TITLE: Complex structure on $S^6$ gets published in Journ. Math. Phys
QUESTION [76 upvotes]: A paper by Gabor Etesi was published that purports to solve a major outstanding problem:
Complex structure on the six dimensional sphere from a spontaneous symmetry breaking
Journ. Math. Phys. 56, 043508-1-043508-21 (2015) journal version, current arXiv version.
Since this is obviously an important and groundbreaking 
result (if true), published in a physical journal, I 
am interested whether it is accepted by mathematicians.

REPLY [20 votes]: Here is an answer to the question of YangMills (thank you!) regarding the subbundle $H \subset TG_2$:
I did not claim in the text that the subbundle $H \subset TG_2$ should be integrable in any sense. What I only need is the formal fact that the functional in eq. (15) vanishes on the constructed triple $(\nabla_H,J_H,g_H)$ as can be verified by a direct calculation. However I acknowledge that YangMills was right and the Levi--Civita connection does not preserve $H\subset TG_2$ as it was written in the text. For a corrected version please visit:
http://www.math.bme.hu/~etesi/s6-spontan.pdf
Neverthekess after this observation the proof proceeds as follows: $J_H$ is Fourier expanded and the corresponding ground mode, denoted by $J$ in the text after eq. (21), descends to $S^6$. The very important subtlety however is this (explained carefully in Section III): in our situation (i.e., Fourier expanding general sections of general vector bundles), there is NO canonical way to perform a Fourier expansion. Instead there is "moduli space" of possible Fourier expansions resulting in inequivalent ground modes. This is because doing fiberwise integration does NOT commute with gauge transformations hence Fourier expanding a gauge transformed (on $H$) section is NOT the same as gauge transforming (on $TS^6$) the ground mode of a Fourier expanded section. I construct in Lemma 5.1 a distinguished  "$\alpha$-twisted" Fourier expansion of whose ground mode $J$ coincides with $J_H$ itself.   
I think that most of the concerns and uncertainty about the published version is related with the historical remark that the "relationship" between  Yang--Mills theory (mathematically invented in the 1980's) and classical complex manifold theory, more precisely the Kodaira--Spencer deformation theory (invented in the 1950-60's) is not fully clarified. By this I mean that apparently the action of the gauge group on an (almost) complex manifold $(M,J)$ is dubious: it can describe both just a symmetry transformation of $(M,J)$ or an effective deformation of $(M,J)$. But these certainly should be carefully distinguished. My suggestion is formulated in the "Principle" of Section II (but this point might require a more conceptional and less ad hoc work, I agree).