Can I just point out that the entire passage is complete gibberish from beginning to end. It has the journalist's inky thumbprint all over it. No scientist could write that. The word "compactified" is the only clear part of it, because at least that is obviously a technical term that has some definite meaning.
It wouldn't last the first three minutes submitted to a science journal. Science writing is clear, grammatically transparent, and easy to see the structure of: "We analysed the X using Y. We found it had Z with W. Further U revealed V." -- Where perhaps X = "nuclear resonance magnetic spectroscopy", but that's okay, that's some technical term lack of understanding of which doesn't impede understanding of the text as a whole.
Whereas this (with all those explanations in brackets) about the whole shooting match and shebang (with all the hard words taken out and replaced by vague hand-waving so you know exactly what they're talking about), with its piling-up of the belief that here is a premise of some abstract idea of another generalization that some people think (we could put another bracketed clause in here to point out that by this stage you no longer have any idea of who is claiming or believing what), with its multitude of nested (including bracketed) clauses, shows a reckless disregard of every maxim -- every principle that good writers observe (such as not interrupting themselves constantly) -- that there is.
