01-12-2018, 04:07 PM
Oink,
As far as I'm aware, that research didn't include any observatories or staff at the MK observatories. The observational part of the project looked at the cosmic microwave background which, as you might guess, involves telescopes that work at that wavelength, and MK doesn't have any that are specifically designed for that.
I'm not a cosmologist, but the paper the article refers to (I think) is this:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.04878
And in the abstract, which only a cosmologist could write:
"By comparing the Bayesian evidence for the models, we find that (Lambda)CDM does a better job globally, while the holographic models provide a (marginally) better fit to data without very low multipoles (i.e. l<=30), where the dual QFT becomes non-perturbative."
they actually say that standard models of the universe are generally a better fit to the data than the holographic models. So I think it's all a bit of hype right now.
PS. I had to edit a couple of characters in the abstract as they didn't work on PW.
As far as I'm aware, that research didn't include any observatories or staff at the MK observatories. The observational part of the project looked at the cosmic microwave background which, as you might guess, involves telescopes that work at that wavelength, and MK doesn't have any that are specifically designed for that.
I'm not a cosmologist, but the paper the article refers to (I think) is this:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.04878
And in the abstract, which only a cosmologist could write:
"By comparing the Bayesian evidence for the models, we find that (Lambda)CDM does a better job globally, while the holographic models provide a (marginally) better fit to data without very low multipoles (i.e. l<=30), where the dual QFT becomes non-perturbative."
they actually say that standard models of the universe are generally a better fit to the data than the holographic models. So I think it's all a bit of hype right now.
PS. I had to edit a couple of characters in the abstract as they didn't work on PW.