kolahalb wrote:The reason I am saying this is that I am not being sure if I should include the above information (kind of self-research) in my CV or personal statement because it has not been accepted yet. Also I am not sure if I will send the printed version of the write up along with the paper copies of my transcripts (i.e. with application, material) with the hope that they are going to take a look at it. Can you give some suggestions?-Kolahal
kolahalb wrote:The point is that it was a kind of self research and unfortunately I did not know how far it would go when I started working with this well-known problem. After some of the work I sent it to A.J.P. couple of months back and after 2 weeks they replied that the notion is not clear and there is a flaw in a treatment...
It took some time to me to understand where the flaw was and subsequently I found a much more profound way of getting around it. Also this time I talked to more people and they suggested the present treatment is strong. Apparently, they did not find any flaw in it...I also checked that the method is consistent with the solution of "semi-infinite dielectric plane image problem" (done in the usual way in Jackson p-156) which made me more confident about the validity of the method.
Therefore, I made the necessary changes and sent it to them on 31st October...That is under review of course and I am not sure when they will send me the report of the review.
Regrading storing the paper in a website: I have a blog...but that I started for QM only and never written anything except QM in that...Also isn't it unsafe to upload the pdf copy to a general website? I heard somewhere that one can upload one's paper in Arxive in a safe way even if it is not published for they offer strong security...However, I never tried it myself and in the past few months I was terribly busy in working out the steps that were found to be flawed.
I am considering the option of sending the paper copies because I think only reading those few sentences in the SoP might not convince the faculties. Actually, I used a principle that is not widely used in electrostatics (no books mention that)...They may not understand what exactly I did unless they see the proof of the principle and see how that works...
Should I mention that I submitted it few months back or should I say that I submitted it on 31st Oct?
admissionprof wrote:If I were you, I'd put it on the Arxiv NOW, and don't bother mentioning when you submitted it--the arXiv number makes that clear. Later, if it's accepted, you can update your application.
Tue, August 10, 2010 12:15:09 PM
arXiv: submit/0088719 removed
Jake Weiskoff [www-admin] <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Add to Contacts
Your submission has been removed upon a notice from our moderators, who determined it inappropriate for arXiv. Please send to a conventional journal instead for the requisite feedback.
Abstract: Brannen has recently pointed out that the observed charged lepton masses satisfy the relation , while the observed neutrino masses satisfy the relation . It is discussed what neutrino Yukawa interaction form is favorable if we take the fact pointed out by Brannen seriously.
kolahalb wrote:@ admissionprof: Dear Sir, can you please let me know what did you mean by endorsement by a faculty? I have shown my article to Profs here but never mentioned that in the article...What time typically they take to get back to the author of the paper?
In btw: I updated the Metadata section properly
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests