A combinatorial derivation of the standard model interactions from the Dirac Lagrangian

Charlie Beil

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 27 references

A combinatorial derivation of the standard model interactions from the Dirac Lagrangian

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 One strand Lagrangian yields every electroweak trivalent vertex

desk verdict The paper's central claim to reproduce the SM electroweak vertices exactly is contradicted by its own Table 6, which excludes photon–u/c/t couplings; the rest is a speculative preon model whose rules are fitted to the desired output. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09631 v5 pith:AZD4EK7P submitted 2019-08-21 physics.gen-ph

Charlie Beil This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.gen-ph

keywords strandspacetimeDiracLagrangianpreonmodelelectroweakverticesparityviolationcompositequarksandleptonsmassivegluonsCPTinvariance

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 show that the standard model's particles and interactions need not be put in by hand: they can be read off from a single Lagrangian, $L=\bar{\psi}(i\not{\partial}-m|\bar{u}^a u_a|^{1/2})\psi$, once spacetime points are identified along fundamental 'strands'. The author's model treats leptons, quarks, electroweak bosons, and gluons as bound states of strands, and interactions as splittings that exchange strands. If the derivation holds, the standard model would become an effective description of a deeper geometric structure, and the model would be testable through its prediction of neutral and charged massive gluons. The paper also claims exact agreement with the trivalent electroweak vertices, particle charges and spins, mass orderings, and electroweak parity violation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the strand: a causal curve whose interior points are all identified as a single point, so that time does not flow along it and its tangent space is not unique. The central combinatorial device is the splitting of a 'symmetric atom'—a bound state of strands sharing a plane of rotation, represented by the scalar diameters $\bar{\psi}_L\psi_R$ and $\bar{\psi}_R\psi_L$—into two atoms that exchange strands. The paper's rules for allowed splittings combine Newton's third law with the requirement that strands of opposite sign attract and that every splitting excite each of the five fields $\bar{\psi}_{L/R},\psi_{L/R},\varphi$. That last rule is what suppresses photon self-interactions and photon–neutrino vertices and makes the vertex tables come out as the standard model's.

What would settle it

Enumerate every non-fundamental splitting allowed by rules (i)–(iii) before adding rule (iv); if the resulting vertex set contains an interaction the standard model forbids—for instance a photon coupling to an up-type quark—the claimed exact reproduction fails. Experimentally, the sharpest test is the predicted neutral and charged massive gluons: high-energy searches that see no such states would refute the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Dirac Lagrangian, when written on a strand spacetime—where a causal curve is treated as one point, so time does not flow along it—becomes a combinatorial generator of the standard model. The author expands the mass term $m|\bar{u}^a u_a|^{1/2}\bar{\psi}\psi$ into chiral fields, identifies the resulting 'symmetric atoms' with photons, $Z$, and $W^\pm$ bosons, and posits that such an atom splits into two atoms by exchanging strands. The splitting tables reproduce the trivalent electroweak Feynman vertices for both leptons and quarks, assign each particle its correct spin, electric charge, color charge, and electroweak stability, and yield electroweak parity violation together with sixteen mass orderings that agree with experiment. The same rules also give the four-valent boson vertices out of two-stage splittings and predict a family of massive gluons not present in the standard model.

Load-bearing premise

The whole derivation rests on a stipulated set of splitting rules—especially the rule that every splitting must excite all five fields—which the paper does not derive from the Lagrangian or the geometry, and one quark-charge assignment in Section 7.3.2 is admitted to be 'not a rigorous argument'.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The standard model would be an effective theory: one geometric Lagrangian would generate the known particle families and the electroweak vertex structure rather than a hand-assembled list of fields and couplings.
Electroweak parity violation would be explained: the strand signs force neutrinos to have a single allowed rotation direction and forbid sterile neutrinos.
Sixteen observed mass inequalities—among neutrino generations, quark generations, and the $W$ and $Z$ masses—would follow from angular momentum, the coupling field $\varphi$, and binding energy.
The model predicts new massive gluons, both neutral and charged, so the existence or absence of these states becomes a direct experimental check.
CPT invariance would follow automatically because $C$, $P$, and $T$ act as Lorentz transformations in separate components of $O(1,3)$ and compose to the identity on the spacetime representation.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural internal check would be to look for a geometric or variational origin of the 'all five fields' splitting rule; if none is found, the vertex enumeration is as much an input as a discovery.
One testable extension is a brute-force enumeration of all atoms built from up to five fields with $O(2)$ charges allowed on both diameters; a mismatch with the standard model's vertex table would bound the model's free combinatorial choices.
The spin-statistics mechanism suggests that strand worldlines of equal chirality cannot intersect, which could severely restrict the virtual diagrams in a scattering amplitude; the author only sketches this, but it is a concrete research program.
The parity-violation derivation covers leptons; applying the same angular-velocity sign analysis to the $O(2)$-charged quark strands would complete the quark sector, which the paper leaves open.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague, here is my read of Beil's strand-spacetime paper.

First, the punchline: the paper's central claim—that the strand Lagrangian reproduces exactly the standard model's trivalent electroweak vertices—fails on its own tables. Table 6, offered as evidence for quark interactions, states that the photon γ does not interact with the quarks u, c, t, in contrast to the standard model. In the SM, γ u \bar u, γ c \bar c, and γ t \bar t are ordinary vertices. That is a direct contradiction of the word 'exactly' in the abstract and introduction. This is not a minor caveat; it is a load-bearing discrepancy.

What the paper does well: it is a genuinely different preon construction, not a rehash of rishon or braid models. The idea of deriving particle content and vertices from the combinatorics of a Dirac Lagrangian with a strand-geometric mass term is original, and it makes concrete, falsifiable predictions, notably massive gluons and the absence of sterile neutrinos. The author is also honest in places: Section 7.3.2 explicitly calls the quark-charge assignment 'not a rigorous argument,' and the paper acknowledges where the model needs further development.

The soft spots are not minor. The splitting rules in Definition 7.1 are stipulated rather than derived; rule (iv) is added specifically to forbid unwanted photon self-interactions and photon-neutrino vertices. The charge substitution c± → ∓1/3 is put in by hand. With rules chosen to match the desired tables, the 'derivation' becomes an enumeration of the input. Section 8's mass orderings are a mix of retrodictions, parameter choices, and a few genuine predictions, but they rest on the same flexible framework.

The Table 6 problem is decisive. Even if one grants every splitting rule, three standard-model vertices are missing. The author notes this, but the paper's selling point is exact reproduction. That overclaim would need to be retracted or the model changed before serious engagement.

Who this is for: readers interested in speculative preon/strand approaches to quantum gravity and the SM, or in cataloguing falsifiable composite models. It is not a paper to build on directly. I would not send it to peer review in current form; the central claim is contradicted by its own evidence, and the rules are too unconstrained. If the author wants another round, the paper should be reframed as a toy model with 'exactly' removed, or the splitting rules need to be derived from the geometry rather than stipulated.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a 'strand spacetime' preon model in which the standard model particles are bound states of causal curves ('strands'), and claims that the Dirac Lagrangian (19) generates exactly the standard model particle content and trivalent electroweak vertices, electroweak parity violation, mass orderings, and stability, with additional massive gluon predictions. The core of the paper is a combinatorial enumeration of splittings of symmetric atoms (Definition 7.1; Tables 1, 2, 4, 5, 6), with particle identifications and charge assignments collected in Table 4. The paper also proposes a modification of Einstein's equation, a Lorentz-transformation realization of charge conjugation, and a strand-based spin-statistics argument.

Significance. If the central derivation were valid, the paper would be extremely significant: it would show that a single Lagrangian with no gauge-group input reproduces the standard model electroweak sector, and it would make falsifiable predictions (massive gluons) that could be tested. The paper deserves credit for explicitly listing its axioms and for admitting in Section 7.3.2 where an argument is not rigorous. However, as it stands, the central claim is not supported: the splitting rules are stipulated to produce the standard model vertices, and the model's own Table 6 contradicts the claimed exact reproduction by omitting photon-up-type-quark vertices. The significance is therefore prospective, not established.

major comments (4)

[Table 6; §7.3.3] The paper's headline claim that the model 'reproduces exactly the trivalent electroweak Feynman interactions involving both leptons and quarks' is contradicted by the note to Table 6, which states that 'the photon γ does not interact with the quarks u, c, t, in contrast to the standard model.' In the standard model, γ u \bar u, γ c \bar c, and γ t \bar t are ordinary trivalent vertices. Since Table 6 is offered as the evidence for exact reproduction in §7.3.3, this omission is a direct failure of the central claim, not a harmless caveat.
[Definition 7.1; §7] The splitting rules are stipulated rather than derived from the strand Lagrangian. In particular, rule (iv) — 'Each of the five fields \barψ_{L/R}, ψ_{L/R}, φ is excited in some atom in the splitting' — is introduced in §7 to prevent photon self-interactions and photon-neutrino interactions, and the allowed splittings in Tables 1, 2, and 6 are selected to match known Feynman vertices. Since the claimed derivation consists precisely of these splittings, the outcome is an enumeration of the input; no mechanism from (19) forces rule (iv) or excludes other splittings.
[§7.3.2; Proposition 7.5] The electric charges of quarks are not derived. The author writes that the restriction of O(2) charge to the photon diameter 'is not a rigorous argument, but in order to reproduce the correct quark charges, we want only the strands in the photon diameter to be able to carry O(2) charge.' Proposition 7.5 then substitutes c± ↦ ∓1/3 by hand. These choices are inputs needed to make Table 4 match the standard model; they are not consequences of the Dirac Lagrangian.
[§7.2; Table 4] The spin assignment for split atoms is also not derived but rather imposed by the desired particle content. The assertion that 'split atoms must have spin 1/2' because symmetric atoms have spin 1 and the rotational symmetry ratio is 2 does not follow from the Lagrangian; it presumes that split atoms are fermions. Since the spin column of Table 4 is part of the 'correct spin' claim, this is a further instance of input selection rather than derivation.

minor comments (4)

[Table 3] The symbol G used in Table 3 is not defined in the text or the table caption, which makes the diagram difficult to interpret.
[Title and abstract] The internal title of the paper ('Aspects of the Standard Model and Quantum Gravity from Strand Spacetime') differs from the arXiv title ('A combinatorial derivation of the standard model interactions from the Dirac Lagrangian'); the title and abstract should be made consistent before any resubmission.
[§6.3] The discussion of whether the strand Lagrangian should be quantized is speculative and not used in the derivation; it could be moved to an outlook section to avoid distracting from the main claims.
[References] The reference labeled [F] for the parity-violation derivation appears to point to Feynman's 1948 space-time approach; this citation does not match the context and should be corrected.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Splitting rule (iv) and quark-charge rule are fitted inputs; the claimed exact reproduction is further contradicted by Table 6's photon–u/c/t exclusion.

fitted input called prediction [§7.1, Definition 7.1(iv) and the following paragraph; Tables 1–2]
"We impose one additional rule for such splittings: (iv) Each of the five fields ¯ψL/R, ψL/R, φ is excited in some atom in the splitting. ... With these rules, we reproduce exactly the leptons, quarks, and electroweak bosons ... Note that rule (iv) ensures that there are no photon self-interactions, and no photon-neutrino interactions."

Rule (iv) is not derived from the Dirac Lagrangian; it is a selection rule added after knowing the standard-model vertex list, and its stated purpose is to forbid specific unwanted vertices. The claimed reproduction of the trivalent electroweak interactions is therefore an output of the rule, not an independent prediction: the allowed and forbidden vertices in Tables 1, 2, and 6 are consequences of a stipulated ansatz rather than of the Lagrangian alone.
fitted input called prediction [§7.3.2, footnote to Definition 7.4; Proposition 7.5]
"This is not a rigorous argument, but in order to reproduce the correct quark charges, we want only the strands in the photon diameter to be able to carry O(2) charge. ... Upon substituting the charges w±↦→∓1 and c±↦→∓1/3 in Table 4, we obtain the fractional electric charges of the quarks in QCD."

The structural restriction that only photon-diameter strands may carry O(2) charge is explicitly stipulated with the goal of reproducing quark charges, and the numerical mapping w±→∓1, c±→∓1/3 is inserted by hand to recover the QCD fractional charges. Thus the 'correct electric charges' of quarks are inputs to the model, not derivations from it; Proposition 7.5 is a relabeling of chosen charge values.

1 more flagged steps

renaming known result [§7.3, preamble to Table 4]
"Based on each atom’s spin, electric charge, and color charge, we make the particle identifications given in Table 4."

The particle content is identified by the very quantum numbers the paper claims to derive. Since spin is assumed for strands (§7.2), and electric/color charge rules were chosen in the two steps above to match known values, Table 4 is a relabeling of the input data rather than an independent prediction of which leptons, quarks, and bosons exist.

full rationale

The derivation chain from L to the standard-model vertices is broken at Definition 7.1(iv): the 'only additional rule' that each of the five fields must be excited is not derived from L; it is a selection rule introduced to make the vertex tables match the standard model. The paper admits the intent: rule (iv) 'ensures that there are no photon self-interactions, and no photon-neutrino interactions.' Similarly, quark-charge assignments are explicitly chosen 'in order to reproduce the correct quark charges,' and Proposition 7.5 imposes the substitutions w±→∓1, c±→∓1/3 to recover QCD fractional charges. Table 4 then labels atoms by the spin and charges that were put in. There is real combinatorial work in enumerating the splittings, and some mass orderings are presented as retrodictions, so the paper is not a full 10/10; but the central claim of reproducing standard-model vertices and charges is substantially an enumeration of fitted rules. Independently, Table 6's note concedes that the photon does not interact with u, c, t, contradicting the claim of exact reproduction; this is a correctness failure rather than another circular step. The self-citations to [B5] for strand geometry are not load-bearing for the vertex tables, so they do not contribute to this score.

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

The central claim rests on many postulates that are not derived from the Dirac Lagrangian alone: circular strands with spin 1/2, attraction and repulsion between strands, splitting rules, and the particle identifications in Table 4. Several are explicitly flagged by the author as non-rigorous or unexplained, so the ledger is dominated by ad hoc assumptions.

free parameters (3)

Sign and magnitude of scalar field mass m(phi) = negative (sign only)
Section 8.2 infers m(phi) < 0 so that the W boson is lighter than the Z boson, matching the observed m(W) < m(Z).
Energy inequality E_phi > |m(phi)| = assumed inequality
Section 8.2 assumes this bound so that adding phi to atoms with two O(3) charges increases mass, making the mass orderings m(nu_mu) < m(mu), m(nu_tau) < m(tau), m(s) < m(c), and m(b) < m(t) come out as observed.
Charge substitution c± -> ∓1/3 = ±1/3 per strand color charge
Proposition 7.5 substitutes the geometric charges c± by ∓1/3 to recover QCD fractional quark charges; this mapping is chosen to match experiment.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Strands are circular, have spin 1/2, and mass m = 1/r.
Section 2 and Equation (1) postulate the fundamental entity and its properties; the spin 1/2 is assumed, not derived.
ad hoc to paper Strands of opposite sign attract and strands of the same sign repel.
Section 7.1, equation (21), postulates the interaction between strands, and the author states the physical mechanism is unknown.
ad hoc to paper The allowed splittings are exactly those satisfying Definition 7.1 rules (i)-(iv), including that each of the five fields is excited in some atom.
These rules are chosen so the vertex tables match the standard model; rule (iv) forbids photon self-interactions and photon-neutrino interactions.
ad hoc to paper The particle identifications in Table 4 are correct.
Atoms are labeled as electron, muon, tau, quarks, W/Z, and photon based on their spin, charge, and stability, matching standard model assignments by construction.
ad hoc to paper The scalar field phi exists, has a time orientation, a sign, and can bind to a strand.
Section 6.1 introduces phi from |\bar u^a u_a|^{1/2} and then treats it as an independent real scalar field with its own charge, used to define W±.
standard math The complexification of the Lorentz algebra so(1,3)_C is isomorphic to su(2)_C ⊕ su(2)_C, and chiral spinors correspond to the two summands.
Section 5 uses the standard chiral decomposition of the Lorentz algebra, which is a conventional mathematical result.

invented entities (4)

Strand
purpose: Fundamental constituent of all standard model particles and gauge bosons.
Strands are the paper's new ontology; no direct experimental handle is given beyond the model's aggregate predictions.
Apex
purpose: Point where two strands of opposite sign are created or annihilated; also the source of spacetime curvature in Section 11.
Apexes are introduced to explain particle creation, state reduction, and gravity, with no independent evidence.
Scalar coupling field phi
purpose: Carries an additional O(3) charge, has negative mass, and distinguishes W from Z atoms.
The field is introduced in Section 6.1 and its properties are set to reproduce mass orderings.
Massive gluons (gamma-tilde, Z-tilde, W-tilde) independent evidence
purpose: Predicted new color-charge mediators that appear when the photon diameter has O(2) charge.
These are falsifiable predictions of new massive colored vector particles not present in the standard model, so they could be searched for in collider data.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A combinatorial derivation of the standard model interactions from the Dirac Lagrangian." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AZD4EK7P

@misc{pith2026190809631,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A combinatorial derivation of the standard model interactions from the Dirac Lagrangian},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AZD4EK7P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09631}
}

read the original abstract

A composite model of the standard model particles was recently derived using the Dirac Lagrangian on a spacetime where time does not advance along the worldlines of fundamental dust particles, called an 'internal spacetime'. The aim of internal spacetime geometry is to model certain quantum phenomena using (classical) degenerate spacetime metrics. For example, on an internal spacetime, tangent spaces have variable dimension, and spin wavefunction collapse is modeled by the projection from one tangent space to another. In this article we show that the combinatorial structure of the internal Dirac Lagrangian yields precisely the standard model trivalent vertices, together with two additional new (longitudinal) Z vertices that generate the four-valent boson vertices. In particular, we are able to derive electroweak parity violation for both leptons and quarks. We also obtain new restrictions on the possible spin states that can occur in certain interactions. Finally, we determine the trivalent vertices of the new massive spin-2 boson predicted by the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09631 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** (i) The standard interpretation of the chiral decomposition of the Dirac Lagrangian: what Penrose refers to as a ‘zig-zag path’. (ii) The interpretation of the chiral decomposition in the context of strands: strands of opposite sign can be created or annihilated at apexes. 6.2. The creation and annihilation of strands: apexes. Suppose ¯ωL/R = ωR/L and ¯u aua = −1. This configuration describe two strand particles ¯α,… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[1]

E.\ Anderson, J.\ Barbour, B.\ Foster, B.\ Kelleher, N.\ O Murchadha, The physical gravitational degrees of freedom, Class.\ Quantum Grav.\ 22 (2005) 1795-1802

work page 2005
[2]

, Dimer algebras, ghor algebras, and cyclic contractions, arXiv:1711.09771

work page Pith review arXiv
[3]

, Nonnoetherian geometry, J.\ Algebra Appl.\ 15 (2016)

work page 2016
[4]

, Nonnoetherian singularities and their noncommutative blowups, arXiv:1607.07778

work page Pith review arXiv
[5]

, On the central geometry of nonnoetherian dimer algebras, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, to appear

work page
[6]

, On the spacetime geometry of quantum nonlocality, arXiv:1511.05205

work page Pith review arXiv
[7]

, The Bell states in noncommutative algebraic geometry, Int.\ J.\ Quantum Inf., 12 (2014)

work page 2014
[8]

S.\ Bilson-Thompson, A topological model of composite preons, arXiv:0503213

work page

Show all 27 references

[9]

S.\ Bilson-Thompson, F.\ Markopoulou, L.\ Smolin, Quantum gravity and the standard model, Class.\ Quantum Grav.\ 24 (16) (2007), 3975-3993

2007
[10]

S.\ Bilson-Thompson, J.\ Hackett, L.\ Kauﬀman, L.\ Smolin, Particle identiﬁcations from symmetries of braided ribbon network invariants, arXiv:0804.0037

arXiv
[11]

L.\ Bombelli, J.\ Lee, D.\ Meyer, R.\ Sorkin, Spacetime as a causal set, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 59 (1987), 521-524

1987
[12]

L.\ Di\'osi, Models for universal reduction of macroscopic quantum fluctuations, Phys.\ Rev.\ A (1989) 40: 1165

1989
[13]

R.\ Feynman, Space-time approach to non-relativistic quantum mechanics, Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ 20 (1948) 2

1948
[14]

C.\ Furey, A demonstration that electroweak theory can violate parity automatically (leptonic case), Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ B 33, (2018) No.\ 4

2018
[15]

H.\ Gomes, S.\ Gryb, T.\ Koslowski, Einstein Gravity as a 3D Conformally Invariant Theory, Class.\ Quantum Grav.\ 28 (2010) 045005

2010
[16]

H.\ Harari, A schematic model of quarks and leptons, Physics Letters B 86 (1) (1979), 83-86

1979
[17]

H.\ Harari, N.\ Seiberg, The Rishon model, Nuclear Physics B 204 (1) (1982), 141-167

1982
[18]

T.\ Jacobson, Thermodynamics of Spacetime: The Einstein Equation of State, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 75 (1995) (7): 1260-1263

1995
[19]

J.\ Oppenheim, A post-quantum theory of classical gravity?, arXiv:1811.03116

arXiv
[20]

T.\ Padmanabhan, Thermodynamical Aspects of Gravity: New insights, Rep.\ Prog.\ Phys.\ 73 (2010) (4): 6901

2010
[21]

R.\ Penrose, On Gravity’s Role in Quantum State Reduction, Gen.\ Rel.\ Gra.\ 28 (1996) 5: 581-600

1996
[22]

, On the Gravitization of Quantum Mechanics 1: Quantum State Reduction, Found.\ Phys.\ (2014) 44: 557

2014
[23]

J.\ Schwinger, The Theory of Quantized Fields.\ I, Phys.\ Rev.\ 82 (1951) 914

1951
[24]

M.\ Shupe, A composite model of leptons and quarks, Physics Letters B 86 (1) (1979), 87-92

1979
[25]

E.\ Stueckelberg, Helvetica Physica Acta, 14 (1941) 51-80

1941
[26]

G.\ 't Hooft, A planar diagram theory for strong interactions, Nuclear Physics B 72 (1974) 461-473

1974
[27]

High Energy Phys.\ 4 (2011) 29

E.\ P.\ Verlinde, On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton, J. High Energy Phys.\ 4 (2011) 29

2011

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

E.\ Anderson, J.\ Barbour, B.\ Foster, B.\ Kelleher, N.\ O Murchadha, The physical gravitational degrees of freedom, Class.\ Quantum Grav.\ 22 (2005) 1795-1802

work page 2005

[2] [2]

, Dimer algebras, ghor algebras, and cyclic contractions, arXiv:1711.09771

work page Pith review arXiv

[3] [3]

, Nonnoetherian geometry, J.\ Algebra Appl.\ 15 (2016)

work page 2016

[4] [4]

, Nonnoetherian singularities and their noncommutative blowups, arXiv:1607.07778

work page Pith review arXiv

[5] [5]

, On the central geometry of nonnoetherian dimer algebras, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, to appear

work page

[6] [6]

, On the spacetime geometry of quantum nonlocality, arXiv:1511.05205

work page Pith review arXiv

[7] [7]

, The Bell states in noncommutative algebraic geometry, Int.\ J.\ Quantum Inf., 12 (2014)

work page 2014

[8] [8]

S.\ Bilson-Thompson, A topological model of composite preons, arXiv:0503213

work page