AdS/CFT derived from Kaluza theory

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Phys-excess
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ads/cft Theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a paper that claims to derive aspects of the AdS/CFT correspondence from Kaluza theory. Participants express varying opinions on the validity and clarity of the paper's mathematical content and its overall coherence.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants find the mathematics in the paper to be simpler than typical discussions on AdS/CFT, raising questions about its accuracy.
  • Others argue that the paper is nonsensical, with multiple participants expressing reluctance to engage further with it.
  • A participant notes that the paper lacks a proper introduction and conclusions, contributing to its perceived weirdness.
  • One participant critiques the paper's use of unconventional language and formatting, suggesting it detracts from its scientific merit.
  • Another participant highlights that the paper primarily discusses classical relations and boundary conditions, with minimal reference to quantum mechanics.
  • It is noted that the paper has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, leading to a restriction on its discussion within the forum.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the validity of the paper, with some finding it nonsensical while others see potential in its mathematical approach. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the paper's overall merit.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the paper's acceptance in the scientific community, as it has not undergone peer review. Additionally, participants express uncertainty about the clarity and rigor of the mathematical arguments presented.

Phys-excess
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Has there been a major breakthrough in AdS/CFT correspondence? The maths are so simple compared to what I normally read on AdS/CFT. Could this be accurate? Accurate or not, this an excellent theoretical exercise in the braneworld.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxV2HFmw-aNMcEktN3Jhd0d4eW8/edit
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I wish someone could answer to this question...
 
kevinferreira said:
I wish someone could answer to this question...
The paper is nonsensical. It is so nonsensical that I don't even want to discuss it, because that will just encourage the author to try to explain it to me.
 
Last edited:
mitchell porter said:
The paper is nonsensical. It is so nonsensical that I don't even want to discuss it, because that will just encourage the author to try to explain it to me.

glad you posted...I didn't understand the math, but that paper seemed REALLY weird!

Like, poor introduction and no conclusions?
 
mitchell porter said:
The paper is nonsensical.

I agree. I think the scientific community's unified use English for scientific communication has a purpose. When a paper like this appears written in Esperanto using the wingdings dingbat font it can be nothing other than pure nonsense. Who even knows Esperanto or can read the dingbat fonts? The only reason I posted this is because I did understand the math which appears to explain AdS/CFT better than anyone else has.
 
Phys-excess said:
The only reason I posted this is because I did understand the math which appears to explain AdS/CFT better than anyone else has.
AdS/CFT duality is a highly nontrivial equivalence between two quantum theories. The bulk of this paper talks about purely classical relations like boundary conditions. Quantum mechanics hardly shows up, except for a few token comments.
 
This paper has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Therefore, we don't allow it on this forum.

Thread locked.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
613
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K