1.  2
    Sebastian De Haro, Daniel R. Mayerson & Jeremy N. Butterfield (forthcoming). Conceptual Aspects of Gauge/Gravity Duality. Foundations of Physics:1-45.
    We give an introductory review of gauge/gravity duality, and associated ideas of holography, emphasising the conceptual aspects. The opening sections gather the ingredients, viz. anti-de Sitter spacetime, conformal field theory and string theory, that we need for presenting, in Sect. 5, the central and original example: Maldacena’s AdS/CFT correspondence. Sections 6 and 7 develop the ideas of this example, also in applications to condensed matter systems, QCD, and hydrodynamics. Sections 8 and 9 discuss the possible extensions of holographic ideas to (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography  
  2.  48
    Robert K. Clifton, Michael L. G. Redhead & Jeremy N. Butterfield (1991). Generalization of the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger Algebraic Proof of Nonlocality. Foundations of Physics 21 (2):149-184.
    We further develop a recent new proof (by Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger—GHZ) that local deterministic hidden-variable theories are inconsistent with certain strict correlations predicted by quantum mechanics. First, we generalize GHZ's proof so that it applies to factorable stochastic theories, theories in which apparatus hidden variables are causally relevant to measurement results, and theories in which the hidden variables evolve indeterministically prior to the particle-apparatus interactions. Then we adopt a more general measure-theoretic approach which requires that GHZ's argument be modified (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  3. Robert K. Clifton, Jeremy N. Butterfield & Michael L. G. Redhead (1990). Nonlocal Influences and Possible Worlds--A Stapp in the Wrong Direction. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 41 (1):5-58.
    give a proof of the existence of nonlocal influences acting on correlated spin-1/2 particles in the singlet state which does not require any particular interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM). (Except Stapp holds that the proof fails under a many-worlds interpretation of QM—a claim we analyse in 1.2.) Recently, in responding to Redhead's ([1987], pp. 90-6) criticism that the Stapp 1 proof fails under an indeterministic interpretation of QM, Stapp [1989] (henceforth Stapp 2), has revised the logical structure of his proof (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   5 citations