"Paul Mays" <PaulR@Mays.com> wrote in message
news:jDGQj.150127$cj2.149685@newsfe13.ams2...


"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:26914$48132ed9$943f641c$13845@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:7c29$48127eaa$943f641c$11683@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:bba78$48111991$943f641c$29890@STARBAND.NET...

"Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net> wrote in message
news:49349$4810b699
With regards to these discussions here, perhaps the following is
true.
Today, the CODATA folks produce a "consistent set of fundamental
constants."
I think I see what they mean by that. The final values they
present
are
consistent with the current accepted theories of modern physics,
relativity,
QM, etc. As it looks to me, no longer are the data used (e.g.,
the
actual
spectroscopic data) in an unbiased manner.


I contend there is no such concept as a Unbiased Observation. The
observer is connected to the devices we build to observe and the
device is connected to that being observed leading to an Intrinsic
Bias of any observation of anything on any scale.

Your statement shows your obvious "we are the most important thing to the
experiment" bias.

With regards to taking spectroscopic data, it is easy to construct a
spectrograph that provides unbiased data. Good experimentalists have done
this years, and I am seeing now, have for years derived these unbiased
Rydberg constants for hydrogen. Here is a quote from one of the links that
can be found by googling "109677 cm rydberg": "the experimental value for
hydrogen, RH = 109677 cm-1, determined by measurement of the lines in the
observed emission spectrum of atomic hydrogen." See the link at
http://alpha.chem.umb.edu/chemistry/ch379/documents/exp2_Hatom_000.pdf
which
directly outlines the use of such unbiased data, and quotes the
experimental
Rydberg constant for hydrogen as R_H = 109677.5805 cm^-1. I am finding
now,
many examples of correctly applied (unlike CODATA) spectroscopic data. The
data are the data, and when collected and used in an unbiased manner, the
implications are clear: QED is wrong.

Of course, if you accept
the
validity of these theories, this biasing is a positive thing,
not
a
negative
thing. I think perhaps, the observed values of the Rydberg
constant
for
hydrogen that I have quoted here were experimentally derived
prior
to
the
enforcing of this bias, and in fact are only based on the raw,
unbiased
spectroscopic data. If so, I am even more convinced that
something
is
amiss,
because that's exactly the type of Rydberg constant for hydrogen
that
I
like
to use, and that I think should be used, one one that only
nature
itself
has
dictated its value, uncorrupted by any theory, including mine.
It
may
be
that around about the time these consistent sets were started to
be
generated, that's when these unbiased, truthfully experimentally
derived
Rydberg constants for hydrogen were no longer being generated,
and
that's
the reason why I can't find one today.

Steve



I looked back in past posts I made on this topic, and I've found
the
19050's
reference to the observed value of R_H:

... the value (109677.575 +/- 0.012) cm^-1, reported by
E. R. Cohen, Phys. Rev. 88, (2), 353, (1952; received March 1951)

The value presented in Eisberg and Resnick's (E & R) text I've
quoted
before is 10967757.6 +/- 1.2 m^-1, basically exactly the same. I
wonder
if
Eisberg and Resnick just used this number. They do not present a
reference
for their value, which I have always found to be strange. But if
they
did,
this brings up an interesting "fact." The value E & R quote for
the
prediction to compare to this observed value was computed using
Schroe.
non-relativistic QM, and they state: "using the currently accepted
values
of
the quantities m, M, e, c, and h, we find R_H = 10968100 m^-1." I
suspect
the reason why this prediction is so "off" is because back in the
1970s
(the
time I think this prediction was made) the values of m, M, e, c,
and
h
were
probably significantly "off" from what we think they are today.
Today,
if
we
insert our current values into Schroe. theory, we get R_H =
10967758.341
m^-1, as per the Wikipedia site. This value is real close to even
the
1950s
observed value. If the values of the constants back in the 1970s
were
bad
enough to give a significantly "bad" prediction, then they must
have
been
even worse in the 1950s. But look at what occurred. If I assume
the
50s
folks were in fact "pulling a fast one" (I don't) and actually
computed
a
value using Schroe. theory and presented it as an "observed," it
would
be
as
if the folks back in the 50s knew what were going to be our
current
modern
values of these constants. Of course, that's absurd. It makes much
better
sense to think this value is truthfully an unbiased observational
value,
unbiased by any theory, and has remained basically constant for
many
decades. I suspect that if an observational R_H value were derived
today
based solely on the unbiased spectroscopic data, a value real
close
to
these
older observational values would be obtained. It appears the
CODATA
folks
put a stop to that once these consistent sets started to be
produced.
To
me,
this is most unfortunate. It sure appears to me now, that if
anyone
is
"pulling a fast one" it's CODATA, by the Bayesian-like estimation
process
they use.

I'm beginning to get the feeling, that if the modern physics
community
is
willing to accept such poor science as good science, there will be
no
way
such people could be convinced of the error of their ways.

Steve


To find out what, more or less, is a consensus of the observed value
of
R_H,
I googled "109677 cm rydberg". It appears to me the values I have
presented
(all are close to each other) can overwhelming be taken as correct
observational values. And when you see how they were obtained, it
becomes
clear they were based on unbiased spectroscopic data. That is what I
was
hoping, not corrupted by QED, etc. Some very similar numbers go all
the
way
back to the 1930s. Since there is a direct one-to-one link between
R_H
and
hydrogen's ground state binding energy (if you understand the
physics,
R_H
is not "just a number"), the inescapable conclusion is that ground
state
hydrogen does not physically outwardly manifest any types of
relativistic
effects. If all of you think this is just "trivial" that amazes me,
how
can
you deny the experimental facts? My logic is absolutely sound. To a
good
scientist, the observed value does not lie, and in this case
absolutely
points to a serious flaw in QED. The data are the data, plain and
simple,
and QED predicts an inaccurate value.

Steve Bell



I'd like to point out, that when an accepted theory starts to
breakdown,
it
is almost always small discrepancies between their predictions an
good,
solid, unbiased observational data that shows this. This was true for
GR
itself. The small discrepancy between Newtonian mechanics and the
observ
ed
small precession of Mercury's orbit was one of hallmark turning points
that
proved Schwarzchild's theory was correct. I very much believe this is
true
here. The discrepancy that I have quantified in a clear and concise
way
amounts to only 1.8 x 10^-4 eV. Just like the small discrepancy in
Mercury's
orbit, this small binding energy difference between theory (QED) and
the
solid experimental spectroscopic data will herald the demise of QM.
And
you
cannot rely on CODATA for anything but accurate estimates of the four
fundamental constants and physical parameters like the rest mass of
the
electron and proton and their charges, etc. CODATA is so "in bed" with
QED,
you cannot rely on CODATA at all for how these fundamental numbers are
used
by them.

If any theory should be called "crackpot" it is QM itself. It allows
for
magic and miracles to occur. It panders to the innate ego that exists
in
humans. In its latest (and hopefully, last) incarnation, namely,
string
theory, it arrogantly states that our minds can actually create
entire,
physically existing universes. There was a recent show called "What
the
Bleep do We Know," where one of the QM advocates look the camera right
in
the eye and said "You are a god, I am a god, we are all gods."
Nonsense,
pure nonsense. QM states that fundamental laws of nature can be
violated,
like when the law of the conservation of energy is allowed to be
violated
in
this insane "popping in and out of existence" of virtual particles.
The
concept of a virtual particle is pure magic. In its merger with
cosmology,
it has allowed for things that can only magically exist, dark matter
and
dark energy, where even the QM-biased theorists themselves admit they
don't
even know what this stuff is made of. Experimentalists have look for
dark
matter for decades and they have never found it. And they never will.
And
the list goes on and on. M. Kaku has recently published a book
entitled
"The
Impossible Universe." To any clearly thinking scientist who refuses to
accept the existence of miracles and magic, the only thing that is
impossible to accept is QM itself. And I will fight against this
instance
of
mass insanity, like Einstein, until the day I die.

Steve Bell

--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

"Paul Mays" <PaulR@Mays.com> wrote in message
news:%ZKQj.3128$Ta6.1025@newsfe14.ams2...




--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"




Can your theory predict the ground state binding energy of hydrogen? If
so,
please compute it, and convert it to a Rydberg constant for hydrogen. I'll
see how it compares to the accepted observed value.

Steve Bell

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

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

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

Steve Bell

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

news:1bed8d95-916c-48b7-9a9a-1a10de641cb7@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 22, 7:26 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:



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

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

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

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

Hi Eric,

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

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

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

[snip]

Hi Eric,

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

Thanks,
Steve

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

Hi Eric,

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

Steve

Think about it. How much energy does it take to fully ionize Hydrogen,
and how does it relate to spectra and the Rydberg constant?

Hi Eric,

I think I understand that. I was hoping to ask a more fundamental question..
It appears to me, these "from expt (line spectra)" and "from recent
spectroscopic data" seem to imply these values have nothing at all to do
with any theory. While I was "hiding," I looked into how the spectroscopic
data are used. Of course, the only thing that can be observed are energy
level differences, and some techniques simply fit a generic polynomial to
the data and interpolate a value for R_H. These generic polynomials have
nothing to do with any theory. Some techniques fit the Rydberg equation and
interpolate, but the Rydberg equation is empirical itself, and not really
based on any theory, at least originally. I assume the observed frequencies
associated with the energy level differences are also "unbiased." They only
present what hydrogen "naturally" shows to us. Btw, I mentioned this
"observed value" has been around for 50 years,  or maybe even longer. It
would make sense this would happen, if indeed the spectroscopic machinery of
even 50 years ago was good enough to fairly well pin down an observed R_H.
Certainly, the spectroscopic machinery of today is much better, but
apparently it was pretty good a significant while back, and the observed
value of R_H has not changed much. Hydrogen certainly has not changed in the
last 50 years, or even in the last 13.7 billion years for that matter!

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

news:1bed8d95-916c-48b7-9a9a-1a10de641cb7@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 22, 7:26 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:



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

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

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

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

Hi Eric,

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

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

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

[snip]

Hi Eric,

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

Thanks,
Steve

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

Hi Eric,

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

Steve

Think about it. How much energy does it take to fully ionize Hydrogen,
and how does it relate to spectra and the Rydberg constant?

Hi Eric,

I think I understand that. I was hoping to ask a more fundamental question..
It appears to me, these "from expt (line spectra)" and "from recent
spectroscopic data" seem to imply these values have nothing at all to do
with any theory. While I was "hiding," I looked into how the spectroscopic
data are used. Of course, the only thing that can be observed are energy
level differences, and some techniques simply fit a generic polynomial to
the data and interpolate a value for R_H. These generic polynomials have
nothing to do with any theory. Some techniques fit the Rydberg equation and
interpolate, but the Rydberg equation is empirical itself, and not really
based on any theory, at least originally. I assume the observed frequencies
associated with the energy level differences are also "unbiased." They only
present what hydrogen "naturally" shows to us. Btw, I mentioned this
"observed value" has been around for 50 years,  or maybe even longer. It
would make sense this would happen, if indeed the spectroscopic machinery of
even 50 years ago was good enough to fairly well pin down an observed R_H.
Certainly, the spectroscopic machinery of today is much better, but
apparently it was pretty good a significant while back, and the observed
value of R_H has not changed much. Hydrogen certainly has not changed in the
last 50 years, or even in the last 13.7 billion years for that matter!

On Apr 24, 7:29 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:
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.

You have to get to the top of the hill in front of you, before you can
see the next hill.  Once we know what string theory fails at
predicting correctly, we will be looking at the next hill.

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

The box can never contain itself.  So no.

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.

Nature is consulted.  If Nature laughs we try again.  *No one* in
Science thinks they have a handle on Truth.  Nor is Truth accessible.

Except that it is now different.  And keep in mind
that GR itself is very much "statistical", since it
only applies for large collections of quantum
objects, and those distributed.

Personally, I don't view GR as statistical in any
way. To me, it is a completely deterministic theory.

All of science is deteministic.  GR only applies to populations.

To me, the external world is either stochastic (I
usually use "stochastic" and "statistical"
interchangeably) or deterministic. I don't think it
can be both. It has to be, to me, one or the other.

Given a certain large number of unstable nucleii, "half" of them
nuclei
will be gone in one half-life.  Not saying which ones have
decayed, but the population is well behaved.  It *is*
deterministic.

Well, I have been toying with two mutually orthogonal time
axes... one dependent on any particular "configuration", from
which spacetime develops back to the Big Bang, and the other
subject to Will.

An electron really is a particle,

No, it is not an abstract word made up with large
macroscopic system bias.

I'm sure you can see from my previous comments,
that I think an electron truthfully physically exists.
I don't believe it is just an abstract concept.

Electrons do really exist.  But they are not billiard balls, and
saying "particles" does not make them particle-like.  You test
for particle, you get particle... it is your "model" that it
responds to.

coasting along on a very complicated
deterministic orbit. It just looks stochastic
to us, but in fact it is not.

What you are straining at is how the system
of nucleus + electron "attaches" to the Universe
at large.  You should not spend effort trying to
infer what the electron "really" is in this context.

If by "attaches to the universe," you are referring
to something like Mach's Principle, that's an
interesting way to say it. I think any time spent
thinking about what an electron "really is" is
time very well spent.

Not when it is part of a system, and part of the system's rest
mass is "elsewhere".  When you analyze a neutral atom (ground
state or not) you *must* also include the butcher's thumb on the
scale.

But because the motion is so complicated, the only
thing we can do is describe it statistically.

No, "motion", "complexity" are your attempt to make
the electron a billiard ball, its orbital some sort of path
around the nucleus, and the nucleus a billiard ball
whose electrical field is incidentally *completely
neutralized at all scales* by this orbitting electron and
does it without producing a magnetic field.

Yes, that's basically what I believe. Also, I very
much believe that as the electron orbits about the
nucleus, it does indeed generate an orbital-based
magnetic field.

But it doesn't.  It cannot, for it will radiate energy, and fall
into the nucleus.

You are at least more conversant than most cranks, better read
than the average newbie.  Everybody has their private obsession.
May you find some peace with yours.

On Apr 24, 8:46 am,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
...
Nature is consulted.  If Nature laughs we
try again.  *No one* in Science thinks they
have a handle on Truth.  Nor is Truth accessible.

as "no one" is not a they, ...