A duality in classical and quantum mechanics: General results

Wen-Du Li; Wu-Sheng Dai

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 23 references

A duality in classical and quantum mechanics: General results

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A duality transform maps the solution of any conservative potential to the solutions of an infinite family of dual potentials, in both classical and quantum mechanics.

desk verdict A competent but overclaimed note: the dual potential is explicitly energy-dependent for generic sigma, so the 'solve one, get all' claim does not survive contact with the equations; the classical proof also has a gap. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01089 v3 pith:RU4NBXON submitted 2019-08-25 physics.gen-ph

Wen-Du Li , Wu-Sheng Dai This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.gen-ph

keywords dualityinmechanicsclassicalquantumSchrödingerequationcentralpotentialspower-lawfamilyexactsolvability

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that every conservative one-dimensional potential and every three-dimensional central potential has an infinite family of 'dual' potentials, in both classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. The duality is a coordinate and time/angle rescaling that leaves a specific combination of potential and energy invariant, so that a solution of one system maps directly to a solution of its dual. The authors derive the transform for arbitrary potentials and illustrate it with the inverse-square/harmonic-oscillator pair, power potentials, and a sech-squared potential. If the claim is right, solving one member of a duality family solves every other member by substitution, which turns a single exact solution into a whole class of exact solutions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the duality transform: a pair of mappings $x \leftrightarrow \xi^\sigma$ and $t \leftrightarrow \sigma\tau$ (classically) or $u(x) \leftrightarrow \xi^{(\sigma-1)/2} v(\xi)$ (quantum) that leaves a specific invariant combination of potential and energy unchanged, $x^{-2}[U(x)-E]=\xi^{-2}[V(\xi)-E]$ in the classical one-dimensional case and $\sigma\{x^2[U(x)-E]+1/4\}=\sigma^{-1}\{\xi^2[V(\xi)-E]+1/4\}$ in the quantum one-dimensional case. These identities carry the argument: substituting the transformed coordinate and wavefunction into the Newton or Schrödinger equation converts one equation into the other, so a solution of one is automatically a solution of the dual system. The free parameter $\sigma$ is the mechanism that generates an infinite family.

What would settle it

Construct the dual of a non-power-law potential, say $U(x)=e^{-x}$, using $x^{-2}[U(x)-E]=\xi^{-2}[V(\xi)-E]$ and the mapping $x=\xi^\sigma$, then numerically integrate Newton's equation for $V(\xi)$ and compare with the time-rescaled trajectory of $U(x)$ at the same energy; disagreement would show the classical duality holds only for power-law coordinate mappings.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that two potentials $U(x)$ and $V(\xi)$ are dual when the combination $x^2[U(x)-E]$ and the corresponding combination with $\xi$ and $V(\xi)$ are identified under a power-law coordinate substitution $x \leftrightarrow \xi^\sigma$ together with a rescaling of time (classical) or of the wavefunction (quantum). In quantum mechanics the invariant combination carries an extra $1/4$ term, and the angular momentum shifts by a stretch factor determined by $\sigma$. Substituting the transform into the Newton or Schrödinger equation turns one dynamical equation into the other, which is what makes the solution of one system immediately yield the solution of its dual. Because $\sigma$ can be chosen arbitrarily, each potential belongs to an infinite duality family, and the inverse-square/harmonic-oscillator pair appears as a special case with a quadratic coordinate mapping $r \leftrightarrow \rho^2$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the coordinate change is a strict power law $x=\xi^\sigma$ with the same constant exponent everywhere; for the classical and orbital proofs this constancy is assumed rather than derived, and if the exponent varies with position the 'solve one, solve all' claim for arbitrary classical potentials collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Choosing different values of the free parameter $\sigma$ generates an infinite family of dual potentials from any exactly solvable one-dimensional potential.
The inverse-square and harmonic-oscillator potentials are dual, with the energy of one system becoming the coupling constant of the other.
For three-dimensional central potentials, the duality also shifts angular momentum according to $l+\tfrac12 \leftrightarrow (\ell+\tfrac12)/\sigma$, so radial eigenfunctions and bound-state spectra convert between dual potentials.
When the dual of a power-law potential is itself required to be a power law, the exponents obey $(a+2)/2 = 2/(A+2)$ with the coordinate replacement $r \leftrightarrow \rho^{2/(a+2)}$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Since the quantum derivation does not use the constancy of $d\ln x/d\ln\xi$ that the classical proof assumes, a testable extension is to allow non-power-law coordinate maps in the quantum case and see whether the duality family grows beyond the power-law family claimed here.
The algebraic structure mentioned in Section 4 may be a one-parameter scaling group acting on potentials, with duality families as orbits; identifying that group explicitly would recast the 'solve one, solve all' statement as a symmetry principle.
A practical consequence is that duality families could serve as benchmark generators: any numerical or perturbative solution obtained for one member automatically yields solutions for the rest, providing exact cross-checks for numerical solvers.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take on arXiv:1909.01089. The paper sells an ordinary coordinate rescaling as a general 'duality' that solves infinite families of potentials. That's not true in the advertised form: the dual potential carries an explicit E-dependence unless you tune parameters, so you are not getting a fixed new system; you are just rewriting the same problem. The classical derivation also contains an invalid step.

That said, the quantum part is algebraically sound. Substituting x = xi^sigma and u = xi^{(sigma-1)/2} v into the Schrödinger equation gives the stated V up to a sign typo in Eq. (3.7); the examples use the correct version. The Coulomb-to-oscillator and Pöschl–Teller examples are worked carefully, and the paper does cite Newton and Inomata–Junker. The arbitrary-potential formulas are a routine but clean generalization.

The main problem is structural, not cosmetic. From Eq. (3.2) (and (2.3)), V(xi) depends on E through a coefficient that vanishes only at sigma=1. So for a generic U, each energy E maps to a different potential; the collection of transformed eigenfunctions are not the spectrum of one Hamiltonian. The examples dodge this by choosing E to be a coupling constant, which works for a handful of potentials but not for arbitrary U. Thus the 'once solved, all solved' slogan is unsupported.

The classical proof in §2.1 has its own gap: 't and tau are independent of x and xi' does not imply d ln x/d ln xi is constant. That step smuggles in the power-law ansatz. The 3D orbital case has the same issue. So the proof section needs rewriting even if the final formulas survive as an ansatz.

Novelty is modest: Newton–Hooke is explicit in the paper and Inomata–Junker covers power laws. The contribution here is the general formula, which is correct but not deep.

Who is this for? A reader who wants a compact reference for point transformations of 1D Schrödinger equations might find it useful, but it should be reframed with the energy-dependence caveat. As an editor, I would not publish it as 'general duality' without major revision. I would send it to a referee, though, because the algebra is correct and the fix is straightforward: state that the transform maps a fixed U at energy E to a family of energy-dependent potentials, or specify when the dual becomes energy-independent.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a 'duality' between mechanical systems, in both classical and quantum mechanics, mediated by power-law coordinate scalings x ↔ ξ^σ (or r ↔ ρ^{σ}) together with rescalings of time or angle. It defines dual potentials through algebraic relations (Eqs. 2.3, 2.13, 3.2, 3.20) and claims that solving one member of a 'duality family' yields the solutions of all other members, with examples including power potentials, the Coulomb/oscillator pair, and the Pöschl–Teller potential.

Significance. If the central claim were correct in its advertised generality, the construction would be a useful solution-generating technique. The explicit formulas for transformed Schrödinger eigenfunctions are checkable, and the Coulomb–oscillator and Pöschl–Teller examples work as illustrations of an energy-parametrized mapping. However, as discussed below, the dual potential depends explicitly on the energy E whenever σ ≠ 1, so the paper does not establish the existence of fixed dual systems whose full spectra are obtained from a single solved system. With the claims appropriately qualified, the paper could still be a valid contribution to the known duality literature, but the present formulation substantially overstates its generality.

major comments (3)

[Abstract, §4, and Eq. (3.7)] The dual potential is energy-dependent, which undermines the central claim that solving one system solves all members of a duality family. From Eq. (3.2) with x = ξ^σ, the correct dual potential is V_{σ,E}(ξ) = E + σ² ξ^{2σ−2}[U(ξ^σ) − E] + (σ² − 1)/(4ξ²), and similarly the classical relation (2.3) gives a potential that depends on E. For σ ≠ 1 the coefficient of E in V_{σ,E} is not identically zero, so different eigenvalues E of U produce different potentials. Thus the transformed functions {v_E} are eigenfunctions of different Hamiltonians, not of one fixed dual system. The examples avoid this only by tuning E to a coupling constant, as in Eqs. (2.23), (3.30), and (3.31), which is not possible for a generic potential. The statements 'once a system is solved, all other potentials are solved' (Abstract) and 'all members in a duality family are obtained immediately' (§4) are therefore not supported for arbitrary conservative potentials.
[§2.1, Eqs. (2.9)–(2.10) and §2.2, Eqs. (2.19)–(2.21)] The classical proof asserts, without justification, that d ln x/d ln ξ is the constant σ because 't and τ are independent of x and ξ.' Independence of the time variables does not imply that the coordinate-dependence ratio is constant; constancy is an additional ansatz that restricts the duality to power-law coordinate mappings. Since x ↔ ξ^σ is already stated in Eq. (2.4) as part of the definition, the proof is circular rather than a derivation. The same issue appears in the three-dimensional central-potential proof, where dθ/dφ = d ln r/d ln ρ is asserted to equal σℓ/l. These proofs should be rewritten as direct consequences of the power-law ansatz, not as deductions from the duality relations.
[§3.1, Eq. (3.7)] Equation (3.7) contains a sign error and is inconsistent with the duality relation (3.2). Solving (3.2) yields the term +(σ² − 1)/(4ξ²), but (3.7) prints σ²(1 − σ²)/(4ξ²) (equivalently a −(σ² − 1) sign inside the braces). The examples in §3.2 use the corrected form, so the printed central formula must be fixed to match the rest of the paper.

minor comments (3)

[§2.1, between Eqs. (2.8) and (2.9)] Taking the square root of Eq. (2.8) yields a sign ambiguity; the proof silently chooses the positive branch. Since σ may be negative in the examples, the branch choice should be stated explicitly.
[§3.2, after Eq. (3.10)] The sentence 'The constant E in the dual potential (3.10) can also be chosen arbitrarily, since it is a constant added in the potential' is misleading: for σ ≠ 1, E multiplies σ²ξ^{2σ−2} in Eq. (3.10), so it is not merely an additive constant. The role of E as both eigenvalue and potential parameter should be clarified.
[§4] The statement that 'there exist algebraic structures in the duality family' is not followed by any definition or example of such a structure. Either specify the algebraic structure or remove the sentence.

Circularity Check

5 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The duality family is definitional: the dual potential is defined by the duality relation, so the solution correspondence is built in, and the examples rely on hand-tuning the energy to a coupling constant.

self definitional [Section 2.1, Eqs. (2.3)–(2.5)]
"Two one-dimensional potentials, U (x) and V (ξ), are dual to each other, if x− 2 [U (x) − E] = ξ− 2 [V (ξ) − E ] (2.3) with x ↔ ξσ. (2.4) The solution of the potential U (r) with the energy E and the solution of its dual potential V (ρ) with the energy E can be obtained from each other by the replacement of the time : t ↔ στ. (2.5)"

Equation (2.3) is the definition of 'dual,' not an independent condition. Given any U and any σ, defining V(ξ)=E+ξ^{2−2σ}(U(ξ^σ)−E) makes (2.3) true identically, and the substitution x=ξ^σ, t=στ converts one Newton equation into the other. Thus the assertion that the two solutions are related by the time replacement is exactly the content of the defining relation; no independent dynamical input is added. The 'duality family' is generated by the chosen rescaling, so 'once one is solved, all are solved' is true by construction rather than by a substantive prediction.
other [Section 2.1, Eqs. (2.9)–(2.10)]
"Because t and τ are independent of x and ξ, we have dt/dτ = d ln x/d ln ξ = σ, (2.10) where σ is an arbitrary constant."

The preceding equation gives (d ln x/dt)^2 = (d ln ξ/dτ)^2, i.e. dt/dτ = d ln x/d ln ξ up to sign, but this ratio is not forced to be constant by the claimed independence of t and τ. The constancy is exactly the power-law ansatz x ↔ ξ^σ. The proof therefore assumes the duality transformations (2.4)–(2.5) as part of the definition and then recovers them as a conclusion. This is a circular justification of the coordinate rescaling used throughout the classical duality.

3 more flagged steps

self definitional [Section 3.1, Eqs. (3.2)–(3.7)]
"Two one-dimensional potentials, U (x) and V (ξ), are dual to each other, if σ { x2 [U (x) − E] + 1/4 } = 1/σ { ξ2 [V (ξ) − E ] + 1/4 } (3.2) with x ↔ ξσ. (3.3)"

As in the classical case, V is not an independently existing system found to be dual; it is defined by solving Eq. (3.2). Equation (3.7) is the explicit solution for V in terms of U, E, and σ. The eigenfunction replacement (3.4) is selected together with the coordinate map so that the transformed Schrödinger equation is again a stationary Schrödinger equation. The 'once solved, all solved' claim in quantum mechanics is therefore an algebraic rewriting of the definition, not an independent derivation from a pre-existing potential.
other [Section 3.1, Eq. (3.7); Section 4]
"V (ξ) = σ2 { 1 − σ2 4ξ2 + ξ2(σ− 1) [U (ξσ) − E] } + E. (3.7)"

For σ≠1, the term ξ^{2(σ−1)}(U−E)+E makes V depend explicitly on the energy E; the coefficient of E is 1−σ^2ξ^{2σ−2}, which is not identically zero. Hence the 'dual system' changes with the eigenvalue, and the transformed eigenfunctions belong to different Hamiltonians rather than to one fixed dual potential. The examples avoid this only by tuning E to a coupling constant, which is not possible for a generic U. The advertised duality family of fixed potentials therefore reduces to a chosen E-normalization, not to a property of the potentials themselves.
fitted input called prediction [Section 2.3, Coulomb potential and harmonic-oscillator potential]
"Taking E = − ξ, i.e., the energy of the system becoming the coupling constant of its dual system, we arrive at a harmonic-oscillator potential V (ρ) = − Eρ2 = ηρ2."

The energy E is not derived or predicted; it is set equal to the coupling constant by hand so that the dual potential becomes a pure power. This same tuning recurs in the quantum example of Section 3.4. Because the dual potential already depends on E, such an adjustment is necessary to make the example simple. This illustrates that the 'solving all members of the family' claim depends on energy-to-coupling choices that are unavailable for arbitrary potentials, so the example is fitted rather than a generic prediction.

full rationale

The circularity is internal and definitional rather than a self-citation chain. In both the classical and quantum sections the 'dual potential' is defined by the duality relation (Eqs. 2.3 and 3.2), and the solution correspondence follows directly by substituting that defining rescaling. The classical proof additionally assumes the constancy of d ln x/d ln ξ, which is the power-law ansatz already contained in the definition. The worked examples succeed only because the energy E is hand-set equal to a coupling constant, a tuning unavailable for a generic potential. No external benchmark is used, and references [20]–[23] are illustrative rather than load-bearing. The paper's conclusion mentions scope restrictions and future work, but does not resolve the definitional character of the central claim. Because the central 'once solved, all solved' statement reduces to the chosen normalization, the result is forced by definition, giving a score of 8.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a self-contained derivation from the Newton and Schrödinger equations. The only hand-chosen input is the power-law ansatz with constant σ; the dual potential is then defined by the duality relation. No new entities or empirical fits appear.

free parameters (2)

sigma (duality exponent)
Arbitrary constant in x ↔ ξ^σ; in the power-potential examples it is set to σ = 2/(2+a) to force the dual potential to remain a power law.
Energy E of the source system in the examples = E = -4ξ (Coulomb), E = α/4 and -2α/27 (Pöschl-Teller)
Chosen by hand so the dual potential reduces to a simple power or singular potential; these choices are constraints, not predictions.

assumptions (3)

ad hoc to paper The duality transform is restricted to power-law coordinate mappings x ↔ ξ^σ with constant σ
The proof in §2.1 and §2.2 asserts dt/dτ = d ln x/d ln ξ = σ without deriving constancy; the entire duality family is built on this ansatz.
ad hoc to paper The sign branch in the classical proof is chosen positive (d ln x/dt = d ln ξ/dτ) without discussion
Eqs. (2.8)-(2.9) drop the ± from the square root; a negative branch would change the time-reversal mapping.
domain assumption Standard forms of Newton's equation and the stationary Schrödinger equation (1D and radial 3D) are the correct dynamics
The paper treats nonrelativistic conservative potentials only; relativistic or nonconservative forces are deferred to future work.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A duality in classical and quantum mechanics: General results." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RU4NBXON

@misc{pith2026190901089,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A duality in classical and quantum mechanics: General results},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RU4NBXON}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01089}
}

read the original abstract

We reveal a duality in classical and quantum mechanics. Dual systems are related by duality transforms. All mechanical systems that are dual to each other form a duality family. In a duality family, once a system is solved, all other potentials are solved by the dual transform. That is, in a duality family, we only need to solve one system.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[1]

Chandrasekhar, Newton’s Principia for the Common Reader

S. Chandrasekhar, Newton’s Principia for the Common Reader . Clarendon Press, 1995

work page 1995
[2]

Maldacena, The large n limit of superconformal ﬁeld theories and supergra vity, Adv

J. Maldacena, The large n limit of superconformal ﬁeld theories and supergra vity, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1997), no. hep-th/9711200 231–252

arXiv 1997
[3]

Witten, Anti-de sitter space, thermal phase transition, and conﬁnem ent in gauge theories , Adv

E. Witten, Anti-de sitter space, thermal phase transition, and conﬁnem ent in gauge theories , Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998), no. IASSNS-HEP-98-21 505–532

work page 1998
[4]

Witten, Anti-de sitter space and holography , Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 2 (1998) 253–291

E. Witten, Anti-de sitter space and holography , Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 2 (1998) 253–291

work page 1998
[5]

Aharony, S

O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Y. O z, Large n ﬁeld theories, string theory and gravity , Physics Reports 323 (2000), no. 3 183–386. – 9 –

work page 2000
[6]

D’HOKER and D

E. D’HOKER and D. Z. Freedman, Supersymmetric gauge theories and the ads/cft correspondence, in Strings, Branes and Extra Dimensions: TASI 2001 , pp. 3–159. World Scientiﬁc, 2004

work page 2001
[7]

Bredberg, C

I. Bredberg, C. Keeler, V. Lysov, and A. Strominger, From navier-stokes to einstein , Journal of High Energy Physics 2012 (2012), no. 7 146

work page 2012
[8]

V. E. Hubeny, The ﬂuid/gravity correspondence: a new perspective on the mem brane paradigm, Classical and quantum gravity 28 (2011), no. 11 114007

work page 2011

Show all 23 references

[9]

Compère, P

G. Compère, P. McFadden, K. Skenderis, and M. Taylor, The holographic ﬂuid dual to vacuum einstein gravity , Journal of High Energy Physics 2011 (2011), no. 7 50

2011
[10]

X. Hao, B. Wu, and L. Zhao, Flat space compressible ﬂuid as holographic dual of black ho le with curved horizon , Journal of High Energy Physics 2015 (2015), no. 2 30

2015
[11]

Ashok, Forced ﬂuid dynamics from gravity in arbitrary dimensions , Journal of High Energy Physics 2014 (2014), no

T. Ashok, Forced ﬂuid dynamics from gravity in arbitrary dimensions , Journal of High Energy Physics 2014 (2014), no. 3 138

2014
[12]

Compere, P

G. Compere, P. McFadden, K. Skenderis, and M. Taylor, The relativistic ﬂuid dual to vacuum einstein gravity , Journal of High Energy Physics 2012 (2012), no. 3 76

2012
[13]

Pinzani-Fokeeva and M

N. Pinzani-Fokeeva and M. Taylor, Towards a general ﬂuid/gravity correspondence , Physical Review D 91 (2015), no. 4 044001

2015
[14]

Dadhich and Z

N. Dadhich and Z. Y. Turakulov, The most general axially symmetric electrovac spacetime admitting separable equations of motion , Classical and Quantum Gravity 19 (2002), no. 11 2765

2002
[15]

Arnold, Huygens and Barrow, Newton and Hooke: Pioneers in mathematica l analysis and catastrophe theory from evolvents to quasicrystals

V. Arnold, Huygens and Barrow, Newton and Hooke: Pioneers in mathematica l analysis and catastrophe theory from evolvents to quasicrystals . Birkhäuser Basel, 1990

1990
[16]

Needham, Newton and the transmutation of force , The American mathematical monthly 100 (1993), no

T. Needham, Newton and the transmutation of force , The American mathematical monthly 100 (1993), no. 2 119–137

1993
[17]

R. W. Hall and K. Josic, Planetary motion and the duality of force laws , SIAM review 42 (2000), no. 1 115–124

2000
[18]

Inomata and G

A. Inomata and G. Junker, Power law duality in classical and quantum mechanics , Preprints:2021010523 (2021)

2021
[19]

Landau and E

L. Landau and E. Lifshitz, Mechanics. No. v. 1. Elsevier Science, 1982

1982
[20]

Li and W.-S

W.-D. Li and W.-S. Dai, Quantum newton duality , arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10481 (2017)

2017 arXiv
[21]

Li and W.-S

W.-D. Li and W.-S. Dai, A duality of ﬁelds , arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.06805 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[22]

Li and W.-S

W.-D. Li and W.-S. Dai, A duality of scalar ﬁelds: General results , arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.11659 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[23]

Liu, W.-D

Y.-Y. Liu, W.-D. Li, and W. Dai, Exactly solvable gross-pitaevskii type equations , Journal of Physics Communications (2021). 10

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Chandrasekhar, Newton’s Principia for the Common Reader

S. Chandrasekhar, Newton’s Principia for the Common Reader . Clarendon Press, 1995

work page 1995

[2] [2]

Maldacena, The large n limit of superconformal ﬁeld theories and supergra vity, Adv

J. Maldacena, The large n limit of superconformal ﬁeld theories and supergra vity, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1997), no. hep-th/9711200 231–252

arXiv 1997

[3] [3]

Witten, Anti-de sitter space, thermal phase transition, and conﬁnem ent in gauge theories , Adv

E. Witten, Anti-de sitter space, thermal phase transition, and conﬁnem ent in gauge theories , Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998), no. IASSNS-HEP-98-21 505–532

work page 1998

[4] [4]

Witten, Anti-de sitter space and holography , Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 2 (1998) 253–291

E. Witten, Anti-de sitter space and holography , Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 2 (1998) 253–291

work page 1998

[5] [5]

Aharony, S

O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Y. O z, Large n ﬁeld theories, string theory and gravity , Physics Reports 323 (2000), no. 3 183–386. – 9 –

work page 2000

[6] [6]

D’HOKER and D

E. D’HOKER and D. Z. Freedman, Supersymmetric gauge theories and the ads/cft correspondence, in Strings, Branes and Extra Dimensions: TASI 2001 , pp. 3–159. World Scientiﬁc, 2004

work page 2001

[7] [7]

Bredberg, C

I. Bredberg, C. Keeler, V. Lysov, and A. Strominger, From navier-stokes to einstein , Journal of High Energy Physics 2012 (2012), no. 7 146

work page 2012

[8] [8]

V. E. Hubeny, The ﬂuid/gravity correspondence: a new perspective on the mem brane paradigm, Classical and quantum gravity 28 (2011), no. 11 114007

work page 2011