My four recent peer-reviewed papers are now all published and online...

[Jay R. Yablon]

Friends,

I wanted to let you know that my recent second, third and fourth peer-reviewed
papers were all published on April 30. These papers, in order of logical
development, are:

2) J. Yablon, "Predicting the Binding Energies of the 1s Nuclides with High
Precision, Based on Baryons which Are Yang-Mills Magnetic Monopoles," Journal
of Modern Physics, Vol. 4 No. 4A, 2013, pp. 70-93. doi:
10.4236/jmp.2013.44A010.
Link: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=30817

3) J. Yablon, "Grand Unified SU(8) Gauge Theory Based on Baryons which Are
Yang-Mills Magnetic Monopoles," Journal of Modern Physics, Vol. 4 No. 4A,
2013, pp. 94-120. doi: 10.4236/jmp.2013.44A011.
Link: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=30822

4) J. Yablon, "Predicting the Neutron and Proton Masses Based on Baryons
which Are Yang-Mills Magnetic Monopoles and Koide Mass Triplets," Journal of
Modern Physics, Vol. 4 No. 4A, 2013, pp. 127-150. doi:
10.4236/jmp.2013.44A013.
Link: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=30830

The "Special issue on High Energy Physics" in which the foregoing all appear
is at: http://www.scirp.org/journal/jmp/

Also, the very first paper in which is is all rooted was published a couple of
months ago, but finally went online about ten days ago. This paper may be
downloaded at:

1) Yablon, J. R., Why Baryons Are Yang-Mills Magnetic Monopoles, Hadronic
Journal, Volume 35, Number 4, 401-468 (2012)
Link: http://www.hadronicpress.com/issues/HJ/VOL35/HJ-35-4.pdf

If you want to quickly understand the original paper #1, which is 67 pages, I
suggest that you start by reading the introductory section in paper #2, which
is a three page encapsulation of paper #1. Overall, this introductory section
of paper #2 is the best point entry to understanding my recent research. I am
happy to answer questions or engage in discussions online.

Best to all,

Jay
_________________________________________________
Jay R. Yablon
910 Northumberland Drive
Schenectady, New York 12309-2814
Phone / Fax: 518-377-6737
Email: jya...@nycap.rr.com
Co-moderator: sci.physics.foundations
Blog: http://jayryablon.wordpress.com/

[mercury]

Hi Yablon

I just want to know what is the connection of your theory to quarks.
Does it confirm their existence or rules them out.

Thank you in advance.

[jeffery...@mail.com]

Yablon is claiming that there is no such thing as quarks. He ignores
that the theory of quarks explain the pattern in the properties of the
vast multitude of baryons and mesons, which he considers to be
fundamental. He ignores that the theory of three quarks per baryon
explain why the the charge of the proton is exactly equal and opposite
to that of the electron. He is openly antagonistic to Frank Wilcek's
theory of confinement and asymptotic freedom. He ignores experimental
evidence for partons within the baryons. He basically throws out a large
fraction of the Standard Model that mainstream physicists accept as
fact.

Jeffery Winkler

http://jefferywinkler.com

[Jay R. Yablon]

[[Mod. note -- Please limit your text to fit within 80 columns,
preferably around 70, so that readers don't have to scroll horizontally
to read each line. I have manually reformatted this article. -- jt]]

Hi Mercury, I would say that these papers very definitely confirm
the existence of quarks as well as the reality of quarks having
so-called "current" masses. Best regards, Jay

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 5/9/2013 6:53 AM, Jay R. Yablon wrote:
..

> Hi Mercury, I would say that these papers very definitely confirm
> the existence of quarks as well as the reality of quarks having
> so-called "current" masses.

That is good news! But your theory gives as
results only the masses of a few hadrons,
isn't that correct? It is a kind of "bag
model" with about five parameters that also
retrodicted five experimental quantities.

Can you extend it? E.g. the following:
1) Derive the other hadron masses in the
lowest octet as well: the Sigma's, the Xi's
and the Lambda?
2) Somehow include electron interactions to
verify deep-inelastic scattering results?
3) Include another quark flavor, to get the
masses of the uds decuplet (the hyperons?)

Regards,

--
Jos

[Jay R. Yablon]

"Jos Bergervoet" wrote in message
news:518b698c$0$15909$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...

*** Jay Writes ***

Jos,

All good and fair queries.

The theory gives the proton and neutron masses, as well as the ^2H, ^3H, ^3He
and ^4He binding energies. So I would say six experimental quantities.
(There are a few other retrodictions, but these six are the ones I'd focus on
here.)

However, there are only *two* not five parameters needed to do this: the up
quark current mass and the down quark current mass. There are no free
coupling constants or anything else involved, so I derive quite a lot from a
very restricted set of inputs.

I was heavily influenced by the bag model insofar as the bag model focuses
one's attention on the boundaries of hadrons and what does and does not flow
across those boundaries in relation to what is contained inside those
boundaries.

The answer to "can I extend it?" is "I suppose so." But right now I need to
take a break because I spent the past 12 months intensely developing those
four papers and need a break. Right now, I am going to focus on helping
people understand what I have already written rather than trying to write
anything new.

As to your 1) to 3):

1) My fourth paper at
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=30830, and the
"Theta" matrix (6.17), would be the place from which one tries to obtain other
hadron masses. See (6.17) and the ensuing discussion.

2) That is actually a path I was going to embark upon, until I found that I
could predict binding energies. So I shifted gears and went in that
direction. But, if you want to see where I was before I shifted gears, look
at the preprint http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0009, section 5. Specifically, one
would calculate cross sections using (5.1) and then look at those at deep
momentum transfer. There are lots of vector / axial things going on in my
theory, and that paper will give you some idea of all the chiral stuff going
on. See also pages 422 and 423 of my paper #1 at
http://www.hadronicpress.com/issues/HJ/VOL35/HJ-35-4.pdf, where I also talk
about the momentum transfer. These are the "ingredients" that one would use
to pursue your point 2.

3) See point 1, more or less the same answer.

But most important as to points 1 and 3 is this: Rabi's question "Who ordered
this?" about the muon (and more generally, three fermion generations) was
still an open question, until I wrote my paper #3 at
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=30822. I sort of
wish I had put something about "fermion generations" in the title, because
this paper ***for the first time*** explains the theoretical reasons WHY we
have three generations of fermions! Until you can answer Rabi's question, all
you are doing is playing games with mass numbers. That fact that we can now
understand the fermion generations as resulting from generators which become
"fractured" from the "vertical" GUT generators at high energy and thereafter
assume a "horizontal" stance means that we can start to talk about the s, c,
t, b quarks on a theoretic footing, rather than as something that we waiter
delivered even though nobody ordered it.

Jay

[Jay R. Yablon]

Baloney! Your statement below is completely incorrect. To the contrary,
quarks absolutely do exist, and my model is wholly consistent with QCD and in
fact strengthens QCD and the quark model. I have no idea how you reached
these totally erroneous notions / conclusions. Jay


wrote in message news:37bfc3fe-4631-4e22...@googlegroups.com...

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 5/9/2013 6:23 PM, Jay R. Yablon wrote:

>> Can you extend it? E.g. the following:
>> 1) Derive the other hadron masses in the
>> lowest octet as well: the Sigma's, the Xi's
>> and the Lambda?
>> 2) Somehow include electron interactions to
>> verify deep-inelastic scattering results?
>> 3) Include another quark flavor, to get the
>> masses of the uds decuplet (the hyperons?)
>

...

> The theory gives the proton and neutron masses, as well as the ^2H, ^3H, ^3He
> and ^4He binding energies. So I would say six experimental quantities.

> ...

> However, there are only *two* not five parameters needed to do this: the up
> quark current mass and the down quark current mass.

Most people would say you also chose a scale
because you wrote that you use a "cavity"
containing the quarks. (If the results do no
depend on this scale you may even have an
interesting anomaly to explain..)

> There are no free
> coupling constants or anything else involved,

I'm afraid the world would think that you
chose some kind of interaction to keep the
quarks in your cavity (if not, why are they
bound at all?)

> so I derive quite a lot from a
> very restricted set of inputs.

It seems to me your claims are inconsistent.
The interaction and the shape and size of the
cavity somehow have to be there, even if you
don't call them parameters. But however that may
be, I have a more practical question: How do
the predicted masses scale if you multiply your
quark masses by a (common) factor lambda?

Will all masses and also all nuclear binding
energies scale with the same scale factor
lambda in that case?

--
Jos

[Jay R. Yablon]

"Jos Bergervoet" wrote in message

news:518bd6b7$0$15873$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...

On 5/9/2013 6:23 PM, Jay R. Yablon wrote:

>> Can you extend it? E.g. the following:
>> 1) Derive the other hadron masses in the
>> lowest octet as well: the Sigma's, the Xi's
>> and the Lambda?
>> 2) Somehow include electron interactions to
>> verify deep-inelastic scattering results?
>> 3) Include another quark flavor, to get the
>> masses of the uds decuplet (the hyperons?)
>
...
> The theory gives the proton and neutron masses, as well as the ^2H, ^3H,
> ^3He
> and ^4He binding energies. So I would say six experimental quantities.
> ...
> However, there are only *two* not five parameters needed to do this: the up
> quark current mass and the down quark current mass.

Most people would say you also chose a scale
because you wrote that you use a "cavity"
containing the quarks. (If the results do no
depend on this scale you may even have an
interesting anomaly to explain..)

***Jay writes***

The cavity is a convenient mnemonic for thinking about the problem. At one
point I was considering cavity sizes and geometries. But I ended up fitting
the ^2H, ^3H, ^3He and ^4He as well as M(N)-M(P) to ppm based only on the up
and down quark masses without any assumptions about the cavity. It may be
that someone can derive information about the cavities from my results, but I
did not need to employ the cavity to derive my results other than as a
mnemonic to think about the problem.

***end Jay writes***

> There are no free
> coupling constants or anything else involved,

I'm afraid the world would think that you
chose some kind of interaction to keep the
quarks in your cavity (if not, why are they
bound at all?)

***Jay writes***

Maybe that is what the world would think but they would be wrong. See section
1 of http://www.hadronicpress.com/issues/HJ/VOL35/HJ-35-4.pdf. You will see
that the spacetime geometry itself keeps the gauge fields confined. The
differential forms relation dd=0 causes confinement for non-Abelian magnetic
monopoles. Everyone has looked for years for some way to keep three quarks
bound. I have found that a magnetic monopole is a natural bound system of
three quarks and that spacetime geometry itself keeps them bound. Nothing
more is required. A good analogy is Newton v Einstein. Newton uses a
"force" to keep planets moving around the sun. Einstein dispenses with the
force and just has the planets obey the laws of geometry. Same deal here.
You and everyone else are operating on the Newtonian misconception that you
have to have a force / interaction to keep the quarks confined. I am saying
that the spacetime geometry of a non-Abelian magnetic monopole does that all
by itself.

***end Jay writes***

> so I derive quite a lot from a
> very restricted set of inputs.

It seems to me your claims are inconsistent.
The interaction and the shape and size of the
cavity somehow have to be there, even if you
don't call them parameters.

***Jay writes***

Maybe the cavity size and shape are there, and maybe we will derive them at
some point, but I do not *need* them to derive my results. Look at Figures 9
and 10 of of
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=30817. All I use
are the up and down masses. You operate from the presupposition that the
logic is cavity data --> binding energies. I did so also for awhile. I found
that the logic binding energies --> cavity data is also valid, and that is
where I am.

***end Jay writes***

But however that may
be, I have a more practical question: How do
the predicted masses scale if you multiply your
quark masses by a (common) factor lambda?

Will all masses and also all nuclear binding
energies scale with the same scale factor
lambda in that case?

***Jay writes***

Based on Figure 9 of of
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=30817, you will see
that the binding energies would scale in exact step with the up and down quark
masses.

The proton and neutron masses, on the other hand, scale at dominant order with
the square root of the quark masses, assuming you leave the Fermi vev intact
and do not scale that. But the scaling is not quite with the square root
either. See (6.31) and (7.6) of
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=30830. The CKM
mixing angles also determine what happens, so you'd need to tell me how those
scale also.

That is, the binding energies depend solely on the quark masses and are in
direct proportion to these masses. The proton and neutron masses also depend
on the Femi vev and the CKM mixing angles, and dominantly scale with the
*square root* of the quark masses.

Jay

***end Jay writes***

--
Jos

[jeffery...@mail.com]

[[Mod. note -- Please limit your text to fit within 80 columns,
preferably around 70, so that readers don't have to scroll horizontally
to read each line. I have manually reformatted this article. -- jt]]

He says there are quarks but not in the normal sense that most
people use the phrase. Here is a copy of email Jay Yablon sent me
where he was saying that he was against the Standard Model, and
that his theory was better. In his email, notice he says, "How does
the Standard Model explain confinement. It doesn't". Well, the
Standard Model does confinement, which is QCD, which predicts
confinement. I was accurate in my original post where I said that
Jay Yablon was openly hostile to Frank Wilcek's theory of confinement
and asymoptotic freedom.

Here is the copy of his email.

Hi Jeffrey,

I thank you for your comments, and I believe you have accurately
characterized the standard model, which I first studied almost 30
years ago.

What I said was that my approach predicts three quark baryons no
matter what gauge group one chooses. However because it predicts
three quark baryons, it makes it clear that SU3 is a special group
to associate with these three quark baryons for precisely the reason
you say, to create a Fermi-Dirac statistical exclusion.

I have two questions for you, meaning not you personally, but the
standard model: first show me how the standard model explains
confinement? It doesn't. Second show me how the standard model
predicts that nuclear and other baryon interactions will be mediated
by quark antiquark pairs known as mesons? It doesn't. And while
we're at it, show me where the standard model shows how to fill the
mass gap that is how to provide mass to vector particles without
engaging in spontaneous spontaneous symmetry breaking? It doesn't.

Mine does. All of that!

I would greatly appreciate your actually reading through the paper
and giving me your comments on the paper, rather than telling me
about the standard model which I already know about. You obviously
have the ability to assimilate what I am saying, and I certainly
appreciate anybody who can do so.

Thanks,

Jay

PS: one other minor matter. Since the standard model was first
proposed, they have discovered mixing in the lepton sector meaning
that neutrinos have a small mass and therefore right-handed chiral
neutrinos exist. The standard model does not provide the 16th slot
for that particle.

[Jay R. Yablon]

As to Jeffrey's email below, I note that he fails to include his own
original email to me, and thus ignores context. As I recall, I lot of
what he described as the "standard model," fairly accurately, was
Georgi-Glashow SU(5) GUT. ***He was not talking at all about QCD or
Wicsak or anything of that nature.*** Everybody today knows that SU(5)
is a "toy" model.

Second, I suggest he read what Jaffe and Witten write at
http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Yang-Mills_Theory/yangmills.pdf
before he blithely asserts that QCD fully explains such thing as
confinement and mesons and short range and there is nothing more to
understand or explain. Read for example on page 3:

"The use of QCD to describe the strong force was motivated by a whole
series of experimental and theoretical discoveries made in the 1960s and
1970s, involving the symmetries and high-energy behavior of the strong
interactions. But classical nonabelian gauge theory is very different
from the observed world of strong interactions; for QCD to describe the
strong force successfully, it must have at the quantum level the
following three properties, each of which is dramatically different from
the behavior of the classical theory:

(1) It must have a mass gap namely there must be some constant
\Lambda > 0 such that every excitation of the vacuum has energy at
least \Lambda.

(2) It must have "quark confinement," that is, even though the theory is
described in terms of elementary fields, such as the quark fields, that
transform non-trivially under SU(3), the physical particle states such
as the proton, neutron, and pion are SU(3)-invariant.

(3) It must have "chiral symmetry breaking," which means that the vacuum
is potentially invariant (in the limit, that the quark-bare masses
vanish) only under a certain subgroup of the full symmetry group that
acts on the quark fields.

The first point is necessary to explain why the nuclear force is strong
but shortranged; the second is needed to explain why we never see
individual quarks; and the third is needed to account for the current
algebra theory of soft pions that was developed in the 1960s.

Both experiment since QCD has numerous successes in confrontation with
experiment and computer simulations, see for example [8], carried out
since the late 1970s, have given strong encouragement that QCD does have
the properties cited above. These properties can be seen, to some
extent, in theoretical calculations carried out in a variety of highly
oversimplified models (like strongly coupled lattice gauge theory, see,
for example, [48]). ***But they are not fully understood theoretically;
there does not exist a convincing, whether or not mathematically
complete, theoretical computation demonstrating any of the three
properties in QCD, as opposed to a severely simplified truncation of it."***

My model is fully consistent with QCD, but expands QCD to also explain
issues that QCD has been unable to explain. Building on accepted
theory and enabling it to explain more without eroding its core premises
or predictions is what good theoretical work is all about. Maxwell was
not hostile to Gauss or Faraday or Ampere because he developed a theory
that merged and thereby extended them all. To the contrary.

I cannot fathom why Jeffry would have taken my comments to him
discussing the limits of SU(5) GUT completely out of context and twisted
them into some form of broadly-based antipathy to QCD and asymptotic
freedom. It just ain't so.

Jay