Posted on 04/11/2006 3:08:56 PM PDT by LibWhacker
In their search for patterns, mathematicians have uncovered unlikely connections between prime numbers and quantum physics. Will the subatomic world help reveal the elusive nature of the primes?
In 1972, the physicist Freeman Dyson wrote an article called "Missed Opportunities." In it, he describes how relativity could have been discovered many years before Einstein announced his findings if mathematicians in places like Göttingen had spoken to physicists who were poring over Maxwell's equations describing electromagnetism. The ingredients were there in 1865 to make the breakthrough—only announced by Einstein some 40 years later.
It is striking that Dyson should have written about scientific ships passing in the night. Shortly after he published the piece, he was responsible for an abrupt collision between physics and mathematics that produced one of the most remarkable scientific ideas of the last half century: that quantum physics and prime numbers are inextricably linked.
This unexpected connection with physics has given us a glimpse of the mathematics that might, ultimately, reveal the secret of these enigmatic numbers. At first the link seemed rather tenuous. But the important role played by the number 42 has recently persuaded even the deepest skeptics that the subatomic world might hold the key to one of the greatest unsolved problems in mathematics.
Prime numbers, such as 17 and 23, are those that can only be divided by themselves and one. They are the most important objects in mathematics because, as the ancient Greeks discovered, they are the building blocks of all numbers—any of which can be broken down into a product of primes. (For example, 105 = 3 x 5 x 7.) They are the hydrogen and oxygen of the world of mathematics, the atoms of arithmetic. They also represent one of the greatest challenges in mathematics.
As a mathematician, I've dedicated my life to trying to find patterns, structure and logic in the apparent chaos that surrounds me. Yet this science of patterns seems to be built from a set of numbers which have no logic to them at all. The primes look more like a set of lottery ticket numbers than a sequence generated by some simple formula or law.
For 2,000 years the problem of the pattern of the primes—or the lack thereof—has been like a magnet, drawing in perplexed mathematicians. Among them was Bernhard Riemann who, in 1859, the same year Darwin published his theory of evolution, put forward an equally-revolutionary thesis for the origin of the primes. Riemann was the mathematician in Göttingen responsible for creating the geometry that would become the foundation for Einstein's great breakthrough. But it wasn't only relativity that his theory would unlock.
Riemann discovered a geometric landscape, the contours of which held the secret to the way primes are distributed through the universe of numbers. He realized that he could use something called the zeta function to build a landscape where the peaks and troughs in a three-dimensional graph correspond to the outputs of the function. The zeta function provided a bridge between the primes and the world of geometry. As Riemann explored the significance of this new landscape, he realized that the places where the zeta function outputs zero (which correspond to the troughs, or places where the landscape dips to sea-level) hold crucial information about the nature of the primes. Mathematicians call these significant places the zeros.
Riemann's discovery was as revolutionary as Einstein's realization that E=mc2. Instead of matter turning into energy, Riemann's equation transformed the primes into points at sea-level in the zeta landscape. But then Riemann noticed that it did something even more incredible. As he marked the locations of the first 10 zeros, a rather amazing pattern began to emerge. The zeros weren't scattered all over; they seemed to be running in a straight line through the landscape. Riemann couldn't believe this was just a coincidence. He proposed that all the zeros, infinitely many of them, would be sitting on this critical line—a conjecture that has become known as the Riemann Hypothesis.
But what did this amazing pattern mean for the primes? If Riemann's discovery was right, it would imply that nature had distributed the primes as fairly as possible. It would mean that the primes behave rather like the random molecules of gas in a room: Although you might not know quite where each molecule is, you can be sure that there won't be a vacuum at one corner and a concentration of molecules at the other.
For mathematicians, Riemann's prediction about the distribution of primes has been very powerful. If true, it would imply the viability of thousands of other theorems, including several of my own, which have had to assume the validity of Riemann's Hypothesis to make further progress. But despite nearly 150 years of effort, no one has been able to confirm that all the zeros really do line up as he predicted.
It was a chance meeting between physicist Freeman Dyson and number theorist Hugh Montgomery in 1972, over tea at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study, that revealed a stunning new connection in the story of the primes—one that might finally provide a clue about how to navigate Riemann's landscape. They discovered that if you compare a strip of zeros from Riemann's critical line to the experimentally recorded energy levels in the nucleus of a large atom like erbium, the 68th atom in the periodic table of elements, the two are uncannily similar.
It seemed the patterns Montgomery was predicting for the way zeros were distributed on Riemann's critical line were the same as those predicted by quantum physicists for energy levels in the nucleus of heavy atoms. The implications of a connection were immense: If one could understand the mathematics describing the structure of the atomic nucleus in quantum physics, maybe the same math could solve the Riemann Hypothesis.
Mathematicians were skeptical. Though mathematics has often served physicists—Einstein, for instance—they wondered whether physics could really answer hard-core problems in number theory. So in 1996, Peter Sarnak at Princeton threw down the gauntlet and challenged physicists to tell the mathematicians something they didn't know about primes. Recently, Jon Keating and Nina Snaith, of Bristol, duely obliged.
There is an important sequence of numbers called "the moments of the Riemann zeta function." Although we know abstractly how to define it, mathematicians have had great difficulty explicitly calculating the numbers in the sequence. We have known since the 1920s that the first two numbers are 1 and 2, but it wasn't until a few years ago that mathematicians conjectured that the third number in the sequence may be 42—a figure greatly significant to those well-versed in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
It would also prove to be significant in confirming the connection between primes and quantum physics. Using the connection, Keating and Snaith not only explained why the answer to life, the universe and the third moment of the Riemann zeta function should be 42, but also provided a formula to predict all the numbers in the sequence. Prior to this breakthrough, the evidence for a connection between quantum physics and the primes was based solely on interesting statistical comparisons. But mathematicians are very suspicious of statistics. We like things to be exact. Keating and Snaith had used physics to make a very precise prediction that left no room for the power of statistics to see patterns where there are none.
Mathematicians are now convinced. That chance meeting in the common room in Princeton resulted in one of the most exciting recent advances in the theory of prime numbers. Many of the great problems in mathematics, like Fermat's Last Theorem, have only been cracked once connections were made to other parts of the mathematical world. For 150 years many have been too frightened to tackle the Riemann Hypothesis. The prospect that we might finally have the tools to understand the primes has persuaded many more mathematicians and physicists to take up the challenge. The feeling is in the air that we might be one step closer to a solution. Dyson might be right that the opportunity was missed to discover relativity 40 years earlier, but who knows how long we might still have had to wait for the discovery of connections between primes and quantum physics had mathematicians not enjoyed a good chat over tea.
Marcus du Sautoy is professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, and is the author of The Music of the Primes (HarperCollins).
And no mention of Lesbeque?
(Or did I miss that one, too, CG?)
Do quantum mechanics screw metric if, nands, and nuts, or do they bolt directly to the right stuff on this thread?
As do I. How else would I keep my coffee hot?
Ping pong.
If a ping was scent in the forest to an udder failure, but nothong was there to be scene when it went by, was it really herd at all?
My understanding is that Andrew Wiles introduced a partial solution which was part of a presentation ( the description,from what I remember, was funny--along the lines of' oh, and by the way, I haved proved Fermat's last theorem ). It wowed the audience. Then, I believe he followed up and completed it with the help of Richard Taylor.
First time through - natural primes:
First = 1
Second = 2
Third = 3
Fourth = 5
Second time through:
First = 1 (1)
Second = 2 (1*2)
Third = 6 (1*2*3)
Fourth = 42 (1*2*3*7, skipping 5 because it is the 4th prime, and 4 is not a prime number)
Third time through:
First = 1 (1)
Second = 2 (1*2)
Third = 6 (1*2*3)
Fourth = 546 (skipping 42 since it is fourth on list 2, and 4 is not a prime, thus 1*2*3*7*13)
Fourth time through:
null progam, since 4 is not a prime.
Therefore mathematics does not exist.
It sounds like the infinite improbability drive might just by around the corner. Better pick up next month's Popular Science.
Purdue News
Note to Journalists: The following release concerns research that has not yet been peer reviewed or published in a professional journal. The researcher can be reached via air mail or international telephone with the contact information listed at the end of the release.
June 8, 2004
Purdue mathematician claims proof for Riemann hypothesis
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – A Purdue University mathematician claims to have proven the Riemann hypothesis, often dubbed the greatest unsolved problem in mathematics.
Louis De Branges de Bourcia, or de Branges (de BRONZH) as he prefers to be called, has posted a 124-page paper detailing his attempt at a proof on his university Web page. While mathematicians ordinarily announce their work at formal conferences or in scientific journals, the spirited competition to prove the hypothesis – which carries a $1 million prize for whoever accomplishes it first – has encouraged de Branges to announce his work as soon as it was completed.
"I invite other mathematicians to examine my efforts," said de Branges, who is the Edward C. Elliott Distinguished Professor of Mathematics in Purdue's School of Science. "While I will eventually submit my proof for formal publication, due to the circumstances I felt it necessary to post the work on the Internet immediately."
The Riemann hypothesis is a highly complex theory about the nature of prime numbers – those numbers divisible only by 1 and themselves – that has stymied mathematicians since 1859. In that year, Bernhard Riemann published a conjecture about how prime numbers were distributed among other numbers. He labored over his own theory until his death in 1866, but was ultimately unable to prove it.
The problem attracted a cult following among mathematicians, but after nearly 150 years no one has ever definitively proven Riemann's theory to be either true or false. Although a definitive solution would not have any immediate industrial application, in 2001 the Clay Mathematics Institute in Cambridge, Mass., offered a $1 million purse to whoever proves it first.
At least two books for popular audiences have appeared recently that describe the efforts of mathematicians to solve the puzzle. One of the books, Karl Sabbagh's "Dr. Riemann's Zeros," provides an extensive profile of de Branges and offers one of the mathematician's earlier, incomplete attempts at a proof as an appendix.
De Branges is perhaps best known for solving another trenchant problem in mathematics, the Bieberbach conjecture, about 20 years ago. Since then, he has occupied himself to a large extent with the Riemann hypothesis and has attempted its proof several times. His latest efforts have neither been peer reviewed nor accepted for publication, but Leonard Lipshitz, head of Purdue's mathematics department, said that de Branges' claim should be taken seriously.
"De Branges' work deserves attention from the mathematics community," he said. "It will obviously take time to verify his work, but I hope that anyone with the necessary background will read his paper so that a useful discussion of its merits can follow."
Writer: Chad Boutin, (765) 494-2081, cboutin@purdue.edu
Sources: Louis de Branges de Bourcia, Hameau de l'Yvette, Bat D, Chemin des Graviers, F-91190 Gif-sur-Yvette, FRANCE; international telephone 33-1-69074621
Leonard Lipshitz, (765) 494-1908, lipshitz@math.purdue.edu
"Therefore mathematics does not exist."
Exactly!
You're getting it my boy!
But remember 1 is not a prime number (in real life), and 5 is not a prime number (for our purposes) because then the first three primes won't produce 42 when multiplied.
Having solved the technical issues, we must now move on into this discovery applied to physics.
Mathematics does not exist, which means there are no 'branes. (Note: this lack of branes was in plain view in Madonna's kabbalah notebook I pilfered.) And the cessation of 'branes means that by proving mathematics do not exist, we have destroyed the universe.
We can only conclude our tour de force with metaphyics.
Mathematical proof: Mathematics do not exist.
Necessary corrollary, applied to Physics: therefore, the universe has ceased to exist.
Metaphysics: And it's Bush's fault.
Is this the old debate over whether math is invented or discovered?
I almost posted a link to this article a while ago. Very interesting stuff. Thanks for the ping...
Of course! Lebesgue!! You are correct! Hello!! No wonder I can't buckle down and write my dissertation!!! My mind is in lala land!!! And alcohol isn't even a prime factor!!!Thank you. (Now what do you know about generalized least squares?) !!! ;)
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LebesgueMeasure.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebesgue_measure
Look up the "epitaph of Stevinus" inscribed on his tombstone. It PROVES a point of physics about inclined planes and force.
There are some "proofs" of the pythagorean theorem which are little more than pictures, but you have to know what you are looking at.
What this article describes is nothing of the sort.
There is no such thing as proof by picture.
You contradict yourself. The pythagorean "picture" that you bring up suffices to prove the theorum.
The crap that high school teachers dish out about the scientific method has little to do with real science alas. Many times a thought experiment works better to settle a question than observation or measurement.
You cannot prove anything in physics. What you can prove are results about the mathematical model. People often get confused about that point. To see this, please observe that "normal force" isn't a force at all, but an accounting gimmick.
Look up
If you want to make a point, make it, I'm not going to do your work for you.
LOL. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.