Dear Ed,
Thank you for the comments.
I would like to believe that my ideas are not that different from your field approach (fields represent the continuous wave half of wave-particle duality) or Philip's string qubit approach (strings represent the continuous wave half, and qubits represent the quantum particle half of wave-particle duality) or even photon approaches (Light is a quasiparticle with both EM wave and photon particle properties. Properties of light affect Spacetime, so light is a good place to start, but it isn't the only boson). I hope that my approach can establish a mathematical umbrella capable of explaining all of these effects.
You said "'Struts' (reciprocal lattice vectors) that connect the direct lattice vertices "represent bosons", but it is mathematical, not a physical representation." I apologize for not going deeper with the details (these papers were limited in length. Although I did not use my length as efficiently as you, I felt that certain levels of detail would have been "too much"), but the vertex/strut analogy also ties in with Feynman diagram representations. A typical Feynman vertex has a fermion in, and a boson and a fermion out. In my lattice model, a "strut" (boson) converts one type of vertex (fermion) into another type of vertex (a different fermion) - in direct analogy with Feynman's diagrams.
I think that any TOE will introduce enough degrees of freedom to account for vortex bosons, although I didn't try to build a specific TOE in this paper. Magnetic fields behave like vortex fields, and it is not unreasonable to expect vortex fields out of every long-range force (such as gravity).
You said "There are not, and will not be, right handed neutrinos, whereas SUSY, I believe, expects three right-handed neutrinos to explain the mass of the left-handed neutrino."
I think this is a misunderstanding of current data. In 1998, the great Japanese neutrino detector, Super Kamiokande, discovered neutrino oscillations. This requires a mixing of the electron, mu and tau neutrinos. The simplest mixing mechanism (that doesn't require new interactions) is mass (although your GEM-like triality is a "new" interaction that could provide this mixing). If neutrinos have mass - regardless of how small that mass is - then a neutrino cannot travel at the speed of light (maybe 0.99999 c, but not 1 c), and we could always Lorentz transform ahead of the neutrino (say at 0.999999 c), look backwards at the neutrino, and observe a right-handed helicity neutrino. These right-handed neutrinos are "sterile" (don't interact) with respect to interactions involving Color, Weak Hypercharge and Weak Isospin (the set of quantum numbers in Table 1 of my essay), but they may interact via gravity (through mass), or new interactions (such as your GEM and/or my Hyperflavor).
The three neutrino result is based on the decay width of the Z boson. That decay width (which was measured very accurately by the now obsolete Large Electron-Positron Collider at CERN - Geneva) suggests that there are only three light-weight (less than half of the Z mass) neutrinos that the Z can couple with (remember that right-handed neutrinos are sterile to Z interactions).
SUSY is important to my model in a couple of ways. First, SUSY solves the hierarchy problem, and thus addresses the biggest scale problem in Particle Physics. Secondly, SUSY allows us to frame our theory properly (see the Coleman-Mandula and the Haag-Lopuszanski-Sohnius theorems). For instance, Garrett Lisi framed his E8 TOE in terms of bosonic charges only, and thus failed the Coleman-Mandula theorem from the start.
Remember, everything is a quasiparticle involving both discrete particle Quantum-scaled phenomena and continuous wave Classical-scaled phenomena. If we over-emphasize one aspect of this wave-particle duality, then we underemphasize the other aspect. We need balance, and satisfying the Coleman-Mandula theorem is the crux of that balance.
Have Fun!
Dr. Cosmic Ray
