Hi everybody! These are my comments on recent paper by J.Yablon on
magnetic monopoles, published at hep-ph/0508257.

1) How someone (Jay Yablon) could be so ignorant and call as "Zero
Charge" in his paper the phenomenon which has NOTHING to do with it!
A "Zero Charge" or "Moscow Zero" is very well-known effect of
diminishing of the effective electrical charge at short distances in
QED! It was discovered and then
completely understood by Russian theorist Lev Landau and his disciples
in the late 50-th, early 60-th! This has NOTHING to do with Your
"Zero Charge", Jay, so you better study, what's has been done in
particle physics in last 50+ years, then pretend to be original.

2) I would suggest you to study real carefully Steven Weinberg's book

"The Quantum Theory of Fields", Cambridge University Press,
2001,Vol.II , what he said about Monopoles and what it all means.
After that you will have to change your paper a lot!
"Muser" wrote on Sep3:
I've read this whole thread with interest, unfortunately I'am unable to
read the maths relating to magnetic monopoles as I have no formal
education in that field. Bjoern fuenbacher (hope I spelt that right),
Jay and one or two others are the only people in this group willing to
do real physics on real problems.
Andy if Jay is wrong why not write in a mathematical formula (with QFT
in mind) why Jay is wrong about zero charge, and stop resorting to
personal attacks as that leads nowhere
..

3)If you (Muser) don't have formal education in particle physics - this
is your
problem and not mine. It will be practically impossible for you
to unsderstand Jay's paper in all details, and so the main results.
There is no mathematics needed to understand this point about "Zero
Charge problem", it is simply you know it or you don't!
Jay asked me few times to post my comments on Usenet, and that's
exactly what I'm doing, as a pro which have 26 years of experience in
particle/nuclear theory. Andy Inopin, PhD.
I want to continue with more comments on Yablon's paper.

4) An author (Jay) quite inaccurately ( to say the least) introduced
"Order parameter" notion in ms. An order parameter is one of the
crucial variables in the Superconductivity and Superfluidity theory! In

Ginzburg- Landau theory (for which V.L.Ginzburg have got a 2003 Nobel
prize)
an order parameter plays a role of an effective wave function of
superconducting electrons and main equations of this theory were just
formulated for
this order parameter. So, what plays a role of order parameter in
Yablon's
theory and how he justified that it can, in fact be an Order Parameter?

The reader just remained puzzled with this...

5) If somebody will check Weinberg's book "The Quantum Theory of
Fields", Vol.2, and some original published papers as well, he can see
that Magnetic charge can be defined quite different from Yablon's
paper.

6) There is another interesting comment/query to your M.Monopoles
paper.
Why you didn't consider to present the precise r_vector -dependence
for your monopole solutions, and even make a corresponding plot?
Do you have a kern in your Monopole? Is it similar to Dirac-monopole,
or to t'Hooft-Polyakov monopole , or is it completely different
creature?

7) I compared mass formulas for t'Hooft-Polyakov monopole and
Yablon's monopole, and they are quite different:
A) H-P approximate formula gives M ~ M_w/alpha ~ 11 TeV
where M_w is vector boson mass, alpha = 1/137.
B) Yablon formula gives M = (vev)* SQRT(pi/4alpha) ~ 2.55 TeV,
where vev = vacuum expectation value.
So, both formulas have CRUCIAL difference on alpha-dependence of
Monopole mass, being 1/alpha for t'Hooft-Polyakov and
SQRT(1/alpha) for Yablon monopole.
Although I think, those are somewhat different theories, still
such a drastic difference in mass formulas is a BIG PUZZLE!
It's interesting that both estimates - 2.5 TeV and 11 TeV are
within LHC reach.

Andy Inopin, PhD