Mystery111

I am not a fool, I am perplexed by design, and this is a designated pattern for primes. It has never been found before me, so it acts itself as an evidence there could be a pattern in their appearance. I don't understand your rejection, and this case I might be a fool.

That's known as a digital sum. The word vedic refers to pretty much any ancient hindi tradition but not a specific operation.

 

Except that 3398101=7³×9907, that is to say that it is not prime. All the digital sum has told you is that 3398101(mod3)=1.

 

Well it's because 10ⁿ(mod3)=1 for all n but I think somehow you've still missed what pattern we're talking about.

 

It's also true of EVERY OTHER NUMBER THAT IS NOT DIVISIBLE BY THREE. We're talking about two thirds of the integers that just happens to have the primes as a subset.

I see an order. Obviously you do not class it as important as I do.

All you are saying is that numbers that are divisible by three cannot be primes - and that is part of the definition of a prime number

Vedic calculation will do this. Vedic is an Indian form of counting the sum values of the number in question. Say your number was 3398101 the sum value is 25, then the vadic value of this is 2+5 = 7 and that would mean it is a prime number because 3 cannot divide into this.

It is interesting to note that no prime number will do this, and curiosly except the one appearance of 3 itself, the second prime number. There will be a reason why 3 begins there and causes this pattern throughout, and I called it a law because it is a true statement of all prime numbers.

http://en.wikipedia....irtual_particle

 

"Virtual particles exhibit some of the phenomena that real particles do, such as obedience to the conservation laws"

Right, I knew that.

I think this whole "flat universe" notion is a simplification. It is based on observations of the observable universe. What about the rest of the universe, the part where objects are so far away the light has not reached us yet? Is the whole universe flat? Or is it just the part we can observe?

 

Form what I have read, it is not at all clear that the entire universe is flat. It is more likely curved in some way. So all this talk about positive energy being canceled by negative gravity in a flat universe may not apply to the universe as a whole.

It is a simplification. The truth is it is almost flat, and curvature will show up when matter is present in a region. Overall it just means the matter in our universe is very diluted and also means that at some point in it's history it underwent a rapid acceleration. This would have had to have been true if indeed we are to believe everything came from a finite past, a very small region where the big bang originated. This name is often amusing. As Fred Hoyle coined it to mirror the innacuracy of how we percieved it, it was niether large nor a bang.

Antiparticles have a negative vacuum energy and would be a particle moving backwards in time. But we don't see these effects so it is unlikely you can model proper particles moving backwards or even forwards in time. They might even be allowed to move at superluminal speeds and still not oscillate in time; they might even have a negative energy (though this actually is a frame-dependant assertion).

I think we are arguing around semantics here. Of course the past and present don't litterally exist for us in the present, at least not in a way that we can perceive them. Although einstein's theory states that time is a physical dimension and therefore the past, present and future literally exist simultaneously some where in space-time.

 

 

No, you arguing that an arrow of time exists from entropy. There is no such thing, as I have explained, past, present and future coexist side-by-side because we can discern a past and a present and a future to allow events to be recorded as though it were moving in some forward directionality.

Then you would be effectively saying that there is no possible way we can be sure about evolution, the fossil record, the geological record and plate tectonics because interpretation of these is dependant upon our subjective epxerience of and interpretation of chronology.

 

Sorry but I don't see how you can sustain such as argument.

 

I think I subscribe to the previous suggestion that the problem is not with the arrow of time but rather with our mathematics that currently describe it as undefined.

Not at all. Of course we have a record, I never said that the distinction of a past or future was not real: it is real to the human mind. In all honesty, what good does it do to even imagine time outside of this experience? If physics already says that a past and future don't really exist, then we can be assured that the records we do keep is a reflection of our psychological makeup.

And the problem of not having an arrow has a broad range of reasons. Physics for one could not entertain this outdated Newtonian linear perspective of time.

Yes but the direction of flow appears to be a widesspread local phenomenum, at least in our tiny corner of the universe. And since our perception cannot encompass more than our tiny corner of the universe.......

 

I would agree that the rate of flow of time, and possibly even the arrow, is probably not universal across the entire cosmos.

It's not a widespead phenomena at all. What... just because every human mind is able to discern it's own reflection on reality does not make it a widespread phenomenon. Our perception is all there is in the idea of a past, present and future coexisting.

If it is not linear then what is it?

Non-linear and geometrical. Big Bang did not happen at one place either, it happened everywhere, so if you can use your imagination for a moment, what would that mean to any ''definate'' arrow of time?

The answer is you don't have one. If you want an arrow of time, a true phsical one, you connect all of spacetime to every other point of spacetime and draw arrows. You end up with an infinite amount of arrows of time, which is useless and bunk. You just don't have a defined past and space where you can say everything originated at.

There has to me some significance to the fact that all creatures experience forward linear time identically to us in terms of aging and death etc.

Do they experience it though? We know humans have the complex ability to catagorize the day into sets of hours and minutes, and while though all biological entities on Earth have internal clocks, such as sleep, eat ect, these other entities do not experience an objective time, that is applying our subjectivity on the holograph that we call perception. Time requires a very complex understanding of the world, which I doubt anything on Earth apart from a Human can appreciate.

It should be noted that the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus generates the ability to have the perception of a passing moment and it regulates our sense of time. This has been tested on fruitflies.

There has to some signficance to the fact that ALL geological features progress in a manor that is consistent with our perception of forward linear time. I.E. We have never found a mountain range that has grown as a result of water flow and wind etc.

Yes, the flow of time is due to our perception, and there is a name for it. It is called the Psychological Arrow of Time, which would be according to physics the only arrow that actually holds any meaning. It is the direct reason to why we ''think'' the world moves forward and our brain does this by doing something extraordinary: It creates the illusion that there really exists an objective known definate past and an expectant future. This ''boundary'' does not exist however in time according to quantum mechanics, which must mean one thing...

... Time cannot be an objective factor of the world where time can be flowing. It cannot be part of the physical nature of the world in any form other than knowing that time is an eternal present moment, stuck frozen as though as preserved in Amber.

Although I agree that individuals' perception of the rate of flow of time can be subjective.

That is due to the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus. Time rate of flow is a subjective phenomenon caused by this Gene.

How does a photon decay? Decay is a spontaneous process, so if something is happening, it must be through interaction, and I addressed that: "Light that doesn't interact keeps on going. It does not decay."

Ah, then I've been a right tit and not read you correctly

In what manner is this a correction rather than an expansion?

The previous writer said that photons do not decay.

At first glance, that would suggest they don't decay at all, which is not correct, but I doubt that is what was meant. A photon can decay however, just not spontaneously.

It is unique, and no I wasn't immediately aware of Eulers 6n+1 theorem. If this has been discovered before for prime numbers, I am happy I made the discovery independanly.

Mind you, I think I'm the first to express it this way

Not really. Every 3rd number from 3 on is divisible by 3 and therefore composite. This also implies that all primes are adjacent to a number divisible by 3 as are all other numbers not divisible by 3. In general, all numbers greater than 3 that are not divisible by 3 are adjacent to a multiple of 3 whether they are prime or composite. There's no pattern in that unique to the primes.

What is being suggested however is that prime numbers are unique to stay away from numbers divisible by 3. No result of vadic calculation of a prime number will give you a value of 12 either. So whether you account that every 3rd number from 3 is divisible by 3 only just strengthens the hypothesis that it is a matter of a hidden variation of patterns inherent in prime numbers showing up. It surely then weakens the idea that prime numbers are by chance.

But I thought that wikipedia article said they have characteristics of real particles, but they sort of "snap back" to their parent particle.

Not sure what is meant there.

Yes, plasma is another state of matter. There are a lot more than four, though. That's what I was trying to get across

 

Let's not forget Einstein-Bose Condensates!

Yes.

The permitivvity and permeability [math]\mu_0 \epsilon_0[/math] gives rise to the speed of light in a vacuum [math]\frac{1}{c^2}[/math]. It gets no simpler than that I'm afraid.

You're remembering incorrectly (or possibly it was a badly written article). Light that doesn't interact keeps on going. It does not decay.

Correction, photons do not decay spontaneously in space.

It seems likely that the pattern I have uncovered for primes makes primes ''a certain class'' of numbers which fall within a rigid class of numbers which must pertain to the logic of the OP. Not all numbers can be given the division rule for the number three, which means that this significantly cuts down the broadness of their appearances but not limited to a simpler mathematical structure.

Very true.

Sounds intriguing. I believe absolutely everything contains a pattern, some are just too complex for us to perceive.

If there is a pattern then in theory prime numbers have a rule which will let us determine their appearances... I hope so atleast!

Solid, liquid, vapor, supercritical fluid and superfluid are all observed states of matter.

Some do consider plasma as the a fourth form of matter.

Also, for others above, photons can be modelled as a plasma in lazers.

Your right, I don't why I think of plasma as light.

No you can actually think of some forms of photons as a plasma. Some even consider a photon gas.

That is, simply, a collection of photons which behave either like a plasma or like a gas.

It is surely not being suggested that the prime numbers have this feature by accident surely? The fact the prime numbers exhibits this pattern is due to some inherent mathematical factor. I was close to saying a numerological factor there... but I think it is deeper than that.

The search for a new theory which will acount for why mass appears in systems will be on it's way I predict. There are a few contending theories already, such as technocolor theory.

What stops us from believing that potential energy is a contributor of mass to systems? The Higgs Field acts mathematically like a potential energy being added to a system. To understand this, one should realize that mass only appears in a system when the ground state oscillator moves away from the ground state as a flucuation in the Mexican Hat Potential in broken Galilean symmetry.

The mathematical abstraction of this interaction is given by the Higgs Field [math]\phi[/math] and the mass term which is conventionally given as [math]f[/math] in the potential energy diagrams. In effect, it costs potential energy to make matter. The way this mathematically enters the equation is by an interaction term given as:

[math]g_Y \bar{\psi} \psi = g_Y \psi_{L}^{\dagger} \phi \psi_{R} + g_Y \psi_{R}^{\dagger} \psi_L \phi^{\dagger} =g_Y f (\psi_{L}^{\dagger}\psi_R + \psi_{R}^{\dagger} \psi_L) + g_Y H (\psi_{L}^{\dagger}\psi_R + \psi_{R}^{\dagger} \psi_L)[/math]

The dynamical aspect of the equations is that a Higgs Boson can come along and decay into an electron-positron pair, there are other ways to veiw this above, but this is generally the easiest way to view it, in my opinion. The Higgs Boson becomes a particle as a mechanical reason to why systems may obtain a mass. But what if a particle is not required, what if mass is a phenomenon of a local event in the internal structure of a particle but still arising as provided from a potential? Then we must say that the massless system [math]f=0[/math] at the ground state [math]\phi=0[/math] is locally disconnected from interaction with the potential [math]\phi[/math] - it isn't until the fluctuation moves away from the ground state will the system be locally interactive/(or connected)* to the system in question.

We attribute mass of a system to the gravitational field. Not only are gravitational effects present in mass (but also massless energy) there is also curvature. Perhaps a particle like a photon will somehow be locally effected by some kind of coupling to a gravitational field when it moves away from the potential - this would mean there is an intrinsic change with how it dynamically interacts with the local gravitational field giving rise to inertia, or inertia-like behaviour. I don't think this would alter the math very much. You'd simply change the Higgs potential [math]f^2\phi[/math] term for the gravitational potential term [math]M^2 \phi[/math], and the Higgs Boson itself would change from being a physical particle mediator to simply the particle in question being fed energy from the gravitational potential.

Does any object to such a statement?

*(Note this is not the usual gamma connection of general relativity)

So if your conjecture is science, not just philosophy, make a testable prediction based on your theory -- a precise prediction for an experiment or measurement that has yet to be performed.

 

When and if your prediction is validated by some one else's observation, and independently verified, then I will stand up for the validity of your theory.

 

If you have no new prediction, then you are only arguing about your opinion, not science.

Presentism is probably the closest interpretation to Einsteins vision of time. It has it's place in science.

It is kinda new, because no one has discovered this ''nature'' behind the primes. I was well aware of the division rule by the way

I discovered a Law for Prime Numbers.

I have for the couple of years searched ways of finding a law which will determine the prime numbers. As we all know, the law which will allow us to predict prime numbers are unknown. Unfortunately, today, I cannot still offer any remarkable law which will determine prime numbers, but I did find another law for prime numbers along the way.

The Law States: The sum of all numbers which make up a prime will give you a number which will never be allowed to be a multiple of 3, nor do any digits ever make the sum of 12 to allow 3 to be divided, with the only acception of the the second prime number that is 3. If after you have taken the sum of all your numbers and you end up with a two-digit number, you continue taking the sum of the value until you have only one number left.

I have taken this law up to the 2000th prime number, and by finding this I have never been so sure that there is in fact a hidden structure behind their appearances.

EC theory does not "replace curvature with torsion".

 

GR makes the assumption that spacetime is torsion free. That implies that there is a Levi-Civita connection for which the metric is preserved by parallel translation. So you get a nice metric theory, but one that cannot handle intrinsic spin.

 

EC theory makes no such assumption. The result is a more mathematically complex theory. But it is a theory that is indistinguishable from GR with current measurement technology -- the differences in most circumstances are too small to measure. There is still curvature in EC theory, but you don't have it in terms of a metric. The geometry is not Riemannian or pseudo-Riemannian. The singularity theorems of GR do not, in general, hold.

 

 

Ok, I checked this, I agree.

I know enough of General Relativity, but near to nothing of the EC theory. All I knew is that torsion becomes a prominent feature and just assumed it replaced curvature.