"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:40eff$48172e19$943f641c$20003@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:5d085$48172ada$943f641c$15102@STARBAND.NET...

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

news:7ff41223-c81a-401d-ab58-9b64cd3894de@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
OK this is my last post on this.

You can be a "good" scientist and find R_H on your own. Take the
experimental values for the transitions given in the CODATA then
choose your favorite series Balmer, Lyman etc. extract out an R_H.
Of
course the actual physical data doesn't exactly fit to either of
these, because of QED, and is only an approximation but I did this
for
a couple of points and got to within 10 wavenumbers of the QED
theoretical.

You are free to believe what you want and I look forward to seeing
you
in Stockholm.

cheers,
kp


I believe any transition frequencies given by CODATA have been
adjusted
to
agree with QED. I do not believe CODATA is consciously doing anything
dishonest or "sneaky," quite the contrary, they think they should do
this
because of their belief that QED is physically correct. Like I said, I
knew
you guys would simply not accept this. It is obvious to me what has
happened. These "empirically-only-based" experiments are simply
restating
the original work of Balmer and Rydberg. For something as "simple" as
hydrogen, we do not need complicated equations to find an accurate,
unbiased
quantification of its ground state binding energy. Fortunately, the
only
needed equations are quite simple, only a least squares linear
straight
line
fit is needed, and given good, accurate unbiased spectroscopic data,
when
can find the slope of the line (which is R_H) with little standard
error.

You don't have to contribute anymore, kp. Because the work of Balmer
and
Rydberg was so "fundamental," I should be able to find many examples
of
this
simple, parsimonious way to accurately quantify hydrogen's true R_H
and
ground state binding energy, which is basically what all of these
college
experiments are doing. I hope to post several examples, but Herman and
Wolf's recounting is so straight forward and clear, it's beautiful,
isn't
it.

Now the big problem lay before us: Why does the spectroscopic data not
show
any relativistic effects? This is a "null result" that imo,
fundamentally
needs to be explained.

Thanks for your help, but in closing this post I must say this. You
have
asked me to provide top quality references, which this last one is,
and
if
you actually did not go to this famous text book and look at the pages
I
referenced, sir, I have every right to say you can go straight to
hell.

Steve Bell


Here is another link that shows the non-relativistic R_H:

http://courses.washington.edu/phys331/HD_mass_theory.pdf

And, I'm sure, there is more are to come. All one has to do is google
hydrogen spectroscopic data balmer rydberg.

Steve Bell



Here is Wikipedia' site. You can click on its links to get to a quoted
non-relativistic R_H:

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

I intend to flood the intractable QM devotees on this list with so many
reference, you all can go straight to hell if you do not accept this.

Steve Bell

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:40eff$48172e19$943f641c$20003@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:5d085$48172ada$943f641c$15102@STARBAND.NET...

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

news:7ff41223-c81a-401d-ab58-9b64cd3894de@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
OK this is my last post on this.

You can be a "good" scientist and find R_H on your own. Take the
experimental values for the transitions given in the CODATA then
choose your favorite series Balmer, Lyman etc. extract out an R_H.
Of
course the actual physical data doesn't exactly fit to either of
these, because of QED, and is only an approximation but I did this
for
a couple of points and got to within 10 wavenumbers of the QED
theoretical.

You are free to believe what you want and I look forward to seeing
you
in Stockholm.

cheers,
kp


I believe any transition frequencies given by CODATA have been
adjusted
to
agree with QED. I do not believe CODATA is consciously doing anything
dishonest or "sneaky," quite the contrary, they think they should do
this
because of their belief that QED is physically correct. Like I said, I
knew
you guys would simply not accept this. It is obvious to me what has
happened. These "empirically-only-based" experiments are simply
restating
the original work of Balmer and Rydberg. For something as "simple" as
hydrogen, we do not need complicated equations to find an accurate,
unbiased
quantification of its ground state binding energy. Fortunately, the
only
needed equations are quite simple, only a least squares linear
straight
line
fit is needed, and given good, accurate unbiased spectroscopic data,
when
can find the slope of the line (which is R_H) with little standard
error.

You don't have to contribute anymore, kp. Because the work of Balmer
and
Rydberg was so "fundamental," I should be able to find many examples
of
this
simple, parsimonious way to accurately quantify hydrogen's true R_H
and
ground state binding energy, which is basically what all of these
college
experiments are doing. I hope to post several examples, but Herman and
Wolf's recounting is so straight forward and clear, it's beautiful,
isn't
it.

Now the big problem lay before us: Why does the spectroscopic data not
show
any relativistic effects? This is a "null result" that imo,
fundamentally
needs to be explained.

Thanks for your help, but in closing this post I must say this. You
have
asked me to provide top quality references, which this last one is,
and
if
you actually did not go to this famous text book and look at the pages
I
referenced, sir, I have every right to say you can go straight to
hell.

Steve Bell


Here is another link that shows the non-relativistic R_H:

http://courses.washington.edu/phys331/HD_mass_theory.pdf

And, I'm sure, there is more are to come. All one has to do is google
hydrogen spectroscopic data balmer rydberg.

Steve Bell



Here is Wikipedia' site. You can click on its links to get to a quoted
non-relativistic R_H:

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

I intend to flood the intractable QM devotees on this list with so many
reference, you all can go straight to hell if you do not accept this.

Steve Bell

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:a1813$48172f4f$943f641c$20135@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:40eff$48172e19$943f641c$20003@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:5d085$48172ada$943f641c$15102@STARBAND.NET...

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


news:7ff41223-c81a-401d-ab58-9b64cd3894de@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
OK this is my last post on this.

You can be a "good" scientist and find R_H on your own. Take the
experimental values for the transitions given in the CODATA then
choose your favorite series Balmer, Lyman etc. extract out an R_H.
Of
course the actual physical data doesn't exactly fit to either of
these, because of QED, and is only an approximation but I did this
for
a couple of points and got to within 10 wavenumbers of the QED
theoretical.

You are free to believe what you want and I look forward to seeing
you
in Stockholm.

cheers,
kp


I believe any transition frequencies given by CODATA have been
adjusted
to
agree with QED. I do not believe CODATA is consciously doing
anything
dishonest or "sneaky," quite the contrary, they think they should do
this
because of their belief that QED is physically correct. Like I said,
I
knew
you guys would simply not accept this. It is obvious to me what has
happened. These "empirically-only-based" experiments are simply
restating
the original work of Balmer and Rydberg. For something as "simple"
as
hydrogen, we do not need complicated equations to find an accurate,
unbiased
quantification of its ground state binding energy. Fortunately, the
only
needed equations are quite simple, only a least squares linear
straight
line
fit is needed, and given good, accurate unbiased spectroscopic data,
when
can find the slope of the line (which is R_H) with little standard
error.

You don't have to contribute anymore, kp. Because the work of Balmer
and
Rydberg was so "fundamental," I should be able to find many examples
of
this
simple, parsimonious way to accurately quantify hydrogen's true R_H
and
ground state binding energy, which is basically what all of these
college
experiments are doing. I hope to post several examples, but Herman
and
Wolf's recounting is so straight forward and clear, it's beautiful,
isn't
it.

Now the big problem lay before us: Why does the spectroscopic data
not
show
any relativistic effects? This is a "null result" that imo,
fundamentally
needs to be explained.

Thanks for your help, but in closing this post I must say this. You
have
asked me to provide top quality references, which this last one is,
and
if
you actually did not go to this famous text book and look at the
pages
I
referenced, sir, I have every right to say you can go straight to
hell.

Steve Bell


Here is another link that shows the non-relativistic R_H:

http://courses.washington.edu/phys331/HD_mass_theory.pdf

And, I'm sure, there is more are to come. All one has to do is google
hydrogen spectroscopic data balmer rydberg.

Steve Bell



Here is Wikipedia' site. You can click on its links to get to a quoted
non-relativistic R_H:

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

I intend to flood the intractable QM devotees on this list with so many
reference, you all can go straight to hell if you do not accept this.

Steve Bell



Here is another reference that quoted the non-relativistic experimental
R_H:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath538/kmath538.htm

And on and on I go...

Steve Bell

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:62d29$48173250$943f641c$20441@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:a1813$48172f4f$943f641c$20135@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:40eff$48172e19$943f641c$20003@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:5d085$48172ada$943f641c$15102@STARBAND.NET...

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


news:7ff41223-c81a-401d-ab58-9b64cd3894de@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
OK this is my last post on this.

You can be a "good" scientist and find R_H on your own. Take
the
experimental values for the transitions given in the CODATA then
choose your favorite series Balmer, Lyman etc. extract out an
R_H.
Of
course the actual physical data doesn't exactly fit to either of
these, because of QED, and is only an approximation but I did
this
for
a couple of points and got to within 10 wavenumbers of the QED
theoretical.

You are free to believe what you want and I look forward to
seeing
you
in Stockholm.

cheers,
kp


I believe any transition frequencies given by CODATA have been
adjusted
to
agree with QED. I do not believe CODATA is consciously doing
anything
dishonest or "sneaky," quite the contrary, they think they should
do
this
because of their belief that QED is physically correct. Like I
said,
I
knew
you guys would simply not accept this. It is obvious to me what
has
happened. These "empirically-only-based" experiments are simply
restating
the original work of Balmer and Rydberg. For something as "simple"
as
hydrogen, we do not need complicated equations to find an
accurate,
unbiased
quantification of its ground state binding energy. Fortunately,
the
only
needed equations are quite simple, only a least squares linear
straight
line
fit is needed, and given good, accurate unbiased spectroscopic
data,
when
can find the slope of the line (which is R_H) with little standard
error.

You don't have to contribute anymore, kp. Because the work of
Balmer
and
Rydberg was so "fundamental," I should be able to find many
examples
of
this
simple, parsimonious way to accurately quantify hydrogen's true
R_H
and
ground state binding energy, which is basically what all of these
college
experiments are doing. I hope to post several examples, but Herman
and
Wolf's recounting is so straight forward and clear, it's
beautiful,
isn't
it.

Now the big problem lay before us: Why does the spectroscopic data
not
show
any relativistic effects? This is a "null result" that imo,
fundamentally
needs to be explained.

Thanks for your help, but in closing this post I must say this.
You
have
asked me to provide top quality references, which this last one
is,
and
if
you actually did not go to this famous text book and look at the
pages
I
referenced, sir, I have every right to say you can go straight to
hell.

Steve Bell


Here is another link that shows the non-relativistic R_H:

http://courses.washington.edu/phys331/HD_mass_theory.pdf

And, I'm sure, there is more are to come. All one has to do is
google
hydrogen spectroscopic data balmer rydberg.

Steve Bell



Here is Wikipedia' site. You can click on its links to get to a quoted
non-relativistic R_H:

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

I intend to flood the intractable QM devotees on this list with so
many
reference, you all can go straight to hell if you do not accept this.

Steve Bell



Here is another reference that quoted the non-relativistic experimental
R_H:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath538/kmath538.htm

And on and on I go...

Steve Bell



Here is another link that quotes the non-relativistic R_H:

http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/reference/plambeck/chem1/p01214.htm

It states it is "one of the most accurately measured fundamental constants
of the universe."

I'm having fun here....

Steve Bell

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:93ab$4817339c$943f641c$20566@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:62d29$48173250$943f641c$20441@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:a1813$48172f4f$943f641c$20135@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:40eff$48172e19$943f641c$20003@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:5d085$48172ada$943f641c$15102@STARBAND.NET...

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



news:7ff41223-c81a-401d-ab58-9b64cd3894de@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
OK this is my last post on this.

You can be a "good" scientist and find R_H on your own. Take
the
experimental values for the transitions given in the CODATA
then
choose your favorite series Balmer, Lyman etc. extract out an
R_H.
Of
course the actual physical data doesn't exactly fit to either
of
these, because of QED, and is only an approximation but I did
this
for
a couple of points and got to within 10 wavenumbers of the QED
theoretical.

You are free to believe what you want and I look forward to
seeing
you
in Stockholm.

cheers,
kp


I believe any transition frequencies given by CODATA have been
adjusted
to
agree with QED. I do not believe CODATA is consciously doing
anything
dishonest or "sneaky," quite the contrary, they think they
should
do
this
because of their belief that QED is physically correct. Like I
said,
I
knew
you guys would simply not accept this. It is obvious to me what
has
happened. These "empirically-only-based" experiments are simply
restating
the original work of Balmer and Rydberg. For something as
"simple"
as
hydrogen, we do not need complicated equations to find an
accurate,
unbiased
quantification of its ground state binding energy. Fortunately,
the
only
needed equations are quite simple, only a least squares linear
straight
line
fit is needed, and given good, accurate unbiased spectroscopic
data,
when
can find the slope of the line (which is R_H) with little
standard
error.

You don't have to contribute anymore, kp. Because the work of
Balmer
and
Rydberg was so "fundamental," I should be able to find many
examples
of
this
simple, parsimonious way to accurately quantify hydrogen's true
R_H
and
ground state binding energy, which is basically what all of
these
college
experiments are doing. I hope to post several examples, but
Herman
and
Wolf's recounting is so straight forward and clear, it's
beautiful,
isn't
it.

Now the big problem lay before us: Why does the spectroscopic
data
not
show
any relativistic effects? This is a "null result" that imo,
fundamentally
needs to be explained.

Thanks for your help, but in closing this post I must say this.
You
have
asked me to provide top quality references, which this last one
is,
and
if
you actually did not go to this famous text book and look at the
pages
I
referenced, sir, I have every right to say you can go straight
to
hell.

Steve Bell


Here is another link that shows the non-relativistic R_H:

http://courses.washington.edu/phys331/HD_mass_theory.pdf

And, I'm sure, there is more are to come. All one has to do is
google
hydrogen spectroscopic data balmer rydberg.

Steve Bell



Here is Wikipedia' site. You can click on its links to get to a
quoted
non-relativistic R_H:

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

I intend to flood the intractable QM devotees on this list with so
many
reference, you all can go straight to hell if you do not accept
this.

Steve Bell



Here is another reference that quoted the non-relativistic
experimental
R_H:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath538/kmath538.htm

And on and on I go...

Steve Bell



Here is another link that quotes the non-relativistic R_H:

http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/reference/plambeck/chem1/p01214.htm

It states it is "one of the most accurately measured fundamental
constants
of the universe."

I'm having fun here....

Steve Bell



Here's another reference:

www.physics.smu.edu/~coan/1314/labs/h2.doc

I'm seeing a trend here. It is actually academia, not CODATA, that know
how
to derive unbiased estimates of R_H.

Steve Bell

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:9c706$48173478$943f641c$20645@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:93ab$4817339c$943f641c$20566@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:62d29$48173250$943f641c$20441@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:a1813$48172f4f$943f641c$20135@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:40eff$48172e19$943f641c$20003@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:5d085$48172ada$943f641c$15102@STARBAND.NET...

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



news:7ff41223-c81a-401d-ab58-9b64cd3894de@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
OK this is my last post on this.

You can be a "good" scientist and find R_H on your own.
Take
the
experimental values for the transitions given in the CODATA
then
choose your favorite series Balmer, Lyman etc. extract out
an
R_H.
Of
course the actual physical data doesn't exactly fit to
either
of
these, because of QED, and is only an approximation but I
did
this
for
a couple of points and got to within 10 wavenumbers of the
QED
theoretical.

You are free to believe what you want and I look forward to
seeing
you
in Stockholm.

cheers,
kp


I believe any transition frequencies given by CODATA have been
adjusted
to
agree with QED. I do not believe CODATA is consciously doing
anything
dishonest or "sneaky," quite the contrary, they think they
should
do
this
because of their belief that QED is physically correct. Like I
said,
I
knew
you guys would simply not accept this. It is obvious to me
what
has
happened. These "empirically-only-based" experiments are
simply
restating
the original work of Balmer and Rydberg. For something as
"simple"
as
hydrogen, we do not need complicated equations to find an
accurate,
unbiased
quantification of its ground state binding energy.
Fortunately,
the
only
needed equations are quite simple, only a least squares linear
straight
line
fit is needed, and given good, accurate unbiased spectroscopic
data,
when
can find the slope of the line (which is R_H) with little
standard
error.

You don't have to contribute anymore, kp. Because the work of
Balmer
and
Rydberg was so "fundamental," I should be able to find many
examples
of
this
simple, parsimonious way to accurately quantify hydrogen's
true
R_H
and
ground state binding energy, which is basically what all of
these
college
experiments are doing. I hope to post several examples, but
Herman
and
Wolf's recounting is so straight forward and clear, it's
beautiful,
isn't
it.

Now the big problem lay before us: Why does the spectroscopic
data
not
show
any relativistic effects? This is a "null result" that imo,
fundamentally
needs to be explained.

Thanks for your help, but in closing this post I must say
this.
You
have
asked me to provide top quality references, which this last
one
is,
and
if
you actually did not go to this famous text book and look at
the
pages
I
referenced, sir, I have every right to say you can go straight
to
hell.

Steve Bell


Here is another link that shows the non-relativistic R_H:

http://courses.washington.edu/phys331/HD_mass_theory.pdf

And, I'm sure, there is more are to come. All one has to do is
google
hydrogen spectroscopic data balmer rydberg.

Steve Bell



Here is Wikipedia' site. You can click on its links to get to a
quoted
non-relativistic R_H:

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

I intend to flood the intractable QM devotees on this list with so
many
reference, you all can go straight to hell if you do not accept
this.

Steve Bell



Here is another reference that quoted the non-relativistic
experimental
R_H:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath538/kmath538.htm

And on and on I go...

Steve Bell



Here is another link that quotes the non-relativistic R_H:

http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/reference/plambeck/chem1/p01214.htm

It states it is "one of the most accurately measured fundamental
constants
of the universe."

I'm having fun here....

Steve Bell



Here's another reference:

www.physics.smu.edu/~coan/1314/labs/h2.doc

I'm seeing a trend here. It is actually academia, not CODATA, that know
how
to derive unbiased estimates of R_H.

Steve Bell



Here is another reference:


http://www.smallscalechemistry.colostate.edu/PowerfulPictures/SpectroscopyAndTheStars.pdf

And I don't care if you tell me to shut up.

More to come....

Steve Bell

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:e9b04$481738f1$943f641c$6167@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:9c706$48173478$943f641c$20645@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:93ab$4817339c$943f641c$20566@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:62d29$48173250$943f641c$20441@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:a1813$48172f4f$943f641c$20135@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:40eff$48172e19$943f641c$20003@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:5d085$48172ada$943f641c$15102@STARBAND.NET...

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




news:7ff41223-c81a-401d-ab58-9b64cd3894de@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
OK this is my last post on this.

You can be a "good" scientist and find R_H on your own.
Take
the
experimental values for the transitions given in the
CODATA
then
choose your favorite series Balmer, Lyman etc. extract out
an
R_H.
Of
course the actual physical data doesn't exactly fit to
either
of
these, because of QED, and is only an approximation but I
did
this
for
a couple of points and got to within 10 wavenumbers of the
QED
theoretical.

You are free to believe what you want and I look forward
to
seeing
you
in Stockholm.

cheers,
kp


I believe any transition frequencies given by CODATA have
been
adjusted
to
agree with QED. I do not believe CODATA is consciously doing
anything
dishonest or "sneaky," quite the contrary, they think they
should
do
this
because of their belief that QED is physically correct. Like
I
said,
I
knew
you guys would simply not accept this. It is obvious to me
what
has
happened. These "empirically-only-based" experiments are
simply
restating
the original work of Balmer and Rydberg. For something as
"simple"
as
hydrogen, we do not need complicated equations to find an
accurate,
unbiased
quantification of its ground state binding energy.
Fortunately,
the
only
needed equations are quite simple, only a least squares
linear
straight
line
fit is needed, and given good, accurate unbiased
spectroscopic
data,
when
can find the slope of the line (which is R_H) with little
standard
error.

You don't have to contribute anymore, kp. Because the work
of
Balmer
and
Rydberg was so "fundamental," I should be able to find many
examples
of
this
simple, parsimonious way to accurately quantify hydrogen's
true
R_H
and
ground state binding energy, which is basically what all of
these
college
experiments are doing. I hope to post several examples, but
Herman
and
Wolf's recounting is so straight forward and clear, it's
beautiful,
isn't
it.

Now the big problem lay before us: Why does the
spectroscopic
data
not
show
any relativistic effects? This is a "null result" that imo,
fundamentally
needs to be explained.

Thanks for your help, but in closing this post I must say
this.
You
have
asked me to provide top quality references, which this last
one
is,
and
if
you actually did not go to this famous text book and look at
the
pages
I
referenced, sir, I have every right to say you can go
straight
to
hell.

Steve Bell


Here is another link that shows the non-relativistic R_H:

http://courses.washington.edu/phys331/HD_mass_theory.pdf

And, I'm sure, there is more are to come. All one has to do is
google
hydrogen spectroscopic data balmer rydberg.

Steve Bell



Here is Wikipedia' site. You can click on its links to get to a
quoted
non-relativistic R_H:

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

I intend to flood the intractable QM devotees on this list with
so
many
reference, you all can go straight to hell if you do not accept
this.

Steve Bell



Here is another reference that quoted the non-relativistic
experimental
R_H:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath538/kmath538.htm

And on and on I go...

Steve Bell



Here is another link that quotes the non-relativistic R_H:

http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/reference/plambeck/chem1/p01214.htm

It states it is "one of the most accurately measured fundamental
constants
of the universe."

I'm having fun here....

Steve Bell



Here's another reference:

www.physics.smu.edu/~coan/1314/labs/h2.doc

I'm seeing a trend here. It is actually academia, not CODATA, that
know
how
to derive unbiased estimates of R_H.

Steve Bell



Here is another reference:



http://www.smallscalechemistry.colostate.edu/PowerfulPictures/SpectroscopyAndTheStars.pdf

And I don't care if you tell me to shut up.

More to come....

Steve Bell




Here is another link:

http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/Atom3b.pdf

I need to apologize that I said all of you can go to hell. Most of you
can,
but some were only moderately derisive of me, but that I can see because
of
my contention. Those who were reasonably cordial, you know who you are,
and
I apologize. But for the rest of you, you know where you can go.

I think I'll stop now, my mouse finger is getting tired. Like I said, the
difficult thing is to accept that hydrogen is not outwardly relativistic,
but the unbiased data do not lie. I believe the solution to this lies in
ideas similar to what Ken Tucker has alluded to.

Steve Bell

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

news:e9b04$481738f1$943f641c$6167@STARBAND.NET...



"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:9c706$48173478$943f641c$20645@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:93ab$4817339c$943f641c$20566@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:62d29$48173250$943f641c$20441@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:a1813$48172f4f$943f641c$20135@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:40eff$48172e19$943f641c$20003@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:5d085$48172ada$943f641c$15102@STARBAND.NET...

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

news:7ff41223-c81a-401d-ab58-9b64cd3894de@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
OK this is my last post on this.

You can be a "good" scientist and find R_H on your own.
Take
the
experimental values for the transitions given in the CODATA
then
choose your favorite series Balmer, Lyman etc. extract out
an
R_H.
Of
course the actual physical data doesn't exactly fit to
either
of
these, because of QED, and is only an approximation but I
did
this
for
a couple of points and got to within 10 wavenumbers of the
QED
theoretical.

You are free to believe what you want and I look forward to
seeing
you
in Stockholm.

cheers,
kp

I believe any transition frequencies given by CODATA have been
adjusted
to
agree with QED. I do not believe CODATA is consciously doing
anything
dishonest or "sneaky," quite the contrary, they think they
should
do
this
because of their belief that QED is physically correct. Like I
said,
I
knew
you guys would simply not accept this. It is obvious to me
what
has
happened. These "empirically-only-based" experiments are
simply
restating
the original work of Balmer and Rydberg. For something as
"simple"
as
hydrogen, we do not need complicated equations to find an
accurate,
unbiased
quantification of its ground state binding energy.
Fortunately,
the
only
needed equations are quite simple, only a least squares linear
straight
line
fit is needed, and given good, accurate unbiased spectroscopic
data,
when
can find the slope of the line (which is R_H) with little
standard
error.

You don't have to contribute anymore, kp. Because the work of
Balmer
and
Rydberg was so "fundamental," I should be able to find many
examples
of
this
simple, parsimonious way to accurately quantify hydrogen's
true
R_H
and
ground state binding energy, which is basically what all of
these
college
experiments are doing. I hope to post several examples, but
Herman
and
Wolf's recounting is so straight forward and clear, it's
beautiful,
isn't
it.

Now the big problem lay before us: Why does the spectroscopic
data
not
show
any relativistic effects? This is a "null result" that imo,
fundamentally
needs to be explained.

Thanks for your help, but in closing this post I must say
this.
You
have
asked me to provide top quality references, which this last
one
is,
and
if
you actually did not go to this famous text book and look at
the
pages
I
referenced, sir, I have every right to say you can go straight
to
hell.

Steve Bell

Here is another link that shows the non-relativistic R_H:

http://courses.washington.edu/phys331/HD_mass_theory.pdf

And, I'm sure, there is more are to come. All one has to do is
google
hydrogen spectroscopic data balmer rydberg.

Steve Bell

Here is Wikipedia' site. You can click on its links to get to a
quoted
non-relativistic R_H:

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

I intend to flood the intractable QM devotees on this list with so
many
reference, you all can go straight to hell if you do not accept
this.

Steve Bell

Here is another reference that quoted the non-relativistic
experimental
R_H:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath538/kmath538.htm

And on and on I go...

Steve Bell

Here is another link that quotes the non-relativistic R_H:

http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/reference/plambeck/chem1/p01214.htm

It states it is "one of the most accurately measured fundamental
constants
of the universe."

I'm having fun here....

Steve Bell

Here's another reference:

www.physics.smu.edu/~coan/1314/labs/h2.doc

I'm seeing a trend here. It is actually academia, not CODATA, that know
how
to derive unbiased estimates of R_H.

Steve Bell

Here is another reference:

http://www.smallscalechemistry.colostate.edu/PowerfulPictures/Spectro...



And I don't care if you tell me to shut up.

More to come....

Steve Bell

Here is another link:

http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/Atom3b.pdf

I need to apologize that I said all of you can go to hell. Most of you can,
but some were only moderately derisive of me, but that I can see because of
my contention. Those who were reasonably cordial, you know who you are, and
I apologize. But for the rest of you, you know where you can go.

I think I'll stop now, my mouse finger is getting tired. Like I said, the
difficult thing is to accept that hydrogen is not outwardly relativistic,
but the unbiased data do not lie. I believe the solution to this lies in
ideas similar to what Ken Tucker has alluded to.
Steve Bell

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in
news:e7b7b$4816b3ec$943f641c$28088@STARBAND.NET:

There is no doubt in my mind now that hydrogen's spectroscopic data do
not posses relativistic effects, and QED is seriously flawed. But I
predict none of you will accept this clear cut experimental result, so
I'll keep looking for more proof.


Let us back off for a moment and look at things carefully.

Imagine a phenomena 'P' that depends on several parameters, call them a,
b,
and c.
We study 'P' via many experiments and find values for a, b and c.

Then, there is a revision of the basic theories and we decide that there
must be an additional factor 'd' involved.

Meantime, people have developed formula for the relationship between P, a,
b and c
Those formula have worked.

Someone says that there can not be a 'd' because it won't give the correct
value for P when a, b, and c are used in the formula.

What is wrong with that argument?

In case you missed it, the problem is that the values of a, b, and c must
ALL be revised before the new formulation, using also d will work.

If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that there can't
be
a 'd' because it won't give the correct value for P.




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+spr@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in
news:e7b7b$4816b3ec$943f641c$28088@STARBAND.NET:

There is no doubt in my mind now that hydrogen's spectroscopic data do
not posses relativistic effects, and QED is seriously flawed. But I
predict none of you will accept this clear cut experimental result, so
I'll keep looking for more proof.


Let us back off for a moment and look at things carefully.

Imagine a phenomena 'P' that depends on several parameters, call them a,
b,
and c.
We study 'P' via many experiments and find values for a, b and c.

Then, there is a revision of the basic theories and we decide that there
must be an additional factor 'd' involved.

Meantime, people have developed formula for the relationship between P, a,
b and c
Those formula have worked.

Someone says that there can not be a 'd' because it won't give the correct
value for P when a, b, and c are used in the formula.

What is wrong with that argument?

In case you missed it, the problem is that the values of a, b, and c must
ALL be revised before the new formulation, using also d will work.

If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that there can't
be
a 'd' because it won't give the correct value for P.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+spr@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:10bfd670-b531-4165-9de7-2b5d5d581950@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...



On Apr 29, 9:20 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:
"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message

news:e9b04$481738f1$943f641c$6167@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:9c706$48173478$943f641c$20645@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:93ab$4817339c$943f641c$20566@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:62d29$48173250$943f641c$20441@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:a1813$48172f4f$943f641c$20135@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:40eff$48172e19$943f641c$20003@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:5d085$48172ada$943f641c$15102@STARBAND.NET...

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

news:7ff41223-c81a-401d-ab58-9b64cd3894de@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
OK this is my last post on this.

 You can be a "good" scientist and find R_H on your own.
Take
the
experimental values for the transitions given in the
CODATA
then
choose your favorite series Balmer, Lyman etc. extract
out
an
R_H.
Of
course the actual physical data doesn't exactly fit to
either
of
these, because of QED, and is only an approximation but
I
did
this
for
a couple of points and got to within 10 wavenumbers of
the
QED
theoretical.

You are free to believe what you want and I look forward
to
seeing
you
in Stockholm.

cheers,
kp

I believe any transition frequencies given by CODATA have
been
adjusted
to
agree with QED. I do not believe CODATA is consciously
doing
anything
dishonest or "sneaky," quite the contrary, they think they
should
do
this
because of their belief that QED is physically correct.
Like I
said,
I
knew
you guys would simply not accept this. It is obvious to me
what
has
happened. These "empirically-only-based" experiments are
simply
restating
the original work of Balmer and Rydberg. For something as
"simple"
as
hydrogen, we do not need complicated equations to find an
accurate,
unbiased
quantification of its ground state binding energy.
Fortunately,
the
only
needed equations are quite simple, only a least squares
linear
straight
line
fit is needed, and given good, accurate unbiased
spectroscopic
data,
when
can find the slope of the line (which is R_H) with little
standard
error.

You don't have to contribute anymore, kp. Because the work
of
Balmer
and
Rydberg was so "fundamental," I should be able to find
many
examples
of
this
simple, parsimonious way to accurately quantify hydrogen's
true
R_H
and
ground state binding energy, which is basically what all
of
these
college
experiments are doing. I hope to post several examples,
but
Herman
and
Wolf's recounting is so straight forward and clear, it's
beautiful,
isn't
it.

Now the big problem lay before us: Why does the
spectroscopic
data
not
show
any relativistic effects? This is a "null result" that
imo,
fundamentally
needs to be explained.

Thanks for your help, but in closing this post I must say
this.
You
have
asked me to provide top quality references, which this
last
one
is,
and
if
you actually did not go to this famous text book and look
at
the
pages
I
referenced, sir, I have every right to say you can go
straight
to
hell.

Steve Bell

Here is another link that shows the non-relativistic R_H:

http://courses.washington.edu/phys331/HD_mass_theory.pdf

And, I'm sure, there is more are to come. All one has to do
is
google
hydrogen spectroscopic data balmer rydberg.

Steve Bell

Here is Wikipedia' site. You can click on its links to get to
a
quoted
non-relativistic R_H:

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

I intend to flood the intractable QM devotees on this list
with so
many
reference, you all can go straight to hell if you do not
accept
this.

Steve Bell

Here is another reference that quoted the non-relativistic
experimental
R_H:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath538/kmath538.htm

And on and on I go...

Steve Bell

Here is another link that quotes the non-relativistic R_H:

http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/reference/plambeck/chem1/p01214.htm

It states it is "one of the most accurately measured fundamental
constants
of the universe."

I'm having fun here....

Steve Bell

Here's another reference:

www.physics.smu.edu/~coan/1314/labs/h2.doc

I'm seeing a trend here. It is actually academia, not CODATA, that
know
how
to derive unbiased estimates of R_H.

Steve Bell

Here is another reference:

http://www.smallscalechemistry.colostate.edu/PowerfulPictures/Spectro....

And I don't care if you tell me to shut up.

More to come....

Steve Bell

Here is another link:

http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/Atom3b.pdf

I need to apologize that I said all of you can go to hell. Most of you
can,
but some were only moderately derisive of me, but that I can see because
of
my contention. Those who were reasonably cordial, you know who you are,
and
I apologize. But for the rest of you, you know where you can go.

I think I'll stop now, my mouse finger is getting tired. Like I said,
the
difficult thing is to accept that hydrogen is not outwardly
relativistic,
but the unbiased data do not lie. I believe the solution to this lies in
ideas similar to what Ken Tucker has alluded to.
Steve Bell

Hi Steve and all.
I've been lurking,
Steve which ideas did I allude too?

Anyway AFAIK, the Rydberg constant has units
of either "rest mass" or "1 / length", and
neither one is "relativistically invariant".

If we choose to use the classical model here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_constant
I think a relativistic correction is required,
because of the velocity and centrifugal force
should be applied to the electron rest mass.

It's a very interesting question, because the
detail, you (Steve), are going to, impacts on
the model of the orbiting electron.
Regards and Cheers
Ken S. Tucker

Hi Ken,

I've read your work, and if I am not mistaken, you are using stress-energy
tensors in an application to electronic fields, but not in the "usual" way,
but in a very GR-like fashion. The fact that charge curves space and dilates
time has been theoretically known for quite a while. In a Kerr-Newman
metric, the most generalized differential geometry of GR, there are only
three physical characteristics of matter of the central body at the center
of the field: mass, charge and angular momentum. A characteristic distance
written as a function of these three physical characteristics (mass, charge
and angular momentum) enters the metric. This is the reason a differential
geometry is just that, a geometry, with usually ds^2 (the square of a
differential line element) on the left side of the equation for the metric..
There are significant logical problems, though, with the way charge is used
in the K-N metric.

Yes, I fully agree the electron is indeed being subjected to relativistic
effects in hydrogen. But the spectroscopic data do not apparently show any
relativistic effects because using just the spectroscopic data and a simple
(but accurate) straight line fit for estimating R_H produces an R_H that is
non-relativistic, as I have shown now in a plethora of references. The only
possible physical reason for this is that the spectroscopic data itself is
not perturbed by relativistic effects. If they were, we would get the
Dirac-based/QED R_H from the straight line fit, not the non-relativistic
Schroedinger R_H. Interesting, isn't it.

Steve

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
....

I believe the solution to this lies in
ideas similar to what Ken Tucker has alluded to.
Steve Bell

Hi Steve and all.
I've been lurking,
Steve which ideas did I allude too?

Anyway AFAIK, the Rydberg constant has units
of either "rest mass" or "1 / length", and
neither one is "relativistically invariant".

If we choose to use the classical model here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_constant
I think a relativistic correction is required,
because of the velocity and centrifugal force
should be applied to the electron rest mass.

It's a very interesting question, because the
detail, you (Steve), are going to, impacts on
the model of the orbiting electron.
Regards and Cheers
Ken S. Tucker

Hi Ken,

I've read your work, and if I am not mistaken, you are using stress-energy
tensors in an application to electronic fields, but not in the "usual" way,
but in a very GR-like fashion.

The fact that charge curves space and dilates
time has been theoretically known for quite a while.

In a Kerr-Newman
metric, the most generalized differential geometry of GR, there are only
three physical characteristics of matter of the central body at the center
of the field: mass, charge and angular momentum. A characteristic distance
written as a function of these three physical characteristics (mass, charge
and angular momentum) enters the metric. This is the reason a differential
geometry is just that, a geometry, with usually ds^2 (the square of a
differential line element) on the left side of the equation for the metric.
There are significant logical problems, though, with the way charge is used
in the K-N metric.

Yes, I fully agree the electron is indeed being subjected to relativistic
effects in hydrogen. But the spectroscopic data do not apparently show any
relativistic effects because using just the spectroscopic data and a simple
(but accurate) straight line fit for estimating R_H produces an R_H that is
non-relativistic, as I have shown now in a plethora of references. The only
possible physical reason for this is that the spectroscopic data itself is
not perturbed by relativistic effects. If they were, we would get the
Dirac-based/QED R_H from the straight line fit, not the non-relativistic
Schroedinger R_H.

Interesting, isn't it.

On Apr 29, 9:20 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:
"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message

news:e9b04$481738f1$943f641c$6167@STARBAND.NET...



"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:9c706$48173478$943f641c$20645@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:93ab$4817339c$943f641c$20566@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:62d29$48173250$943f641c$20441@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:a1813$48172f4f$943f641c$20135@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:40eff$48172e19$943f641c$20003@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:5d085$48172ada$943f641c$15102@STARBAND.NET...

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


news:7ff41223-c81a-401d-ab58-9b64cd3894de@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
OK this is my last post on this.

You can be a "good" scientist and find R_H on your own.
Take
the
experimental values for the transitions given in the
CODATA
then
choose your favorite series Balmer, Lyman etc. extract
out
an
R_H.
Of
course the actual physical data doesn't exactly fit to
either
of
these, because of QED, and is only an approximation but
I
did
this
for
a couple of points and got to within 10 wavenumbers of
the
QED
theoretical.

You are free to believe what you want and I look forward
to
seeing
you
in Stockholm.

cheers,
kp

I believe any transition frequencies given by CODATA have
been
adjusted
to
agree with QED. I do not believe CODATA is consciously
doing
anything
dishonest or "sneaky," quite the contrary, they think they
should
do
this
because of their belief that QED is physically correct.
Like I
said,
I
knew
you guys would simply not accept this. It is obvious to me
what
has
happened. These "empirically-only-based" experiments are
simply
restating
the original work of Balmer and Rydberg. For something as
"simple"
as
hydrogen, we do not need complicated equations to find an
accurate,
unbiased
quantification of its ground state binding energy.
Fortunately,
the
only
needed equations are quite simple, only a least squares
linear
straight
line
fit is needed, and given good, accurate unbiased
spectroscopic
data,
when
can find the slope of the line (which is R_H) with little
standard
error.

You don't have to contribute anymore, kp. Because the work
of
Balmer
and
Rydberg was so "fundamental," I should be able to find
many
examples
of
this
simple, parsimonious way to accurately quantify hydrogen's
true
R_H
and
ground state binding energy, which is basically what all
of
these
college
experiments are doing. I hope to post several examples,
but
Herman
and
Wolf's recounting is so straight forward and clear, it's
beautiful,
isn't
it.

Now the big problem lay before us: Why does the
spectroscopic
data
not
show
any relativistic effects? This is a "null result" that
imo,
fundamentally
needs to be explained.

Thanks for your help, but in closing this post I must say
this.
You
have
asked me to provide top quality references, which this
last
one
is,
and
if
you actually did not go to this famous text book and look
at
the
pages
I
referenced, sir, I have every right to say you can go
straight
to
hell.

Steve Bell

Here is another link that shows the non-relativistic R_H:

http://courses.washington.edu/phys331/HD_mass_theory.pdf

And, I'm sure, there is more are to come. All one has to do
is
google
hydrogen spectroscopic data balmer rydberg.

Steve Bell

Here is Wikipedia' site. You can click on its links to get to
a
quoted
non-relativistic R_H:

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

I intend to flood the intractable QM devotees on this list
with so
many
reference, you all can go straight to hell if you do not
accept
this.

Steve Bell

Here is another reference that quoted the non-relativistic
experimental
R_H:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath538/kmath538.htm

And on and on I go...

Steve Bell

Here is another link that quotes the non-relativistic R_H:


http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/reference/plambeck/chem1/p01214.htm

It states it is "one of the most accurately measured fundamental
constants
of the universe."

I'm having fun here....

Steve Bell

Here's another reference:

www.physics.smu.edu/~coan/1314/labs/h2.doc

I'm seeing a trend here. It is actually academia, not CODATA, that
know
how
to derive unbiased estimates of R_H.

Steve Bell

Here is another reference:

http://www.smallscalechemistry.colostate.edu/PowerfulPictures/Spectro...



And I don't care if you tell me to shut up.

More to come....

Steve Bell

Here is another link:

http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/Atom3b.pdf

I need to apologize that I said all of you can go to hell. Most of you
can,
but some were only moderately derisive of me, but that I can see because
of
my contention. Those who were reasonably cordial, you know who you are,
and
I apologize. But for the rest of you, you know where you can go.

I think I'll stop now, my mouse finger is getting tired. Like I said,
the
difficult thing is to accept that hydrogen is not outwardly
relativistic,
but the unbiased data do not lie. I believe the solution to this lies in
ideas similar to what Ken Tucker has alluded to.
Steve Bell

Hi Steve and all.
I've been lurking,
Steve which ideas did I allude too?

Anyway AFAIK, the Rydberg constant has units
of either "rest mass" or "1 / length", and
neither one is "relativistically invariant".

If we choose to use the classical model here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_constant
I think a relativistic correction is required,
because of the velocity and centrifugal force
should be applied to the electron rest mass.

It's a very interesting question, because the
detail, you (Steve), are going to, impacts on
the model of the orbiting electron.
Regards and Cheers
Ken S. Tucker

On Apr 29, 6:30 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
...

[steve]
I believe the solution to this lies in
ideas similar to what Ken Tucker has alluded to.
Steve Bell

[ken]
Hi Steve and all.
I've been lurking,
Steve which ideas did I allude too?

Anyway AFAIK, the Rydberg constant has units
of either "rest mass" or "1 / length", and
neither one is "relativistically invariant".

If we choose to use the classical model here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_constant
I think a relativistic correction is required,
because of the velocity and centrifugal force
should be applied to the electron rest mass.

It's a very interesting question, because the
detail, you (Steve), are going to, impacts on
the model of the orbiting electron.
Regards and Cheers
Ken S. Tucker

Hi Ken,

I've read your work, and if I am not mistaken, you are using
stress-energy
tensors in an application to electronic fields, but not in the "usual"
way,
but in a very GR-like fashion.

I suppose you mean this brief,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
So yeah, it tries to analyse a charge couple,
using GR.

The Rydberg may depend on the structures of
the proton and electron that forms hydrogen,
(apart from the simplistic analysis I did),
but that analysis is a good solution.

The fact that charge curves space and dilates
time has been theoretically known for quite a while.

It's the charge couple that creates the energy,
that in turn produces gravity.
A singular charge is not real. As Diether says,
"can't clap with one hand".

In a Kerr-Newman
metric, the most generalized differential geometry of GR, there are only
three physical characteristics of matter of the central body at the
center
of the field: mass, charge and angular momentum. A characteristic
distance
written as a function of these three physical characteristics (mass,
charge
and angular momentum) enters the metric. This is the reason a
differential
geometry is just that, a geometry, with usually ds^2 (the square of a
differential line element) on the left side of the equation for the
metric.
There are significant logical problems, though, with the way charge is
used
in the K-N metric.

Yes, charge exists relatively to another charge
just as velocity of a body exists relatively to
another body. Purcell makes that point on pg.8
of his "E&M", and I've checked that carefully.

Yes, I fully agree the electron is indeed being subjected to
relativistic
effects in hydrogen. But the spectroscopic data do not apparently show
any
relativistic effects because using just the spectroscopic data and a
simple
(but accurate) straight line fit for estimating R_H produces an R_H that
is
non-relativistic, as I have shown now in a plethora of references. The
only
possible physical reason for this is that the spectroscopic data itself
is
not perturbed by relativistic effects. If they were, we would get the
Dirac-based/QED R_H from the straight line fit, not the non-relativistic
Schroedinger R_H.

Interesting, isn't it.

Sure is. I think you're on to something.

What do you think about momentum kick?
(facetious question, let me explain).

Let me place a proton "p+" at an origin
and an electron e- revolving on the X-Y
plane about the p+.
I think it's fair to imagine the e- orbit
as a current loop, as you please.

If a momentum kick results from an emission
of radiation, we'll need to account for a
Doppler type effect.

If OTOH, the radiation is emitted in the
z-direction equally, (+ and - z directions)
then we don't have that kick.

Myself, I think we should examine all the
ways a photon/EM wave is emitted, to form
the H spectrum.

Regards and Cheers
Ken S. Tucker

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:285f4afc-dfe0-426c-b639-f5e5031a2458@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...



On Apr 29, 6:30 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
...

[steve]
I believe the solution to this lies in
ideas similar to what Ken Tucker has alluded to.
Steve Bell

[ken]
Hi Steve and all.
I've been lurking,
Steve which ideas did I allude too?

Anyway AFAIK, the Rydberg constant has units
of either "rest mass" or "1 / length", and
neither one is "relativistically invariant".

If we choose to use the classical model here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_constant
I think a relativistic correction is required,
because of the velocity and centrifugal force
should be applied to the electron rest mass.

It's a very interesting question, because the
detail, you (Steve), are going to, impacts on
the model of the orbiting electron.
Regards and Cheers
Ken S. Tucker

Hi Ken,

I've read your work, and if I am not mistaken, you are using
stress-energy
tensors in an application to electronic fields, but not in the "usual"
way,
but in a very GR-like fashion.

I suppose you mean this brief,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
So yeah, it tries to analyse a charge couple,
using GR.

The Rydberg may depend on the structures of
the proton and electron that forms hydrogen,
(apart from the simplistic analysis I did),
but that analysis is a good solution.

The fact that charge curves space and dilates
time has been theoretically known for quite a while.

It's the charge couple that creates the energy,
that in turn produces gravity.
A singular charge is not real. As Diether says,
"can't clap with one hand".

Hi Ken,

Do you think an electron can exist in complete isolation? This thought
experiment is just some electron all by itself in a universe devoid of
everything else but the electron.

In a Kerr-Newman
metric, the most generalized differential geometry of GR, there are only
three physical characteristics of matter of the central body at the
center
of the field: mass, charge and angular momentum. A characteristic
distance
written as a function of these three physical characteristics (mass,
charge
and angular momentum) enters the metric. This is the reason a
differential
geometry is just that, a geometry, with usually ds^2 (the square of a
differential line element) on the left side of the equation for the
metric.
There are significant logical problems, though, with the way charge is
used
in the K-N metric.

Yes, charge exists relatively to another charge
just as velocity of a body exists relatively to
another body. Purcell makes that point on pg.8
of his "E&M", and I've checked that carefully.

The main problem I see with the K-N metric is that it sates an infinitesimal
test particle coasts on a geodesic that is "this" if the central body has
charge and "that" if it does not. What if the test particle is neutral? The
same thing happens, because it's the charge of the central body that curves
the space. There should not be an electronic influence on the motion of a
neutral test particle, no matter what is the charge of the central body. A
neutral test particle should not go "this way" and then "that way," even if
the charge of the central body changes, but it does according to the K-N
metric.

Yes, I fully agree the electron is indeed being subjected to
relativistic
effects in hydrogen. But the spectroscopic data do not apparently show
any
relativistic effects because using just the spectroscopic data and a
simple
(but accurate) straight line fit for estimating R_H produces an R_H that
is
non-relativistic, as I have shown now in a plethora of references. The
only
possible physical reason for this is that the spectroscopic data itself
is
not perturbed by relativistic effects. If they were, we would get the
Dirac-based/QED R_H from the straight line fit, not the non-relativistic
Schroedinger R_H.

Interesting, isn't it.

Sure is. I think you're on to something.

What do you think about momentum kick?
(facetious question, let me explain).

Let me place a proton "p+" at an origin
and an electron e- revolving on the X-Y
plane about the p+.
I think it's fair to imagine the e- orbit
as a current loop, as you please.

I believe at an instant in time, yes, an orbital-based current loop is
present, with the N-S orientation of the magnetic field dictated by the
instantaneous orientation of the plane the electron is instantaneously in.

If a momentum kick results from an emission
of radiation, we'll need to account for a
Doppler type effect.

If OTOH, the radiation is emitted in the
z-direction equally, (+ and - z directions)
then we don't have that kick.

Myself, I think we should examine all the
ways a photon/EM wave is emitted, to form
the H spectrum.

Regards and Cheers
Ken S. Tucker

I agree. Whatever is truly going on inside the hydrogen atom certainly
effects the spectrum, naturally, and what is going on doesn't produce
relativistically effected spectral lines. If it did, we would see these
effects in the spectrum, and from the fact that a non-relativistic looking
R_H is the best fit to the data, I think we have to conclude there are no
relativistic perturbations in the spectrum. If there were, a
non-relativistic R_H would not be the best fit. Simple Bohr/non-relativistic
Schroedinger theory would not be the best explanation for the observed R_H,
but it is, at least for now. If you do not believe me, please see the many
links that show a non-relativistic R_H provides the best fit.