Pattern in primes

[protheory]

I know this is about atomic structure but I think that everything is the same and I think about and see numbers in a very similar way to the boundless black box example here.

It's a good way to visualise my RH answer and my philosophy of numbers.

Just try to imagine that the spheres represent the three postentials within all numbers and you'll be on the right track

Boundless
Imagine a boundless black box containing a glowing sphere.

Pure
Inside the box there are no forces, values, or measurements in existence except the sphere which itself exists only in example.

Singular
The singular sphere may move in any relative direction and for any relative distance.

Potentially
Wherever the sphere eventually resides, it will always be potentially able to perform the exact opposite to each change in position because it is the only presence within the box.

Conditions
If another sphere is added under the same condition as before, the two spheres will always be opposite to each other, despite distance or position, as they have no relative boundaries to prevent this.

Results
Whichever way the two spheres move the opposite is still be possible in theory.

Third
If a third sphere were added to the example a neutral point could be achieved.

Defined
This point is defined as the position between the two original spheres.

Fourth
If a fourth sphere were to be added to the box, it could only repeat any of the three previously defined actions or positions.

Quality
The fourth sphere may be regarded as being opposite or neutral in relation to the others, but it adds no unique quality to the example.

Option
The fourth sphere has the option of attracting another sphere, repulsing another sphere, or neutralising itself in relation to another sphere at any given moment but its potential behaviours are simply a repeat of the original three.

Regardless
We could choose to add an infinite number of spheres to the same example, but regardless of the relative "amount" of spheres, they all possess the same three theoretical potentials.

Atoms
1. Electrons are negative.
2. Protons are positive.
3. Neutrons are neutral.

Sub-atomic
Sub-atomic level is a fractional version of the same principle.

Charges
All sub-atomic particles may carry three possible charges at any relative point in time, regardless of what words may be used to describe them.

Difference
The amount of a certain charge may vary, relatively creating what we define as "difference" but this does not change the fact that quarks possess the same three potentials as atoms and literally everything else.

I wrote this explanation in my answer to Yang-Mills Theory but the example is a good one I believe and it transcends any thread and example boundaries.

This is how I imagine everything, particularly numbers

[protheory]

This is no doubt the wrong thread to say this but as the RH is my favourite Millennium Problem and I'm using Pro theory to answer it, I'd better do all I can to try and explain.

What originally led me to the idea of the three potentials was that I imagined atoms, just balls of energy in my mind, glowing and somehow creating everything.

I thought this was gospel physics for a long time and as I kept searching and pushing the boundaries of my own thoughts, I realised that if everything was made of atoms that by the same token everything must behave the same as a single atom repeating itself over and over to create the universe and my own life somehow.

I looked into atomic structure and thought that if I were to take the words away (I was still a reductionist at this point) I would be left with an example atom containing negative, positive and neutral energy somehow.

At this point I'd not really realised what I was onto with this idea, I just thought "that's interesting to me as a thinker" rather than my thoughts now which are more like "I've written a TOE and it works like this..."

So basically I imagined that somehow the bricks making the wall I was beside at that point in time were somehow composed of these three energies, I didn't know how it worked or formed, but I knew that everything was made of atoms and that atoms contained three potential energies so logically every atomic creation (literally everything, nothing etc) should follow this same pattern somehow.

I continued my mental search and realised that perhaps symmetry was the answer for the bricks, I imagined a single brick with two opposite sides and a middle, then I imagined that each corner had three points in a triangular pattern, I used the bricks example to try and apply this pattern somehow to other things.

I looked at the window in a room I was in and noticed that it was perfectly in balance, symmetrical, with two opposite sides and a middle, I continued this process for months and months while writing down all my thoughts about everything being based on atoms.

It wasn't until maybe a year later that I started to take this as literally as I do now, I mean by saying plus this plus that, and when I realised how literally this idea showed a pattern within everything I could think of I changed my previous thought 'everything is atoms' to 'everything is atoms plus the opposite plus neutral ad infinitum' which showed a definite shift in my thoughts.

Eventually I gained in intellectual confidence and started to read physics theories to see if and how I might be able to explore them through my new pattern, I found the RH in an old copy of New Scientist and scribbled down an answer according to my theory.

My journey towards what became Pro theory was long and arduous but I think it's important to note that I only decided to call it a TOE when I realised its completeness.

I answered the RH on my site and thought that seeing as there were six other problems on the Claymath site I might as well answer them too, if my theory was indeed a true TOE it must be able to solve all problems right?

As you know by now, I would normally propose three answers to that last statement but getting back to the RH, hopefully now that I've explained how this all started for me (atoms etc) you guys might be able to see why it is that I suggest that the RH is neutral.

All numbers, whether "prime" or not possess the theoretical possibility for three potentials and so it seems perfectly logical to expect these potentials to become manifest somewhere within the forward pattern of numbers, actually prime numbers in this particular example.

The critical line represents the neutral potential within the Riemann zeta function zeros, especially because the RH predicts the critical line when the zeta function is equal to zero.

I know I've said this before many times but the only reason I'm saying it again is to explain, I'm not holding anything back here, I'm being completely open and honest about what I have discovered as a pattern within everything.

I'm writing these words to show my fellows how to see this pattern too, my main motivation is sharing this knowledge for the common good as I think it helps to explain everything extremely and completely accurately.

My intentions are totally positive towards all others, it's just that the TOE is a bit of a special case in which I cannot concede, I'm viewing this from the point of view of pure knowledge, please don't think I'm being somehow arrogant as this isn't my intention at all.

This is just the result of me thinking too much

Thanks for listening everybody, and I hope this shows Pro theory as I originally intended it to be seen through the atomic example that started it all for me, and hopefully now you might be able to see why I think about the RH in the way that I do.

PRO

[Canute]

I looked into atomic structure and thought that if I were to take the words away (I was still a reductionist at this point) I would be left with an example atom containing negative, positive and neutral energy somehow.

I lost you here. What do you mean exactly?

[protheory]

I lost you here. What do you mean exactly?

Sorry Canute, what I meant to say was that I would be left with protons, neutrons and electrons in my example atom.

It was my way of creating a model example of my idea that everything was atoms.



EDIT - I was thinking that if the RH was literally made of atoms then logically it must form and behave as atoms do, which is why I eventually came up with my three potentials idea (electrons, protons and neutrons).

That about sums it up, I took the atoms idea literally and imagined everything as a higher scale version of atomic potentials, this was the basis for my whole idea, this pattern of potentials within everything, mathematics and physics included.

I'm just taking this three potentials concept ridiculously literally to see what happens, this method caused me to change my writing style from singular to triple as I became more and more pedantic with the concept, the 'Am I wrong?' argument and such.

There's a whole lot more to this idea than some ridiculous and paradoxical words (aka Pro theory) but I felt that if I had stated my argument on a higher level using actual equations perhaps, that it would have confused things even more.

[protheory]

This is how I imagine all numbers, two potentials stretching out as far as the mind can see and a middle point, stretching into infinity.

Imagine this with the primes dotted at intervals along the pattern, then imagine that the Riemann zeta function zeros and the critical line are neutral along the line of all numbers.

The Riemann Hypothesis has been proven so far, and as far as we know it will stay the same forever because it predicts the middle road within numbers.

Numbers begin simply with simple potentials, when we expand them we find other relationships and patterns, rules and formulas, but in the end we are actually repeating the three original and simple potentials.

Just look at the line in the picture and imagine the critical line as the middle of both sides and hopefully you will understand what I'm trying to say here.

If we take into account all I've said before about why and how the critical line forms the way it does (neutral) and also see the picture it might just help you to see what I see, perhaps you will also be able to see why I imagine numbers like this.

[protheory]

This is just a pic from my computer desktop but this is what I see in everything too, just like this.

[protheory]

Numbers and Pro Theory

I've been thinking about numbers and how to explain them here like I see them in my mind.

Let's start with the number 1.

1 means 1 (singular).

2 means 2 x 1, or 1 x 2, so it's a repeat of the original 1 (singular), it is the opposite of 1.

3 means 1 + 1 + 1, or 2 + 1, or 1 + 2.


Higher

And that's it with the positive numbers really, if we go any higher we end up repeating ourselves over and over.


Example

Let's try 4 for an example.

4 is 2 x 2, or 1 + 1 + 1 + 1, or 3 + 1, or 1 + 2 + 1 etc.

And 5?

5 is 4 + 1, or 3 + 2, or 1 + 4 etc but no matter how far forward we go the repetition stays the same.

Whatever enormous number we choose to create we are still repeating the three original amounts over and over again.

All numbers are either odd, even, or zero, no matter how relatively "large" in size.

All numbers are odd (1) even (2) or neutral (0).


The Primes

As I understand the primes they are numbers that can only be divided by themselves and 1.

So if we look at primes from the beginning we notice that 2 and 3 are prime.

Now I would say that these are the only true primes and that they repeat themselves following this pattern, over and over again.

Let's take 5 for an example, now we know that 5 is a combination of 2 + 3, both of which are prime and I don't think that 5 is anything new actually in the grand scheme of things.

I think that 5 is a repeat combination of the two original primes of 2 and 3.

And if we look at 7?

7 is a combination of 5 + 2, or 3 + 2 + 2, or 2 + 2 + 3 and yet it follows the same pattern of simple repetition.


Conclusion

My conclusion from this simple rule of repetition is that though we can invent enormous numbers we are actually repeating the three amounts over and over again ad infinitum.

I'm not saying that we are somehow mistaken when we say things like "I have 10 million dollars" merely that the amount is composed of repeated potentials.

I think this is important to our true understanding of numbers and particularly mathematics, which is the accepted form of explanation for the universe at the current moment.

As I have said before, no matter how far forward we choose to go with numbers we are still repeating three original amounts.


The Largest Number

Now let's say that we somehow managed to find the largest possible number, for example purposes we'll have to assume its existence for now.

There might be all sorts of wacky and far out theories about this largest possible amount, and no doubt many such theories already exist right now.

I would look at this amount and say that it is either odd, even, or neutral in its potential regardless of its relative size because this pattern continues through numbers forever.


Pro Theory

And that's what Pro theory has to say about numbers, as I have said before many times, the 'words' negative, positive, and neutral symbolise the three potentials within the universe or whatever you choose to call it.

You can change the words around in any way you like but at the end of the day the potentials, ideas, amounts, directions, words still form in a pattern of the same three symbolic potentials in my opinion.

[Canute]

I think this is the wrong way to see the primes. Remember Lao-Tsu's verse?

The zero begets the one,
The one begets the two,
The two begets the three,
The three begets the ten thousand things.

Think multiplication, not addition. Multiplication is dynamic process. Addition is not. Understanding the primes is about understanding the mechanics of vibrating strings, harmonics etc., they are created by an equivalent dynamic process.

Once we have the 2 and the 3 on the number line the combination wave they form ensures that at most only 2 in 6 numbers can be prime. These will be at 6n+/-1. The rest are multiples of 2 or 3. The same process determines the positions of all the other primes. The rules are simple. For example, multiples of p>3 not at 6n+/-1 are in any case not prime, being divisible by 2 or 3. Those that are at 6n+/-1 are found at 6np+/-p. Therefore, for example, only 2 in 30 multiples of 5 play a part in determining the position of primes.

The prime sequence is generated by simple rules any musician should understand, a fact I've never heard a mathematcian mention. What complicates the calculations is that there are so many of the damn things. All one has to note, and it's obvious really, is that the primes are the gaps in the sequence of the multiples of the primes.

Canute

Edit: Sorry, made some mistakes. Now corrected.

[Canute]

Think of a number. Multiply by 6. Add 72. Square it. This number is at 6n+1.

Think of a number. Multiply by 126. The 35th number above this is a multiple of 7 at 6n-1.