Prime Numbers and Natural Laws

Dr. Peter Plichta Antoine L. de Lavoisier formulated in 1789 the chemical elements for the first time and was already able to name over 20 of these elements. Throughout the 19th Century minerals from all continents were subject to a systematic examination in laboratories with a view to discovering new elements through a continuous improvement of the analytic separation process. The periodic system begins with the element 1, hydrogen. The subsequent structures of elements and their number follow the natural numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... up to 83. Beyond the elements 83, bismuth, there are no further stable elements. After hafnium had been discovered in 1923, the only elements missing from the series of stable elements 1 to 83 were elements of the ordinal numbers 43, 61 and 75. Two years later, Walther Noddack and Ida Tacke believed they had found certain measurable quantities of the elements 43 and 75 through enrichment fraction of processed columbite and tantalite. It was thought that these could be proven by X-ray spectroscopy. Rhenium with the element number 75, which is found in quantities of 10-5 % in columbite minerals, was indeed a success. They were finally able to isolate this element in 1929. Their X-ray spectroscopic "proof of element 43 was, however, to turn out to be an embarrassing mistake. Only after the first uranium processors were built was it in 1952 possible to isolate a quantity of about 0.6 grams of pure metallic technetium through uranium fission. Element number 61, promethium, was also isolated around this time from residues of fission products. By this time it was already well known that no isotopes of the elements 43 and 61 were stable - i.e. they would disappear soon after being artificially created. Some curious explanations were found for the absence of these elements in the earth's crust. These included the Mattauch isobar rules for all elements and Harkin's rule for the lanthanoids. Both rules are based on empirical research and do not tell us anything about why precisely two elements should be missing from among a group of stable elements. It is also curious that the absence of two elements had been consciously registered by almost no chemists or physicists, simply because the two elements could be manufactured artificially and had a certain measurable life. No scientist would seriously suggest that the absence of these two elements is a coincidence. Only one thing can be said with certainty about these two ordinal numbers: 43 and 61 are prime numbers. There is a series of unexplained questions relating to the structure of the periodic system. Precisely twenty elements of the group between element 1 and 83 are pure isotopes. The lowest of these has the ordinal number 4 (beryllium) - an even number. The remaining 19 pure isotopes with higher ordinal numbers - 9flourine, to 83bismuth are all uneven. This presents us with a remarkable parallel to biochemistry. The twenty amino acids from which all life is composed, have a numeric relation to the elements. The first amino acid, glycine, has no asymmetric centre and therefore does not refract polarised light, whereas the remaining 19 amino acids are stereochemically left-oriented.

The structure of DNA also has an astonishing similarity with the structure of all atoms. It involves 3 basic components phosphoric acid, sugar, base and the bases are made up of 4 different types. All atomic nuclei consist of only 3 stable particles protons, neutrons, electrons The electrons also occur in 4 types - the 4 different quantum numbers. The two comparisons made here between biochemistry and nuclear chemistry have not yet been described in the relevant literature, but can not - as we shall see - be put down to chance or the occurrence of random numbers. Atomic physics can in the final analysis also be reduced to pure numeric laws. This was first recognised by Arnold Sommerfeld. This man is considered the greatest theoretical physicist of this century and was originally professor for mathematics. Eight of his students, including Werner Heisenberg and Wolfgang Pauli, received the Nobel Prize for physics. Sommerfeld himself did not receive the prize. The reasons for this can be found in contemporary attitudes to science and should be briefly examined here. The main quantum numbers behave just like the double squares of the whole numbers. 2 x 12, 2 x 22, 2 x 32, 2 x 42 .... When Sommerfeld discovered the secondary quantum numbers 1, 3, 5, 7 he noticed an elementary connection between the squared numbers of electron pair twins on the main atomic levels and the uneven secondary quantum numbers. The sums of the uneven numbers, as Aristotle reported in Metaphysics, give us the series of squared numbers, for instance 1 + 3 + 5 = 32. The Ancient Greeks left us a double legacy of value for science - the atomist theory of Democritus and Leokipps and the platonic notion of the real existence of numbers. Sommerfeld, who in his youth experienced the gigantic conflict between the proponents and detractors of the atomic theory, had a genius that allowed him to recognise a connection between these two, which inevitably caused even fiercer resistance from his positivist contemporaries than the atomic theory had. The laws of the young nuclear physics were under no circumstances to be based on a deeper context of number theory.

Numbers had by this period long been considered a product of the human mind, and this was particularly true for the basic arithmetic laws contained in the examples shown above. The categorisation of numbers, algebra and geometry as a human invention should actually be considered a dogma, as such assertions can, of course, not be proven. Sommerfeld nevertheless remained isolated. He had only one friend who supported him in his platonic ideas - Albert Einstein. There is now ample reason to believe that Sommerfeld's legacy can be fulfilled. Let us therefore turn to mathematics and its basic elements, numbers. Numbers can be categorised as composite (divisible) numbers and those numbers which we call prime numbers. The latter present us with an intriguing puzzle. The prime-number puzzle is more than just the fact that we are unable to say whether a certain large, uneven number that cannot be divided by three or five is prime or not. That would be trivial, because this characteristic is an essential feature of prime numbers. The prime number puzzle involves rather the fact that we can make statements about prime numbers which, although they can be easily demonstrated and proven, cannot be explained ex causis ultimis. Wilson's principle - which had already been recognised by Leibniz - states that (n -1)! + 1 is divisible by n without remainder if and only if n is a prime number; e.g. if n = 7, 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 + 1 = 721. The result of the calculation 721 7 = 103 shows that the division is complete. This law contains the only formula which generates exclusively prime numbers, as was proven by Lagrange and Euler. The proof does, however, not tell us anything about why this principle, which is perhaps one of the most beautiful and simple in number theory, exists at all. Similarly unsolved questions of "why appear in the computation of the number . When Leibniz developed the series /4, he is said to have declared: "God loves uneven numbers. Let us now turn to a theorem that links the number with the prime numbers. Jakob Bernoulli considered the question whether general solutions could be found for the powers of whole numbers. He solved this problem by introducing so-called Bernoulli numbers (published 1712). For twenty years, Euler attempted to achieve a similar solution for the reciprocal powers and found the solution with the help of a product formula for the sine function (not illustrated). Since this formula already contains the expression 2, he had no further possibility of explaining the question why the so-called Zeta function produces values for squared powers, which are connected to the number . What was, however, extremely remarkable was Euler's discovery that the Zeta function for squared powers

can be transformed to an infinite product containing all squares of the series of prime numbers.

It should, however, not astonish us that the number is related to prime numbers, because the reciprocal squares of whole numbers lay the foundation for the most fundamental physical law of nature: the reciprocal square law defined by Newton. For, in fact, the intensity of a light source (or an electric charge or a gravitating mass) with a radius r = 1, 2, 3, ... decreases according to the reciprocal square numbers, which means that the radius is also connected to the number . It is actually quite astonishing that the sum of the reciprocal squares can be linked to . In this context we would like to point out that Niels Bohr was only able to develop his atomic model for the hydrogen atom in 1913 because he was able to relate the energy levels of the hydrogen atom to the theorem discovered by Balmer that stipulates the reciprocal values of the square numbers 12, 22, 32, 42 ... . Since the number is connected with the most important mathematical constant, Euler's number e = 2.718, through the Euler relation

it is obvious that the number e will have to be examined with regard to its relation to the prime numbers. The prime number theorem, which was published in 1896, states that the number of prime numbers decreases asymptotically ad infinitum according to the formula

As could be expected, Jacques Hadamard's proof did not consider the question of what linked the basic constant of the natural logarithm, the number e, to prime numbers. If the n in the formula, n/ln n is substituted by en, we get the expression that gives us the number of prime numbers

which can be converted in one single step to

This expression can count the number of primes! For example: for n = 20, e20+1 / 20+1 gives the rounded-off value 62 800 749. This number is the approximate number of primes occurring between 2 and e21. It takes only a little daring to compare this expression with the Leibniz integration step

as this, of course, only applies to functions. But what if integral calculus, adding + 1 to powers in integration and -1 in differentiation, were purely a problem of prime numbers. To solve this, we shall examine the question of how prime numbers are connected to the number 1. Prime numbers are defined as numbers which are only divisible by 1 (and, of course, by themselves). Apart from the numbers 2 and 3, all prime numbers occur in a cycle of 6. 6 n 1 for n = 1, 2, 3, 4, .... For combination reasons this cycle produces a series of prime-number twins, [5, 7], [11, 13], [17, 19], 23, .... although with the number 25 we inevitably obtain the first square of a prime number from the function 6 n 1 (the next composite number is the product of 5 x 7 = 35) which is not prime. The reason why the number six plays such an elementary role in the complex of whole numbers is that the numbers 1, 2 and 3 are indivisible. As a result, the complete number 6 must be surrounded by the expression: 6 - 1 = 5 and 6 + 1 = 7 and thus the first pair of prime numbers. This six-cycle of prime numbers had already been examined by Leibniz but strangely enough never led to the prime numbers 2 and 3 being considered starting elements in a numeric series, i.e. the multiples of 2 and of 3. 1 -> 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 25, 29, 31, ... 2 -> 8, 10, 14, 16, 20, 22, 26, 28, 32, ... 3 -> 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, ... Because the number 4 is the first divisible number after three indivisible numbers, and the following number 5 is a number of the form 6n 1 and the number 6 is double the number 3, these three equally large sets of numbers can be continued ad infinitum. The formula 6n 1 gives the value 1 for n = 0. The number 1 is a very special number in many ways. A root can be taken from 1 without an irrational number occurring. The number -1 was unknown at the time of Leibniz, and even Euler considered it a

mathematical trick. And here we can see the reason why prime numbers were not linked to the twin number 1 back in the 17th Century. The cycle of six recurring in the series of prime numbers can be easily visualised: The illustration (the prime number cross) shows a pattern of numbers with eight rays, with the lowest level consisting of only the numbers -1 and + 1.

The prime number cross

By squaring these numbers we then reach 12, which is on the first 24-place circle. Only the 12 and the seven sequential prime numbers of the form 6 n 1 are shown. The multiples of two and three are indicated by small circles. Both the numbers 24 and 0 can be found in the position between the numbers 23 and 12. On the next level, the numbers 47 and 25 are on either side of the position for both 48 and 24, etc. The first 24-place circle follows the natural cycle of the sequence of prime numbers (without 2 and 3) up to the number 23. The first circle is finished with number 24, as the first combination product of prime numbers occurs with 25 and the number 52 is thus on the next 24-place circle, exactly above the number 12.

Above the 12 we find on the same ray all squares and all even higher powers of prime numbers of the form 6 n 1 which occur on the circle lines (one-dimensional) with an interval of 2. They have to be distributed on the surface (two-dimensional) of this ray according to a certain law at increasingly large intervals. The relationship between Bohr's atomic model (an extremely minute nucleus surrounded by giant circles) and the prime number cross is quadratic and will be explained in more detail in a later work. The important thing here is to visualise the connection between the prime numbers and the numbers -1 and + 1. There was now ample grounds for suspecting that the number(s) 1, which forms the foundation for the prime number cycle of six, appears during differentiation and integration in the two formulas

because the calculus is actually connected with the structure and the sequence of prime numbers. To do this it was necessary to examine the number e and to discover what connects it to prime numbers. Euler had been able to show the connection for the number , although he was not aware of the solution (why?). By revealing the immediate connection between the six-cycle of prime numbers, Euler's number e and the number , we had opened the way to discover why the Zeta functions provide solutions for even powers but not for uneven powers. It could also be shown why there must be one law only applying to prime numbers (Wilson) and a second law for prime numbers and pseudo prime numbers (Fermat's Little Theorem). From the connection between the natural logarithm to the base e and the prime numbers we can formulate a general connection between the structure and distribution of the prime numbers and the universal natural laws. Physicists and chemists have taken on the integral l/x and its solution from mathematics without thinking about it very much. The Leibniz method of integration breaks down in this case. The law is

Without this integration step modern natural science would be inconceivable (radioactive degeneration, Lambert-Beer law, gravitational-altitude decrease, entropy change, laws of thermodynamics, etc.), and modern physics and chemistry would soon come to an end. Even the pattern one gets if a barrel of rice is emptied onto the ground can only be described by the number e.

The following statements can now be made: 1. All chemical and physical processes and distributions following exponential laws are strictly bound by the natural logarithm. 2. The distribution of prime numbers is strictly related to the natural logarithm. If a = b and b = c, then a = c. This law of logic, together with the first two statements, leads to the formulation of a third law: 3. The chemical-physical processes of nature linked to the natural logarithm are also connected to the structure and distribution of the prime numbers. It can be assumed from this that the basic mathematical constants such as e, i and , without which natural laws can not be formulated, are coded in prime numbers, as we have proven mathematically. The English philosopher John Wiklif, who lived in the 14th Century, believed that even God has not got absolute freedom and omnipotence and that divine order and laws must apply even for Him. So three centuries before Spinoza and Leibniz, the notion was already being entertained that the world can not be any different than the way it actually is. This means that the world is not created, but rather existed eternally by force of its own laws.