Register to reply 
AdS/CFT as quantum to classical correspondence 
Share this thread: 
#19
Feb413, 05:19 AM

P: 104

All your questions are discussed in Dolce's paper. Please read it.
Concerning holography try with ctrlF and write "holography". He mentions holography 50 times. "For instance, it is well known that in General Relativity (GR) the deformations of spacetime associated to gravitational interaction encode the modulations of spacetime periodicity of reference lengths and clocks, [44]. Moreover, [2], in this formalism the kinematical information of the particle is encoded in the geometrodynamics of the boundary in the manner of the holographic principle [45, 46]." "a collective description of the KK modes typical of a VXD is implicit in the usual holographic description of an ordinary KK theory." "In an ordinary XD theory, holography provides an effective and collective description of the propagation of the KK modes. However, as already noted at the end of sec.(5), by assuming a VXD, such a collective description is already explicit, even without holography. In fact the virtual KK modes naturally describe the quantum excitations of the same fundamental system (string), i.e. they are not independent fields. On the other hand, the fundamental" read also "Comments and Outlooks" pag.40. Holography mades the extra dimension "virtual", and virtual extra dimension is quantization. 


#20
Feb413, 08:27 AM

P: 173

As I said before, I haven't read the paper in full yet, the primary purpose of my post was to explain that the ads/cft duality is much more complicated then checking symmetry groups. If and when I read the paper I would be happy to have a discussion on it. 


#21
Feb613, 12:21 PM

P: 104

Dolce proposes a extreme reconsideration of particles nature and proves in detail a solution to longstanding issues. Every fair physicist has the duty to check whether he is correct or not. Does it make sense to say "every particle is a clock"? Do eq.6 or eq.56 describe particles? 


#22
Feb713, 02:48 AM

P: 5

I am make think. Why do they no call it IIB/QFT correspondence? To me it is evident that when researches on IIB/QFT it was discovered the much bigger and more general thing AdS/CFT. But they do not call IIB/QFT so it must not be that. Pardon me for beating dead horse.



Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Any good reference on quantumclassical correspondence?  Quantum Physics  1  
Do we need quantumclassical correspondence?  Quantum Physics  2  
Quantumclassical correspondence?  Quantum Physics  41 