I've got a PhD in physics but am not a theorist. I do, however, maintain an interest in this material and I must confess that when you dig pass the gloss that Susskind typically puts on the "quantum mechanics == gravity" spiel the actual theoretical case seems pretty distant/vague (to say nothing of the fact that there is nothing like experimental support for anything at all having to do with this because the experiments are presently impossible).<p>What all this comes down to is a "mere" correspondence between some equations governing the way entanglement develops in time and the way some other gravitational systems evolve in time in a very specific sort of set up universe which is quite different from our own. Lots of physical phenomena have similar dynamical laws. Given the tenuousness of ADS/Cft and the differences between that imaginary universe and our own in number of dimensions and structure of spacetime, I think the assertion that these two phenomena supervene upon a shared ontological substance of some kind is provocative but hardly anything I'd write a New York Times article about. I mean for the lay reader this is basically bullshit which is more likely to confuse than illuminate.<p>That said, if this kind of reporting sparks the interest of a young physicist out there, I guess its mostly harmless.