Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,862 answers , 20,637 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
502 active unimported users
More ...

Is it believed that all UV completions have "Maldacena duals"?

+ 8 like - 0 dislike
160 views

I have heard occasional rumors that effective field theories have gravity duals. For example, I've been told that UV momentum cutoffs in N=4 SYM become finite radii in AdS. I've heard speculations about AdS duals of plain old QCD. And I know it's thought that CFTs always have gravity duals.

Is it believed that any UV completion of an effective field theory must have a Maldacena-style gravity dual (in Witten's sense, meaning that currents become boundary conditions)? Can QFTs with gravitational sectors have gravity duals? What about string theory?

Are there any necessary reasonableness conditions? (Maybe insist that the renormalization flow is a gradient flow?) Is locality necessary? (String theory seems to think that gravity must be holographic. Can you have a holographic description of a holographic description?)


This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-05-01 10:12 (UTC), posted by SE-user user1504

asked Apr 13, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by user1504 (1,100 points) [ revision history ]
edited May 1, 2015 by Dilaton

1 Answer

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

N=4 is SCFT, I don't think UV cut-off make sense in a SCTF. You need a cut-off when you renormalize a theory. Additionally, till now, plain old QCD has no gravity dual and I am 100% sure about that. Furthermore, again, not all CFTs have to admit a gravity dual although for many of them a gravity dual that does not originate from string/M-theory may be constructed (e.g. holographic massive gravity duals in CMT systems).

I don't think that people believe that the UV completion of a theory has a gravity dual. The theories that gauge/gravity duality is about are such that their strong coupling dynamics is in the IR not in the UV. People seek a UV completion of gravity but as far as QFT is concerned our main problem is the strongly coupled behavior of the IR dynamics (e.g. QCD).

As for the rest of your question it is vague and I am not sure what do you mean. You mean, can we construct a gravity dual in a $d+1$-dimensional bulk of some QFT which incorporates gravity in $d$-dimensions? If this is what you are asking the answer is no. There is no such example. Renormalization flow has been studied as a gradient flow in many examples (e.g. see Ioannis Bakas' work) and the question about locality again, its vague.

I know of some unpublished work where the gravitational theory in the bulk is an infinite dimensional derivative theory of (super)gravity which is non-local but UV complete. In principle this theory can be put in AdS background (see work by Anupam Mazumdar et. al.). And no, string theory does not seem to think gravity is holographic. String theory suggests that the CFT data are holographic.

Ok, this is a messed up answer motivated by a messed up question. Maybe you should take it one at a time ;)

answered May 1, 2015 by conformal_gk (3,535 points) [ revision history ]
edited May 2, 2015 by Arnold Neumaier

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\varnothing$ysicsOverflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...