You may say,
just compute R_H from R_infinity. Yes, please do that.

You will get an R_H
value essentially equaling the one given by the Wikipedia site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_constant

The value is R_H = 10967758.341 m^-1.

. Please look
at Eisberg and Resnick's text. If you have their 2nd edition, they present a
predicted value using Bohr's theory (identical to Schroedinger's theory). I
believe the values of h, e, m_e, etc., they used were in the 1970's time
frame. The predicted value they give (p. 105, 2nd ed.) is R_H = 10968100
m^-1. Also in that text, on p. 98, they present an observed value of
10967757.6 m^-1.

The value I quoted from the refereed paper is 109678771.17374 m^-1. This
value was computed using values of h, e, m_e, etc. from the 1990s. Since I
don't have the 1990s values, I can't make a Schroedinger's prediction, but I
highly suspect it would very nearly equal a prediction using today's values,
given by the Wikipedia site. The difference between the Dirac prediction and
the observed is 118 m^-1. The difference between the Schroedinger prediction
and the observed is 0.741 m^-1. There is a gigantically significant
difference between the two theories in their predictions.

You may say,
just compute R_H from R_infinity. Yes, please do that.

I'll pass on this. I'm not asking the question.

You will get an R_H
value essentially equaling the one given by the Wikipedia site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_constant

The value is R_H = 10967758.341 m^-1.

Let us say it is.

. Please look
at Eisberg and Resnick's text. If you have their 2nd edition, they present a
predicted value using Bohr's theory (identical to Schroedinger's theory). I
believe the values of h, e, m_e, etc., they used were in the 1970's time
frame. The predicted value they give (p. 105, 2nd ed.) is R_H = 10968100
m^-1. Also in that text, on p. 98, they present an observed value of
10967757.6 m^-1.

I don't have the book with with, but I believe you.

The value I quoted from the refereed paper is 109678771.17374 m^-1. This
value was computed using values of h, e, m_e, etc. from the 1990s. Since I
don't have the 1990s values, I can't make a Schroedinger's prediction, but I
highly suspect it would very nearly equal a prediction using today's values,
given by the Wikipedia site. The difference between the Dirac prediction and
the observed is 118 m^-1. The difference between the Schroedinger prediction
and the observed is 0.741 m^-1. There is a gigantically significant
difference between the two theories in their predictions.

The experimental value you quote was found forty years ago, do you
think better measurements have been done since then. I'm not an
experimentalist but maybe determining the ionization energy is not as
accurately done as finding the transitions between the low lying bound
states. You can see from the CODATA paper that even in the low energy
states the uncertainty can vary over 5 or 6 orders of magnitude. At
this point I would say that there is nothing more than experimental
uncertainty for any disagreement. Otherwise any argument would
require saying quantum mechanics (field theory) gets the energies
given in CODATA right to parts in a trillion but gets the ionization
energy wrong. These two just don't add up.
kp

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.

kp

You may say,
just compute R_H from R_infinity. Yes, please do that.

I'll pass on this. I'm not asking the question.

You will get an R_H
value essentially equaling the one given by the Wikipedia site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_constant

The value is R_H = 10967758.341 m^-1.

Let us say it is.

. Please look
at Eisberg and Resnick's text. If you have their 2nd edition, they
present a
predicted value using Bohr's theory (identical to Schroedinger's
theory). I
believe the values of h, e, m_e, etc., they used were in the 1970's time
frame. The predicted value they give (p. 105, 2nd ed.) is R_H = 10968100
m^-1. Also in that text, on p. 98, they present an observed value of
10967757.6 m^-1.

I don't have the book with with, but I believe you.


The value I quoted from the refereed paper is 109678771.17374 m^-1. This
value was computed using values of h, e, m_e, etc. from the 1990s. Since
I
don't have the 1990s values, I can't make a Schroedinger's prediction,
but I
highly suspect it would very nearly equal a prediction using today's
values,
given by the Wikipedia site. The difference between the Dirac prediction
and
the observed is 118 m^-1. The difference between the Schroedinger
prediction
and the observed is 0.741 m^-1. There is a gigantically significant
difference between the two theories in their predictions.

The experimental value you quote was found forty years ago, do you
think better measurements have been done since then. I'm not an
experimentalist but maybe determining the ionization energy is not as
accurately done as finding the transitions between the low lying bound
states. You can see from the CODATA paper that even in the low energy
states the uncertainty can vary over 5 or 6 orders of magnitude. At
this point I would say that there is nothing more than experimental
uncertainty for any disagreement. Otherwise any argument would
require saying quantum mechanics (field theory) gets the energies
given in CODATA right to parts in a trillion but gets the ionization
energy wrong. These two just don't add up.

kp

This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:51002$480f4900$943f641c$19644@STARBAND.NET...
|
| "kp" <4vector@gmail.com> wrote in message
|
news:ff602c99-ecc7-4a86-8f17-2f70201dc6d7@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
| > 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.
|
| > kp
|
|
| Hi kp,
|
| Thanks for this link. As far as I can tell, nowhere in the paper is the
| Rydberg constant for hydrogen presented. It is this Rydberg constant I
am
| discussing, not R_infinity, which is discussed in the link. You may say,
| just compute R_H from R_infinity. Yes, please do that. You will get an
R_H
| value essentially equaling the one given by the Wikipedia site:
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_constant
|
| The value is R_H = 10967758.341 m^-1.
|
| It seems logical to think that as time goes by, our values of h, e, m_e,
| m_p, etc., have gotten better, and indeed they have. By "better" I mean
| closer to what their values are in nature. This means that any equation
| using these values gets "better" itself, for whatever it is computing.
| Naturally then, some energy equation, such as Dirac's hydrogen energy
| equation, should through the years, start providing better and better
values
| for hydrogen's ground state binding energy, and the associated Rydberg
| constant. And once again, by "better" I mean getting closer to the true
| physical value. Schroedinger's energy equation should also start getting
| better and better, but given hydrogen itself does indeed "outwardly
| manifest" relativistic effects, the Schroedinger's equation ought to
start
| giving values that differ from a hydrogen Rydberg constant derived only
from
| the spectroscopic data. It should be Dirac's equation that starts to
| converge on the observed. Is there any data around that shows us how
| Schroedinger's theory has faired over the years? Yes, there is. Please
look
| at Eisberg and Resnick's text. If you have their 2nd edition, they
present
a
| predicted value using Bohr's theory (identical to Schroedinger's
theory).
I
| believe the values of h, e, m_e, etc., they used were in the 1970's time
| frame. The predicted value they give (p. 105, 2nd ed.) is R_H = 10968100
| m^-1. Also in that text, on p. 98, they present an observed value of
| 10967757.6 m^-1. These values have nothing to do with the sophistication
of
| the quantum text. Even sophisticated quantum texts (e.g., Merzbacher's
| "Quantum Mechanics") goes over the non-relativistic Schroedinger's
theory
| first. As far as the "sophistication" of the observed value, that's
given
by
| the accuracy of the spectroscopic machinery, and apparently back in the
| 1970s, that was good enough to provide a standard error of 1.2 m^-1, not
too
| bad. Ok, look at how Schroedinger's theory has faired. It has converged
| nearly exactly upon the observed. Certainly, Dirac's theory should have
| faired better, since it includes relativistic effects, and QED effects,
etc.
| The value I quoted from the refereed paper is 109678771.17374 m^-1. This
| value was computed using values of h, e, m_e, etc. from the 1990s. Since
I
| don't have the 1990s values, I can't make a Schroedinger's prediction,
but
I
| highly suspect it would very nearly equal a prediction using today's
values,
| given by the Wikipedia site. The difference between the Dirac prediction
and
| the observed is 118 m^-1. The difference between the Schroedinger
prediction
| and the observed is 0.741 m^-1. There is a gigantically significant
| difference between the two theories in their predictions. And it is
| Schroedinger's non-relativistic theory that wins, hands down. The
observed
| value of nearly 10967757.6 m^-1 has been around for decades. The reason
why
| it has not changed much is because our spectroscopic machinery has been
| pretty good for decades, and this value is not some merger between
theory
| and data. Even if it were, why would the Schroedinger non-relativistic
| theory be the one used to bias the data? You would think if there were
some
| purposeful biasing of the data, one would use Dirac's theory, not
| Scroedinger's theory.
|
| This is my basic contention: An accurate observed value for R_H has been
| around for decades, and apparently it is now the non-relativistic
| Schroedinger's theory that has converged upon this value, not the "more
| sophisticated" Dirac theory. This is most perplexing.
|
| Steve Bell

Why should a "non relativistic" theory be perplexing?
I'm not perplexed by it.
Why did the crank Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from A to B is c+v,
and the time each way is the same?
There's the root of "relativistic theory" (aka crackpottery), resulting
in perplexity.

"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

|
| Hi Androcles,
|
| It's not the non-relativistic theory that's perplexing. It's the fact
that
a
| non-relativistic theory agrees with the experimental data (as far as I
can
| tell), and that perplexes me, because I accept the validity of both SR
and
| GR.

Oh, I see.

I hope people following this thread do not get the impression that I
| disagree with relativity. Quite the contrary. I accept it
wholeheartedly.
In
| fact, it's only by using relativity that I think there is resolution to
the
| disagreement between predicted and observed.

Maybe you missed my question. I'll repeat it and you answer it.

Why did the malignant idiot and imbecile Albert Einstein, creator of your
crank religion, say:
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from A to B is c+v,
and the time each way is the same?

'the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time''
it
requires to travel from B to A.' -- Albert Nitwit Einstein, charlatan.
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

I hope people following this thread DO get the impression that I
STRONGLY disagree with CRANK relativity.

No wonder you are perplexed if you actually believe in crackpottery.

Well, at least the the fact that a non-relativistic theory agrees with
the experimental proves your crank religion is flawed. Have a quick
pray to Rabbi St. Albert the Divine to get Nature changed to agree
with his sophisticated stupidity.

I will discuss the energy level transition issue,
but the issue of not being biased by a theory will play a strong part in
what I have to say. Is it true that the energy transition levels presented
in the CODATA paper have not been biased in anyway by theory? Please see
the
CODATA page at:

http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/guidelines/sec2.html#note

It is stated: "The nature of an uncertainty component is conditioned by
the
use made of the corresponding quantity, that is, on how that quantity
appears in the mathematical model that describes the measurement process."
What "mathematical model" do you think was used to "describe the
measurement
process" that generated the transition frequencies? It appears to me from
the CODATA paper you provided a link to, it was QED itself, and then it's
a
no-brainer to understand why a post-experimentation prediction using QED
would agree with the "data."

It's a self fulfilling iteration between theory and
experiment, and as a result, there probably is
no chance something new and revolutionary will
ever be seen again.

"N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in messagenews:9TUPj.170803$nr1.117681@newsfe13.phx...> Dear Steve Bell:

"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:9e085$48100e4c$943f641c$22494@STARBAND.NET...
...
It's a self fulfilling iteration between theory and
experiment, and as a result, there probably is
no chance something new and revolutionary will
ever be seen again.

Oh, I doubt that...

I went to the first link, but it said the page was not
found. I went to the second link, and it was about a
drunk Russian.

This does bring up an interesting topic for discussion.
Do you believe that something will either incorporate
QM as a special case, as for example, GR incorporated
Newtonian mechanics as a special case, or out right
replace QM?

I suppose someone could argue that all of what is
called QM (QED, QFT, QCD, etc.) has been incorporated
underneath superstring theory, but to me, since it is
based on the postulates that Dirac originally
formulated, string theory is really just another
"topic" underneath QM.

For the string theorists to say "this is the
final theory of everything" is very reminiscent of
the Newtonian physicists who thought basically the
exact same thing before the relativity revolution,
and we know how that turned out.

I wonder if there really ever can be an "end of
physics".

If there is indeed this self fulfilling iteration
between theory and experiment now in QM, I would
have to believe it may be impossible for anything
to overcome such a bias.

If the actual experimental data is heavily biased
by  theory, there likely is no chance that theory
will ever disagree with experimentation, and the
advance of science comes to a dead halt.

Dear Steve Bell:

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:9e085$48100e4c$943f641c$22494@STARBAND.NET...
...
It's a self fulfilling iteration between theory and
experiment, and as a result, there probably is
no chance something new and revolutionary will
ever be seen again.

Oh, I doubt that...
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUKL229032322008042


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080417/od_afp/russialabouroffbeat_080417161913

David A. Smith