As usual with physics links, the layperson's blurb sounds kind of silly and is easy to criticize. But the actual paper is linked and you can look at it: https:

As usual with physics links, the layperson's blurb sounds kind of silly and is easy to criticize. But the actual paper is linked and you can look at it: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/493/3/3932/5736044?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/493/3/3932/5... General HN comment: I think our discussion on physics topics will really be improved if we comment on the physics papers (start with the abstracts) themselves. The (completely understandable) trend right now is to focus on the press release or science journalism that accompanies the link to the physics. Unfortunately that normally leads away from the basics of what's actually happening in the physics. (Metaphor here: If you're a programmer, imagine reading about some CS topic in Wired magazine, then looking at 200 comments from people who agree or disagree with the pop sci writeup.)