The “Spin Path Integrals and Generations” paper got accepted at Foundations of Physics. This initiates a series of emails that make you feel like a real researcher. I’m at the stage where they’ve sent the first cut proofs and asked me to make changes.

I screwed up some of the section titles (when I cut out the section on the mixing angles and inserted a section deriving spin-1/2) and so I fixed those things and clicked them into the online proof correction system. And this is the message you get:

Next thing is to finish up the 1st revision to the paper on unitary matrix parameterizations at Phys. Lett. B. I need some more calculations for the CKM and MNS matrices in magic form. I’m hoping this will finish up this week, I’ll get a week of feedback from my peeps, and then send it back to the reviewers there. And then Marni and I are working on improvements to our joint paper.

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

Excellent news! And I am also tempted to work on a paper based solely on your reviewer’s excellent comments about Kapranov’s paper.

Is the “Spin Path Integrals and Generations” paper compatible with M-theory? My guess is that M-theory is the only mathematically valid way to unify gravity and quantum field theory. Why might my guess be wrong? I think that the only problem with M-theory is that it needs a new physical hypothesis. At “nks forum applied nks” I suggest that the hypothesis is: “The maximum physical wavelength is the Planck length times the Fredkin-Wolfram constant.” This hypothesis seems to force the finite, digital nature hypothesis with alternate universes. I like the article “Lepton Masses” and Prof. Koide’s idea of “3-family SU(5) singlet scalars” — this idea might be nature’s way of giving masses to quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons. Why is the idea of “3-family SU(5) singlet scalars” incompatible with the finite, digital modification of M-theory?