http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.8050 Beyond the Spectral Standard Model: Emergence of Pati-Salam Unification Ali H. Chamseddine, Alain Connes, Walter D. van Suijlekom (Submitted on 30 Apr 2013) I have a few questions about this paper... How good is "almost uniquely"? i.e. it would be good to see this argument spelled out. So the claim is that assuming noncommutative geometry "almost uniquely" predicts the standard model. Then, if we remove a "first order condition" - which is perhaps one of the necessary extra assumptions that puts the "almost" in "almost uniquely" - then "this leads immediately" to a Pati-Salam model. Those quotes are from the abstract. Then, a short distance into the paper... But Estrada and Marcolli wrote a paper which was Standard Model up to the Planck scale, and they managed to get 125 GeV the same way Shaposhnikov and Wetterich did, i.e. by assuming asymptotic safety of gravity, which forces a number of couplings to go to zero at the Planck scale. So I have two issues. First, I am skeptical about the claims that the standard model - and now, this Pati-Salam model - are unique or inevitable consequences of doing physics via noncommutative geometry. Presumably there are some true technical statements which lie behind these bold but vague claims; it would be good to know what they are. Second, I am confused about the claim that the noncommutative standard model predicted that the Higgs mass had to be at least 170 GeV. Asymptotic safety is a hypothesis that may or may not be true - Estrada and Marcolli's calculation is based on assuming that it's a property of the model ... but I don't understand how the noncommutative standard model can be said unequivocally to make a certain prediction, when a completely different prediction is implied, by the use of an ansatz for the same model, an ansatz which may be wrong, but which hasn't been shown to be wrong. What I'm saying: if there's room for doubt about the high-energy behavior of the model, and if the different possibilities lead to dramatically different low-energy predictions, then how can just one of those predictions be said to be the prediction made by the model? Let me add that I'm asking these questions because I think that noncommutative geometry really may have something to tell us about reality! If these were just incomprehensible crackpot papers where the author first finds that "inevitably" their theory matches the data, and then when the data changes, they study their incomprehensible model further and discover that it "inevitably" matches the new data... I wouldn't be interested. It's because I am interested that I would like to see these problems cleared up.