Combinatorial analysis demonstrates quantum level repulsion arises from orbit frequency incommensurability in finite shells, indicating deterministic roots for Riemann spectral rigidity.
For over half a century since the historic encounter between Montgomery and Dyson, the exact correspondence between the pair correlation of non-trivial Riemann zeta zeros and the eigenvalue spacing statistics of complex quantum systems has remained an open foundational puzzle—frequently attributed to infinite-dimensional quantum chaos or transcendental prime distributions. In this work, we demonstrate that quantum spectral rigidity and level repulsion do not require infinite-dimensional complexity; rather, they emerge deterministically from the discrete algebraic geometry of finite quantum shells (n ≤ 8). By reformulating inter-shell transitions as singularly localized radiation beat frequencies Δνn,m = S · (1/m² - 1/n²) and constructing dimensionless pairwise frequency ratios R = ΔνA / ΔνB, all system-specific screening factors, effective nuclear charges, and isotope-dependent constants cancel out identically, yielding a universal, scale-invariant rational field (p/q). An exhaustive combinatorial evaluation across all 210 pairwise transition channels reveals that dominant adjacent dipole modes (n → n - 1) exhibit 100% strict non-integer multiplicity (q ≥ 2), geometrically precluding harmonic phase locking. Furthermore, when evaluated against empirical spectroscopic and nuclear data resolution thresholds (ε ∼ 0.01% - 0.1%), zero non-integer pairs fall within the 0.01% harmonic lock-in tolerance. The two exact multi-step integer exceptions (k = 4.0, 5.0) constitute only ≈0.95% of the combinatorial space and are suppressed as measure-zero noise under standard spectral unfolding. Derived strictly from the inverse-square quantum scaling axiom without adjustable parameters, this paper establishes that quantum level repulsion is the deterministic manifestation of discrete arithmetic incommensurability across physical orbits.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dongwoo Kwak (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: