An strategy to prove Riemann hypothesis

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a proposed strategy to prove the Riemann Hypothesis (RH) using concepts from quantum mechanics, specifically through the formulation of a Hamiltonian and the relationship between its eigenvalues and the roots of the Riemann zeta function. The scope includes theoretical exploration and mathematical reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the RH can be reformulated in terms of a Hamiltonian with a real potential V(x) such that the eigenvalues correspond to the zeros of the zeta function.
  • Another participant expresses confusion regarding the clarity and structure of the proposed proof, requesting a more detailed outline.
  • A different participant notes that random matrix theory may be relevant to proving the RH, referencing the work of several researchers in the field.
  • One participant elaborates on their intention to demonstrate that the roots of certain operators are real, linking this to the eigenvalues of a self-adjoint operator and the roots of the zeta function.
  • Another participant claims that the RH can be easily proved by showing that if a certain condition holds for the zeta function, then the potential must be real, using arguments about complex conjugates of roots.
  • They also propose an alternative argument regarding the nature of roots for the zeta function when the real part differs from 1/2, suggesting implications for the potential's characteristics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with some finding the initial proposal intriguing while others find it unclear. There is no consensus on the validity or clarity of the proposed proof, and multiple competing ideas regarding the approach to the RH are present.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of the Hamiltonian and the potential, as well as the implications of complex roots for the zeta function. There are unresolved mathematical steps and dependencies on definitions that are not fully articulated.

eljose
Messages
484
Reaction score
0
Let be the Hamitonian of a particle with mass m in the form:

[tex]H=\frac{-\hbar^{2}}{2m}D^{2}\phi(x)+V(x)\phi(x)[/tex]

then the RH is equivalent to prove that exist a real potential V(x) of the Hamiltonian so that the values E_n [tex]H\phi=E_{n}\phi[/tex] satisfy the equation [tex]\zeta(1/2+iE_{n})=0[/tex] that is the roots of the Riemann zeta function are the Energies of the system...

you only need to prove that V(x) is real,so the H will be self-adjoint,we can write the solution of the problem (approximately) by the wave function:

[tex]\phi=e^{iS/\hbar}[/tex] with [tex]S=\int(2mE_{n}-2mV(x))^{0.5}dx[/tex]

with that you can substituting into Schroedinguer equation get a differential equation of second order for V(x) [tex]F(x,V(x),DV(x),D^{2}V(x),E_{n})=0[/tex]


the key is that you needn,t solve the equation you only have to prove that the potential will be real by knowing that energies satisfy [tex]\zeta(1/2+iE_{n})=0[/tex] i will try to submit to some math teacher to see if i can do my PhD in math-physics in this matter...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is completely unclear. I have absolutely no idea how you intend to try and prove the Riemann hypothesis. The only thing I can gather is that, for some reason, you want to try and construct a differential operator of a particular form whose eigenvalues are related somehow to ζ.

Could you try again, sketching an outline of the proof that you hope to be able to complete?
 
Actually eljose has, perhaps (it is as ever unlcear), somehow stumbled on something that is acutally of interest. it is believed that random matrix theory might play some role in working towards a substantial part of a possible proof of RH. see the work of Berry, Keating, Mezzadri, Snaith et al.
 
To hurkyl:i intend to prove in a thesis that the roots of the operators could (or should) be the eigenvalues of a certain self-adjoint operator so they will be real..the RH is similar to prove that the roots of the function [tex]\zeta(1/2+it)[/tex] are all real...the strategy is to prove that will exist a real potential V(x) for a given Hamiltonian in the sense that the eigenvalues of this Hamiltonian will be the values of the root of the function [tex]\zeta(1/2+it)[/tex] then i state an approximate differential equation for the potential V,the main key is to show that this potential will be real..
 
In fact RH can be easily proved by this...if [tex]\zeta(1/2+is)[/tex] is a root also [tex]\zeta(1/2-is^*)=\zeta(1/2+is*)=0[/tex] so if s is an energy also s* will be another energy so the potential is real [tex]<\phi*_{n}|T*+V*|\phi*_{n}>=<\phi_{k}|T+V|\phi_{k}>[/tex] from this we deduce V is real...

alternatively we can prove for [tex]\zeta(a+is)[/tex] that if s is a root also s*+(2a-1)i must be a root so there are complex energies,if this happens the potential must be complex, by the same argument than above a complex potential can not have real energies,so there are no real roots for the zeta function of the form [tex]\zeta(a+is)[/tex] with a different from 1/2
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
10K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
12K