Geometry of String Theory Solitons

.
by
Magnus Holm
Institute of Theoretical Physics
Chalmers University of Technology and Göteborg University – Göteborg 1999

.

Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file

.

Abstract
In recent years there has been a dramatic progress in the understanding of the non-perturbative structure of various physical theories.
In particular string theory has been vastly developed during these years, where a lot of duality conjectures between the different string theories have arisen.
The introductory text of this thesis is an attempt to describe this development in short and to make a brief overview of the subject.
Special focus is put on solitonic solutions in various field theories, which is the corner stone for these duality conjectures.
The introduction of supersymmetry is also essential for the understanding of duality by its natural way of handling BPS-states through the algebra.
In string theory, which is not only a supersymmetric theory but also includes gravity, these studies are put together through the discovery of various p-brane solutions to the background field equations.
The geometrical structure of these solutions is studied in some of the papers in this thesis.
In a generalization to the treatment of p-branes as solutions which break the local vacuum symmetry, the theory of almost product structures (APS-theory) has arisen as the natural candidate to the study of the intricate geometry of these solutions.
The last two papers deal with this ansatz where it is also seen that APS-theory is the most natural way of treating all kinds of splitting of manifolds including fibrations, Yang-Mills theoryand Kaluza-Klein theory.
.
.

395 comments to Geometry of String Theory Solitons

  • Dear Giovanni Guerrini,

    You are welcome. Thank you for shown interest.

    Best regards,
    Magnus

  • Andrea Rossi

    Bob: yes, we used them to heat our factory.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • eernie1

    Dear Magnus,
    In my previous blog about possible analog descriptions, I stated that the intertwining of the membrane with the universe is difficult unless instigated by a forceable event. The events which may be capable of producing interactions include the formation of black holes, the creation of supernovae, the collapse of neutron stars and the emissions from X ray sources. All these events create great changes in their surroundings and are manifest for very long distances. Some of their properties remain unexplainable but perhaps become more clear when connected to membrane behavior.

  • Andrea Rossi

    As soon as the report will have be published, I will give on the JoNP information about where the publication will have been made.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    How will E-Cat followers find out when the report is published? If you are the first to know, will you announce it here on the JONP?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  • Bob

    Dear Andrea Rossi

    Do you employ any e-cat devices at your workplaces for a practical use?

    If so, could you briefly describe these applications.

    Thank you.

    Bob

  • Andrea Rossi

    Alessandro Coppi:
    The Professors are always serious. The issue is serious and the consequences of their work will be serious, whatever the results, positive or negative as they might be. I understand your anxiety to know the results, imagine how can I myself be anxious…
    We must be patient, and work in the meantime.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Alessandro Coppi

    Hi Andrea, you said:” This is the last information I got three days ago.”.
    My question is: the professor while was speaking, looked serious or happy?

    regards
    Alessandro Coppi

  • Andrea Rossi

    LMV:
    So far the scheduled publication is foreseen around the second- third week of June. I confirm that I di not yet know if the results are positive or negative, because the analysis of the data is still under substantial review. This is the last information I got three days ago.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    We are making vast R&D regarding couplings with solar plants. I cannot talk about particulars, due to the necessity to avoid pre- publication of patents in course of application.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Have you considered using solar cells to improve the effective COP of the Hot eCat units? Conceptually, each eCat reactor unit would be connected with a heat exchanger where the average temperature of the heat exchanger surface would be 600C. I have not gone through the specific calculations so the added power may not be worth the effort and expense. Something to consider.

  • LMV

    Hi Andrea,

    Are you still hopeful that the report will be released sometime in late June-14?

    I know that it does not depend on you and may be negative.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Will the new company continue to produce a Warm eCat and a Hot eCat (as well as other possible eCat variants)?

    In Guatemala, the rural Mayan people typically bath using a steam sauna facility. They burn wood to heat water into steam. They have access to limited amounts of electrical power. Will your warm eCat units, as you envision your product line, be able to supply this energy need? Their electrical energy cost is about 1.5 Q per kWhr or about $0.20USD per kWhr. This would decrease the carbon footprint, be more convenient than buying and transporting wood, decrease de-forestation, and, if the effective COP were high enough, be more economical for them.

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    Page 8, first paragraph.

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    oe wrote in May 23rd, 2014 at 1:28 PM

    Wladimir,

    In the paper Dark Matter Studies Entrain Nuclear Physics offered by Magnus Holm, it states,

    “There are some problems, the 3Li7 and 3Li6 yields, for example; and these discrepancies have been argued to be signals of new physics
    ———————————

    Joe,
    I found the page.
    There are some considerations I want to do.

    1) First consideration
    Borghi and Conte-Pieralice experiments show that neutron is formed by proton+electron, n=p+e.
    However in current Nuclear Physics the neutron is formed by quarks, n=(d,u,d).

    Such structure of the neutron formed by proton+electron requires a New Physics.
    In my Quantum Ring Theory it is proposed the spin-fusion phenomenon, and it is shown that several reactions of high energy Physics, not explained by the Standard Model, are explained via the spin-fusion phenomenon (according to which there is a hidden lepton hidden in some structures, as the electron in the structure of the neutron, and positrons and electrons hidden in the structure of some mesons, etc.).

    Therefore the current mathematical structure used in the current theories must be changed.

    .

    2) Second consideration

    The question of the formation of nuclei in the sun is not restricted to 3Li6 and 3Li7 only.

    Cold fusion is not considered in the current theories.
    However, cold fusion (LERN) is today a reality, and it makes no sense to neglect its existence.

    According to my new nuclear, all the nuclei have a hole in their Coulomb electric field.
    Some reactions of cold fusion occur thanks to the existence of this hole, because a particle as a proton or a deuteron can enter within a nucleus via that hole.
    This is possible because some special conditions in cold fusion make possible the nuclei to be aligned in a special direction, and so the hole is aligned in that direction, aligned also with the oscillation of the nucleon.

    In the case of the hot fusion, the particles as the proton or deuteron cannot enter within the nuclei via the hole in the Coulomb electric field, because the nuclei have chaotic motion (due to high pressure and temperature), and therefore the hole gyrates chaotically.

    However, from the statistical viewpoint, the particle has chance to penetrate within a nucleus via the hole in the Coulomb electric field (in spite of the chance is very small).

    So, hot fusion can occur via two processes:

    a) Via classical hot fusion:
    A nucleon (proton, deuteron, 2He4) enters within the nuclei because they pierce the Coulomb field (thanks to their high kinetic energy).
    This phenomenon occurs in accordance to the calculations based on current nuclear models, taking in consideration the cross-section of the collisions between nuclei.
    Such hot fusion phenomenon follows all the calculations made according to current theories.

    b) Via cold fusion occured in hot fusion condictions of high pressure-temperature:
    A nucleon enters within the nuclei via the hole (it is not required the big energy required in hot fusion). The fusion occurs via cold fusion.

    So, the cross-section to be considered is not that calculated from the current nuclear models (because they do not consider the hole in the Coulomb electric field).
    This phenomenon does not occur according to the current calculations made in the current theories.

    Therefore, the cold fusion existence can change the parameters in the nucleosynthesis occured in the Sun, since cold fusion requires a new statistics.

    So, in my oppinion there is need to introduce the statistical contribution of the cold fusion in the calculations of the nucleosynthesis phenomenon in the Sun.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in May 23rd, 2014 at 1:28 PM

    Wladimir,

    In the paper Dark Matter Studies Entrain Nuclear Physics offered by Magnus Holm, it states,

    “There are some problems, the 3Li7 and 3Li6 yields, for example; and these discrepancies have been argued to be signals of new physics
    ————————————–

    Joe,
    what is the page ?

    rds
    wlad

  • Joe

    Magnus Holm,

    In the paper Dark Matter Studies Entrain Nuclear Physics that you mentioned, it states,

    “The standard model leaves many questions unanswered: it explains, e.g., neither why the weak scale has the value it has, nor the baroque pattern of fermion masses and mixings seen in Nature, nor the size of the observed baryon asymmetry of the Universe (BAU). Most notably, in our current context, it fails to explain dark matter.”

    By the statement “baroque pattern of fermion masses”, is the implication that scientists have yet to discover the mathematical relationship between the masses of the fermions?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • eernie1

    Dear Magnus,
    Have you conceived an analogy of the membrane theory to the physical world?
    The one that I like is the analogy that describes existence as a series of parallel universes separated by the 11 dimensional membranes. Interaction between membranes of Bosons or Fermions are not allowed because of the non Abelian nature of the interactions until something more forceable intervenes. Some tunneling is allowed but rare and that keeps our universe from undergoing vast changes. The nature of the strings is also non Abelian so infusion of the strings into the adjoining membrane does not create similar particles. The forces in the adjoining membranes also are mitigated by the repulsive character of non allowed QM states.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Sorry, I cannot give this information.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    In the paper Dark Matter Studies Entrain Nuclear Physics offered by Magnus Holm, it states,

    “There are some problems, the 3Li7 and 3Li6 yields, for example; and these discrepancies have been argued to be signals of new physics, specifically signaling post-BBN [Big Bang Nucleosynthesis] cascade nucleosynthesis stemming from, e.g., super-WIMP decay. However, there may be more prosaic explanations of these issues […]”

    Do you think QRT is the “new physics” that explains 3Li7 better than “super-WIMP decay”?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    The current eCat reactor uses processed nickel powder of a certain average diameter. You previously reported that the reaction rate was a function of particle size (along with other parameters). With other factors held constant, does the reaction rate increase with smaller average size? What are the practical limits (small and large) for nickel within an eCat reactor?

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    Dear Dott Magnus Holm,
    thak you very much for the answer and for the reviews,I appreciate it very much.

    Best Regards G G

  • Andrea Rossi

    Italo R.:
    I do not agree. My sensation is that Italy is on the eve of a new Renaissaince.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Giovanni Guerrini,

    Dark Matter was postulated experimentally through observations of velocity discrepancies in spiral arms of galaxies from gravitational solutions to Einstein’s General Relativity Theory. There are now many theories trying to explain what this Dark Matter is and where it comes from. (Enough to be afraid of the Dark). One of these Dark Matter theories is from Branons which are Brane excitations. I am no expertise in the field of Dark Matter to be able to favor one theory from the other but I do believe we are still light years away from a fundamental understanding of everything going on around us in this universe. If you are interested in Dark Matter you might appreciate these 2 reviews on the subject.

    Dark Matter Studies Entrain Nuclear Physics,
    Modified gravity theories explaining dark matter and dark energy.

    Best regards,
    Magnus

  • Dear Mr. Orsobubu,

    Thank you for your question. From modern Nuclear Physics we know that LENR need to be a collective phenomenon or otherwise the Coulomb Barrier would be unbreachable. Collective Phenomena is unfortunately very hard to handle theoretically because they usually involves multiple coupled non-linear differential equations. Non-Linear Differential equations are very hard to solve theoretically and if we end up with collective phenomena of perhaps 1000s of particles coupled to each other in a non-linear way the task is impossible. The only hope in those cases are numerical solutions and approximations. Having said that, approximate solutions can of course feedback positively on the theoretical approaches but unless some fundamental theory arises from some strike of genius we will probably end up with 100s of approximate explanations competing through the exclusion process of measurements. When it comes to Particle Physics, the field has alternated between being theory driven and experimentally driven and I do believe we are in an experiment driven phase right now in the wait for the next strike of genius theoretically.

    Best regards,
    Magnus

  • Italo R.

    Dear Dr Rossi, you have written:
    “…new wave of development without the endemic corruption…”

    I am pessimistic and think that all men are equal independently from their politic ideas.
    I mean: when a man reaches a power position, he becomes like all those he was fighting before.
    Probably it is written in our DNA. It is really sad.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Curious:
    Physics:
    A photon is an elementary quantum of light. It cannot be decomposed ( unless it interacts with another elementary particle and becomes another thing) and is stable, therefore is a real particle ( differently from virtual particles- which are nothing but resonances during the interactions between stable elementary particles- whose life is less than 10^-23 seconds). It does not respect the Pauli principle of exclusion and therefore is a Boson. It is characterized with extreme precision by its wavelength and his frequency. Its energy is given by the equation
    E = h x f
    wherein f is the frequency and h is the Planck constant. From this equation you can see that, being h constant, the higher the frequency, the higher the energy. The most energetic photons are the gamma rays. More higher frequency, obviously, means shorter wavelength.
    From this equation you can also understand that a photon is a precise and indivisible quantum of energy, along the Quantistic Mechanic. In the everyday life you can distinguish several photons, whose wavelength is within the visible specter: the colors we can see, like red, green, yellow etc are the consequences for our eyes of the different wavelengths of different photons. If you want to know exactly how long is a photon, Google ” light spectrum” and you will find how long is a specific photon in metric system units ( remember that, for example, 1 nm- nanometer- is 1 billionth of meter).
    Photons travel in the space at the speed of the light, because they are massless: in fact, all massless particles travel at the speed of the light.
    Photons are the bearers of the electromagnetic interactions ( one of the four foundamental interactions: the other three are the strong, the weak and the gravitational).
    The limits of a single photon are defined by its wavelength and the corresponding electric and magnetic fields. Its life can be infinite, provided it does not interact with some other elementary particle : in fact we can detect today with the modern astronomic observatories photons produced with the Big Bang about 14 billions of years ago ( to remain single sometime makes the life longer).
    All the photons have Spin 1 and electric charge 0.
    Phylosophy:
    This description is that of the Standard Model, therefore, sooner or later, is destined to be considered wrong; paradoxically, the fact that in some different condition the Standard Model is falsifiable, makes it true and valid ( Popper, Fermat).
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Alessandro Coppi

    Thank you for your kind words about Italy.

    O noi o loro!
    Alessandro Coppi

  • curious

    to who may it concern! As I know, but i could be wrong, it does not exist a complete description of a photon. Even for lower frequencies we can speak about single photon, but I’ve never seen an oscilloscope trace of it. Is it a single wave? or a group a waves increasing and after decreasing following a normal curve or what? And when does it finish and overall start (3-4-5 s or what?) and overall when does it begin? Can you give me some address where to find answer, possibly for ignorant and without too much mathematics
    Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I would understand.
    Thanks
    Curious

  • Andrea Rossi

    Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
    If the results of third independent party and of the R&D in course will be positive ( remind that they could be negative, as far as I know so far), this technology will be at the service of whomever will really want to use it, indipendently fom the geographig belonging.
    About Italy: I have not any political connection, obviously, not living anymore in Italy, but still I hope M5S will win, to give to Italy a new wave of development without the endemic corruption that has devastated this wonderful Country, that still has a powerful potential.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • mpc755

    Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space.

    There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter.

    Matter moves through and displaces the aehter.

    The Milky Way’s halo is not dark matter traveling along with the matter the Milky Way consists of.

    The Milky Way’s halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

    The Milky Way’s halo is curved spacetime.

    What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether.

  • What is the proof of the existence of the aether?
    Is it only a conjecture like the “strong force” in nuclear physics?

  • Dear Andrew,
    E-Cat technology will also be sold in Italy or as written on some sites only in countries such as the Netherlands, the United States and China?
    In Italy and Croatia soon trivelleranno the entire Adriatic Sea to extract more oil.
    When you think about your technology will come to Italy?
    We are all with you!

  • Eric Ashworth

    Wladimir, I could not agree with you more with what you say May 21st 2014 at 5.06 pm. The bottom line is that there is a secret being kept with regards atomic physics. I have been involved with this subject for 25 years non academic and I believe this secret is with regards the the macro system of evolution. How can I say this you may ask, because I have been in contact with people who have confirmed this information and I know you have been through the same gamut yourself. Your QR theory is correct. The unified field is from a binary system of energy/aether. The middle principle being the life force of nature but in the understanding of a duality to form a triplicity involving a life force seems to be a great secret and therefore a denial will always be present. I do have an embodied concept with regards a binary system of interaction that creates a unified field but alas it has been rejected at the higher level whenerver reached with an explanation of either it’s before its time or it’s destructive technology. Your theory involves an understanding of Ana and Douglas which to me is a binaryu system of interaction and this is the same as my embodied concept that demonstrates a unified field. The neutron has to a constructive dimension that relies upon two absolutes to exist. This subject I believe is about geometry and aether. I do not think the basics are difficult to understand but it is like a ball of wool, how many knots can you make from a single thread to make a ball complicated. It is now time I believe to put forward a statement, this statement is my personal experience with regards atomic/astrophysics an embodied concept and reactions of academia. Our present academic system with regards certain aspects of knowledge must never reveal the true nature of reality because if it does it will reveal a necessary triplicity of interaction that must exist to form a stable structure and this involves planetary evolution with regards humanity. It really is not difficult to understand why the fundamental problems in modern physics exist and why embodied concepts together with experimental data are disregarded. Thanks for the information, all the best Eric Ashworth.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Koen Vandewalle wrote in May 21st, 2014 at 5:06 PM

    My question:
    What are the chances that the developers of microprocessors and memory would not have a nearly perfect model of the physical structure existing in Nature.
    This knowledge is in private hands, who have interest in the scientific community being erroneous about it.
    ——————————

    dear Koen,

    the discovery of the physical structure existing in the Nature requires the discovery of the following:

    – the discovery of the physical model of photon (there no exist a physical model of photon in current theories).

    – the discovery of the true physical model of proton, electron, neutron, and neutrino/antineutrino (which are the unique five stable elementary particles of matter in the Universe)

    – the discovery of the true physical nuclear model existing in the nature (the experiments along the 5 past years are showing that current nuclear models are wrong).

    – the discovery of the true physical model of atom (working with the partnership of the aether in the elecrosphere)

    – the discovery of the true physical model of the aether

    .

    I dont think the developers of microprocessors have chance to get any near approach to the structures mentioned above.

    regards
    wlad

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Wladimir Guglinski,
    You wrote:

    So, in order to discover the final theory of Physics, there is need to discover such physical structure existing in the Nature.

    My question:
    What are the chances that the developers of microprocessors and memory would not have a nearly perfect model of the physical structure existing in Nature.
    This knowledge is in private hands, who have interest in the scientific community being erroneous about it.

    The utmost important science or its key-factors that are under industrial or military secrets will not be in peer reviewed journals, I believe. Not in a hundred years.

    So, the louder they call “Wrong !” the more interesting it becomes. The battle with an overzealous gatekeeper reveals the presence of a nearby gate, isn’t it ?

    Best Regards,
    Koen

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    1- R&D
    2- Carnot cycle is the more efficient conversion cycle to apply, so far.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Many months ago you discussed a possible direct eCat to electricity conversion. As I recall, it was a secondary effect you saw and were investigating.

    1. What is the status of your research?

    2. Does this look practical or is the more conventional Carnot cycle the better option?

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    Dr Magnus Holm.
    Dear Dr Holm,what do you think about the theoretical possibility that a gravitatonal interaction among branes gives the effects observed that led to postulate the existence of dark matter ?

    Thank you.

    Regards G G

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    orsobubu wrote in May 18th, 2014 at 5:09 PM

    Neil Turok at Perimeter Institute concedes that theorists are disheartened at that situation, and that they are at a crossroad in theoretical (and particle) physics, calling it a deep crisis. He described the LHC results as “simple, yet extremely puzzling” and said “we have to get people to try to find the new principles that will explain the simplicity”.
    —————————————–

    Dear Orsobubu

    of course there is a physical structure of matter and aether existing in the Nature.

    So, in order to discover the final theory of Physics, there is need to discover such physical structure existing in the Nature.
    With such a procedure, the physical structure can be complex, but the mathematics to be used will be simple.

    But the attempt made by the physicists is via mathematical structure. With such a procedure, the mathematical structure is complex, since the physicists start from the most simplest physical structures.

    But there is no doubt: they will never succeed with such attempt starting from the complex mathematical structure, because the physical structure existing in the Nature is more complex than the simple physical structure considered in their current theories.

    regards
    wlad

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in May 20th, 2014 at 7:40 AM

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    Time for peer reviewing is longer now for publications on the Journal of Nuclear Physics: the average is 6 months, so do not worry if you will have to wait several months before the publication.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    ———————————————

    Dear Andrea,
    no problem.

    the science progresses slowly

    regards
    wlad

  • Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    Time for peer reviewing is longer now for publications on the Journal of Nuclear Physics: the average is 6 months, so do not worry if you will have to wait several months before the publication.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: info@leonardocorp1996.com
    Subject: submission paper
    Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 09:09:27 -0300

    Dear Andrea

    I would like to submit for publication in the Journal of Nuclear Physics my paper

    Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism

    Please find it attached enclose

    regards
    Wladimir Guglinski
    ————————————————-

    .

    Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 14:22:23 +0200
    From: info@leonardocorp1996.com
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    Subject: Re: submission paper

    All right, sent to peer reviewing.
    Warmest Regards,
    Andrea

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    Also.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Eric Ashworth wrote in May 19th, 2014 at 6:45 PM

    Wladimir, With you being in touch with academia I would like to know whether people in mainstream physics believe in the aether.
    —————————————–

    Dear Eric

    in spite of the experiment published in the journal Nature in 2013 is the definitive proof on the existence of the aether, the community of physicists continues rejecting the aether.

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Light-created-from-vacuum-shows-empty-space-a-myth/articleshow/10789049.cms?referral=PM

    The experiment shows that Einstein was wrong.
    But it is hard for the scientific community to accept that he was wrong.

    regards
    wlad

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    The humanitarian work that you mention Industrial Heat will be involved with — will this be using E-Cat technology?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  • Eric Ashworth

    Wladimir, With you being in touch with academia I would like to know whether people in mainstream physics believe in the aether. If not what do they consider atoms to be made of. I have read about dark matter and I think they are refering to the aether, a name is just a name. What do you think?. Also I believe that geometry and maths exists because of aether. I am curious with regards this very basic question that I feel is necessary regarding a substance that must account for everything because if basic understanding is flawed nothing onward will make any sense. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Orsobubu:
    Thank you for your comment, that indroduces us to the paper published today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics:
    GEOMETRY OF STRING THEORY SOLITONS
    by Dr Magnus Holm . It is an important work of this scientist made in 1999, but I find his work dense of important information. It is not an easy reading, the work is rigorous, but this is the Journal of Nuclear Physics, and the paper is perfectly in line with the field of application of our Journal. Dr Magnus Holm is presently working also with me for the E-Cat.
    About the comment of our friend Orsobubu: I do not share his certainties regarding the so called “social sciences”.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • orsobubu

    I like that personalities in cold fusion field, as Dr. Magnus Holm, are experienced in high level theoretical physics. I feel somehow reassured. I would be very interested myself in the subject, but I cannot progress further the third line of the introduction of the article, since it is a long time – sigh! – I can’t even remember what is an abelian group or a surjective homomorphism. Here is a simple link for dummies:

    http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/string-theory-and-supersymmetry.html

    This is an extract from Wikipedia explaining the current state of crisis among scientists in the field of Standard Model theories, particle physics and gravity.

    ——-
    The first realistic supersymmetric version of the Standard Model was proposed in 1981 by Howard Georgi and Savas Dimopoulos and is called the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model or MSSM for short. It was proposed to solve the hierarchy problem and predicts superpartners with masses between 100 GeV and 1 TeV.

    As of September 2011, no meaningful signs of the superpartners have been observed.The Large Hadron Collider at CERN is producing the world’s highest energy collisions and offers the best chance at discovering superparticles for the foreseeable future.

    After the discovery of the Higgs particle in 2012, it was expected that supersymmetric particles would be found at CERN, but there has been still no evidence of them. The LHCb and CMS experiments at the LHC made the first definitive observation of a Strange B meson decaying into two muons, confirming a standard model prediction, but a blow for those hoping for signs of supersymmetry. Neil Turok at Perimeter Institute concedes that theorists are disheartened at that situation, and that they are at a crossroad in theoretical (and particle) physics, calling it a deep crisis. He described the LHC results as “simple, yet extremely puzzling” and said “we have to get people to try to find the new principles that will explain the simplicity”.
    ——

    Differently from social sciences, where the ultimate reality is already crystal-clear for 150 years (the reality of the Capital, the exploitation of man by other men), I think that in natural sciences our mathematics and “standard mdodels” are very, very unsatisfactory.

    I would like to know if Dr. Magnus Holm’s interest in cold fusion is due to these difficulties and inconsistencies in his field of research, and if he believes LENRs studies could help in the process of scientific knowledge in general.

    (Being a little masochist, I would also like to make a poll to know to what extent of the article each reader of JONP is able to understand it, as I said I can reach – with a certain shameful difficulty – the third line of the introduction.)

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>