The Unified Standard Model

Angnis Schmidt-May; Brage Gording

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

The Unified Standard Model

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 This paper claims that the entire Standard Model gauge structure, particle content, and charge assignments are contained in the complex 8×8 matrix algebra M(8,C), with only two extra degrees of freedom.

desk verdict A checkable existence proof that M(8,C) contains a copy of the Standard Model gauge group and particle content, with charges put in by hand—worth refereeing, but not worth reading as a derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.05641 v2 pith:RVPXLIBJ submitted 2019-09-03 hep-th

Brage Gording , Angnis Schmidt-May This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th MSC 17A3581T9915A66

keywords StandardModelunificationdivisionalgebragaugestructureoctonionsmatrixthreegenerations

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 claims that the gauge structure, particle content, and charge assignments of the Standard Model can all be embedded in the algebra $M(8,\mathbb{C})$ of complex $8\times 8$ matrices. This algebra is the associative image of the complexified octonions, so the claim ties the Standard Model to the last normed division algebra. The authors exhibit a direct-sum decomposition in which the gauge algebras $\mathfrak{su}(3)\oplus\mathfrak{su}(2)\oplus\mathfrak{u}_Y(1)$, three generations of fermions and antifermions, and the Higgs doublet occupy 62 of the 64 dimensions, leaving a two-dimensional subspace $P_{\mathrm{BSM}}$ as minimal new physics. If the decomposition is right, the absence of a fourth fermion generation and the non-independence of the conjugate Higgs doublet are structural consequences rather than accidents.

What carries the argument

The central object is the algebra $M(8,\mathbb{C})$ of complex $8\times 8$ matrices, shown isomorphic to the complex Clifford algebra $\mathrm{Cl}(6)$ and to the algebra of maps on the complexified octonions. The construction chooses two orthonormal bases, $\{R_I\}$ and $\{V_a^\pm\}$, of $\mathbb{C}^8$ and builds matrix units $M_{IJ}=R_I R_J^\dagger$. Gauge generators are explicit linear combinations of these units, while matter and Higgs states are the combinations $R_I(V_a^\pm)^\dagger$. The argument is carried by the direct-sum decomposition (3), which organizes all 64 complex dimensions into the gauge algebras, three generations, the Higgs, and $P_{\mathrm{BSM}}$; the linear-independence conditions (62) are what guarantee the particle subspaces do not overlap.

What would settle it

Take any admissible parameter choice satisfying the paper's conditions (6), (22), and (62), for instance $a=(1,0,0)$, $\bar{a}=(0,1,0)$, and $h_0^\pm=1$, and compute the eigenvalues of the $\mathfrak{su}(3)$ and hypercharge generators on the two $P_{\mathrm{BSM}}$ basis elements. If any $P_{\mathrm{BSM}}$ element carries nonzero colour or weak isospin, the minimal decomposition (3) is incorrect. If different admissible bases assign different hypercharges to the same Standard Model states, the identification is not unique.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is the decomposition $$M(8,\mathbb{C}) = \mathbb{C}\otimes\bigl[\mathfrak{su}(3)\oplus\mathfrak{su}(2)\oplus\mathfrak{u}_Y(1)\oplus 3\cdot(\mathcal{F}_3\oplus\bar{\mathcal{F}}_3\oplus\mathcal{F}_1\oplus\bar{\mathcal{F}}_1)\oplus\mathcal{F}_\varphi\oplus P_{\mathrm{BSM}}\bigr].$$ Each particle or antiparticle is a basis element; the gauge generators are also elements of the same algebra. The paper verifies that the eight $\mathfrak{su}(3)$ generators, the hypercharge $Y$, and the three $\mathfrak{su}(2)$ generators satisfy the correct commutation relations, that the matter subspaces transform as triplets, anti-triplets, and singlets under SU(3), carry the Standard Model hypercharges, and form weak-isospin doublets under SU(2) via right multiplication. It further proves the linear independence of all 62 particle elements under the conditions (18)/(62). The Higgs doublet has no independent conjugate element, matching the Standard Model, and the remaining two complex dimensions span $P_{\mathrm{BSM}}$, the paper's minimal new-physics content.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the hand-chosen assignment of Standard Model charges to matrix indices—the SU(3) colours to $I=(1,2,3)$ and the hypercharges to the remaining indices, declared arbitrary in Section 3.1—is the physical embedding, even though a 28-parameter family of bases survives all orthogonality, conjugation, and linear-independence conditions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The Standard Model's gauge group and its 62 particle types fit into a 64-dimensional matrix algebra with only two extra directions, so a fourth fermion generation cannot be accommodated.
Because gauge generators and matter states live in the same algebra and transformations are left or right multiplication, the distinction between gauge bosons, fermions, and the Higgs is not fundamental at this level.
The two $P_{\mathrm{BSM}}$ dimensions are the smallest possible beyond-Standard-Model content and should be SU(3) singlets, giving a concrete target for new-physics searches.
The Higgs conjugate doublet is not an independent basis element, matching the Standard Model's treatment of the conjugate doublet as dependent on the Higgs field.

Reading between the lines

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

The 28-parameter basis freedom implies M(8,C) contains many embeddings of the Standard Model rather than one; removing this freedom would require an extra principle such as the neutrality of PBSM.
If PBSM is indeed SU(3)-singlet and electrically neutral, its two dimensions are natural candidates for right-handed neutrinos or dark matter, and their absence in the algebra would be a concrete signature.
A systematic scan of the admissible parameter space could turn the identification into a uniqueness test: if all choices reproduce the Standard Model charges, the construction is robust; if they differ, the physical embedding is underdetermined.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a linear-algebra existence theorem, not a derivation of the Standard Model. The authors show that in M(8,C) (equivalently Cl(6)) one can find 62 linearly independent elements carrying the SM gauge representations, three generations and the Higgs included, plus two leftover directions. They are unusually honest about the price: the colour assignments and hypercharges are chosen by hand in Section 3.1, and after all orthogonality, conjugation, and linear-independence conditions a 28-parameter family of bases remains. So the abstract's "captured" should be read as "contains a copy", and the Discussion says exactly that. The central mathematical claim holds up as far as I can check.

What is new: Furey had one generation with SU(3)xU(1); Stoica had something similar. This paper is the first explicit decomposition that gets the full SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1), the Higgs doublet, and three generations into the same 64-dimensional space, with SU(2) acting from the right and a proof of linear independence. The right action is a nice trick, and the dimension count making a fourth generation impossible is a clean observation.

Where it is soft: the SU(2) generators in Eq. (10) have a non-standard normalisation, giving isospin eigenvalues plus or minus one rather than plus or minus one-half; harmless for identifying doublets, but nonstandard. No electric charge operator is constructed, so Furey's charge-quantisation story is not reproduced here. The Higgs subspace is underconstrained: any nonzero h0 works, and h1, h2, h3 are free, so the "Higgs direction" and therefore the PBSM directions depend on the choice of basis. PBSM itself gets no gauge assignments, as the authors concede. And there is no dynamics, no couplings, no masses, no testable prediction. None of this breaks the existence claim; it just keeps the significance modest. The linear-independence proof is detailed and, as far as I can tell, correct. The appendices on Cl(6) and the Lorentz structures in C⊗H are useful and fairly written.

Citation pattern is appropriate: Furey, Stoica, Dixon, Günaydin/Gürsey, and the division algebra literature are all there, with clear statements of what was already known. Beyond the abstract's wording, I do not see overclaiming.

Who this is for: people working on division-algebra approaches to SM structure, and anyone who wants a concrete worked example of a Clifford-algebra embedding of the SM. It deserves a serious referee. The calculations are checkable, the honesty is unusual, and it is the most complete embedding of this type I know. I would accept it for peer review with a request to soften the abstract and state explicitly that uniqueness is not claimed. It is not a desk-reject, and it is also not a paper that should be read as explaining why the SM is the way it is.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the complex matrix algebra M(8,C) contains a faithful copy of the Standard Model gauge group, particle content, and charge assignments. The construction identifies 62 linearly independent elements of M(8,C) with the 12 gauge bosons, three generations of fermions and antifermions, and the complex Higgs doublet, leaving a two-dimensional subspace PBSM. Gauge transformations are implemented by left and right matrix multiplication, and Section 3.3 gives a detailed linear-independence proof. The paper explicitly positions the result as an identification rather than a derivation, and the Discussion acknowledges that uniqueness would require further assumptions.

Significance. If read as an existence theorem, the paper provides a useful and explicit illustration of how a single 64-dimensional matrix algebra can accommodate the Standard Model's Lie algebra factors and fundamental representations. The explicit generators in Eqs. (8)-(10) and the worked linear-independence analysis in Section 3.3 are concrete and checkable, and the authors are honest about the sense in which the construction is an identification rather than a derivation. The significance is limited, however, by the fact that the Standard Model quantum numbers are inputs to the construction, not outputs, and by the unresolved chiral structure of the proposed embedding. The paper is a contribution to the division-algebra programme rather than a derivation of the Standard Model from M(8,C).

major comments (4)

[Section 3.1, Section 2.2.2, Discussion] The advertised claim that the Standard Model's 'particular gauge structure, group representations and charge assignments are all captured' is stronger than what is demonstrated. In Section 3.1 the authors write 'We choose, arbitrarily, to assign the SU(3) charges...' and then fix hypercharges by hand to match the Standard Model; Section 2.2.2 states that 28 real parameters remain after all orthogonality, conjugation, and linear-independence conditions are imposed. The result is therefore an existence statement: for a large family of bases, a copy of the SM representations can be embedded in M(8,C). The Discussion correctly concedes that this is 'not a derivation' and that uniqueness requires further assumptions. The abstract and introduction should be reframed so that this distinction is explicit, since the explanatory claim in the title and motivation is not supported by the construction.
[Section 3.2.3 and Appendix D] The construction does not reproduce the chiral structure of the Standard Model. In the SM, only left-handed fermions transform as SU(2) doublets while right-handed fermions are singlets, and the hypercharge assignments are left- and right-handed dependent. Here, Eqs. (16) and (17) assign weak-isospin doublets to all fermions and antifermions without any chirality distinction; the authors acknowledge in Section 3.2.3 that 'there is currently no chiral structure present' and defer a resolution to future work. Appendix D sketches projectors from C⊗H, but explicitly calls the resulting construction 'ad-hoc and not natural.' Since chiral gauge couplings are an essential part of the Standard Model's gauge structure, the claim that the SM gauge structure is captured is not yet supported at the level of field content.
[Section 3.2.3, Eq. (10)] The SU(2) generators as defined in Eq. (10) have T3 eigenvalues ±1, not ±1/2 for the weak-isospin doublets. With the hypercharges assigned in Section 3.1 (Y=1/3 for quark doublets and Y=-1 for lepton doublets), the standard relation Q = T3 + Y/2 would give electric charges 7/6 and -5/6 for up and down quarks, rather than 2/3 and -1/3; similarly the lepton doublet would receive charges 1/2 and -3/2 rather than 0 and -1. The T_i can of course be rescaled by 1/2 to obtain the conventional normalization, but the paper does not state this convention or explain how electric charge is to be computed. Since the abstract advertises that the SM charge assignments are captured, this normalization issue needs to be addressed explicitly.
[Section 2.2.2, Eq. (13), and Section 4] The two-dimensional space PBSM is not an invariant or uniquely defined part of the construction. The Higgs combination V±φ is only constrained by h±0 ≠ 0, so the coefficients h±a for a=1,2,3 are free, and the two leftover directions in M(8,C) depend on this choice as well as on the 28-parameter family of bases. Therefore the statement in Section 4 that these elements 'hint at a minimal amount of new physics' is not robust: the two extra directions are artifacts of the chosen embedding rather than canonically defined degrees of freedom. The paper should either characterize the subspace of M(8,C) that is orthogonal or otherwise invariant under all admissible choices, or explicitly downgrade the PBSM claim from a physical hint to a basis-dependent observation.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and Section 4] The abstract says the SM structure is 'captured' while Section 4 says the result is 'not a derivation'; please harmonize the terminology so the epistemological status of the claim is consistent throughout.
[Section 2.2.2, Eq. (8)] The SU(3) generators are not normalized to the standard Gell-Mann matrices; please state the normalization convention used for the λI so that the commutation relations and later physical identifications are unambiguous.
[Section 3.3] The conditions (18) and (62) are essentially the same statement and could be consolidated; the repeated derivation is somewhat redundant.
[Section 3.2.3] There is a duplicated word in 'the SU(2) generators must must not involve terms...' and a similar typo in footnote 10 ('has has rank 1').
[Appendix D] The projectors R, ¯R, V, and ¯V are introduced without a discussion of their uniqueness; since the paper already notes the construction is ad-hoc, a brief comment on how these projectors could arise from a more fundamental principle would help the reader judge the status of the proposal.
[Section 2.1, Eq. (3)] The overall factor of C in the decomposition (3) is left unexplained; the footnote says the authors cannot currently comment on its physical significance. This is acceptable but should be flagged more prominently as an open point, given that it multiplies every SM subspace.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Charge assignments are imposed in Sec. 3.1 and then 'derived' back out: the hypercharge and SU(3) generators in Sec. 3.2 are solved to reproduce exactly the hand-assigned values, so Eq. (3)'s claim to 'capture' the SM charges is partially circular; the explicit non-derivation disclaimer in Sec. 4 prevents a higher score.

fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.1 (charge assignment) and Sec. 3.2.2, Eqs. (34)-(36)]
"For hypercharges consistent with the Standard Model charge allocations we must then assign the indices I = (1, 2, 3) a hypercharge of 1/3 and the index I = 4 a hypercharge of −1. ... Thus our hypercharge generator must be of the form Y = Σ yI RI(RI)†, yI ∈ C, where the yI will be fixed by the charge assignments."

The hypercharge spectrum advertised in Eq. (3) is not an output of the algebra: the numbers 1/3 and −1 are inserted by hand in Sec. 3.1. The generator Y in Eqs. (34)-(36) is then solved for under the constraint that its left-action eigenvalues reproduce exactly those inserted numbers ('yI will be fixed by the charge assignments'). So the 'derivation' of the hypercharges is a restatement of the input; the only derived content is that such a commuting element exists in M(8,C), which is an existence statement, not a prediction of the charge values.
fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.1 (color assignment) and Sec. 3.2.1]
"We choose, arbitrarily, to assign the SU(3) charges (red, green, blue) to I = (1, 2, 3) respectively, and to make I = 4 a singlet of SU(3). ... The coefficients ΩIJK are fixed by assigning the triplet charges to the index I = 1, 2, 3 of our fermions. Then the ¯λI become maps between the different colour charges, as desired."

The triplet/anti-triplet/singlet structure is imposed on the index labels before any generator is constructed: red/green/blue are assigned to I=1,2,3 and I=4 is declared an SU(3) singlet. The su(3) generators are then fixed to implement exactly that assignment. Hence the color representation content of Eq. (3) reduces by construction to the arbitrary choice of Sec. 3.1; the algebra does not select which three index directions form the fundamental of SU(3), as the surviving 28-parameter freedom confirms.

full rationale

The core of the paper is an explicit existence proof: the authors define 62 linearly independent elements of M(8,C), verify their linear independence (Sec. 3.3) and check that the constructed su(3), su(2), and uY(1) generators reproduce the claimed transformation laws. That linear-algebra content is not circular, and the isomorphism Cl(6) ≅ M(8,C) is proved in Appendix A.2 rather than merely imported, so the Furey citations are background, not load-bearing self-citation. The partial circularity lies in the charge-assignment claim: Sec. 3.1 fixes hypercharges and color charges by hand to match the Standard Model, and Sec. 3.2 then solves for generators whose eigenvalues reproduce exactly those hand-fixed values ('yI will be fixed by the charge assignments'; 'ΩIJK are fixed by assigning the triplet charges'). The 'captured' charge assignments of Eq. (3) are therefore inputs, not predictions. The paper itself concedes in Sec. 4 that 'our result is not a derivation of the Standard Model, but rather an identification' and that uniqueness would require further assumptions. This honest disclaimer keeps the circularity partial: it lowers the score because the authors do not claim a full derivation, but it also confirms that the advertised 'capture' of charges is an embedding after the SM charges have been put in. The 28-parameter freedom and the underdetermined PBSM charges are significance/uniqueness concerns rather than circularity by themselves, but they reinforce that the embedding is not forced by the algebra. Overall score 6: one or more central 'predictions' (the hypercharges and color assignments) reduce by construction to inputs, while genuine independent mathematical content remains in the explicit construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chosen assignment of Standard Model quantum numbers to matrix indices, with a 28-parameter family of valid bases. The gauge generators are then solved to reproduce those assignments. The number three for generations and all hypercharge values are inputs. PBSM is an invented entity with no independent evidence.

free parameters (4)

Three fermion generations (a = 1, 2, 3) = 3
Input by hand to match the Standard Model; a fourth generation would not fit in 64 dimensions.
Hypercharge assignments y_I = 1/3 for I=1,2,3; -1 for I=4; -1/3 for I=5,6,7; 1 for I=8
Chosen to reproduce Standard Model hypercharges; not derived from the algebra.
Basis coefficients a±_aI (28 real parameters) = not specified, constrained only by orthogonality, conjugation, and linear independence
The explicit embedding into M(8,C) varies over a 28-parameter family; the physical content is independent of these parameters only if the identification is robust, which is not shown.
Higgs doublet coefficients h±_a = h±_0 nonzero, otherwise free
The Higgs element is a linear combination of the V± basis vectors; the coefficients are free parameters.

assumptions (5)

standard math The algebra M(8,C) is isomorphic to C tensor O with reversed multiplication, via Cl(6).
Established in appendix A.2 and cited from Furey and Dixon.
ad hoc to paper Particle and antiparticle states are identified with basis elements related by the bar-star conjugation.
This identification is a modeling choice stated in Section 3 (assumption 1) and used to derive generator forms.
ad hoc to paper Gauge transformations are described by letting the algebra act on itself from left and right.
Assumption 2 in Section 3; this is the framework's core postulate and is not derived.
domain assumption The Standard Model gauge group and particle content are taken as the target structure.
The paper aims to reproduce GSM and its representations; this target is the input.
ad hoc to paper An orthonormal basis R_I of C^8 exists satisfying the conjugation property (24) and the V± conditions (6) and (22).
The construction depends on the existence of such bases; the paper exhibits a family but the choice is not unique.

invented entities (1)

Two-dimensional subspace PBSM
purpose: Two extra basis elements beyond the 62 Standard Model states; proposed as candidates for new physics.
Their gauge representations are not determined and no coupling or mass is predicted, so there is no experimental handle.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Unified Standard Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RVPXLIBJ

@misc{pith2026190905641,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Unified Standard Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RVPXLIBJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.05641}
}

abstract

The aim of this work is to find a simple mathematical framework for our established description of particle physics. We demonstrate that the particular gauge structure, group representations and charge assignments of the Standard Model particles are all captured by the algebra M(8,$\mathbb{C})$ of complex 8$\times$8 matrices. This algebra is well motivated by its close relation to the normed division algebra of octonions. (Anti-)particle states are identified with basis elements of the vector space M(8,$\mathbb{C})$. Gauge transformations are simply described by the algebra acting on itself. Our result shows that all particles and gauge structures of the Standard Model are contained in the tensor product of all four normed division algebras, with the quaternions providing the Lorentz representations. Interestingly, the space M(8,$\mathbb{C})$ contains two additional elements independent of the Standard Model particles, hinting at a minimal amount of new physics.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Standard Model Symmetries and the Nested Embeddings of $\mathbb{R}\subset\mathbb{C}\subset\mathbb{H}\subset\mathbb{O}$
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The Standard Model gauge group and its charge operators emerge from O⊕H⊕C⊕R by stabilizing top-graded elements and imposing an equal-trace condition.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Observation of a new particle in th e search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS dete ctor at the LHC,

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], “Observation of a new particle in th e search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS dete ctor at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1 [arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]]

arXiv 2012
[2]

Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC,

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], “Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC,” Phys. Lett . B 716 (2012) 30 [arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]]

arXiv 2012
[3]

Uniqueness of Quark and Lept on Represen- tations in the Standard Model From the Anomalies Viewpoint,

C. Q. Geng and R. E. Marshak, “Uniqueness of Quark and Lept on Represen- tations in the Standard Model From the Anomalies Viewpoint, ” Phys. Rev. D 39 (1989) 693

work page 1989
[4]

A Comment on Ano maly Cancellation in the Standard Model,

J. A. Minahan, P. Ramond and R. C. Warner, “A Comment on Ano maly Cancellation in the Standard Model,” Phys. Rev. D 41 (1990) 715

work page 1990
[5]

Quantization of Electric Charge From Anomaly Constraints and a Majorana Neutrino,

K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra, “Quantization of Electric Charge From Anomaly Constraints and a Majorana Neutrino,” Phys. Rev. D 41 (1990) 271

work page 1990
[6]

Unity of All Elementary Part icle Forces,

H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, “Unity of All Elementary Part icle Forces,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 32 (1974) 438

work page 1974
[7]

Recent progress in gauge theories of the we ak, electromagnetic and strong interactions,

S. Weinberg, “Recent progress in gauge theories of the we ak, electromagnetic and strong interactions,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 46 (1974) 255 [J. Phys. Colloq. 34 (1973) no.C1, 45]

work page 1974
[8]

Hierarchy of Inte ractions in Uniﬁed Gauge Theories,

H. Georgi, H. R. Quinn and S. Weinberg, “Hierarchy of Inte ractions in Uniﬁed Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 33 (1974) 451

work page 1974

Show all 45 references

[9]

Search for proton dec ay via p → e+π0 and p → µ+π0 in 0.31 megatonyears exposure of the Super- Kamiokande water Cherenkov detector,

K. Abe et al. [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration], “Search for proton dec ay via p → e+π0 and p → µ+π0 in 0.31 megatonyears exposure of the Super- Kamiokande water Cherenkov detector,” Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) no.1, 012004 [arXiv:1610.03597 [hep-ex]]

2017 arXiv
[10]

Lepton Number as the Fourth Colo r,

J. C. Pati and A. Salam, “Lepton Number as the Fourth Colo r,” Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974) 275 Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975) 703]

1974
[11]

The State of the ArtGauge Theories,

H. Georgi, “The State of the ArtGauge Theories,” AIP Con f. Proc. 23 (1975)

1975
[12]

An Almost Realistic Gauge Hierarchy,

H. Georgi, “An Almost Realistic Gauge Hierarchy,” Phys . Lett. 108B (1982)

1982
[13]

A Supersymmetric SU(5) Gauge Theory wit h No Gauge Hierar- chy Problem,

B. Grinstein, “A Supersymmetric SU(5) Gauge Theory wit h No Gauge Hierar- chy Problem,” Nucl. Phys. B 206 (1982) 387. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90275- 9

1982 doi
[14]

Naturally Massless Higgs Doublets in Supersymmetric SU(5),

A. Masiero, D. V. Nanopoulos, K. Tamvakis and T. Yanagid a, “Naturally Massless Higgs Doublets in Supersymmetric SU(5),” Phys. Le tt. 115B (1982) 380

1982
[15]

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

A. Connes, “Gravity coupled with matter and foundation of non- commutative geometry,” Commun. Math. Phys. 182 (1996), 155-176 doi:10.1007/BF02506388 [arXiv:hep-th/9603053 [hep-th] ]

1996 arXiv
[16]

Resilience of the Spec tral Standard Model,

A. H. Chamseddine and A. Connes, “Resilience of the Spec tral Standard Model,” JHEP 09 (2012), 104 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2012)104 [arXiv:1208.1030 [hep-ph]]. 28 Brage Gording and Angnis Schmidt-May

2012 arXiv
[17]

The Spectral action pr inciple,

A. H. Chamseddine and A. Connes, “The Spectral action pr inciple,” Commun. Math. Phys. 186 (1997), 731-750 doi:10.1007/s002200050126 [arXiv:hep-th/9606001 [hep-th]]

1997 arXiv
[18]

Geometry and the Quantum: Basics,

A. H. Chamseddine, A. Connes and V. Mukhanov, “Geometry and the Quantum: Basics,” JHEP 12 (2014), 098 doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2014)098 [arXiv:1411.0977 [hep-th]]

2014 arXiv
[19]

Uniﬁed Theory of Ideals,

C. Furey, “Uniﬁed Theory of Ideals,” Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 025024 [arXiv:1002.1497 [hep-th]]

2012 arXiv
[20]

Generations: Three Prints, in Colour,

C. Furey, “Generations: Three Prints, in Colour,” JHEP 1410 (2014) 046 [arXiv:1405.4601 [hep-th]]

2014 arXiv
[21]

Charge quantization from a number operator,

C. Furey, “Charge quantization from a number operator, ” Phys. Lett. B 742 (2015) 195 [arXiv:1603.04078 [hep-th]]

2015 arXiv
[22]

Standard model physics from an algebra?,

C. Furey, “Standard model physics from an algebra?,” ar Xiv:1611.09182 [hep- th]

arXiv
[23]

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

C. Furey, “Three generations, two unbroken gauge symme tries, and one eight- dimensional algebra,” Phys. Lett. B 785 (2018) 84

2018
[24]

Quark structure and octonio ns,

M. Gunaydin and F. Gursey, “Quark structure and octonio ns,” J. Math. Phys. 14 (1973) 1651

1973
[25]

Quark Statistics and Octoni ons,

M. Gunaydin and F. Gursey, “Quark Statistics and Octoni ons,” Phys. Rev. D 9 (1974) 3387. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.9.3387

1974 doi
[26]

Octonionic Hilbert Spaces, the Poincare Group and SU(3),

M. Gunaydin, “Octonionic Hilbert Spaces, the Poincare Group and SU(3),” J. Math. Phys. 17 (1976) 1875

1976
[27]

Quan- tized Grassmann Variables and Uniﬁed Theories,

A. Barducci, F. Buccella, R. Casalbuoni, L. Lusanna and E. Sorace, “Quan- tized Grassmann Variables and Uniﬁed Theories,” Phys. Lett . 67B (1977) 344

1977
[28]

Uniﬁed Description Of Quar ks And Leptons,

R. Casalbuoni and R. Gatto, “Uniﬁed Description Of Quar ks And Leptons,” Phys. Lett. 88B (1979) 306

1979
[29]

Uniﬁed Theories for Quarks and Leptons Based on Cliﬀord Algebras,

R. Casalbuoni and R. Gatto, “Uniﬁed Theories for Quarks and Leptons Based on Cliﬀord Algebras,” Phys. Lett. 90B (1980) 81

1980
[30]

Dixon, Division Algebras: Octonions Complex Numbers and the Alge- braic Design of Physics , Springer US (1994)

G.M. Dixon, Division Algebras: Octonions Complex Numbers and the Alge- braic Design of Physics , Springer US (1994)

1994
[31]

Dixon, Nuovo Cim

G. Dixon, Nuovo Cim. B 105 (1990) 349

1990
[32]

The Standard Model Algebra - Leptons, Qua rks, and Gauge from the Complex Cliﬀord Algebra Cℓ6,

O. C. Stoica, “The Standard Model Algebra - Leptons, Qua rks, and Gauge from the Complex Cliﬀord Algebra Cℓ6,” Adv. Appl. Cliﬀord Algebras 28 (2018) no.3, 52 [arXiv:1702.04336 [hep-th]]

2018 arXiv
[33]

Three fermion generat ions with two un- broken gauge symmetries from the complex sedenions,

A. B. Gillard and N. G. Gresnigt, “Three fermion generat ions with two un- broken gauge symmetries from the complex sedenions,” Eur. P hys. J. C 79 (2019) no.5, 446 [arXiv:1904.03186 [hep-th]]

2019 arXiv
[34]

The Octonions,

J. C. Baez, “The Octonions,” Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 39 (2002) 145 Erratum: [Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 42 (2005) 213] [math/0105155 [math-ra]]

2002 arXiv
[35]

Division Algebras and Supersy mmetry I,

J. C. Baez and J. Huerta, “Division Algebras and Supersy mmetry I,” Proc. Symp. Pure Maths. 81 (2010) 65 [arXiv:0909.0551 [hep-th]]

2010 arXiv
[36]

Octonions, E(6), and Particl e Physics,

C. A. Manogue and T. Dray, “Octonions, E(6), and Particl e Physics,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 254 (2010) 012005 [arXiv:0911.2253 [math.RA]]. The Uniﬁed Standard Model 29

2010 arXiv
[37]

Non-Commutative Geometry , Non-Associative Geometry and the Standard Model of Particle Physics,

L. Boyle and S. Farnsworth, “Non-Commutative Geometry , Non-Associative Geometry and the Standard Model of Particle Physics,” New J. Phys. 16 (2014) no.12, 123027 [arXiv:1401.5083 [hep-th]]

2014 arXiv
[38]

An octonionic formulation of the M-theory algebra,

A. Anastasiou, L. Borsten, M. J. Duﬀ, L. J. Hughes and S. N agy, “An octonionic formulation of the M-theory algebra,” JHEP 1411 (2014) 022 [arXiv:1402.4649 [hep-th]]

2014 arXiv
[39]

Octonions, exceptional Jor dan algebra and the role of the group F4 in particle physics,

I. Todorov and S. Drenska, “Octonions, exceptional Jor dan algebra and the role of the group F4 in particle physics,” Adv. Appl. Cliﬀord Algebras 28 (2018) no.4, 82 doi:10.1007/s00006-018-0899-y [arXiv:18 05.06739 [hep-th]]

2018 doi
[40]

Exceptional quantum algebra for the stand ard model of particle physics,

I. Todorov, “Exceptional quantum algebra for the stand ard model of particle physics,” [arXiv:1911.13124 [hep-th]]

1911 arXiv
[41]

The G2 Invariant Compacti ﬁcations in Eleven-dimensional Supergravity,

M. Gunaydin and N. P. Warner, “The G2 Invariant Compacti ﬁcations in Eleven-dimensional Supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 248 (1984) 685

1984
[42]

The Parallelizing S(7) Torsio n in Gauged N = 8 Supergravity,

B. de Wit and H. Nicolai, “The Parallelizing S(7) Torsio n in Gauged N = 8 Supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 231 (1984) 506

1984
[43]

An Introduction to qua ntum ﬁeld theory

M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, “An Introduction to qua ntum ﬁeld theory”, Westview, Boulder, CO. (1995). Brage Gording Max-Planck-Institut f¨ ur Physik (Werner-Heisenberg-Institut) F¨ ohringer Ring 6, 80805 Munich, Germany e-mail: brageg@mpp.mpg.de Angnis Schmidt-May Max-Pl...

1995
[283]

doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)91193-5

doi
[575]

doi:10.1063/1.2947450

doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Observation of a new particle in th e search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS dete ctor at the LHC,

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], “Observation of a new particle in th e search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS dete ctor at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1 [arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]]

arXiv 2012

[2] [2]

Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC,

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], “Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC,” Phys. Lett . B 716 (2012) 30 [arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]]

arXiv 2012

[3] [3]

Uniqueness of Quark and Lept on Represen- tations in the Standard Model From the Anomalies Viewpoint,

C. Q. Geng and R. E. Marshak, “Uniqueness of Quark and Lept on Represen- tations in the Standard Model From the Anomalies Viewpoint, ” Phys. Rev. D 39 (1989) 693

work page 1989

[4] [4]

A Comment on Ano maly Cancellation in the Standard Model,

J. A. Minahan, P. Ramond and R. C. Warner, “A Comment on Ano maly Cancellation in the Standard Model,” Phys. Rev. D 41 (1990) 715

work page 1990

[5] [5]

Quantization of Electric Charge From Anomaly Constraints and a Majorana Neutrino,

K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra, “Quantization of Electric Charge From Anomaly Constraints and a Majorana Neutrino,” Phys. Rev. D 41 (1990) 271

work page 1990

[6] [6]

Unity of All Elementary Part icle Forces,

H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, “Unity of All Elementary Part icle Forces,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 32 (1974) 438

work page 1974

[7] [7]

Recent progress in gauge theories of the we ak, electromagnetic and strong interactions,

S. Weinberg, “Recent progress in gauge theories of the we ak, electromagnetic and strong interactions,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 46 (1974) 255 [J. Phys. Colloq. 34 (1973) no.C1, 45]

work page 1974

[8] [8]

Hierarchy of Inte ractions in Uniﬁed Gauge Theories,

H. Georgi, H. R. Quinn and S. Weinberg, “Hierarchy of Inte ractions in Uniﬁed Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 33 (1974) 451

work page 1974