Fundamental vs. Effective Field Theory

"We do not have a deep understanding of why this is happening and it would clearly be of interest to find an analytic derivation of this result."

arXiv


General Relativity has been applied to real many body systems, see link above; the reason being that a mathematical transformation expresses a connection between fundamental theory, and many body systems, which may describe high temperature superconductivity.

This could just be a mathematical similarity discovered by physicists, or it could be something deeper.

To begin with, there is a jargon, or language problem, general relativists do not talk solid state shop. Every community develops their own workshop talk. This is not that serious,  in the case in question, Professor Scalapino, has been talking to people in the "Fundamental" side of the aisle, at least since I was at UCSB in 1973. I see a deeper problem. General relativists do not believe that General Relativity is a theory for solids. The issue is Fundamental vs. Effective Theory.

I do not have a suggestion to the authors, beyond the general advice to keep their eyes open to find more than what  they think they'll find. It may be more than just mathematical similarity. Maybe the Constructal Law is at work.