Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Left-right symmetry in two-sided E6 unification acts only as spacetime parity, dissolving the second colour and setting the strong-CP angle to zero at tree level.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 21:27 UTC pith:AXULFGUZ

load-bearing objection Careful structural note that dissolves the second colour and proves a solid anomaly no-go; the strong-CP payoff is honestly conditional on the unproved gravi-weak input the paper itself flags. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.04132 v1 pith:AXULFGUZ submitted 2026-07-05 hep-ph hep-th

Left-right symmetry breaking in E₆^Ltimes E₆^R occurs only in spacetime -- with possible implications for strong CP

Tejinder P. Singh This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-th
keywords strong CP problemleft-right symmetryE6 unificationoctonionsexceptional Jordan algebragravi-weakvector-like colourdark electromagnetism
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that the left-right symmetry of an octonionic E6^L × E6^R unification lives in spacetime, not in the internal sector. Because the right-handed SU(2) is read as the gravitational frame group, the exchange is ordinary parity on the Dirac field and therefore cannot manufacture a second internal colour group; the nominal SU(3)_{c'} is simply the same vector-like colour as the visible one, the charged lepton remains a colour singlet, and hypercharge is recovered from left-sector data alone. The same spontaneous parity forbids the bare QCD vacuum angle, while the flavour rotors that diagonalize the mass matrices have real determinants, so the physical strong-CP parameter vanishes at tree level even though the CKM phase remains nonzero. A sympathetic reader cares because both structural ingredients of a parity solution to strong CP are already present in the mass construction rather than being added by hand, and the dangerous gauged right-handed W loops of minimal models are absent.

Core claim

In the unbroken E6^L × E6^R theory the left-right exchange is realized on the Dirac field as spacetime parity and acts trivially on colour and electric charge. Consequently the two would-be colour groups coincide as one vector-like SU(3)_c with a colour-singlet electron, hypercharge is the consistency relation Y = Q - T_L^3 with Q = N/3 and no right-sector generator, and the spontaneous parity forbids θ_QCD while real-determinant flavour rotors give arg det M = 0, yielding θ-bar = 0 at tree level that coexists with a nonzero CKM phase.

What carries the argument

The recognition that left-right exchange acts as spacetime parity (via the program-level reading of SU(2)_R as the gravitational frame group). This single identification collapses the two colour stabilizers into one vector-like gauge field, removes right-sector generators from hypercharge, and supplies the protecting parity that sets θ_QCD = 0.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the right-handed SU(2) is gravity rather than a second weak force; without that reading the left-right exchange is no longer ordinary spacetime parity and the vanishing of the QCD vacuum angle does not follow.

What would settle it

An explicit evaluation of the Higgs-bridge flavour matrix elements that regenerates a θ-bar larger than 10^{-10}, or the discovery of a gauged right-handed W boson that couples to fermions, or a demonstration that the two octonionic sectors use opposite complex structures so colour is chiral rather than vector-like.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • No second gauged colour exists and no hand-suppression of a coloured electron is required.
  • Visible fermions are dem-neutral; the dark photon reaches them only through kinetic mixing, so no visible fifth force appears.
  • Tree-level strong-CP conservation is obtained without an axion and without imposing Hermitian Yukawas by hand.
  • There is no gauged W_R, so standard left-right collider and flavour bounds do not apply.
  • Radiative regeneration of θ-bar is relocated entirely to the still-uncomputed Higgs-bridge sector.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the Higgs-bridge matrix elements preserve the real-transport class already used for the Cabibbo rotors, the construction would automatically evade the unsuppressed two-loop obstruction that defeats minimal gauged-SU(2)_R parity models.
  • The anomaly no-go that forces visible dem-neutrality simultaneously obliges a rigidly specified dark chiral sector whose kinetic mixing can be searched for as a millicharged dark photon.
  • The same single-frame logic that merges colour while leaving the weak/gravity pair distinct suggests a fully six-dimensional formulation might force both leafwise topological densities to vanish by orientation reversal, upstream of the parity argument.
  • A failure of the emergence map to keep the leafwise Lagrangian θ-free would falsify only the θ_QCD half, cleanly separating it from the more secure arg det M half.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that in two-sided octonionic E6^L × E6^R unification the left–right exchange lives in the spacetime (gravi-weak) sector rather than the internal sector. With SU(2)_R identified as the gravitational frame group, the exchange acts as ordinary parity on the Dirac field, cannot double the internal colour, and therefore identifies the nominal second colour SU(3)_{c'} with the visible SU(3)_c as one vector-like colour with a colour-singlet electron. An anomaly no-go (Appendix A, Prop. 4) shows that every anomaly-free U(1) on visible fermions lies in span{Q, B−L}, so the unbroken dark-electromagnetic U(1)_dem carries the parity-mirror of electric charge on a dark sector and the visible fermions are dem-neutral; √m enters only as the spectral label of the Jordan mass operator. Hypercharge is recovered as the consistency relation Y = Q − T_L^3 with Q = N/3 and no right-sector generator. As an application, spontaneous parity forbids θ_QCD = 0 (conditional on the gravi-weak identification), while flavour rotors of real determinant give arg det M = 0 at tree level (exact for the Cabibbo rung, texture-contingent in full), coexisting with a nonzero CKM phase. Loop safety is open, pending Higgs-bridge matrix elements. Epistemic tags ([D]/[P],[C],[O]) and a dependency ledger (Sec. 10) are used throughout.

Significance. If the structural reading holds, the paper removes by a single principle two long-standing tensions of the two-sided construction (a second colour that would colour the electron, and a hypercharge that seemed to need right-sector Cartans) and supplies a spontaneous-parity route to tree-level θ-bar = 0 that inherits both ingredients from the existing octonionic mass and flavour structure rather than imposing them by hand. The anomaly no-go (Prop. 4) and the colour-blindness of the e↔d flip (Props. 2–3) are standard, self-contained representation/anomaly arguments that cleanly fix the dark-charge assignment and exclude a visible fifth force. The explicit BF o Yang–Mills reduction to a single colour connection (Sec. 5) and the careful separation of rotor-determinant reality from the CKM phase are genuine technical contributions. The manuscript is unusually transparent about what is derived versus program-level input, which is a strength even when the strong-CP application remains conditional.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4, Sec. 8] Sec. 4 Clauses 1–3 and Sec. 8: the claim that the left–right exchange is ordinary spacetime parity of a left–right gauge theory, and therefore forbids the bare θ_QCD term, rests on the program-level identification that SU(2)_R is the gravitational frame group (tagged [P] in Secs. 2.2, 4 and 8). Clause 1 (that the exchange must act on spinor indices) is relatively secure given the split-bioctonion dictionary, but without the gravi-weak reading the operation is no longer the parity of a left–right gauge theory and the θ_QCD half of the strong-CP application collapses. The paper is explicit about this conditionality; the abstract and Sec. 8 scope statement should state even more prominently that θ_QCD = 0 is not a derived result of the present work but an application conditional on an external hypothesis.
  2. [Sec. 8 scope (b)] Sec. 8 scope (b): the standard step “spontaneous breaking adds no term to the Lagrangian” assumes a fixed arena. Here the breaking is simultaneously the emergence of the classical arena, and the paper correctly flags that no theorem guaranteeing that the emergence map generates no θ-term is available ([O]). This is a second, independent conditionality on θ_QCD = 0, larger than the gravi-weak [P]. The strong-CP claim should be rephrased throughout as “tree-level θ-bar = 0 conditional on (i) the gravi-weak identification and (ii) an emergence-map property that remains open,” so that the abstract and introduction do not overstate what is established.
  3. [Sec. 5, assumption (C)] Sec. 5, assumption (C) and the BF o YM reduction: the vector-like character of the single colour (needed for the strong-CP argument) rests on the parallel two-sector construction that both octonionic sectors share the same field scalar i (+ie_8 rather than −ie_8). The paper tags this [C] leaning [D] and notes that the explicit leaf map would settle it. Because the strong-CP application needs vector-like colour, the residual should be stated as a named checkable condition in the abstract and in the Sec. 10 ledger, not only in the body of Sec. 5.
  4. [Sec. 8, Sec. 9] Sec. 8 (ii) and Sec. 9: arg det M = 0 is [D] for the Cabibbo rung (real octonionic generator) but texture-contingent for the full 3 imes3 matrix (adjacent-edge texture of Ref. [13]), and loop safety is open pending the flavour matrix elements of the Higgs bridge B_H. The paper already separates these statuses carefully; the abstract’s phrasing “arg det M = 0 at tree level (exact for the Cabibbo rung, texture-contingent in full)” is accurate and should be preserved, but the claim that the framework “plausibly escapes” the de Vries–Draper–Patel two-loop obstruction should not be read as a demonstration of radiative stability. The open B_H computation is correctly identified as the decisive next step.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1] Fig. 1 is dense and useful as a roadmap, but the caption is very long; a shorter caption with a pointer to Sec. 5 would improve readability.
  2. [Sec. 3] Sec. 3: the hypercharge table is clear, but the text should flag more explicitly that Y = Q − T_L^3 is a consistency relation (Gell-Mann–Nishijima with Q primary) rather than a from-scratch derivation until normalization-faithfulness of T_L^3 is established.
  3. [Appendix A, Prop. 4] Appendix A, Prop. 4: the anomaly table is standard and solid; a one-line reminder of the colour–weak multiplicity convention used for the [SU(2)_L]^2 line would help readers who do not immediately recall the SM check A_221[Y] = 0.
  4. [Sec. 10] Sec. 10 ledger: the reconciliation notes with companion papers [12] (hypercharge construction, U(1)_dem reading, N_R/3 as carrier of √m) are valuable; they could be cross-referenced earlier (e.g. in Sec. 3 and Sec. 5) so that a reader of the companions is not left with an inconsistent record.
  5. [Sec. 7, Introduction] Notation: the dual use of “left–right” for both the spacetime parity P and the flavour Dynkin swap Φ is acknowledged in Sec. 7; a single sentence in the introduction warning that the two operations are distinct would reduce the risk of conflation.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged

Framework premises are load-bearing self-citations from the author's companions, but the new anomaly no-go and the spacetime-vs-internal colour argument have independent content; θ_QCD=0 is conditional on tagged [P], not circular by definition.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 2.1–2.3, Sec. 4 status, Sec. 8 (ii), ledger Sec. 10]
    "All three are inputs to the present paper, tagged [P], and are developed in Refs. [12, 13, 14, 15]. ... Clauses 1 and 2 ... are [D] given the split-bioctonion dictionary that realizes the two ideals as the two Spin(1,3) chiralities (Appendix J of Ref. [12]; Ref. [16]) ... The Cabibbo-rung transport is L_exp(θ g_χ) with g_χ = cos χ e_3 − sin χ e_1 a real octonionic direction ... [13, 35]"

    The one-generation Cl(6) module, Jordan spectrum reality, split-bioctonion chirality dictionary, and special-unitary flavour rotors that underwrite Q=N/3, arg det M=0, and the parity reading of L–R are not re-derived here; they are load-bearing citations to the author's own companion papers. Without those self-citations the structural chain does not stand. This is not machine-checked or externally fixed; it is program-internal scaffolding used as premise.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. 2.2, Sec. 5 BF→YM reduction, Fig. 1 caption]
    "In the present program this split is realized dynamically by the six-dimensional SO(3,3) BF reduction of Wesley, Singh and Isidro [30] ... The single colour connection (32) ... is [D] relative to two inputs the paper already carries: the gravi-weak hypothesis ... and the split-bioctonionic dimensional anatomy ... imported from Ref. [15]"

    The dynamical collapse of two colour connections to one Yang–Mills term, and the gravi-weak assignment of SU(2)_R as the frame group, rest on the author's (co)authored SO(3,3) BF and split-bioctonion papers. Those are the same program's working hypotheses, not independent external theorems; the colour-identification claim is only as secure as that self-cited dynamics.

  3. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Sec. 7, 'The scope of the Φ-image premise']
    "The imported premise is that the right sector's flavour ladder and abelian grading values are the Φ-image of the left's ... It is emphatically not that the right sector's colour embedding is the Φ-image of the left's. ... the right-sector embedding is a construction choice, and the choice made here is the only one compatible with vector-like colour."

    The Dynkin-swap premise is imported from the author's mass-ratio work [12] and then deliberately scoped so that Φ does not conjugate colour—explicitly because the alternative would make colour chiral and destroy vector-like QCD. The embedding that delivers the desired vector-like colour is selected for compatibility with that conclusion rather than forced by an independent uniqueness theorem.

  4. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 2.3; Appendix A.6 residual (β); Abstract]
    "The three sector centres are set by the trace split Tr X_ℓ : Tr X_u : Tr X_d = 1 : 2 : 3. This inter-sector ratio ... is taken here as a phenomenological input ... The √m values {0, 1/3, 2/3, 1} are the exceptional-Jordan trace split 1 : 2 : 3, input [P] ... the program has, for now, no derivation of the one-third quantization of √m"

    The colour-blind √m lattice used throughout (electron grade 1/3, force inventory, Dynkin flip) is the Jordan trace split taken as phenomenological input, not derived in this paper. The paper is honest that it is [P] and not a prediction here; the mild circularity risk is only if readers treat the structural role of those values as first-principles output. They are inputs by the paper's own ledger.

full rationale

The paper is unusually explicit about epistemic tags ([D]/[P]/[C]/[O]) and does not rebrand fitted mass data as predictions of this work: √m values are stated as the exceptional-Jordan trace-split input, hypercharge is called a consistency relation, and strong CP is presented as an application rather than a solved problem. The genuinely new calculation—Prop. 4, that every anomaly-free U(1) on SM+ν_R content lies in span{Y,B−L} and the √m pattern does not—is self-contained and does not reduce to a fit. The colour-dissolution and parity reading are logical consequences of the stated premises (gravi-weak [P], split-bioctonion dictionary, parallel-i assumption), not self-definitional loops. Circularity risk is real but moderate: the Cl(6) ideal, Jordan spectrum reality, flavour-rotor determinants, split-bioctonion chirality dictionary, and SO(3,3) BF reduction are imported from the author's own arXiv companions and are load-bearing for the structural claims; the Φ-image premise is scoped by construction to the only embedding compatible with vector-like colour. That is self-citation load-bearing and a construction choice, not a reduction of the central equations to their own definitions. Score 4: some self-citation; central new claims retain independent content. No fitted-input-called-prediction for this paper's headline results; no uniqueness theorem used to forbid alternatives by self-citation alone.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 9 axioms · 4 invented entities

The central claim rests on a stack of program-level geometric and algebraic inputs (gravi-weak SU(2)_R, split-bioctonion two-sector dictionary, parallel complex structure, exceptional-Jordan mass operator and its 1:2:3 trace split) plus one free spectral input. The anomaly no-go and colour-singlet electron are comparatively axiom-light once those inputs are granted. Invented or program-specific entities (U(1)_dem dark photon, Higgs bridge BH, √m as spectral grading) are required for the force inventory and loop discussion but not for the pure colour-identification claim.

free parameters (3)
  • Exceptional-Jordan inter-sector trace split Tr X_ℓ : Tr X_u : Tr X_d = 1:2:3 = 1:2:3
    Sets the three charged-fermion family centres and the √m values {0,1/3,2/3,1}; taken as phenomenological input [P], not derived algebraically in this paper (Sec. 2.3, App. A.6).
  • Universal Jordan spread δ² = 3/8 = 3/8
    Fixed by the cubic norm on the coassociative slice and used for mass ratios; imported from companion [12] as input here.
  • Spectral deformation parameter r (rigid r=1 vs fitted r<0) = r=1 (rigid) or r<0 (fitted texture)
    Controls sign parities of Jordan roots entering arg det M bookkeeping; fitted spectral deformation is texture-contingent [C] (Sec. 8).
axioms (9)
  • domain assumption Gravi-weak identification: SU(2)_R is the gravitational frame group (self-dual spin connection), not a second visible weak force.
    Program-level working hypothesis [P] (Sec. 2.2); required for L–R = spacetime parity and for θ_QCD=0.
  • domain assumption Split-bioctonion dictionary realizing the two ideals as the two Spin(1,3) chiralities (e7 ↔ e8).
    Imported from companions [12,15,16]; Clauses 1–2 of Sec. 4 are [D] only given this dictionary.
  • ad hoc to paper Parallel two-sector construction (C): both octonionic sectors use the same field scalar i (+ie8, not −ie8), so the frame map is inner on colour.
    Residual assumption tagged [C] leaning [D] (Sec. 5); needed for vector-like (not chiral) diagonal colour.
  • domain assumption One generation is a Cl(6,C) minimal ideal over complex octonions with Q=N/3 and SU(3)_c = Stab_G2(e7).
    Framework input [P] from Furey-style ladder constructions and companions (Sec. 2.1).
  • domain assumption Masses are Jordan eigenvalues of an element of J3(OC) on a coassociative slice (T=0), hence real.
    Imported mass construction [12]; reality of spectrum tagged [D] relative to that construction (Sec. 2.3).
  • domain assumption SO(3,3) BF dynamics reduces to leafwise Yang–Mills and places L–R breaking only in the spacetime block (internal block breaking-blind).
    From companion [30] and dimensional anatomy of [15]; used for single colour connection (Sec. 5).
  • standard math Family-universal anomaly-free U(1)s on SM+νR content form exactly span{Y,B−L}.
    Standard result (Appelquist–Dobrescu–Hopper); used in Prop. 4.
  • domain assumption Dark sector chiral content mirrors the visible sector so that mirror-canonical Q_dem is anomaly-free.
    Needed for Cor. 1; tagged [P] (App. A.6.1).
  • domain assumption Flavour rotors are SU(3)_F-valued with real octonionic generators on the Cabibbo rung (and adjacent-edge texture for full 3×3).
    From companions [13,35]; arg det M=0 is [D] for the rung, texture-contingent in full (Sec. 8).
invented entities (4)
  • Dark electromagnetism U(1)_dem (unbroken remnant of right electroweak chain) no independent evidence
    purpose: Carries the parity-mirror of electric charge on the dark sector; template for the colour-blind √m spectral grading; sole long-range extra force (via kinetic mixing).
    Predicted by the two-step SU(3)_R breaking under gravi-weak; anomaly no-go forces dem-neutrality of visible fermions. Independent evidence is only the program’s own dark-sector postulate, not external data.
  • Higgs bridge field B_H (Hubbard–Stratonovich auxiliary from trace dynamics) no independent evidence
    purpose: Converts Jordan data into Yukawa couplings; its flavour matrix elements control loop regeneration of θ-bar, leptonic CP, and CKM phase normalization.
    Introduced in companion [14]; not a derived operator with computed matrix elements. Loop safety [O] is localized to this object.
  • √m as colour-blind unwelded spectral grading of the Jordan mass operator (Dynkin-swap image of dark charge lattice) no independent evidence
    purpose: Supplies the right-sector mass label without colouring the electron; replaces a gauged visible charge forbidden by Prop. 4.
    Values are the trace-split input; not NR/3. No independent experimental handle beyond the mass spectrum the construction already fits.
  • Second (anti-)spacetime leaf of signature (−,−,−,+) with weak geometry no independent evidence
    purpose: Partner leaf in the SO(3,3) reduction; hosts the parity image of CKM and the weak connection.
    Structural input of the dimensional anatomy (Fig. 1); not independently observed.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 52255 in / 5237 out tokens · 42713 ms · 2026-07-11T21:27:11.029119+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Two-sided octonionic $E_6^L\times E_6^R$ unification carries a nominal second colour $SU(3)_{c'}$ which, gauged, would colour the charged lepton and must be suppressed by hand. We argue no such device is needed: the left-right symmetry acts in spacetime, not internally -- in the gravi-weak reading $SU(2)_R$ is the gravitational frame group and the exchange is ordinary parity on the Dirac field; a spacetime operation cannot double the internal colour, so $SU(3)_{c'}=SU(3)_c$, one vector-like colour with a colour-singlet electron. The right sector contributes one colour-blind datum, $\sqrt m$ (values: the exceptional-Jordan trace split, an input; $N_R$ fixes only the colour representation). An anomaly no-go proven here shows every anomaly-free $U(1)$ on visible fermions lies in span$\{Q,B-L\}$, which the $\sqrt m$ pattern does not, in any sign or chirality assignment. The gauged dark-electromagnetic $U(1)_{dem}$ -- the mirror electroweak chain's unbroken remnant -- therefore carries the parity-mirror of electric charge on the dark sector: the visible fermions are dem-neutral (kinetic mixing the sole portal; no visible fifth force), and $\sqrt m$ enters visible physics only as the spectral label of the Jordan mass operator. The same recognition recovers hypercharge as the consistency relation $Y=Q-T^3_L$, $Q=N/3$, with no right-sector generator. As an application, the spontaneous parity forbids the QCD vacuum angle ($\theta_{QCD}=0$, conditional on the gravi-weak identification), while the flavour rotors have real determinant, so $\arg\det M=0$ at tree level (exact for the Cabibbo rung, texture-contingent in full), coexisting with a nonzero CKM phase. Loop stability -- where minimal gauged-$SU(2)_R$ parity solutions fail -- is plausibly evaded (no gauged $W_R$) but open, pending the Higgs-bridge matrix elements. We tag throughout what is derived, what is input, and what is open.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.04132 by Tejinder P. Singh.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Dimensional anatomy of the EL 6 × ER 6 construction, and why there is only one colour. The unification lives on a 16-(real-)dimensional split-bioctonionic space. Before symmetry breaking the two E6 factors are related by a near-exact left–right symmetry; the sole exception is a Dynkin swap, which is not the parity and survives, after breaking, in the flavour sector. The breaking itself is a single event we… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Claim architecture and epistemic status. The structurally real mass-determinant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 29 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Do minimal parity solutions to the strongCP problem work?,

    J. de Vries, P. Draper, and H. H. Patel, “Do minimal parity solutions to the strongCP problem work?,” arXiv:2109.01630 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [2]

    Symmetry breaking through Bell–Jackiw anomalies,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Symmetry breaking through Bell–Jackiw anomalies,” Phys. Rev. Lett.37, 8 (1976); “Computation of the quantum effects due to a four-dimensional pseudoparticle,” Phys. Rev. D14, 3432 (1976)

    1976

  3. [3]

    Measurement of the permanent electric dipole moment of the neutron,

    C. Abelet al.(nEDM Collaboration), “Measurement of the permanent electric dipole moment of the neutron,” Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 081803 (2020), arXiv:2001.11966 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Chiral estimate of the electric dipole moment of the neutron in quantum chromodynamics,

    R. J. Crewther, P. Di Vecchia, G. Veneziano, and E. Witten, “Chiral estimate of the electric dipole moment of the neutron in quantum chromodynamics,” Phys. Lett. B88, 123 (1979) [Erratum: Phys. Lett. B91, 487 (1980)]

    1979

  5. [5]

    Electric dipole moments as a test of new physics,

    M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, “Electric dipole moments as a test of new physics,” Annals Phys. 318, 119 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0504231

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

    CPconservation in the presence of pseudoparticles,

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, “CPconservation in the presence of pseudoparticles,” Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1440 (1977); “Constraints imposed byCPconservation in the presence of pseudoparticles,” Phys. Rev. D16, 1791 (1977)

    1977

  7. [7]

    A new light boson?,

    S. Weinberg, “A new light boson?,” Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  8. [8]

    Problem of strongPandTinvariance in the presence of instantons,

    F. Wilczek, “Problem of strongPandTinvariance in the presence of instantons,” Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  9. [9]

    Naturally weakCPviolation,

    A. E. Nelson, “Naturally weakCPviolation,” Phys. Lett. B136, 387 (1984)

    1984

  10. [10]

    Solving the strongCPproblem without the Peccei–Quinn symmetry,

    S. M. Barr, “Solving the strongCPproblem without the Peccei–Quinn symmetry,” Phys. Rev. Lett.53, 329 (1984)

    1984

  11. [11]

    A solution to the strongCPproblem without an axion,

    K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra, “A solution to the strongCPproblem without an axion,” Phys. Rev. D41, 1286 (1990)

    1990

  12. [12]

    Fermion mass ratios from the exceptional Jordan algebra,

    T. P. Singh, “Fermion mass ratios from the exceptional Jordan algebra,” arXiv:2508.10131 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    FermionMixingMatricesandtheExceptionalJordanAlgebra,

    B.G.TeliandT.P.Singh, “FermionMixingMatricesandtheExceptionalJordanAlgebra,” (2026), arXiv:2607.00412 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    Towards deriving the Standard Model coupled to gravity from Gen- eralized Trace Dynamics via the spectral action principle,

    T. P. Singh, “Towards deriving the Standard Model coupled to gravity from Gen- eralized Trace Dynamics via the spectral action principle,” Preprints.org (2026), doi:10.20944/preprints202605.1806.v2

    doi:10.20944/preprints202605.1806.v2 2026

  15. [15]

    Spacetime and internal symmetry from split bioctonions and the two extra SU(3)’s ofE8×ωE8,

    T. P. Singh, “Spacetime and internal symmetry from split bioctonions and the two extra SU(3)’s ofE8×ωE8,” Preprints.org (2025), doi:10.20944/preprints202510.0437. 44

    doi:10.20944/preprints202510.0437 2025

  16. [16]

    Left–right symmetric fermions and sterile neutrinos from complex split biquaternions and bioctonions,

    V. Vaibhav and T. P. Singh, “Left–right symmetric fermions and sterile neutrinos from complex split biquaternions and bioctonions,” Adv. Appl. Clifford Algebras33, 32 (2023), arXiv:2108.01858 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    AnE8⊗E8 unification of the Standard Model with pre-gravitation,

    P. Kaushik, V. Vaibhav, and T. P. Singh, “AnE8⊗E8 unification of the Standard Model with pre-gravitation,” arXiv:2206.06911 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    Quark structure and octonions,

    M. Günaydin and F. Gürsey, “Quark structure and octonions,” J. Math. Phys.14, 1651 (1973)

    1973

  19. [19]

    The octonions,

    J. C. Baez, “The octonions,” Bull. Am. Math. Soc.39, 145 (2002), arXiv:math/0105155

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  20. [20]

    Charge quantization from a number operator,

    C. Furey, “Charge quantization from a number operator,” arXiv:1603.04078 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    SU(3)C×SU(2)L×U(1)Y (×U(1)X)as a symmetry of division algebraic ladder operators,

    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. C78, 375 (2018), arXiv:1806.00612 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  22. [22]

    A universal gauge theory model based onE6,

    F. Gürsey, P. Ramond, and P. Sikivie, “A universal gauge theory model based onE6,” Phys. Lett. B60, 177 (1976)

    1976

  23. [23]

    Quark–lepton symmetry and mass scales in anE6 unified gauge model,

    Y. Achiman and B. Stech, “Quark–lepton symmetry and mass scales in anE6 unified gauge model,” Phys. Lett. B77, 389 (1978)

    1978

  24. [24]

    Deducing the symmetry of the standard model from the automorphism and structure groups of the exceptional Jordan algebra,

    I. Todorov and M. Dubois-Violette, “Deducing the symmetry of the standard model from the automorphism and structure groups of the exceptional Jordan algebra,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33, no. 20, 1850118 (2018), arXiv:1806.09450 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  26. [26]

    G. M. Dixon,Division Algebras: Octonions, Quaternions, Complex Numbers and the Al- gebraic Design of Physics(Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1994)

    1994

  27. [27]

    Spontaneous soldering,

    R. Percacci, “Spontaneous soldering,” Phys. Lett. B144, 37 (1984)

    1984

  28. [28]

    Graviweak unification,

    F. Nesti and R. Percacci, “Graviweak unification,” J. Phys. A41, 075405 (2008), arXiv:0706.3307 [hep-th]; “Chirality in unified theories of gravity,” Phys. Rev. D81, 025010 (2010), arXiv:0909.4537 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  29. [29]

    Gravitational origin of the weak interaction’s chirality,

    S. Alexander, A. Marcianò, and L. Smolin, “Gravitational origin of the weak interaction’s chirality,” Phys. Rev. D89, 065017 (2014), arXiv:1212.5246 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  30. [30]

    Gravity and electroweak sector from symmetry breaking of anSO(3,3)BF theory,

    P. S. Wesley, T. P. Singh, and J. M. Isidro, “Gravity and electroweak sector from symmetry breaking of anSO(3,3)BF theory,” arXiv:2602.19151 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  31. [31]

    On an algebraicgeneralization ofthe quantum mechanical formalism,

    P.Jordan, J. vonNeumann, and E. Wigner, “On an algebraicgeneralization ofthe quantum mechanical formalism,” Ann. Math.35, 29 (1934)

    1934

  32. [32]

    The exceptional Jordan eigenvalue problem,

    T. Dray and C. A. Manogue, “The exceptional Jordan eigenvalue problem,” Int. J. Theor. Phys.38, 2901 (1999), arXiv:math-ph/9910004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  33. [33]

    There is no ‘Theory of Everything’ insideE8,

    J. Distler and S. Garibaldi, “There is no ‘Theory of Everything’ insideE8,” Commun. Math. Phys.298, 419 (2010), arXiv:0905.2658 [math.RT]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  34. [34]

    The residual288of theE8×ωE8 program as adjoint-lineage scaffolding labels: an ontology, and the status of the bifermionic Lagrangian,

    T. P. Singh, “The residual288of theE8×ωE8 program as adjoint-lineage scaffolding labels: an ontology, and the status of the bifermionic Lagrangian,” arXiv:2606.12477 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    LeptonicCPconservation and the quarkCPphase from octonionic flavor structure,

    B. G. Teli and T. P. Singh, “LeptonicCPconservation and the quarkCPphase from octonionic flavor structure,” (2026); arXiv:2606.27836 [hep-ph]. 45

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    CPviolation in the renormalizable theory of weak inter- action,

    M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, “CPviolation in the renormalizable theory of weak inter- action,” Prog. Theor. Phys.49, 652 (1973)

    1973

  37. [37]

    Unitary symmetry and leptonic decays,

    N. Cabibbo, “Unitary symmetry and leptonic decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett.10, 531 (1963)

    1963

  38. [38]

    Commutator of the quark mass matrices in the standard electroweak model and a measure of maximalCPnonconservation,

    C. Jarlskog, “Commutator of the quark mass matrices in the standard electroweak model and a measure of maximalCPnonconservation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 1039 (1985)

    1985

  39. [39]

    Left–right gauge symmetry and an isoconjugate model of CPviolation,

    R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, “Left–right gauge symmetry and an isoconjugate model of CPviolation,” Phys. Rev. D11, 566 (1975); G. Senjanović and R. N. Mohapatra, “Exact left–right symmetry and spontaneous violation of parity,” Phys. Rev. D12, 1502 (1975)

    1975

  40. [40]

    StrongCPproblem and parity,

    S. M. Barr, D. Chang, and G. Senjanović, “StrongCPproblem and parity,” Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 2765 (1991)

    1991

  41. [41]

    P/CPconservingCP/Pviolation solves strongCPproblem,

    R. Kuchimanchi, “P/CPconservingCP/Pviolation solves strongCPproblem,” Phys. Rev. D82, 116008 (2010), arXiv:1009.5961 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  42. [42]

    LeptonicCPproblem in left–right symmetric model,

    R. Kuchimanchi, “LeptonicCPproblem in left–right symmetric model,” Phys. Rev. D91, 071901(R) (2015), arXiv:1408.6382 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  43. [43]

    StrongPinvariance, neutron EDM and minimal left–right parity at LHC,

    A. Maiezza and M. Nemevšek, “StrongPinvariance, neutron EDM and minimal left–right parity at LHC,” arXiv:1407.3678 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [44]

    Solution to the strongCPproblem: supersymmetry with parity,

    R. Kuchimanchi, “Solution to the strongCPproblem: supersymmetry with parity,” Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 3486 (1996), hep-ph/9511376; R. N. Mohapatra and A. Rasin, “Simple supersymmetric solution to the strongCPproblem,” Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 3490 (1996), hep-ph/9511391

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  45. [45]

    Pnot PQ,

    N. Craig, I. Garcia Garcia, G. Koszegi, and A. McCune, “Pnot PQ,” JHEP09(2021) 130, arXiv:2012.13416 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    Trinification and the strongPproblem,

    E. D. Carlson and M. Y. Wang, “Trinification and the strongPproblem,” hep-ph/9211279

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [47]

    Sufficiently small¯θ inSU(3) 3×S3 unification model,

    K. Chalut, H. Cheng, P. H. Frampton, K. Stowe, and T. Yoshikawa, “Sufficiently small¯θ inSU(3) 3×S3 unification model,” hep-ph/0204074

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [48]

    Implications of Higgs discovery for the strongCPproblem and unification,

    L. J. Hall and K. Harigaya, “Implications of Higgs discovery for the strongCPproblem and unification,” arXiv:1803.08119 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  49. [49]

    Sterile neutrino dark matter and leptogenesis in left–right Higgs parity,

    D. Dunsky, L. J. Hall, and K. Harigaya, “Sterile neutrino dark matter and leptogenesis in left–right Higgs parity,” arXiv:2007.12711 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  50. [50]

    Nonexotic neutral gauge bosons,

    T. Appelquist, B. A. Dobrescu, and A. R. Hopper, “Nonexotic neutral gauge bosons,” Phys. Rev. D68, 035012 (2003), hep-ph/0212073

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  51. [51]

    TwoU(1)’s andϵcharge shifts,

    B. Holdom, “TwoU(1)’s andϵcharge shifts,” Phys. Lett. B166, 196 (1986)

    1986

  52. [52]

    Cosmological consequences of a spontaneous breakdown of a discrete symmetry,

    Ya. B. Zeldovich, I. Yu. Kobzarev, and L. B. Okun, “Cosmological consequences of a spontaneous breakdown of a discrete symmetry,” Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.67, 3 (1974) [Sov. Phys. JETP40, 1 (1974)]

    1974

  53. [53]

    Topology of cosmic domains and strings,

    T. W. B. Kibble, “Topology of cosmic domains and strings,” J. Phys. A9, 1387 (1976)

    1976

  54. [54]

    Test of the equivalence principle using a rotating torsion balance,

    S. Schlamminger, K.-Y. Choi, T. A. Wagner, J. H. Gundlach, and E. G. Adelberger, “Test of the equivalence principle using a rotating torsion balance,” Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 041101 (2008). 46

    2008

  55. [55]

    MICROSCOPE mission: final results of the test of the equivalence principle,

    P. Touboulet al.(MICROSCOPE Collaboration), “MICROSCOPE mission: final results of the test of the equivalence principle,” Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 121102 (2022)

    2022

  56. [56]

    Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,” inRecent Developments in Gauge Theories, Cargèse 1979, eds. G. ’t Hooftet al.(Plenum, New York, 1980)

    1979

  57. [57]

    AnSU(2)anomaly,

    E. Witten, “AnSU(2)anomaly,” Phys. Lett. B117, 324 (1982)

    1982

  58. [58]

    Kepler,Mysterium Cosmographicum(Tübingen, 1596)

    J. Kepler,Mysterium Cosmographicum(Tübingen, 1596)

  59. [59]

    A. S. Eddington,Fundamental Theory(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1946)

    1946

  60. [60]

    Anomaly cancellations in supersymmetricD= 10gauge theory and superstring theory,

    M. B. Green and J. H. Schwarz, “Anomaly cancellations in supersymmetricD= 10gauge theory and superstring theory,” Phys. Lett. B149, 117 (1984)

    1984

  61. [61]

    Heterotic string,

    D. J. Gross, J. A. Harvey, E. Martinec, and R. Rohm, “Heterotic string,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 502 (1985)

    1985

  62. [62]

    Experimental predictions of theE8×ωE8 octonionic unification program: a falsification-oriented catalogue,

    T. P. Singh, “Experimental predictions of theE8×ωE8 octonionic unification program: a falsification-oriented catalogue,” arXiv:2604.06288 [hep-ph]. 47

    Pith/arXiv arXiv