TITLE: Current Status of the Riemann Hypothesis
QUESTION [12 upvotes]: Does anyone know the current progress in showing the Riemann hypothesis? I was only able to find this paper of Conrey that says at least 40% of the zeros of the Riemann Zeta function lie on the critical line.

REPLY [7 votes]: It is unsolved as of today.
However, some latest researches are:

A paper from 2002 talks by Freeman J. Dyson on Random Matrix Theory, Quasicrystals and zeta function
Fractal Geography of the Riemann Zeta Function
Andrew Odlyzko's collection of papers on such topic

Edit: 
FWIW, do note that the shortest "proof" of RH by Mark Colyvan as mentioned in IEP here using paraconsistent logic:


As the founders of relevant logic,
  Anderson and Belnap, urge in their
  canonical book Entailment, a ‘proof’
  submitted to a mathematics journal in
  which the essential steps fail to
  provide a reason to believe the
  conclusion, e.g. a proof by explosion,
  would be rejected out of hand. Mark
  Colyvan (2008) illustrates the point
  by noting that no one has laid claim
  to a startlingly simple proof of the
  Riemann hypothesis:
Riemann’s Hypothesis: All the zeros of the zeta function have real part equal to > 1/2. 
Proof: Let R stand for the Russell set, the set of all sets that are not
  members of themselves. It is
  straightforward to show that this set
  is both a member of itself and not a
  member of itself. Therefore, all the
  zeros of Riemann’s zeta function have
  real part equal to 1/2.
Needless to say, the Riemann
  hypothesis remains an open problem at
  time of writing.

The cited 2008 article by Colyvan however does not use this for RH but Fermat's Last Theorem.
Speaking of non-classical approach, Douglas S. Bridges further writes about the self-referential nature in Reality and Virtual Reality in Mathematics (2006):

There is an even more dramatic example of a proof which might cause the
  same unease. A famous conjecture of Riemann in the nineteenth century, the
  Riemann Hypothesis, remains unsolved today despite the efforts of some of the
  greatest mathematicians in the intervening 150 years. Early last century, the
  English mathematician J.E. Littlewood produced a theorem whose difficult proof
  was split into two cases. In the first case, Littlewood assumed that the Riemann
  Hypothesis was true, and in the second that it was false. Writing R to denote the
  Riemann Hypothesis, and P to denote the conclusion of Littlewoods theorem,
  we can express his proof in the schematic form
  $(R\bigvee\neg R)\Rightarrow P.$ (1)
  Here I have introduced the standard logical symbols $\bigvee$ (or), $\neg$ (not), and $\Rightarrow$ (implies)
  What is the meaning of Littlewoods proof? Since we are unable at this
  date to decide whether or not the Riemann Hypothesis is true, we cannot say
  which of the two cases of his proof actually applies. If, as most mathematicians
  expect, the Riemann Hypothesis turns out to be provable, then that part of
  Littlewoods proof that is based on the assumption that the Riemann Hypothesis
  is false is worthless and can be thrown away. Moreover, in such a proof, if $P$
  is an existential statement one that asserts the existence of a certain object
  $x$ with certain properties then the two cases of a proof of $P$ that follows the
  Littlewoods schematic form (1) may produce di¤erent objects $x$ with the desired
  properties (as in our earlier proof involving $\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}}$
  ); under such circumstances, we
  might be unable to tell which of the two possibilities for x was the desired one
  until we could prove the truth or falsity of the Riemann Hypothesis.
  The formalist might attempt to remove our unease about Littlewoods proof
  as follows. Suppose that the desired conclusion $P$ of Littlewoods theorem is false.
  Then Littlewoods arguments, schematised in (1), show that neither the Riemann
  Hypothesis nor its negation can hold (since each of these alternatives leads us
  to a proof of $P$): In other words, if $P$ is false, then the Riemann Hypothesis is
  false and it is false that the Riemann Hypothesis is false! This is plainly absurd.
  Hence we conclude that $P$ cannot be false and is therefore true.