Interesting report and 7:57 video too. "Breaking down the AdS/CFT correspondence. Like, what IS it?"
My observation - is AdS/CFT using the cosmological constant again? The article gives me this impression apparently using a negative cosmological constant. The cosmological constant was a problem, negative, zero, or positive values arrive at different universes and ours is apparently finely tuned physics allowing life to exist here. See Relativity The Special and the General Theory by Albert Einstein, 1961, p.133-134. As the space.com article says, "So, on one side of the AdS/CFT correspondence, you have a universe that doesn't look like ours, and on the other, you have mathematical theory that doesn't apply to most situations. So what's the big deal?"
Yesterday morning at 0853 UT or 0453 EDT, I enjoyed telescope views of an Io shadow transit at Jupiter. Apply ADS/CFT and string theory with at least 5 dimensions here. This could be an interesting model to predict Galilean moon events at Jupiter or perhaps, *that doesn't apply to most situations.*
What exactly is the purpose of this article? Are you trying to propose that one should derive solutions to a physics problem by creating a hypothetical universe that doesn't have an accurate parallel to our universe's physical properties? That's what it sounds like and to me, I find this to be ridiculous.
A 9d version of string theory doesn't exist because it has been mathematically invalidated. This is why current string theories (more aptly put "hypotheses" due to their lack of complete proofs that have been experimentally tested for verification purposes) don't use 9 dimensions (with 5 being collapsed). Instead, only those that have passed mathematical validation (i.e 10, 11, and 12 dimensional variations of string theory/m theory) are viable for the purpose of checking the solution to a physics problem for proofs purposes.
Using a 9 dimensional universe with a negative cosmological constant is like trying to prove the viability to extending one's lifespan by drinking water through the proof system provided in an alternate universe like Harry Potter's results from drinking a potion in Snape's class. Yeah, you create the fiction for the purpose of deriving correlative properties between the two that give the illusion of a verified proof for your original work in this universe but it's not a true proof due to the fictitious nature of the comparison universe and therefore is incredibly misleading in nature and in reality, doesn't provide proof for anything at all.
You're just creating a parallelism and pretending it is a proof or a form of invalidation depending on what your fictional universe spits out with it's unrealistic form of physics. This isn't SOLVING anything, not in my mind at least.
I'm open to having your rationalization explained, I'm not a physics genius by any means so maybe I'm missing something but from a purely logical/conceptual standpoint, this article is not just misleading in its description of how to solve physics problems but it also is kinda pointless because of this.