Talk:AdS/CFT correspondence

message: This article is so popular it is unreadable. A good article should contain mathematics first, then its description or interpretation in words, both in technical terms and in "layman" terms for beginners. Describing AdS as "imagine you have a stsck pf hyperbolic planes..." is sht, the correct way would be to provide the AdS metric and explain that it desceibes hyperbolaes and marhematically show why. The approach of this article is backwards and wrong and good for mothing because in later terms makes it unreadable and the issue incomperhensible and free for individual interpretation, which the issue is the exact opposite - it is mathematics concept and mathematics is exact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.236.226.176 (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much popular

message: I agree with the above.  If you know what this is telling you, you might be able to understand it.  But the purpose of an encyclopedia is to explain the topic to people who do not already know about it.
I was directed to this article from the philosophy of time entry.  I have a good layman's understanding of quantum theory and string theory, but what this means, why it's important, and what its implications are do not appear to be available in this article.  Can we have it interpreted for the rest of us?
64.134.45.58 (talk)
:Important because it shows how far in the weeds modern physics is with its substitution of mathematics for real things in nature. The crowning glory is nothing with properties (general relativity) and a real existent without extent (strings). Only the overall backwardness of human culture could bring such a thing about, an excellent example of how the 98% steer, govern, and culturally determine the 2%. So important in a nude emperor kind of way (besides the fun maths). 198.255.198.157 (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Can Someone Explain Why This Is Important?

message: Could someone help me find a free picture for the section on the quark-gluon plasma? I'm thinking something like this would be good:
http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/quark-gluon-plasma2.jpg
Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on AdS/CFT correspondence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110061237/http://www.sns.ias.edu/~malda/sciam-maldacena-3a.pdf to http://www.sns.ias.edu/~malda/sciam-maldacena-3a.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please see article:
https://thewire.in/14279/good-scientists-solve-problems-but-great-scientists-know-whats-worth-solving/
Ashtekar, world renound general relativist, has said
"Again, nobody is taking anything away from the successes that the AdS/CFT duality has had; but there is a big gap between the successes and the rhetoric. The rhetoric is at a much higher level than the successes. So, for example, in this conjecture, first of all the space-time is 10 dimensional. The physical space-time is supposed to be asymptotically anti-de Sitter, which has a negative cosmological constant. But we look around us, and we find a positive cosmological constant. Secondly, the internal dimensions in the conjecture, or this definition, are macroscopic. The Kaluza-Klein idea is that there are higher dimensions but because they are all wrapped up and microscopic, say, at Planck scale, we don’t see them. That’s plausible. But here, in AdS/CFT duality, they need the radius of the internal dimensions to be the same as the cosmological radius. If so, if I try to look up I should see these ten dimensions; I don’t. So, it can’t have much to do with the real world that we actually live in. These are elephants in the room which are not being addressed. "
In particular I'd like to draw attention to "they need the radius of the internal dimensions to be the same as the cosmological radius."!
Ibayn (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ashtekar's comments 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on AdS/CFT correspondence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130702011201/http://www.sns.ias.edu/~malda/Published.pdf to http://www.sns.ias.edu/~malda/Published.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: My orthographic understanding is that the ndash is used when prefixing an unhyphenated compound, so I suggest rendering this as anti–de Sitter, with an ndash. — MaxEnt 17:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punctuating anti-de Sitter 

message: Since Perturbation Theory was in P. A. M. Dirac's The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Richard Feynman would have had to have done the work before he was twelve. In fact what Feynman got the Nobel Prize for was developing path integrals and Feynman diagrams. His work greatly simplified calculations in Perturbation Theory, but he wasn't one of the developers. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perturbation Theory