A Clifford algebra-based grand unification program of gravity and the Standard Model: a review study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Clifford Cl(5, C) unified gauge field theory formulation of conformal gravity and U(4) × U(4) × U(4) Yang–Mills in 4D, is reviewed along with its implications for the Pati–Salam (PS) group SU(4) × SU(2)L × SU(2)R, and trinification grand unified theory models of three fermion generations based on the group SU(3)C × SU(3)L × SU(3)R. We proceed with a brief review of a unification program of 4D gravity and SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) Yang–Mills emerging from 8D pure quaternionic gravity. A realization of E8 in terms of the Cl(16) = Cl(8) ⊗ Cl(8) generators follows, as a preamble to F. Smith’s E8 and Cl(16) = Cl(8) ⊗ Cl(8) unification model in 8D. The study of chiral fermions and instanton backgrounds in CP2 and CP3 related to the problem of obtaining three fermion generations is thoroughly studied. We continue with the evaluation of the coupling constants and particle masses based on the geometry of bounded complex homogeneous domains and geometric probability theory. An analysis of neutrino masses, Cabbibo–Kobayashi–Maskawa quark-mixing matrix parameters, and neutrino-mixing matrix parameters follows. We finalize with some concluding remarks about other proposals for the unification of gravity and the Standard Model, like string, M, and F theories and noncommutative and nonassociative geometry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".