5 ms·
These physicists observations won't achieve anything other than to corroborate the existing hypothesis. Proof requires a lot more than just observation.
by emucontusionswe 10y ago
These physicists observations won't achieve anything other than to corroborate the existing hypothesis. Proof requires a lot more than just observation.
- beaconstudios 10y agoyeah, physics proofs (and the scientific method in general) rely on empirical data whereas mathematical proofs rely on deductive reasoning from existing proven statements. It's literally the opposite approach.
- cvoss 10y agoThe article makes no mention of any proposed experiments. It sounds like the physicists are just using their understanding of the mathematics of quantum physics along with their intuition about such physical systems to guide the search for a rigorous proof. (cf. the article's discussion of PT-symmetric matrices)
- beaconstudios 10y agogood point, I just re-read the article and you're right. They must be approaching the problem from a theoretical basis.
- giomasce 10y agoThere are no physicists' observations here, as I get it, it is all theoretical work, which is essentially mathematics. It is not rigorous mathematics, otherwise we would actually have a proof, but just a proposed reasoning that in time might be made rigorous and become a real proof. Future will tell us.
- bike4beer 10y agoPhysics Person Here, Let's see U throw 1,000 bags of shit at the wall, hoping one will stick, and call that the solution? ( Actually there is a name for this process, its called the INTEL methodology ) I concur if the RH could have been solved with 'physics' it would have been solved 50+ years ago, one of the first thing Von Neumann did with the machines was tackle this problem. The question beg's to ask is this news? Physicists Tackle RH? How about Garbage Men? There are youtube sites promising virtually anybody on the street one million USD cash to solve this problem, as if nobody has yet to date bothered. Given the age of this problem, and given that computational monte-carlo (physics) isn't going to solve this problem; Lots of super-smart ( >200 IQ ) people R working on this problem, and have been for years; Good Luck people. Great problem to give a super smart kid, to put him in his place.
- isuraed 10y agoPeople really should try reading articles before commenting.
- empath75 10y agoIt's not physics, it's just a reformulation of the problem into linear algebra with a new intuition about why it should be true, namely that if it were not true, then we'd be able to observe imaginary energy levels.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y agoDoes the intuition hold if violations are sufficiently rare, large, etc?
- monochromatic 10y agoIf the intuition you're referring to is the idea of finding a self-adjoint operator with eigenvalues exactly corresponding to the nontrivial zeroes, then yes. The existence of such an operator would guarantee that the zeroes are all on the critical line. If you're referring to the heuristic arguments for why their proposed not-quite-self-adjoint operator should have only real eigenvalues, then no.