Is Ads/CFT correspondance the same as gauge /gravity duality?

Jack2013
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Is Ads/CFT correspondance the same as gauge /gravity duality?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
These terms are used quite loosely and often interchanged. Ads/cft is an example of a gauge/gravity or gauge/string duality. There are various examples of ads/cft as well. ads5/cft4 (maldacena), ads4/cft3 etc (polyakov-klebanov) etc
 
From the little I know in gauge theory , QCD has asymptotic freedom . Does this mean that it is not conformally invariant ? If so , how there is Ads\CFT correspondance between QCD and string theory?
 
Last edited:
Jack2013 said:
From the little I know in gauge theory , QCD has asymptotic freedom . Does this mean that it is not conformally invariant ? If so , how there is Ads\CFT correspondance between QCD and string theory?
I think AdS/CFT is only an APPROXIMATIVE correspondence in QCD.
 
Basically, gauge/gravity duality is a generalization of the original AdS/CFT conjecture, which can be thought of as a manifestation of the holographic principle. The original concept was a correspondence between an N=4 Supersymmetric Yang Mills theory and a type IIB string theory on AdS_5\times S^5. It turned out that this correspondence principle couldn't only be applied to the theories it was originally made for, but also for others, QCD being a famous example: the correspondence offers means to describe quark-gluon plasma. Even though QCD is not conformally invariant, the correspondence still seems to hold in this case. There are also applications in solid state physics: there are holographic descriptions of superconducters and graphene systems.
 
I seem to notice a buildup of papers like this: Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing. (OK, old one.) Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion Is this akin to “we’re soon gonna put string theory to the test”, or are these legit? Mind, I’m not expecting anyone to read the papers and explain them to me, but if one of you educated people already have an opinion I’d like to hear it. If not please ignore me. EDIT: I strongly suspect it’s bunk but...
I'm trying to understand the relationship between the Higgs mechanism and the concept of inertia. The Higgs field gives fundamental particles their rest mass, but it doesn't seem to directly explain why a massive object resists acceleration (inertia). My question is: How does the Standard Model account for inertia? Is it simply taken as a given property of mass, or is there a deeper connection to the vacuum structure? Furthermore, how does the Higgs mechanism relate to broader concepts like...
Back
Top