Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 52 references

The bi-Cayley triple encodes the Standard Model gauge group and one fermion generation via two colinear pure states.

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

2026-07-14 08:54 UTC pith:4DREYFL4

load-bearing objection Clean algebraic correspondence: bi-Cayley triple plus two colinear minimal tripotents recovers G_SM and the six SM fermion irreps via Peirce spaces; QM reformulation is secondary. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.10833 v1 pith:4DREYFL4 submitted 2026-07-12 math-ph hep-phhep-thmath.MPquant-ph

Jordan Pair Quantum Theory and the Standard Model

John C. Baez , Endre Bokor , Latham Boyle This is my paper
classification math-ph hep-phhep-thmath.MPquant-ph MSC 17C4017B2581R0553C35 PACS 12.10.Dm02.20.Qs03.65.Fd
keywords hermitian Jordan triplesJordan pairsbi-Cayley tripleAlbert tripleStandard ModelPeirce decompositionbioctonionsexceptional Lie algebras
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 reformulates quantum mechanics using positive hermitian Jordan triples instead of the more familiar Jordan algebras of observables, then shows that one of the two exceptional such triples—the bi-Cayley triple built from bioctonions—already contains the Standard Model. Pure states are identified with minimal tripotents. Choosing any two that are colinear (each lying in the other’s Peirce half-space) carves out a subtriple whose real inner automorphism group is exactly the Standard Model gauge group, while the same choice decomposes the original 16-dimensional space into the six irreducible fermion representations of one generation. A parallel construction starting from the larger Albert triple yields the same gauge group and fermions after three colinear tripotents. The construction therefore supplies a single algebraic object whose natural subgroups and representations reproduce both the gauge symmetry and the chiral fermion content of the Standard Model.

Core claim

The bi-Cayley triple O^{2}_C, a positive hermitian Jordan triple of complex dimension 16, has real inner automorphism group (Spin(10) imes U(1))/Z_{4}. Selecting any two mutually colinear minimal tripotents produces a subtriple isomorphic to M_{3,2}(C) whose real inner automorphism group is precisely G_SM = (SU(3) imes SU(2) imes U(1))/Z_{6}; the Peirce decomposition of O^{2}_C with respect to those two tripotents is exactly the six irreducible pieces of one generation of Standard Model fermions.

What carries the argument

The bi-Cayley triple O^{2}_C (equivalently the exceptional hermitian Jordan pair (M_{1,2}(O_C), M_{2,1}(O_C))) together with its Peirce decomposition relative to a pair of colinear minimal tripotents; the Peirce projectors isolate both the Standard Model subalgebra and the six fermion multiplets.

Load-bearing premise

That pure states of the theory are exactly the minimal tripotents of a positive hermitian Jordan triple, and that the Standard Model is recovered simply by selecting two (or three) mutually colinear ones.

What would settle it

Exhibit a pair of colinear minimal tripotents in O^{2}_C whose common Peirce half-space is not isomorphic to M_{3,2}(C), or whose induced action of the inner automorphism group on the six Peirce components fails to reproduce the Standard Model quantum numbers (3,2,1/6) \oplus igcupigcup(3̄,1,1/3) igcupigcup(3̄,1,-2/3) igcupigcup(1,2,-1/2) igcupigcup(1,1,1) igcupigcup(1,1,0).

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

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reformulates pure-state quantum theory using positive hermitian Jordan triples (equivalently pairs), identifying pure states with minimal tripotents, observables with real inner derivations, and time evolution with the corresponding one-parameter automorphisms. It then shows that the bi-Cayley triple O^{2}_C (and, one step higher, the Albert triple h_{3}(O_C)) yields the Standard Model gauge group and one generation of fermions by selecting two (respectively three) mutually colinear minimal tripotents: their common Peirce ½-space is the subtriple M_{3,2}(C) whose real inner automorphism group is G_SM = (SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1))/Z_{6}, while the six non-vanishing Peirce components of O^{2}_C transform exactly as the six irreps of ρ_SM. The constructions rely on the Tits–Kantor–Koecher correspondence, Peirce projectors, and an explicit chain of embeddings proved in the appendix.

Significance. If the algebraic correspondence is accepted as more than a rephrasing of known embeddings, the work supplies a clean, parameter-free dictionary between the exceptional hermitian Jordan triples and the SM gauge group plus one generation of fermions, while simultaneously placing ordinary quantum mechanics inside the same framework. The explicit group-homomorphism proof in Appendix A and the concrete Peirce decomposition (76) are reproducible strengths. The physical reading remains interpretive—the selection of the colinear tripotents is guided by the known SM embedding rather than forced by dynamics—but the mathematical claim itself is precise and falsifiable within the Jordan-triple axioms.

major comments (2)
  1. §3 and §5.1: the identification of pure states with minimal tripotents, and the further selection of two (or three) mutually colinear ones whose common Peirce ½-space is M_{3,2}(C), is presented as the natural route to the SM. This choice is reverse-engineered from the known embedding rather than derived from an independent dynamical principle inside the Jordan-pair formalism. The algebraic correspondence is still correct once the tripotents are fixed, but the manuscript should state more explicitly that the selection step is a modeling assumption, not a theorem of the triple axioms.
  2. §5.2: the suggestion that the threefold choice of which minimal tripotent to peel first might be related to three generations via triality is left as an open remark. Because the paper’s central claim is the one-generation correspondence, this speculation should either be developed into a concrete construction or clearly labeled as future work so that it does not appear to complete the SM picture.
minor comments (4)
  1. Table 3 caption and surrounding text: the notation for the successive triples (W̃, W, W′, W″) and the corresponding groups is dense; a short explicit sentence listing the inclusions would help the reader track the chain.
  2. Eqs. (75)–(76): the explicit action of the Peirce projectors is clear, but a brief remark that the vanishing components are forced by the multiplication rules (23) would make the counting of six non-zero pieces more transparent.
  3. §2.2: the conjecture that inn_R(V) is spanned by the maps D_v is left open; either a reference or a short proof for the cases used later would strengthen the foundations.
  4. References: several arXiv preprints are cited by number only; adding the published versions (where they exist) would improve permanence.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Algebraic correspondence is forced once tripotents are chosen; selection of those tripotents is reverse-engineered from the known SM embedding but is not a fitted or self-definitional prediction.

specific steps
  1. other [Section 5.1 (opening paragraphs) and 5.1.2–5.1.3]
    "if we pick two minimal tripotents (i.e. two pure quantum states) e1 and e2 that are colinear in W, then the subspace W′′ ⊂ W that is colinear with e1 and e2 is the subtriple W′′ = M3,2(C) whose inner automorphism group is precisely the Standard Model gauge group GSM = [SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1)]/Z6. ... picking the two colinear minimal tripotents e1, e2 ∈ W selects a natural embedding of GSM in InnR(W) = (Spin(10)×U(1))/Z4 under which the original bi-Cayley triple W = O2C naturally transforms precisely as a generation of Standard Model fermions"

    The selection of which two colinear minimal tripotents to use is not forced by an independent dynamical principle inside the Jordan-triple axioms; it is chosen so that the resulting Peirce ½-space and automorphism group match the known SM. Once chosen, the algebraic consequences are forced and parameter-free. This is reverse-engineering of a modeling choice rather than a self-definitional or fitted prediction, so it is only a mild circularity of motivation, not of the derivation chain itself.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an algebraic identification: two colinear minimal tripotents in the bi-Cayley triple O^{2}_C have common Peirce ½-space isomorphic to M_{3,2}(C) whose real inner automorphism group is G_SM, and the six non-vanishing Peirce components of O^{2}_C transform as the six irreps of one SM generation (Section 5.1, eqs. (76), Appendix A). Once the tripotents are fixed, the Peirce projectors (25), the Tits–Kantor–Koecher construction, and the explicit embeddings Φ_e1, Φ_e2 are standard and parameter-free; they do not contain free constants tuned to SM quantum numbers. The only modeling choice is which pair of colinear tripotents to pick (and the prior identification of pure states with minimal tripotents). That choice is guided by the known SM embedding rather than forced by an independent dynamical principle, so the construction is reverse-engineered, but it is not circular in the sense of a fitted input renamed as prediction, a self-definitional loop, or a uniqueness theorem imported solely from the authors' prior work. Self-citations (Boyle arXiv:2006.16265, Baez–Schwahn arXiv:2606.15235) supply motivation and earlier related embeddings; they are not load-bearing for the group-homomorphism argument of Appendix A. Score 2 reflects that minor reverse-engineering without elevating it to circularity of the derivation itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on the standard classification of positive hermitian Jordan triples / compact hermitian symmetric spaces and on the Tits–Kantor–Koecher construction; no free parameters are fitted and no new dynamical entities are postulated. The only modeling choices are the identification of pure states with minimal tripotents and the selection of colinear tripotents that recover the known SM embedding.

axioms (4)
  • standard math Positive hermitian Jordan triples are equivalent to compact hermitian symmetric spaces and are classified by Cartan (four infinite series + two exceptions).
    Used throughout Sections 2.5 and 4; the bi-Cayley and Albert triples are the two exceptional cases.
  • standard math The Tits–Kantor–Koecher construction associates a 3-graded Lie algebra (and a real form) to every Jordan pair/triple.
    Section 2.4; supplies the groups Inn_R(W) that are later identified with Spin(10)·U(1) and G_SM.
  • domain assumption Pure states of the generalized quantum theory are the minimal tripotents of a positive hermitian Jordan triple.
    Section 3; this is the key modeling step that lets the authors speak of ‘pure quantum states’ inside the bi-Cayley triple.
  • ad hoc to paper The physically relevant embedding of G_SM is obtained by selecting two (or three) mutually colinear minimal tripotents.
    Section 5.1; the selection is motivated by the desired SM quantum numbers rather than forced by an independent principle.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 28669 in / 2478 out tokens · 38271 ms · 2026-07-14T08:54:18.202696+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Jordan pairs and hermitian Jordan triples were discovered by mathematicians studying Jordan algebras, which describe the possible algebras of observables in quantum mechanics. We point out a striking correspondence between the doubly exceptional hermitian Jordan triple (the so-called ``bi-Cayley'' triple) and the structure of the Standard Model of particle physics. We also point out how ordinary quantum mechanics may be reformulated, and generalized, using hermitian Jordan triples.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10833 by Endre Bokor, John C. Baez, Latham Boyle.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Fano plane summarizing octonionic multiplication, and our conven [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1.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

52 extracted references · 16 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Pascual Jordan, John von Neumann, and Eugene P. Wigner. On an al- gebraic generalization of the quantum mechanical formalism.Ann. Math., 35:29–64, 1934. (Referred to on page 2, 14.)

    1934

  2. [2]

    Moufang plane and octonionic quantum mechanics.Comm

    Murat Günaydin, Constantin Piron, and Henri Ruegg. Moufang plane and octonionic quantum mechanics.Comm. Math. Phys., 61(1):69–85, 1978. (Referred to on page 2.)

    1978

  3. [3]

    Townsend

    Paul K. Townsend. The Jordan formulation of quantum mechanics: a review. Technical Report DAMTP-1985-0263, U. Cambridge, 1985. Also available at arXiv:161209228. (Referred to on page 2.)

    1985

  4. [4]

    Goddard, W

    P. Goddard, W. Nahm, D. I. Olive, H. Ruegg, and A. Schwimmer. Fermions and octonions.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 112(3):385–408,

  5. [5]

    (Referred to on page 2.) 29

  6. [6]

    World Scientific, Singapore, 1996

    Feza Gürsey and Chia-hsiung Tze.On the Role of Division, Jordan and Re- lated Algebras in Particle Physics, volume 14 ofDirections in High Energy Physics. World Scientific, Singapore, 1996. (Referred to on page 2.)

    1996

  7. [7]

    Manogue and Tevian Dray

    Corinne A. Manogue and Tevian Dray. Octonions,E6, and particle physics. J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 254:012005, 2010. Also available as arXiv:0911.2253. (Referred to on page 2.)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    Exceptional quantum geometry and parti- cle physics.Nucl

    Michel Dubois-Violette. Exceptional quantum geometry and parti- cle physics.Nucl. Phys. B, 912:426–449, 2016. Also available as arXiv:1604.01247. (Referred to on page 2.)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [9]

    Non- associative algebras and quantum physics—a historical perspective, 2019

    Manfred Liebmann, Horst Rühaak, and Bernd Henschenmacher. Non- associative algebras and quantum physics—a historical perspective, 2019. Available at arXiv:1909.04027. (Referred to on page 2.)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Deducing the symmetry of the Standard Model from the automorphism and structure groups of the ex- ceptional Jordan algebra.Int

    Ivan Todorov and Michel Dubois-Violette. Deducing the symmetry of the Standard Model from the automorphism and structure groups of the ex- ceptional Jordan algebra.Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 33(20):1850118, 2018. Also available as arXiv:1806.09450. (Referred to on page 2.)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    Baez and Paul Schwahn

    John C. Baez and Paul Schwahn. The Standard Model gauge group from the exceptional Jordan algebra, 2026. Available as arXiv:2606.15235. (Re- ferred to on page 2.)

    arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    The Standard Model, The Exceptional Jordan Alge- bra, and Triality.J

    Latham Boyle. The Standard Model, The Exceptional Jordan Alge- bra, and Triality.J. Math. Phys., 67:071701, 2026. Also available as arXiv:2006.16265. (Referred to on page 2.)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  13. [13]

    The state of the art—gauge theories.AIP Conf

    Howard Georgi. The state of the art—gauge theories.AIP Conf. Proc., 23:575–582, 1975. (Referred to on page 2.)

    1975

  14. [14]

    Unified interactions of leptons and hadrons.Ann

    Harald Fritzsch and Peter Minkowski. Unified interactions of leptons and hadrons.Ann. Phys., 93:193–266, 1975. (Referred to on page 2.)

    1975

  15. [15]

    Geometry of Spin(10) symmetry breaking.J

    Kirill Krasnov. Geometry of Spin(10) symmetry breaking.J. Math. Phys., 65(8):082302, 2024. Also available as arXiv:2209.05088. (Referred to on page 2, 25.)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Octonions, complex structures and Standard Model fermions

    Kirill Krasnov. Octonions, complex structures and Standard Model fermions. InGeneralizations of Complex Analysis and Applications: New Developments in Quaternions, Octonions, Clifford’s Geometric Al- gebras, and Clifford Analysis. Springer, Berlin, 2026. Also available as arXiv:2504.16465. (Referred to on page 2.)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Lie and Jordan triple systems.American Journal of Mathematics, 71(1):149–170, 1949

    Nathan Jacobson. Lie and Jordan triple systems.American Journal of Mathematics, 71(1):149–170, 1949. (Referred to on page 3.)

    1949

  18. [18]

    Springer, Berlin, 1975

    Ottmar Loos.Jordan Pairs, volume 460 ofLecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin, 1975. (Referred to on page 3, 4, 10, 11.) 30

    1975

  19. [19]

    Mathemat- ical Lectures

    Ottmar Loos.Bounded Symmetric Domains and Jordan Pairs. Mathemat- ical Lectures. University of California, Irvine, 1977. (Referred to on page 3, 8, 9, 11.)

    1977

  20. [20]

    Sur les domaines bornés homogènes de l’espace denvariables complexes.Abhandlungen aus dem Mathematischen Seminar der Univer- sität Hamburg, 11:116–162, 1935

    Élie Cartan. Sur les domaines bornés homogènes de l’espace denvariables complexes.Abhandlungen aus dem Mathematischen Seminar der Univer- sität Hamburg, 11:116–162, 1935. (Referred to on page 3, 11.)

    1935

  21. [21]

    Biedenharn

    Piero Truini and Lawrence C. Biedenharn. AnE6 ⊗U(1)invariant quantum mechanics for a Jordan pair.J. Math. Phys., 23(7):1327–1345, 07 1982. (Referred to on page 3.)

    1982

  22. [22]

    Biedenharn and Piero Truini

    Lawrence C. Biedenharn and Piero Truini. Exceptional groups and elemen- tary particle structures.Physica A, 114(1–3):257–270, 1982. (Referred to on page 3.)

    1982

  23. [23]

    Olivieri, and Lawrence C

    Piero Truini, G. Olivieri, and Lawrence C. Biedenharn. Three graded ex- ceptional algebras and symmetric spaces.Z. Phys. C, 33(1):47–65, 1986. (Referred to on page 3.)

    1986

  24. [24]

    An exceptional combinatorial sequence and Standard Model particles, 2020

    Benjamin Nasmith. An exceptional combinatorial sequence and Standard Model particles, 2020. Available as arXiv:2012.03933. (Referred to on page 3.)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    Benjamin Nasmith.Tight Projective 5-Designs and Exceptional Struc- tures. Ph.D. thesis, Royal Military College of Canada, 2023. Available at https://espace.rmc.ca/jspui/handle/11264/1423. (Referred to on page 3.)

    2023

  26. [26]

    Manin.Cubic Forms: Algebra, Geometry, Arithmetic

    Yuri I. Manin.Cubic Forms: Algebra, Geometry, Arithmetic. North- Holland, Amsterdam, 2nd edition, 1986. Translated from the Russian by M. Hazewinkel. (Referred to on page 3.)

    1986

  27. [27]

    Del Pezzo surfaces and repre- sentation theory.Algebra & Number Theory, 1(4):393–419, 2007

    Vera Serganova and Alexei Skorobogatov. Del Pezzo surfaces and repre- sentation theory.Algebra & Number Theory, 1(4):393–419, 2007. Also available as arXiv:math/0611737. (Referred to on page 3.)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  28. [28]

    Springer, 2004

    Kevin McCrimmon.A Taste of Jordan Algebras. Springer, 2004. (Referred to on page 4.)

    2004

  29. [29]

    Cambridge U

    Cho-Ho Chu.Jordan Structures in Geometry and Analysis, volume 190 of Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics. Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, 2012. (Referred to on page 8, 17.)

    2012

  30. [30]

    Jordan triple systems

    Guy Roos. Jordan triple systems. In Jacques Faraut, Soji Kaneyuki, Adam Korányi, Qi-keng Lu, and Guy Roos, editors,Analysis and Geometry on Complex Homogeneous Domains, volume 185 ofProgress in Mathematics, pages 425–534. Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, 2000. (Referred to on page 8.) 31

    2000

  31. [31]

    Peirce ideals in Jordan triple systems.Pacif

    Kevin McCrimmon. Peirce ideals in Jordan triple systems.Pacif. J. Math., 83:415–439, 1979. (Referred to on page 9.)

    1979

  32. [32]

    The range of a structural projection.J

    C Martin Edwards, Kevin McCrimmon, and Gottfried Traugott Rütti- mann. The range of a structural projection.J. Funct. Anal., 139(1):196– 224, 1996. (Referred to on page 9.)

    1996

  33. [33]

    Une classe d’algèbres de Lie en relation avec les algèbres de Jordan.Indag

    Jacques Tits. Une classe d’algèbres de Lie en relation avec les algèbres de Jordan.Indag. Math., 24:530–535, 1962. (Referred to on page 10.)

    1962

  34. [34]

    Classificationofirreducibletransitivedifferentialgroups.Dokl

    I.L.Kantor. Classificationofirreducibletransitivedifferentialgroups.Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 158(6):1271–1274, 1964. (Referred to on page 10.)

    1964

  35. [35]

    Imbedding of Jordan algebras into Lie algebras, I.Am

    Max Koecher. Imbedding of Jordan algebras into Lie algebras, I.Am. J. Math., 89(3):787–816, 1967. (Referred to on page 10.)

    1967

  36. [36]

    Jordan-tripelsysteme und die Koecher-Konstruktion von Lie-Algebren.Math

    Kurt Meyberg. Jordan-tripelsysteme und die Koecher-Konstruktion von Lie-Algebren.Math. Zeit., 115(1):58–78, 1970. (Referred to on page 10.)

    1970

  37. [37]

    Caveny and Oleg N

    Deanna M. Caveny and Oleg N. Smirnov. Categories of Jordan structures and graded Lie algebras.Comm. Alg., 42(1):186–202, 2014. Also available as arXiv:1106.2447. (Referred to on page 10.)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  38. [38]

    Les espaces hermitiens symétriques

    Armand Borel. Les espaces hermitiens symétriques. InSéminaire Bour- baki: années 1951/52 - 1952/53 - 1953/54, exposés 50-100, number 2 in Astérisque, pages 121–132. Société Mathématique de France, Paris, 1954. Exposé no. 62 (Mai 1952). (Referred to on page 11.)

    1951

  39. [39]

    Birkhäuser, Boston, 2006

    Armand Borel and Lizhen Ji. Birkhäuser, Boston, 2006. (Referred to on page 11.)

    2006

  40. [40]

    Ottmar Loos.Symmetric Spaces: General Theory. W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1969. (Referred to on page 11.)

    1969

  41. [41]

    Ottmar Loos.Symmetric Spaces: Compact Spaces and Classification. W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1969. (Referred to on page 11.)

    1969

  42. [42]

    American Mathe- matical Society, Providence, 2001

    Sigurdur Helgason.Differential Geometry, Lie Groups, and Symmetric Spaces, volume 34 ofGraduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathe- matical Society, Providence, 2001. (Referred to on page 13.)

    2001

  43. [43]

    Baez and John Huerta

    John C. Baez and John Huerta. The algebra of grand unified theories. Bull. Am. Math. Soc., 47:483–552, 2010. Also available as arXiv:0904.1556. (Referred to on page 14, 24.)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  44. [44]

    John C. Baez. Division algebras and quantum theory.Found. Phys., 42(7):819–855, 2012. Also available as arXiv:1101.5690. (Referred to on page 14.)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  45. [45]

    Lie groups in the foundations of geometry.Adv

    Hans Freudenthal. Lie groups in the foundations of geometry.Adv. Math., 1(2):145–190, 1964. (Referred to on page 17.) 32

    1964

  46. [46]

    Generalized conformal and superconformal group actions and Jordan algebras.Mod

    Murat Günaydin. Generalized conformal and superconformal group actions and Jordan algebras.Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 8(15):1407–1416, 1993. Also available as arXiv:hep-th/9301050. (Referred to on page 17.)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  47. [47]

    John C. Baez. The octonions.Bull. Am. Math. Soc., 39:145–205,

  48. [48]

    Erratum:Bull. Am. Math. Soc.42, 213 (2005). Also available as arXiv:math/0105155. (Referred to on page 17, 18, 19.)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  49. [49]

    Conjugation matters: Bioctonionic Veronese vectors and Cayley– Rosenfeld planes.Int

    Daniele Corradetti, Alessio Marrani, David Chester, and Raymond As- chheim. Conjugation matters: Bioctonionic Veronese vectors and Cayley– Rosenfeld planes.Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys., 19(9):2250142, 2022. Also available as arXiv:2202.02050. (Referred to on page 17.)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    Group theory for unified model building.Phys

    Robert Slansky. Group theory for unified model building.Phys. Rep., 79:1–128, 1981. (Referred to on page 24.)

    1981

  51. [51]

    Introduction to exceptional Lie groups and algebras

    Pierre Ramond. Introduction to exceptional Lie groups and algebras. Tech- nical Report CALT-68-577, Caltech, 1976. (Referred to on page 27.)

    1976

  52. [52]

    Furey and M

    N. Furey and M. J. Hughes. Three generations and a trio of trialities.Phys. Lett. B, 865:139473, 2025. Also available as arXiv:2409.17948. (Referred to on page 27.) 33

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025