Clement
[19] Boroun GR, Abdolmalki H. Variational and exact solutions of the
Atachegbe Onate; analysis and interpretation of results: wavefunction at origin (WFO) for heavy quarkonium by using
Ekwevugbe Omugbe, Edwin Samson Eyube, Samuel aglobal potential. Phys Scr. 2009;80:065003.
Olugbade Ogundeji, Chinonso Mbamara; draft manuscript [20] Chen H, Zhang J, Dong YB, Shen ON. Heavy quarkonium spectra in
preparation: Arezu Jahanshir, Ekwevugbe Omugbe, Raphael a quark potential model. Chin Phys Lett. 2001;18(12):1558.
[21] Barnes T, Godfrey S, Swanson ES. Higher charmonia. Phys Rev D.
Mmaduka Obodo, Michael Chukwudi Onyeaju. All authors
2005;72:054026.
have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this [22] Cao L, Yang YC, Chen H. Charmonium States in QCD-inspired quark
manuscript and approved its submission. potential model using Gaussian expansion method. Few-Body Syst.
2012;53:327–42.
Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest. [23] Kher V, Chaturvedi R, Devlani N, Rai AK. Bottomonium spectroscopy
using Coulomb plus linear (Cornell) potential. Eur Phys J Plus.
2022;137:357.
[24] Soni NR, Johi BR, Shah RP, Chauhan HR, Pandya JN.
References QQ̅ (Q ∈ {b, c }) spectroscopy using the Cornell potential. Eur Phys J
C. 2018;78:592.
[1] Thomson JJ. Cathode rays. Phil Mag. 1897;44:293–16. [25] Maireche A. A new model to describe Quarkonium systems under
[2] Rutherford E. The scattering of α and β particles by matter and the modified Cornell potential at finite temperature in pNRQCD. Int J
structure of the atom. Phil Mag. 1911;21(125):669–88. Phys Chem. 2022;88:1–16.
[3] Ryder LH. Quantum field theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University [26] Maireche A. The relativistic and nonrelativistic solutions for the
Press; 1985. modified unequal mixture of scalar and time-like vector Cornell
[4] Mann R. An introduction to particle physics and the standard potentials in the symmetries of noncommutative quantum
model. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2021. mechanics. Jordan J Phys. 2021;14(1):59–70.
[5] Li BQ, Meng C, Chao KT. Coupled-channel and screening effects in [27] Maireche A, Imane D. A new nonrelativistic investigation for
charmonium spectrum. Phys Rev D. 2009;80:014012. spectra of heavy quarkonia with modified Cornell potential:
[6] Pininnington MR, Wilson DJ. Decay channels and charmonium Noncommutative three dimensional space and phase space solu-
mass shifts. Phys Rev D. 2007;76:077502. tions. J Nano- Electron Phys. 2016;8(3):03024.
[7] Mutuk H. S-wave heavy quarkonium spectra: Mass, decays, and [28] Omugbe E, Aniezi JN, Inyang EP, Njoku IJ, Onate CA, Eyube ES, et al.
transitions. Adv High Energy Phys. 2018;2018:5961031. Non-relativistic mass spectra splitting of heavy mesons under the
[8] Ali MS, Yasser AM, Hassan GS, Moustakidis CC. Spectra of quark- Cornell potential perturbed by Spin–Spin, Spin–Orbit and tensor
antiquark bound states via two derived QCD potentials. Quant Phys components. Few Body Syst. 2023;64:66.
Lett. 2016;5(1):7–14. [29] Ansler C, Doser M, Antonelli M, Anser DM, Babu KS, Baer H, et al.
[9] Ali MS, Hassan GS, Abdelmonem AM, Elshamndy SK, Elmasry F, Particle data group. Phys Lett B. 2008;667:010001.
Yasser AM. The spectrum of charmed quarkonium in non-relati- [30] Workman RL, Burkert VD, Crede V, Klempt E, Thoma U, Tiator L,
vistic quark model using matrix Numerov’s method. J Radiat Res et al. Particle data group. ProgTheor Exp Phys. 2022;2022:083C01.
Appl Sci. 2020;13(1):226–33. [31] Patrignani C, Agashe K, Aielli G, Amsler C, Antonelli M, Asner DM,
[10] Chaturvedi R, Rai AK. Bc meson spectroscopy motivated by general et al. Particle data group. Chin Phys C. 2016;40:100001.
features of pNRQCD. Eur Phys J A. 2022;58:228. [32] Omugbe E, Osafile OE, Okon IB, Inyang EP, William ES, Jahanshir A.
[11] Mansour H, Gamal A, Abolmahassen M. Spin splitting spectroscopy Any l-state energy of the spinless Salpeter equation
of heavy quark and antiquarks systems. Adv High Energy Phys. under the Cornell potential by the WKB approximation
2020;2020:1–11. method: An application to mass spectra of mesons. Few Body Syst.
[12] Bhavsar T, Shah M, Vinodkumar PC. Status of quarkonia-like 2022;63:6.
negative and positive parity states in a relativistic confinement [33] Fulcher LP, Chen Z, Yeong JC. Energies of quark-antiquark systems,
scheme. Eur Phys J C. 2018;78:227. the Cornell potential, and the spinless Salpeter equation. Phys Rev
[13] Kher V, Rai AK. Spectroscopy and decay properties of charmonium. D. 1993;47(9):4122–32.
Chin Phys C. 2018;42(8):083101. [34] Salpeter EE. Mass corrections to the fine structure of hydrogen-like
[14] Deng WJ, Liu H, Gui LC, Zhong XH. Spectrum and electromagnetic atoms. Phys Rev. 1952;87(2):328–43.
transitions of bottomonium. Phys Rev D. 2017;95:074002. [35] Zarrinkamar S. Quasi-exact solutions for generalised interquark
[15] Gupta P, Mehrotra I. Study of heavy quarkonium with energy interactions in a two-body semi-relativistic framework.
dependent potential. J Mod Phys. 2012;3:1530–36. Z Naturforsch. 2016;71(11):1027–30.
[16] Ebert D, Faustov RN, Galkin VO. Spectroscopy and Regge trajec- [36] Langer RE. On the connection formulas and the solutions of the
tories of heavy quarkonia and mesons. Eur Phys J C. 2011;71:1825. wave equation. Phys Rev. 1937;51:669–76.