Riemann Hypothesis and The Hypergeometrical Universe
Our love for knowledge and beauty has always driven us to find the most sublime analogies to represent what we are seeing in the Universe. Einstein wanted to read God’s Mind. The Hypothetical Higgs Boson has been named by some as the God Particle. I equated the steps of my Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe as being somewhat similar to the Pendulum of Brahma. At each cycle we see ourselves changed by that Universal Operator.
Mathematics is always the Golden Standard of beauty. We always hope to find a nicely fitting mathematical equation to describe the whole Universe. Mathematicians (String Theorists) are especially hopeful..:). Of course, after all, that would be redemption to their endeavor of creating the least physical (most mathematical) theory in history.
Euler’s theorem attachment to the Strong Force model was immediately recognized as the sign we are on the right track, after all, for a theory to be correct it has to be aesthetically beautiful….:) Form over content…very typical of our Mankind always driven by superficial calculations….:)
It just happens that there isn’t any indication that physics doesn’t matter, that is, there isn’t any indication that at the end of all, we will have everything described by a simple mathematical equations that overrules all physical properties.
For example, there is the wave equation which describes all waves as long as they have a natural velocity or one knows the elasticity of the medium where those waves propagate. This means that even though, the knowledge of an equation which would describe such a general phenomena as waves, the physics is still there in the form of a pesky constant.. J
This does not demerit the scientists who found those beautiful equations, it just serves as a reminder that there might be a limit on what mathematical abstraction can achieve.
It has been said with some understated deepness that the Riemann Hypothesis might be the solution to the Theory of Everything, that is, something, some force, some string might be represented somehow by the zeros of the Zeta function along the critical line. The details are fuzzy since this is just a guess.
Scientists look down to Horoscopists all their lives…J It is well know that vague statements can always find resonance within some fraction of the population and thus keep the readers happy and aware of their daily best options…J
One might say that the same happens in Science. There is a difference. Since we are a much more educated bunch than the average person, our guesses are better educated..:) that is, there is something deep in the number theory applied to Primes..:)
Of course, this is just because people doesn’t know how to think about numbers and one should expect that if the zeros of an equation are primes, most likely the logic behind the construction of the equation is such that only certain primes will be zeros..:) It is like being surprised that (x-1)*(x-2)=0 has zeros equal to 1 and 2.
Number theory is just not developed enough to see the underlying logic behind the Riemann Hypothesis and the Zeta Function (or Eta Function on the Analytic Continuation).
As usual, the statement that the Riemann Hypothesis should be relevant to our understanding of the Universe can be decomposed into the simpler statement that Primes will be relevant..:) I am a simple minded man, so I cut to the chase and will explore this proposition..:)
Nobody bothered to think about Primes because nothing in Physics looks like Primes. If a poor string theorist looks around and think about making Primes to be some property of strings them we might end up with 10^500000000000000 possible Universes or string theories explaining each one of them..:)
A Standard Model Physicist is not in much better position. Let say that zero are electromagnetic waves, the ONE is…J The next basic particles are electron and Proton … Neutron might be TWO but that does not solve the problem. Electrons and Protons are certainly not equal in the Standard Model and the analogy dies there…J
Of course, that is not the case in the Hypergeometrical Universe.
ARE CHARGED PARTICLES PRIMES
YES.
In my theory one can easily relate ZERO to the dilaton field and its spatial modulation (electromagnetic waves).
ONE is clearly the Fundamental Dilator which represents all four fundamental particles (Electron, Proton, AntiElectron, AntiProton).
TWO is of course the Neutron
THREE are the Pions
FIVE are the SIGMAS AND LAMBDAS
SEVEN are the KAONS
ELEVEN are the XIS Star – This Channel decays into a KaonZero and a Pion Minus.
THIRTEEN are the LUCKY OMEGAS
ARE Neutral Majorama PARTICLES 2^N NUMBERS
YES. I am sure the numerologists will have a field day..:)
As in any good Horoscope, there is a caveat. There are exclusions to the Prime Rule. They are associated with another nice mathematical formula, the formula for 2 to the power of another number. (0,2,4,8,16…)
ZERO is again the Dilaton Field or its origin modulated version (Electromagnetic Wave).
TWO is the precursor to a Gamma photon from the annihilation of a Positron-Electron pair.
FOUR is the Pion Zero
EIGTH is the KAON ZERO
Later, I will show how the mathematical space topology and mathematical instrumentation needed to solve the Riemann Hypothesis also describes the mass of the Hyperons…J
A hint. Look at the Fundamental Dilator coherence ‘energy’ diagram. The degenerated states on the two potential wells lose their degeneration due to the finite velocity of light, which creates a time delay for a spatial rotation within the 3D Lightspeed Expanding Hypersphere.
Think about what does it means to be real…J and read the Meaning of Material Existence blog I wrote in the past.
ARE THERE Neutral PARTICLES = 2*N NUMBERS
As in any good Horoscope, there is always something for everyone. It just happens that 2N is also a valid mapping for Neutral Particles.
Of course, since they decompose into opposite charged particles, they have to be the SUM OF TWO PRIMES or 2 Majorama Particles…J
Cheers,
MP
Comment on the Mercury Perihelion Solution
Comments are always welcome
Comments are always welcome, as well as solid criticism. I tried to tie down the theory the best I could without the benefit of criticism…:)
In the Mercury Perihelion Prequel, I reviewed the why Paul Gerber’s work was dismissed. He started with a velocity dependent formula for which he couldn’t provide a convincing derivation.
I reproduced his formula when I derived the Gravitation force for a non-rotating Sun..:) In fact, Gerber’s formula is a limiting value of my more general formula.
Of course, nobody derives the Gravitational formula from first principles in any theory other than in this one. Remember that this theory is derived to explain motion, interaction, action-at-distance and does it through the Quantum Lagrangian Principle and the Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Shock-Wave Universe Topology. All forces come naturally when I reconnected this theory to our Physics.
The derivation was done in the relaxed Fabric of Space condition, that is, I started the derivation using a flat local Fabric of Space.
I considered interaction between dilators where the probe dilator was moving radially with the expansion of the Universe. This happens when the local fabric of space is totally relaxed and its normal points radially- perpendicularly to our 3D Universe. This means that the force was derived as a partial derivative of the deformation of the local fabric of space from a given initial velocity(zero velocity). This is equivalent in Strict Relativity to consider the relative velocity zero while the bodies interact. Under those conditions, SR is well approximated by Newtonian Dynamics.
To recover the force for any velocity one has to use the Lagrangian Force equivalent, which we used on the Mercury Perihelion Prequel. For the case of Gravitational Lensing, the velocity amplitude (c) doesn’t change. The only change is its direction. Under those conditions, the partial derivative was fine.
This is means that Paul Gerber’s ansatz equation for a velocity dependent Gravitation was OK. He just did not have a understanding of the WHY…:)
As I mentioned, this theory passed the basic tests a theory has to pass to be discussed (Gravitational Lensing, Mercury’s Perihelion, reproduced all the necessary forces and provide an alternative description to the remaining forces strong and electroweak).
There are a few remaining blogs I want to write but have been too busy to do. One of them has to do with our interest in traveling within our galactic neighborhood. This blog will disclose a new propulsion mechanism which is good enough for short travels.
To go further there is a way to create macroscopic Fabric of Space waves which would lead to light speed traveling of massive bodies. I know that this is forbidden by Relativity..:) of course, it is..:) but that is a just an artifact of the Newtonian choice of Force definition.
It is not that massive bodies cannot travel at the speed of light, it is that due to how one chose to interact them makes their interaction ineffectual to accelerate them to the speed of light. I will propose another mechanism to create motion.
I wrote about Newton’s, Galileo’s blunders…Of course, I’ve never meant to minimize their contribution… Just a provocative hindsight consideration aimed at creating a debate..:) As I always mention, nothing would be done without the work of our predecessors, luminaries..and no good theory can be built without strong debate and criticism.
Please, always feel free to compliment but also accept your need to criticize it. It is OK…:)
Cheers,
MP
This Thin Hypergeometrical Universe together with a de Broglie formulation of the forces yield the Holy Grail of Physics, the Theory of Everything.
The light speed moving Universe explains the origin of the E=mc^2 energy as kinetic in origin, thus precluding the existence of Strong and Weak Forces.
Time Quantization is proposed