• 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.


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


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

193 submissions , 152 unreviewed
4,820 questions , 2,008 unanswered
5,293 answers , 22,482 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
779 active unimported users
More ...

  Generalisations of AdS/CFT with string theory on both sides

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

From my previous post, I found out from the comments that there are various generalisations of AdS/CFT with different things replacing the CFT on the RHS; such as AdS/CMT, AdS/QCD, and also with the AdS replaced on the LHS, like Kerr/CFT a hydrodynamic dual, etc.

I am thus led to ask, "Is there a generalisation of AdS/CFT with string theories on both sides?"

I can think of at least 1 example of a/n (holographic?) equivalence between a $D$ - dimensional string theory and a $D+1$ - dimensional string theory, T-Duality. E.g. the Type I String Theory and the Type I' String Theory, etc.

asked Aug 23, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by dimension10 (1,975 points) [ revision history ]
edited Apr 25, 2014 by dimension10
Why do you say that T-duality is holographic?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 09:09 (UCT), posted by SE-user Matthew
@Matthew: It was meant to be a questionmark, i.e. "holographic?", since a side question was whether there any holographic cases of T-duality.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 09:09 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dimensio1n0

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:
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