Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

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

Expand Messages
  • Mathieu Therrien
    Well silly or not,       This could mean that every attempt we do over a schematic in Physics we approximate the reality &        therefore a
    Message 1 of 27 , Nov 13, 2012
      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]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.