The clumsy "almost-commutative graviton" is provocative. I use it on purpose, to ask two questions in one :
Is the observation of only one Higgs and no supersymmetric particle below 8 TeV (up to now) a sufficient evidence to substantiate the almost commutative spectral model?
Can physicists consider now this kind of models pioneered by Connes and Chamseddine to be an effective (physical) and not only formal tentative unification of gravitation and Yang-Mill-Higgs interactions?
Recent developments of the almost-commutative spectral model regarding the Higgs boson and its mass:
- Grand Symmetry, Spectral Action, and the Higgs mass /Devastato, Lizzi and Martinetti 2013;
- Asymptotic safety, hypergeometric functions, and the Higgs mass in spectral action models /Estrada and Marcolli 2012;
- Noncommutative Geometry in the LHC-Era /Stephan 2013.
(motives for "graviton" as a metaphore and "almost commutative" as a pedagogical reminder)
- I know that graviton is a spin 2 gauge boson associated to the gravitational field in a tentative quantification of general relativity. In the framework of Quantum Field Theory it is thus an object independant a priori from the Higgs that is a scalar boson responsible for masses of elementary particles from the Standard Model. Nevertheless I remind that Higgs interaction can be considered as derivated from gravitation in the noncommutative geometric setting (following Thomas Schücker).
- The adjective almost-commutative has a precise technical meaning but I use it also in my question to underline the fact that in any theoretical framework non-commutativity is a necessary but not sufficient tool to describe quantum phenomena, therefore it is clear that gravitation has not been quantized yet!