What I will repeat again, is the fact that these PPT slides were for a
"simplistic" level of sophistication has no effect at all on the
observed
value presented in them. Data is data,

The powerpoint slides are not data. I don't care about the level of
the material is. I care about the accuracy. If you whole argument if
based on a powerpoint slide you better spend a little more time in a
library and not in newsgroups.

What if I quoted some "data" off a powerpoint slide that agreed with
me. Would you be happy?

kp

"Surfer" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message

news:cm7914hbjvre2ht0dd3kg70e30sfmauran@4ax.com...



On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:44:40 -0600, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net
wrote:

"Surfer" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
news:3e0914lgtmmc5gogdelvcc041h56200qs0@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:22:12 -0600, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net
wrote:

I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a
fundamental prediction made by QED.

Could you provide a link to your presentation.

Yes, please see the thread entitled "Inaccurate QM Prediction for
Hydrogen."

I found a link in your post to PPT slides.
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/spc/teaching/py301/phys301.htm

But the slides may provide a SIMPLIFIED account for students.

To prove that QM EXPERTs have made an inaccurate prediction I think
you really need to provide links to QM physics papers that have made
an inaccurate prediction.

I have. In the pasts discussions, I provided a link to a "modern" (1994)
QED
prediction. Please see the past posts. And if you don't want to take the
time to read them, I don't want to take the time to say it again.

I would almost say for certain that the experimental values you give
are nothing more than using the experimental value of R_\infity and
replacing the mass with a reduced mass.

Without having better references one can't be 100% sure but the
numbers do agree.

kp

"kp" <4vector@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ddbc065-1fd4-4961-a6e4-b35c38a194ba@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I would almost say for certain that the experimental values you give
are nothing more than using the experimental value of R_\infity and
replacing the mass with a reduced mass.

Without having better references one can't be 100% sure but the
numbers do agree.

kp


If what you say is certain, then the numbers I have posted have not been
experimental, in the sense they are computed from a number that could not
possibly have been derived by experimentation in a manner of the
experimental procedure I have given references to, which do not all
involve
using values of e, h, etc. These experimental R_H values are obtained from
simple curve fits of the spectroscopic data, and if the data are accurate,
so will be derived R_H value. From what I can tell, even with reasonably
"sloppy" data, one can still obtain about a +/- 1-2 m^-1 standard error,
which is plenty enough accurate for substantiating my claims. You have
strongly implied (imo) there is a clear cut, experimental value for R_H in
the CODATA article you referenced, where there is no doubt the value has
not
been biased by any QED theory, or by any theory for that matter, in an
experimental manner I just describe, and has a very small experimental
error
(standard error) on it. I strongly request you post this value, and please
quote the sentences that prove the value has not been QED (or any other
theory) influenced. If this value is significantly different than the
observed value I have quoted, then I will be 100% convinced I am wrong, I
will apologize for wasting everybody's time, and go away.

Steve Bell

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:e2f48$48150f43$943f641c$14998@STARBAND.NET...

"kp" <4vector@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:5ddbc065-1fd4-4961-a6e4-b35c38a194ba@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I would almost say for certain that the experimental values you give
are nothing more than using the experimental value of R_\infity and
replacing the mass with a reduced mass.

Without having better references one can't be 100% sure but the
numbers do agree.

kp


If what you say is certain, then the numbers I have posted have not been
experimental, in the sense they are computed from a number that could
not
possibly have been derived by experimentation in a manner of the
experimental procedure I have given references to, which do not all
involve
using values of e, h, etc. These experimental R_H values are obtained
from
simple curve fits of the spectroscopic data, and if the data are
accurate,
so will be derived R_H value. From what I can tell, even with reasonably
"sloppy" data, one can still obtain about a +/- 1-2 m^-1 standard error,
which is plenty enough accurate for substantiating my claims. You have
strongly implied (imo) there is a clear cut, experimental value for R_H
in
the CODATA article you referenced, where there is no doubt the value has
not
been biased by any QED theory, or by any theory for that matter, in an
experimental manner I just describe, and has a very small experimental
error
(standard error) on it. I strongly request you post this value, and
please
quote the sentences that prove the value has not been QED (or any other
theory) influenced. If this value is significantly different than the
observed value I have quoted, then I will be 100% convinced I am wrong,
I
will apologize for wasting everybody's time, and go away.

Steve Bell




Here is an interesting link I found, to a book written in 1935 (don't just
click on the link below, it doesn't look like it works like that. Get into
google type in "the theory of atomic spectra condon" (without the quotes)
and on my screen, it's the first link):

The Theory of Atomic Spectra - Google Books Resultby Edward Uhler Condon,
George Shortley - 1935 - Science - 460 pages
The Rydberg constant is one of the best known atomic constants. ...
the values RH = 109677-759 ± 0-05 cm-1 RHe= 109722-403 ±0-05 " ROO
=109737-42 ±0-06 " . ...
books.google.com/books?isbn=0521092094...


Please go to p. 138 (at the right, in Search in this book, type in
rydberg,
and you can quickly get to p. 137 first, the 130). Note the R_H value
quoted. All the way back in 1935, the observed value nearly equals the
ones
I've quoted, but it looks like with about a 5 times worse standard error
(to
be expected). The important thing is to note how only the Rydberg equation
was used to find this value, by implication on p. 137, which shows some
actual spectroscopic data. Also note the value for R_inf, not that much
different than today's. It looks like what they were doing was to do this
unbiased derivation of R_H first, then backout R_inf. The numbers back
then
apparently were not biased with QED. Good, that's good science, just let
the
spectroscopic data speak for themselves.

Steve Bell

I live about an hour's drive from any library, and
come on guys, if I can't find a truly unbiased R_H
value on the net, what the hell is going on.

"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message

news:4b048$4814efe0$943f641c$4241@STARBAND.NET...



Cost alot to get them QED numbers, doesn't it. I don't have a pdf, I
have a
hard copy. But even if I did, it would be illegal for me just to sent
it to
you. They'd probably sue me or something. Their policy is that it is
ok to
quote small pieces of their articles, but with full references given,
where
I'm sure (I hope) a link to the page showing the article is a good
enough
reference. If not, you won't have to worry about my "crank" ideas
anymore,
I'll probably end up in jail <g>. I wanted to scan the table showing
the
individual values of the QED, etc., effects, and post it,  but I don't
think
that's even legal.

Steve
P.S. You can believe the number I've quoted, unless I made a mistake
typing
it in (I did on one post, but not above, I checked it about 10 times).

Well, I doubt if they would be that stingy to worry about sharing a
one-off of an article that is freely available at a good library.  They
are more concerned with someone packaging and reselling a package of
articles.  Anywise, it is not all that interesting to spend $80 on it.
I don't doubt that you are quoting the correct numbers.  I just would
have liked to seen the complete process of how they got the number.

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator  sci.physics.foundations

Since this isn't my cross to bear and since driving an hour to a
library is too much for you to do to get an answer to your 4+ year old
question, I assume it isn't so important to you either, I will simply
repeat this.

I would not take "experimental" values quoted in powerpoint slides or
lab exercises as the observed R_H. For all we know the authors simply
looked on wikipedia, where R_H is found from R_infity and R_infity is
found from spectroscopy data. Thus, in a sense R_H is from
experimental data but not what a qed calculation or an actual
experiment (if it could be done accurately enough) would give. You
can call these "scientist" sloppy if you want, but these references
are not definitive scientific records.

Requiring this effort is only being a good scientist. One has to know
when you are comparing apples to apples.

kp

"kp" <4vector@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:765365d1-93a5-46f2-8822-82cbc64792b0@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Since this isn't my cross to bear and since driving an hour to a
library is too much for you to do to get an answer to your 4+ year old
question, I assume it isn't so important to you either, I will simply
repeat this.

I would not take "experimental" values quoted in powerpoint slides or
lab exercises as the observed R_H. For all we know the authors simply
looked on wikipedia, where R_H is found from R_infity and R_infity is
found from spectroscopy data. Thus, in a sense R_H is from
experimental data but not what a qed calculation or an actual
experiment (if it could be done accurately enough) would give. You
can call these "scientist" sloppy if you want, but these references
are not definitive scientific records.

Requiring this effort is only being a good scientist. One has to know
when you are comparing apples to apples.

kp



Yes, the QM community is absolutely comparing apples to apples, that is,
predictions to predictions. The correct thing in science is to compare a
"potential apple" to an apple. Here, the "apple" is the observational
data,
and the "potential apple" is the prediction.

It is QED itself that claims to be omnipotent in its predicting
capability.
You would think that would mean the QED community would understand what
"the
scientific method" actually is. It means you get unbiased experimental
data
and compare predictions to it. If any of you think that what's going on
here, you are completely fooling yourself. Apparently you think it's
totally
ok to claim omnipotence when in fact, all you are doing is comparing
prediction to prediction, not prediction to observed. You are unbelievably
poor scientists, and the pathetic thing is, you don't even realize it.

You claim omnipotence in predictive capability, and that you understand
*everything* that can be understood about hydrogen, like some freakin'
god.
If you are going to be that arrogant, I therefore have a right to demand
you
prove it. I demand that you yourself substantiate this god-like claim. I
demand that you yourself follow correct scientific methodological
procedure.
I demand you yourself find an unbiased observed value of R_H and compare
it
to your omnipotent prediction. If you yourself can not do this, you are
unbelievably dishonest scientists.

Steve Bell

Since this isn't my cross to bear and since driving an hour to a
library is too much for you to do to get an answer to your 4+ year old
question, I assume it isn't so important to you either, I will simply
repeat this.

I would not take "experimental" values quoted in powerpoint slides or
lab exercises as the observed R_H. For all we know the authors simply
looked on wikipedia, where R_H is found from R_infity and R_infity is
found from spectroscopy data. Thus, in a sense R_H is from
experimental data but not what a qed calculation or an actual
experiment (if it could be done accurately enough) would give. You
can call these "scientist" sloppy if you want, but these references
are not definitive scientific records.

Requiring this effort is only being a good scientist. One has to know
when you are comparing apples to apples.

kp

I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a
fundamental prediction made by QED.

I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a
fundamental prediction made by QED.

"kp" <4vector@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:765365d1-93a5-46f2-8822-82cbc64792b0@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Since this isn't my cross to bear and since driving an hour to a
library is too much for you to do to get an answer to your 4+ year old
question, I assume it isn't so important to you either, I will simply
repeat this.

I would not take "experimental" values quoted in powerpoint slides or
lab exercises as the observed R_H. For all we know the authors simply
looked on wikipedia, where R_H is found from R_infity and R_infity is
found from spectroscopy data. Thus, in a sense R_H is from
experimental data but not what a qed calculation or an actual
experiment (if it could be done accurately enough) would give. You
can call these "scientist" sloppy if you want, but these references
are not definitive scientific records.

Requiring this effort is only being a good scientist. One has to know
when you are comparing apples to apples.

kp



You say go get a reference you will agree to. Fine. You say CODATA is a
good
reference. Fine. I say I can't find R_H on the CODATA site. You say it's
there. Please post what CODATA says is the value of R_H.

Steve

I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a
fundamental prediction made by QED. I have presented these data according
to
the scientific method, that is, make the most accurate up-to-date
prediction
and compared it to accurate unbiased experimental data. I have shown a
statistically significant difference between an unbiased observed Rydberg
constant for hydrogen and a modern QED prediction. Yet, the supposed
"experts" on this list refuse to accept the embarrassing truth, that QED
is
way, way off the mark. This implies a significant bias in you supposed
"experts," a sure sign of being a poor scientist. Perhaps all of you
simply
do not understand what a Rydberg constant for an atom is in relationship
to
its ground state energy. If so, please do not consider yourself "expert"
in
any manner, because if you don't understand that, you don't understand
even
the fundamentals of your own theory.

With regards to the NIST/CODATA site, don't you find it strange that
nowhere
on that site can an experimentally determined Rydberg constant for
hydrogen
can be found? Since QED claims to be unbelievably accurate in its
predictions, one would think that would absolutely be one of the very
things
always presented to support such a claim.

Steve Bell