• This forum is specifically for the discussion of factual science and technology. When the topic moves to speculation, then it needs to also move to the parent forum, Science Fiction and Fantasy (SF/F).

    If the topic of a discussion becomes political, even remotely so, then it immediately does no longer belong here. Failure to comply with these simple and reasonable guidelines will result in one of the following.
    1. the thread will be moved to the appropriate forum
    2. the thread will be closed to further posts.
    3. the thread will remain, but the posts that deviate from the topic will be relocated or deleted.
    Thank you for understanding.​

Math: Physicists Attack Math’s $1,000,000 Question

Introversion

Pie aren't squared, pie are round!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
10,773
Reaction score
15,242
Location
Massachusetts
Physicists are attempting to map the distribution of the prime numbers to the energy levels of a particular quantum system.

Okay, I admit it: Articles about dolphins slapping apart an octopus before eating it are more my mental speed. Still, prime numbers are fascinating even to a math midget like me.

Quanta Magazine said:
Prime numbers, the indivisible atoms of arithmetic, seem to be strewn haphazardly along the number line, starting with 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17 and continuing without pattern ad infinitum. But in 1859, the great German mathematician Bernhard Riemann hypothesized that the spacing of the primes logically follows from other numbers, now known as the “nontrivial zeros” of the Riemann zeta function.

The Riemann zeta function takes inputs that can be complex numbers — meaning they have both “real” and “imaginary” components — and yields other numbers as outputs. For certain complex-valued inputs, the function returns an output of zero; these inputs are the “nontrivial zeros” of the zeta function. Riemann discovered a formula for calculating the number of primes up to any given cutoff by summing over a sequence of these zeros. The formula also gave a way of measuring the fluctuations of the primes around their typical spacing — how much larger or smaller a given prime was when compared with what might be expected.

However, Riemann knew that his formula would be valid only if the zeros of the zeta function satisfied a certain property: Their real parts all had to equal ½. Otherwise the formula made no sense. Riemann calculated the first few nontrivial zeros of the zeta function and confirmed that their real parts were equal to ½. The calculation supported his hypothesis that all zeros had this property, and thus that the spacing of all prime numbers followed from his function. But he noted that “without doubt it would be desirable to have a rigorous proof of this proposition.”

A century and a half later, proving the Riemann hypothesis remains arguably the most important unsolved problem in pure mathematics — one whose solution would fetch a $1 million Millennium Prize from the Clay Mathematics Institute. Conversely, as the number theorist Enrico Bombieri wrote in his description of the problem, “the failure of the Riemann hypothesis would create havoc in the distribution of prime numbers.”

As mathematicians have attacked the hypothesis from every angle, the problem has also migrated to physics. Since the 1940s, intriguing hints have arisen of a connection between the zeros of the zeta function and quantum mechanics. For instance, researchers found that the spacing of the zeros exhibits the same statistical pattern as the spectra of atomic energy levels. In 1999, the mathematical physicists Michael Berry and Jonathan Keating, building on an earlier conjecture of David Hilbert and George Pólya, conjectured that there exists a quantum system (that is, a system with a position and a momentum that are related by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle) whose energy levels exactly correspond to the nontrivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function. Each of these energy levels, En, corresponds to a zero of the form Zn = ½ + iEn, which has a real part equal to ½ and an imaginary part formed by multiplying En by the imaginary number i.

If such a quantum system existed, this would automatically imply the Riemann hypothesis. The reason is that energy levels of quantum systems are always real numbers (as opposed to imaginary), since energy is a physically measurable quantity. And since the En’s are purely real, they become purely imaginary when multiplied by i in the formula for the corresponding Zn’s. There is never a case where an imaginary part of En is multiplied by i, canceling out its imaginary property and rendering it real, so that it then contributes to the real component of Zn and changes it from ½ to something else. Since energy levels are always real, the real parts of the zeros of the zeta function would always be ½, and the Riemann hypothesis would therefore be true.

...
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,833
Reaction score
6,595
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
That prime numbers go on forever without an articulatable pattern has always fascinated me.

I'm a math tween: not bad at it but not a wiz either. Math is supposed to be logical. Prime numbers are missing a chunk of logic.
 
Last edited:

King Neptune

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
4,253
Reaction score
372
Location
The Oceans
The pattern is partly a result of the number system used. I wonder they are trying other bases.
 

rwm4768

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
15,472
Reaction score
767
Location
Missouri
I'm such a nerd. This kind of thing is exciting to me.
 

dickson

Hairy on the inside
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
3,461
Reaction score
4,154
Location
Directly over the center of the Earth
That prime numbers go on forever without an articulatable pattern has always fascinated me.

I'm a math tween: not bad at it but not a wiz either. Math is supposed to be logical. Prime numbers are missing a chunk of logic.

Good one.

I'm not sure I would put it quite that way. I say math is logical. When it comes to the Primes, mathematicians are missing a chunk of logic.

I would adduce the prime number theorem and Brun's theorem on prime pairs as counterexamples to "without an articulatable pattern" taken literally.

BTW, I'm aware that "I say math is logical" is a credo, not something that can be established by logical arguments. One does mathematics by following rules of logical inference, but the foundations of mathematics are necessarily prior to that. The last time I checked the Wiki on the foundations of mathematics, there were at least six distinct schools of thought as to what those might be. When I was much younger, I was aware of at most three. Is that progress?

Erm, I seem to be wandering from the glacially austere beauties of analytic number theory-like all glaciers, I've been limited to admiring them from a distance.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
Just for fun, playing around with a spreadsheet a few years ago, I discovered that the difference between to adjacent integer cubes produces a lot of prime numbers. Eventually, you hit a number that isn't a prime, although I can't right now recall what the first one is; it's nearly a thousand, as I remember. And, this little arithmetic trick doesn't produce all prime numbers. But it was fun to play with. The formula basically is:

X(cubed)-(X-1)(cubed) = Y

Simple examples would be 3(cubed)-2(cubed) = 19; 4(cubed)-3(cubed) = 37; 5(cubed)-4(cubed) = 61; 6(cubed)-5(cubed) = 91. The differences between results step up by six with each iteration: 37-19 = 18; 61-37 = 24; 91-61 =30. Now you can all go waste time trying to ferret out the lowest result that isn't a prime.

caw