You need a “Axion point” to derive symmetry breaking from equilibrium? Hmmmmm….. I’m thinking here.
I must warn you though, that the model of superstrngs is facing strong opposition today because is does not have the scienctific proof and validation that any model should have. On this basis alone ,it is being challenged.
One must remember though, that it has a strong theoretcial structure that will remain incomprehensible to most, to me, that I have only the faintest ideas as to the complexity of the math structures.
Part of this insight is to take macroscopic views and have them reduced to microperspective views while looking about the every structure of this universe. So they use the LHC/RhIC reference for analogies as to what happens in those very beginnings.
The overcoming incompatibility relationship between quantum mechanics and relativity has been the goal, and in this theoretcial structure, this has been accomplished.
Time is far more subtle than our everyday experience would lead us to believe. In many ways, time may simply be a psychological construct for organizing the world. It is a device we scientists have found useful, but it may in fact be a dim approximation of something far more complex.”
Einstein in his bold statements about a pretty girl helped to direct our attention to the fleeting moments. It was last years tribute to Einstein and Beyond that helped many in dfferent perspectves and of time bring us back to what this man did for us.
Kaluza and Klein helped to push this perspective further. Some debate this model as well, yet I do not know many who have advnaced our thinking from the geometrical inclinations as Einstein did for us when he attributed time to the spacetime realization of what Gravity does for us.
The spacetime fabric became something more then the very impression that mass would reveal of itself. Energy, had a relationship in this, and yet, we are drawn to the very implication of where two diffwerent points could have ever told us that spacetime is flat. Where is this? I have given three cases where this is possible, and I have given theoretical valuation to what strings have done for us, in our microscopic view of this universe.
You had to follow strings through the theoretcical developement assigned, in or colliders. What was the result of microstate blackhole production? HE4 or lagrange points between the earth, moon and sun?
You had to know what theoretical associations had been marrried to scientific progress. If you have somebody who denounces and rejects the model how would you have ever thought to unite flat space, with reality models?
This is the interesting thing about choosing models, is that experimental processes are not as devoid as those whose main goal was to affront string theory, was to announce this renunciation without ever understanding it’s implications.
Setting up such a wall(Peter Woit) was a disservice to those who wanted to explore this theoretical structure. It’s implications, as to the first three seconds of our universe. Steven Weinberg laid it out for us in the first three minutes, why not a more introspective view in the consequences of this universe borne to what it is?