Every few years, I return to these newsgroup lists to try and resolve an
issue I have noticed for years. It is this. It appears to me that QM
(specifically QED) makes an inaccurate prediction for the ground state
binding energy of hydrogen, one of the most fundamental values in the
atomic
physics. Since the hydrogen atom is the most simplest of atoms, and the
ground state is the most simplest of its energy levels, and since QED
claims
to be extremely accurate in its predictions, one would think QED's
prediction would agree very well with the observed value. It appears to me
that it does not.

This time around, I have found numbers on the net that were not generated
by
myself, and I will present these numbers, which appear to substantiate my
claim. I want to stress, I completely understand that such a contention,
on
face value, would appear to be highly unlikely. It is reasonable for
anyone
to think that if I were correct, such an error would have been seen many
years ago by many people, and we would all know about it. But it does not
appear to me that QED physicists have noticed this error, and that
confuses
me significantly, because it seems so apparent. I vow, though, that if
someone can show me the error of my ways, I will accept I am wrong, and
quit
trying to convince the QM community. I will apologize profusely for
wasting
everybody's time.

I have always employed the scientific method here, that is, establish what
the observed ground state binding energy is, then look at various
theoretical predictions, and decide which one appears the most correct.
So,
here we go. The first thing to do is to establish what everyone agrees is
the best, most accurate experimentally derived value for hydrogen's ground
state binding energy. Since there is a one-to-one correspondence between
the
Rydberg constant for hydrogen and its ground state binding energy, a good
way to begin is to agree on what is the best observed value for hydrogen's
Rydberg constant. I have found a link, at
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/spc/teaching/py301/phys301.htm. This link
provides a value for R_H where it is stated (Part 5, page 9) the value is
derived "from expt (line spectra)." The value is 1.0967759 x 10^-7 m^-1.
Can
we all agree this is an accurate observed value of R_H? If you can find a
reference that provides a significantly different value, I would be very
surprised, because I have references that trace back essentially this same
value for the past 30 years or so.

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:62dd766a-24df-417c-902c-a18bdad7c652@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...



Hi Steve, nice to see you post.

On Apr 22, 8:59 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
...
Hi Jerry,
Thanks for participating. If I am interpreting you correctly, that was
not
quite what I thought in the past, namely, I did not think "His point
seems
to be that the non-relativistic QM calculation fails to give a number
that
agrees with computations of the Rydberg constant based on the best
available
empirical data. The discrepancy amounts to thousands of standard
deviations." My point was that the QED prediction does not agree with
what
very apparently is portrayed in the literature as an unbiased, not
influenced by theory value, i.e., a spectroscopic-data-empirical value
of
R_H. After all, hydrogen must naturally posses what we would call "its
true
Rydberg constant value." and that is the definite implication in these
references. The presentations in these references are clearly trying to
employ a correct scientific method where theory is compared to
observations.
I want and hope to so the same. If you did examine the threads in the
past,
there were a least a couple of people who appreciated what I had to say.
Perhaps that will not happen here again, but I'm going to try anyway.

IIRC,(foggy from years ago), you decided
the Bohr Correspondence Principle, was
the more accurate of the Rydberg calc.
Anyway, I'll lurk the discussion, and
add what I can.

Thanks,
Steve

Welcome, thanks
Ken S. Tucker

Hi Ken,

Thanks for participating. I don't know if I'll say it's good to be back, but
I'm a bit older now and hopefully wiser. I am not going to present any
numbers I myself "crunched," maybe that will impress upon some I'm trying to
be honest here. I would not exactly say it was the Bohr Correspond
Principle, but the Bohr energy equation itself which provided a more
accurate R_H prediction. This time around, I'm not even going to mention
Bohr (not at first, anyway). Since the non-relativistic Schroedinger
equation is identical to Bohr's equation, I'll just say that it's the
non-relativistic Schoe. theory that appears most accurate. This is what I
had hoped some would see by my asking to "please consider the nature of the
theory that provides this 'fanatically good agreement between theory and
expt!' as the PPT slides point out.
Steve

I'm just not getting the point of this thread - he won't say what the
prediction is, or disagree with me when I say the Rydberg constant is
just a bunch of constants thrown together that doesn't have a good
empirical measurement anyway, or even say how the prediction is
inaccurate.

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:41332318-a642-4aca-8c25-9a395a3c3cb6@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...> To Steve.

On Apr 22, 10:20 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in

messagenews:62dd766a-24df-417c-902c-a18bdad7c652@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.co
m...





Hi Steve, nice to see you post.

On Apr 22, 8:59 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
...
Hi Jerry,
Thanks for participating. If I am interpreting you correctly, that
was
not
quite what I thought in the past, namely, I did not think "His point
seems
to be that the non-relativistic QM calculation fails to give a
number
that
agrees with computations of the Rydberg constant based on the best
available
empirical data. The discrepancy amounts to thousands of standard
deviations." My point was that the QED prediction does not agree
with
what
very apparently is portrayed in the literature as an unbiased, not
influenced by theory value, i.e., a spectroscopic-data-empirical
value
of
R_H. After all, hydrogen must naturally posses what we would call
"its
true
Rydberg constant value." and that is the definite implication in
these
references. The presentations in these references are clearly trying
to
employ a correct scientific method where theory is compared to
observations.
I want and hope to so the same. If you did examine the threads in
the
past,
there were a least a couple of people who appreciated what I had to
say.
Perhaps that will not happen here again, but I'm going to try
anyway.

IIRC,(foggy from years ago), you decided
the Bohr Correspondence Principle, was
the more accurate of the Rydberg calc.
Anyway, I'll lurk the discussion, and
add what I can.

Thanks,
Steve

Welcome, thanks
Ken S. Tucker

Hi Ken,

Thanks for participating. I don't know if I'll say it's good to be back,
but
I'm a bit older now and hopefully wiser. I am not going to present any
numbers I myself "crunched," maybe that will impress upon some I'm
trying to
be honest here. I would not exactly say it was the Bohr Correspond
Principle, but the Bohr energy equation itself which provided a more
accurate R_H prediction. This time around, I'm not even going to mention
Bohr (not at first, anyway). Since the non-relativistic Schroedinger
equation is identical to Bohr's equation, I'll just say that it's the
non-relativistic Schoe. theory that appears most accurate. This is what
I
had hoped some would see by my asking to "please consider the nature of
the
theory that provides this 'fanatically good agreement between theory and
expt!' as the PPT slides point out.
Steve

You should lay your cards out.
Myself I'm trying to figure out if I should
apply relativistic corrections within the
structure of an electron!
I occasionally post on that.
Ken S. Tucker

Hi Ken,

Yes, I've done so in another post. If an electron does have internal
structure, which like you, I think it does, then I would say you should
apply relativistic corrections. Relativistic effects have to be present,
assuming relativity theory is physically correct, which I certainly think it
is.

Steve

"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:8ad78660-2ec4-4783-9de6-f5a3fa0bf0b0@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 21, 10:41 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:



"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:2d864873-edf8-497c-9679-24eb74b02450@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 21, 7:19 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:

Hi Eric,

Thank you for taking an interest. I hope others do too. I'll provide a
link
to a paper that provides a QED prediction, but only after folks agree
on
the
observed value. In the past, I have provided my own predictions, but
this
time, I do not want there to be any issue of me not having done that
correctly.

As a hint of the final outcome I hope to show, if you looked at the
link
I
gave for the observed value (the PowerPoint slides), note how the
author
stated "fantastically good agreement between theory and expt!". I
would
like
for you to consider the nature of the theory that provided this
"fantastically good agreement."

If you can't do better than power point slides for an undergrad QM
class, then there really isn't much point in discussing this. Oh, and
don't fucking top post.

[snip]

Hi Eric,

Thanks for responding. If you have some doubts about the observed value
given in the PPT files, here is a reference of a well respected QM text
"Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles," by
R.
Eisberg and R. Resnick. I have the 2nd edition, and on p. 98, these
authors
provide an R_H value "from recent spectroscopic data" of R_H =
10967757.6
m^1. This number is only different by about 1.4 m^-1 from the number
provided in the PPT slides. The reason I provided the link to the PPT
slides
is that perhaps not everyone has the Eisberg and Resnick text, and I
didn't
want to simply post a number on my own. I didn't want there to be any
doubt
about the numbers, both observed and predicted. I give you my word, I
will
not post any numbers that I myself have "crunched" in any way. The
Eisberg
and Resnick 1st edition looks to have been published in 1974, and I
think
the 1st edition also listed a similar value. I'd have to look up in my
past
notes, but I remember finding a well respected reference that goes back
to
the 1950s with essentially the same number. It looks like this observed
value has been around for > 50 years with little change. This suggests
to
me
that the value in the PPT file is an acceptably accurate value for an
experimentally determined R_H. Would you agree? If you don't agree, I
would
very much appreciate it you would try and track down a value that you
think
is accurate, and post it here.

Thanks,
Steve

The Rydberg constant isn't empirically determined to my knowledge - it
is a composition of a half dozen fundamental constants.

Hi Eric,

Thanks for responding. I am wondering, then, what the words "from expt
(line
spectra)" and "from recent spectroscopic data" mean.

Steve

Hi Steve, nice to see you post.

On Apr 22, 8:59 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
...
Hi Jerry,
Thanks for participating. If I am interpreting you correctly, that was
not
quite what I thought in the past, namely, I did not think "His point
seems
to be that the non-relativistic QM calculation fails to give a number
that
agrees with computations of the Rydberg constant based on the best
available
empirical data. The discrepancy amounts to thousands of standard
deviations." My point was that the QED prediction does not agree with
what
very apparently is portrayed in the literature as an unbiased, not
influenced by theory value, i.e., a spectroscopic-data-empirical value
of
R_H. After all, hydrogen must naturally posses what we would call "its
true
Rydberg constant value." and that is the definite implication in these
references. The presentations in these references are clearly trying to
employ a correct scientific method where theory is compared to
observations.
I want and hope to so the same. If you did examine the threads in the
past,
there were a least a couple of people who appreciated what I had to say.
Perhaps that will not happen here again, but I'm going to try anyway.

IIRC,(foggy from years ago), you decided
the Bohr Correspondence Principle, was
the more accurate of the Rydberg calc.
Anyway, I'll lurk the discussion, and
add what I can.

Thanks,
Steve

Welcome, thanks
Ken S. Tucker

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
....
Well Steve, A few fella's got together and set up
a new group, "Sci.Physics.Foundations" that have
some highly knowledgeable posters, and is moderated
for good reasons, but they even let me post there
from time to time, so you're a shoe in!
Check it out.
Ken S. Tucker

BTW: I think you're right, a relativistic correction
is necessary.

Hi Ken,

I looked on my ISP's newsgroups, but I didn't find it. Or I don't how to
locate it. How do I do that? Are you sure they would allow discussions of
these controversial ideas? It sure would be nice to get off of
sci.physics.relativity. Btw, was it you who thought an electron coasts on a
geodesic? If so, I completely agree, with all of the differential-geometry
implications that the word "geodesic" conveys. You know, I actually
sometimes hope I am wrong here, about this hydrogen stuff. I'm getting very
tired of fighting the fight, and it would be nice to get a clear explanation
of the error in my thinking. Devastating to my ego, but nice none the less.
Steve

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0aac1525-c1d0-4008-a201-52342f6b08ca@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 21, 12:47 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:
Every few years, I return to these newsgroup lists to try and resolve an
issue I have noticed for years. It is this. It appears to me that QM
(specifically QED) makes an inaccurate prediction for the ground state
binding energy of hydrogen, one of the most fundamental values in the
atomic
physics. Since the hydrogen atom is the most simplest of atoms, and the
ground state is the most simplest of its energy levels, and since QED
claims
to be extremely accurate in its predictions, one would think QED's
prediction would agree very well with the observed value. It appears to
me
that it does not.

This time around, I have found numbers on the net that were not
generated
by
myself, and I will present these numbers, which appear to substantiate
my
claim. I want to stress, I completely understand that such a contention,
on
face value, would appear to be highly unlikely. It is reasonable for
anyone
to think that if I were correct, such an error would have been seen many
years ago by many people, and we would all know about it. But it does
not
appear to me that QED physicists have noticed this error, and that
confuses
me significantly, because it seems so apparent. I vow, though, that if
someone can show me the error of my ways, I will accept I am wrong, and
quit
trying to convince the QM community. I will apologize profusely for
wasting
everybody's time.

I have always employed the scientific method here, that is, establish
what
the observed ground state binding energy is, then look at various
theoretical predictions, and decide which one appears the most correct.
So,
here we go. The first thing to do is to establish what everyone agrees
is
the best, most accurate experimentally derived value for hydrogen's
ground
state binding energy. Since there is a one-to-one correspondence between
the
Rydberg constant for hydrogen and its ground state binding energy, a
good
way to begin is to agree on what is the best observed value for
hydrogen's
Rydberg constant. I have found a link, at
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/spc/teaching/py301/phys301.htm. This link
provides a value for R_H where it is stated (Part 5, page 9) the value
is
derived "from expt (line spectra)." The value is 1.0967759 x 10^-7 m^-1.
Can
we all agree this is an accurate observed value of R_H? If you can find
a
reference that provides a significantly different value, I would be very
surprised, because I have references that trace back essentially this
same
value for the past 30 years or so.

Big Freaking Deal.

You present Powerpoint slides giving a non-relativistic QM
treatment of the computation, followed by a reference to an
undergraduate textbook written for an introductory QM class,
and conclude that QED is wrong because the naive computation
of the Rydberg constant only gives four significant figures?

Crawl back into your hole until you learn QED.

Jerry


Hi Jerry,

Thanks for responding, I am glad to see another person participating. The
main thing I want to concentrate on right now is not predictions. I would
like to establish what an experimentally determined value of R_H is. The
definite implication of the words "from expt (line spectra)" in the PPT
files and "from recent spectroscopic data" in the Eisberg and Resnick
well-respected text seem to me to say "here is a value that real world
hydrogen itself possesses, independent of theory" Then both of these
references apply the scientific method, that is, they compare a prediction
to an observed. I want to do the same. This would only be logical if
indeed
the quoted R_H values "from expt (line spectra)" and "from recent
spectroscopic data" were truly that and independent of theory. Afterall,
if
they are somehow influenced by the very theory that is used to say there
is
a "fantastically good agreement between theory and expt!! that would not
be
very scientifically honest, nor scientifically correct.

I will eventually present what I believe to be an accurate QED prediction
from a refereed journal, but I first want anyone participating to agree on
the interpretation and accuracy of "the observed value." It may not be
possible to get agreement, but I'm going to try anyway.

Thanks,
Steve

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:f2b3d$480e06e2$943f641c$15486@STARBAND.NET...

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:0aac1525-c1d0-4008-a201-52342f6b08ca@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 21, 12:47 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:
Every few years, I return to these newsgroup lists to try and resolve
an
issue I have noticed for years. It is this. It appears to me that QM
(specifically QED) makes an inaccurate prediction for the ground state
binding energy of hydrogen, one of the most fundamental values in the
atomic
physics. Since the hydrogen atom is the most simplest of atoms, and
the
ground state is the most simplest of its energy levels, and since QED
claims
to be extremely accurate in its predictions, one would think QED's
prediction would agree very well with the observed value. It appears
to
me
that it does not.

This time around, I have found numbers on the net that were not
generated
by
myself, and I will present these numbers, which appear to substantiate
my
claim. I want to stress, I completely understand that such a
contention,
on
face value, would appear to be highly unlikely. It is reasonable for
anyone
to think that if I were correct, such an error would have been seen
many
years ago by many people, and we would all know about it. But it does
not
appear to me that QED physicists have noticed this error, and that
confuses
me significantly, because it seems so apparent. I vow, though, that if
someone can show me the error of my ways, I will accept I am wrong,
and
quit
trying to convince the QM community. I will apologize profusely for
wasting
everybody's time.

I have always employed the scientific method here, that is, establish
what
the observed ground state binding energy is, then look at various
theoretical predictions, and decide which one appears the most
correct.
So,
here we go. The first thing to do is to establish what everyone agrees
is
the best, most accurate experimentally derived value for hydrogen's
ground
state binding energy. Since there is a one-to-one correspondence
between
the
Rydberg constant for hydrogen and its ground state binding energy, a
good
way to begin is to agree on what is the best observed value for
hydrogen's
Rydberg constant. I have found a link, at
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/spc/teaching/py301/phys301.htm. This link
provides a value for R_H where it is stated (Part 5, page 9) the value
is
derived "from expt (line spectra)." The value is 1.0967759 x 10^-7
m^-1.
Can
we all agree this is an accurate observed value of R_H? If you can
find
a
reference that provides a significantly different value, I would be
very
surprised, because I have references that trace back essentially this
same
value for the past 30 years or so.

Big Freaking Deal.

You present Powerpoint slides giving a non-relativistic QM
treatment of the computation, followed by a reference to an
undergraduate textbook written for an introductory QM class,
and conclude that QED is wrong because the naive computation
of the Rydberg constant only gives four significant figures?

Crawl back into your hole until you learn QED.

Jerry


Hi Jerry,

Thanks for responding, I am glad to see another person participating.
The
main thing I want to concentrate on right now is not predictions. I
would
like to establish what an experimentally determined value of R_H is. The
definite implication of the words "from expt (line spectra)" in the PPT
files and "from recent spectroscopic data" in the Eisberg and Resnick
well-respected text seem to me to say "here is a value that real world
hydrogen itself possesses, independent of theory" Then both of these
references apply the scientific method, that is, they compare a
prediction
to an observed. I want to do the same. This would only be logical if
indeed
the quoted R_H values "from expt (line spectra)" and "from recent
spectroscopic data" were truly that and independent of theory. Afterall,
if
they are somehow influenced by the very theory that is used to say there
is
a "fantastically good agreement between theory and expt!! that would not
be
very scientifically honest, nor scientifically correct.

I will eventually present what I believe to be an accurate QED
prediction
from a refereed journal, but I first want anyone participating to agree
on
the interpretation and accuracy of "the observed value." It may not be
possible to get agreement, but I'm going to try anyway.

Thanks,
Steve



I'd like to try a different approach here. Let's say I'd like to see what
other people say is the Rydberg constant for hydrogen, R_H. I ask: Please
try to find a value for R_H, and here I don't care if it's from theory or
experiment. I predict it will be very hard to find a number significantly
different than 10967759 m^-1. Ok, someone finds and tells me this number.
I
have to ask: Do you think this is actually what hydrogen itself "presents"
to the outside world? If the person would answer no, I'd have to ask, why
did you present it? I'd have to say to them, here at first, I am only
interested what hydrogen itself "naturally has" for a Rydberg constant,
and
for any "correct" R_H, the value has to equal the "natural" R_H, and here
I
don't care if the value is experimental or theoretical. Doesn't hydrogen
have a "natural" ground state binding energy, and from that, wouldn't you
say the corresponding R_H is the "natural" Rydberg constant for hydrogen?
If
someone gives to me a Rydberg constant for hydrogen, I assume they believe
that hydrogen must "inwardly manifest" relativistic effects. How could it
not? I certainly believe it does. I would have to conclude the presented
number, if it were actually stated it is for hydrogen, must have been
influenced by these relativistic effects. It would be quite logical for me
to think the person would have to say so also. If the person says the
number
10967759 m^-1 has all relativistic effects "in it," I'd have to point out
that it sure doesn't appear so, because I could easily show how a
non-relativistic theory (i.e., Schroedinger's non-relativistic,
"simplistic"
QM theory) predicts this value nearly exactly.

In all my searchings for R_H on the net, I have only found one paper, the
one I will give a reference to, that states a significantly different
value
for R_H than 10967759 m^-1. Maybe I'm being duped by these people, but
what
they show falls into alignment so well with the way I think, I just can't
see how my reasoning is faulty. But like everyone, I am human and can and
will make mistakes. I hope you appreciate that I am not trying to be a
crackpot here. I just can't see the flaw in my reasoning. I too, though,
feel the exact same way as you do about crackpots: They seem not to have
an
ability to accept what is true, even when clearly explained to them. This
has a lot to do with ego, and I hope my ego is not so great, that I am
indeed a crackpot.

And please, there is no need to cuss at me. I am sincerely trying to be a
good scientist here. Let's all try to be civil during this debate, ok?

Steve

To Steve.

On Apr 22, 10:20 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
messagenews:62dd766a-24df-417c-902c-a18bdad7c652@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.co

Hi Steve, nice to see you post.

On Apr 22, 8:59 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
...
Hi Jerry,
Thanks for participating. If I am interpreting you correctly, that
was
not
quite what I thought in the past, namely, I did not think "His point
seems
to be that the non-relativistic QM calculation fails to give a
number
that
agrees with computations of the Rydberg constant based on the best
available
empirical data. The discrepancy amounts to thousands of standard
deviations." My point was that the QED prediction does not agree
with
what
very apparently is portrayed in the literature as an unbiased, not
influenced by theory value, i.e., a spectroscopic-data-empirical
value
of
R_H. After all, hydrogen must naturally posses what we would call
"its
true
Rydberg constant value." and that is the definite implication in
these
references. The presentations in these references are clearly trying
to
employ a correct scientific method where theory is compared to
observations.
I want and hope to so the same. If you did examine the threads in
the
past,
there were a least a couple of people who appreciated what I had to
say.
Perhaps that will not happen here again, but I'm going to try
anyway.

IIRC,(foggy from years ago), you decided
the Bohr Correspondence Principle, was
the more accurate of the Rydberg calc.
Anyway, I'll lurk the discussion, and
add what I can.

Thanks,
Steve

Welcome, thanks
Ken S. Tucker

Hi Ken,

Thanks for participating. I don't know if I'll say it's good to be back,
but
I'm a bit older now and hopefully wiser. I am not going to present any
numbers I myself "crunched," maybe that will impress upon some I'm
trying to
be honest here. I would not exactly say it was the Bohr Correspond
Principle, but the Bohr energy equation itself which provided a more
accurate R_H prediction. This time around, I'm not even going to mention
Bohr (not at first, anyway). Since the non-relativistic Schroedinger
equation is identical to Bohr's equation, I'll just say that it's the
non-relativistic Schoe. theory that appears most accurate. This is what
I
had hoped some would see by my asking to "please consider the nature of
the
theory that provides this 'fanatically good agreement between theory and
expt!' as the PPT slides point out.
Steve

You should lay your cards out.
Myself I'm trying to figure out if I should
apply relativistic corrections within the
structure of an electron!
I occasionally post on that.
Ken S. Tucker

On Apr 22, 2:08 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
messagenews:41332318-a642-4aca-8c25-9a395a3c3cb6@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com

On Apr 22, 10:20 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in


messagenews:62dd766a-24df-417c-902c-a18bdad7c652@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.co
m...





Hi Steve, nice to see you post.

On Apr 22, 8:59 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
...
Hi Jerry,
Thanks for participating. If I am interpreting you correctly,
that
was
not
quite what I thought in the past, namely, I did not think "His
point
seems
to be that the non-relativistic QM calculation fails to give a
number
that
agrees with computations of the Rydberg constant based on the
best
available
empirical data. The discrepancy amounts to thousands of standard
deviations." My point was that the QED prediction does not agree
with
what
very apparently is portrayed in the literature as an unbiased,
not
influenced by theory value, i.e., a spectroscopic-data-empirical
value
of
R_H. After all, hydrogen must naturally posses what we would
call
"its
true
Rydberg constant value." and that is the definite implication in
these
references. The presentations in these references are clearly
trying
to
employ a correct scientific method where theory is compared to
observations.
I want and hope to so the same. If you did examine the threads
in
the
past,
there were a least a couple of people who appreciated what I had
to
say.
Perhaps that will not happen here again, but I'm going to try
anyway.

IIRC,(foggy from years ago), you decided
the Bohr Correspondence Principle, was
the more accurate of the Rydberg calc.
Anyway, I'll lurk the discussion, and
add what I can.

Thanks,
Steve

Welcome, thanks
Ken S. Tucker

Hi Ken,

Thanks for participating. I don't know if I'll say it's good to be
back,
but
I'm a bit older now and hopefully wiser. I am not going to present
any
numbers I myself "crunched," maybe that will impress upon some I'm
trying to
be honest here. I would not exactly say it was the Bohr Correspond
Principle, but the Bohr energy equation itself which provided a more
accurate R_H prediction. This time around, I'm not even going to
mention
Bohr (not at first, anyway). Since the non-relativistic Schroedinger
equation is identical to Bohr's equation, I'll just say that it's
the
non-relativistic Schoe. theory that appears most accurate. This is
what
I
had hoped some would see by my asking to "please consider the nature
of
the
theory that provides this 'fanatically good agreement between theory
and
expt!' as the PPT slides point out.
Steve

You should lay your cards out.
Myself I'm trying to figure out if I should
apply relativistic corrections within the
structure of an electron!
I occasionally post on that.
Ken S. Tucker

Hi Ken,

Yes, I've done so in another post. If an electron does have internal
structure, which like you, I think it does, then I would say you should
apply relativistic corrections. Relativistic effects have to be present,
assuming relativity theory is physically correct, which I certainly
think it
is.

Steve

Well Steve, A few fella's got together and set up
a new group, "Sci.Physics.Foundations" that have
some highly knowledgeable posters, and is moderated
for good reasons, but they even let me post there
from time to time, so you're a shoe in!
Check it out.
Ken S. Tucker

BTW: I think you're right, a relativistic correction
is necessary.

I don't understand what the problem is. The comparison between
experiment and theory can be found here:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/codata.pdf

It starts with the eigenvalues of the Dirac equation and then includes
corrections for the finite mass, QED etc.  The transition energies
agree amazing well.

Hi Ken,

I looked on my ISP's newsgroups, but I didn't find it. Or I don't how
to
locate it. How do I do that? Are you sure they would allow discussions
of
these controversial ideas? It sure would be nice to get off of
sci.physics.relativity. Btw, was it you who thought an electron coasts
on a
geodesic? If so, I completely agree, with all of the
differential-geometry
implications that the word "geodesic" conveys. You know, I actually
sometimes hope I am wrong here, about this hydrogen stuff. I'm getting
very
tired of fighting the fight, and it would be nice to get a clear
explanation
of the error in my thinking. Devastating to my ego, but nice none the
less.

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:40e99$480e5f35$943f641c$28959@STARBAND.NET...

Hi Ken,

I looked on my ISP's newsgroups, but I didn't find it. Or I don't how
to
locate it. How do I do that? Are you sure they would allow
discussions of
these controversial ideas? It sure would be nice to get off of
sci.physics.relativity. Btw, was it you who thought an electron
coasts on a
geodesic? If so, I completely agree, with all of the
differential-geometry
implications that the word "geodesic" conveys. You know, I actually
sometimes hope I am wrong here, about this hydrogen stuff. I'm
getting very
tired of fighting the fight, and it would be nice to get a clear
explanation
of the error in my thinking. Devastating to my ego, but nice none the
less.

Hi Steve,

If your ISP doesn't carry sci.physics.foundations yet, you can access
via googlegroups or Killfile.org

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations/topics?hl=en

http://news.killfile.org/index.cgi?group=sci.physics.foundations

They are not quite as good as going thru a proper news server and
newsreader but works OK.

If you can give me an email address for how to contact your ISP's news
server sysop, I will send them an email requesting that they add SPF
to their news server. And/or you can ask them to add it yourself.
Doesn't always work but does sometimes. You need to tell them to set
it up as a moderated Usenet group.

We generally have a light moderation policy and allow most all content
related to physics as long as it is clearly not contrary to
experimental evidence. Speculative content is allowed as well as
philosophical content related to physics. Most important is that we
do expect posters to be polite unlike some that have responded to you
here. We do stop threads that become highly repetitive. If
interested, the charter for sci.physics.foundations is here;

http://readystump.algebra.com/~spf/

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations