Is the 125 GeV Higgs boson some kind of a "almost-commutative graviton" at the electroweak scale? 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.

Last comments:
(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!

 A: 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?
No, absolutely not.  The Chamseddine-Connes model assumes the existence of a desert, with no new field excitations or strong coupling phenomena between the 1 TeV scale and the GUT scale, roughly $10^{16}$ TeV.  This is a very strong assumption (although certainly not unknown in particle physics):  They are assuming that there is no new physics across 16 orders of magnitude.  (For reference, this is roughly the same separation of scales that separates the 1 cm scale of a large drop of water and the current limits of particle accelerators.)
Frankly, I think the desert hypothesis is a far stronger assumption than any of the other assumptions (what fields, what couplings, what Calabi-Yau, what non-commutative geometry) people make when speculating about physics beyond the Standard Model.
None of this is meant to discourage work on these NC models.  I personally quite like the smell of them.  But it should be remembered that the entire history of particle physics (from Newtonian mechanics to fluid dynamics to radio waves to molecular chemistry to QED to nuclear physics to quarks and gluons and the electroweak scale) covers a smaller gap of scales.
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?
Again, no.  To make the 'almost commutative' model a real model of gravity (instead of an intriguing way of expressing a short distance classical action for an effective field theory of the non-gravitational degrees of freedom), one must explain how to carry out path integral computations over the space of Dirac operators.  This will entail explaining how to integrate over the gravitational degrees of freedom, and isn't likely to be much easier than any other approaches to quantum gravity.
A: 2 remarks :

*

*The original theory of Connes made a prediction for the mass of the Higgs boson which was $170$ Gev, if I'm not mistaken. And it has been ruled out.
Then there was a new 2012 article, and it is said that the experimental value of the mass of the Higgs is now compatible with the model.
I do not understand a word in the maths of the model, but at least, it does not appear like extraordinary trustable, to change so quickly (but maybe I am wrong).


*Higgs boson is a scalar particle, and graviton is a spin-2 particle, so they are very different.
Apart from this,  the vaccuum expectation of the Higgs scalar gives the mass to the $W,Z$ bosons, but also to the other particles.
But there is a difference between giving a mass, and being a (like-gauge) particle representing gravitational interaction between masses (in fact, stress-energy tensor). This is conceptually different.
A: Let's focus first on the almost-commutative aspect. One could argue that a possibly better formulation for the 126 GeV Higgs scalar could be almost-commutative gauge boson to underline the fact that its phenomenology at the LHC agrees up to now quite well with the coupling terms and quantum numbers postulated by the Standard Model but mostly calculated in the almost-commutative spectral model from first principles. Among them are these two, quoted by Robert Brout in some Notes on Connes' Construction of the Standard Model from 1997:

I emphasize strongly the gauge principle and its handmaiden, anomaly
  freedom. One of the more remarkable things that has come up as the
  uncanny consistency of Connes’ approach with the constraints of
  anomaly freedom.

To say something about the gravitational aspect, one also has to keep in mind that the spectral action principle is a conjectural generalization of the equivalence principle, said it differently, it is General Relativity formulated with noncommutative geometry thus there could be a genuine connection of the scalar (spin 0) Higgs with gravitation in the noncommutative framework, even if it has nothing to do with the (spin 2) graviton envisioned by the non perturbatively renormalizable quantum field theory of gravitation.    
This last speculation is also inspired by reading this article(1995) by Fedele Lizzi et al that dwells on a possible dual role played by the nondiagonal elements of the matrix algebra responsible for the noncommutative character of the fine structure of spacetime in the Connes vision. I quote :

Loosely speaking, this formulation is based on a doubling of space-time, considered as a two sheeted manifold... The nontrivial
  feature of the theory is that the Dirac operator, as well as the gauge
  potential (connection), have some nondiagonal elements, which couple
  the two sheets of space-time. These are classical scalar fields: one
  is related to the component of the metric in the discrete direction,
  and thus to the distance between the two sheets of space-time, and the
  others are Higgs fields, responsible for the breaking of the
  symmetry.

Remark #1 
The question formulated by Mitchell Porter in a comment:

the lack of beyond-standard-model physics at the LHC, is evidence for
  Connes et al's program of noncommutative physics?

and the possible existence of the two-sheeted space-time are addressed more specifically here.
Remark #2
A possible continuation of my own question, in an attempt to deepen the understanding of the dual aspect of the noncommutative Higgs sector, making connection with more recent work, has been proposed here.
A: The Higgs is responsible for Mass, Gravity is different.  The Graviton if it even exists would be nearly impossible to detect directly.  Gravity is incredibley weak, the Detector would have to be huge.  I'm talking the scale of Solar System and maybe even a entire Galaxy.   I read somewhere that a Detector the Size of Jupiter close to Neutron star would collect 1 Graviton every 10 years.  It would have to run for Millions of years to collect enough data.  You have to think in Spacetime.  Everything is really moving at C (Speed of Light) or all of Inertia is C in Spacetime.  Neither Space or Time is absolute (Meaning the same for every point in the Universe) only Spacetime is absolute.  This is why so much Energy is in Matter, It's Intertia is always C.  Now consider a Masslass Particle ie a Photon all of its momentum is in the Spacial Dimensions (3D Space) but it has no momentum in time (Never Ages). All Particles with Mass have very little Momentum is Space in Respect to C and Most of the momentum is in time.  On the most fundamental scales the Higgs field has something to do with this. Some Particles are just moving at different Angles in Time with Respect to Space. Its Same if your Traveling North at 60 MPH, then start to turn a few degrees West at a Constant speed. Most of your speed is North, but some of it goes West since your moving at different Angle in Space.   Massive Particles Move faster in Time, Hence Decay faster.  The Higgs field has something to do with that, just can't describe it words right now.  Gravity might not be a force at all, just be a Lag or Warp in Spacetime.  Meaning Space and Time is never the same, we just don't notice it in the Marco world,  but on the smallest scales its very profound.  Maybe enough so that its responsible everything we see today.   If everything Moved at C in Space there would be no Time.  Same is True if Everything Moved at C in Time there would be No space.  If Photon moves entirely at C in space but not in Time and Particles with Mass Move at a Angles in SpaceTime,  then what would a Particle that moves at C only Time look like.  I would not exist in 3D Space and be Moving Faster in Time then everything.  Could that be a Graviton or something else.     
There is no reason why Stuff can't move backwards in Time.  
Now what happens if Everything Moves at C in Time (No Space) and if Forward moving Stuff collides with Backward moving Stuff.  Lets Call that Stuff Energy.  That collision Slows or Stops its Inertia in time    Since Energy is conserved it has to Go somewhere so why not 3D Space.  The Forward Stuff becomes Matter and backward Stuff becomes Antimatter.   Now what if its Almost a 50/50 mix with the just slightly more Forward Stuff.  3D Space would appear to erupt from a Singularity and be full of Matter and Antimatter (Everywhere).  The Matter would annihilate all of the Antimatter, Leaving small percentage of Matter.  Kinda sounds like the Big Bang/Inflation doesn't it. 
This could be happening at all points in the Temporal Dimension each collision creating a whole Universe with Different Physics. Only Collision with Near equal amounts of Forward Stuff and Backward Stuff create a stable Universe.  What we see as the Universe might be a illusion.  Of course its much more complicated then this,  I like this viewing this way in a Relative way :)  
Paints a good picture of Spacetime.  Could be why Both Einstein and Quantum Physics are both right.  Its kinda Hard Picturing a Single Dimensinal Universe that is Infinite, with a Infinite number of Bubble 3D Universes all base on one Simple law that Nothing Can Be Created or Destroyed, Ultimate Law of Conservation.    
Please excuse my poor Physics and Bad Grammar,  I'm a Software Engineer. 
