pinu
- 10
- 0
I am learning AdS/CFT and my interest is on condensed matter systems. Can someone tell me what are the achievements of the correspondence in the cond. mat sector till now?
The discussion centers on the achievements and implications of the AdS/CFT correspondence in the context of condensed matter physics. Participants explore theoretical advancements, applications, and the relationship between string theory and condensed matter systems.
Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the achievements of AdS/CFT in condensed matter physics. Disagreements exist regarding the necessity of string theory for validating non-relativistic applications and the overall impact of holographic duality.
Some discussions highlight limitations in current understanding, such as the need for explicit proofs and the challenges of applying AdS/CFT to non-relativistic theories. The relationship between string theory and condensed matter physics remains complex and unresolved.
Researchers and students interested in the intersection of string theory and condensed matter physics, as well as those exploring the theoretical implications of holographic duality.
pinu said:Actually, the idea is amazing ! But what are your views about its future?
Are you B. Swingle?Physics Monkey said:Yes, it is a nice attempt to formalize the ideas of my original paper in the continuous setting.
Physics Monkey said:But one thing holographic duality has had a big impact on, at least for me personally, is entanglement.
pinu said:I have a very basic question: Can AdS/CFT conjecture be applied to field theories without any conformal / Poincare symmetries (non relativistic)??
haushofer said:People think so, but to actually proof that this is possible needs an explicit embedding into string theory. This has only been proven for a few relativistic cases.
Well, in the original proof of the duality between N=4 SYM and type IIB String Theory one crucial ingredient is e.g. D-branes. In the duality you need ingredients of string theory as we know understand them, so I don't get your argument that "we don't know what it actually is". That's true, but to write down an explicit mapping we need to show the relation between objects in one theory and the other.Physics Monkey said:I have to slightly disagree. I don't see any reason why string theory should be considered the ultimate arbiter of correctness especially since we don't even know what it is.
Also, a lot of interesting non-relativistic or condensed matter physics can be obtained via relevant deformations of a CFT. One simply has to perturb it via a chemical potential or magnetic field, etc. Certainly we know many string theory versions of this story.