Page 1 of 2

The relationship between protons and prime numbers

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:00 pm
by Steven Sesselmann
The question of wether there is a relationship between numbers and the physical world comes up all the time and the answer to me seems pretty obvious. The simple fact that we can describe physical reality so perfectly with numbers and mathematics says it all. Distinguished scientists like Arthur Eddington and Paul Dirac have dabbled in numerology and made connections to physical reality. So is it real science or is it pseudo science?

Today I had a remarkable insight into the relationship between nucleons and prime numbers, well the idea is not excactly new to me, but it sure seemed clearer today. The relationship comes from an earlier idea of mine called Visual Numbers, the VN system is a new way to represent real numbers which can make complex divisions trivial. (See attached image).

The basics of the VN system is simple, it consists entirely of prime numbers, where all primes are represented by solid spheres, i.e. the first prime (2) is represented by a single solid sphere, the second prime (3) is represented by two solid spheres together, and the third prime (5) is represented by three solid spheres etc.. At first this can be a little confusing, as we have been trained from a young age to count solid objects as the series 1, 2, 3 etc..

Composite numbers are represented by voids, or negative solids if that makes sense (think of an egg as the prime number 2 and the egg carton as the composite number \(2^{12}\) and you will get the picture.

So what does this have to do with physics?

Well it turns out that this visualization of the primes, perfectly describes atomic nuclei, where the number of nucleons in each nuclei identify the order of the prime number on the prime number line, not only does it describe each element with a single prime number, but combine the void of two primes and the VN method describes any chemical compound with a single unique number.

What I realised today was how beautifully the VN system combines with GP theory, and that's pretty exciting...

GP theory says that matter is created by annihilation of protons and electrons resulting in diametric ejection of positive and negative matter along the time axis, the newly formed matter turns up in the past as a single proton with exactly 938.. MeV of potential energy. This single particle is represented as the prime number (2) in the VN system, and from the perspective of this baby particle there are no heavier nuclei yet.

Shortly after it's creation the proton is expected to combine with another proton and form deuterium and in the process the number 3 has also been created, deuterium combines to form tritium or helium-3 and voila the number 5 is created. This process continues with heavier and heavier nuclei being created and so completing the prime number sequence.

GP theory says that we are currently in the Iron age, and that our potential is around 930 MeV, and there exists a number of around 100 elements spread over a range of potentials from Hydrogen at 938 Mev to Nickel at 930 MeV. We can rationalize that larger and larger clusters of nucleons will become stable as time passes and GP falls, thereby representing larger and larger primes.
apologies if I am contradicting my own earlier writings, until recently I believed that heavier nuclei decayed over time, but this insight has made me realise that a lower observer potential will increase the fusion rate and decrease the decauy of heavier nuclei, which is why the Hirsch fusor works, right?
We can speculate that very large clusters of nucleons become what we know as neutron stars, and these massive bodies represent huge prime numbers, but like the prime number frequency these very large primes are far and few between.

Were it not for Euclid's prime number theorem which proves that there are an infinite number of primes, I would say that the number of primes ought to apprach an absolute limit, because that would correspond most closely with GP theory.

GP theory says that a body which collapses to the size density of a black hole (SR Radius) has reached a limit, and that any matter consequently drawn towards the body, must be ejected diametrically from the poles, thereby keeping the black body mass constant.

So this is a prime number paradox, everything fits perfectly, except for Euclid's proof of infinite primes.

One possible solution to the prime number paradox is that the next prime is so far away and so that it is represented by a black hole in another galaxy and that Euclids proof is telling us that there are an infinite number of black holes and that the Universe is indeed infinite.

Haha... now we have to solve Olbers paradox :)

So there you have it, my crazy world indeed...


PS: Trust your gut feeling, not your physics books, history has shown that they have for the most part been wrong.

Re: The relationship between protons and prime numbers

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 10:44 am
by FourLeaves
Short question; calling on the relationship between prime numbers and black holes within your speculations, do black holes additionally inherit all fundamental, mathematical properties intrinsic to prime numbers? For example, all primes are known to be between two even numbers, what phenomenological speculation about the relationship between primes and black holes could explain this relationship?

Re: The relationship between protons and prime numbers

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 9:58 pm
by Steven Sesselmann
Fourleaves, I don't have a clear answer to your question, but I am still thinking about it ;)

Today I am pretty excited, after I suddenly realized something quite fundamental about prime numbers...

Assuming that the reader is familiar with my VN (Visual Number) system (See further up this thread)

What I realized today is that prime numbers, like the elements in GP theory are constructed, brick by brick just like a builder constructs a house, you have to lay one brick before you lay the next.

Building a house from bricks is easy, because all the bricks are the same size, but building the prime number sequence is a little tricky, because the gap between one prime and the next prime is seldom a prime, and therefore when all your building blocks are primes you will have issues.

Take for example the first 30 primes
30primes.png (111.14 KiB) Viewed 11507 times
As you can see above, the real number difference between one prime and the next is not always a prime number, so when the builder is making the next prime, he/she needs to chop the brick into smaller pieces, this requires work, and results in a remainder.

This is very similar to what we see in nuclear fusion reactions. At the lower end of the table of isotopes, there are a lot of reactions which can take place with H(1) which is the prime number 2, but as we climb up the table of elements the gaps between primes become bigger, and the primes needed to build the next prime become less common.

I am assuming it would be almost impossible to have a simultaneous nuclear reaction with three elements, therefore I postulate that every next prime must be made by adding a single prime, even if this results in a remainder.

Constructing bigger and bigger primes would therfore become more and more difficult as the gaps between primes get bigger. When a nucleus becomes as large as a black hole, there would be virtually nothing falling into the black hole, big enough to build the next prime in the sequence, this means all in-falling matter must be rejected and ejected.

Most likely all matter falling into a black hole is torn into the single prime 2 and ejected diametrically at the poles.

The relationship between primes and the isotopes is looking more and more likely to me.


Re: The relationship between protons and prime numbers

Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:52 am
by FourLeaves
Are you aware of any calculation for the total energy output of the diametric streams being emitted from black holes? It would certainly be interesting if the mass of all real black holes was balanced by the rest-mass of the diametrically ejected energy. Additionally, the remainder in this balancing act could be explained by the existence of planets, stars, or even entire galaxies should the remainder need to be so large, which are paired with the black hole gravitationally. I use gravity as a force in the sense that something is causing celestial bodies to interact with each other across great distances of space.

As speculation:

I can explain it something like, *Prime represents a prime number of astronomical size.

Potential of BH = ( Prime , 1 ) / 1 Nucleon
Ejected Potential = ( Prime - 1, Prime + 1) / 2 Directions
Remainder Potential Compensation = ( Celestial bodies interacting at a distance )

Where ( P-1, P+1 ) always produces two even numbers which can then be separated in position and direction (diametric ejection) while maintaining relatively identical potential. However, the difference in potential between the two directions and the potential of the singularity, as black holes are referred to as, would need a remainder to satisfy balance. This remainder would be quantified in the potential of all celestial bodies interacting with the singularity across space.

Re: The relationship between protons and prime numbers

Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 1:13 pm
by Steven Sesselmann
Well if there is a relationship between elements and primes, then the infinite prime number theorem may be telling us that the universe is indeed infinite and therefore we may not have to justify where energy came from as it was always there. (that would be one less headache ;))

We understand that time and space is a function of energy, so where there is no energy there is also no space, and where there is very little energy there is only a small amount of space. I actually wrote a paper a few years ago which defined the volume of space as a function of the observers mass.

According to GP the overall surface potential of the black hole in our galaxy must be 469 MeV, and let us speculate that it contains a large number of nucleons which represent some astronomically large prime, and that the gap to the next next prime in the series is larger than any nucleus orbiting in our galaxy, in this case none of the matter falling towards the black hole satisfies the criteria required to build the next prime, so it must be rejected.

At the SR radius electrons and protons are equipotential and wave like such that the wave crest and wave trough are +469 and -469 MV, so the dimetric jets we speculate are esentially these waves travelling forwards and backwards in time.

The total potential from trough to crest is always 938 MV so at the same time this wave is also two particles, when observed from the potential of the crest or the trough, so the crest becomes a new proton in the past.

More speculation: Is it possible that all lines of force between positive and negative matter converge through the galactic black hole so that the galaxy when viewed obliquely (mid potential) looks like an hourglass?
Hourglass Nebula
HourglassNebula.jpg (16.36 KiB) Viewed 11488 times
I realize this is kind of hard to imagine, but try to visualise all electrons actually residing on the other side of the black hole, remember space is completely dependent on potential.

If this is the case, then the mass of the black hole is the sum total of all electrons, which in turn is a function of the observers potential.

To me this begs the question, is the mass of protons and the speed of light functions of the size of our galaxy, or are they truly Universal constants?


Re: The relationship between protons and prime numbers

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 9:25 pm
by Steven Sesselmann
With rain pouring down outside today, I took the opportunity to play with my prime numbers.

I plotted the first 100 prime numbers ordered by sequence, which also happens to be the number of nucleons in my visual number system. The resultant chart was unmistakably similar to the chart of nuclides, so I took some screen shots and did a quick overlay (see images below).

Admittingly I did not spend hours matching up each nuclide, but what strikes me as fascinating is how the prime number sequence follows a similar irratic pattern.

What other possible correlation could there be between the number of nucleons in our elements and prime numbers, other than nucleons being the real building blocks of our logical number system.

The next prime in the series always being a nucleus with one more nucleon, and lying somewhere on this irratic line.


Prime Numbers
PrimeNumbers.png (46.62 KiB) Viewed 11364 times
Chart Of Nuclides
chart.png (67.12 KiB) Viewed 11364 times
overlay.png (206.69 KiB) Viewed 11364 times
Prime - Nucleons
2 - 1
3 - 2
5 - 3
7 - 4
11 - 5
13 - 6
17 - 7
19 - 8
23 - 9
29 - 10
31 - 11
37 - 12
41 - 13
43 - 14


Re: The relationship between protons and prime numbers

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 8:20 am
by FourLeaves
May I suggest a similar investigation on the basis of trying to understand the stability of certain atoms? A few questions that immediately come to mind are:

What relationship between atoms and prime numbers can account for the stability of the noble gases?
Is there any relationship between prime numbers, atoms, and the room-temperature state of the atom. ex. Why is Mercury a liquid and Hydrogen a gas?
Why are atoms with greater numbers of nucleons less stable? ex. they decay radioactively or are simply not found in nature UUS 117.

As prime numbers are defined by the fact they have a greater limited number of divisors, a study of the "divisors" of the nucleons associated with prime numbers in your VN system might draw interesting conclusions.

Re: The relationship between protons and prime numbers

Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:24 pm
by Steven Sesselmann

This is all guesswork, we make a guess and then try to see if the guess works.

At the moment I can smell smoke, but haven't seen the fire yet. I have a hunch that the prime number may be connected to the number of processes involved in making the VN nucleus. The first 7 processes are straight forward

here are my current thoughts...

Note I shall use a system of numbering the primes 2, 3, 5, as P1, P2, P3 etc.

Step 1) first proton is created (P1)
Step 2) second proton is created (P1)
Step 3) deuteron is formed by fusion of the first two particles (P2)
Step 4) third proton is created (P1)
Step 5) He-3 is formed by fusion of the deuteron and third proton (P3)
Step 6) fourth proton is created (P1)
Step 7) He-4 is formed by fusion of P3 and the fourth proton (P4)

--the next step can not be done using single protons, because the gap from P4 (7) to P5 (11) is (4), so it needs at least a (P3) 5 to make this happen, therefore Steps 1 to 5 needs to be repeated before P5 (11) can be formed.

Step 8) fifth proton created (P1)
Step 9) sixth proton created (P1)
Step 10) seventh proton created (P1)

These are the components required to build P3 (steps 1 through to 5)

Step 11) fuse the new P3 (5) with existing P4 (7) to make P5 (11)

This last reaction will eject two spare particles, which can go into stock. Our total stock is now one P5(11) and a couple of P1's. One must keep absolute track of every single particle and it becomes complicated as the numbers rise.

Step 12) eighth proton created (P1)

Step 13) P5 fuses with P1 and forms P6 which is the prime number 13

The gap from P6 (13) to P7 (17) is 4 so once again we need to repeat steps 1-5 etc..
We need a computer programmer to write a script for this. The rules are simple,

Rule 1)
All primes must be created from elementary building blocks P1

Rule 2)
Consecutive VN primes are built from existing VN primes, and you need a prime equal to or larger than the gap between the existing prime and the next prime.

What do you think, plausible?


Re: The relationship between protons and prime numbers

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 7:16 am
by FourLeaves
Certainly it is plausible, but to move any further than simple plausibility, a confident identification of a "true-in-all-cases" relationship is necessary. That is why I suggested the investigation of outlying and exotic circumstances within the prime-nucleon relationship you have identified. In a most definite sense, there IS a relationship between the two, but this kind of "certain/uncertain" relationship has long been identified within mathematical Prime Number Theory. In that sense, however, Prime Number Theory has found very little association between numerical theory and testable reality. Because of this gap, the plausibility of the proton-prime relationship holds a much needed clue towards the solution of many hypothesis and conjectures. On that note, the real clue is not that there is an association present, but is the realization of that association in a numerically concrete or experimentally repeatable conclusion.

Re: The relationship between protons and prime numbers

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 11:36 am
by Steven Sesselmann

I agree with you, and it needs a lot more time spent on it, as I suggested, a computer programmer could create a prime number making machine based on the rules I suggested. The machine would run the algorithm and spit out the numbers. For many of the larger prime generated there would be some waste particles and it would be interesting to see what ratio of elements one would end up with after running the program for a while.

My oldest son is a programmer, so i shall ask him if it is possible.