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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of a partial proof of the AdS/CFT correspondence, specifically related to the perturbative Super-Yang-Mills theory derived from the topological AdS5xS5 sigma model. Participants explore the significance of the proof and its reception within the theoretical physics community.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the completeness of the proof, noting that it is described as lacking some details.
  • Others highlight that the proof could represent a significant historical result if validated, suggesting it may be more than just an interesting paper.
  • There is mention of varying opinions on the credibility of the source, specifically referencing Lubos Motl's unconventional views.
  • One participant notes that while the arguments presented are not perfectly rigorous, they are seen as strong plausibility arguments within the context of existing AdS/CFT evidence.
  • Another participant points out that the spin networks involved may relate to the worldsheet rather than the target space, indicating a formal similarity rather than a direct connection.
  • There is uncertainty regarding the broader reaction of the string theory community to the details of the paper.
  • A participant questions whether a related blog discusses similar themes, indicating a potential connection to other areas of research.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity or implications of the proof. There are multiple competing views regarding its significance and the rigor of the arguments presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that the proof may not be fully rigorous and that interpretations of its implications vary. There is also a lack of clarity on how other theoreticians are responding to the paper.

Physics news on Phys.org
MTd2 said:
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:
 
Last edited:
humanino said:
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.
 
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.
 
MTd2 said:
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.

Haelfix said:
Perhaps this is a little stronger than just checking pwave expansion coefficients on both side
I 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
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
11K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
691
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K