“LENR — From Experiment to Theory” (Paper by Jean-Francois Geneste, Airbus Group)

A paper has been posted on the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project Facebook page titled “LENR — From Experiment to Theory” by Jean-Francois Geneste, of the Airbus Group, which I assume has been presented at the conference that was hosted by Airbus in Toulouse, France this week.

Here’s a link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8BUGc3Um92SF9xSUozbGM5ZDFIWXpRLUViMmZB/view

A quick review of the paper indicates that Geneste’s paper is based on experiments that were conducted by Leonid Urustkoev, who was trying to understand the cause of the 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine. According to Geneste’s paper, Urustkoev generated high energy discharges into titanium foil that was isolated in bi-distilled water. These experiments produced powders. After 24 hours, ‘strange’ traces began to show up on X-ray film placed near receptacles holding the powders.

It is these strange traces that have motivated JF Geneste to develop a new theory that he thinks may provide an understanding of what is happening in LENR reactions. From the paper:

In the end, as a conclusion of this paragraph and the preceding one, if there are LENR reactions, they must come from dissymmetry and must involve the “glue” of the nucleus and the neutrons. It cannot come from elsewhere a priori except if we considered other dissymmetrical particles. Moreover, as suggested by Descartes and Einstein, there is an aether which is made of infinitesimal size particles which can interact with the ones making our scale particles. The reader should not be afraid of the existence of such an aether who he could think has been shown not to exist during the 20th century. Indeed, because of its very nature, it does not contradict any known experiment of physics which was achieved up to today on the one hand and it has not been studied by physicists because the mathematics it needs are considered as “exotic” even by the mathematicians themselves



We started from the experiment and interpreted the results through a new theory which we believe is much more adapted to describe physical phenomena than orthodox physics today. We believe that such an interpretation paves the way for explaining many of the phenomena observed by the LENR community over the world. Moreover, and this will be my very conclusion, if things happen at the infinitesimal scale as we suggested, this can explain why the LENR community has a lot of difficulty in reproducing its experiments reliably. It does not mean it is not possible, it only means that we need a breakthrough in the experimental approach.

I am not able to make any kind of judgment about this theory, but its interesting to see another proposal from someone in a professional position at a major corporation. It would seem that LENR is getting an increased amount of attention from people of influence.

  • Job001

    Paradigm shifts increasing and all the more rapid.

    We have hit the singularity where the average time to the next significant paradigm shift is less than one year out.

    So; Obviously, it’s turtles, all the way down, says the lady! And, who can deny that damn good theory? Only the imprudent!

    • I was discouraged to learn 45% of Americans believe the Earth was created within the last 10, 000 years.

      • Job001

        No need to be discouraged! It’s ok for others to choose from the 400+ philosophies to accommodate their situation(Hooray for freedom to choose).


        Some prefer a lazy hedonism, optimism, theism, cynicism, skepticism, idealism, or “take your pick”. The point is scientism often is really expensive, time consuming, and more frustrating than other philosophies situationally. A lot of us geeks choose scientism anyway, even if it takes (2016-1989)= 27+ years for good things to happen.

  • Axil Axil

    Keith Fredericks has verified the experiment that shows strange radiation.

    Regarding Geneste’s paper, the ‘strange radiation’ tracks described were replicated by Keith Fredericks and reported at ICCF18:


    Keith Fredericks’ analysis suggested they might be superluminal tachyons.

    I would like to suggest something else.

    These tracks are produced by analog black holes called “dark mode surface plasmon polaritons” (dark mode SPP). From nanoplasmonics, it is well known that these polariton solitons produce monopole magnetic fields. Being a black hole, the inside of the soliton contains negative energy due to the fact that loads of magnetic power is being projected as an anapole magnetism beam. This power projection segregates the vacuum into positive and negative energy.

    Things that travel in negative vacuum go faster than light in a neutral vacuum as found in the laser probes used in the EMdrive experiments.

    Hawking radiation will easily entangle these solitons and also help to produce negative vacuum energy.

    The huge power content of these solitons come from a positive feedback mode between the soliton and the this SPP.

    Nanoplasmonics explains these solitons and how they project a monopole magnetic beam. In fact I have a micrograph of this beam.

    Your estimation of the power content of the soliton of 64 GeV puts the anapole magnetic field in range for it to produce muons and mesons born from the vacuum pair production as seen by Holmlid and the quark soup produced in the LeClair cavitation experiments.

    For and overview on this subject see as follows:

    “A freed polariton soliton” in the LENR forum.

    This soliton mechanism is already well defined in physics and I have the papers to show you. Every one of the experimental observations except the superluminal speed of light is standard science and is well understood in science.

  • Axil Axil

    Keith Fredericks thinks he is seeing a monopole tachyon

    Why would a SPP as a black hole look like a tachyon?


    Because the area of future and past holographic screens increases in different directions, the direction of time is different for the two types of screens. In past screens, time moves forward. Expanding universes, such as ours, involve past holographic screens, and so we naturally perceive thermodynamic time as running forward. In contrast, time runs backward in future holographic screens. In a sense, this interpretation has the odd result that thermodynamic time runs backward inside black holes and collapsing universes.

    In a SPP as a black hole would look like a tachyon which is a particle that is traveling backward in time.

    In the 1967 paper that coined the term, Feinberg proposed that tachyonic particles could be quanta of a quantum field with negative squared mass. However, it was soon realized that excitations of such

    imaginary mass fields do not in fact propagate faster than light, and instead represent an instability known as tachyon condensation.Nevertheless, negative squared mass fields are commonly referred to as “tachyons”, and in fact have come to play an important role in modern physics.

    The SPP as a black hole would be a tachyon containing negative mass and moving backward in time.

  • Jonnyb

    aether, now we are getting somewhere.

    • MasterBlaster7

      aether was disproven in 1905. If you hear aether in a serious scientific post…run the other way. Now, could the true theory of LENR be bat chit crazy? Oh yah, definitely. But, I don’t think aether is any way, shape, or form in the right direction too said crazy.

      • orsobubu

        don’t think so:


        in Rossi’s blog archives, you ‘ll find long discussions about quantum vacuum and LENRs

        • Jonnyb

          Aether, probably creates gravity, enables light to travel, has a local element, i.e. distant galaxies can be travelling at speeds greater than light apart but locally light can only travel at a given speed through aether, makes no other sense in my mind. We just need to adjust how we think of Aether and how better to detect it, if only by cause and effect. By the way MasterBlaster7 Cold Fusion was disproved in the late 80’s and here we are, and it is real as well, if not quite how we thought it was then, explanations’ are in flux so to say. We still now little about our world and others, more to come and in 50 years our understanding may be totally different than today, oh yes the World is not flat indeed.

      • Mats002

        EMDrive and E-Cat strongly suggests an eather exists, may be not anno 1905 but anno 2015.
        Be open minded please.

        • MasterBlaster7

          I think EmDrive is more virtual particles, casimir effect and QFT. Eather is a long outdated concept.

          I keep an open mind. But, I reserve the right to like and dislike a ‘theory’. I dislike this one.

      • Zephir

        Aether was disproven with Michelson-Morley experiment in 1878, the proposal of another theory with Einstein in 1905 couldn’t change the negative results of these experiments anyway. But what has been actually disproved with M-M experiment was model of sparse aether as a thin gas PERVADING the space, which couldn’t serve for mediation of transverse light waves anyway.

        The dense aether model is luminiferous one which FORMS the space, it resembles dense elastic superfluid and it gets confirmed with M-M experiment instead.

  • MasterBlaster7

    an aether? sigh…I thought this paper was going to be something. Evoking the idea of particles smaller than the ones in the standard model isn’t helping either. Are we talking string theory? Are we talking loop quantum gravity? If we want to get down to plank scale, we are way way way out on a limb. The only part I liked was the messing around with the strong force in the nucleus. I’m going to go back to my happy thoughts about the NAVSEA post.

  • georgehants

    “Basic research is what I am doing when I don’t know what I am doing.”
    Wernher von Braun

  • georgehants

    It seems that people are ready to wait twenty years for results if
    you’ve got formulas. If there are no formulas, they don’t want to
    consider it. Formulas are means of talking utter nonsense until you
    understand what they mean. Every page of formulas usually contains six
    or seven arbitrary assumptions that take weeks of hard study to
    David Bohm,

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Glen

    Ummm.Baruch Spinoza had this idea 240 years ago.

    • Ged

      And the Greeks had theories about atoms back in the BCs (as well as a working computer and steam engine). It’s a matter of our understanding catching up with our ideas, and our circumstances being favorable to finally pursue those ideas.

  • Private Citizen

    Let’s see open, credible, replicable evidence of even one LENR angel dancing on the head of a pin before speculating about how many can hokey pokey on a pinhead or an axle.

    Once the simplest possible, replicable LENR demonstration is widely in the hands of scientists (F9), a proper theory will follow almost immediately.

    • georgehants

      Would very much appreciate your definition of “a proper theory.”

      • Private Citizen

        Can tell by the air-quoted question that you will find no answer acceptable, but there are plenty of accurate predictive theories universally accepted in science. All theories are in a sense useful fictions subject to being improved or replaced, but the current scattershot panoply of speculative explanations for LENR would likely be reduced to one accepted model in the face of widespread experimentation and validation.

        We have good enough theories of what is occurring in atomic fission to build reactors and bombs, to explain reaction products and predict outcomes. Will accept something on this level of accuracy for LENR.

        • Axil Axil

          The theory of nuclear physics is stated simply as “neutrons break atoms up”. What builds bombs and reactors is nuclear engineering. LENR engineering is not developed yet.

          Maxwell came up with a theory for electromagnetism. Electronics is the engineering and technology that takes advantage of the EM theory.

          On the other hand, Rossi has shown that he does not need a theory to produce engineering results.

          • GreenWin

            Spot on Axil. Rossi demonstrates need is the mother of invention. And focus is more powerful than doubt. Unfortunately academia has taught us to analyze instead of visualize. In Rossi’s case (and most LENR) the reaction discovered by P&F, expanded by Focardi, Piantelli et al, focused attention on low temp fusion. Visualization led Rossi to NI/H systems, and Edisonian experimentation led to the E-Cat.

          • Private Citizen

            Rossi repeatedly says he acts on working hypothesis, for example as used in refining the X-Cat. He claims to have a theory. Has promised to release same on occasion.

            But the real truth is that quantum tunneling plasmon flux in Rydberg matter, catalyzed by dark energy gluon muon/meson interactions in lattice impurities at Debye temperature, with evaporating Hawking micro black holes, cause information singularities on the micro event horizon and emit low energy gamma which of course is immediately thermalized.

        • GreenWin

          PC, you are correct in suggesting all theories are substantively “useful fictions…” In so recognizing, we come to understand theories even predictive ones, are subject to the QM “measurement problem.” That is, human consciousness plays a pivotal role in science. QM tells us that absent an observer, there is no matter – just infinite probability.

          This makes the emergence of LENR a fascinating experiment in human behavior. As human awareness (consciousness) of LENR expands, so too does the probability density of 1) phenomena, and 2) an acceptable theory. What we may not yet grok is the density curve eventually manifests as phenomena, and then theory. In other words, we can and are learning to put the cart before the horse.

          • bkrharold

            If I understand you correctly are suggesting that LENR is an emerging phenomena, based on our collective consciousness? This would mean that human consciousness has the creative power to manifest new physical phenomena. The underlying physical laws will obligingly arrange themselves to accommodate the new reality, brilliant

          • Obvious

            The way it works is that your consciousness goes into the universe where it does work, and incrementally towards a universe where there is a working theory. So it seems like the collective consciousness is causing the laws of the universe to bend to willpower, but actually the multiverse puts your unaligned willpower to where it is more aligned. It is only our anthropocentric viewpoint that makes it seem the other way around.
            So don’t think bad thoughts.

          • bkrharold

            I am a keen student of the metaphysical as well as coventional orthodox science. I must admit your ideas are very intrigueing. They might be difficult to prove. It is becoming increasingly obvious that our current physical models for sub atomic matter are inadequate. In particular the effect of the presence of an observer on the outcome of the slit experiment, and the apparent duality of matter. I am convinced that focused attention can manifest as physical changes. Since the Fleischmann Pons first Press conference, I have been firmly convinced of their sincerity and of the reality of LENR. The negative reports, did not dissuade me. I am sure there are many others who feel the same way. If we have collectively focused our attention on the successful vindication of P&F perhaps it has made a difference. Prayer can heal where all else failed, what else is prayer but focused intention?

        • georgehants

          Agreed with your statement —-
          ” All theories are in a sense useful fictions subject to being improved or replaced,”
          My question would be how will we know which of those”useful fictions” could be considered a “proper theory” until there predictive quality’s are proven, or are you suggesting by scientific consensus, such as Global Warming is proven to not be a natural anomaly or Cold Fusion cannot exist because the Dogma theories forbid it.
          You surly do not mean that if it is preached by one of the comics such as nature or science it would mean it is to be excepted blindly as Fact?
          My point then is why are the many present theories of Cold Fusion based on known knowledge and fair speculation not “proper theories”

    • GreenWin

      McKubre/SRI and NAVSEA have a D2 experiment that seems to work regularly. Ni/H systems are still looking for easy replication. McCarthy suggests:

      “Common, inexpensive materials and processes (e.g. Cu, light H,
      vacuum, thermocouples) are used instead of rare, expensive and exotic
      ones (Pd, D, mass-transfer calorimetry). Thus, LENR can now be advanced
      by a larger set of researchers and financial supporters than before. The
      resource limits and preliminary success of the present author attest to
      that fact.”

      • Private Citizen

        “Maximum anomalous power was 35 mW” and that is about 9% of input power. At such low levels of power, one wonders about the impact of experimental error.

        Unfortunately, another thimble full of barely tepid tea with which to toast LENR. But it it’s real, get it out there and start replicating & i’ll be satisfied.

        • GreenWin

          Satisfaction is a self-made Citizen. Don’t expect others to do the work for you.

  • Axil Axil

    Jean-Francois Geneste has come up with a theory to replace general relativity(GR). This he calls dark gravity. If seems like GR does not take into account negative energy or negative matter or handle time reversal properly.

    Just lie GR did not take into accounce blac holes for some time after GR was put forward, Generste does not account for the possibleity for EMF black holes and describe how they can form. There is more to understand here but Jean-Francois Geneste is on the right track.

  • Ged

    “Aether” is just a word, what matters is the functional meaning behind it. It sounds like to me, it’s the virtual particle potentiation field (the sources of the Casmir effect). This same field, and the pressure it exerts within a vacuum, may well be the source of Dark Energy as well. Heck, the EM drive may simply be a manipulation of the shape of the virtual particle field causing asymmetry and thus thrust simply through the pressure it exerts (which would explain the magnitude of the EM drive as well).

    Even light itself seems more to be a virtual particle and antiparticle pair popping in and out of existence as it travels leading to events like vacuum polarization ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization ). So light might really be a wave of potential energy for creating a virtual pair, which is also why it acts like a wave (potential energy which is massless and thus “timeless”) and a particle (the virtual pairs). This could also explain why some observations of supernova suggest light doesn’t always move through vacuum at c, as gravity could also affect the virtual particles and slow them down
    during the brief moments of their existence (that is, light briefly gains mass and thus can’t travel at c anymore), more than just polarizing
    them (see http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065008 for why this is and the physics calculations matching the observations behind it. Also, only planar light can move through vacuum at c it appears according to http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6224/857 , and any structuring of a light beam slows it down, which may well be due to the virtual pairs interacting in a structure making a “virtual medium” and gaining mass through that interaction, the exact same way light moving through any non vacuum medium gains mass via interaction with other particles and slows down. This does not mean anything can move faster than c, which is the motion of -spacetime itself-, but that light can be slowed lower than c by gaining mass via virtual particles and becoming subject to time due time acting on the appearance and disappearance of those particles–and if you move through time you must move slower through space and vice versus so that the combination is always c).

    Anyways, all of this comes from quantum field theory. So it’s hard for me to see how the aether is different than quantum field theory, except in name, really. If the aether of “infinitesimally small particles” is really just the brief moments of virtual particles appearing and disappearing, it would certainly make sense.

    • Axil Axil

      The uncertainty principle requires that the EMF field fluctuates. This fluctuation produces particles(virtual) with spins but the spins are random. This situation is called a spin net liquid. When light travels through these particles, it is slowed down by the time it takes to flip these random spins so that it can pass through them. If there is less of these virtual particles around as in the case of negative energy, light can move faster through the spin net liquid because there is less “spin” drag to overcome.

      • Zephir

        In Aether Wave Theory (which is based on dense aether model) the aether is supposed to serve as an geometric model for emergence mechanism – not less no more. But the above experiments can be explained without introduction of such a model, just with consequential modeling of electrons at the bottom of atom orbitals.

        • Axil Axil

          See for an explantion of the spin net liquid nature of the vacuum and matter as information.


          • Zephir

            Yes, in AWT the vacuum behaves like compressed gas, which exhibit foamy density fluctuations in similar way, like the supercritical fluids, for example. These fluctuations resemble spin net. But I don’t think, just the vacuum models are very relevant for explanation of cold fusion, which belongs into condensed phase theory.

    • Mats002

      All you wrote make sense to me, I am not a physiscist but as a thinking human being I expect my fellow thinking human beings – and especially experts in any subject – to tell me their discoveries and understanding of the subject in a way that make sense to me and other non-experts. A pure mathematical model without mapping to common sense is a failure.

    • GreenWin

      Well put Ged. As you note the virtual field or “aether” is proved by Casimir. It is common and accepted in unacknowledged physics. Haisch and Rueda have published often on the subject: http://www.calphysics.org/

      Eventually mainstream physics may use the virtual field to explain quantum gravity. This in turn allows an interpretation of large scale gravity based on virtual pressure differentials. Regardless, new physics is arriving.

  • Gerard McEk

    I like the mathematicla approach of Geneste. Based on the appearance of this trace on the photographic paper he found a useable methematical approach to explain it
    It leads to an explantaion of ‘tunnlling’. Whether or not the ‘Aether’ filled with subatomic particles is needed to explain the appearance of new particles, may not be neccesary. I think that he and Axil need sit together and build a well defined theory.

  • MasterBlaster7

    I re-read it. It’s not really a theory. It is more an observation of a phenomena in one experiment and suggesting we look in the direction of quantum foam and zero point energy for explanations on LENR. It really doesn’t help. If your solution relies on untestable areas of physics….it is really not helping.

    Its kinda like….the star with light fluctuations that suggest a Dyson swarm (recently in the media)…its kind like coming up with a theory like….’oh yah, that is because of dark matter’.

    I was hoping for something more concrete to come out of the big airbus reveal.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    There seems to be some (what could we call them) neoaetherists.

  • Zephir

    I suspected the cold fusion as a scalar wave phenomena, which has an origin at the dense boundary between bottom orbitals and surface of atom nuclei, where the electrons get character of superconductor condensate and where the transverse electromagnetic wave get into resonance with longitudinal density wave of electrons, which resonate across atoms. It leads into formation of helical solitons similar to these, which we can observe as a Falaco solitons at the water surface and into formation of magnetic field, which deforms the path of escaping particles into spiral.

    • Axil Axil

      To get a better handle on your theory, please track the flow of energy from the input of heat energy through energy conversion including the process of generating the nuclear energy and conversion back out again as output heat;

      • Zephir

        At the beginning the atoms just vibrate and collide mutually. But under rare
        occasion multiple atoms get involved into collision in a single moment in low-dimensional way. These atoms must collide along single line like the atoms inside the astroblaster toy, which attenuates the amplitude and effect of mutual collisions by principle of Gauss gun. This explains the formation of narrow beams observed in Hagelstein and Tanzella experiments and Urutskoev experiments mentioned above.


        After then we should focus to situation inside the atoms at the boundary of orbitals and atom nuclei. The electrons get heavily packed there due to pressure of electrons from upper layers and they get into state of quantum condensate here similar to this one, which exists inside the low temperature superconductor. This boundary can also generate permanent magnetic field in similar way, like the real superconductors. This explains why the above beams get spiral character in above Urutskoev experiments. The formation of magnetic field has been also described during Defkalion demonstrations:


  • Axil Axil

    In Leonid Urutskoev’s experiments, one more indicator that these micro balls of lightning are black holes seen there are their very long lifetimes. This lifetime is longer than the time it takes to dry the residue from the exploding foil experiment and expose the dusty residue on a photographic film for 24 hours.

    The lifetime of these solitons is at least a few days. As a rule of thumb, the time it takes a black hole to evaporate is proportional to the cube of its energy/mass. For example, a black hole that contains 10 times the energy as a smaller one would live 1000 times longer than the smaller one. A soliton containing high energy would last a very long time indeed. These solitons could be dangorous since they can pass though a reactor containment as if it was not there.

    It is possible to calculate the lifetime of these solitons if they are black holes. We might be able to see some light coming from the soliton as it gets to the end of its evaporation phase and explodes.

    If they do live for a long time, they can be magnetically extracted in a fuel preprocessing operation and used as LENR fuel.

    There is a good chance that the exploding foil experiment is a form of cavitation. What was observed on the photographic plate might have been what LeClair produces in his cavitation experiments.

  • Antonio Ruggeri

    It all started when Rossi,(a borne researcher) had the idea to recharge some Lithium batteries laying in a corner of a warehouse. The result was a sizable explosion (if I well remember it was mentioned in one of the first publications about the e-cat).
    After having excluded all the possible causes of chemical origin, as he knew at the time,his commonsensical conclusion must have been that the explosion “was of atomic nature”. The e-cat then is the fruit of his efforts directed to control (by trial and error) the results of this event and this is (to my judgement) the way (far from any theory) in which presently he is carrying on also to the next level (the hot-cat).
    What I said above seems to me evident, in base of the answers he gives (in his blog) in regard of how things are proceeding and in base of the fact that, in lack of a solid theory, he is always cautious and never consistently affirmative

    • Eyedoc

      interesting, can this be verified ?

      • antonio ruggeri

        it was only an educated guess but to verify there are two obvious possible ways: 1) ask Rossi : 2) make experiments on the line mentioned above, I am sure that many are secretly trying….

  • Axil Axil

    There must be something wrong with the theory and the math. The truth is always proven by experiment and reality. This like so much else in LENR will inform science in wonderful ways.

  • Axil Axil

    There is a school of through that believes that currently unknown exotic particles are responsible as a cause of LENR. In order to try to come up with another test that might tell if a LENR reaction was successfully established, immediately after an experimental run has any replicator considered placing his ash on an instant film for a 24 hour exposure to see if there is any energetic products produced?

    Has Rossi done it?

    Has anyone asked if Rossi has done it?

  • China and the USA are cooperating on new molten salt fission nuclear reactor technology. The time line is long, but the technology is a sure thing. It is just a matter of engineering, not a matter of new physics.


    If LENR takes off in the next 5 years, will this research come to an end?

    • Axil Axil

      Nuclear power will end, absolutely. For example, the Iran geopolitical situation will be very much changed. Why have uranium enrichment when LENR reactors can do a better job? The mining of uranium and thorium will be outlawed.

      • bachcole

        Given that LENR does not make a very good weapon and Muslim militants aren’t impressed in the slightest by modern technology other than to use it to destroy all non-Muslims, I doubt that conventional nuclear energy will be given up by them any time soon unless we make them give it up, probably by the force of arms. Saying please doesn’t seem to work with them.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Outlawed by whom? Nuclear power generation might end but the threat of nuclear war will not.

        • Axil Axil

          LENR power will take away the nuclear engineering expertise that allows the production of nuclear weapons. The methods to enrich uranium will be outlawed. Without the enriched uranium or plutonium produced from commercial power plants, there is no bombs possible.

          • psi2u2

            I hope you are right, Axil. That would be a real boon to the world, above and beyond LENR itself.

  • Axil Axil

    I have been reading an article by a string theorist about the connection between black holes and tachyons. It seems that tachyons are a major prediction of string theory and the connection between black holes and tachyons are tight. This connection in the science business is called dualism. I was surprised and pleased that the many experimentally observed behaviors of SPPs were predicted by theoretically predicted tachyon behavior including the production of quark based subatomic particles as a dualistic production that mimic hawking’s radiation. It seem that tachyons don’t evaporate like black holes do. They reach a equilibrium condition until they receive more input energy whereupon they produce more quark based subatomic particles.

    The author said:

    “Most work on black holes in string theory, including the present work, focus on theoretical objects which are probably not realistic.”

    I say that this guy does not yet know his theory reflects real things and that LENR will soon become a desktop based experimental tool to verify multi-dimensional D-Brane theory.

    The author also says:

    “In the confined theory, the gauge-invariant composite glueballs arise at an energy and size scale commensurate with 18 the strong coupling scale of the field theory. In our time dependent transition, the excitations in the tachyon phase correspond to field theoretic modes at an energy scale below the mass gap. From the dual field theory point of view we expect forces from flux tubes to dynamically force them to shrink toward the size scale of the glueballs in the confining theory. The forces we analyzed in this section, which act to force excitations into the bulk gravitational solution dual to the confining geometry, may provide a gravity-side manifestation of this phenomenon. This effect is similar in some ways to the description of black hole evaporation via hadronization in [18]. ”

    Reference 18 shows this. This is what Holmlid sees.