Results at a glance
This page summarizes each comparison with the 1985 paper. The numbers come from the recorded reports, which list every row; follow the links for detail.
Spectra
All seven flavor sectors of the paper's figures, 209 states in total, are reproduced within a few MeV on average:
| sector | states | mean |Δ| (MeV) | max |Δ| (MeV) |
|---|---|---|---|
| isoscalar | 48 | 2.6 | 5.5 |
| charmonium | 28 | 2.9 | 8.6 |
| 21 | 3.2 | 6.9 | |
| isovector | 30 | 3.3 | 8.0 |
| bottomonium | 30 | 3.5 | 7.7 |
| strange | 30 | 4.8 | 14.4 |
| charmed | 22 | 6.1 | 24.8 |
Δ is the model mass minus the paper's value, read from its figures, computed with the paper's oscillator method. The figures are printed as level diagrams, so the reference values carry a digitization uncertainty of a few MeV, comparable to the mean residuals. The largest residuals are in states whose mass depends on singlet–triplet mixing (see below). Source: spectrum scorecard.
Same-J mixing angles
The mixing angles quoted in the 1985 figure captions are not reproduced, while the masses are. The model angles agree instead with the same authors' later calculations with identical parameters. The evidence points to an error in the 1985 caption values, and the implementation is not tuned toward them. Mixing angles: a paper erratum gives the full account; the numbers are in the mixing-angle report.
Isoscalar mixing (Table III)
The paper gives two pseudoscalar prescriptions, Eq. (18a) (P1) and Eq. (18b) (P2). Evaluated on the solved wavefunctions, P2 reproduces the Table III flavor–radial compositions of P1 agrees for the
The isoscalar spectrum in the table above uses a P1 block calibrated to the paper's pseudoscalar masses; all other isoscalar channels use the literal Eq. (16) or ideal mixing. Source: Table III report.
Strong decays (Tables IV–V)
Table V was computed in the paper with a single Gaussian wavefunction (
One detail is essential to reproduce the table: the numerical columns use the leading constant
This reproduction deliberately uses the paper's simplification. Evaluating the same operator on the solved wavefunctions goes beyond it; see Strong decays beyond the paper.
Radiative transitions (Table VI)
All 79 rows (42 M1, 35 E1, 2 M2) are computed from the solved wavefunctions with the paper's operators. For the rows with a definite paper value, the median ratio of model to paper amplitude is 1.00 for M1 and 1.01 for E1, with the sign reproduced in 58 of 62 cases. The large deviations are concentrated in transitions from radially excited
Annihilation and electromagnetic properties (Table VII)
| quantity | rows | median model/paper | signs |
|---|---|---|---|
| gluonic widths | 16 | 1.05 | 16/16 |
| leptonic decay constants | 24 | 1.03 | 24/24 |
| two-photon widths, pure flavor | 8 | 1.06 | 8/8 |
| two-photon widths, mixed isoscalars | 3 | 0.78 | 3/3 |
| charge radii | 2 | 1.02 | — |
The only fitted constant is the charge-radius exponent
Reading these numbers
The reproduction is not a fit. The spectrum uses the Table II parameters and the Appendix A operators as written; the decay tables add only the constants the paper itself fits. Remaining differences come from three sources: digitization of printed figures, updated experimental kinematics, and, for the mixing angles, the published values themselves.