4 ms·
In the summary, it says that these theories are "best understood in Anti de Sitter space...". I thought current observations ran against a spacetime that had a
by slowmovintarget 10y ago
In the summary, it says that these theories are "best understood in Anti de Sitter space...". I thought current observations ran against a spacetime that had a negative curvature. Are they just saying the math is easier in that geometry, but that it still applies to flat (or ever-so-slightly-positively curved) spacetime? Or are they arguing in favor of a "saddle-shaped" universe?
- empath75 10y agoThe ADS in 'ADS/CFT correspondence' stands for 'anti-de Sitter'. Any time you read someone talking about 'information on the boundary' of a bulk space, that's usually what they're working with. I'm sure there's a way to transform everything to a de Sitter space, but i'm neither a mathematician nor a physicist, so I don't know how it's done...
- maverick_iceman 10y agoSpacetime has a positive cosmological constant, so it's closer to de-Sitter than Anti de-Sitter. It doesn't really have to do with curvature exactly, which is given by the Riemann tensor (so it doesn't make sense to say it's positive/negative).
- codethief 10y agoBut you certainly can talk about curvature scalars being positive/negative which are derived from the Riemann tensor.