GUT Paper accepted by Journal of Modern Physics, for "Special Issue on High Energy Physics"

[Jay R. Yablon]

Yeeehah!!!!!!! I just had my recent GUT paper accepted following peer
review, six days after submission! This will be published in the
Journal of Modern Physics, in a special issue titled "Special Issue on
High Energy Physics." A link to the accepted version (which I will
spruce up before it goes to print) is the following:
http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0075.

Here is the referee's favorable acceptance report:

In the paper, the author develop a GUT that is rooted in the SU(4)
subgroups for the proton/electron and neutron/neutrino based on the
thesis that baryons including protons and neutrons are Yang-Mills
magnetic monopoles. The SU(8) GUT group so-developed leads following
three stages of symmetry breaking to all known phenomenology including a
neutrino that behaves differently from other fermions, lepto-quark
separation, replication of fermions into exactly three generations, the
Cabibbo mixing of those generations, weak interactions which are
left-chiral, and all four of the gravitational, strong, weak, and
electromagnetic interactions. Based on it, the the masses and energies
associated with the vacuum terms of the Lagrangian were calculated.

The author presented a quite rigorous works on this topic. The novelty
of this paper is sufficient and the analysis is authentic. This study is
indicative and possibly useful for other scientists. The information
described here are interesting and useful for readers.

All the best,

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]

[[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]]

Congratulations! This accury sounds amazing!

Can you compare the precision in your theory with the precision in
other available models.

I would be very thankful if you could describe your paper without
math - in the sense of what are the neutron and proton comprised
of, what is their mass due, what is spin due, what is charge due,
how is their quantum wave explained e.t.c.

Thank you
Mercury

[Jay R. Yablon]

"mercury" wrote in message
news:72b026c8-5a83-42d1...@googlegroups.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]]

Congratulations! This accury sounds amazing!

[Moderator's note: Well, though I appreciate Jonathan's effort,
reformatting text to a certain number of columns doesn't display THAT
much amazing accuracy. Seriously, I have reformatted Jay's reply below
to wrap at 72 columns. This allows it to be quoted with a standard
usenet quote indicator a few times before becoming too wide to be
comfortable. -P.H.]

Can you compare the precision in your theory with the precision in
other available models.

I would be very thankful if you could describe your paper without
math - in the sense of what are the neutron and proton comprised
of, what is their mass due, what is spin due, what is charge due,
how is their quantum wave explained e.t.c.

Thank you
Mercury

*** Jay writes ***

Thank you Mercury. Busy week, finally have a few minutes to reply.

The underlying theory is explained in my first paper at
http://vixra.org/pdf/1211.0151v2.pdf. Below, I will refer to equation
numbers from this paper, so you have something to refer to. Minimal
math.

Basically, if you think of Maxwell's classical equations in covariant
form as being two equations -- the electric charge equation and the
magnetic monopole equation -- and ever asked yourself what a theory
would look like which combines both of those equations into a single
unified equation, my theory says you end up with nuclear physics, that
is, nuclear physics emerges from the combination of Maxwell's two
equations into one. How do we do this?

First, we allow for non-commuting gauge fields via Yang-Mills theory.
This means that the magnetic monopoles -- which are zero for a commuting
field -- become non-zero. The magnetic monopole equation (2.4) contains
the non-commuting gauge fields G^u. That is one equation. The second
equation is the charge equation, J^v = d_uD^[uG^v] (2.1). We simply
invert this equation to express G^u as a function of A^u (2.9) with low
perturbation and then substitute these into the monopole equation so now
the Maxwell magnetic monopole contains Maxwellian electric currents
(2.10). So this is the first time that we see the result of combining
both Maxwell equations. It is Yang-Mills that permits this, because it
brings about a non-vanishing magnetic monopole we can do this with.

Next, we roll in Dirac's equation by setting the currents J^u = psi-bar
gamma^u psi. So now the magnetic monopole contains fermion
wavefunctions in (2.11). So our assumptions thus far are: Yang-Mills
gauge fields, Maxwell's two equations rolled into one, and Dirac's
equation. Pretty solid pillars. No supposition at the start about WHICH
Yang-Mills gauge group, just some unspecified group. In section 3 I do
a bunch of reduction and rearrangement, but make no new suppositions,
and end up with (3.12) which is the developed magnetic monopole.
Section 4 digresses a bit into exploring some ways to expand the terms
in the monopole.

The next assumption is in section 5: that if you have multiple fermions
in a system, they must all adhere to Fermi-Dirac statistics and so have
exclusionary states. Because my monopole is a three fermion system, we
create exclusion via SU(3), call the eigenstates Red, Green, Blue, and
so have now introduced QCD. Not because we see some Delta++ resonance
in an experiment, but because the theoretical monopole is naturally a
three fermion system and there needs to be exclusion because spin can
only distinguish two the the three fermions. This is the first time
that we can start to say, hmmm, these monopoles naturally contain three
fermions, we can call them red, green blue, the gauge fields are
confined (see section 1), so maybe they are baryons. More to show before
we PROVE this is so, but that starts the engine. What is especially
nifty is that the color wavefunction for the baryon pops out to be
non-commuting which is required, and the particles that flow across the
Stokes' Law surface have a commuting wavefunction just like we expect
for mesons.

Sections 6-8 show that these magnetic monopoles can be made
topologically stable by spontaneous symmetry breaking from two SU(4)
groups. In the process, the SU(4) groups we are required to choose have
just the quantum numbers needed to yield both a proton and neutron
flavored magnetic monopole, i.e., stable magnetic monopoles with the
quantum numbers of the proton and neutron. These later get input to
the calculations in my second paper at
http://vixra.org/pdf/1212.0165v1.pdf, that have given me 1 in 10^6
precision for four independent binding energies and the proton-neutron
mass difference. There is a 1 in 10^30 chance that these five
independent 1 in 10^6 results in my second paper are mere coincidence.
And, these two SU(4) groups are the starting point for my third paper on
GUT at http://vixra.org/pdf/1301.0075v3.pdf.

The one other supposition I introduce in the first paper is what I call
the Gaussian ansatz (9.9). That is, I MODEL the fermions inside the
monopole as Gaussians, just to be able to do calculations of energies,
to see what comes out. The THEORY is Maxwell's two equations combined
with Yang-Mills combined with Dirac combined with Fermi Dirac
statistics. Period. To do energy calculations, I MODEL the fermions as
Gaussians, but that is not part of the THEORY per se. It is a modeling
assumption used to calculate energies. As it turns out, nature was kind
to me, because it allows these binding energies to correctly emerge from
this ansatz. So the quarks apparently do behave as Gaussians, at least
insofar as binding energies are concerned. I am now working on finding
fermion masses and the proton and neutron masses from first principles
based on my theory, and will see if the Gaussian ansatz continues to
work there or if something more is needed. I don’t know yet.

What is very important to understand is that this ends up giving us a
brand new theory of nuclear binding. If you read noting else on this,
read section 12 of the first paper! Not much math beyond algebra. You
ask "Can you compare the precision in your theory with the precision in
other available models." The best theory we have AFAIK prior to my own
is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-empirical_mass_formula. It is a
good general approach for larger nuclei where things can be sort of
averaged out. It gives zero real help for the very smallest nuclides
such as the 2H, 3H, 3He and 4He each of which I nailed to parts in 10^6
in my second paper. If anyone before has come anywhere near this, I
have not seen it.

The other thing is that in my second paper (which is out at a referee
right now, the first and third are already accepted) in section 8 uses
this theory of nuclear binding to model the solar fusion process and
derive the known solar fusion energies solely as a function of the up
and down and electron masses, again, right on the empirical nose. I do
this not only to drive home the point that this theory of nucleons and
nuclides as resonant cavities with energies that are released being
based on the masses of the quarks they contain works beautifully with
the empirical data to parts per million, but also to illustrate how to
possibly catalyze fusion by bathing a hydrogen store with certain
explicitly-specified resonances of gamma radiation. As a patent
attorney, I of course did not neglect to also file the second paper as a
patent application for resonant fusion, about two hours before I made
that paper public. But this really is the way to look at nuclear
binding at the granular level, and the predictive accuracy pretty much
ensures that this theory will get recognition in due time (which of
course I hope is sooner rather than later).

So, those are the basics, in non-mathematical terms. Happy to elaborate
if you have other questions.

Best regards,

Jay