- --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,

Chris Caldwell <caldwell@...> wrote:

>> Please do not set much store by the circumstance that

Since PrimeMogul has not yet ruled me off topic, I remark that,

>> 43, 61 and 83 are prime.

> Bernhard: I would consider carefully who this response is from

in nuclear physics, the prime Z = 83 is "almost stable",

since the half-life of bismuth 209 is about 2*10^19 years,

i.e. more than a billion times the age of the universe.

The most stable isotope for the prime Z = 43 has a

half-life of about 2 million years and the prime

Z = 61 has a corresponding half-life less than 6 years,

if I have read the tables aright.

David - Well silly or not,

This could mean that every attempt we do over a schematic in Physics we approximate the "reality" &

therefore a structure of prime numbers which behold a certain degree of error related to the quantity

of calculus we put on the solution is possible!

Or I would say desirable.

Have you ever tought that 1,2,3... is a bit too lineare for physics?

________________________________

From: "bobgillson@..." <bobgillson@...>

To: Maximilian Hasler <maximilian.hasler@...>

Cc: "paul@..." <paul@...>; warren_d_smith31 <warren.wds@...>; "primenumbers@yahoogroups.com" <primenumbers@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Friday, October 5, 2012 11:13:36 PM

Subject: Re: [PrimeNumbers] nuclear & atomic physics & primes. (Warning: Kind of silly.)

Sent from my iPad

On 6 Oct 2012, at 02:16, Maximilian Hasler <maximilian.hasler@...> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:51 PM, <bobgillson@...> wrote:

> > I am surprised with all these puerile associations that no one has yet pointed

> > out that the Standard Model is currently based on just two prime numbers.

> >

> > 61 particles and forces, and 19 constants, and these primes are of course the higher of two prime pairs.

>

> The "constants" (which are not) are all but fundamental;

> If the SM is based on 2 primes, then these are 2 & 3. (IMHO)

> But I fear there's something more...

>

> Maximilian

>

> > Try hard enough you can find unmeaningful meaning in anything.

>

> Hm, I wonder what might be the "unmeaningful meaning" of these last

> words of yours:

>

> > Sent from my iPad

>

Well, let's see - The Langrangian needs expanding by perhaps a further 10 constants to take into account the mass of neutrinos, which the current SM considers massless. Then we have 61 and 29. But that's a long shot and it would not tell us anything about primes. Hey ho!

>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]