Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 47 references

Spectral Geometry with Exceptional Symmetry and Charged Higgs Fields

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs finite spectral geometries over octonionic coordinate algebras whose Dirac operators are automorphism-covariant and whose off-diagonal components parameterize charged Higgs fields of a G2×G2 gauge theory.

desk verdict A genuinely new bimodule construction, but the ε'=-1 sector's claimed (7,1) scalar content is really (7,1)⊕(1,7) and needs a fix before the abstract can stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21496 v1 pith:TPDDYTU5 submitted 2025-06-26 math-ph hep-thmath.MP

Shane Farnsworth This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phhep-thmath.MP MSC 58B3417D0517A3581T13
keywords nonassociativespectralgeometryoctonionsalternativealgebrasderivationbimodulesG2gaugetheorychargedHiggsfieldstriplesautomorphismcovariance
topics Yang-Mills Mass Gap
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that nonassociative spectral geometry can describe the internal space of a $G_2\times G_2$ gauge theory with charged Higgs fields, not merely with singlet scalars. It constructs a finite spectral triple $T_F=(A_F,H_F,D_F)$ over the octonionic coordinate algebra $A_F=\mathbb{O}\oplus\mathbb{O}$, and shows that the standard 'split' alternative bimodules force Dirac operators to commute with the symmetries, yielding only uncharged Higgs fields. The paper then introduces reconstituted alternative bimodules with new left and right actions, and shows that these admit automorphism-covariant external derivations; the off-diagonal components of the resulting Dirac operator parameterize charged Higgs fields transforming in $(7,7)$ for $\epsilon'=1$ and in $(7,1)$ for $\epsilon'=-1$. If the construction is correct, finite nonassociative spectral geometries are viable internal spaces for gauge theories with exceptional symmetry and restricted scalar content.

What carries the argument

The central object is the reconstituted alternative bimodule: a bimodule $M=\mathbb{O}\otimes(\oplus_{ij}V^{ij})\otimes\mathbb{O}$ over $A=\bigoplus_i\mathbb{O}$ whose left and right products are the nonassociative actions of Eqs. (122)-(123), built from octonionic products and controlled by a sign $\epsilon'=\pm1$. It carries the argument through three interacting pieces: the specialization identity $L_{ab}=L_aL_b+[L_a,R_b]$, which expands products of left and right multiplication operators; derivation-compatible maps $\Phi$ satisfying Eq. (64), which preserve the Leibniz rule when composed with the external derivation without being bimodule homomorphisms; and Dirac operators constrained by $D_FJ_F=\epsilon'J_FD_F$. These pieces together produce automorphism-covariant derivations whose off-diagonal components are the charged Higgs fields.

What would settle it

Perform a direct symbolic computation of the Leibniz rule (Eq. (64)) for $\Phi_{cd}\circ\Delta_\kappa$ in Eqs. (139) and (142) for every octonion imaginary basis element $e_m$; the paper's verification relies on cancellations of associator terms, so a single choice of $e_m$ for which the left and right sides differ would show that no charged derivation exists. A separate check would test whether the resulting operators transform exactly as $(7,7)$ and $(7,1)$ under the lifted $G_2\times G_2$ generators.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that charged, gauge-covariant Dirac operators can be built over nonassociative coordinate algebras, provided the notion of a bimodule of 1-forms is changed. Starting from the associative specialization rule $L_{ab}=L_aL_b+[L_a,R_b]$, the paper derives new left and right actions (Eqs. (122) and (123)) that define reconstituted alternative bimodules over $A=\bigoplus\mathbb{O}$. With these actions, maps $\Phi$ that satisfy only the derivation compatibility condition (Eq. (64))—rather than full bimodule homomorphism—can be composed with the invariant derivation $\Delta_\kappa$ to produce external derivations $\Phi\circ\Delta_\kappa$ that transform under the lifted automorphisms. For the two-point geometry $A_F=\mathbb{O}\oplus\mathbb{O}$ with a Hermitian Dirac operator satisfying $D_FJ_F=\epsilon' J_FD_F$, the off-diagonal components of $D_F$ parameterize charged Higgs fields transforming as $(7,7)$ when $\epsilon'=1$ and as $(7,1)$ when $\epsilon'=-1$ under the $G_2\times G_2$ automorphism group.

Load-bearing premise

The construction rests on accepting that maps satisfying only the weaker 'derivation compatibility' condition (Eq. (64)) are legitimate substitutes for bimodule homomorphisms when defining the space of 1-forms, a relaxation justified by the example and by Leibniz checks rather than by a general theorem; if that substitution is not valid, the charged Dirac operators and the Higgs fields they parameterize are not legitimate spectral data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The internal space of a $G_2\times G_2$ gauge theory fits inside spectral geometry: the finite triple $(\mathbb{O}\oplus\mathbb{O},H,D_F)$ exists with charged, not just singlet, scalar content.
  • The scalar representations are fixed by the geometry and by $\epsilon'$: $(7,7)$ when $\epsilon'=1$ and $(7,1)$ when $\epsilon'=-1$, so the choice of reality condition selects a distinct Higgs sector.
  • Derivation bimodules replace the requirement that bimodules inherit the algebraic identities of the coordinate algebra, opening nonassociative coordinate algebras to spectral constructions.
  • For any semisimple octonion algebra $A=\bigoplus\mathbb{O}$, reconstituted alternative bimodules admit automorphism-covariant external derivations, at least at first order, so the construction is not limited to the two-point example.
  • The Leibniz constraint of Eq. (145) becomes the governing equation of nonassociative spectral geometry, and solving it for pairs $(D,\cdot)$ determines which Dirac operators and bimodules are allowed.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct testable extension would be to apply the same reconstituted-bimodule construction to coordinate algebras that lack an associative specialization, such as the exceptional Jordan algebra; the paper lists this as an open problem and does not claim it works.
  • Because the scalar representations emerge from the coordinate algebra and $\epsilon'$ rather than being inserted by hand, the framework could constrain model-building in a way associative spectral models do not; this is an editorial implication, not a claim of the paper.
  • Extending the construction to higher-order forms would require derivation-compatible maps of every degree; the paper constructs only first-order forms, so a full spectral triple with junk forms and exterior algebra still needs to be developed.
  • Coupling the internal triple to a four-dimensional spectral triple along the lines sketched in Appendix E would give a concrete gauge-Higgs model; computing its scalar potential would be a direct way to see whether the Higgs sector has the usual symmetry-breaking shape.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper develops a framework for nonassociative spectral geometry over discrete, finite-dimensional algebras built from octonionic factors, and presents a concrete construction intended to model the internal space of a G2 × G2 gauge theory with charged Higgs fields. The paper introduces three module notions: derivation bimodules (Definition 2.3), split alternative bimodules (Section 3.1), and reconstituted alternative bimodules (Section 5, Eqs. (122)–(123)). For the internal spectral data T_F = (A_F, H_F, D_F) with A_F = O ⊕ O and H_F = A_F, the Dirac operator D_F of Eq. (92) is restricted by D_F J_F = ε′_F J_F D_F to two sectors D_+ and D_- (Eqs. (111)–(112)); the off-diagonal components are claimed to parameterize charged Higgs fields transforming as (7,7) for ε′ = +1 and (7,1) for ε′ = −1. The construction of these Dirac operators uses derivation-compatible maps satisfying the weakened condition Eq. (64) rather than bimodule homomorphisms, and Section 5 checks the Leibniz rule for the new bimodule products by direct computation.

Significance. If the construction is correct, this is a meaningful advance: it provides an explicit finite nonassociative spectral geometry whose Dirac operator is automorphism-covariant and whose off-diagonal (Higgs) sector is charged under an exceptional symmetry group, while proposing a concrete class of bimodules over semisimple octonion algebras. The construction is explicit rather than existential: the bimodule products are written out in Eqs. (122)–(123), the automorphism lifts are specified in Eq. (128), and the Leibniz checks in Section 5.2 are direct and independently checkable. The representation content of the ε′ = +1 sector is consistent with the transformation of the Dirac operator, giving nontrivial support to the central idea. However, the ε′ = −1 sector is misidentified, and the S-parameterized family of bimodule products in Section 4.3 rests on an unshown identity; both points are load-bearing for the central claims. The Mathematica computations referenced in Section 3.4 are not shipped, so part of the classification is not reproducible from the text.

major comments (3)
  1. [4.3, Eqs. (110)–(116)] The S-parameterization is not established. By the identity Eq. (87), [πL(a), πR(b)] = [πR(a), πL(b)], so the bracketed term in Eq. (110) equals [πL(a), πR(b)] regardless of S; Eq. (110) is therefore the same statement as Eq. (95), and the S-dependence cancels before the quoted simplification. The transition to Eq. (114) reintroduces S-dependence without a displayed derivation, and if the transition is an identity the S-terms in Eq. (114) must cancel among themselves, which is not shown. Consequently the 'infinite family of bimodule products parameterised by S' claimed after Eq. (116) is unsupported as it stands. The authors should either supply the full computation that takes Eq. (110) to Eq. (114), or restrict the construction to the single value S = 1/2 required for the involution and prove Leibniz compatibility directly for that case.
  2. [5.2.2, Eq. (112)] The ε′ = −1 sector's representation content is misidentified. The off-diagonal block of D_- in Eq. (112) is A = M^{0i} e0⊗e_i^T + M^{i0} e_i⊗e0^T, and because the block form (0 A; A^T 0) is Hermitian for arbitrary M^{0i} and M^{i0}, the two terms are independent; under the lifted automorphism (α1, α2) they transform separately as (1,7) and (7,1) of G2 × G2. The space of such Dirac operators therefore carries (7,1) ⊕ (1,7), not (7,1) as claimed in the final sentence of Section 5.2.2 and implicit in the abstract's description of restricted scalar representations. Even if the particular maps Φcd∘Δκ of Eq. (142) transform as (7,1), they are indexed by a single imaginary direction and span only one of the two summands of the D_- moduli space; no mechanism is given that projects out the (1,7) part or identifies it with the listed (7,1) family. The authors should either correct the claimed transformation content of the ε′ = −1 sector to (7,1) ⊕ (1,7), or exhibit a projection that reduces it to (7,1).
  3. [3.4, 5, and 5.2.1] The foundational status of the new bimodules needs clarification. Section 5.2.1 states explicitly that only the weaker derivation compatibility condition Eq. (64) is required of the maps Φ∘Δκ, and Section 5.1 notes that the left and right actions of Eqs. (122)–(123) are noncommutative and nonassociative; however, the paper never verifies whether the square-zero extension B = A ⊕ M satisfies the alternative identities that the name 'alternative bimodule' suggests in Definition 2.2, nor does it state which properties of Definition 2.3 beyond the Leibniz checks and automorphism covariance are actually claimed. Since the Dirac operators built this way are only legitimate spectral data if the resulting module of 1-forms satisfies the stated axioms, the paper should state explicitly which identities the reconstituted bimodule satisfies and prove them; the closing remark of Section 5.1 that symmetrizing the bimodule yields a Jordan bimodule is stated without proof and does not resolve this.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typos: 'Hoschild' in Section 2.1 should be 'Hochschild'; the Section 2.2 heading 'Non-cassociative' should be 'Nonassociative'; 'Lebniz' in Section 3.2 should be 'Leibniz'; 'algernative' in the Section 5 heading should be 'alternative'; 'Spetral' in the Section 4.1 heading should be 'Spectral'; 'existance' in Section 3.4 should be 'existence'.
  2. [Eq. (49)] Equation (49) states 'for all a, b, c ∈ J3(O)', which appears to be leftover from a Jordan-algebra context; it should refer to elements of the octonion algebra O.
  3. [3.4] The sentence 'Since inner derivations annihilate the identity, we have:' is duplicated verbatim in Section 3.4, disrupting the flow of the derivation.
  4. [Appendix E] Appendix E states that the first term in the fluctuation F generates 'SU2 × SU2 gauge symmetry', which appears inconsistent with the G2 × G2 symmetry claimed for the same internal space in Sections 4.1 and 5.2; this should be clarified or corrected.
  5. [References] Reference [35] duplicates reference [4], and the Barnes–Schenkel–Szabo entry appears twice as references [41] and [42] with different DOIs; the bibliography should be deduplicated.
  6. [Appendix B] The Fano plane diagram in Appendix B is not legible in the text; it should be replaced with a clear figure or a table of multiplication rules.
  7. [Notation] The notation e^*_J for the dual and e*_J for the octonionic involution is easy to confuse; for example Eq. (92) uses 'e_I ⊗ e∗_J' while Appendix C carefully distinguishes ⋆ and ∗, and the distinction should be enforced consistently throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the construction is self-contained and verified by direct computation; advertised scalar restrictions are design choices rather than derived predictions, and the ε'=−1 sector raises a correctness concern that is not circular.

full rationale

The paper's central construction is self-contained: the coordinate algebra, Hilbert space representation, and Dirac operator are explicitly defined in Sec. 4.1; the bimodule products in Eqs. (115)-(116) and (122)-(123) are explicit definitions; and the claims that Δκ and Φcd∘Δκ satisfy the Leibniz rule are verified by direct computation in Eqs. (135), (141), and (144). No load-bearing step imports a theorem from the author's prior work: the specialization identity Eq. (1) is attributed to Jacobson [9], and self-citations such as [7] are used for comparison or context only. The charged-scalar transformation content is indeed built into the chosen maps Φcd (for example, the e_m factors in Eq. (139)), so the abstract's phrase 'scalar representations restricted by novel conditions' overstates what is actually derived; however, this is a presentation and overclaim issue rather than a circular reduction, because the paper explicitly frames the construction as 'sculpting the properties of the bimodule... to accommodate' the desired derivations in Section 4. The skeptic's objection that the ε'=−1 Dirac operator carries (1,7)⊕(7,1) rather than (7,1) is a potential correctness defect, not a circularity, and does not change the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The construction rests on standard octonion facts, on the spectral-geometry dictionary for gauge theories, and on two ad hoc but explicit choices: replacing bimodule homomorphisms by derivation-compatible maps, and introducing reconstituted alternative bimodule products. No empirical data are involved; the 'charged Higgs fields' are parameters of the Dirac operator, not independent predictions.

free parameters (4)
  • M_IJ = free real coefficients, not fixed
    Off-diagonal Dirac operator coefficients in Eq. (92); they parameterize the uncharged and charged Higgs content of the internal geometry.
  • kappa(ac) = free real coefficients kappa(ac)=kappa(ca)
    Coefficients of the external derivation Delta_kappa in Eq. (133); arbitrary real numbers.
  • S = 1/2, fixed by imposing an involutive bimodule
    Interpolating parameter in the proposed family of bimodule products, Eqs. (110)-(116); later fixed to 1/2 by the involution condition Eq. (118).
  • epsilon'_F = plus or minus 1, discrete choice
    Sign in D_F J_F = epsilon'_F J_F D_F, Eq. (113); selects D+ or D- and distinguishes the (7,7) vs (7,1) charged scalar representations.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Octonions form an alternative algebra with Der(O)=G2 and a totally antisymmetric associator.
    Used throughout; summarized in Appendix B and cited to standard references.
  • standard math The left multiplication algebra of O is all of End(R8), so right actions can be expressed via left actions and involution.
    Used in Eq. (89) and in Appendix D to identify Omega^1_Delta A = A tensor A; cited to Furey [38].
  • domain assumption Finite spectral geometries of the form Tc x TF encode gauge and Higgs fields, with internal Dirac operator parameters playing the role of Higgs fields.
    The whole construction of a G2 x G2 gauge theory rests on this dictionary, stated in Sec. 4.1 and Appendix E.
  • domain assumption The internal coordinate algebra is taken to be A_F = O direct sum O, represented on H_F = R16.
    This choice defines the discrete two-point geometry and the G2 x G2 symmetry; stated in Sec. 4.1.
  • ad hoc to paper Derivation-compatible maps satisfying Eq. (64), rather than bimodule homomorphisms, are sufficient to construct Dirac operators and charged 1-forms.
    This is the conceptual move that enables charged Higgs fields; the paper does not prove that such maps arise from a universal calculus.
  • ad hoc to paper The reconstituted alternative bimodule products, Eqs. (122)-(123), define a valid space of 1-forms over A, even though they do not inherit the alternative bimodule identities.
    The new bimodule is introduced to accommodate covariant derivations; its validity is checked by direct computation rather than derived from the standard bimodule notion.
invented entities (3)
  • Derivation bimodules (Def. 2.3)
    purpose: Generalize bimodules to nonassociative algebras while allowing external derivations and lifted inner derivations.
    A new formal structure; no empirical or external mathematical falsifiable handle outside the paper.
  • Split alternative bimodules (Sec. 3.1)
    purpose: Provide the naive module of 1-forms for octonionic discrete geometries, leading to automorphism-invariant Dirac operators.
    New formalism; used to show why naive constructions give uncharged Higgs fields.
  • Reconstituted alternative bimodules (Sec. 5)
    purpose: Engineer automorphism-covariant derivations and charged scalar fields for G2 x G2 internal spaces.
    New formalism; its existence is the main mathematical output, with no independent verification outside this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectral Geometry with Exceptional Symmetry and Charged Higgs Fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TPDDYTU5

@misc{pith2026250621496,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectral Geometry with Exceptional Symmetry and Charged Higgs Fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TPDDYTU5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21496}
}
abstract

We lay the foundations for a general approach to nonassociative spectral geometry as an extension of Connes' noncommutative geometry by explaining how to construct finite-dimensional, discrete spectral geometries with exceptional symmetry, and gauge covariant Dirac operators. We showcase an explicit construction of a geometry corresponding to the internal space of a $G_2\times G_2$ gauge theory with charged scalar content and scalar representations restricted by novel conditions arising from the associative properties of the coordinate algebra. Our construction motivates a new definition of bimodules over nonassociative algebras and a novel form of bimodule over semi-simple octonion algebras.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Noncommutative Geometry,

    A. Connes, “Noncommutative Geometry,” (Academic Press, 1994). ISBN: 978-012-1858-605

    work page 1994

  2. [2]

    On the spectral characterization of manifolds,

    A. Connes, “On the spectral characterization of manifolds,” J. Noncommut. Geom.7(1), 1–82 (2013). doi:10.4171/JNCG/108

    work page doi:10.4171/jncg/108 2013

  3. [3]

    Noncommutative Geometry, Quantum Fields and Motives,

    A. Connes and M. Marcolli, “Noncommutative Geometry, Quantum Fields and Motives,” (American Mathematical Society and Hindustan Book Agency, 2008). ISBN: 978-147-0450-458

    work page 2008

  4. [5]

    The Standard Model, the Pati-Salam Model, and ’Jordan Geometry’,

    L. Boyle and S. Farnsworth, “The Standard Model, the Pati-Salam Model, and ’Jordan Geometry’,” New J. Phys.22, 073023 (2020). doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ab9709

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ab9709 2020

  5. [6]

    Particle models from special Jordan backgrounds and spectral triples,

    F. Besnard and S. Farnsworth, “Particle models from special Jordan backgrounds and spectral triples,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, 63, 103505 (2022), doi:10.1063/5.0107136

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0107136 2022

  6. [7]

    The $n$-point Exceptional Universe

    S. Farnsworth, “The n-point Exceptional Universe”, arXiv: 2503.10744, (2025). doi:2503.10744

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  7. [8]

    Non-Associative Geometry and the Spectral Action Principle,

    S. Farnsworth, L. Boyle, “Non-Associative Geometry and the Spectral Action Principle,” JHEP 07, 023 (2015), doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2015)023

    doi:10.1007/jhep07(2015)023 2015

  8. [9]

    Structure and Representations of Jordan Algebras,

    N. Jacobson, “Structure and Representations of Jordan Algebras,” (American Mathematical Society, 1968). ISBN: 978-082-1831-793

    work page 1968

Show all 47 references
  1. [10]

    General Theory of Natural Equivalences,

    S. Eilenberg and S. Mac Lane, “General Theory of Natural Equivalences,” Transactions of the American Mathematical Society,58(2), 231-294 (1945). doi:10.2307/1990284

    1945 doi

  2. [11]

    Extensions of general algebras,

    S. Eilenberg, “Extensions of general algebras,” Ann. Sci. Polon. Math.,21, 125–134. (1948)

    1948

  3. [12]

    On the Cohomology Groups of an Associative Algebra,

    G. Hochschild, “On the Cohomology Groups of an Associative Algebra,” Annals of Mathematics,46(1), 58-67 (1945). 10.2307/1969085

    1945 doi

  4. [13]

    Triples, algebras and cohomology,

    J. Beck, “Triples, algebras and cohomology,” Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University, 1967 Reprints in Theory and Applications of Categories, 2, 1-59 (2003) Reprints

    2003

  5. [14]

    Structure and representation of nonassociative algebras,

    R. D. Schafer, “Structure and representation of nonassociative algebras,” Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.,61, 469–484. (1955)

    1955

  6. [15]

    An introduction to nonassociative algebras,

    R. Schafer, “An introduction to nonassociative algebras,” (Academic Press, 1966) ISBN-13: 978-048- 6688-138

    1966

  7. [16]

    Rethinking Connes’ Approach to the Standard Model of Particle Physics via Non-Commutative Geometry,

    L. Boyle and S. Farnsworth, “Rethinking Connes’ Approach to the Standard Model of Particle Physics via Non-Commutative Geometry,” New J. Phys. 17(2), 023021 (2015). doi:10.1088/1367- 2630/17/2/023021

    2015 doi

  8. [17]

    Gravity coupled with matter and the foundation of non-commutative geometry

    A. Connes, “Gravity coupled with matter and the foundation of non-commutative geometry.” Com- mun.Math. Phys. 182, 155–176 (1996). 10.1007/BF02506388

    1996 doi

  9. [18]

    An Introduction to Noncommutative Spaces and Their Geometry,

    G. Landi, “An Introduction to Noncommutative Spaces and Their Geometry,” (Lecture Notes in Physics Monographs, Springer, 2003). doi:10.1007/3-540-14949-X

    2003 doi

  10. [19]

    Alg` ebre: Chapitres 1 ` a 3

    Bourbaki, “ Alg` ebre: Chapitres 1 ` a 3”, (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg 2007). ISBN 978-354-0338-505

    2007

  11. [20]

    Introduction to Octonion and Other Non-Associative Algebras in Physics,

    S. Okubo, “Introduction to Octonion and Other Non-Associative Algebras in Physics,” (Cambridge University Press, 2009). ISBN: 9780511524479

    2009

  12. [21]

    Rings that are nearly associative,

    K. Zhevlakov, A. Slinko, I. Shestakov, I.Shirshov, “Rings that are nearly associative,” (Academic Press, 1982). ISBN: 0-12-779850-1

    1982

  13. [22]

    Classification of Some Graded Not Necessarily Associative Division Algebras I,

    L. A. Wills-Toro, “Classification of Some Graded Not Necessarily Associative Division Algebras I,” Commun. Algebra.42 (12), 5019–5049 (2014), doi:10.1080/00927872.2013.830730

    2014

  14. [23]

    Extended Higgs Sector on Noncommutative Geometry and Nonasso- ciative Lepton Chiral Symmetry,

    F. Giraldo, “Extended Higgs Sector on Noncommutative Geometry and Nonasso- ciative Lepton Chiral Symmetry,” PhD thesis, Universidad de Antioquia (2021). JimenezFredy˙2021˙HiggsNoncommutativeGeometry

    2021

  15. [24]

    Differential Calculus on Jordan Algebras and Jordan Modules,

    A. Carotenuto, L. D` abrowski, and M. Dubois-Violette, “Differential Calculus on Jordan Algebras and Jordan Modules,” Lett. Math. Phys.109(1), 113–133 (2019), doi:10.1007/s11005-018-1102-z

    2019 doi

  16. [25]

    Exceptional Quantum Geometry and Particle Physics,

    M. Dubois-Violette, “Exceptional Quantum Geometry and Particle Physics,” Nuclear Phys. B. 912, 426–449 (2016), doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2016.04.018. 30

    2016 doi

  17. [26]

    Noncommutative geometry and Reality,

    A. Connes, “Noncommutative geometry and Reality,” J. Math. Phys. 36, 6194–6231 (1995),doi:10.1063/1.531241

    1995 doi

  18. [27]

    Gravity and the Standard Model with Neutrino Mixing,

    A. H. Chamseddine, A. Connes, and M. Marcolli, “Gravity and the Standard Model with Neutrino Mixing,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.11, 991–1089 (2007). doi:10.4310/ATMP.2007.v11.n6.a3

    2007 doi

  19. [28]

    Particle Physics from Almost-Commutative Spacetime,

    K. van den Dungen and W. van Suijlekom, “Particle Physics from Almost-Commutative Spacetime,” Rev. Math. Phys.24(9), 1230004 (2012). doi:10.1142/S0129055X1230004X

    2012 doi

  20. [29]

    The Octonions,

    J. C. Baez, “The Octonions,” Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.39, 145–205 (2002), doi: 10.1090/S0273-0979-01- 00934-X

    2002 doi

  21. [30]

    Structurable Algebras and Groups of Type E6 and E7,

    S. Garibaldi, “Structurable Algebras and Groups of Type E6 and E7,” J. Algebra. 236(2), 651–691 (2001), doi: 10.1006/jabr.2000.8514

    2001

  22. [31]

    The Standard Model, The Exceptional Jordan Algebra, and Triality,

    L. Boyle, “The Standard Model, The Exceptional Jordan Algebra, and Triality,” arXiv:2006.16265 [hep-th] (2020), doi:10.48550/arXiv.2006.16265

    2020 doi arXiv

  23. [32]

    The Standard Model within Non-Associative Geometry,

    R. Wulkenhaar, “The Standard Model within Non-Associative Geometry,” Phys. Lett. B. 390(1–4), 119–127 (1997), doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(96)01336-6

    1997 doi

  24. [33]

    Cyclic homology for Hom-associative algebras,

    M. Hassanzadeh, I. Shapiro, S. S¨ utl¨ u, “Cyclic homology for Hom-associative algebras,”J. Geom. Phys. 98, 40–56 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomphys.2015.07.026

    2015 doi

  25. [34]

    Journal of Mathe- matical Physics,

    S. E. Akrami and S. Majid, Braided Cyclic Cocycles and Nonassociative Geometry, “Journal of Mathe- matical Physics,” 45(10), 3883–3911 (2004), doi:10.1063/1.1787621

    2004 doi

  26. [35]

    The geometry of physical observables,

    S. Farnsworth, “The geometry of physical observables,” J. Math. Phys. 61, 101702 (2020), doi:10.1063/5.0021707

    2020 doi

  27. [36]

    Working with Nonassociative Geometry and Field Theory,

    G. Barnes, A. Schenkel, and R. Szabo, “Working with Nonassociative Geometry and Field Theory,” PoS. EMPG-16-02, 081 (2016), doi:10.22323/1.263.0081

    2016 doi

  28. [37]

    Lie groups in the foundations of geometry,

    H. Freudenthal, “Lie groups in the foundations of geometry,” Adv. Math. 1(2), 145-190 (1964), doi:10.1016/0001-8708(65)90038-1

    1964 doi

  29. [38]

    Three generations, two unbroken gauge symmetries, and one eight-dimensional algebra,

    C. Furey, “Three generations, two unbroken gauge symmetries, and one eight-dimensional algebra,” Phys. Lett. B.785, 84-89 (2018), doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.08.032

    2018 doi

  30. [39]

    Majorana neutrinos, exceptional Jordan al- gebra, and mass ratios for charged fermions,

    V. Bhatt, R. Mondal, V. Vaibhav, and T. P. Singh, “Majorana neutrinos, exceptional Jordan al- gebra, and mass ratios for charged fermions,” J. Phys. G. Nuc. Par. Phys. 49(4), 045007 (2022), doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ac4c91

    2022 doi

  31. [40]

    CKM Matrix Parameters from the Exceptional Jordan Algebra,

    A. A. Patel, T. P. Singh, “CKM Matrix Parameters from the Exceptional Jordan Algebra,” Universe, 9(10), 440 (2023), doi:10.3390/universe9100440. “CKM Matrix Parameters from the Exceptional Jordan Algebra,” Universe, 9(10), 440 (2023), doi:10.3390/universe9100440

    2023 doi

  32. [41]

    Causal Fermion Systems and Octonions

    F. Finster, N. Gresnigt, J. Isidro, A. Marcian` o, C. Paganini, and T. Singh, “Causal Fermion Systems and Octonions”. Fortschritte der Physik, 72, 11 (2024), doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.00360

    2024 doi arXiv

  33. [42]

    Working with Nonassociative Geometry and Field Theory,

    G. Barnes, A. Schenkel, and R. Szabo, “Working with Nonassociative Geometry and Field Theory,” PoS. EMPG-16-02, 081 (2016), doi:10.1002/prop.202400055

    2016 doi

  34. [43]

    Resilience of the spectral standard model,

    A. H. Chamseddine and A. Connes, “Resilience of the spectral standard model,” JHEP 09, 104 (2012), doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2012)104

    2012 doi

  35. [44]

    Extensions of general algebras,

    S. Eilenberg, “Extensions of general algebras,” Ann. Soc. Math. Pol. 21, 125-134, (1948). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:60019734. 31

    1948

  36. [45]

    Deducing the symmetry of the standard model from the automor- phism and structure groups of the exceptional Jordan algebra,

    I. Todorov and M. Dubois-Violette, “Deducing the symmetry of the standard model from the automor- phism and structure groups of the exceptional Jordan algebra,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33(20), 1850118 (2018). doi:10.1142/S0217751X1850118X

    2018 doi

  37. [46]

    Exceptional quantum geometry and particle physics II,

    M. Dubois-Violette and I. Todorov, “Exceptional quantum geometry and particle physics II,” Nucl. Phys. B, 938, 751-761 (2019). doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2018.12.012

    2019 doi

  38. [47]

    The Spectral Action Principle,

    A. Chamseddine, and A. Connes, “The Spectral Action Principle,” Comm. Math. Phys.186(3), 731–750, (1997). 10.1007/s002200050126

    1997 doi

  39. [48]

    Real structures on almost-commutative spectral triples,

    B. Cacic, “Real structures on almost-commutative spectral triples,” Lett. Math. Phys. 103, 793-816, (2013). 10.48550/arXiv.1209.4832. 32

    2013 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.