I'm starting to get a little desperate, because I can't find any introductory treatments of Grand Unified Theories (GUT). So far the only books I found are

  • Mohapatra Unification and Supersymmetry
  • Ross Grand Unified Theories

which both were okay but left me with lots of open questions.

Any suggestions would be awesome!

  • $\begingroup$ Define "good". Could you explain what you felt lacking in the two books? The more specific you are, the (hopefully) better the suggestions might be. $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Apr 18, 2015 at 23:09
  • $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos okay maybe I should delete the word "good" from the question as this is really a matter of taste. I'm really just looking for introductory treatments that explain the main lines of thoughts $\endgroup$
    – Tim
    Apr 19, 2015 at 8:02
  • $\begingroup$ Usually the CERN schools do a good job of introduction to subjects. I have not read it, but here cds.cern.ch/record/169005/files/CERN-86-03-V-2.pdf is a lecture on GUTs that might help. You might find the yellow report in a library $\endgroup$
    – anna v
    Apr 20, 2015 at 8:43

1 Answer 1


I risk getting banned from this site, but I have checked and rechecked this over six years of deep research. This consists of what is claimed in the following books; validity and accuracy of the core physics as portrayed in the sum total of claims in these books and individually. The only conclusion possible is that the theory is a much more accurate way of portraying or explaining the cosmos, than the claims made in the sum total found in the accepted way of doing physics.

"America's Newton The reception of the work of Randell Mills, in historical and contemporary context", Thomas E. Stolper

"Randell Mills and the Search for Hydrino Energy", Brett Holverstott

"The Grand Unified Theory-Classical Physics", Randell Mills, John J. Farrell, W. Good

GUT-CP is slowly but surely replacing Standard Quantum Mechanics, by way of its more accurate predictions, by its larger number accurate answers to questions about nearly all known phenomena, and by the development and use of several items based on this kind of physics, as compared to the same found under the accepted way of doing physics.

In keeping with the requirement of references by others, towards this answer, are a list of those who took part in the tests of the claims under the theory as those who are knowledgeable in this area:

Individuals who made those tests:

Anthony Marchese, mechanical engineering professor, Rowan University, tested the reaction under the theory at the behest of The National Aeronautic and Space Administration

Eric Hermanson, MS Nuclear Engineering, MIT, 1994 reviewed the thesis consisting of GUT-CP

Prof. Huub Bakker, a senior lecturer in engineering at Massey University is developing a device using anti-gravity as produced using under the theory

Some of those who did tests of a reaction predicted by the theory, to produce energy at a density rate that is about a thousand times greater than can be achieved from any chemical reaction known, but with no explanation found using Standard Quantum Mechanics. Their statements indicate that, although being knowledgeable in doing such test, they have no explanation, based on SQM, that would apply to the results.

Y. Lu, R. Frazer. Chinese Journal of Physics

Randy A. Booker Ph D.

John Lotoski University of Waterloo · Department of Chemistry

Gerrit Kroesen Plasma Physicist, Eindhoven Technological University

Alexander Bykanov Expert: EUV, Plasma-Physics, Diagnostics, Optics, Kamran Akhtar Ph D.

J. Lotoski International Journal of Hydrogen EnergyVolume 40, Issue 1, 5 January 2015, Pages 25-37

J. Kong, G. Chu, J. He, J. Trevey, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 39 (2014), DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.06.153. pp. 14512–14530

W. Henry Weinberg B.S. Ph.D. Chemical Engineering University of California, Berkeley California Institute of Technology Professor of Chemical Engineering and Chemical Physics Professor of Chemical Engineering Materials Engineering, and Chemistry at the University of California, Santa Barbara, CTO of Symyx Technologies of Santa Clara, CA, Adjunct Professor at UCSB

These are the most qualified, as well as having having taken a direct and leading part in the study or testing of reactions predicted by the theory. There are many others who are engineers and students in closely related disciplines, that have stated that the theory is, for many reasons, much better than the currently accepted theory.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.