I think its an arrogance of software people that because we had to do partial differential equations at uni we're somehow pretty well versed in the other hard sciences. This may not even be that fringe.
This appears to be more pop-science trying yet failing to provide a succinct translation of what is happening. It sounds like certain researchers are relating a better studied mathematical model from a different field to the problem at hand - the energy transmission speed limit that is the focus of the article - to see if their mathematical machinery from the other field could be useful. I've got a physics and math background that focused on quantum physics studies but I'm still guessing with this interpretation.
>Claiming it makes something think that they are taking the piss merely because it's hard to understand isn't really the reaction I'd expect on HN.
It's not that it's simply hard to understand, it's that the language used is fantastical - "imaginary black holes" is a pretty far out notion for many.
From my reading those phrases are actually attempts to use terms a lay person can understand i.e. the opposite of esoteric. "Holographic duality" is the only phrase that is legitimately esoteric, the rest is just baby talk.
I was simply commenting in reply to the statement, "Any time I see this kind of esoteric research..."
My education in mathematics goes to calculus, and I am aware of the complexities of higher orders of mathematics such as what is used in physics, but I never had considered the field to be "esoteric".
