Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 44 references

Octonions in Particle Physics through Structures of Generalised Proper Time

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Generalized proper time, not extra dimensions, forces octonions and reproduces Standard Model matter patterns.

desk verdict A clear summary of the author's own octonionic proper-time program, but the central foundation is internally inconsistent: the determinant forms in Table 2 have coefficients ±2, contradicting the coefficient condition of Eq. (5). read the letter →

arxiv 1909.05014 v1 pith:XKOFQXVL submitted 2019-09-02 physics.gen-ph hep-th

David J.Jackson This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.gen-phhep-th
keywords octonionsgeneralisedpropertimeexceptionalLiegroupsE6E7E8StandardModelmattercontentsymmetrybreaking
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

This paper tries to establish that the ordinary quadratic proper-time interval of 4-dimensional spacetime can be generalized to a higher-degree homogeneous polynomial invariant, and that this generalization forces the octonions and the exceptional Lie groups E6, E7, and ultimately E8 into the structure of time. If the construction is right, matter is not an input: Standard Model spinors, colour triplets, and fractional electric charges emerge when the 4-dimensional spacetime substructure is projected out of the generalized proper-time form and the remaining symmetry breaks. The broader point is that octonionic structure would then be a consequence of a generalised proper-time principle rather than a mathematical decoration.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalised proper-time norm $L_p(v_n)_{\hat G}=\alpha_{abc\ldots}v^a v^b v^c\ldots=1$, a homogeneous polynomial of degree $p$ in $n$ velocity-like components, with coefficients restricted to $\{-1,0,1\}$, required to contain the ordinary 4-dimensional quadratic form as a factor. The argument is carried by the nested embeddings $h_2\mathbb{C}\subset h_3\mathbb{C}\subset h_3\mathbb{O}\subset F(h_3\mathbb{O})$, where $h_3\mathbb{O}$ is the 27-dimensional exceptional Jordan algebra of $3\times3$ Hermitian octonion matrices and $F(h_3\mathbb{O})$ is its Freudenthal triple system; their norm-preserving symmetries are $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$, $SL(3,\mathbb{C})$, $E_6$ and $E_7$. Octonionic non-associativity is the crucial resource: the norm-preserving transformations must be defined through nested bracket products like $v_{27}\to M_m(\ldots(M_1(v_{27})M_1^\dagger)\ldots)M_m^\dagger$, and the paper states that this non-associativity supplies exactly enough freedom to realize the full exceptional symmetries. The mechanism then extracts matter by projecting the four spacetime components $v_4$ out of $v_{56}$, interpreting the broken transformations as Lorentz and internal gauge symmetries and the residual components as matter fields.

What would settle it

Try to construct the 248-dimensional octic invariant $L_8(v_{248})=1$ with $E_8$ symmetry under the same factorization condition. An explicit construction would confirm the predicted completion; a proof that no such invariant exists would falsify the paper's central projection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the chain of division algebras is mirrored by a chain of invariant homogeneous forms for proper time: $L_2(v_4)=1$ with $v_4\in h_2\mathbb{C}$ and symmetry $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$, $L_3(v_9)=1$ with $v_9\in h_3\mathbb{C}$ and symmetry $SL(3,\mathbb{C})$, $L_3(v_{27})=1$ with $v_{27}\in h_3\mathbb{O}$ and symmetry $E_6$, and $L_4(v_{56})=1$ with $v_{56}\in F(h_3\mathbb{O})$ and symmetry $E_7$. Extracting the external 4-dimensional spacetime substructure from the 56-component form breaks $E_7$ to $\mathrm{Lorentz}\times SU(3)_c\times U(1)_Q$, and the residual components organize into objects the paper identifies as a generation of leptons and quarks, plus Higgs-like and Yukawa-like scalars. The paper claims that this resemblance is direct and quantitative—Dirac spinors, colour singlets and triplets, and the fractional charges $1$, $2/3$ and $1/3$ are fixed by the mathematics—and that the remaining Standard Model features require one further augmentation to a 248-dimensional octic form with $E_8$ symmetry.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the true local proper-time interval can be replaced by a higher-order homogeneous polynomial whose coefficients are only $-1$, $0$, or $1$, with the usual quadratic spacetime interval appearing as a factor; the paper gives no deeper derivation of this step.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the Standard Model's $SU(3)_c$ colour and $U(1)_Q$ charge assignments for one lepton–quark generation are not inputs but outputs of projecting a 56-dimensional proper-time form onto 4-dimensional spacetime.
  • The weak $SU(2)_L$ symmetry, the correct Lorentz spinor structure for the neutrino and up-type quarks, and the three-generation pattern are predicted to come from the not-yet-built $E_8$ octic stage; without that stage the correspondence remains incomplete.
  • The framework predicts beyond-Standard-Model content tied to the scalar vacuum components: two right-handed neutrinos, a possible composite-Higgs structure, and a dark-matter candidate with Higgs-portal-like couplings.
  • Because the restricted quadratic extra-dimensional form with $p=2$ does not yield these structures, the higher-degree generalization is essential rather than optional.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the discreteness of the allowed coefficients $\{-1,0,1\}$ makes the space of admissible generalised proper-time polynomials finite and searchable; a systematic enumeration could settle whether the $E_6$, $E_7$, and $E_8$ stages are unique or one among several allowed chains.
  • The critical open step is the proposed $E_8$ octic form; if no such 248-dimensional invariant exists, the theory would still account for partial Standard Model structure but would lose its route to the weak force and family replication, making the existence of that form the decisive open question.
  • An obvious testable extension is to derive the actual fermion mass spectrum from the Yukawa-type scalar vacuum values rather than only identifying their existence; the paper gives the mechanism but not the numbers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a unified framework in which the local proper-time interval of special relativity, (δs)^2 = η_ab δx^a δx^b, is generalised to a p-th order homogeneous polynomial (Eq. 5) with coefficients restricted to {-1,0,1} and n>4 components, subject to the condition (Eq. 6) that the 4-dimensional quadratic form factors out. The author argues that this generalised proper time leads naturally to octonionic structures and to the exceptional Lie groups E6 and E7, with a predicted E8 stage (Eq. 9). Upon symmetry breaking through the extraction of a 4-dimensional spacetime background, the resulting fragmented components are claimed to reproduce a series of Standard Model features: Dirac spinors, SU(3)_c singlets and triplets, and U(1)_Q fractional charges, as summarised in Table 3. The paper openly concedes that the neutrino and u-quark states lack correct Lorentz spinor structures, that a full electroweak SU(2)_L×U(1)_Y symmetry is not obtained, and that the E8 completion is conjectural.

Significance. If the central derivation were sound, the paper would provide a novel conceptual route from a simple generalisation of proper time to the octonionic and exceptional-group structures that have long been studied in connection with the Standard Model. The exposition is clear, and the manuscript is honest about the partial nature of the Standard Model match, explicitly flagging the underlined entries in Table 3 and the conjectural status of Eq. (9). The paper also draws on standard mathematical material on the exceptional Jordan algebra, the Freudenthal triple system, and E6/E7 constructions. However, the load-bearing steps are not established in the manuscript itself: the symmetry-breaking table is inherited from an unpublished preprint, and the claimed realisations of the generalised proper-time norm in Table 2 appear to conflict with the coefficient restriction in Eq. (5). Consequently the significance of the paper as a derivation is limited, even though the underlying mathematical objects are of independent interest.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eqs. (5)–(7) and Table 2] The polynomial forms in Table 2 do not satisfy the coefficient condition of Eq. (5). Eq. (5) requires every coefficient α to lie in {-1,0,1}, but the determinant on h3C used for L3(v9)SL(3,C)=1 expands (in a real 9-component basis) with a cross term of the form 2 Re(z \bar{u} \bar{w}), whose monomial coefficients are ±2 rather than ±1. The same issue arises for the h3O determinant used for the E6 entry. Therefore L3(v9)=det(v9)=1 and the analogous octonionic cubic norm are not instances of the generalised proper-time expression defined in Eq. (5), and the claimed progression from generalised proper time to SL(3,C), E6, and E7 is not established by the paper's own postulate.
  2. [Section 3, Table 3 and reference [36]] The central physical result, the symmetry breaking pattern and the assignment of matter fields in Table 3, is not derived in this manuscript. The text states that this structure was 'determined ([36] section 4)', and [36] is an unpublished arXiv preprint (arXiv:1709.03877) by the same author. Similarly, the discussion of the projected v4 components and the Higgs interpretation refers to ([36] after figure 4). Since Table 3 is the main evidence for the claimed reproduction of Standard Model structures, the paper does not provide a self-contained and verifiable derivation of its central claim.
  3. [Section 3, Table 3 and accompanying text] The manuscript itself acknowledges that the derived matter content is incomplete: the neutrino and u-quark states do not have the correct Lorentz spinor structure (underlined entries in Table 3), and a full electroweak SU(2)_L×U(1)_Y symmetry is not obtained. This limitation is stated openly, but it is load-bearing for the claim that the theory 'reproduce[s] a series of characteristic structures of the Standard Model'. The correspondence to Table 1 is therefore only partial, and the paper's own admission should be weighed in assessing the strength of the claimed result.
  4. [Section 3, Eq. (9)] The E8 stage, which is invoked as the predicted completion of the Standard Model and as the source of new physics, is not constructed. The text refers to 'a proposed octic form' and says the construction is 'anticipated' to involve octonion triality, but no explicit polynomial L8(v248) or group action is given. As a result, the claims about completing the Standard Model picture and about the associated beyond-Standard-Model phenomena are unsupported in the present manuscript.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (6)] The second term in Eq. (6), written as (δx0,...,δxn−1)p, is not defined precisely: it is unclear whether its coefficients are also restricted to {-1,0,1} and which monomials are included. A precise definition would help the reader test the consistency of the generalisation.
  2. [Section 2, Table 2] The notation for the norms is inconsistent with Eq. (7): Table 2 writes L3(v9)SL(3,C)=1, whereas Eq. (7) defines L_p(v_n)^\hat G. This makes it harder to check that the table entries are special cases of the general definition.
  3. [Section 2, after Eq. (8)] The identification E6 ≡ SL(3,O) is used informally; since SL(3,O) is not a group in the usual sense due to octonion non-associativity, a more careful statement of the precise sense in which this identification holds would be helpful.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The advertised derivation from generalized proper time to SM-like matter reduces to the author's own earlier preprints: Table 2 is imported from [2]/[30], Table 3 is 'determined ([36] section 4)', and the E6/E7 structures are acknowledged as previously known and merely relabelled as proper time.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3, opening paragraph and Table 3]
    "This symmetry breaking structure has been studied in explicit detail through to the case of ˆG = E7 with n = 56 and p = 4 in table 2 with the resulting symmetry breaking pattern for the subcomponents of v56 determined ([36] section 4) as summarised here in table 3."

    The paper's central physics claim—that extracting 4D spacetime from generalized proper time yields SM-like leptons, quarks, colour and charge assignments—is not derived in this paper. The decisive decomposition of the 56 components into the states of Table 3 is asserted to have been 'determined' in the author's own earlier preprint [36]. The earlier stage of Table 2 is likewise said to be 'described in detail in ([2] chapters 6 and 9.2, [30] sections 2.3 and 3.1)', with [2], [30] and [36] all by the same author. No machine-checked proof, independent code reproduction, or external falsification of those preprints is supplied here, so the load-bearing derivation reduces to a self-citation chain rather than to the stated physical postulate.

  2. uniqueness imported from authors [Section 2, paragraph introducing Table 2]
    "In the explicit mathematical development for the general form of proper time of equation 7, as an augmentation from a local 4-dimensional spacetime structure, the octonions are indeed found to play an essential role in a unique sequence of ‘Russian doll’-like embeddings as summarised in table 2."

    The uniqueness claim ('unique sequence') is what turns the very general polynomial form of Eq. (5) into the specific octonionic E6/E7 determinant constructions. But the uniqueness is not proved in this paper; the immediately following text refers to earlier works by the same author ([2] chapters 6 and 9.2, [30] sections 2.3 and 3.1) for the details. The inevitability of the octonions is therefore imported from the author's own prior framework rather than derived from the assumptions stated in Eqs. (5)–(7).

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Section 2, Eq. (5) versus Table 2]
    "with each coefficient αabc... ∈ {−1, 0, 1} generalising the components of the Lorentz metric ... L3(v9)SL(3,C) = det(v9) = 1 for the 9-component vector v9 ∈ h3C with an SL(3,C) symmetry"

    The defining equation (5) restricts all coefficients to {-1,0,1}, but the 3×3 Hermitian determinant used in Table 2 has the standard expansion abc − a|u|^2 − b|w|^2 − c|z|^2 + 2Re(z uw), whose 2Re cross term carries coefficient ±2 in a real basis. Hence the determinant form presented as a realization of Eq. (7) is not literally an instance of the paper's own generalized-proper-time definition. The table is therefore identified with the definition by prior construction/citation rather than being shown to follow from the stated postulate; this is an internal-consistency defect as well as a sign that the route from proper time to octonions is asserted rather than derived.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: Eq. (5)/(7) → determinant forms of Table 2 → E6/E7 → symmetry breaking in Table 3 → SM-like matter content. Every load-bearing step is deferred to the author's own earlier preprints rather than executed in the present manuscript: Table 2 is 'described in detail in ([2] chapters 6 and 9.2, [30] sections 2.3 and 3.1)', and Table 3 is 'determined ([36] section 4)'. Because [2], [30] and [36] are self-authored arXiv preprints that are not machine-checked, code-reproduced, or independently validated in this paper, the central prediction reduces to a self-citation chain. The paper also explicitly acknowledges that the E6/E7 constructions 'have a known interpretation in a context of generalised spacetimes' and simply reconsiders them as symmetries of generalized proper time; relabelling known exceptional-group/Jordan-algebra structures does not by itself make the SM content a consequence of Eq. (5). Separately, but relevant to the foundational equation, det(v9) on h3C contains a ±2 cross term, so the Table 2 determinants are not obviously instances of Eq. (5)'s {−1,0,1} coefficient condition. That is more an internal-consistency concern than a circularity, but it reinforces that the path from proper time to the octonionic structures is asserted and imported by citation rather than independently derived. The score of 8 reflects that the central result is forced by the self-citation chain: the present paper's advertised prediction is, by its own references, identical to the author's prior framework.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The theory's central claim rests on a small set of postulates and on the author's prior work. The generalized proper-time ansatz (Eq. 5-6) is an ad hoc mathematical generalization; the interpretation of residual symmetry-breaking components as matter fields is a domain assumption inherited from Kaluza-Klein style thinking; the specific progression of dimensions and degrees is selected to match the exceptional Lie groups. The heavy reliance on the author's own preprints for the key tables makes the chain of evidence difficult to audit from this paper alone.

free parameters (1)
  • Generalised proper time degrees and dimensions (p,n) = (2,4), (3,9), (3,27), (4,56), (8,248)
    The progression of polynomial degree p and component number n is chosen by hand to reproduce the known exceptional Lie group structures E6, E7, and E8, rather than derived from the proper-time principle itself.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The proper time interval may be generalised to a p-th order homogeneous polynomial (Eq. 5) with coefficients in {-1,0,1} and p>2.
    This is the foundational postulate of the theory; no derivation is given for why physical time should take this form.
  • ad hoc to paper Equation 6: the generalised form must factor the 4D quadratic form, projecting out external spacetime.
    This 'necessary extraction' is imposed to recover 4D spacetime; it is not derived from a deeper principle.
  • domain assumption Residual components after symmetry breaking are interpreted as matter fields.
    The association of fragmented components of v56 with lepton and quark states is an interpretive step, standard in Kaluza-Klein style approaches.
  • standard math The sequence (n,p) = (27,3), (56,4), (248,8) reproduces E6, E7, and E8 using known octonionic constructions.
    These are established mathematical facts from the literature (exceptional Jordan algebra, Freudenthal triple system), but their relevance requires the prior postulates.
  • ad hoc to paper An E8 action on an octic form (Eq. 9) exists and yields the full Standard Model.
    The E8 completion is an unproven conjecture; the paper states a construction is anticipated but not given.
invented entities (1)
  • Generalised proper time (p-th order, n-component)
    purpose: To motivate octonionic exceptional structures as symmetries of time
    This is a new postulated physical and mathematical construct introduced in this program; no independent evidence is offered.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Octonions in Particle Physics through Structures of Generalised Proper Time." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XKOFQXVL

@misc{pith2026190905014,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Octonions in Particle Physics through Structures of Generalised Proper Time},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XKOFQXVL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.05014}
}
read the original abstract

In considering the nature of the basic mathematical structures appropriate for describing the fundamental elements of particle physics a significant role for the octonions, as an extension from the complex numbers and uniquely the largest division algebra, has occasionally been proposed. Rather than being based initially upon the more abstract grounds of mathematical aesthetics, here we describe a unified theory motivated conceptually through an elementary generalisation of the expression for a local proper time interval, beyond that of 4-dimensional spacetime and also beyond that of the local structure of models with extra spatial dimensions, for which the explicit mathematical development naturally incorporates the octonion algebra as an essential feature. Properties of matter are identified directly through the symmetry breaking structure entailed in the necessary extraction of the external 4-dimensional spacetime background and are shown to reproduce a series of characteristic structures of the Standard Model of particle physics. While already employing octonion-based constructions of the exceptional Lie groups E6 and E7 the uncovering of the full Standard Model, as well as new physics beyond, is predicted to involve an E8-related structure for which the octonion algebra is again anticipated to be of fundamental importance.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [36]

    D. J. Jackson, ‘Time, E 8, and the Standard Model’, arXiv:1709.03877 [physics.gen-ph] (2017)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  2. [1]

    T. Teubner, ‘The Standard Model’, Proceedings of the RAL Schoo l for Exper- imental High Energy Physics Students, Oxford, (September 2009 ), [available at www.ppd.stfc.ac.uk/Pages/StandardModel09.pdf]

    work page 2009

  3. [2]

    D. J. Jackson, ‘Unification in One Dimension’, arXiv:1606.09568 [phys ics.gen-ph] (2016)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  4. [3]

    Tanabashi et al

    M. Tanabashi et al. [Particle Data Group], ‘Review of Particle Physics’, Phys. Rev. D 98 (3), 030001 (2018), [available at http://pdg.lbl.gov]

    work page 2018

  5. [4]

    Drewes, ‘The Phenomenology of Right Handed Neutrinos’, Int

    M. Drewes, ‘The Phenomenology of Right Handed Neutrinos’, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 22, 1330019 (2013) [arXiv:1303.6912 [hep-ph]]. 16

    arXiv 2013

  6. [5]

    Howard Georgi, ‘Lie Algebras in Particle Physics’, Perseus Books (1 999)

    work page

  7. [6]

    G¨ ursey, P

    F. G¨ ursey, P. Ramond and P. Sikivie, ‘A Universal Gauge Theory M odel based on E 6’, Phys. Lett. B 60 (2), 177–180 (1976)

    work page 1976

  8. [7]

    G¨ ursey and P

    F. G¨ ursey and P. Sikivie, ‘E 7 as a Universal Gauge Group’, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36 (14), 775–778 (1976)

    work page 1976

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    Bars and M

    I. Bars and M. G¨ unaydin, ‘Grand Unification with the Exceptional Group E 8’, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 859 (1980)

    1980

  2. [9]

    A. D. Wangberg, ‘The Structure of E 6’, PhD. Thesis (Advisor: T. Dray), Oregon State University (2007), arXiv:0711.3447 [math.RA], [available at http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/7446]

    2007 arXiv

  3. [10]

    C. A. Manogue and T. Dray, ‘Octonions, E 6, and Particle Physics’, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 254, 012005 (2010) [arXiv:0911.2253v2 [math.RA]]

    2010 arXiv

  4. [11]

    J. C. Baez, ‘The Octonions’, Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 39, 145–205 (2002) [arXiv:math/0105155 [math.RA]]

    2002 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Pais, ‘Remark on the Algebra of Interactions’, Phys

    A. Pais, ‘Remark on the Algebra of Interactions’, Phys. Rev. Le tt. 7 (7), 291–293 (1961)

    1961

  6. [13]

    High Energy Physics and Elementary Particles

    A. Gamba, ‘On Jordan Algebra M 8 3’, in “High Energy Physics and Elementary Particles” (Trieste Seminar, 1964), IAEA, Vienna, 641–646 (1965)

    1965

  7. [14]

    G¨ unaydin and F

    M. G¨ unaydin and F. G¨ ursey, ‘Quark Structure and Octonions’, J. Math. Phys. 14 (11), 1651–1667 (1973)

    1973

  8. [15]

    G¨ unaydin and F

    M. G¨ unaydin and F. G¨ ursey, ‘Quark Statistics and Octonions’,Phys. Rev. D 9, 3387–3391 (1974)

    1974

  9. [16]

    Sorgsepp and J

    L. Sorgsepp and J. L¯ ohmus, ‘About Nonassociativity in Physics and Cayley-Graves Octonions’, Hadronic J. 2, 1388–1459 (1979)

    1979

  10. [17]

    Morita, ‘Algebraic Gauge Theory of Quarks and Leptons’, Pro g

    K. Morita, ‘Algebraic Gauge Theory of Quarks and Leptons’, Pro g. Theor. Phys. 68 (6), 2159–2175 (1982)

    1982

  11. [18]

    Dixon, ‘Division Algebras, (1,9)-Space-time, Matter-antimat ter Mixing’, arXiv:hep- th/9303039 (1993)

    G. Dixon, ‘Division Algebras, (1,9)-Space-time, Matter-antimat ter Mixing’, arXiv:hep- th/9303039 (1993)

    1993

  12. [19]

    Dixon, ‘Division Algebras: Family Replication’, J

    G. Dixon, ‘Division Algebras: Family Replication’, J. Math. Phys. 45, 3878 (2004), [avail- able at http://www.7stones.com/Homepage/123cho.pdf]

    2004

  13. [20]

    Morita, ‘Algebraic Gauge Theory of Quarks and Leptons’, JPS Conf

    K. Morita, ‘Algebraic Gauge Theory of Quarks and Leptons’, JPS Conf. Proc. 7, 010010 (2015)

    2015

  14. [21]

    Furey, ‘ SU (3)C × SU (2)L × U (1)Y (×U (1)X ) as a Symmetry of Division Algebraic Ladder Operators’, Eur

    C. Furey, ‘ SU (3)C × SU (2)L × U (1)Y (×U (1)X ) as a Symmetry of Division Algebraic Ladder Operators’, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (5), 375 (2018) [arXiv:1806.00612 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Furey, ‘Three Generations, Two Unbroken Gauge Symmetrie s and One Eight- Dimensional Algebra’, Phys

    C. Furey, ‘Three Generations, Two Unbroken Gauge Symmetrie s and One Eight- Dimensional Algebra’, Phys. Lett. B 785, 84–89 (2018)

    2018

  16. [23]

    Rowlands and S

    P. Rowlands and S. Rowlands, ‘Are Octonions Necessary to the S tandard Model?’, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1251 (1), 012044 (2019)

    2019

  17. [24]

    T. G. Rizzo, ‘Pedagogical Introduction to Extra Dimensions’, eC onf C 040802, L013 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0409309]

    2004 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Y. X. Liu, ‘Introduction to Extra Dimensions and Thick Branewor lds’, arXiv:1707.08541 [hep-th] (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Kaluza, ‘On the Problem of Unity in Physics’, Sitzungsber

    T. Kaluza, ‘On the Problem of Unity in Physics’, Sitzungsber. Preu ss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.) 1921, 966 (1921). 17

    1921

  20. [27]

    Klein, ‘Quantum Theory and Five-Dimensional Relativity’, Z

    O. Klein, ‘Quantum Theory and Five-Dimensional Relativity’, Z. Phy s. 37, 895 (1926)

    1926

  21. [28]

    Witten, ‘Search for a Realistic Kaluza-Klein Theory’, Nucl

    E. Witten, ‘Search for a Realistic Kaluza-Klein Theory’, Nucl. Phys . B 186 (2), 412–428 (1981)

    1981

  22. [29]

    Jittoh, M

    T. Jittoh, M. Koike, T. Nomura, J. Sato and T. Shimomura, ‘Mode l Building by Coset Space Dimensional Reduction Scheme using Ten-dimensional Coset S paces’, Prog. Theor. Phys. 120, 1041 (2008) [arXiv:0803.0641 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  23. [30]

    D. J. Jackson, ‘Generalised Proper Time as a Unifying Basis for Mo dels with Two Right- Handed Neutrinos’, arXiv:1905.12419 [physics.gen-ph] (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  24. [31]

    C. A. Manogue and J. Schray, ‘Finite Lorentz Transformations , Automorphisms, and Division Algebras’, J. Math. Phys. 34, 3746–3767 (1993) [arXiv:hep-th/9302044]

    1993 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Rios, ‘Jordan C∗ -Algebras and Supergravity’, arXiv:1005.3514 [hep-th] (2010)

    M. Rios, ‘Jordan C∗ -Algebras and Supergravity’, arXiv:1005.3514 [hep-th] (2010)

    2010 arXiv

  26. [33]

    G¨ unaydin and O

    M. G¨ unaydin and O. Pavlyk, ‘Generalized Spacetimes defined by C ubic Forms and the Minimal Unitary Realizations of their Quasiconformal Groups’, JHEP 0508, 101 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0506010]

    2005 arXiv

  27. [34]

    William R. Hamilton, ‘Theory of Conjugate Functions, or Algebraic C ouples; with a Preliminary and Elementary Essay on Algebra as the Science of Pure T ime’, Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, 17 (1), 293–422 (1837)

  28. [35]

    Hamilton, ‘On Quaternions’, Proceeding of the Royal Irish Academy, 3, 1–16 (1847)

    William R. Hamilton, ‘On Quaternions’, Proceeding of the Royal Irish Academy, 3, 1–16 (1847)

  29. [37]

    C. C. Li and G. J. Ding, ‘Implications of Residual C P Symmetry for Leptogenesis in a Model with Two Right-Handed Neutrinos’, Phys. Rev. D 96 (7), 075005 (2017) [arXiv:1701.08508 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Krog and C

    J. Krog and C. T. Hill, ‘Is the Higgs Boson Composed of Neutrinos? ’, Phys. Rev. D 92 (9), 093005 (2015) [arXiv:1506.02843 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Arcadi, A

    G. Arcadi, A. Djouadi and M. Raidal, ‘Dark Matter through the H iggs Portal’, arXiv:1903.03616 [hep-ph] (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    J. M. Evans, ‘Trialities and Exceptional Lie Algebras: Deconstru cting the Magic Square’, arXiv:0910.1828 [hep-th] (2009)

    2009 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Todorov and M

    I. Todorov and M. Dubois-Violette, ‘Deducing the Symmetry of t he Standard Model from the Automorphism and Structure Groups of the Exceptional Jord an Algebra’, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33 (20), 1850118 (2018) [arXiv:1806.09450 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    L. J. Boya, ‘Octonions and M-theory’, arXiv:hep-th/0301037 ( 2003)

    2003 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Toppan, ‘Exceptional Structures in Mathematics and Physic s and the Role of the Octonions’, arXiv:hep-th/0312023 (2003)

    F. Toppan, ‘Exceptional Structures in Mathematics and Physic s and the Role of the Octonions’, arXiv:hep-th/0312023 (2003)

    2003 arXiv

  36. [44]

    D. J. Jackson, ‘The Structure of Matter in Spacetime from the Substructure of Time’, arXiv:1804.00487 [physics.gen-ph] (2018). 18

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.