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."

"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

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.

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.

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."

On Apr 22, 6:18 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:



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?

Sorry. I was looking at R_infinity, not R_H
I should have written that the naive computation gives EIGHT
significant figures.

Crawl back into your hole until you learn QED.

Jerry

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.

On Apr 22, 7:26 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

I searched for "Steve Bell" on these newsgroups. Look for
his dialogs with Bilge and some of the other old-timers who
unfortunately aren't still around.

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.

Bilge gets exasperated, provides links to current material,
then Steve goes into hiding and starts up again making the
point 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.

Repeat ad nauseam.

Jerry

"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

"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.

Thanks,
Steve

"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

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.