Perturbative Super-Yang-Mills from the Topological AdS_5xS^5 Sigma Model

[humanino]

Perturbative Super-Yang-Mills from the Topological AdS_5xS^5 Sigma Model (http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1960)
A proof of the AdS/CFT correspondence (http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/06/nathan-berkovits-proof-of-adscft.html)

Is this serious ?

[MTd2]

Lubos said this partial proof is a complete proof, lacking some details. http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/06/nathan-berkovits-proof-of-adscft.html

[humanino]

Lubos said this partial proof is a complete proof, lacking some details. http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/06/nathan-berkovits-proof-of-adscft.html

The link you give was already posted above. I read what Lubos said, and I wonder what other theoreticians think, since Lubos sometimes has unconventional posts on his blog...

edit
I mean, it seems to me that if this is true, this not just "the most interesting paper on hep-th today" (as posted by Lubos) but an historical result !

But all theoreticians must be busy checking the paper, so this is why I do not get answers yet. At least, there does not seem to be anything obviously wrong with it :smile:

[MTd2]

The link you give was already posted above. I read what Lubos said, and I wonder what other theoreticians think, since Lubos sometimes has unconventional posts on his blog...

Sorry :S. I thought it was a direct link to the article at arxiv :S :S... I had it opened on my browser, along with Lubo's post, so I didn't bother clicking on your link.

I guess Marcus will love this, since it involves spin networks.

[Haelfix]

These things are never quite perfectly rigorous, but they're strong plausibility arguments, which Ads/CFT already has a ton off. Perhaps this is a little stronger than just checking pwave expansion coefficients on both side, but then we're physicists.

I don't know how other string theorists are reacting to the details of this particular paper though.

[humanino]

I guess Marcus will love this, since it involves spin networks.Oh, I thought exactly the same. But the spin network seems to me to be on the worldsheet, not the target space, so the math tools are similar but this is only a formal similarity.

Perhaps this is a little stronger than just checking pwave expansion coefficients on both sideI am not sure I understand what this precisely means, but I appreciate your answer. I guess this must have something to do with the BMN matrix model (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0202021)

[jal]

Is the following blog about the same thing?
http://www.nevis.columbia.edu/~zajc/
The String Theory Connection of RHIC
Posted by Berndt Mueller on March 14th 2008