Slashdot Mirror
42 *IS* The answer to Life, the Universe and Zeta
Venusian Treen writes "In their search for patterns, mathematicians have uncovered unlikely connections between prime numbers and quantum physics. The gist is that energy levels in the nucleus of heavy atoms can tell us about the distribution of zeros in Riemann's zeta function - and hence where to find prime numbers. This article discusses this connection, and introduces two physisicts who tell us 'why the answer to life, the universe and the third moment of the Riemann zeta function should be 42.'"
Do you support our President's right to do everything in his power to protect us from further attacks like 9/11, or do you want to commit mass suicide with Jane Fonda and Fidel Castro, like the scumbag al Qaeda lover you are?
I just hope I lose my virginity by the time I'm 42 ...
"As soon as you discard scientific rigor, you're no longer a mathematician, you're a numerologist."
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
I'm quite sure the significance of the number 42 is still one of the least understood issues in the unified field theory ;)
someone found the question? What was it?
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
its not april 1st yet...
Hilarious
All my years in high school, university, and as a computer programmer I've been hearing nerds shouting back with "42" whenever the opportunity presents itself.
"Can I ask you a question?" "42!" <snicker-snicker>
Sigh. How much longer am I going to have to put up with this? It's a moderately amusing punch line from am moderately amusing book from 30 years ago.
Please stop now. Honestly.
boxlight
Douglas Adams was asked many times during his career why he chose the number forty-two. Many theories were proposed, but he rejected them all. On November 2, 1993, he gave an answer on alt.fan.douglas-adams:
The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought '42 will do' I typed it out. End of story.
Tao Te Ching, Chapter 42:
The Tao begot one. One begot two. Two begot three. And three begot the ten thousand things. The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang. They achieve harmony by combining these forces. Men hate to be "orphaned," "widowed," or "worthless," But this is how kings and lords describe themselves. For one gains by losing and loses by gaining. What others teach, I also teach; that is: "A violent man will die a violent death! " This will be the essence of my teaching.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
In their search for patterns, mathematicians have uncovered unlikely connections between prime numbers and quantum physics. Will the subatomic world help reveal the illusive nature of the primes?
by Marcus du Sautoy Posted March 27, 2006 12:40 AM
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 t
Are there any mathematicians who can explain how a non-prime is the third riemann moment in the string of riemann zeros?
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
The reason we are excited because the third number in the sequence of the moments of the Riemann zeta function is 42. It was calculated only few years ago.
its when u reach ur puberty. thats the exact answer.
If dreams are like movies then memories are films about ghost..
Maybe it's because April 1st is on a Saturday this year, and the author of the original article wanted to get a jump on the weekend. Or maybe he has a weekly article, every Monday, I'm not sure. But whatever the cause, it should be pretty obvious this is an early April Fool's article. I'm not buying it.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
[Reimann] realized that the places where the zeta function outputs zero ... hold crucial information about the nature of the primes. Mathematicians call these significant places the zeros.
Man, those mathematicians are really clever at naming stuff. Next thing you know, they're going to call the places where the function outputs ones, "ones". Will it never end?
HA!! I'm only 33, and I already know everything. I just can't remember it all right now.
If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.
but 42 is not prime :(
It's also not the product of 6 x 9, but the Universe is slightly off that way.
The ratio of funny to informative posts is ridiculous. Why aren't discussions on Slashdot informative; seems like half the replies are jokes that don't really further the conversation.
I mean, "42" really being the answer could be considered infinitely improbable.
Much as I love Douglas Adams, and use 42 wherever I can sneak it in. The whole 42 is not prime thing is baking my noodle though. is it the exception the proves the rule or something? Something just doesn't seem right, but then, well... that is the way things are supposed to be. /Get me BC headache powder, STAT!
Of course it isn't prime. It's 6*9, after all.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
--
Keep my family fed. Visit http://www.RLT.com Today!
In other news 616 is the actual Number of the Beast, so Heinlein had it wrong....
4, 8, 15, 16, and 23 are also significant. Hey, wait a minute......
It's possible to conclude virtually *anything* with numbers such as we know them. It's a matter of finding a formula / sequence - call it what you want.
But here's the kicker:
Thinking beyond know numbers takes a mind that are capable of thinking beyond our existing collective knowledge. We tend to agree and pat each other on the back on every single connected discovery we make.
Imagine that we go beyond what we know - and if you have NO clue what I'm rambling about - picture this: You put two and two together as a child would do, you have two different objects and you combine them...to make a third object. This is logic at it's most basic. Now that we're on level - imagine that you take this a bit further and go beyond what you already know, can you do this?
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
In fact, the question is:
In more detail: If you integrate the nth power of the absolute value of the Riemann zeta function on the the critical line between heights -T and T and divide by 2T, you will get a sort of nth moment on average. Random matrix theory predicts the growth of this function to be asymptotic to a "geometric factor" (coming from an integral over the unitary group) times the n^2 power of the logarithm of T. It turned out that the random matrix theory prediction is off by an "arithmetic" factor, so that the correct asymptotics is
where g(n) is the geometric factor from above and a(n) is a rational number. The article is about the prediction a(3)=42.One thing I dislike about modern physics is how they phrase things in an inappropriately magical way. And then what happens is that New Age people start hideosly misinterpreting the results, fuse one piece of magic to another, and before you know it, people saying things like "physics is just confirming what the Taoists knew thousands of years ago..." -- in short, garbage.
It is very likely that it is just a coincidence that the Riemann Zeta function describes some properties of quantum physics. If you study mathematics you will find all sorts of coincidences like these. It doesn't mean anything; more often than not it is just a consequence of the rules of arithmetic.
But I imagine that New Age people are going to interpret this as that civilizations inside of each atom are trying to signal us "Contact" style by sending out zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function.... sigh.
If anyone is interested in a little more detail/background, Ivars Peterson wrote about this (minus the latest development of course) back in 1999.
-- MarkusQ
P.S. Am I the only one who thinks it sad when a link to an article by Ivars Peterson adds details to a discussion? The posted article said...basically nothing about the topic. Not surprising when you've got the equivalent of one typewritten page to work with and you feel the need to start by explaining what primes are. But still sad.
UP or DOWN, according to your current feelings about Higher Math.
Chat with other atheists http://secularchat.org
Well, why not?....It's as good as anything else....and better than cillia, or the eyeball, or whatever else....
:P
BEHOLD! I GIVE YOU.....42!
The article gives a good overview for the casual reader--if you're interested in the Riemann Zeta Function itself, look here (Zeta Funciton) or here (Zeroes)
I love reading about this stuff, but the actual relation between the zeroes and the prime number theorem must have passed right over my head. Anyone else get it?
>> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
is 1, also not a prime.
1 is not a prime?
Seems you are right and I was wrong. Nice-
If I read that correctly the first time, it's implying that by using energy from a heavy atom, you can calculate primes. Does this imply that, because there are (it is guessed) infinite primes there are infinite atoms?
The connection with the computer industry is that Alan Turing had a grant from the Royal Society to build an analog system (using gears no less) to investigate the zeroes of the Riemann Zeta Function.
Pining for the fjords
A common mispelling of "physicists", plural noun representing atoms methods of observing themselves.
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.
So of course they believe something from quantum mechanics which everyone knows has no relationship to statistics?
The Slashdot Conjecture: All mathematical and physics problems that arise naturally in everyday life are in complexity class NP-hard. The Slashdot Corollary: All meaningful discussion of these problems will require either oversimplification or humor.
Ah, but was it chance? Maybe there's a mysterious relationship between prime numbers, zeta and this "chance" meeting?
So the whole "1 is not a prime number" thing was bothering me. I was a pretty big math guy in my glory days, but not like uber-geek big.
In case anyone else is wondering, one is not a prime number because it has only one factor (1) instead of two like a prime number would. It used to be called a prime number (like a long time ago).
I started out at Ohio State in the Math 190 series (the uber-geek math class). The first day they proved why -1*-1=1. The next day I dropped the class. Being an engineer I can honestly say I've used almost all the math I was taught (in the 160 series), but I've never yearned for the knowledge of why -1*-1=1. I guess I'm just simple that way...
I read TA and was slightly unsatisfied because no discussion takes place between the relation between 42 and "Life and the Universe", only to Riemann's Zeta function and its history.
Animoog.org
The real question is, just how hot was the cup of tea that Douglas Atoms used to power the brownian motion function of his improbability drive when he arrived at the number "42"?
"Sic Semper Path of Least Resistance"
"Music of the primes" is a great book for the non- or semi-mathematician that deals extensively with the Riemann function. In this book the author touched on the weird significance of "42" to the function but I'm afraid I can't explain it but sort of understood while I read it. Great book though - check it out . . . http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0066210704/102-69 90660-1984935?v=glance&n=283155
The history of Maths is way more interesting that you think . . .
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
As a mathematician, I may be too entrenched in the system, but I have many objections to your post. First some background:
Plato was the first real mathematician. He came up with the notion of ideal forms (The Forms) in formulating his solution to the problem of universals. Namely abstract representations of the many forms we see around us. The whole of mathematics is based on this.
If you choose to reject the notion of forms, mathematics is meaningless, (e.g.: even basic Euclidian geometry, as no two representations of a triangle are quite the same, in order to reproduce a proof you've come up with, you'd have to have the exact same triangle to reproduce it on).
What you are suggesting in your post is essentially rejecting these basic building blocks of logic (there's a brilliant Borges story detailing the downfall of a man who does just that, called "Funes the Memorious")
As for finding "anything" with numbers such as we know them, this is just plain wrong (Gödel's first incompleteness theorem, as quoted in wikipedia, states that: "For any consistent formal theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement that is true but not provable in the theory. That is, any consistent theory of a certain expressive strength is incomplete.").
"Thinking beyond know numbers takes a mind that are capable of thinking beyond our existing collective knowledge."
A mind that IS capable of thinking beyond the accumulated human knowledge, at this point of time is not human. (No computer we've built so far can do this either as it has been built on Plato's principles), so what you are likely to end up with are countless disordered systems, one for every "mind", namely chaos.
It's the return value designated by POSIX.5 when a program exits from an unhandled exception. As the Rationale explains, "We needed a value that was a small positive number, relatively close to zero, but not so close as to cause collisions with existing conventional values used for error returns. The choice of the value '42' was arbitrary, but see [Adams, Douglas, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy."] "
dave
Will there be a useful algorithmic relationship between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Reimann moments? What will its geometry look like? Will it correlate further with physical matter relationships? Can it be fractalized into producing other moments?
;)>
Adam's 42 was what happens when you roll die (dice) together-- the meaning of life is that it's a craps shoot. But what of the symmetry of primes? These are juicy bits for numbers heads, algo-freaks, and the rest of us autistically-deranged-from-birth geeks.
And I eagerly await the answers
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
13.37 * Pi = 42 Try to beat that!
They make it sound like it's a huge surprise that the most basic levels of physics are strongly connected to the most basic mysteries of mathematics (primes, for example). I would expect that just about every mathematician and physicist, even down to the hobbiest level, has suspected this in some form or another. Some modern scientists like Wolfram and Fredkin have based their careers on this idea, and have built loyal followings. It makes sense that there's a strong connection between the two. And it's what we secretly want to believe, as logical beings -- that there's a simple pattern to be found at the most basic level of existence.
"The Guide itself explains that generating finite levels of improbability using an electronic brain and a strong Brownian motion producer (say, a cup of hot tea) was very well understood"
It's obvious that Dyson and Montgomery's "chance meeting over tea" was at one of Princeton/IAS' finite improbability machines.
And the "cup of tea" is really a universe of Time.
Once you've read the H2G2, da Nerd Code is revealed.
--
make install -not war
are 8, 3, 13, and 21
These are the key to the entire universe, go ahead and analyze all you want. I have seen the light.
R Hunter
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The movie was good because of the intriguing plot. The characters and the story captured the imagination and ran with it.
:)
So they didn't do their homework, and they got the name of a constant wrong. Boo hoo. Nobody cares. Well, a pedant may care, but pedants aren't the primary target audience for this movie.
Humans aren't perfect. We make mistakes and fudge the details at times. We have to in order to make our deadlines. Thats just the way it is. Cut us a little slack, and just enjoy the movie.
a while back. In fact, they even had Marcus du Sautoy on the programme (who wrote the article and is the Beeb's tame mathematician). a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtim e/inourtime_20060112.shtml">Here.
how does you asking your question help our lives "at all"?
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
That conjecture does not apply to articles which, when cast onto the numeric system of base pi, multiplied by the current diameter of the nooverse taken to the log of base e, and divided by the user ID of the first poster, has a value of 42.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inou rtime_20060112.shtml
Beats me how URLs actually work here; any-one able to tell me?
Since the zeros are in a straight line, will it reveal some crazy pattern if plotted? If so, it would have to be more than just a line. And, since the third number is 42, will that give us enough info to build an algorithm that will assist in solving the problem? Maybe 1, 2 and 42 have some relation that is still unseen but I am not knowledgable in mathmatics.
I hope something monumental comes from this but I think humans are far too stupid to understand it for now. The pattern is there for a reason(the primes and the zero's) but I feel even when we solve it, we will not understand what it means.
Inode
Hello!
2 000-02.pdf
Here is an article by Jon P. Keating and Nina C. Snaith
Random Matrix Theory and zeta(1/2+it)
http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2000/HPL-BRIMS-
Roman
The last thirty posts were idiotic and as such I choose to supplement the roll with more of the same. Which naturally has nothing to do with topic.
And not one answer... the search tells us that there are about 1,690,000,000 results for query 42
Let's try to sum them all up and use deep thought to answer us what number we get.
Something tells me Douglas Adams is going to be the next L. Ron Hubbard.
Wasn't this obvious? Or am I just exhibiting the hindsight bias? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias%5D
... as my very favorite multiplication. Only learned about Douglas Adams years later. There is something intensely satisfying about 6 times 7. Its too big to really hold in your mind like 6 time 6... You can't really see it or get there by adding. It's the smallest multiplication that you just have to know... It's like the first step up. And yet it feels solid. Let's drink to 42.
...where pi is exactly equal to 3
Quick! While you still know everything - move out of the house!
Couldn't resist
Get your tagline off my lawn.
I am disturbed.
http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2000/HPL-BRIMS-2 000-02.html
From reading the original paper (circa 2000) the parent is correct.
They use CUE (the Circular Unitary Ensemble on, you guessed it, unitary NxN random matrices) to define an f(n) which is the product (from j=0 to n-1) of j!/(j+n)!.
Then a(n), which they call N, is the moment of the Riemann zeta.
Conveniently, a(n) = N = f(n)*(n^2)! So write a dozen line program, and you too can compute these values.
a(1) = 1
a(2) = 2
a(3) = 42
a(4) = 24024
and so on...
They show the theory is in excellent agreement with statistical results of the first 10^20th zeros of the Riemann zeta.
1 used to be considered a prime number some time ago (a century maybe?). There was also a time when 2 wasn't considered a prime number (possibly those two times overlapped).
The reason for dropping those considerations was that they learned that it only served to complicate otherwise simple mathematicas, because of forcing people to introduce special cases in definitions and proofs to account for those numbers.
You can read more details about this here.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
It's because the fibonacci sequence stole the "1" from the prime number sequence.
Ever since 1979, we've all been expecting the number 42 to be discovered as an important number in reality. So, dealing with the world of quantum mechanics as we are now, was the third number 42 because we made it be 42, or was it naturally 42? Or, is there even a difference?
It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
-Voltaire
The answer of the life in all the Universe is in the AntiChrist from the dark heavens and the number *IS NOT* 42, the number *IS* 777.
#DEADBEAF
6*6+6 = 42!!!
Satan and AntiChrist will fight between they until the WORLD's END!!! The situation is *critically dangerous*!!!
I'm guessing that the mathematicians and the physicists will issue a joint statement announcing that they have, in fact, established this connection, and that the number which lies at the heart of both the physical world and the abstract world of mathematics is, in fact, 42.
The announcement will be made at a press conference this Saturday, April 1.
The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
guys..guys.. guys!
;-)
numerology exists and IS for real, but mankind doesnot know numerology
I'm now timing just time just how long before I see this as an email or Slahdot signature.
Count the number of dots on a pair of dice (or just do ((1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6) * 2) = 42) :-P
A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere. -- Groucho Marx
...and what does this have to do with Catherine Zeta-Jones?
What does "help our lives" mean?
"The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
The xth moment of y subtracted from the lograthim of r^2 over 2T squared defines Z.
All your base are belong to Google.
> Man, those mathematicians are really clever at naming stuff. Next thing you know, they're going to call the places where the function outputs ones, "ones". Will it never end?
...
For any real-valued function f(x) on R, let us define an auxilliary function g(x) = f(x) - 1. The zeros of g(x) are then called the "ones" of f(x).
Class exercise: construct the "twos", "threes" and "Ns"
Number of funny comments is proportional to the complexity of the story topic.
trust me, i will write a greasemonkey script to censor the funny.
If you need text styles to communicate then you don't have a message.
N/T
The significance of the plain naked number, an integer, 137, has puzzled physicists for decades.
Google's list.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Maybe we'll discover entire topologies using the method described in the article...
Geometries that could yeild insights into reality.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Once we have the formula for prime numbers, doesn't that mean that all of our encryption methods are no longer "difficult" problems? Are there encryption methods that are not based on the difficulty of factoring large prime numbers?
Interesting? Insightful?? And not a single Funny. I'll never mod on /. again.
I just think that is the coolest thing that new information in physics has come to light, it happens so infrequently. K. Burr
A mind that IS capable of thinking beyond the accumulated human knowledge, at this point of time is not human. (No computer we've built so far can do this either as it has been built on Plato's principles), so what you are likely to end up with are countless disordered systems, one for every "mind", namely chaos.
I know and somewhat agree with your point - because I understand the frustration of this. The most frustrating moments for me when it comes to this - is people who don't release themselves from accepted theories, lack of "playing-along". You can't possibly discover something beyond the existing base knowledge if you don't free yourself from these once in a while.
I'm going to tell you something that you (and others) will probably think "kook" over, perfectly fine - it's your right. But the no.1 reason today's CPU's are so slow and bottlenecked is due to the fact that for the most part you'd be right in your observation of people, kooks (chaos) versus accepted science. Remember - once we explain our science - it becomes accepted science. We could invent an entirely new CPU that works better and can be made with our existing limitations and even work 10 x the speed we have today - just based on this thinking alone. (I know this - because I've invented one) Wether you believe this or not is irrelevant for the discussion. But it is hopefully helping "us" in communicating the idea of thinking beyond what we know. I learned something entirely new from it, can't guarantee that others would agree.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Googlefight.
42: 1,730,000,000 results
pi: 232,000,000 results
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Allow me to paraphrase:
Blah blah bliggity, blah blah yackity schmackity. Then something something of 3 equals 42.
(At least that about all _I_ got out of that.)
And from that, it becomes obvious that the Hyperintelligent Pandimensional Beings (aka white mice) have 13 fingers in their natural form.
6x9 = 54 (base 10) = 42 (base 13).
So, what you're saying is: the Answer is really 33?
My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
...Turns out to be "What's the third moment of the Riemann zeta function".
:}
Ooops, the universe will now be replaced by something even more bizarrely inexplicable. My bad
"I suspect you jerk off more than he does."
What have you got against masturbation? Your hand never has a headache and doesn't spend your money on clothes. The only downside is that it doesn't swallow, either.