RELATIVITYISNOTANEFFECT

But...whattheexpertshavebeentellingus?
Everyone is aware of the intimate connection between physics and mathematics. Mathematicalscienceis,essentially,basedonthenumbers.Therefore,formillennia, thereisadoctrineofthoughtthatbelievesfirmlythat"NumbersaretheUniverse" If numbers represent the Universe and these are organized, universally, in the decimal scale Could express the decimal scale alone, by itself, one of the main featuresofthecosmos:Relativity? Theanswerisyes;inotherwords,ourdecimalscaleisalsorelative.

Index:

1. Thedecimalscale................................................................................................2 2. NumbersandPhysical.........................................................................................3 3. Thephysical(ormathematical)theoryofrelativity.............................................4 4. Geometricidentities............................................................................................6 5. ThecharacteristicsoftheUniverse......................................................................6 6. Relativityisnotaneffect.....................................................................................8 7. Themovieofourlife...........................................................................................9 8. Thegeometricrelativity....................................................................................10 9. Thedecimalscalepattern..................................................................................13 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Thepatternofprimenumbersandphysical...................................................14 Changingperspective.....................................................................................16 StairwaytoHeaven........................................................................................17 IsGod? ........................................................................................................19 Theuniversalpattern.....................................................................................21

1. Thedecimalscale Thedecimalscaleweallknow,isformedbyputtingallthenumbersinastraightline whichextendtheoreticallyendlesstoinfinite: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7... It seems the most natural thing in the world, but ... Is this an absolute truth? The answerisNot. The decimal scale is the basis of mathematics that we serve: the numbers themselves. Everything is based on them. At first glance, it seems simple. Then the question is ... Why we take millennia without knowing exactly how the numbers relatetoeachother? Obviously, we know a "myriad" of numerical relationships, often called simply curiosities. But it is also true that we do not know their deepest secrets. Most of them are perfectly located but we cannot solve them. These secrets are called "MathematicsConjectures". You may think that these Conjectures will refer to extremely complicated mathematical statements, but the reality (with exceptions) is different. An example can be found in the famous Fermat theorem 1 a statement seemingly simple, but whose validity it took several hundred years, and it took a demonstration of more than100pages.

For those unfamiliar with the subject: The mathematician Pierre de Fermat stated in 1637 that he had discovered a demonstration stating that the equations: xn+ yn= zn has no solutions in integers when n> 2 . When n = 2 the formula is the famous Pythagorean theorem, and there is not only one solution.Thereareinfinitesolutions(ex:3+4=5) But one thing is to say that this happens and another to prove it. Many mathematicians for centuries tried to reproduce that "proof" of Fermat unsuccessful. Fermat used to enunciate such conjectures. He always said he had a proof, but never gave. It never happened that he was saying that it had a demonstration and the affirmation was turning out to be false. So the one that was called A Fermat's last theorem, annotated in the narrow margin of one of his books, happened to be almost a legend betweenthemathematicians. Fermatsaidhehadamarvelousproofofthistheorem,butifhereallyknewthisdemonstration,even todayremainsamystery.
1

In summary, Fermat's Theorem states that an identity like Pythagorean Theorem shows is only true when we square. There is not a natural exponent over 2 that satisfythisformula. Normally, in mathematics, we start from certain assumptions that everyone accepts as true. First of all would be precisely the decimal scale, that it is absolutely universal. This (scale) states that, starting from an initial point (zero) we put all the numbers in a straight line. From this assumption, using arithmetic, algebra, geometryorwhateverwebegintoworkwithnumbers.But,whynotconsiderthese possibilities? Could the numbers be organized not only in a straight line? Can we extend the numbers also forming a curve? And forming a curved line and a straight line at the same time? O...Why not? Can we extend the numbers not only forming a line (curvedorstraight),butmainlyarrangedspatially? Mathematical theory, like physics, is assumed as unquestionable. But the roads that follows seems to lead, in many cases, to roads with no apparent exit. Therefore, in this publication we will analyze the Theory of Relativity, from a purely numerical point of view based on decimal scale. The starting point will continue is based preciselyinoneofthepremisesofEinstein: "Ifyouwantdifferentresults,dontdoalwaysthesame" 2. NumbersandPhysical. This publication is part of a much broader theory (mathematics and physics): "The Golden or Theory". It states, essentially, that all the physical characteristics of the universe can be explained based on numerical relationships. These relationships are basedonthegoldenvalues(, and ). Not only that, it also proposes a unique formulation that could be defined as "the source code" of the Universe which based (as well see) exclusively on a single condition.Herewewilllookthetheoryofrelativityfromthispointofview. Paradoxically, and although we can define it as a mathematical theory, the reality is that virtually we dont need to understand any complicated mathematical formulation.Onlyneedcommonsense. Can only the numbers express any characteristic of the Universe? Are really the numberstheuniverse?

If you've heard of Pythagoras probably know that the basis of his doctrine was precisely this: the numbers do not just represent the universe: they are the Universe.ButHow? I'll try to show how numbers, by themselves, may represent the relativity of space time. If we talk about the decimal scale and establish the numbers represent the universe,thebestwaytorepresentspacetimerelativityistoshowhowthedecimal scaleisitselfrelative. The Pythagorean doctrine was based on the assumption that the numbers can explain any feature of the universe. In essence this means: "If we know all the rules of formation of the numbers we can explain any feature of the universe." The only problem, therefore, is the knowledge in the composition of numbers; thats means Howdotheyform? This process goes through reconsider inevitably some basic mathematical concepts. Therefore, before going directly to the core of the publication should refresh some aspectsofourknowledge. 3. Thephysical(ormathematical)theoryofrelativity. We know that physics and mathematics are intimately related. Any physical formulation can be expressed mathematically. In fact, any physical formula is the expressionofnumericalrelationshipsinvolvingcertainphysicalmagnitudes. Both, classical physics and quantum physics have shown us as physical magnitudes arecertainlyvagueconcepts(difficulttodefinethemprecisely).Anexampleofthisis in the concept of energy, for example. We could fill entire libraries with issues relating to energy but, reality, we dont know what it is, exactly. Therefore, we can try to understand it not only from a physical point of view, also mathematically. In fact,thetheoryofrelativitytellsusthatruns,somehow,amathematicalpattern. Alluniversalphysicallawsrefertodifferentmanifestationsofspaceortime.Wejust need to extend these concepts to their equivalent: energy or movement, to include all of the physical manifestations. What we are saying is that: the universe appears to be a composite of two different magnitudes , but presented in different ways. In fact,assomeauthorsargueeverythingphysicallyweperceiveseemstobecomposed by electromagnetic fields or effects. Even the light itself, the primary component of theUniverseisadualmanifestation:waveandparticle(atonce).

The unification of all physical laws in a unified theory reveals this claim. Both, the Law of Relativity and Quantum Gravity, somehow, refers to the way in which space andtimeappearstoberelatedindifferentscales(macroandmicro). If all other physical laws have been condensed into these two thats means all manifestations we can experience are a combination of both components. Therefore, if we establish a numerical pattern able to explain one of them, may servestoexplaintheotherone. Theory of Relativity from Einstein relates the speed of light (where speed refers to movementortime)toenergy(whichstandsforspaceorelectromagnetism). According to this Theory, if we would reach the speed of light time would be infinite andspacewouldbereducedtoapoint.Forthesamereasonwecanunderstandthat, if the universe stopped, time would cease to exist ("or would be 1 point ") and the onlythingthatwouldbeaninfinitespace(theoretically). Both magnitudes (space and time) seem to be capable of stretching, as a rubber, from a point (a theoretical zero) up to the infinite. Then, we can wonder are they both equivalent magnitudes? Is it a magnitude objected of other one? So ... In this case can we express them mathematically as the same value, though it should be withthechangedsign? The theory of the BigBang appears in this direction. The Universe in its creation started from a starting point and, although difficult to understand, from that point space and time were created to the unison. In this point, the laws of the physics, therefore, stop making sense. This is scientific evidence. Time and space they were structured forming the Universe simultaneously. If you think so, our universe is just a3Dstructurecomposedofspaceandtime,inmotion. Under this conception and, bearing in mind that our Universe seems to be presided by the order and the harmony, the old concept of the YingYang, well might be a symbolofit. Then, if we give this valid that and we return again to the world of the formulations physicist mathematics the question it would be if both components were equal might we eliminate them as magnitudes of our physical formulations? Hereby the only thing that we would have in these formulations they would be numerical identities. WiththisexerciseofimaginationIwanttocatchyourattentioninorderthatyousee as the physical formulations they can manage to be understood as simple mathematical formulations; I mean Of what it forms the physical world, can it relatedirectlytothenumbers?

Anyway,donotworry.Wewillnotuseanyphysicalformula. 4. Geometricidentities. If, of between the "infinity" of mathematical formulas that we have we were choosing only those that express identities, we would remain only with the geometricrelations. An identity is a mathematical formula that includes only numbers, not accompanied byanymagnitude.Wecouldsayitisthepurestformulawecanfind,sincenomixing physical quantities. Only numbers. We can understand then that if mathematics, have that "point" of universality, such identities would, in turn, universal math (or geometric)truths.Anexamplewouldbethevolumeofasphere. Geometric formulas relate lengths, areas or volumes. Since any number can representeitheravolume,asanareaorevenasinglepoint,ageometricformulaisa simplenumericalratio. Let us see an example: 8 is the volume of a cube of side 2, but is also the area of a squareofside8.Finally,italsorepresents8units(oreightspatialpoints). Anumbercanbeexpressedinanydimension. Realize that the golden values are, for them themselves, identities or geometric relations. 5. ThecharacteristicsoftheUniverse. Gobacktothephysicalworld.Ouruniverseseemstobeinfinite.Noneedtogofarto check this, as is true at any scale. Even the smallest subatomic particle contains insideapotentiallyinfiniteenergy. In turn, appears to be limited by the speed of light. The speed of light is a value but, inspiteofthefactthatwedonotknowallhisdecimalsitisfinite.That'swhywesay itisaconstant. Here, we observe a clear correspondence of the physical world with geometric world. If we plan a circumference we can observe clearly that his surface is fenced. Both his contour and his interior surface are infinite, provided that they are defined bythevaluethat,theoretically,itisinfinite.

The Universe has many features, but could be condensed into a few physical characteristics: relativity, fractality, overlap or entanglement, gravity, duality and, aboveall,averyspecialone:irrationality. When I refer to the irrationality I mean not only the behavior of subatomic particles thatadoptclearlyirrationalbehavior.Thelightitselfhasasimilarbehavior.Howcan besomethingawaveandaparticleatthesametime? How can we understand that something infinite be contained in something finite? What sense have an irrational number with infinite decimal? In the same way that seems to be impossible to find all of the digits of , it seems impossible to understandwhathappensinthehypotheticalinfinite. But, inexplicably, all these features result in a perfectly harmonious and structured universe.Sincewearegoingtosee,thisapparentlackofrationalityisveryrelatedto the"Relativity".Because,nothingischance:everythingisrelated. RecentinvestigationsconsiderthepossibilitythatthecreationoftheUniverseisdue to a quantum fluctuation. In the quantum world, we can consider an empty space (theoretically) and, inexplicably, we found that pairs of subatomic particles (quarks and antiquarks) appears automatically created from nothing. As fast as they appear, disappear. This spontaneous creation of both, a subatomic particle, such as the universeasawhole,alsocouldbedefinedas"fractality". The ancients already referred to this concept with the familiar premise: "As above, so below." In certain form, this affirmation can be considered to be even one of the first definitions of the relativity provided that, we can consider this characteristic(or law),simplyasarelationbetweentwodifferentmagnitudes. Can numbers express also this apparent irrationality of the Universe? It observes that, if they should do it, we would be creating a numerical pattern capable of explaining characteristics of the Universe; Not only the relativity. Therefore, we are goingtoreferto(physical)universalcharacteristicsundertheexclusivepointofview ofthenumbers.Only,wehavetomodifyourpointofviewofthesameones. Too many evidences of a remote knowledge of the Universe, since not to bear them in mind. In the end, the principal constructions of the ancient world were raised on thebasisofthegoldenvalues.Whatmoreknewtheythatwedonotknow?

6. Relativityisnotaneffect. The Universe can only be expressed based on curved lines or straight lines. I guess you'll agree? If we concentrate on a bundle of light that enters the window we will observethatthisoneiscompletelystraight.Infact,ifwecouldfollowituptowhere it reaches our look always we would see that it spreads of equal form. But it is precisely Einstein's Special Relativity tells us that this is not so: the light curves. Only itisamatterofperspective. According to Einstein's theory, the light curve is due to the effect of gravitational forcesproducedbytheheavenlybodies.Accordingtohimthespacetimeiscurved. If we are to explain the theory of relativity based solely on numerical identities, we encounter the first problem: we can not include any magnitude. In other words, we accept that space timeis curved, but the curvature is not due to the involvement of nofurtherforceormagnitude.Tothenumbersitdoesnotaffectanyforceoreffect. The Universe is curled simply because it is like that. Under this point of view, the universalrelativitydoesnotsupposeanyeffect.Thetimedoesnotcurveforeffectof the same one, simply the relativity is a characteristic of the Universe. And this relativitycandemonstrategeometricallyconsideringthat:thespacetimeiscurledso much,asrectum. Under this view, the perception of spacetime relativity (time and space stretching and deforming like a rubber band) does not depend on any forces like gravity, but it is a feature that perceive one way or another depending of the spacetime position inwhichweplaceourselveson. The above mentioned position spacetime takes implicit a speed, provided that everything is in movement. Depending on our position speed we will experience thespacetimeofaformorofotherone.Wedonotdependonanyexternalforce. Wewillneverbeabletodefineintheuniverseapositionandspeedaccuratelyatthe same time. If you look at the speed (of a subatomic particle, for example) you lose precision on its location. If we try to determine its location, we lose accuracy over speed. The Indetermination Principle is therefore directly related to the relativity. Speed andpositionwouldbe likethecoordinatesspacetimeofaparticle.Theonewithout otheronedoesnotmakesense.Botharerelative:theydependtheoneonotherone but,inturn,asawholewecannotdeterminethem. In the same way as the space does not make sense without the time, we might say thesameofthepositionandthespeed.Everythingisrelative.

Relativity refers primarily to the superposition of two states, concepts, magnitudes or positions that cannot be determined but which, however, only make sense when theyarerelated. The present is an indeterminate concept. We understand rationally that the present "exists"providedthatweobserveareality.But,undertherelativepointofview,itis not any more than a combination between a past instant and a future instant. In whatpoint?Itcannotbecertain. Underthispointofviewtherelativityisnotanyeffect,simplyitisacharacteristicof theUniverse,aparticularappraisaldependingonourlocationandspeed. ProbablyforthismotiveitisnotachancethatwastheownEinsteinwhowassaying that:"Thegravityisanillusion".Paradoxicallytherelativityalsoitwouldbe. 7. Themovieofourlife. If the reality was a movie that was happening from constant form before our eyes, everyphotogramwouldbethepresenttime,ourrealityatanyonetime. The scientists try, though without success, to find one only of these photograms to be able to analyze it. We can suppose that a photogram is a photon, for example. But, as speed and position they are incompatible this is not possible. A photon can beaparticleor,simply,awave.Underthispointofview,themeasurementdoesnot haveverymuchfelt. But still there are two additional problems: the first one is that the speed of the above mentioned photogram is more rapid than the speed of our technology in tryingtoreachoneofthem.Thesecondoneisthatthesestillsareinfinitelysmall.All theattemptsareuseless.Wecanneitherstopthetimenorarrivetotheinfinite.The onlythingthatwecandoistounderstandtheargumentofthemovie. Well, not exactly. Still we can do more things. The quantum mechanics says to us that this movie not only we see her in front of our eyes but, from some form (that wedonotmanagetounderstand)alsoithappensbehindoureyes:forourmind.We areparticipants,principalactorsofthemovie. Whenthishappenswenoticesomethingsignificant.Westoppedtoseethefilmfrom asingleperspective.Nowwetrytounderstanditfromboth. What happens before our eyes would be equivalent to the material world. What happensbehindwouldbeimmaterial.

Then, intuitively, we think that both follow the same pattern. This is the attempt of physicstoseekaunifiedtheory,asingleformulationabletoexplainitalltosee.How toabove,sobelow! The mathematicians look for an explanation from a perspective. We might define this perspective like conceptual, or immaterially. The physicists from other one. But bothanswertothesameboss. We can see that, the above mentioned movie, when we notice with attention, always preserves the same universal relations. All the angles, the perspectives, the perceptions have characteristics jointly. Ultimately, by means of the reasoning, we come to a conclusion: Probably we cannot stop the movie and observe or measure analonephotogramespecially,butwecandoathing:wecandeducehisstructure. Inotherwords,howwecanrelatetheinfinitething(thewholemovie)withthefinite thing(aphotogram). All the frames are equal. Of between the infinity of geometric combinations that we might have to predict his form, only one in concrete will be the solution. The above mentioned form has to satisfy all the characteristics that we see in this universal movie. Therefore, a frame neither can be a square, it nor can be a circumference either: it has to be both simultaneously, because in the universe it is curved and straight. This is, has to be relative. Also it has to be threedimensional, logically. Therefore, the abovementionedcircumferencesandsquareshavetobesuperposed,ofsomeform. Neither we are in any cinema, there are neither any external operator who directs the movie, nor ticket offices nor ushers. The movie already had begun before our arrival. There is nothing external, only we with our bags of popcorns in our hands. Theonlythingthatitisnecessarytodoistobeabstractedbyamomentofthemovie andtothink. 8. Thegeometricrelativity. If we think about the decimal scale we can think, doing an analogy, which is a straightlinethatspreads(asabundleoflight)uptotheinfinite.Ifthenumbershave to express the universal relativity, this curve, though it should be of a conceptual form, also it will have to bow. What we are going to see, then, is how one can curl something"so"immaterial"asthedecimalscale.

10

Whenweestablishagivenlength;Forexample,alineoflength10,thisline,inturn, consists of infinite points. Every couple of points we can subdivide it in 10 new points. We can follow this process without end, only it is a question of being adding zeros. This is what says the decimal scale to us. A line consists, hereby, of infinite points. Every couple of consecutive points can have a length as small as let's be able imagine.Virtually,zero. Let'simaginethen,forexample,theprofileofawave,whichisacurvedlineranging. In no section of his length we have nothing similar to a straight line, for small that is thesection.Nowthen,ifweweremovingawaysufficientthiscurvedlineitwouldbe becomingprogressivelyincreasinglyblurry.Toacertaindistanceand,thoughreallyit is not like that, what we see is a straight line. It turns out to us impossible to distinguish his contour. This one is an effect of perspective though also we might refer to him with the term of relativity. Everything is relative,only it depends on the pointofview;ourpositiondetermineswhatweobserve. Inthiscaseweseeacurvedlinemayberelatedtoastraightline.Itsonlyamatterof scale, or perspective. In this publication we will do the reverse exercise: How a straight line (the decimal scale) line, depending on the scale, it can become a curved line? Relativityanddimensions. If the decimal scale can be represented of straight form, but also of curved form it is goingtofulfillmanyofthephysicalsuppositionsthatpreviouslywehaddescribed. In the case of working with lines (which the mathematical theory called 1D dimensionalspace)clearlywecancompare,aswesee,relativitywithnumbers. If we work at a space 2D (with surfaces) also we can do the same comparisons. Only wehavetobearauniversalandfundamentalcharacteristicinmind:themovement. If we take a perfect square and make it roll on his axis this one is going to be describingthearchofacircumference.Ifwewereobservingthisprocesscloselyorto a slowed down speed we might see that the square is moving. Nevertheless, if we were placing to certain distance and were increasing the speed of rotation only we would see a circumference. We might not even know if it is in movement since we haveobtainedaperfectcircumference. The same exercise we might do in a 3D (threedimensional) space. A cube rotating aboutitsaxiscausesusthefigureofasphere.Nomatterfromwhichperspectiveyou contemplate space. Always form a perfect sphere. It does not matter since spatial perspectivewecontemplatethefigure.Alwaysitwillformaperfectsphere.

11

All the time, therefore, we refer to the concept of scale, perspective or relativity. It doesnotimportthetermthatweuse:onlyhiscomprehensionisimportant. We can even reduce this exercise to dimension 0. Dimension 0 (or non physical dimension)isthedimensionofthepoints.Accordingtomathematicaltheoryapoint has no dimension, although this is a definition, without any correspondence on reality...!Anyway,thisisjustamatterofterms.Theimportantthinghereistoretain theidea,nomatterhowyoudefineit. Ifweimaginetwopointsarrangedspatially,inasceneinmovement,wecansuppose (asithappenswiththesubatomicparticles)thatthesepointsturnbetweenyes:they areoppositeorarerepelledbuttheyarejoinedinanimaginaryorbit. If we contemplate the above mentioned points from a transverse perspective only we can see a straight line, which length is the distance that separates them. Nevertheless, if we rotate our perspective 90 we see that, actually, they are formingacircumference(theyareacircumference). We might do the exercise inversely: to see of what way a circumference can "exchange" his form with a square, or a sphere with a bucket. Here, obviously, we meet the difficulty of needing a minimum of 4 spheres or circumferences to representtoasquare.Thisrepresentationdoesnothavemajordisadvantage,onlyit is a question of a geometric pattern. But, since he supposes an unnecessary complexityitispreferablenottopenetrateintothis. Note that, all the time, we set the initial assumption or condition that we start from twoseparatespatialpoints. In fact, when we have referred to the fractality of the decimal scale we have seen that,alwayswearegoingtomeettwopointsthataresubdividedinturninother10. When we do "zoom" to the decimal scale no sense makes observe an alone point to contemplatehowitgrowsordecreases.Ifwedonotcontemplatealwaystwodistant orconsecutivepointsascaledoesnotmakeanysense. So, let's summarize. We see that the numbers can represent the duality: always we need 2 points of reference. Also they can express from a geometric (or conceptual) point of view the relativity. In turn, we see that the decimal scale is fractal, a characteristic inherent in the Universe. Also it is holographic; That's means, can compose geometric figures consisted of vertexes as small as let's wish and the lines that join both vertexesare constituted, in turn, of points that can be infinitely small. The same thing we can say of his surface. The geometry of the numbers, from an evenphysicalpointofviewalsowecanconsiderhertobe,certainly,holographic.

12

Also we find symmetry or harmony in the geometry, can speak about poles, sides or opposite planes and, his form does not depend on his spatial orientation. But, still it ismore,ifweconsiderthatthelengthchosentoconstructageometricfigurereallyis not any more than a scale, the geometric figures that we construct also we can considerthattheyare. If we speak about geometric figures we refer to scales in 2D or in 3D Why not? We mustnotforgetthatthedecimalscaleis,preciselythis:ascale. Tofinishthisonechapter!Thinkaboutthis!Thespatialrelativitywhenitismovedto the quantum world can be defined, simply, as a probability. And the probability consistsof2possibilities(orpoints)objected. 9. Thedecimalscalepattern. Probably you think that the analogy numbers =physics continues being too conceptual or immaterial. But, paradoxically, this one is precisely one of the characteristics of our universe. As it has emphasized the quantum mechanics, the basis of our material reality is, exactly, immaterial. Therefore, which we are doing is to search new patterns (in this case about the decimal scale) from a conceptual, not physical point of view. It does not suit to forget it: we suppose, all the time, that a mathematicalorgeometricpatternhasaphysicalcorrespondence. Allourdevelopmentisbasedonfindingpatternsintheuniverse.Thankstothemwe advance in physics, mathematics or any science you can imagine. The pattern matching can be performed both from a physical point of view (measurement, experimentation, etc ....) and from a logical or rational point of view. The best example of this might be the theory of relativity: a mathematical development that camelaterendorsedbyexperimentation. In fact, today, the search for gravitational waves predicted by Einstein's model was, initsorigin,aconceptualmodel.
2

Another example of the importance of mathematics in the pursuit of physical patternscanbefoundinHermannMinkowski,arussianmathematicianofLithuanian origin who developed the geometrical theory of numbers. His most outstanding workswereperformedintheareasofnumber theory,mathematicalphysicsandthe theoryofrelativity.

Wikipedia.

13

In 1907 he realized that the special theory of relativity created by Einstein in 1905 and based on previous work of Lorentz and Poincar, could be better understood with a type of nonEuclidean geometry, in a 4 space dimensions , since then known as Minkowski space , where time and the space they are not separated magnitudes buttheyconstituteacommonandinseparablebody. The importance of establishing numerical patterns consists of his correspondence with the physical reality. When we search another pattern in the decimal scale we want to see if it has a physical correspondence. In last term we want to establish if the numerical only pattern (the geometric form of the photogram or frame) is capable of representing any physical manifestation. This is, it would have to make cleartoushowthereisstructuredthespacetime(thewholemovie). 10. Thepatternofprimenumbersandphysical. Since we consider to the mathematics as science, an obsession on the part of the mathematical community is to find how prime numbers are constituted. The prime numbers are the DNA of the numbers. The major advance in this field is Riemann's Conjecture that constitutes nowadays; no doubt, the more important mathematical problemunsolved. Riemannobtainedthemostimportantadvanceinthestudyoftheprimenumbers.In short, this one consisted of trying to demonstrate that the prime numbers that, seemingly they follow a random order actually are still a boss linked with the exponential function. This means that the prime numbers, considered in its entirety (orinfinity)theyarestill,certainly,aregularboss. As some mathematicians used to say, Riemann imposed a harmony to the wild symphony of primes. The conjecture has not yet been demonstrated but all the evidence suggests that is true. But surely you will wonder that have the prime numbersjointlywiththephysicalworld? Let's see this conformity with the following example, in which the most interesting thingistheconclusions,notthetechnicalconcepts.
3

During the spring of 1972 he took a chance and surprising fact. The mathematical Hugo Montgomery specialist in "number theory", was visiting the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, in the U.S. By chance there was presented the physical Freeman Dyson and, while it was commenting on his work to him, showed him an image that was representing the graph of the relation of "zeros" extracted from the
3

http://ramanujan25449.blogspot.com.es/

14

"Zeta's Landscape from Riemann". While Montgomery was exposing what he was thinking that they could mean the intervals that were separating the above mentioned "zeros". Dyson's eyes were illuminated: " But if it is the same behavior of thedifferencesbetweencouplesofownvaluesoftherandomhermitiancounterfoils" Dyson quickly explained to Montgomery that those entities with esoteric name were used by quantum physicists to predict the energy levels in a heavy nucleus when bombardedwithlowenergyneutrons. Both, the intervals between the "zeros" since between the " levels of energy " they were happening in an almost identical way, thing that difficultly could happen at random.Montgomerycouldnotbelieveit:theconfigurationsthatwereappearingin the distribution of the "zeros" and that the quantum physicists were discovering in theenergeticlevelsofthecoresoftheheavyatomswhentheywereexcited. The atom, beyond having the behavior of a planetary system, behaves as a "drum". The vibrations that are created when it is struck are composed by some forms of fundamentalwaves,eachonebyhisowntypicalfrequency. ( ... ) In 1989 Odlyzco presented on a graph those intervals whose separating these "zeros" and put them together with the values predicted by Montgomery. This time the correspondence was amazing. It was convincing proof of a new property of "zeros". From those astral distances the "zeros" they were sending a very clear message: the zeros were produced by a "mathematical drum" analogous to which wasproducingtheenergeticlevelsinthecoreoftheexcitedatoms. ( ... ) Montgomery had made that strange configuration visible in two areas of the sciencethatseemednottohaveanythingtosee. The question is, why those two entities, energy levels and "zeros" of Riemann, have somethingincommon?Whatdoesthatrelate? Geometry! Riemann's function is based on the establishment of a precise geometry that the prime numbers seem to follow. The formation of the prime numbers is, logically, a purelynumericalfunction.Forsomemotivetheabovementionedboss(basedonthe decimal scale) is adapted by amazing precision to certain properties of the quantum world. For this motive it does not turn out strange either that the Theorem of Pythagoras, another exclusively numerical function, is the mathematical identity most used in any field of the science and, specially, in the quantum mechanics. The numbers (nothinganymore)describingorhelpingtodiscovertheUniverse.

15

11. Changingperspective. The mathematical basic conceptions that we have can seem to be perfectly structured, and even over any objection. Really they seem to be innate. Though this notalwaysislikethat.Certainlysomemathematicalconceptsarenotadaptedtothe reality.Wearegoingtoseesomeoneofthem. Our decimal scale start from a single point in the plane: zero. This is contradictory with the own concept of scale (always two points) and with the establishment of a universalandinfinitescale.Remember:infiniteisnotapoint,justaconcept. For definition the infinite is something that does not have final point, but neither a point of beginning. To consider of this form the decimal scale gives place to the establishment of the famous axes of abscissas, the axes (x, y) that we saw in the college,torepresentthegeometricforms. The positive numbers placed to the right of the zero and the negatives to his left side, in the axis x. We do the same process in the axis y (also called imaginary!).This type of graph or initial representation, though extremely useful to describe geometrically figures or functions, it is not any more than a possible representation. In the same way as the Euclidean geometry is not any more than a typethangeometry,whichdepartsfromafewcertainsuppositions. It is important not to confuse concepts: the mathematical conceptions are definitions; only they correspond to a widespread opinion. But, for very majority that is an opinion does not constitute an absolute truth. A definition, since we are goingtoseemayhavenocorrespondencewiththereality. To depart from the only spatial point implies having to define, with posteriority at least two subsets of different numbers: the negative numbers and the imaginary numbers.Nowthen,thisgivesplacetoevidentcontradictions. Imaginarynumbersareconceptsthattechnicallycontradictthemathematical theory:refertosomethingthattheoreticallydoesnotexist(seenote). Negative numbers contradict physics, since in nature (or the universe) is nothingnegative(Thedebtsarenotphysicalconcepts)

This problem is solved in geometry. The geometry takes great both imaginary numbers as negative numbers. Now rename them: in geometry talk about opposite sides,leftandrightorupanddown. Einstein said: "Math can take you from point A to point B, but imagination will take youanyplaceyouwant."

16

Then forget (metaphorically) the sign of the cross, the famous axis of abscissas. Forget him and his omnipotent zero that originates so many contradictions (nothing iszeroinuniverse).Wearegoingtoriseandtoseeingitwithperspective;Something that,alsometaphoricallythemathematicsdonotallowyoutodo:toraisethepencil ofthepaper. 12. StairwaytoHeaven. Let's imagine, then the following supposition: the decimal scale not only can be representedbymeansofastraightline.Thedecimalscalealsocanbeconceivedasif itwasastairs. In this case we will consider to 0 as it really is, a single position indicator. Consider the 0 only as a concept, because it is what it is. The 0 also has no physical correspondence:absolutenothingnessdoesnotexist. Then, we are going to change the conventional sense: 0 it is going to indicate us the beginning(ortheend)ofeachofthestepsofthisstairs.Let'simaginethatthisstairs advances from the 1 to 100. Every step consists of 10 points. In total we have 10 steps.Everystephasadefinitelength,apointofbeginningandafinalpoint.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)

(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)

(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)

In turn, this disposition also is fractal. If instead of thinking that the stairs goes from the 1 to 100 (as in this example) we were thinking that it goes from the 1 to 10.000, everystepnowwillhave100intermediatepoints,andthestairswillhave100steps. It does not matter since be of big, always his fractal form will preserve. A stairs of length10100willhavethesameformthatastairsoflength10,onlyitwilldependon aquestiononalargescaleorperspective. Every step will have the form of a triangle rectangle, equal length, equal height; therefore, geometrically it agrees with the Theorem of Pythagoras, where the "catetos"alwayswillhavethesamelength.Alsoitagrees(inhisprojection)withthe Theorem of Such of Mileto: a major triangle will be a proportion of a low triangle (thestepsareproportional)

17

The triangles are spatial figures, something that the decimal scale (alone) cannot do. In addition, to meet the Pythagorean theorem (a universal identity) is directly related to the "squaring". This is especially significant given that our main physical lawsincorporatethisfunctioninitsformulation. Everything seems perfect, but ... unfortunately we have a couple of problems that directlyconfrontourlogic.Theyare: If we project the above mentioned stairs on an axis of coordinates, only we can project the vertexes (the point of beginning of every step). All the points that compose the step would have the same projection on such an axis. We might settle this problem if we adopt the "Position of Copenhagen" (understood with physics they will understand it) and say that such a projectiondoesnotmakesense. But the second problem is the most worrying. If we have defined the fractalidadofthestairswithoutdependingonhislengthwehavetoconclude that the steps are never going to be planes, but also they are going to have the form of a stairs (though it is 10 times smaller). Providing that we do "zoom"onanypointwearegoingtohaveaformofstairs,notastraightline. After so much effort we come to an irrational representation. What do we do?Doesithappentoyouanidea?

Takeyourtime! Can irrational solution stop us? Certainly not. In spite of that in physics or in mathematics the irrational solutions are in the habit of being rejected we are not goingtodothesamething. Exactly we have just seen as the principal characteristic of the Universe it is that of being precisely irrational. Then, the solution happens for considering the infinity of thenumbers,bothinhislinearversionandinhisversion"stairs".Thisoneisthekey. In case of Riemann, which we have just seen, the regularity in the formation of the prime numbers becomes evident as we tend to infinite. Of equal form, the most exactcorrespondencewiththequantummechanicstakesplacewhenweconsiderto be saying Riemann's space practically infinite. This way so, weare going to do the samething:"we"aregoing"to"stretch"ourstairsuptotheinfinitebecause,infact, itislikethatofbig. If we extend the stairs up to the infinite, this one would remain affected by the relativity, which is the supposition of beginning. Therefore, the stairs has to adopt a curvedform.Then,ofwhatdoesitform?

18

Formingacircumference! If we consider this curvature; this means, if we form the circumference, every point of the surface of the stairs (for all his steps) also it is going to correspond with a projection in this imaginary axis of coordinates in which we project it. Only if we consider the decimal curled scale to be such acurvature sense makes. Infinite points of the stairs can be reflected in infinite points of the imaginary axis. A curve has his reflectioninastraightlinewhenweapproachinfinite. Then, which we have done, in essence, is to define that our stairs is not any more than the arch than a circumference; and the imaginary straight line is not any more than his diameter. The above mentioned circumference has an equal contour to and a diameter which length spreads from 0 up to the 1 (both points of a scale) When this circumference is constructed, We realize that we have constructed precisely the Unit circumference (diameter 1). All this mental exercise leads us to concluding that a decimal scale like that considered, "a stairs to the sky " leads us, mysteriously,to,agoldenvalue.Then. IsGod? Before we have seen that we can avoid worrying results defining, with a certain imagination,theconditionsofbeginning. But, now we are going to see really disturbing results. Nevertheless, in this case the "fortune" it puts of our side. And it is that, the correspondence of the elements of the decimal scale with the curvature of a sphere is widely demonstrated in mathematicsthough,probably,ithasnotbeenconsideredfromthispointofview. Irefer,sinceitcanbefelt,totheconvergentandinfinitesuccessionsand,especially, tofamous"SuccessionofBasle". The Basles Succession is a famous problem in number theory, first posted by Pietro Mengoli , and solved by Leonhard Euler in 1735. Since the problem had resisted the assaultsofthemostimportantmathematiciansoftheepoch,thesolutiontookEuler rapidlytothereputationwhenhewas28yearsold. Euler generalized the problem considerably, and his ideas were taken some years later by Bernhard Riemann in his article of 1859 " ber die Anzahl der Primzahlen unter einer gegebenen Grsse " (On the quantity of prime minor numbers that a given magnitude), where defined his zetas function and demonstrated his basic properties.

19

The problem owes his name to the city of Euler's residence (Basle), city where there waslivingalsothefamilyBernoulli,whichtreatedtheproblemwithoutsuccess. The problem of Basle consists of finding the exact sum of the inverse ones of the squaresofthepositivenumbers.Thisis,theexactsumoftheinfiniteseries:

For non mathematicians, Euler states: "The infinite sum of squared ratios of all integersfromdecimalscaletendstoacircle" Euler wrote in the matter: Nevertheless, I have discovered now, and against any forecast an elegant expression for the sum of the series () that it depends on the squaring of the circle I Have thought that 6 times the sum of this series is equal to thesquareofthelengthofthecircumferencewhichdiameteristheunit" The importance of the circumference unit resides precisely in that the unit is, fundamentally, our unit of natural measure. It does not matter since the stairs is of big, always we will be able to think that the length of a step is 1. Both, 0 and 1 are ournaturalscale.Forthismotiveonedoesnotmakesensewithoutotherone Observes,finally,thatneverwehavemovedawayfromthemathematicalidentities. Infact,Euler'sformulationisanotheridentity:onlytheycontrolnumbers. Wearegoingtosummarize,therefore,theprincipalconclusions: The decimal scale is relative. It can be represented both in a straight line as curved. Have defined a geometric imaginary space. If we conclude that mathematical and physics they are two faces of the same currency, the physical space is constituted on the basis of geometric forms. In fact this one might be the explanation of why Leonardo da Vinci was thinking that the circumference andthesquare(ongoldenproportion)wererepresentingtheUniverse. Theoutlineofthisimaginarycircumference,infact,isnotastraightline.Ifwe zoom to infinity would see (following the logic) which is composed of small triangles. Some are within the circumference (the material world) and other outside (the immaterial world). We can also assimilate the contour of the spherewiththeSpeedofLight.

20

The universal relativity; this means, the numerical relativity does not have a point of beginning, but two. The opposite one to other one. Likewise it is directly associated with the concept of infinite. For this motive a possible comprehension of the "infinite" concept might be the following one: 1=2. What we see as a point, if we approach the sufficient thing, they are two. A certainlyirrationalsolution. The mathematical identities describe the Universe. What we consider mathematicalcuriositiesareonlyUniversalitems. 13. Theuniversalpattern. Always we have thought that a formulation, a mathematical identity, capable of explaining the Universe (a theory of everything) would give us the only formulation. This is true. Though, in agreement with what we have just seen, the above mentioned formulation would consist, in turn, of two scales: a circular and square scale.Alwaysthesamecondition:1=2. Ifwewerereferringtothematerialworld,theabovementionedconditionmightbe summarized of the following form. A "particle" can adopt two conditions, ON and OFF,tobeornotbe.That'sthequestion,butalsoisthesolution. MathematicallyabovementionedconditionwouldbeconsistentwiththeLawofthe Probability,twopossibleresults. This can be understood as follows. We start from a unique condition, but in the background are two. This condition can be set as "Subdivide into two" From the perspectiveof the square subdivided into two means doing "side by side". But, from the perspective of the circumference, to subdivide into two means to divide in two equal halves (other one of the Theorems of Mileto). The circumference as a global unit. It is not true that a point does not have dimension. A point can have infinite dimensions. A point can be the whole Universe. A point is not any more than the smallest circumference that you could imagine. The infinite is not only "anything" thatdoesnothaveend;alsoitis"something"thatdoesnothavebeginning. If, our Universe comes defined in terms of infinite, really it has felt to consider that the most universal mathematical identities that we could consider, the golden relations, probably should be the nearest thing to God that we can represent. As Keplerwassaying"GodisAGeometry". To conclude, probably wonder if there exists some numerical formulation capable of condensingbothscales!Theresponseisaffirmative.Andnotonlyit:thisformulation includesalsothemovement.

21

nfact,onlywehavetothinkthattheUniverseisageometric(imaginary)structurein 3D and in constant movement. If we return to the analogy of the movie, every still would be a threedimensional structure, an overlapping of circumferences and interlacedsquares. This formulation is Eulers Identity, the most beautiful formula of all times.

CS Pierce wrote about it: "Gentlemen, this is certainly true, it is absolutely paradoxical,cannotunderstandanddonotknowwhatitmeans,butwehaveshown and,therefore,weknowitmustbetrue" Init,wejusthavetoreplacetheimaginaryvaluebyitscorrespondingvaluecanonly beone. Guesswhat? Thegoldenratio. This formula alone condenses all the physics of the universe, and any imaginable number pattern . This is its meaning! according to the golden theory. However, a moredetailedexplanationexceedsthepurposeofthispublication,sopleaseconsult thebibliography. If a unified theory requires unifying relativity and gravity, what we are asking is for both a single unified pattern. This means that the same pattern can explain so will relativitywithquantumgravity. If we have defined that the Universe consists of triangles (or squares) and circumferences, which it is fractal and which all his dimensions are joined geometrically what formulation do you think that it can define the gravity? What functiondoesrefertotheentanglementbetweendifferentdimensions? Pythagoras.TheLawofGravity. That is why The Law of Universal Gravitation can be expressed geometrically as a parallelogram(theunionoftwotriangles). As Einstein said, The force of gravity is an illusion." Exactly the same as the effects ofrelativity.SimplefeaturesoftheUniverse. Webelievethatourevolutionand ourknowledgeadvancesinastraightlinewasan unknown horizon. But, in our vanity, we do not realize that in reality, we only give a hugereturn.

22

Bibliography: If you want to know more about the Golden Theory I leave the link to various publications. www.scribd.com/mundoaureo RiemannConjectureExplainedinmoredetail. http://ramanujan25449.blogspot.com.es/2012/12/elmisteriodelosnumeros primos.html?q=el+misterio(verpartes1y2) www.facebook.com/ricardjimenez/www.facebook.com/soyluegovengosoyluegovoy. email:mundoaureo@gmail(Commentsarewelcome).

"When the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not exact, when are accurate,donotrefertoreality"AlbertEinstein.

23