Particle physics: a personal view

Goran Senjanovi\'c

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 100 references

Particle physics: a personal view

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 This essay claims that the Standard Model's only true shortcoming is massless neutrinos, and that right-handed electrons in neutrinoless double beta decay would put the left-right symmetric scale below about 20 TeV.

desk verdict A clear, opinionated review of LRSM and SU(5) that correctly quotes the physics but overreaches when it turns a right-handed electron signal in 0νββ into a specific W_R mass bound. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13338 v1 pith:H7UYB2RA submitted 2025-04-17 hep-ph hep-exhep-th

Goran Senjanović This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-exhep-th

keywords StandardModelneutrinomassleft-rightsymmetricseesawmechanismneutrinolessdoublebetadecayright-handedelectronsgrandunificationnaturalness

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

Drawing on the history of the Standard Model, the essay argues that the theory has exactly one genuine shortcoming: it predicts massless neutrinos. The hierarchy, cosmological constant, and strong CP questions are treated as aesthetic preferences about fine-tuning, not physical problems, so the real route beyond the Standard Model runs through neutrino mass and lepton-number violation. The author develops the minimal left-right symmetric theory as the candidate that turns this route into a predictive program, with neutrino mass generated by the seesaw mechanism and tied to the scale of the right-handed W boson. The sharpest prediction is that observing neutrinoless double beta decay with right-handed outgoing electrons forces the right-handed W boson below about 20 TeV, placing new physics at the LHC or the next hadron collider. Grand unification is examined as the alternative and found wanting: minimal SU(5) fails to unify, and its extensions still cannot predict proton decay branching ratios.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the seesaw embedded in a left-right symmetric gauge structure. When parity is restored at high energies, the right-handed neutrino acquires a Majorana mass tied to the $SU(2)_R$ breaking scale, $M_N \propto M_{W_R}$, and the light neutrino mass becomes $M_\nu = -M_D^T M_N^{-1} M_D$. Because the right-handed W boson couples to right-handed electrons, the electron chirality in neutrinoless double $\beta$ decay selects the right-handed contribution; the effective operator suppressed by $\Lambda^5$ shows that non-observation already implies $\Lambda \gtrsim 4$ TeV, and a right-handed signal sharpens this to $M_{W_R} \lesssim 20$ TeV. The companion collider probe is the same-sign dilepton plus two-jets process, the high-energy analogue of neutrinoless double $\beta$ decay, which tests the Majorana nature of the right-handed neutrino.

What would settle it

Measure the chirality of the electrons in neutrinoless double $\beta$ decay: if the decay is observed and the electrons are left-handed, the right-handed W-exchange mechanism cannot dominate and the paper's $M_{W_R}\lesssim 20$ TeV conclusion does not follow. A second check is a collider search for the neutral partner $Z_R$, whose mass satisfies $M_{Z_R}\simeq 1.7\,M_{W_R}$, so a $Z_R$ far heavier than the implied scale would contradict the prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Standard Model's incompleteness is localised, and that the minimal left-right symmetric theory based on $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{B-L}$ turns that incompleteness into a testable program. Maximal parity violation in charged weak currents is not built in once and for all; it is a symmetry that was spontaneously broken, so right-handed fermions form weak doublets and a right-handed neutrino is mandatory. The seesaw relation $M_\nu = -M_D^T M_N^{-1} M_D$, with $M_N \propto M_{W_R}$, explains both the smallness of neutrino mass and the heaviness of the right-handed gauge boson. The decisive sign is the chirality of electrons in neutrinoless double $\beta$ decay: right-handed outgoing electrons imply $M_{W_R}\lesssim 20$ TeV, putting the left-right scale at the LHC or the next hadron collider. In the quark sector the same symmetry determines the right-handed mixing matrix from the left-handed quark mixing matrix, while minimal grand unification fails to unify and its extensions remain unpredictive.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Standard Model's only real failure is the massless neutrino, which presupposes that fine-tuning complaints about the Higgs mass, the cosmological constant, and strong CP are aesthetic preferences rather than physical problems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If neutrinoless double beta decay is seen with right-handed electrons, the right-handed W boson must be lighter than about 20 TeV, so the left-right symmetry scale is within reach of the LHC or a next hadron collider.
In the left-right model the seesaw determines the Dirac mass matrix from the measured light neutrino masses and the heavy right-handed masses, so high-energy lepton-number-violating signals become a direct probe of the origin of neutrino mass.
The right-handed quark mixing matrix is predicted from the left-handed one, so collider measurements of right-handed charged currents test whether parity is restored at high energies.
Generic high-scale baryon-number violation forbids two-body neutron decays into charged kaons, so observing such a mode would invalidate conventional grand unification.

Reading between the lines

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

If the paper's prioritisation is right, experimental strategy should favour lepton-number violation: measuring electron chirality in double beta decay and searching for same-sign dileptons becomes more decisive than hunting for naturalness-motivated spectra.
The 20 TeV bound defines a concrete search window for a future 100 TeV collider: a right-handed W boson between about 5 and 20 TeV should be visible through decays into same-sign leptons plus jets.
The essay's own criterion that a theory must make unambiguous predictions cuts both ways: the left-right model's predictivity depends on keeping its Higgs sector minimal, and relaxing that minimality would reintroduce the model-building vagueness the essay criticises.
A null result for right-handed electrons would not kill left-right symmetry; it would simply suppress the right-handed-W contribution, leaving the Dirac/Majorana distinction to be settled by other probes.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

What you should know: this is an invited review essay, not a research paper. There are no new equations, no new data, no new predictions. What it does well is to give a compact, readable tour of the left-right symmetric model and of minimal SU(5), including several recent results from the author's own program. The seesaw formula, the right-handed mixing approximation, and the effective-operator bound for 0νββ are all quoted correctly. The essay is honest enough to flag the simplification behind the 1–10 TeV operator estimate, and the central conditional is worded as a “convincing argument” rather than a proof.

The soft spots are real, though not fatal. The load-bearing step of the essay's message is the claim that if 0νββ is observed with right-handed electrons, then W_R must be below about 20 TeV and LRSM is strongly favored. That mixes a generic operator statement with a model-specific matching result. The same low-energy operator e_R e_R u u d d can be induced by scalar or vector leptoquarks, or other TeV-scale completions that have nothing to do with W_R. From the chirality alone you cannot pin the scale to M_WR; that inference presupposes LRSM. The essay says “convincing argument” rather than “proof,” so it is an overstatement, not a formal fallacy—but it is the step that carries the plot, and it deserves a qualifier.

Second, the dismissal of naturalness as “emotional or aesthetic” is a philosophical stance presented as settled fact. A lot of the EFT community would disagree, and the essay gives no argument beyond a preference for Fenyman-style predictivity. The claim that the SM has only one problem (neutrino mass) rests entirely on that stance. Readers who care about the hierarchy or strong CP problems will find the setup too quick. The heavy self-citation is understandable in an essay from the main architect of this program, and the cited results are published and formally grounded, so I don't count it as a flaw by itself.

Who is this for? People who want a one-stop, opinionated summary of the LRSM program and its recent technical results, or who want to see a senior physicist argue that neutrino mass and parity restoration are the right door to BSM. It is a good essay for a reading group if you want to argue about naturalness. It deserves serious refereeing as a review—not because it breaks new ground, but because it will be read and quoted as a programmatic statement. My recommendation: send it to review with a request for a short note clarifying the 0νββ→W_R inference, and soften the naturalness language. The rest can stand as is.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This essay presents a personal methodological view of particle physics, arguing for a Feynman-style criterion of predictivity for fundamental theories. It claims that the Standard Model (SM) is complete except for neutrino mass, that the so-called naturalness problems (hierarchy, cosmological constant, strong CP) are not physical problems but aesthetic preferences, and that the unique window to new physics is the neutrino sector. The author then reviews the Left-Right Symmetric Model (LRSM) and minimal grand unified theories (SU(5) and SO(10)), emphasizing the LRSM's predictivity through the seesaw relation, the Keung-Senjanović process, and right-handed quark mixing. The central message is that observation of neutrinoless double beta decay with right-handed outgoing electrons would imply new physics at the 1–10 TeV scale and, specifically, a right-handed W boson mass below about 20 TeV, strongly favoring the LRSM. The essay also discusses proton decay, magnetic monopoles, dark matter, leptogenesis, and effective-operator constraints on nucleon decay.

Significance. The essay is a clearly written, strongly argued personal perspective that is of potential value for its explicit, falsifiable predictions and its coherent application of a methodological criterion. Its strengths include the correct quoting of the seesaw formula (Eq. 12), the operator bound (Eq. 13), the right-handed mixing approximation (Eq. 15), and the neutron decay selection rule (Eq. 19), as well as the self-contained presentation of several non-trivial derivations from the literature. If the central claims are accepted, the essay provides a useful roadmap for 0νββ experiments and hadron colliders. However, its significance as a scientific statement depends on two contested premises: the dismissal of naturalness as non-physical, and the inference from right-handed electrons in 0νββ to the LRSM in particular. These premises are presented more strongly than the supporting logic warrants.

major comments (2)

[Section IV, Eq. (13); Section VI] The central inference from “0νββ with right-handed electrons” to “M_WR ≲ 20 TeV” and a “convincing argument in favour of LRSM” is underdetermined. The effective operator (13) constrains only a generic scale Λ ≳ 4 TeV for a single order-one Wilson coefficient, and the text itself acknowledges the simplification of a single scale (“Of course, I simplified … m_N and M_WR”). The bound M_WR ≲ 20 TeV [46] is a matching result inside the minimal LRSM; it does not follow from the operator alone, because the same low-energy operator can be completed by non-LRSM TeV-scale states such as leptoquarks. From the observation alone one cannot infer LRSM without presupposing it. I recommend weakening the conclusion to state that right-handed electrons would point to TeV-scale lepton-number-violating new physics and would favor, but not uniquely select, the LRSM.
[Section III C a; Prologue; Section III D] The claim that the hierarchy problem is “obviously just a dislike for fine-tuning, an emotional or aesthetic argument, not a physical one” is presented as a settled deduction rather than a contested philosophical stance. In the modern effective-field-theory formulation, the quadratic sensitivity of the weak scale to a UV cutoff is a physical criterion that a significant part of the community regards as meaningful, even if not decisive. Because the essay's entire prioritization of neutrino mass as “the only shortcoming of the SM” rests on this premise, the essay should acknowledge that the naturalness objection is a legitimate physical viewpoint and frame its own position as a personal choice, not as an agreed fact.

minor comments (6)

[Section III (paragraph on fermion masses)] In the sentence “The issue becomes relevant un BSM theories”, “un” should be “in”.
[Section V C] In the sentence “just as SU(5) embeddies the SM gauge group”, “embeddies” should be “embeds”.
[Section V D] In the text “butt they areviable alternatives”, the spacing and spelling should be corrected to “but they are viable alternatives”.
[Section VI] In the phrase “if the outgoing electrons were to turn our RH”, “turn our” should be “turn out”.
[Section IV A] The sentence “In short, (14) shows is the LRSM analogy of the celebrated SM result in (7)” contains a grammatical error; it should read “In short, (14) shows the LRSM analogy …”.
[References] References [2] and [40] are duplicates of the same paper (Melfo and Senjanović), and reference [63] is listed as “V. Tello, to appear” without further bibliographic information.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the generic 0νββ bound is a self-contained operator estimate, and the LRSM-specific M_WR limit is explicitly a cited model-dependent matching result.

full rationale

This is a review essay rather than a derivation paper, and its load-bearing physics claims are either self-contained estimates or citations to published model calculations. The generic bound on neutrinoless double beta decay with right-handed electrons follows from the effective operator in Eq. (13): for a single scale Λ and the stated lifetime limit, one obtains Λ ≳ 4 TeV, and the text explicitly warns that realistic models such as LRSM contain more than one scale ('Of course, I simplified the analysis by assuming a single scale responsible for the process - in realistic situations there may be more scales as in the case of the LR theory, m_N and M_WR'). The LRSM-specific conclusion M_WR ≲ 20 TeV is presented as a separate matching result cited to [46], not as a consequence of Eq. (13) alone, so there is no reduction of the prediction to its own input. The inference that RH-electron 0νββ would favor LRSM is underdetermined — TeV-scale leptoquark completions of the same operator are conceivable — but the essay says 'convincing argument,' not 'proof,' and underdetermination is a scientific-correctness concern rather than a circularity. The numerous self-citations ([46], [48]–[53], [58], [70], [87], [93]) support but do not replace derivations; they are published, parameter-free model calculations with stated assumptions and are externally testable. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to exclude alternatives.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The essay introduces no new entities. It relies on Feynman's philosophy of science, the established gauge and Higgs framework, the minimality principle, and the seesaw mechanism as axioms. It has one free expansion parameter, epsilon, quoted from a prior derivation, and it makes no new fitted parameters.

free parameters (1)

epsilon (small expansion parameter in Eq. 15)
Appears in the approximate right-handed quark mixing formula from ref [53], presented without numerical fit in this essay.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Feynman's criteria for a fundamental theory are the correct standard for judging physical theories.
The essay's entire evaluation of the Standard Model, LRSM, and grand unification is built on Feynman's prescription quoted in Section II.
domain assumption The gauge principle plus the Higgs mechanism correctly describe Standard Model electroweak interactions.
The essay assumes this as the established framework throughout Section III without deriving it.
ad hoc to paper The Standard Model is complete except for neutrino mass, and naturalness problems are not physical problems.
This is the central programmatic premise, argued in Section III C, but it is contested by a large part of the theory community.
domain assumption Minimality is required for predictivity, so absent particles or couplings should not be added without a guiding principle.
The essay invokes minimality to justify massless neutrinos in the SM and the specific particle content of the LRSM and GUTs.
domain assumption The seesaw mechanism is the correct description of neutrino mass in the left-right symmetric theory, with MN proportional to M_WR.
Section IV and Eq. (12) use the seesaw formula as the foundation for the claimed predictivity of LRSM.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Particle physics: a personal view." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H7UYB2RA

@misc{pith2026250413338,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Particle physics: a personal view},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H7UYB2RA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13338}
}

read the original abstract

The reader surely knows what particles physics is about: finding building blocks of nature that appear elementary at a given time and study their interactions - so why in the world this essay? The problem is how to arrive at a fundamental theory, and maybe even more important, what is the theory supposed to do? I follow here a simple but profound prescription of Feynman for a true, self-contained theory, and then show how the Standard Model beautifully illustrates this prescription. That the issue is not trivial, is clear from the fact that we had theories dominate our field for decades, in spite of completely failing Feynman's requirements and offering no clear predictions whatsoever. I next critically review two unique candidates for a Beyond Standard Model theory: the Left-Right Symmetric theory of electro-weak interactions and the minimal grand unified theory based on SU(5) gauge symmetry. I also comment on some generic aspects of grand unification, and what hope we may have in testing it.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[46]

The Future of Elementary Particle Physics,

S. L. Glashow, “The Future of Elementary Particle Physics,” NATO Sci. Ser. B 61, 687 (1980)

1980
[1]

The Yang-Mills Model,

S. L. Glashow, “The Yang-Mills Model,” ICCM Not. 10 (2022) no.2, 53-60 doi:10.4310/ICCM.2022.v10.n2.a6

work page doi:10.4310/iccm.2022.v10.n2.a6 2022
[3]

Neutrino 2020: Theory Outlook,

G. Senjanovi´ c, “Neutrino 2020: Theory Outlook,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 36 (2021) no.02, 2130003 doi:10.1142/S0217751X21300039 [arXiv:2011.01264 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2021
[4]

Predictions of Su- persymmetric Grand Uniﬁed Theories,

W. J. Marciano and G. Senjanovi´ c, “Predictions of Su- persymmetric Grand Uniﬁed Theories,” Phys. Rev. D 25, 3092 (1982). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.25.3092

doi:10.1103/physrevd.25.3092 1982
[5]

Supersymmetry and Uniﬁcation: Heavy Top Was the Key,

G. Senjanovic, “Supersymmetry and Uniﬁcation: Heavy Top Was the Key,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 13 (2012), 182-190 doi:10.1142/S2010194512006848 [arXiv:1205.5557 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2012
[6]

Supersymme- try and the Scale of Uniﬁcation,

S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby and F. Wilczek, “Supersymme- try and the Scale of Uniﬁcation,” Phys. Rev. D 24, 1681 (1981). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.24.1681 14

doi:10.1103/physrevd.24.1681 1981
[7]

You cannot prove a vague theory wrong

This video is a nice example of his prescription: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz2SENYI1rE. The title of the video: “You cannot prove a vague theory wrong”, says it all. This speech was delivered as part of the Messenger Lectures on “The Character of Physical Law” at Cornell University on November 9, 1964. Here is the full transcript https://jamesclear...

1964
[8]

Partial Symmetries of Weak Interactions,

S. L. Glashow, “Partial Symmetries of Weak Interactions,” Nucl. Phys. 22 (1961), 579-588 doi:10.1016/0029-5582(61)90469-2

doi:10.1016/0029-5582(61)90469-2 1961

Show all 100 references

[9]

A Model of Leptons,

S. Weinberg, “A Model of Leptons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 19 (1967), 1264-1266 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.19.1264

1967 doi
[10]

Weak and Electromagnetic Interac- tions,

A. Salam, “Weak and Electromagnetic Interac- tions,” Conf. Proc. C 680519 (1968), 367-377 doi:10.1142/9789812795915 0034

1968 doi
[11]

Elementary Par- ticles and SU(4),

J. D. Bjorken and S. L. Glashow, “Elementary Par- ticles and SU(4),” Phys. Lett. 11 (1964), 255-257 doi:10.1016/0031-9163(64)90433-0

1964 doi
[12]

Weak In- teractions with Lepton-Hadron Symmetry,

S. L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos and L. Maiani, “Weak In- teractions with Lepton-Hadron Symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 2 (1970), 1285-1292 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.2.1285

1970 doi
[13]

S-Matrix and Anomaly of de Sitter,

G. Dvali, “ S-Matrix and Anomaly of de Sitter,” Sym- metry 13 (2020) no.1, 3 doi:10.3390/sym13010003 [arXiv:2012.02133 [hep-th]]

2020 arXiv
[14]

shows is the LRSM analogy of the celebrated SM result in ( 7). B. Quark sector: determining RH charged current The LRSM posed a great challenge from the very be- ginning. Although the LR symmetry is almost maximally broken in the low energy weak interaction, the theory should ...
[15]

Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spon- taneous chiral symmetry breaking,

G. ’t Hooft, “Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spon- taneous chiral symmetry breaking,” NATO Sci. Ser. B 59, 135 (1980)

1980
[16]

Natural Philosophy versus Philos- ophy of Naturalness,

G. Senjanovi´ c, “Natural Philosophy versus Philos- ophy of Naturalness,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 35 (2020) no.18, 2030006 doi:10.1142/S0217732320300062 [arXiv:2001.10988 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[17]

CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,

R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, “CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977), 1440-1443 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.38.1440

1977 doi
[18]

imply anti strange quark in the ﬁnal state, or K + - but then the accompanying lepton would be nega- tively charged, in contradiction with B-L symmetry. In other words, if baryon number violation stems from high energy physics, as suggested by the idea of grand uniﬁ- cation, n...

2024
[19]

Strong and Weak CP Violation,

J. R. Ellis and M. K. Gaillard, “Strong and Weak CP Violation,” Nucl. Phys. B 150 (1979), 141-162 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90297-9

1979 doi
[20]

A New Light Boson?,

S. Weinberg, “A New Light Boson?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978), 223-226 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.40.223

1978 doi
[21]

Problem of Strong P and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons,

F. Wilczek, “Problem of Strong P and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978), 279-282 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.40.279

1978 doi
[23]

Axions and Family Symmetry Break- ing,

F. Wilczek, “Axions and Family Symmetry Break- ing,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982), 1549-1552 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1549

1982 doi
[24]

Axions From Chiral Family Symmetry,

D. Chang, P. B. Pal and G. Senjanovi´ c, “Axions From Chiral Family Symmetry,” Phys. Lett. B 153 (1985), 407-411 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(85)90482-4

1985 doi
[26]

The Problem of Mass,

S. Weinberg, “The Problem of Mass,” Trans. New York Acad. Sci. 38 (1977), 185-201 doi:10.1111/j.2164- 0947.1977.tb02958.x

1977
[27]

Cabibbo An- gle, CP Violation and Quark Masses,

R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi’c, “Cabibbo An- gle, CP Violation and Quark Masses,” Phys. Lett. B 73 (1978), 176-180 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(78)90829-8

1978 doi
[28]

CALABI-YAU MANIFOLD OF FOUR GENER- ATIONS,

E. Rusjan, G. Senjanovi´ c and A. Sokorac, “CALABI-YAU MANIFOLD OF FOUR GENER- ATIONS,” Phys. Rev. D 40 (1989), 1166-1175 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.40.1166

1989 doi
[29]

CP Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interac- tion,

M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, “CP Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interac- tion,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 49 (1973), 652-657 doi:10.1143/PTP.49.652

1973 doi
[30]

Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the uni- verse,

A. D. Sakharov, “Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the uni- verse,” Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 5 (1967), 32-35 doi:10.1070/PU1991v034n05ABEH002497

1967 doi
[31]

Baryogenesis Without Grand Uniﬁcation,

M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, “Baryogenesis Without Grand Uniﬁcation,” Phys. Lett. B 174 (1986), 45-47 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)91126-3

1986 doi
[33]

Complete Intersection Calabi-Yau Manifolds,

P. Candelas, A. M. Dale, C. A. Lutken and R. Schimm- rigk, “Complete Intersection Calabi-Yau Manifolds,” Nucl. Phys. B 298 (1988), 493 doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(88)90352-5

1988 doi
[34]

Neutrinoless double beta decay: Neutrino mass versus new physics,

G. Dvali, A. Maiezza, G. Senjanovi´ c and V. Tello, “Neutrinoless double beta decay: Neutrino mass versus new physics,” Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) no.7, 075012 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.075012 [arXiv:2303.17261 [hep-ph]]

2023 arXiv
[35]

Lepton Number as the Fourth Color,

J. C. Pati and A. Salam, “Lepton Number as the Fourth Color,” Phys. Rev. D 10, 275 (1974) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 11, 703 (1975)]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.275, 10.1103/PhysRevD.11.703.2

1974 doi
[36]

A Natural Left- Right Symmetry,

R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, “A Natural Left- Right Symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 11, 2558 (1975). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.11.2558

1975 doi
[37]

Exact Left- Right Symmetry And Spontaneous Violation Of Par- ity,

G. Senjanovi´ c and R. N. Mohapatra, “Exact Left- Right Symmetry And Spontaneous Violation Of Par- ity,” Phys. Rev. D 12 (1975) 1502

1975
[38]

Spontaneous Breakdown of Parity in a Class of Gauge Theories,

G. Senjanovi´ c, “Spontaneous Breakdown of Parity in a Class of Gauge Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 153, 334 (1979). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90604-7

1979 doi
[39]

Spontaneous par- ity violation,

G. Senjanovi´ c and V. Tello, “Spontaneous par- ity violation,” PoS DISCRETE2022 (2024), 053 doi:10.22323/1.431.0053 [arXiv:2306.09512 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[40]

The importance of being discrete,

G. Senjanovi´ c, “The importance of being discrete,” Po S DISCRETE2024 (2025), 070 doi:10.22323/1.481.0070 [arXiv:2504.09145 [hep-ph]]

2025 arXiv
[41]

Connections between the high and low energy violation of Lepton and Flavor numbers in the minimal left-right symmetric model,

V. Tello, “Connections between the high and low energy violation of Lepton and Flavor numbers in the minimal left-right symmetric model,”
[42]

Neutrino: Chronicles of an aloof protagonist,

A. Melfo and G. Senjanovi´ c, “Neutrino: Chronicles of an aloof protagonist,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 37 (2022) no.12, 2230008 doi:10.1142/S0217732322300087 [arXiv:2107.05472 [physics.hist-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[43]

Mu → E Gamma At A Rate Of One Out Of 1-Billion Muon Decays?,

P. Minkowski, “Mu → E Gamma At A Rate Of One Out Of 1-Billion Muon Decays?,” Phys. Lett. B 67 (1977) 421

1977
[44]

Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Violation,

R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi´ c, “Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Violation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 912

1980
[45]

Horizontal Symmetry And Masses Of Neutrinos,

T. Yanagida, “Horizontal Symmetry And Masses Of Neutrinos,” Conf. Proc. C 7902131, 95 (1979)

1979
[47]

Complex Spinors and Uniﬁed Theories,

M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, “Complex Spinors and Uniﬁed Theories,” Conf. Proc. C 790927 15 (1979) 315 [arXiv:1306.4669 [hep-th]]

1979 arXiv
[48]

Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay: Low Left-Right Sym- metry Scale?,

M. Nemevˇ sek, F. Nesti, G. Senjanovi´ c and V. Tello, “Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay: Low Left-Right Sym- metry Scale?,” [arXiv:1112.3061 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[49]

Majorana Neutri- nos And The Production Of The Right-Handed Charged Gauge Boson,

W. Y. Keung and G. Senjanovi´ c, “Majorana Neutri- nos And The Production Of The Right-Handed Charged Gauge Boson,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1427 (1983)

1983
[50]

Left-Right Symmetry: from LHC to Neu- trinoless Double Beta Decay,

V. Tello, M. Nemevˇ sek, F. Nesti, G. Senjanovi´ c and F. Vissani, “Left-Right Symmetry: from LHC to Neu- trinoless Double Beta Decay,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011), 151801 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.151801 [arXiv:1011.3522 [hep-ph]]

2011 arXiv
[51]

Connect- ing Dirac and Majorana Neutrino Mass Matrices in the Minimal Left-Right Symmetric Model,

M. Nemevˇ sek, G. Senjanovi´ c and V. Tello, “Connect- ing Dirac and Majorana Neutrino Mass Matrices in the Minimal Left-Right Symmetric Model,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 15, 151802 [arXiv:1211.2837 [hep-ph]]. Notice that the title in the published version is diﬀerent (court...

2013 arXiv
[52]

Probing Seesaw with Parity Restoration,

G. Senjanovi´ c and V. Tello, “Probing Seesaw with Parity Restoration,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) no.20, 201803 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.201803 [arXiv:1612.05503 [hep-ph]]

2017 arXiv
[53]

Disentangling the see- saw mechanism in the minimal left-right symmetric model,

G. Senjanovi´ c and V. Tello, “Disentangling the see- saw mechanism in the minimal left-right symmetric model,” Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.11, 115031 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.115031 [arXiv:1812.03790 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[54]

Parity and the ori- gin of neutrino mass,

G. Senjanovi´ c and V. Tello, “Parity and the ori- gin of neutrino mass,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35 (2020) no.09, 2050053 doi:10.1142/S0217751X20500530 [arXiv:1912.13060 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[55]

Right Handed Quark Mixing in Left-Right Symmetric The- ory,

G. Senjanovi´ c and V. Tello, “Right Handed Quark Mixing in Left-Right Symmetric The- ory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) no.7, 071801 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.071801 [arXiv:1408.3835 [hep-ph]]

2015 arXiv
[56]

Restoration of Par- ity and the Right-Handed Analog of the CKM Matrix,

G. Senjanovi´ c and V. Tello, “Restoration of Par- ity and the Right-Handed Analog of the CKM Matrix,” Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) no.9, 095023 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.095023 [arXiv:1502.05704 [hep-ph]]

2016 arXiv
[57]

Keung- Senjanovi´ c process at the LHC: From lepton number violation to displaced vertices to invisible decays,

M. Nemevˇ sek, F. Nesti and G. Popara, “Keung- Senjanovi´ c process at the LHC: From lepton number violation to displaced vertices to invisible decays,” Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.11, 115018 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.115018 [arXiv:1801.05813 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[58]

Left-right symmetry at an FCC-hh,

M. Nemevˇ sek and F. Nesti, “Left-right symmetry at an FCC-hh,” Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) no.1, 015030 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.015030 [arXiv:2306.12104 [hep-ph]]

2023 arXiv
[59]

Enabling precise predictions for left-right symmetry at col- liders,

J. Kriewald, M. Nemevˇ sek and F. Nesti, “Enabling precise predictions for left-right symmetry at col- liders,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) no.12, 1306 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13614-8 [arXiv:2403.07756 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[60]

Warm Dark Matter in Low Scale Left-Right Theory,

M. Nemevˇ sek, G. Senjanovi´ c and Y. Zhang, “Warm Dark Matter in Low Scale Left-Right Theory,” JCAP 07 (2012), 006 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/07/006 [arXiv:1205.0844 [hep-ph]]

2012 arXiv
[61]

keV sterile neutrino Dark Matter in gauge ex- tensions of the Standard Model,

F. Bezrukov, H. Hettmansperger and M. Lindner, “keV sterile neutrino Dark Matter in gauge ex- tensions of the Standard Model,” Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010), 085032 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.085032 [arXiv:0912.4415 [hep-ph]]

2010 arXiv
[62]

Sterile-neutrinos as dark matter,

S. Dodelson and L. M. Widrow, “Sterile-neutrinos as dark matter,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 72 (1994), 17-20 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.17 [arXiv:hep-ph/9303287 [hep-ph]]

1994 arXiv
[63]

Is lep- togenesis falsiﬁable at LHC?,

J. M. Frere, T. Hambye and G. Vertongen, “Is lep- togenesis falsiﬁable at LHC?,” JHEP 01 (2009), 051 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/01/051 [arXiv:0806.0841 [hep-ph]]

2009 arXiv
[64]

The Question of Neutrino Mass,

G. C. Branco and G. Senjanovic, “The Question of Neutrino Mass,” Phys. Rev. D 18 (1978), 1621 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.18.1621

1978 doi
[65]

Magnetic Charge Quantization and Frac- tionally Charged Quarks,

G. ’t Hooft, “Magnetic Charge Quantization and Frac- tionally Charged Quarks,” Nucl. Phys. B 105 (1976), 538-547 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(76)90031-6

1976 doi
[66]

A minimal Pati- Salam theory: from cosmic defects to gravitational waves and colliders,

G. Senjanovi´ c and M. Zantedeschi, “A minimal Pati- Salam theory: from cosmic defects to gravitational waves and colliders,” [arXiv:2504.01893 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[67]

Natural Suppres- sion of Strong p and t Noninvariance,

R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi´ c, “Natural Suppres- sion of Strong p and t Noninvariance,” Phys. Lett. B 79 (1978), 283-286 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(78)90243-5

1978 doi
[68]

Strong P, T Nonin- variances in a Superweak Theory,

M. A. B. Beg and H. S. Tsao, “Strong P, T Nonin- variances in a Superweak Theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 41 (1978), 278 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.41.278

1978 doi
[69]

Strong P invari- ance, neutron electric dipole moment, and mini- mal left-right parity at LHC,

A. Maiezza and M. Nemevˇ sek, “Strong P invari- ance, neutron electric dipole moment, and mini- mal left-right parity at LHC,” Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) no.9, 095002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.095002 [arXiv:1407.3678 [hep-ph]]

2014 arXiv
[70]

Leptonic CP problem in left-right symmetric model,

R. Kuchimanchi, “Leptonic CP problem in left-right symmetric model,” Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) no.7, 071901 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.071901 [arXiv:1408.6382 [hep-ph]]

2015 arXiv
[71]

Strong CP violation: Prob- lem or blessing?,

G. Senjanovi´ c and V. Tello, “Strong CP violation: Prob- lem or blessing?,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 38 (2023) no.15n16, 2350067 doi:10.1142/S0217751X23500677 [arXiv:2004.04036 [hep-ph]]

2023 arXiv
[72]

Gravity and domain wall problem,

B. Rai and G. Senjanovi´ c, “Gravity and domain wall problem,” Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994), 2729-2733 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.2729 [arXiv:hep-ph/9301240 [hep-ph]]

1994 arXiv
[73]

Cos- mological Consequences of the Spontaneous Breakdown of Discrete Symmetry,

Y. B. Zeldovich, I. Y. Kobzarev and L. B. Okun, “Cos- mological Consequences of the Spontaneous Breakdown of Discrete Symmetry,” Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 67 (1974), 3-11 SLAC-TRANS-0165

1974
[74]

Is there a domain wall problem?,

G. R. Dvali and G. Senjanovi´ c, “Is there a domain wall problem?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 5178 (1995) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.5178 [hep-ph/9501387]

1995 arXiv
[75]

Gauge and Global Symmetries at High Temperature,

S. Weinberg, “Gauge and Global Symmetries at High Temperature,” Phys. Rev. D 9, 3357 (1974). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.9.3357

1974 doi
[76]

Broken Symme- tries at High Temperature,

R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi´ c, “Broken Symme- tries at High Temperature,” Phys. Rev. D 20, 3390 (1979). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.20.3390

1979 doi
[77]

High Tempera- ture Behavior of Gauge Theories,

R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi´ c, “High Tempera- ture Behavior of Gauge Theories,” Phys. Lett. B 89, 57 (1979). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(79)90075-3

1979 doi
[78]

Non- restoration of spontaneously broken P and CP at high 16 temperature,

G. R. Dvali, A. Melfo and G. Senjanovi´ c, “Non- restoration of spontaneously broken P and CP at high 16 temperature,” Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996), 7857-7866 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.7857 [arXiv:hep-ph/9601376 [hep-ph]]

1996 arXiv
[79]

The Theory of magnetic poles,

P. A. M. Dirac, “The Theory of magnetic poles,” Phys. Rev. 74 (1948), 817-830 doi:10.1103/PhysRev.74.817

1948 doi
[80]

Magnetic Monopoles in Uniﬁed Gauge Theories,

G. ’t Hooft, “Magnetic Monopoles in Uniﬁed Gauge Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 79 (1974), 276-284 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(74)90486-6

1974 doi
[81]

Particle Spectrum in Quantum Field Theory,

A. M. Polyakov, “Particle Spectrum in Quantum Field Theory,” JETP Lett. 20 (1974), 194-195 PRINT-74- 1566 (LANDAU-INST)

1974
[82]

Unity of All Elemen- tary Particle Forces,

H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, “Unity of All Elemen- tary Particle Forces,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 32, 438 (1974). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.32.438

1974 doi
[83]

Flavor Mixing in SU(5) Grand Uniﬁed Theories,

R. N. Mohapatra, “Flavor Mixing in SU(5) Grand Uniﬁed Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979), 893 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.43.893

1979 doi
[84]

Seesaw at LHC,

B. Bajc and G. Senjanovi´ c, “Seesaw at LHC,” JHEP 0708, 014 (2007) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/08/014 [hep-ph/0612029]

2007 arXiv
[85]

Prob- ing seesaw at LHC,

B. Bajc, M. Nemevˇ sek and G. Senjanovi´ c, “Prob- ing seesaw at LHC,” Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007), 055011 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.055011 [arXiv:hep- ph/0703080 [hep-ph]]

2007
[86]

Col- lider Signatures for Heavy Lepton Triplet in Type I+III Seesaw,

A. Arhrib, B. Bajc, D. K. Ghosh, T. Han, G. Y. Huang, I. Puljak and G. Senjanovi´ c, “Col- lider Signatures for Heavy Lepton Triplet in Type I+III Seesaw,” Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010), 053004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.053004 [arXiv:0904.2390 [hep-ph]]

2010 arXiv
[87]

Uniﬁcation with- out supersymmetry: Neutrino mass, proton decay and light leptoquarks,

I. Dorˇ sner and P. Fileviez Perez, “Uniﬁcation with- out supersymmetry: Neutrino mass, proton decay and light leptoquarks,” Nucl. Phys. B 723 (2005), 53-76 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.06.016 [arXiv:hep- ph/0504276 [hep-ph]]

2005
[88]

Minimal SU(5) theory on the edge: The importance of being ef- fective,

G. Senjanovi´ c and M. Zantedeschi, “Minimal SU(5) theory on the edge: The importance of being ef- fective,” Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no.9, 095009 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.095009 [arXiv:2402.19224 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[89]

Uniﬁed Interactions of Leptons and Hadrons,

H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, “Uniﬁed Interactions of Leptons and Hadrons,” Annals Phys. 93 (1975), 193- 266 doi:10.1016/0003-4916(75)90211-0

1975 doi
[90]

The State of the Art—Gauge The- ories,

H. Georgi, “The State of the Art—Gauge The- ories,” AIP Conf. Proc. 23 (1975), 575-582 doi:10.1063/1.2947450

1975 doi
[91]

Predictive neutrino spectrum in minimal SO(10) grand uniﬁcation,

K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra, “Predictive neutrino spectrum in minimal SO(10) grand uniﬁcation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993), 2845- 2848 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.2845 [arXiv:hep- ph/9209215 [hep-ph]]

1993
[92]

Neutrino Masses in the Minimal O(10) The- ory,

E. Witten, “Neutrino Masses in the Minimal O(10) The- ory,” Phys. Lett. B 91 (1980), 81-84 doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(80)90666-8

1980 doi
[94]

SO(10): A case for hadron colliders,

A. Preda, G. Senjanovi´ c and M. Zantedeschi, “SO(10): A case for hadron colliders,” Phys. Lett. B 838 (2023), 137746 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137746 [arXiv:2201.02785 [hep-ph]]

2023
[95]

Neutrino mass: From LHC to grand uniﬁcation,

G. Senjanovi´ c, “Neutrino mass: From LHC to grand uniﬁcation,” Riv. Nuovo Cim. 34 (2011) no.1, 1-68 doi:10.1393/ncr/i2011-10061-8

2011 doi
[96]

Trou- ble with the minimal renormalizable SO(10) GUT,

K. Jarkovsk´ a, M. Malinsk´ y and V. Susiˇ c, “Trou- ble with the minimal renormalizable SO(10) GUT,” Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) no.5, 055003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.055003 [arXiv:2304.14227 [hep-ph]]

2023 arXiv
[97]

SO(10) theory on the plateau: the importance of being renor- malizable,

A. Preda, G. Senjanovi´ c and M. Zantedeschi, “ SO(10) theory on the plateau: the importance of being renor- malizable,” [arXiv:2502.21180 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[98]

Grand uniﬁca- tion, small vs large representations, hadron collid- ers and all that,

G. Senjanovi´ c and M. Zantedeschi, “Grand uniﬁca- tion, small vs large representations, hadron collid- ers and all that,” PoS CORFU2022 (2023), 127 doi:10.22323/1.436.0127 [arXiv:2304.07932 [hep-ph]]

2023 arXiv
[99]

Yukawa Sector of Minimal SO(10) Uniﬁcation,

K. S. Babu, B. Bajc and S. Saad, “Yukawa Sector of Minimal SO(10) Uniﬁcation,” JHEP 02 (2017), 136 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2017)136 [arXiv:1612.04329 [hep- ph]]

2017 arXiv
[100]

Gauge and scalar boson mediated proton decay in a predictive SU(5) GUT model,

I. Dorˇ sner, E. Dˇ zaferovi´ c-Maˇ si´ c, S. Fajfer and S.Saad, “Gauge and scalar boson mediated proton decay in a predictive SU(5) GUT model,” Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no.7, 075023 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.075023 [arXiv:2401.16907 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[101]

Topology of Cosmic Domains and Strings,

T. W. B. Kibble, “Topology of Cosmic Domains and Strings,” J. Phys. A 9 (1976), 1387-1398 doi:10.1088/0305-4470/9/8/029

1976 doi
[102]

Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes,

S. Weinberg, “Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979), 1566-1570 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.43.1566

1979 doi
[103]

Operator Analysis of Nu- cleon Decay,

F. Wilczek and A. Zee, “Operator Analysis of Nu- cleon Decay,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979), 1571-1573 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.43.1571

1979 doi
[104]

Proton decay and grand uniﬁca- tion,

G. Senjanovi´ c, “Proton decay and grand uniﬁca- tion,” AIP Conf. Proc. 1200 (2010) no.1, 131-141 doi:10.1063/1.3327552 [arXiv:0912.5375 [hep-ph]]

2010 arXiv
[105]

Can ’doublet - triplet splitting’ proble m be solved without doublet - triplet splitting?,

G. R. Dvali, “Can ’doublet - triplet splitting’ proble m be solved without doublet - triplet splitting?,” Phys. Lett. B 287 (1992), 101-108 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)91883- B

1992 doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [46]

The Future of Elementary Particle Physics,

S. L. Glashow, “The Future of Elementary Particle Physics,” NATO Sci. Ser. B 61, 687 (1980)

1980

[2] [1]

The Yang-Mills Model,

S. L. Glashow, “The Yang-Mills Model,” ICCM Not. 10 (2022) no.2, 53-60 doi:10.4310/ICCM.2022.v10.n2.a6

work page doi:10.4310/iccm.2022.v10.n2.a6 2022

[3] [3]

Neutrino 2020: Theory Outlook,

G. Senjanovi´ c, “Neutrino 2020: Theory Outlook,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 36 (2021) no.02, 2130003 doi:10.1142/S0217751X21300039 [arXiv:2011.01264 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2021

[4] [4]

Predictions of Su- persymmetric Grand Uniﬁed Theories,

W. J. Marciano and G. Senjanovi´ c, “Predictions of Su- persymmetric Grand Uniﬁed Theories,” Phys. Rev. D 25, 3092 (1982). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.25.3092

doi:10.1103/physrevd.25.3092 1982

[5] [5]

Supersymmetry and Uniﬁcation: Heavy Top Was the Key,

G. Senjanovic, “Supersymmetry and Uniﬁcation: Heavy Top Was the Key,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 13 (2012), 182-190 doi:10.1142/S2010194512006848 [arXiv:1205.5557 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2012

[6] [6]

Supersymme- try and the Scale of Uniﬁcation,

S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby and F. Wilczek, “Supersymme- try and the Scale of Uniﬁcation,” Phys. Rev. D 24, 1681 (1981). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.24.1681 14

doi:10.1103/physrevd.24.1681 1981

[7] [7]

You cannot prove a vague theory wrong

This video is a nice example of his prescription: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz2SENYI1rE. The title of the video: “You cannot prove a vague theory wrong”, says it all. This speech was delivered as part of the Messenger Lectures on “The Character of Physical Law” at Cornell University on November 9, 1964. Here is the full transcript https://jamesclear...

1964

[8] [8]

Partial Symmetries of Weak Interactions,

S. L. Glashow, “Partial Symmetries of Weak Interactions,” Nucl. Phys. 22 (1961), 579-588 doi:10.1016/0029-5582(61)90469-2

doi:10.1016/0029-5582(61)90469-2 1961