The AdS/Cft correspondance has kindle interest in anti-de Sitter and asymptotically AdS spacetimes which are non globally hyperbolic. That means Cauchy horizon forms in these spacetimes. Moreover, recent interest has been put in the stability at the classical level.

In the other hand the Cosmic Censorship Conjecture are two mathematical conjectures about the structure of spacetime.

In particular the so called Strong Cosmic Conjecture asserts heuristically that generically, general relativity is a deterministic theory, in the same sense that classical mechanics is a deterministic theory. In other words, the classical fate of all observers should be predictable from suitable initial data.

A lot of work has been done in relevant physical spacetimes which assumes that spacetime must be asymptotically flat and in the case of Cauchy horizons forming inside black holes. See this for an example.

My questions are:

Using the AdS/Cft correspondance, does the horizon is reflected somehow in the dual CFT?

Is the Cauchy horizon of Anti deSitter spacetime stable?

  • $\begingroup$ The CCC concerns naked singularites, whilst "singularities that arise in the solutions of Einstein's equations are typically hidden within event horizons". But there's two interpretations of GR, see this. In one of them the event horizon isn't just a coordinate artefact, and there is no hidden point-singularity. However the other interpretation is treated as the only interpretation, and IMHO it leads to too much conjecture. WMAP found that space is "flat", so AdS is conjectural, and the AdS/Cft correspondence is a "conjectured relationship". $\endgroup$ – John Duffield Jun 30 '15 at 20:21
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnDuffield: I don't know anybody who considers AdS a physically implemented phenomenon. It's liked by theorists because it seems to be a lot easier to do calculations in it. That puts it out of the reach of scientific reasoning and it lives quite comfortably in the mathematical tool chest where all the toys are that don't have any actual physical aspirations. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Jul 1 '15 at 2:13
  • $\begingroup$ @ CuriousOne : noted. IMHO there are too many things that are "out of reach of scientific reasoning" but which have somehow gained acceptance. $\endgroup$ – John Duffield Jul 1 '15 at 6:53
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnDuffield I am not sure we are referring to the same conjecture. I think you are talking about the weak cosmic conjecture while I am mainly interested in the strong cosmic conjecture. $\endgroup$ – yess Jul 1 '15 at 9:30
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe yess, but I think the issue is visible here: "...there exist spacetimes for which the weak cosmic censorship is valid but the strong cosmic censorship is violated and, conversely, there exist spacetimes for which the weak cosmic censorship is violated but the strong cosmic censorship is valid". Space exists, motion exists, time exists like heat exists, and we combine them as spacetime. However different spacetimes do not exist, and nor does AdS. But conjectures do. $\endgroup$ – John Duffield Jul 1 '15 at 12:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.