Strait away i see inconsistency in the physical units in the

Uncertainty expression

h has units of action, and in brackets it is

Supposed to be unitless.

So i dont get this uncomfortable

Union of physics and no

Theory

Dear Juan Weisz

Thank you very much for your insightful feedback. I appreciate the time you've taken to review my work.

I would like to clarify that the uncertainty principle mentioned in the paper is not the main focus of my research. I included it as a helpful tool to discuss the location of observables, specifically energy in this case, which is analogous to the location of primes in the context of number theory and the nontrivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function. These observables are equivalent in the framework I am exploring.

The main purpose of the paper is the derivation and analysis of the Hamiltonian, not its connection to the uncertainty principle. However, your point is well taken, and I realize that I should improve the section you mentioned, particularly because I am not a physicist by training.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could review our derived Hamiltonian and its effectiveness in predicting the location of the nontrivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function using its eigenvalues. Additionally, I would be grateful if you could check our mathematical proofs regarding the Hamiltonian's Hermiticity, unboundedness, and whether it is self-adjoint.

Thank you again for your valuable input, and I look forward to any further feedback you may have.

Best regards, Rafik Zeraoulia

Usualy only matrices or operators

Have eigenvalues.

Functions as riemann zeta have roots.

Primes and energy have no comparison.

I think you have to decide qm or no.

Theory, not both