thanks for dropping by and for the link. I’ll try to go through your paper.

Dmitry.

Thanks, I am currently going through Dyson, Lindesay, Susskind but I did not know about S-branes.

I am not really sure what you personally mean by dS/CFT – maybe after you write it.

The plan is currently to discuss 4-5 famous papers. Then, I’ll also share my personal thoughts with you (certainly, there will be even more of them after I go through papers and they will sound less ridiculous).

Cheers,
Dmitry.

Check out my recent work on time: arXiv:0811.0112v1 [gr-qc]
I’m afraid that version is impenetrable, but here’s the gist: Starting with (e.g.) Euclidean 4-space, one possible corresponding “measurement theory” (i.e., conformal gauge theory) leads to an 8-dim manifold with natural (Killing) metric and symplectic form. Requiring an orthogonal, canonical basis relative to these two structures leads uniquely to a Lorentzian configuration space.

Two things of interest to you to note: (1) Time emerges from an initially Euclidean space, and (2) the conformal symmetry is de Sitter.

Cheers,
Jim

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/.....e9a1fd530d

But the hundreds I am referring to were really meant to specific realizations of dS/CFT using S-branes, so they’re perhaps hundreds of contradictions about S-branes rather than dS/CFT per se.

The sectors with S-branes don’t seem to have any privileged “ground states” analogous to ground states of D-branes. The “tension” of these S-branes is incorrectly calculated – wrong factors of “i” are being added by hand. (The only correct Euclidean counterpart of a D-brane is a D-brane instanton whose action or a mass counterpart is imaginary, giving rise to an exponential decrease of its contributions to the path integral.)

Both for S-branes and dS/CFT, there is this basic question whether they’re supposed to be analytical continuation of D-branes and AdS/CFT or something analytically different. In both cases, one faces contradictions.

The statement that it is an analytical continuation is excluded by the large degenerace of empty dS (very different from the unique AdS); the wrong factors of “i” in the tension of S-branes etc.

On the other hand, any of the methods to argue or derive AdS/CFT would have to imply that the CFT description would have to be related to well-known objects in quantum gravity via analytic continuation.

I can’t enumerate all these things coherently now because I am not really sure what you personally mean by dS/CFT – maybe after you write it.

Best
Lubos

Well, I guess that the perturbative series is just an expansion around the point where Lambda=0 in Planck units, so the entropy is infinite to start with.

This is clear, the question is how the number of states behaves as a function of (for ).

or how you resolve any other of the hundreds of obvious contradictions of dS/CFT, for that matter.

Could you list some for the future reference?

Cheers,
Dmitry.

A more mysterious question is how you want to get a CFT that respects this finiteness of the number of states, or how you resolve any other of the hundreds of obvious contradictions of dS/CFT, for that matter.