As a last resort, we note that the ``success" of non-relativistic meson models (such as it is) is largely based on the fact that once a model is fit to one meson family, it is used to simply stamp out copies of the same mass splittings in every family.
Using
= 0.1 throughout the
meson spectrum should give a reasonable though inexact description of all meson
levels, particularly the light mesons. The NR OGE short range potential again
should also be a reasonable guide to the splittings within a level. The biggest
problem not covered by this model is mixing, which is a 1/
term in the perturbative expansion. [I.e. if mixing is
incorporated into a model, all other 1/
terms must also be added, including the next order OGE terms and
two-gluon-exchange factors.] Mixing within a meson family is easy to spot (e.g.
the
and
); mixing between
different isoscalar families must also be significant in this model. The
(547) can, in principle, be built up of only u
, d
, and s
quarks, but the
(958) cannot. A
ground state spin 0 s
meson would have a
mass below 700 MeV. Thus, the
(958) must be
considered to have a significant heavy quark content. If
(958) were made of only u
, d
, and c
quarks, it would need to have about 25 percent charm quark
content; if it were composed of only s
and c
quarks, its c
content would be about 10 percent. Both numbers are too
high, but adding in a little b
and/or t
soon remedies the situation. [N.B. this is not a popular
way of explaining the
(958) mass,
although the c
branching ratios
obviously favor a considerable
content for c
mesons.] Ideal mixing seems to hold outside of the ground
state.
So, giving the ground state
and
mesons larger effective mass quarks than their
and
partners, using
= 0.1 throughout the spectrum, and taking
from the graph in the last section, we have the following light
meson spectrum. (Bracketed masses refer to departures from almost-ideal-mixing
among the isoscalars.)
| Level | Quark spin | Meson spin | /
| /
|
| /
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1S | S=0 | 140 | 135 (547) | 495 | 643 (958) | |
| 1S | S=1 | 770 | 783 | 894 | 1020 | |
| S=0 | J=1 | 1260 | 1245 (1418) | 1385 | 1490 (1700) | |
| 1P | J=0 | 980 | 990 | 1204 | 1316 | |
| S=1 | J=1 | 1254 | 1255 | 1379 | 1483 | |
| J=2 | 1320 | 1290 | 1425 | 1525 | ||
| 2S | S=0 | 1246 | 1215 (1476) | 1445 | 1550 (1746) | |
| 2S | S=1 | 1597 | 1575 | 1668 | 1759 | |
| S=0 | J=2 | 1685 | 1655 (1796) | 1772 | 1860 (2020) | |
| 1D | J=1 | 1617 | 1600 | 1728 | 1817 | |
| S=1 | J=2 | 1683 | 1660 | 1770 | 1858 | |
| J=3 | 1715 | 1680 | 1792 | 1880 | ||
| S=0 | J=1 | 1858 | 1820 (1950) | 1930 | 2010 (2150) | |
| 2P | J=0 | 1662 | 1645 | 1804 | 1888 | |
| S=1 | J=1 | 1854 | 1830 | 1926 | 2005 | |
| J=2 | 1900 | 1855 | 1958 | 2035 | ||
| 3S | S=0 | 1843 | 1845 (1988) | 1970 | 2048 (2180) | |
| 3S | S=1 | 2094 | 2040 | 2129 | 2199 | |
| S=0 | J=3 | 2004 | 1965 (2080) | 2063 | 2138 (2260) | |
| 1F | J=2 | 1972 | 1935 | 2042 | 2118 | |
| S=1 | J=3 | 2003 | 1965 | 2062 | 2137 | |
| J=4 | 2022 | 1980 | 2075 | 2150 | ||
| M0=612 | M0=621 (841) | M0=794 | M0=926 (1212) | |||
=-.73
| =-.735
| =-.729
| =-.7282
| |||
Margaret Haire