 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / May 2008Inaccurate QM Prediction for Hydrogen
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 [snip] Where is the inaccurate prediction? 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." Steve On Apr 21, 9:47 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote: [snip] Where is the inaccurate prediction? > Hi Eric, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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 f.cking top post. [snip] On Apr 21, 7:19 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote: > Hi Eric, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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 f.cking 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 > On Apr 21, 7:19 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Thanks, > Steve The Rydberg constant isn't empirically determined to my knowledge - it is a composition of a half dozen fundamental constants. On Apr 21, 10:41 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote: > "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > 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 > On Apr 21, 10:41 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > 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? On Apr 22, 7:26 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote: > "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > 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! I started this thread saying that I will fully admit I am wrong if someone can show me how these supposedly correct applications of the scientific method are indeed not that. The fact though, that the observed value has not changed much in the past 50 years, strongly implies the value of 10967759 m^-1 is a pretty good unbiased observed number for R_H. If so, the inescapable conclusion (imo) is that QED has a problem. Steve > On Apr 22, 7:26 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] > 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! Of course it has; everything has. Even fundamental "constants" hav shifted in the last five years: http://google.com/groups?q=fundamental-constants+Autymn. > On Apr 22, 7:26 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] > 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! Of course it has; everything has. Even fundamental constants hav shifted: http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+PDG+sigma. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > way to begin is to agree on what is the best observed value for hydrogen's > Rydberg constant. I have found a link, at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/spc/teaching/py301/phys301.htm. This link > provides a value for R_H where it is stated (Part 5, page 9) the value is > derived "from expt (line spectra)." The value is 1.0967759 x 10^-7 m^-1. Can > we all agree this is an accurate observed value of R_H? If you can find a > reference that provides a significantly different value, I would be very > surprised, because I have references that trace back essentially this same > value for the past 30 years or so. Big Freaking Deal. You present Powerpoint slides giving a non-relativistic QM treatment of the computation, followed by a reference to an undergraduate textbook written for an introductory QM class, and conclude that QED is wrong because the naive computation of the Rydberg constant only gives four significant figures? Crawl back into your hole until you learn QED. Jerry > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > and conclude that QED is wrong because the naive computation > of the Rydberg constant only gives four significant figures? Sorry. I was looking at R_infinity, not R_H I should have written that the naive computation gives EIGHT significant figures. > Crawl back into your hole until you learn QED. Jerry > > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > I should have written that the naive computation gives EIGHT > significant figures. No, it can't. Nonrelativistic QM [which is the baseline for the class in question, I'm not installing something to view the powerpoint slides] is only accurate to order ~ alpha. Regarding the Hydrogen spectra... Regular ol' nonrelativistic QM gets you most of the way there. Everything else can be interpreted as a higher order correction to the Schroedinger equation - unless you solve the Dirac equation proper. Baseline QM gets you ~ alpha accuracy. Accounting for relativistic effects and electron spin coupling to the magnetic field of the proton gets you another factor of alpha. Including electron spin to proton spin coupling gets you alpha^3. QED corrections [Lamb shift] are dead last - alpha^4. That'll get you the eight figures you want, but it is not a naive computation in any sense - I can do all of those except the Lamb shift corrections, and they consume paper. I'd like to believe the ordering and _order_ are correct, except my main reference for all this is out on loan [and has been for most of a year now. time to get it back] so I can't check easily. I'm just not getting the point of this thread - he won't say what the prediction is, or disagree with me when I say the Rydberg constant is just a bunch of constants thrown together that doesn't have a good empirical measurement anyway, or even say how the prediction is inaccurate. > > Crawl back into your hole until you learn QED. > > Jerry > I'm just not getting the point of this thread - he won't say what the > prediction is, or disagree with me when I say the Rydberg constant is > just a bunch of constants thrown together that doesn't have a good > empirical measurement anyway, or even say how the prediction is > inaccurate. I searched for "Steve Bell" on these newsgroups. Look for his dialogs with Bilge and some of the other old-timers who unfortunately aren't still around. His point seems to be that the non-relativistic QM calculation fails to give a number that agrees with computations of the Rydberg constant based on the best available empirical data. The discrepancy amounts to thousands of standard deviations. Bilge gets exasperated, provides links to current material, then Steve goes into hiding and starts up again making the point that the non-relativistic QM calculation fails to give a number that agrees with computations of the Rydberg constant based on the best available empirical data. The discrepancy amounts to thousands of standard deviations. Repeat ad nauseam. Jerry > > I'm just not getting the point of this thread - he won't say what the > > prediction is, or disagree with me when I say the Rydberg constant is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > his dialogs with Bilge and some of the other old-timers who > unfortunately aren't still around. Holy sh.t - same title and arguments too! At least I can claim I have learned something in six years... The 2002 thread wasn't terribly interesting - Bilge repeated stuff I already knew. The 2003 thread was more interesting - Bob had some nice background to fill in. Then Bilge had more interesting things to say - worth reading. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/browse_frm/thread/ec48a0ed32 fe09ad > His point seems to be that the non-relativistic QM calculation > fails to give a number that agrees with computations of the > Rydberg constant based on the best available empirical data. > The discrepancy amounts to thousands of standard deviations. Then everyone agrees with him, and wonders what the problem is. Classical anything is only an approximation - why is this such a surprise to folks here? > Bilge gets exasperated, provides links to current material, > then Steve goes into hiding and starts up again making the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Jerry On Apr 22, 7:26 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm just not getting the point of this thread - he won't say what the > prediction is, or disagree with me when I say the Rydberg constant is > just a bunch of constants thrown together that doesn't have a good > empirical measurement anyway, or even say how the prediction is > inaccurate. I searched for "Steve Bell" on these newsgroups. Look for his dialogs with Bilge and some of the other old-timers who unfortunately aren't still around. His point seems to be that the non-relativistic QM calculation fails to give a number that agrees with computations of the Rydberg constant based on the best available empirical data. The discrepancy amounts to thousands of standard deviations. Bilge gets exasperated, provides links to current material, then Steve goes into hiding and starts up again making the point that the non-relativistic QM calculation fails to give a number that agrees with computations of the Rydberg constant based on the best available empirical data. The discrepancy amounts to thousands of standard deviations. Repeat ad nauseam. Jerry Hi Jerry, Thanks for participating. If I am interpreting you correctly, that was not quite what I thought in the past, namely, I did not think "His point seems to be that the non-relativistic QM calculation fails to give a number that agrees with computations of the Rydberg constant based on the best available empirical data. The discrepancy amounts to thousands of standard deviations." My point was that the QED prediction does not agree with what very apparently is portrayed in the literature as an unbiased, not influenced by theory value, i.e., a spectroscopic-data-empirical value of R_H. After all, hydrogen must naturally posses what we would call "its true Rydberg constant value." and that is the definite implication in these references. The presentations in these references are clearly trying to employ a correct scientific method where theory is compared to observations. I want and hope to so the same. If you did examine the threads in the past, there were a least a couple of people who appreciated what I had to say. Perhaps that will not happen here again, but I'm going to try anyway. Thanks, Steve Hi Steve, nice to see you post. > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message ... > Hi Jerry, > Thanks for participating. If I am interpreting you correctly, that was not [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > there were a least a couple of people who appreciated what I had to say. > Perhaps that will not happen here again, but I'm going to try anyway. IIRC,(foggy from years ago), you decided the Bohr Correspondence Principle, was the more accurate of the Rydberg calc. Anyway, I'll lurk the discussion, and add what I can. > Thanks, > Steve Welcome, thanks Ken S. Tucker > Hi Steve, nice to see you post. > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Welcome, thanks > Ken S. Tucker Hi Ken, Thanks for participating. I don't know if I'll say it's good to be back, but I'm a bit older now and hopefully wiser. I am not going to present any numbers I myself "crunched," maybe that will impress upon some I'm trying to be honest here. I would not exactly say it was the Bohr Correspond Principle, but the Bohr energy equation itself which provided a more accurate R_H prediction. This time around, I'm not even going to mention Bohr (not at first, anyway). Since the non-relativistic Schroedinger equation is identical to Bohr's equation, I'll just say that it's the non-relativistic Schoe. theory that appears most accurate. This is what I had hoped some would see by my asking to "please consider the nature of the theory that provides this 'fanatically good agreement between theory and expt!' as the PPT slides point out. Steve To Steve. > > Hi Steve, nice to see you post. > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > expt!' as the PPT slides point out. > Steve You should lay your cards out. Myself I'm trying to figure out if I should apply relativistic corrections within the structure of an electron! I occasionally post on that. Ken S. Tucker > To Steve. > > > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:62dd766a-24df-417c-902c-a18bdad7c652@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.co m... > > > Hi Steve, nice to see you post. > > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > I occasionally post on that. > Ken S. Tucker Hi Ken, Yes, I've done so in another post. If an electron does have internal structure, which like you, I think it does, then I would say you should apply relativistic corrections. Relativistic effects have to be present, assuming relativity theory is physically correct, which I certainly think it is. Steve > > > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > > Steve Well Steve, A few fella's got together and set up a new group, "Sci.Physics.Foundations" that have some highly knowledgeable posters, and is moderated for good reasons, but they even let me post there from time to time, so you're a shoe in! Check it out. Ken S. Tucker BTW: I think you're right, a relativistic correction is necessary. ...> To Steve. > > > > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:62dd766a-24df-417c-902c-a18bdad7c652@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.co > > m... > > [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > BTW: I think you're right, a relativistic correction > is necessary. Hi Ken, I looked on my ISP's newsgroups, but I didn't find it. Or I don't how to locate it. How do I do that? Are you sure they would allow discussions of these controversial ideas? It sure would be nice to get off of sci.physics.relativity. Btw, was it you who thought an electron coasts on a geodesic? If so, I completely agree, with all of the differential-geometry implications that the word "geodesic" conveys. You know, I actually sometimes hope I am wrong here, about this hydrogen stuff. I'm getting very tired of fighting the fight, and it would be nice to get a clear explanation of the error in my thinking. Devastating to my ego, but nice none the less. Steve > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in ... > > Well Steve, A few fella's got together and set up > > a new group, "Sci.Physics.Foundations" that have [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > of the error in my thinking. Devastating to my ego, but nice none the less. > Steve Here's what I have, sci . physics . foundations Maybe someone else can get your there. Also use sci.phy.research. Ken > Hi Ken, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > of the error in my thinking. Devastating to my ego, but nice none the > less. Hi Steve, If your ISP doesn't carry sci.physics.foundations yet, you can access via googlegroups or Killfile.org http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations/topics?hl=en http://news.killfile.org/index.cgi?group=sci.physics.foundations They are not quite as good as going thru a proper news server and newsreader but works OK. If you can give me an email address for how to contact your ISP's news server sysop, I will send them an email requesting that they add SPF to their news server. And/or you can ask them to add it yourself. Doesn't always work but does sometimes. You need to tell them to set it up as a moderated Usenet group. We generally have a light moderation policy and allow most all content related to physics as long as it is clearly not contrary to experimental evidence. Speculative content is allowed as well as philosophical content related to physics. Most important is that we do expect posters to be polite unlike some that have responded to you here. We do stop threads that become highly repetitive. If interested, the charter for sci.physics.foundations is here; http://readystump.algebra.com/~spf/ Best, Fred Diether Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations >> Hi Ken, >> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Fred Diether > Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations P.S. I forgot to mention that we don't allow crossposts. Our moderation system automatically rejects crossposts without the moderators ever seeing them in the queue. > > Hi Ken, > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Fred Diether > Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations Hi Fred, Thanks for this information. I'll see if I can get it added. Thanks, Steve I don't understand what the problem is. The comparison between experiment and theory can be found here: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/codata.pdf It starts with the eigenvalues of the Dirac equation and then includes corrections for the finite mass, QED etc. The transition energies agree amazing well. kp > I don't understand what the problem is. The comparison between > experiment and theory can be found here: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > corrections for the finite mass, QED etc. The transition energies > agree amazing well. Thank you, kp! I'll remember this the next time Steve Bell posts on this exact same topic using the exact same arguments several years from now... :-) Jerry > I don't understand what the problem is. The comparison between > experiment and theory can be found here: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > kp Hi kp, Thanks for this link. As far as I can tell, nowhere in the paper is the Rydberg constant for hydrogen presented. It is this Rydberg constant I am discussing, not R_infinity, which is discussed in the link. You may say, just compute R_H from R_infinity. Yes, please do that. You will get an R_H value essentially equaling the one given by the Wikipedia site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_constant The value is R_H = 10967758.341 m^-1. It seems logical to think that as time goes by, our values of h, e, m_e, m_p, etc., have gotten better, and indeed they have. By "better" I mean closer to what their values are in nature. This means that any equation using these values gets "better" itself, for whatever it is computing. Naturally then, some energy equation, such as Dirac's hydrogen energy equation, should through the years, start providing better and better values for hydrogen's ground state binding energy, and the associated Rydberg constant. And once again, by "better" I mean getting closer to the true physical value. Schroedinger's energy equation should also start getting better and better, but given hydrogen itself does indeed "outwardly manifest" relativistic effects, the Schroedinger's equation ought to start giving values that differ from a hydrogen Rydberg constant derived only from the spectroscopic data. It should be Dirac's equation that starts to converge on the observed. Is there any data around that shows us how Schroedinger's theory has faired over the years? Yes, there is. Please look at Eisberg and Resnick's text. If you have their 2nd edition, they present a predicted value using Bohr's theory (identical to Schroedinger's theory). I believe the values of h, e, m_e, etc., they used were in the 1970's time frame. The predicted value they give (p. 105, 2nd ed.) is R_H = 10968100 m^-1. Also in that text, on p. 98, they present an observed value of 10967757.6 m^-1. These values have nothing to do with the sophistication of the quantum text. Even sophisticated quantum texts (e.g., Merzbacher's "Quantum Mechanics") goes over the non-relativistic Schroedinger's theory first. As far as the "sophistication" of the observed value, that's given by the accuracy of the spectroscopic machinery, and apparently back in the 1970s, that was good enough to provide a standard error of 1.2 m^-1, not too bad. Ok, look at how Schroedinger's theory has faired. It has converged nearly exactly upon the observed. Certainly, Dirac's theory should have faired better, since it includes relativistic effects, and QED effects, etc. The value I quoted from the refereed paper is 109678771.17374 m^-1. This value was computed using values of h, e, m_e, etc. from the 1990s. Since I don't have the 1990s values, I can't make a Schroedinger's prediction, but I highly suspect it would very nearly equal a prediction using today's values, given by the Wikipedia site. The difference between the Dirac prediction and the observed is 118 m^-1. The difference between the Schroedinger prediction and the observed is 0.741 m^-1. There is a gigantically significant difference between the two theories in their predictions. And it is Schroedinger's non-relativistic theory that wins, hands down. The observed value of nearly 10967757.6 m^-1 has been around for decades. The reason why it has not changed much is because our spectroscopic machinery has been pretty good for decades, and this value is not some merger between theory and data. Even if it were, why would the Schroedinger non-relativistic theory be the one used to bias the data? You would think if there were some purposeful biasing of the data, one would use Dirac's theory, not Scroedinger's theory. This is my basic contention: An accurate observed value for R_H has been around for decades, and apparently it is now the non-relativistic Schroedinger's theory that has converged upon this value, not the "more sophisticated" Dirac theory. This is most perplexing. Steve Bell This message is brought to you by Androcles http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ | > I don't understand what the problem is. The comparison between | > experiment and theory can be found here: [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] | | Steve Bell Why should a "non relativistic" theory be perplexing? I'm not perplexed by it. Why did the crank Einstein say the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from A to B is c+v, and the time each way is the same? There's the root of "relativistic theory" (aka crackpottery), resulting in perplexity. > This message is brought to you by Androcles > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ > > | "kp" <4vector@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ff602c99-ecc7-4a86-8f17-2f70201dc6d7@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > | > I don't understand what the problem is. The comparison between > | > experiment and theory can be found here: [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > There's the root of "relativistic theory" (aka crackpottery), resulting > in perplexity. Hi Androcles, It's not the non-relativistic theory that's perplexing. It's the fact that a non-relativistic theory agrees with the experimental data (as far as I can tell), and that perplexes me, because I accept the validity of both SR and GR. I hope people following this thread do not get the impression that I disagree with relativity. Quite the contrary. I accept it wholeheartedly. In fact, it's only by using relativity that I think there is resolution to the disagreement between predicted and observed. Steve This message is brought to you by Androcles http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ | > This message is brought to you by Androcles | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ [quoted text clipped - 119 lines] | tell), and that perplexes me, because I accept the validity of both SR and | GR. Oh, I see. I hope people following this thread do not get the impression that I | disagree with relativity. Quite the contrary. I accept it wholeheartedly. In | fact, it's only by using relativity that I think there is resolution to the | disagreement between predicted and observed. Maybe you missed my question. I'll repeat it and you answer it. Why did the malignant idiot and imbecile Albert Einstein, creator of your crank religion, say: the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from A to B is c+v, and the time each way is the same? 'the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.' -- Albert Nitwit Einstein, charlatan. Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ I hope people following this thread DO get the impression that I STRONGLY disagree with CRANK relativity. No wonder you are perplexed if you actually believe in crackpottery. Well, at least the the fact that a non-relativistic theory agrees with the experimental proves your crank religion is flawed. Have a quick pray to Rabbi St. Albert the Divine to get Nature changed to agree with his sophisticated stupidity. > | Hi Androcles, > | [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > pray to Rabbi St. Albert the Divine to get Nature changed to agree > with his sophisticated stupidity. Hi Andocles, Why do you have to be so caustic? Until you stop that, I will not consider what you are saying. And please, do not state to anyone that what I have presented here in anyway "proves" the invalidity of SR or GR. That would be a misrepresentation of what I am trying to get across. Steve  SignatureThis message is brought to you by Androcles http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ | > | Hi Androcles, | > | [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] | | Why do you have to be so caustic? That's just my nature, I'm caustic to most cranks. | Until you stop that, I will not consider | what you are saying. Bigotry will get you everywhere, I'm sure. Do carry on being perplexed. Picture of Steve Bell: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/ostrich.jpg | And please, do not state to anyone that what I have | presented here in anyway "proves" the invalidity of SR or GR. That would be | a misrepresentation of what I am trying to get across. The only thing you've gotten across is your blind faith in the word of a con artist and now you are too embarrassed to admit you've been hoodwinked. I have proved that you don't understand your own faith by simply pointing out that you cannot answer my question. > You may say, > just compute R_H from R_infinity. Yes, please do that. I'll pass on this. I'm not asking the question. > You will get an R_H > value essentially equaling the one given by the Wikipedia site: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_constant > > The value is R_H = 10967758.341 m^-1. Let us say it is. >. Please look > at Eisberg and Resnick's text. If you have their 2nd edition, they present a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > m^-1. Also in that text, on p. 98, they present an observed value of > 10967757.6 m^-1. I don't have the book with with, but I believe you. > The value I quoted from the refereed paper is 109678771.17374 m^-1. This > value was computed using values of h, e, m_e, etc. from the 1990s. Since I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and the observed is 0.741 m^-1. There is a gigantically significant > difference between the two theories in their predictions. The experimental value you quote was found forty years ago, do you think better measurements have been done since then. I'm not an experimentalist but maybe determining the ionization energy is not as accurately done as finding the transitions between the low lying bound states. You can see from the CODATA paper that even in the low energy states the uncertainty can vary over 5 or 6 orders of magnitude. At this point I would say that there is nothing more than experimental uncertainty for any disagreement. Otherwise any argument would require saying quantum mechanics (field theory) gets the energies given in CODATA right to parts in a trillion but gets the ionization energy wrong. These two just don't add up. kp > > You may say, > > just compute R_H from R_infinity. Yes, please do that. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > energy wrong. These two just don't add up. > kp Unfortunately, the standard kilogram is drifting. There is a discussion about that in s.p.research. We redefined our mass using, http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Mass-Definition.pdf (to replace 1000 Napolean penises :-), to place on the time standard. Regards Ken S. Tucker > > You may say, > > just compute R_H from R_infinity. Yes, please do that. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > kp Hi kp, Thanks for responding. You, sir, more than anyone else so far, have presented the best counter argument to my hypothesis. I'm sure you know what my hypothesis is, and it all hinges on what the true, physical, natural value of hydrogen's ground state binding energy is, and its associated Rydberg constant. Let me describe what I mean by this. It involves a thought experiment. There exists a hydrogen atom in its ground state. An EM wave washes over this hydrogen atom, and the atom ionizes. The EM wave has a wavelength. Invert this wavelength. This is what I mean by the true, physical, natural Rydberg constant for hydrogen. Notice that no mention of any theory was made. Does this hydrogen atom have a proton with infinite mass? Obviously not. The proton and electron constitute a 2-body system, and each revolves about the center of mass of the system. It is this physical condition that dictates exactly what physical wavelength of EM radiation ionizes hydrogen. Is the electron undergoing natural relativistic effects? Yes, absolutely, I think so. Once again, it is the true, physical fact of the existence of relativistic effects that influences exactly what physical wavelength of EM radiation ionizes hydrogen. Is this the correct interpretation of what the observed value of 10967757.6 m^-1 represents, that is, that it is close to the true, physical, natural, "not influenced by any theory" Rydberg constant value? The fact that this value has been around for decades strongly suggest to me that, yes, the true, physical natural Rydberg constant for hydrogen is real close to 10967757.6 m^-1. Will we ever be able to quantify R_H through experimentation exactly? Obviously not, because we will never be able to construct infinitely precise and infinitely accurate experimental machinery. But like I said, I highly suspect that the value of 10967757.6 m^-1 (from the Eisberg and Resnick text) or the value of 10967759 m^-1 (from the PPT slides, and not much different) are both very close to the natural value. I feel these number have not been influenced by some biasing by a theory, except perhaps by the application of the empirical Rydberg equation itself, which is empirical, and not based on any of the QM theories discussed here. I will discuss the energy level transition issue, but the issue of not being biased by a theory will play a strong part in what I have to say. Is it true that the energy transition levels presented in the CODATA paper have not been biased in anyway by theory? Please see the CODATA page at: http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/guidelines/sec2.html#note It is stated: "The nature of an uncertainty component is conditioned by the use made of the corresponding quantity, that is, on how that quantity appears in the mathematical model that describes the measurement process." What "mathematical model" do you think was used to "describe the measurement process" that generated the transition frequencies? It appears to me from the CODATA paper you provided a link to, it was QED itself, and then it's a no-brainer to understand why a post-experimentation prediction using QED would agree with the "data." Yes, I absolutely would think better measurements have been done since the 1970s. And I've tried mightily to find a modern accurate observed value of R_H, but I cannot find one. It's as if this value is simply not produced anymore, which might be telling in and of itself. So, please, kp, if you can find a modern, accurate, experimentally determined value of R_H, I would be most appreciative (please give a reference if you do). I would be very surprised if it would differ significantly from the observed values I have quoted, which looks to be in significantly greater alignment with Schroedinger's non-relativistic theory than Dirac's relativistic theory. There would have to be a large standard error on the Dirac-theory-based prediction, used to then construct a confidence interval made using the ostensibly large standard error, which would then cause an overlap with the observed using the small +/- 1.4 m^-1 confidence interval one can construct around these observed values, even using the observational standard error back in the 1970s quoted by Eisberg and Resnick. Also, if indeed there was such a large random error in the Dirac prediction, and a "significant" random error in the observed (if you want to call +/- 1.4 m^-1 "bad", which I don't, relatively speaking), it would be an amazing coincidence that the difference between a modern Dirac theory prediction and the observed would end up equaling 1.8 x 10^-4 eV. This value is what the first order relativistic effects are, according to Eisberg and Resnick (see p. 286, where a figure directly states the first order relativistic effects amount to 1.81 x 10^4 eV). It appears to me that I can confidently say, there are more types of relativistic effects going on inside of hydrogen, above and beyond the simple specially relativistic effects incorporated in Dirac's theory. All I am doing is the same thing that was done in the PPT slides at: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/spc/teaching/py301/phys301.htm See part 5, page 9. The fact that these slides are for only a junior level college class (I presume, because of the 301 number) has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The theory that is claimed to be in "fantacially good agreement" is Schroedinger's non-relativistic theory. This theory is presented in almost all advanced QM text books. The accuracy of the observed value presented (+/- 1 m^-1) has nothing to do with the fact this a junior level college presentation. This accuracy could also be shown in any presentation at any level, because conceptually it doesn't involve theory, it's just an experimental error. If there is indeed a "fantastically good agreement" with Schroedinger's non-relativistic theory, there cannot be a "fantastically good agreement" with Dirac's relativistic theory. The theories are too significantly different, by the amount of relativistic effects they incorporate. None for Schroedinger, specially relativistic for Dirac. Steve > I will discuss the energy level transition issue, > but the issue of not being biased by a theory will play a strong part in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > no-brainer to understand why a post-experimentation prediction using QED > would agree with the "data." Here is a statement from the CODATA paper that kp referenced (http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/codata.pdf): "First, although it is generally agreed that the correctness and over-all consistency of the basic theories and experimental methods of physics can be tested by comparing values of particular fundamental constants obtained from widely differing experiments, throughout this adjustment, as a working principle, we assume the validity of the physical theory that necessarily underlies it. This includes special relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics (QED), the Standard Model of particle physics,...." What this means to me, is that all of the hydrogen transition frequencies given in this paper are a blend of the actually observed frequencies, and "corrections" to those frequencies based on special relativity, quantum mechanics, and quantum electrodynamics (QED). In other words, the values of the transition frequencies quoted are indeed very heavily biased by these theories. This is very similar to Bayesian estimation in statistics, where the final value quoted from some experiment is a blend between the data actually observed, and some theoretical prediction of what the data should have turned out to be. There is another estimation philosophy in statistics, called Fisherian estimation theory (after the great English statistician, R. Fisher, the inventor of maximum likelihood (MLE) estimation) that says hooey to that, just give me the unbiased data, and I'll compute my estimates based on that, without blending in any preconceived a priori belief in what the result should be. I bet you can tell, I'm Fisherian in my statistical estimation theory philosophy. I was trained like that when I got my MS in Statistics, thank heaven. Apparently, the CODATA people are very Bayesian in philosophy, and if you accept the correct thing to do is to modify the results of an experiment with your preconceived ideas of what the data should have turned out to be, that's very suspect science, imo. Dr. Fisher must be rolling over in his grave at what has happened in modern physics. It's a self fulfilling iteration between theory and experiment, and as a result, there probably is no chance something new and revolutionary will ever be seen again. Steve Dear Steve Bell: ... > It's a self fulfilling iteration between theory and > experiment, and as a result, there probably is > no chance something new and revolutionary will > ever be seen again. Oh, I doubt that... http://uk.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUKL229032322008042 http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080417/od_afp/russialabouroffbeat_080417161913 David A. Smith SignatureThis message is brought to you by Androcles http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ | Dear Steve Bell: | [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | Oh, I doubt that... | http://uk.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUKL229032322008042 http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080417/od_afp/russialabouroffbeat_080417161913 | David A. Smith You are a LIAR, Smiffy. > Dear Steve Bell: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Oh, I doubt that... > http://uk.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUKL229032322008042 http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080417/od_afp/russialabouroffbeat_080417161913 > David A. Smith Hi David, I went to the first link, but it said the page was not found. I went to the second link, and it was about a drunk Russian. This does bring up an interesting topic for discussion. Do you believe that something will either incorporate QM as a special case, as for example, GR incorporated Newtonian mechanics as a special case, or out right replace QM? I suppose someone could argue that all of what is called QM (QED, QFT, QCD, etc.) has been incorporated underneath superstring theory, but to me, since it is based on the postulates that Dirac originally formulated, string theory is really just another "topic" underneath QM. For the string theorists to say "this is the final theory of everything" is very reminiscent of the Newtonian physicists who thought basically the exact same thing before the relativity revolution, and we know how that turned out. I wonder if there really ever can be an "end of physics". If there is indeed this self fulfilling iteration between theory and experiment now in QM, I would have to believe it may be impossible for anything to overcome such a bias. If the actual experimental data is heavily biased by theory, there likely is no chance that theory will ever disagree with experimentation, and the advance of science comes to a dead halt. Steve > "N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in messagenews:9TUPj.170803$nr1.117681@newsfe13.phx...> Dear Steve Bell: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > Oh, I doubt that... http://uk.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUKL2290323220080422 ... the link was missing the final "2" > I went to the first link, but it said the page was not > found. I went to the second link, and it was about a > drunk Russian. They were just a mild "pokes" at "nothing new will ever be seen again". > This does bring up an interesting topic for discussion. > Do you believe that something will either incorporate > QM as a special case, as for example, GR incorporated > Newtonian mechanics as a special case, or out right > replace QM? QM reduces the entire Universe to a finite local effect. GR paves over the discrete foundation of the Universe, and treats it as infinitely differentiable. They will both have to be "bent" in ways we cannot yet see, and certainly not yet (?) have the mathematical tools to merge the two. > I suppose someone could argue that all of what is > called QM (QED, QFT, QCD, etc.) has been incorporated > underneath superstring theory, but to me, since it is > based on the postulates that Dirac originally > formulated, string theory is really just another > "topic" underneath QM. Not quite true. String theory intentionally has "extension", so variable effect at one end of the string over the other. It has the inherent capacity to overcome the limitations of QM in describing a "statistical" Universe. > 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 there is indeed this self fulfilling iteration > between theory and experiment now in QM, I would > have to believe it may be impossible for anything > to overcome such a bias. No such bias in science, only those that write about science for popular digestion. Science requires different tests, and if edges are detected, the theory is extended. If it is complete over its domain, little research is carried on in it. > 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. All of Science is estimation / approximation. And no one is particularly happy with the "arbitrary constants" that make QM work so successfully. Or they shouldn't be... David A. Smith On Apr 24, 7:29 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote: > "N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in messagenews:9TUPj.170803$nr1.117681@newsfe13.phx...> Dear Steve Bell: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > Oh, I doubt that... http://uk.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUKL2290323220080422 ... the link was missing the final "2" > I went to the first link, but it said the page was not > found. I went to the second link, and it was about a > drunk Russian. They were just a mild "pokes" at "nothing new will ever be seen again". > This does bring up an interesting topic for discussion. > Do you believe that something will either incorporate > QM as a special case, as for example, GR incorporated > Newtonian mechanics as a special case, or out right > replace QM? QM reduces the entire Universe to a finite local effect. GR paves over the discrete foundation of the Universe, and treats it as infinitely differentiable. They will both have to be "bent" in ways we cannot yet see, and certainly not yet (?) have the mathematical tools to merge the two. > I suppose someone could argue that all of what is > called QM (QED, QFT, QCD, etc.) has been incorporated > underneath superstring theory, but to me, since it is > based on the postulates that Dirac originally > formulated, string theory is really just another > "topic" underneath QM. Not quite true. String theory intentionally has "extension", so variable effect at one end of the string over the other. It has the inherent capacity to overcome the limitations of QM in describing a "statistical" Universe. > 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 there is indeed this self fulfilling iteration > between theory and experiment now in QM, I would > have to believe it may be impossible for anything > to overcome such a bias. No such bias in science, only those that write about science for popular digestion. Science requires different tests, and if edges are detected, the theory is extended. If it is complete over its domain, little research is carried on in it. > 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. All of Science is estimation / approximation. And no one is particularly happy with the "arbitrary constants" that make QM work so successfully. Or they shouldn't be... David A. Smith Hi David, Do you think that string theory uses the same statistical interpretation as laid down by Max Born? That is, that the complex conjugate of a solution of the Schroedinger equation, times itself, yields a real value that is proportional to a probability? It seems to me it does. For that reason, it's hard to see how string theory can overcome how QM describes a statistical universe, since if what I said is true, string theory itself is just as "statistical" as QM. This brings up another interesting question. Is the external world really statistical, or is it really deterministic? As you probably know, there is a rapidly advancing branch of science called Chaos Theory. Contrary to the implications of its name, the external world is viewed as deterministic, but extremely complicated. One of its tenets, I think, is that the phenomenal deterministic complexity of a "nonlinear deterministic system" causes it only to look stochastic, but it really isn't. Perhaps that's what's really going on, even in an atom. An electron really is a particle, coasting along on a very complicated deterministic orbit. It just looks stochastic to us, but in fact it is not. But because the motion is so complicated, the only thing we can do is describe it statistically. There is also being developed an attempt at a merger with QM, which if I am not wrong, is called Quantum Chaos. But to me, there would have to be a fundamental break with the underlying tenet of QM that the external world is truthfully stochastic for this to succeed. 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. 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 Dear Steve Bell: ... > Do you think that string theory uses the same > statistical interpretation as laid down by Max > Born? That is, that the complex conjugate of a > solution of the Schroedinger equation, times > itself, yields a real value that is > proportional to a probability? Except that it can now have directional properties. > It seems to me it does. For that reason, it's > hard to see how string theory can overcome how > QM describes a statistical universe, since if > what I said is true, string theory itself is > just as "statistical" as QM. 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. > This brings up another interesting question. Is > the external world really statistical, As we perceive it, yes. > or is it really deterministic? All of Science assumes deterministic in everything, the statistical bit simply applies determinism in a more slippery way. > As you probably know, there is a rapidly > advancing branch of science called Chaos [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > stochastic, but it really isn't. Perhaps > that's what's really going on, even in an atom. Probably not. "Really going on" makes assumptions we cannot make. > An electron really is a particle, No, it is not an abstract word made up with large macroscopic system bias. > 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. > 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. > There is also being developed an attempt at a > merger with QM, which if I am not wrong, is > called Quantum Chaos. But to me, there would > have to be a fundamental break with the > underlying tenet of QM that the external world > is truthfully stochastic for this to succeed. I don't worry about what "props" are doing. > With regards to these discussions here, perhaps > the following is true. Today, the CODATA folks [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > consistent with the current accepted theories > of modern physics, relativity, QM, etc. I would say that is right. The values themselves derive from application of theory, and are (sometimes) far removed from actual measurement. > As it looks to me, no longer are the data used > (e.g., the actual spectroscopic data) in an > unbiased manner. Load the terms politically / emotionally if you like. But a common language is in use. Add new "words" if you need to, but don't complain about the (current) meanings. ... > 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. I don't know what version of Reality you think you are in, but the rest of us depend on "the shoudlers of giants" to get our jobs done. "Truth" is obtainable in the courtroom, or in philosophy. The rest of us depend on measurement and reported results. You do realize that the CODATA values were obtained by experiment, and the methods used in data reduction are published. You can "back into" statistical measures of actual data without too much difficulty. You are obsessed with inanities. You have a sharp mind. Why do you work on dirt with it? Bored? David A. Smith Dear Steve Bell: On Apr 24, 9:35 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote: ... > Do you think that string theory uses the same > statistical interpretation as laid down by Max > Born? That is, that the complex conjugate of a > solution of the Schroedinger equation, times > itself, yields a real value that is > proportional to a probability? >> Except that it can now have directional properties. Hi dltz, I don't know what that means, but that's my fault. I'll have to study up > It seems to me it does. For that reason, it's > hard to see how string theory can overcome how > QM describes a statistical universe, since if > what I said is true, string theory itself is > just as "statistical" as QM. > > 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. > This brings up another interesting question. Is > the external world really statistical, >> As we perceive it, yes. I would suppose then, you disagree with Chaos Theory. > or is it really deterministic? >> All of Science assumes deterministic in everything, the statistical >> bit simply applies determinism in a more slippery way. 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. > As you probably know, there is a rapidly > advancing branch of science called Chaos [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > stochastic, but it really isn't. Perhaps > that's what's really going on, even in an atom. >> Probably not. "Really going on" makes assumptions we cannot make. I personally believe like Einstein, that there is in fact "an external world, independent of the perceiving subject." If the external world is "this" and we think it's "that" this doesn't at all change the fact that it's really "that." What we think the external world "is" doesn't at all change what it really "is." Of course, when the external world is "this" and we think it's the same "this", then we should celebrate. Unfortunately, it usually is difficult to realize that we've gotten it correct. In fact, we actually really never know with 100% certainty that we've gotten it right. > 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. > 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. > 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. Interestingly, there is one big gigantic problem that I've never seen addressed about viewing an electron in an orbit. If indeed an electron orbits in an orbit similar to a Newtonian orbit, the electron would forever stay in a single plane. I believe we have experimental evidence that this is not the case. For example, the electron in ground state hydrogen indeed "lives" in a spherical shell around the nucleus. Believe it or not, there is an orbit theoretical approach that can explain this. > There is also being developed an attempt at a > merger with QM, which if I am not wrong, is > called Quantum Chaos. But to me, there would > have to be a fundamental break with the > underlying tenet of QM that the external world > is truthfully stochastic for this to succeed. >> I don't worry about what "props" are doing. What's a "prop"? > With regards to these discussions here, perhaps > the following is true. Today, the CODATA folks [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > consistent with the current accepted theories > of modern physics, relativity, QM, etc. >> I would say that is right. The values themselves derive from >> application of theory, and are (sometimes) far removed from actual >> measurement. I'm glad you see this. > As it looks to me, no longer are the data used > (e.g., the actual spectroscopic data) in an > unbiased manner. >> Load the terms politically / emotionally if you like. But a common >> language is in use. Add new "words" if you need to, but don't >> complain about the (current) meanings. To me, it sounds strange you would say this given what you have said above. ... > 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. >> I don't know what version of Reality you think you are in, but the >> rest of us depend on "the shoudlers of giants" to get our jobs done. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> data reduction are published. You can "back into" statistical >> measures of actual data without too much difficulty. Whatever version of reality I think I'm in is irrelevant to what the external world really is. I believe that, but it doesn't stop me from trying to figure out the true nature of an external world that I think exists independently of me. I really do believe there is a "truth" about the external world, and I am convinced now more than ever, it is not what modern physics thinks it is. And I completely realize there are thousands of extremely talented folks out there who would say I am wrong. And I completely realize that right now, it is highly unlikely I am correct. But remember, lots of folks thought relativity was highly likely to be incorrect before it was proven (imo) to be correct. Now, you may think I am an egomaniac by making such a statement, and I would understand why. But what if I'm right? >> You are obsessed with inanities. You have a sharp mind. Why do you >> work on dirt with it? Bored? Well thank you, sir, but I highly suspect your complementary opinion about the sharpness of my mind is an opinion of an extreme minority. I have, in the past, been called a complete idiot, even by people I really do respect scientifically (like Bilge, etc.) For the past several years, I've worked as a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) scientist. When I started to learn the theory behind SAR, I saw that in many ways, it was very similar to QM. There is even a paper written back in the 1940s by a man named Gabor, who linked together the analytic signal process theory of SAR to QM, deriving specific versions of the uncertainty principle (UP) applicable to SAR theory. I eventually saw the same flaws (imo) in the union of the physics and statistics in SAR theory that had occurred in QM. It has a lot to do with the rather strange interpretations of the UP that both of these fields maintain, and that I think are incorrect This concentrating on these ideas in the past few years have given me hope that I may convince people I might be correct, so I'm back trying again. Alas, though, I present much of the same arguments I have in the past, and the anti-response is much the same, and you know, as someone pointed out, it is getting rather nauseous. Another reason I post on this is because I think I know an answer to the "problem" that I see. But if I can't get anyone to admit there is in fact a problem, then what's the point in presenting a solution to a "problem" that no one thinks really exists? Sometimes, though, by presenting the solution to some supposed "non problem," others see the problem was actually there all along. But I think I'll hold off in saying what I think is the solution to the observed-predicted hydrogen Rydberg constant "problem." I have a thick hide, but maybe not so thick that I can take another barrage of bullets, which I know would be shot at me, if not an atomic bomb. Probably by then, a lot of folks would think the only way to get rid of this horrible infestation named "Bell" would be to nuke it to death. And even from the stinkiest of dirt, sometimes beautiful flowers can be grown. >> David A. Smith Steve > I personally believe like Einstein, that there is in fact "an external > world, independent of the perceiving subject." If the external world is > "this" and we think it's "that" this doesn't at all change the fact that > it's really "that." Sorry, typo, I meant to say: I personally believe like Einstein, that there is in fact "an external world, independent of the perceiving subject." If the external world is "this" and we think it's "that" this doesn't at all change the fact that it's really "this." Jeez, for a second it looked like I slipped into the human-egocentric opinion that "the world is actually what we think it is." Steve SignatureThis message is brought to you by Androcles http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ | > I personally believe like Einstein, that there is in fact "an external | > world, independent of the perceiving subject." If the external world is [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] | | Steve The opinion of mystics and shaman... and cranks. "We" don't agree with *you*, and we think it's "that" doesn't at all change the fact that it's really "that" even though you hallucinate it is "this". Dear Steve Bell: Interesting indenting you have used... restoring. > Dear Steve Bell: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I don't know what that means, but that's my > fault. I'll have to study up more on this. "Strings" were chosen as the basic model, because they are simple, and have non-negligible extent in one axis. >>> It seems to me it does. For that reason, it's >>> hard to see how string theory can overcome how [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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. >>> This brings up another interesting question. Is >>> the external world really statistical, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I would suppose then, you disagree with Chaos > Theory. No, not at all. The determinism is still there. >>> or is it really deterministic? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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 will be gone in one half-life. Not saying which ones have decayed, but the population is well behaved. It *is* deterministic. >>> As you probably know, there is a rapidly >>> advancing branch of science called Chaos [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> Probably not. "Really going on" makes >> assumptions we cannot make. [substituting your correction] > I personally believe like Einstein, that there is > in fact "an external world, independent of the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > really never know with 100% certainty that > we've gotten it right. 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, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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. > Interestingly, there is one big gigantic problem > that I've never seen addressed about viewing an [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > around the nucleus. Believe it or not, there is an > orbit theoretical approach that can explain this. Schroedinger. And I believe that I've seen images of actual atomic structure using atomic force microscopes. A point particle (the electron), as part of a system, inflates to a "balloon". >>> There is also being developed an attempt at a >>> merger with QM, which if I am not wrong, is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What's a "prop"? The stuff we measure are props in a Play. >>> With regards to these discussions here, perhaps >>> the following is true. Today, the CODATA folks [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > To me, it sounds strange you would say this given > what you have said above. Wave, or particle. Common language, or needless artifice. The numbers are embedded in the language. They are defined by the theory that calls them forth, and are couched in those terms. Come up with a theory that defines the Rydberg constant a different way, and it can be expressed in those terms. >>> It may be that around about the time these >>> consistent sets were started to be generated, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Whatever version of reality I think I'm in is > irrelevant to what the external world really is. It really isn't anything. You keep impressing your personal beliefs on what you want to find, and how other people must act. > I believe that, but it doesn't stop me from trying > to figure out the true nature of an external world [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I am wrong. And I completely realize that right > now, it is highly unlikely I am correct. Well, so far you are entirely incorrect, wasting your effort in a search for something you do not yet realize is not available to mortals, and telling those responsible for CODATA that they made a mistake. > But remember, lots of folks thought relativity was > highly likely to be incorrect before it was proven > (imo) to be correct. "They laughed at Bozo the clown too." Carl Sagan > Now, you may think I am an egomaniac by making > such a statement, and I would understand why. But > what if I'm right? No chance of that. Not in this particular "quest". I was in a similar position to where you are now. I was just sure that c was changing with time. I said many of the same things, as I was presented with various facts, which were still sinking in. >> You are obsessed with inanities. You have a >> sharp mind. Why do you work on dirt with it? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > even by people I really do respect scientifically > (like Bilge, etc.) That was my handle for a while... Village Idiot. You have intensity. You have some grasp of science. I am merely telling you you are obsessed on the wrong thing. Once you can step back and see that, you will be a lot happier. > For the past several years, I've worked as a > synthetic aperture radar (SAR) scientist. When [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > same flaws (imo) in the union of the physics and > statistics in SAR theory that had occurred in QM. Well, it is a good sign that you are aware that this is your opnion. > It has a lot to do with the rather strange > interpretations of the UP that both of these fields > maintain, and that I think are incorrect This > concentrating on these ideas in the past few years > have given me hope that I may convince people I > might be correct, so I'm back trying again. Asperger's syndrome is like this too. As I have tried to tell you more than once, all of Science is deterministic. They simply place the determinism in different places. And you still have some very naive expectations of the way Nature "really" is, about what is "true", how you feel they should be arranged / handled / expressed. Let me give you an example. There have been more than one poster that has come through here, that felt that we should make c = 300,000 km/sec exactly, and that Science would be well advanced, and all would be mystically made clear by this change in units. Its just a number. Lots of other constants derive from it, and a step change, just feeds those with other delusions. Now I say to you, Rydberg's constant is just a number. > Alas, though, I present much of the same arguments > I have in the past, and the anti-response is much the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > presenting a solution to a "problem" that no one thinks > really exists? The problem is not where you think it is. That is what is gnawing at you. > Sometimes, though, by presenting the solution to > some supposed "non problem," others see the > problem was actually there all along. You are placing your personal validation in the hands of others. Why do you do this? > But I think I'll hold off in saying what I think is the > solution to the observed-predicted hydrogen Rydberg > constant "problem." I have a thick hide, but maybe > not so thick that I can take another barrage of bullets, > which I know would be shot at me, if not an atomic > bomb. No bombs. > Probably by then, a lot of folks would think the only > way to get rid of this horrible infestation named "Bell" > would be to nuke it to death. 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. > And even from the stinkiest of dirt, sometimes > beautiful flowers can be grown. In this case, the dirt is sterile. David A. Smith > Dear Steve Bell: > > > 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. Hi David, I would think that many people would disagree with this. I imagine most QM folks think their science is fundamentally stochastic. > >>> This brings up another interesting question. Is > >>> the external world really statistical, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > decayed, but the population is well behaved. It *is* > deterministic. Do you believe that indeed, specific ones did decay, and other specific ones did not? Be careful here, because if you say "yes," to me that means you do believe that something physically happened in a certain way, even when you admit you don't know which decayed and which did not. The "butcher's thumb" was not "on the scal |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message