Skip to main content

The Riemann Hypothesis as a Stability Principle

  The Riemann Hypothesis can be reformulated as an infinite sequence of explicit positivity tests. This is not a proof. It turns a statement about complex zeros into inequalities that can be calculated, falsified at finite order, and compared with operator or physical models.   The completed zeta function is $$\xi(s)=\frac12s(s-1)\pi^{-s/2}\Gamma\left(\frac{s}{2}\right)\zeta(s),$$ with $$\Xi(t)=\xi\left(\frac12+it\right).$$ The function $\Xi$ is even and real on the real axis. A nontrivial zero $\rho=\beta+i\gamma$ corresponds to $$t_\rho=\gamma-i\left(\beta-\frac12\right).$$ Therefore $$t_\rho\in\mathbb R \quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad \beta=\frac12,$$ and hence $$\boxed{\mathrm{RH}\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad\text{every zero of }\Xi\text{ is real}.}$$ Folding the Zeros Because $\Xi$ is even, write $$\Xi(t)=\sum_{n\ge0}c_nt^{2n}.$$ Now define $$G(z)=\frac{\Xi(i\sqrt z)}{\Xi(0)}.$$ Although this contains $\sqrt z$, the even expansion makes $G$ entire: $$G(z)=...
Post a Comment

Zitter at the Edge of Spacetime

 In a previous post we introduced the idea that our current Universe has boundary conditions. 
 
We also showed a diagram similar to Figure 1 below. Except here, we are once again thinking about the future dS state.

Figure 1. For an observer at O inside the cosmic event horizon (CEH) with radius $l_{\Lambda}$, the universe can be divided into two sub-vacuums, $(A)$ inside the CEH, and $(B)$, outside. The horizon surface $\Sigma$ has entanglement entropy $S_{dS}$ and rest energy $E_H$

 
Figure 2. The maximum entropy of the Universe (credit: Lineweaver).  

Now, a comoving volume of the Universe, when considered together with its associated cosmic event horizon, forms a thermodynamically closed system obeying the generalised second law, $$dS_{\text{bulk}} + dS_{\text{horizon}} \ge 0.$$ The maximum entropy of a closed system, in this case  (Figure 2) with $L=2 \pi l_{\Lambda}$, the circumference of a circle with radius  $l_{\Lambda}$,  is obtained when total $E_{H}$ is worked, i.e. degraded into the smallest bits possible. All energy is converted into minimal energy dark photons with wavelengths as large as the system $L$. Because the relevant thermodynamics and quantum degrees of freedom are governed by the Holographic Principle, these physical modes do not propagate through the 3D bulk; they are strictly confined to the 2D $S^2$ horizon surface. Consequently, the maximal fundamental wavelength is bounded not by the bulk diameter, but by the topological great circle of the boundary: $\lambda_{max} = 2\pi l_\Lambda$. From the Compton wavelength relation, the minimum quanta of energy $E_{s}$ of this system is then: \begin{equation}
\notag
E_{s}=\frac{hc}{\lambda_{max}}=\frac{\hslash c}{l_{\Lambda}}=m_{s}c^2
\end{equation}

This defines $m_s$ (discussed in a previous post) as the irreducible mass gap of the holographic surface. Within this framework, $m_s = \hbar / (rc)$ acts as a universal spectral mass function linked by UV/IR duality ($r \leftrightarrow 2L_P l_\Lambda / r$). It resolves to $M_P / 2$ at the UV boundary ($r = 2L_P$) and $\hbar / (cl_\Lambda)$ at the IR boundary ($r = l_\Lambda$).  In 2014, Barrow and Gibbons confirmed this lower-bound analysis and also pointed out that there is classical upper bound (note that their paper has a factor-of-two error in the upper bound) for any mass in a Universe with a positive cosmological constant. We can see this upper bound is actually equivalent to $m_{CEH}$,  the mass of the cosmic event horizon of our Figure 1 system:   \begin{equation}m_{upper} \leq \frac{c^{2}}{2G}\sqrt{\frac{3}{\Lambda }} =\frac{c^2 l_{\Lambda}}{2G}=  m_{CEH} 
\end{equation}  We know from cosmological observations that $m_{CEH}$ is the observed (effective) mass of the CEH. 

Now, quantum field theory can be formulated in terms of harmonic oscillators. So, if we consider our Figure 1 system as a quantum harmonic oscillator,  with $E_s = m_s c^2$ as the ground state (zero-point) energy and  $\omega_{s}$ being the ground state angular frequency.    
\begin{equation}
\notag
E_{s}=\hslash \frac{\omega_{s}}{2}
\end{equation}  Now, the de Broglie relation is then:
\begin{equation}
\notag
E_{s}=\hslash \omega_{B}
\end{equation} Of course, these are not the same $\omega$ unless we compare internal vs. external clock rates (exactly what happens in zitterbwegung). Because the fundamental modes are confined to the $S^2$ boundary, their evolution is not merely a scalar translation but is generated by spatial rotors (bivectors) in geometric algebra ($C\ell_{3,0}$). 

Wait, I hear some of you saying, $H_0$ is usually presented as (km/s/Mpa) rather than ($s^{-1}$),  and you are right, but that simply due to cosmologists confusing things, using more convenient units.  

Anyhow, if we model the vacuum state at this boundary not as a naive 3D bosonic oscillator, but as a field of spatial rotors, the zero-point ground state energy remains $E_s$. As  $\omega_{s}=2\omega_{B}$ we might consider $\omega_{s}$ as the zitter frequency of vacuum. Things get even more interesting when we realise that  $\omega_{B} = c/l_{\Lambda} =H$ implying that the Hubble Constant can be considered as a `de Broglie'  (or effective) frequency of vacuum; or equivalently, as per Chappell et al, 2016, Time as a Geometric Property of Space. That is, the macroscopic value $H = c / l_\Lambda$ is the irreversible scalar component ($t$) of the universe's evolution, while the vacuum frequency $\omega_s = 2H$ is the bivector component ($jn$). Thus, the universe's expansion is not just scalar; it possesses an intrinsic quaternionic rotation at the boundary, reconciling the bosonic geometry of macroscopic expansion with the fermionic Zitterbewegung of the quantum vacuum. This also all implies the horizon vacuum is a something like a highly degenerate spin liquid, a macroscopic condensate of phase-synchronised spatial rotors bounded at the IR cutoff.   

  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blurring the horizon - the quantum width of the cosmic event horizon

A  paper by Zurek applied a random walk argument to a black hole horizon. Credit, Zurek, 2022  Zurek  ( Snowmass White Paper: Observational Signatures of Quantum Gravity )  called this a blurring of the horizon: a fuzzy, or uncertain horizon, and went through derivations supporting the idea that this length scale is the quantum uncertainty in the position of the black hole horizon: a dynamic quantum width of an event horizon. This is a concept which fundamentally applies to the Universe's own Cosmic Event Horizon (CEH).   Below, we step out our own derivation of the random walk argument, giving us the phenomenological signature Zurek found: $$\Delta x^2 = 2DT$$ In this equation, $\Delta x$ is the position uncertainty, $D$ is the Einstein diffusion coefficient, and $T$ is the time between measurements (the relaxation time). Einstein Diffusion Coefficient So, let's look at the Einstein diffusion coefficient. $\mu = v_d / F$ is the mobility and $v_d$ is...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Cosmic Strange Metal?

        Strange metals have no long-lived particle-like excitations. They relax near the fastest rate allowed by temperature and can scramble information rapidly. Space itself is not a strange metal. However, the de Sitter stretched horizon may share its Planckian transport pattern: $$\boxed{\text{The cosmic horizon may be a Planckian quantum fluid.}}$$ Horizon temperature For de Sitter space, $$R_H=\frac{c}{H}, \qquad T_{dS}=\frac{\hbar H}{2\pi k_B}.$$ Two related thermal timescales are $$\tau_T=\frac{\hbar}{k_BT_{dS}}=\frac{2\pi}{H}, \qquad \tau_{\rm ch}=\frac{\hbar}{2\pi k_BT_{dS}}=\frac1H.$$ Thus the horizon has no macroscopic clock other than $H^{-1}$, up to numerical factors. Einstein gravity dissipation In the membrane description, $$\eta_{\rm mem}=\frac{c^3}{16\pi G}, \qquad s_{\rm mem}=\frac{k_Bc^3}{4G\hbar}.$$ Therefore $$\boxed{ \frac{\eta_{\rm mem}}{s_{\rm mem}} =\frac{\hbar}{4\pi k_B}. }$$ This is the Einstein-gravity membrane value, also ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The fabric of space-time: stiffer than steel or weaker than jello?

  The smart money is on cosmic jello, not comic steel    The notorious rubber sheet analogy of spacetime teaches one concept and once concept only: Mass-energy causes curvature of space-time.   When a gravitating mass recedes from a region of space-time the curvature diminishes. The field equations of General Relativity don’t have an explicit term for this elastic property, but the framework as a whole does have that property. As very large mass-energies are required to generate gravitational waves (ripples in space-time), the elastic property of space-time is generally regarded as very stiff One other interesting consideration here is that elasticity is an emergent phenomenon. There is a great deal of interest in the idea that gravity is similarly emergent .   In 2018, Kirk T.  McDonald quantified the classical stiffness of space-time via an effective  Youngs Modulus  experienced by a gravitational wave frequency of 100 Hz. $$ Y_{\mathrm{GW}} =...
Post a Comment
Read more