First, here is a link that is not hidden behind a paywall: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.04878v2.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.04878v2.pdf > there is substantial

First, here is a link that is not hidden behind a paywall: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.04878v2.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.04878v2.pdf > there is substantial evidence supporting a holographic explanation of the universe—in fact, as much as there is for the traditional explanation of these irregularities using the theory of cosmic inflation. This is a bit misleading, especially the phrase "substantial evidence". I bet that the authors of the paper would not have used this phrasing. From the paper: > We emphasise that the application of holography to cosmology is conjectural, the theoretical validity of such dualities is still open and different authors approach the topic in different ways. Essentially, their paper shows that a holographic model cannot be ruled out simply by comparing the predictions it makes for the CMB to observation. It also gives some intuition for why a holographic model might make sense - at sufficiently early times in the Universe quantum and gravitational effects begin to coincide, and in other contexts people have modeled quantum gravity using "a quantum field theory with no gravity in one dimension less". The paper finds, however, that there is no empirical case to be made for discarding the standard model of inflation: > We see that the difference between evidence for [the standard model] and HC predictions is insignifcant, with marginal preference for HC, depending on the choice of priors.