Some propositions in math can be modeled as a physical system. Has anyone done this for RH?


closed as unclear what you're asking by GH from MO, Chris Godsil, Ben Linowitz, Yemon Choi, RP_ Apr 15 '17 at 23:45

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The RH, in its original form, has little to do with Riemannian geometry. It is a statement that principally belongs to number theory, with far-reaching generalizations that have implications in many other branches of mathematics (including geometry). At any rate, I vote to close, because it is unclear to me what you are asking. (Of course, the RH was considered by many physicists, including attempts to prove it.) $\endgroup$ – GH from MO Apr 15 '17 at 23:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Here is one recent attempt at connection: "The Riemann Hypothesis and Emergent Phase Space," Journal of Modern Physics, Vol.08 No.04(2017): "By interpreting multifractal L-function zero alignment as a decoherence process, the Riemann hypothesis is demonstrated to imply the emergence of classical phase space at zero alignment." $\endgroup$ – Joseph O'Rourke Apr 15 '17 at 23:41
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ Given the chronic, endemic tendency of some physicists to feel that they have an intuition for why RH should hold, even if they are technically naive in several different ways, I think this is a worthwhile question. Among other things, it starts to illustrate why the naive notion of "self-adjoint operator", that did not cause Dirac or others any trouble, cannot be naively extrapolated to situations without a guaranteed physical sense. Such things are mathematically interesting, I think. $\endgroup$ – paul garrett Apr 15 '17 at 23:56
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @paulgarrett Based on the tag chosen by the OP, together with a quick look at their profile, I am not confident that an answer explaining these subtleties is what the OP is after. I would prefer to see a better question asked before people start trying to contribute scattershot answers $\endgroup$ – Yemon Choi Apr 16 '17 at 2:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @YemonChoi, you're probably right, but I try to make the best of each situation... :) $\endgroup$ – paul garrett Apr 16 '17 at 3:13

You can try 'Inxeplicable Secrets of Creation' by Matthew Watkins.


See a lot of different ideas in the paper by Schumayer and Hutchinson.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.