 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / April 2008QM "Experts" are Poor Scientists
I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a fundamental prediction made by QED. I have presented these data according to the scientific method, that is, make the most accurate up-to-date prediction and compared it to accurate unbiased experimental data. I have shown a statistically significant difference between an unbiased observed Rydberg constant for hydrogen and a modern QED prediction. Yet, the supposed "experts" on this list refuse to accept the embarrassing truth, that QED is way, way off the mark. This implies a significant bias in you supposed "experts," a sure sign of being a poor scientist. Perhaps all of you simply do not understand what a Rydberg constant for an atom is in relationship to its ground state energy. If so, please do not consider yourself "expert" in any manner, because if you don't understand that, you don't understand even the fundamentals of your own theory. With regards to the NIST/CODATA site, don't you find it strange that nowhere on that site can an experimentally determined Rydberg constant for hydrogen can be found? Since QED claims to be unbelievably accurate in its predictions, one would think that would absolutely be one of the very things always presented to support such a claim. Steve Bell >I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a >fundamental prediction made by QED. Could you provide a link to your presentation. > >I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a > >fundamental prediction made by QED. > > > Could you provide a link to your presentation. Yes, please see the thread entitled "Inaccurate QM Prediction for Hydrogen." Steve Bell > > >I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a > > >fundamental prediction made by QED. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Steve Bell so one must read one hundred carp posts in that thread in order to get your crap link to your crap whatever you said you did you are crap by definition, buy a brain fool > > > >I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a > > > >fundamental prediction made by QED. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > you are crap by definition, buy a brain fool If you think I'm crap, I would think you would not want to smell my crap. I suggest you do not participate in any of the threads I participate in. Why would you want to? Steve Bell > > > > >I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a > > > > >fundamental prediction made by QED. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Steve Bell I should have said you should not participate in any of the threads I have initiated. If you think I spew only crap, like I said, why would you want to hear anything I have to say? Steve Bell This message is brought to you by Androcles http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ | > "Smooth John" <yoshioory@umpire.com> wrote in message news:cde54d5e-b2ae-4ad1-8e69-703ed721529f@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... | > > > > On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:22:12 -0600, "Steve Bell" | <sb...@starband.net> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] | | Steve Bell Good point, Steve. *plonk* > > > > "Surfer" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > initiated. If you think I spew only crap, like I said, why would you want to > hear anything I have to say? I definitely dont, just wonder you are insulting yourself Please come back when you are sure you really have something to say > Steve Bell >> >I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a >> >fundamental prediction made by QED. >> > >> Could you provide a link to your presentation. > >Yes, please see the thread entitled "Inaccurate QM Prediction for Hydrogen." I found a link in your post to PPT slides. http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/spc/teaching/py301/phys301.htm But the slides may provide a SIMPLIFIED account for students. To prove that QM EXPERTs have made an inaccurate prediction I think you really need to provide links to QM physics papers that have made an inaccurate prediction. > >> >I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a > >> >fundamental prediction made by QED. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > you really need to provide links to QM physics papers that have made > an inaccurate prediction. I have. In the pasts discussions, I provided a link to a "modern" (1994) QED prediction. Please see the past posts. And if you don't want to take the time to read them, I don't want to take the time to say it again. What I will repeat again, is the fact that these PPT slides were for a "simplistic" level of sophistication has no effect at all on the observed value presented in them. Data is data, and the observed value could be quoted in the most sophisticated presentation on QED. Of course, probably such a non-relativistic value would never be quoted in a QED presentation (it wasn't, in the QED paper I referenced) because it agrees with Schroedinger's non-relativistic theory, not Dirac's theory. Steve bell > > >> >I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a > > >> >fundamental prediction made by QED. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > prediction. Please see the past posts. And if you don't want to take the > time to read them, I don't want to take the time to say it again. So as I understand you believe that the experimental and theoretical values for the hydrogen levels given in the CODATA article are wrong and that nonrelativistic quantum mechanics gives better values. Is this right? kp On Apr 27, 6:38 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote: > "Surfer" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > prediction. Please see the past posts. And if you don't want to take the > time to read them, I don't want to take the time to say it again. So as I understand you believe that the experimental and theoretical values for the hydrogen levels given in the CODATA article are wrong and that nonrelativistic quantum mechanics gives better values. Is this right? kp You yourself have admitted about the CODATA article: "They use this value in an indirect way and not to compare with the experimental value." Steve Bell > What I will repeat again, is the fact that these PPT slides were for a > "simplistic" level of sophistication has no effect at all on the observed > value presented in them. Data is data, The powerpoint slides are not data. I don't care about the level of the material is. I care about the accuracy. If you whole argument if based on a powerpoint slide you better spend a little more time in a library and not in newsgroups. What if I quoted some "data" off a powerpoint slide that agreed with me. Would you be happy? kp > > What I will repeat again, is the fact that these PPT slides were for a > > "simplistic" level of sophistication has no effect at all on the observed [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > kp I care about accuracy too. And in the PPT slides, it is given, and it's +/- 1 m^-1. I would not mind at all, if you quoted a PPT slide's "data" as long as standard errors are given, like they are in the slides I've referenced. Steve Bell >> >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:22:12 -0600, "Steve Bell" >> >> <sb635@starband.net> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > the > time to read them, I don't want to take the time to say it again. Hi Steve, Can you please just give the link again? Best, Fred Diether Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations > >> >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:22:12 -0600, "Steve Bell" > >> >> <sb635@starband.net> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Fred Diether > Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations Yes, here it is: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0034-4885/57/9/001 You have to buy the article if you do not have a subscription. The QED prediction it quotes is 109678.7717374 cm^-1. They do not place any standard error on it. They take the value out to pretty many significant digits, and we have make up our minds about how many really are significant. But, the difference between the predicted and observed point estimates is about 118 m^-1, and with a +/- 1 m^-1 standard error typically quoted for an observed, this is about a 118-sigma difference. Do you think that's really significant? I sure do. Steve >> >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:44:40 -0600, "Steve Bell" >> >> <sb635@starband.net> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > really > significant? I sure do. Sheesh, they want $80. If you already have a pdf of this article please email to me. Best, Fred Diether Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations > >> >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:44:40 -0600, "Steve Bell" > >> >> <sb635@starband.net> [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > Fred Diether > Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations Cost alot to get them QED numbers, doesn't it. I don't have a pdf, I have a hard copy. But even if I did, it would be illegal for me just to sent it to you. They'd probably sue me or something. Their policy is that it is ok to quote small pieces of their articles, but with full references given, where I'm sure (I hope) a link to the page showing the article is a good enough reference. If not, you won't have to worry about my "crank" ideas anymore, I'll probably end up in jail <g>. I wanted to scan the table showing the individual values of the QED, etc., effects, and post it, but I don't think that's even legal. Steve P.S. You can believe the number I've quoted, unless I made a mistake typing it in (I did on one post, but not above, I checked it about 10 times). > Cost alot to get them QED numbers, doesn't it. I don't have a pdf, I > have a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > typing > it in (I did on one post, but not above, I checked it about 10 times). Well, I doubt if they would be that stingy to worry about sharing a one-off of an article that is freely available at a good library. They are more concerned with someone packaging and reselling a package of articles. Anywise, it is not all that interesting to spend $80 on it. I don't doubt that you are quoting the correct numbers. I just would have liked to seen the complete process of how they got the number. Best, Fred Diether Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations > > Cost alot to get them QED numbers, doesn't it. I don't have a pdf, I > > have a [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Fred Diether > Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations If you google codata 1996 plus another keyword or so, one can usually find a free copy lying around. kp For someone who is making such bold statements, one would think they would do a little resreach, but I guess that would be asking too much, to disprove your own claims. The theoretical prediction for the ioninzation of hydrgoen can be found here http://prola.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v72/i2/p351_1 This is nothing but the CODATA report for 1998. Any good library should have this. They use this value in an indirect way and not to compare with the experimental value. Again, for many reasons, I would think the experimental value isn't as well know as other quantities. Come to think of it, maybe we shouldn't believe in QED until everyone of the infinite number of the energy levels in hydrogen are calculated to 14 decimal places and experimentally verified. So start calculating. kp > For someone who is making such bold statements, one would think they > would do a little resreach, but I guess that would be asking too much, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > compare with the experimental value. Again, for many reasons, I would > think the experimental value isn't as well know as other quantities. You have completely missed the point of what I am saying. If its true that the value was used "in an indirect way and not to compare with the experimental value," then like I have said, you have completely missed the point I am making. > Come to think of it, maybe we shouldn't believe in QED until everyone > of the infinite number of the energy levels in hydrogen are calculated > to 14 decimal places and experimentally verified. So start > calculating. > > kp I do not need to buy this document to find an accurate observed R_H. If you have it the above CODATA article, please quote the R_H value from it. Here is a document that shows R_H based on unbiased spectroscopic data: http://alpha.chem.umb.edu/chemistry/ch379/documents/exp2_Hatom_000.pdf It clearly explains how to derive an empirical Rydberg constant based on unbiased spectroscopic data. It even shows how to correct for the fact that the data are taken in air. All you have to do is a linear regression and estimate the slope. The experimental error (standard error of the estimate), even going back a long while ago, was about +/- 1-2^m-1. This is plenty good enough to show the significant difference between the observed and the predicted. Steve Bell > http://alpha.chem.umb.edu/chemistry/ch379/documents/exp2_Hatom_000.pdf > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Steve Bell What value are you calming this chemistry lab experiment is giving, as the Hydrogen Rydberg constant, (13.58 eV?) at the same level of accuracy as a QED calculation. kp How about this. Take your "reference" and calculate the energy levels given in the CODATA paper. I bet they don't agree with theory or the experimental data given. What then? Who is right? It must be a conspiracy and you have uncovered it. I confess. kp > How about this. Take your "reference" and calculate the energy levels > given in the CODATA paper. I bet they don't agree with theory or the > experimental data given. What then? Who is right? It must be a > conspiracy and you have uncovered it. I confess. > > kp Are you just goading me here or something? I have never mentioned the word "conspiracy." But I have used the words "pulling a fast one," etc., and I apologize, not to you, but to NIST. There must be a simple explanation here. There must be something I am missing. I know I have not presented things as such, but I *have* stated that it absolutely seems highly unlikely that the natural value is 109677.5805 cm^-1. But then there is such a logical pathway to accept it as such. How could so many people have missed this, though, if true. Steve Bell Please forgive my transgression, but I personally find using lab projects and powerpoint slides as references hard to swallow (who knows when or where the values they cite came from) especially when used to try and debunk well established theoretical and experimental evidence. I'm sure if one spent a little time doing a literature search through the journals more reliable sources could be found. kp > Please forgive my transgression, but I personally find using lab > projects and powerpoint slides as references hard to swallow (who [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > kp Transgressions forgiven. I would love to find some solid reference for an unbiased R_H value. And I have searched mightily for one, but just on the Internet, and almost always, you have to buy the articles, and I wouldn't want to spend the bucks just to find out the article did not contain a good solid experimental value of R_H. I don't know if you would consider the following to be so, but the Eisberg and Resnick text I've referenced is well respected. Yes, it is low level, but as I pointed out, with regards to some experimental value quoted in it, that does not matter, as long as they give the standard error, which they do. And yes, the simple Schroedinger theory is presented, but that's true for just about every "advanced" text book also. And the E&R text does show Dirac's originally derived hydrogen energy equation. But they did not compare its predictions to their own observed value. They did compare it to the Schroe. prediction and here is what they say (2nd ed., p. 105): the "model, corrected for finite nuclear mass, agrees with the spectroscopic data to within three parts in 100,000!" (Their explanation point, not mine). The first time I saw this, I said wait a minute, this theory does not contain any relativistic effects in it, and that began this insane quest of mine. I am not a kook and I am not a crackpot. If these referenced experimental R_H values I've given are truly natural, then something else beside just specially relativistic effects are going on inside hydrogen. I think I know what is going on, but that my friend, even I think is highly speculative. Steve It doesn't cost much or none at all. You can go to any good university library. They usually have all the back issues of Journals available which you can look through for free or photocopy for a few cents. For all I know the references you point to are quoting nothing more than R_H obtained from R_\infity with an experimentally determined reduced mass for hydrogen and not an actual experimental value. kp > It doesn't cost much or none at all. You can go to any good > university library. They usually have all the back issues of Journals [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > kp It sure looks like that, doesn't it. From this logic, these R_H values are based on equations, just like is R_infinity, and I quite agree are "just numbers." But then the authors are definitely misleading because they directly use the words "from expt (line spectra)" and "from recent spectroscopic data." Also, this is definitely not true for the E&R text, because they do just that for computing a prediction to compare to their quoted observed value, namely compute R_inf and introduce reduced mass effects to get the predicted R_H. If their observed was in fact a prediction, a 100% agreement would have been seen, and they did not show that. Also, the last class experiment I showed sure seems to strongly suggest the value on the first page is what the students should come close to. I hope you are beginning to see the significance that this observed value has been around for decades. If all of these, right from the beginning were nothing but computations derived from the R_infinity values back then, how in the world did people back from decades ago know what we were going to get for a modern computation of R_infinity using the reduced-mass, non-relativistic Schroe using *today's* best values of e, h, etc? I hate quantum mechanics <g>. You can't even know what the hell you are dealing with in the literature, predicted or observed <g>. Of course, I hate it for other reasons too <g>. Steve I would almost say for certain that the experimental values you give are nothing more than using the experimental value of R_\infity and replacing the mass with a reduced mass. Without having better references one can't be 100% sure but the numbers do agree. kp > I would almost say for certain that the experimental values you give > are nothing more than using the experimental value of R_\infity and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > kp I have to ask a simple question, do you think a value of 109677.5805 cm^-1 is a "natural value"? (Of course, no number we will ever produce will exactly equal the true, natural value, unless by sheer accident.) If you say no, then why is it the "established value"? For hydrogen, or for any atom, if the "established value" is not really close to the natural value, what good is it? Or I should say, we should always view an "established value" as the best current stab at the true, natural value, especially if there is some +/- standard error quoted with it, which absolutely implies the true, natural value lies in an interval (with high confidence, e.g, like a 95% confidence interval) you could create using the standard error. Also, if you say the QED predicted value could also be considered the "established value," then obviously QED will always predict unbelievably well, and the scientific method is dead. And also, we would be in the obnoxious situation of having two "established values" for the same atom. And when the QED value would be finally "established" over the older value, the community would have to accept a gigantic jump in the "established value." I don't know about you, but that would make me very leery of any "established value" made by the people making the "establishment," especially in this late stage of the game of thinking "we know completely everything there is to know about the hydrogen atom." I'd have to say: I thought the QM community already thought that when it "established" the non-relativistic number, with apparent high confidence given by the relatively small standard errors quoted for it. I think such a switch would be, and should be, a most embarrassing switch for the QM community. Then, I would have to change the title of this thread to 'QM "Experts" are Inept Scientists.' Steve Bell > I would almost say for certain that the experimental values you give > are nothing more than using the experimental value of R_\infity and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > kp If what you say is certain, then the numbers I have posted have not been experimental, in the sense they are computed from a number that could not possibly have been derived by experimentation in a manner of the experimental procedure I have given references to, which do not all involve using values of e, h, etc. These experimental R_H values are obtained from simple curve fits of the spectroscopic data, and if the data are accurate, so will be derived R_H value. From what I can tell, even with reasonably "sloppy" data, one can still obtain about a +/- 1-2 m^-1 standard error, which is plenty enough accurate for substantiating my claims. You have strongly implied (imo) there is a clear cut, experimental value for R_H in the CODATA article you referenced, where there is no doubt the value has not been biased by any QED theory, or by any theory for that matter, in an experimental manner I just describe, and has a very small experimental error (standard error) on it. I strongly request you post this value, and please quote the sentences that prove the value has not been QED (or any other theory) influenced. If this value is significantly different than the observed value I have quoted, then I will be 100% convinced I am wrong, I will apologize for wasting everybody's time, and go away. Steve Bell > > I would almost say for certain that the experimental values you give > > are nothing more than using the experimental value of R_\infity and [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Steve Bell Here is an interesting link I found, to a book written in 1935 (don't just click on the link below, it doesn't look like it works like that. Get into google type in "the theory of atomic spectra condon" (without the quotes) and on my screen, it's the first link): The Theory of Atomic Spectra - Google Books Resultby Edward Uhler Condon, George Shortley - 1935 - Science - 460 pages The Rydberg constant is one of the best known atomic constants. ... the values RH = 109677-759 ± 0-05 cm-1 RHe= 109722-403 ±0-05 " ROO =109737-42 ±0-06 " . ... books.google.com/books?isbn=0521092094... Please go to p. 138 (at the right, in Search in this book, type in rydberg, and you can quickly get to p. 137 first, the 130). Note the R_H value quoted. All the way back in 1935, the observed value nearly equals the ones I've quoted, but it looks like with about a 5 times worse standard error (to be expected). The important thing is to note how only the Rydberg equation was used to find this value, by implication on p. 137, which shows some actual spectroscopic data. Also note the value for R_inf, not that much different than today's. It looks like what they were doing was to do this unbiased derivation of R_H first, then backout R_inf. The numbers back then apparently were not biased with QED. Good, that's good science, just let the spectroscopic data speak for themselves. Steve Bell > > "kp" <4vector@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5ddbc065-1fd4-4961-a6e4-b35c38a194ba@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > I would almost say for certain that the experimental values you give > > > are nothing more than using the experimental value of R_\infity and [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Steve Bell I meant "get to p. 137 first, then 138." Another way to get to this book is to type google book results in google, then search for The Theory of Atomic Spectra condon . It is also interesting to type 109677 cm rydberg in google, and there's tons of links that suggest the observed values I have quoted are true, unbiased values. I know suggestion is just suggestion, but what else am I supposed to do. I live about an hour's drive from any library, and come on guys, if I can't find a truly unbiased R_H value on the net, what the hell is going on. Steve Dear Steve Bell: ... > I live about an hour's drive from any library, and > come on guys, if I can't find a truly unbiased R_H > value on the net, what the hell is going on. When you define "bias" as you do, *you* are "what the hell is going on". David A. Smith Since this isn't my cross to bear and since driving an hour to a library is too much for you to do to get an answer to your 4+ year old question, I assume it isn't so important to you either, I will simply repeat this. I would not take "experimental" values quoted in powerpoint slides or lab exercises as the observed R_H. For all we know the authors simply looked on wikipedia, where R_H is found from R_infity and R_infity is found from spectroscopy data. Thus, in a sense R_H is from experimental data but not what a qed calculation or an actual experiment (if it could be done accurately enough) would give. You can call these "scientist" sloppy if you want, but these references are not definitive scientific records. Requiring this effort is only being a good scientist. One has to know when you are comparing apples to apples. kp > Since this isn't my cross to bear and since driving an hour to a > library is too much for you to do to get an answer to your 4+ year old [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > kp Yes, the QM community is absolutely comparing apples to apples, that is, predictions to predictions. The correct thing in science is to compare a "potential apple" to an apple. Here, the "apple" is the observational data, and the "potential apple" is the prediction. It is QED itself that claims to be omnipotent in its predicting capability. You would think that would mean the QED community would understand what "the scientific method" actually is. It means you get unbiased experimental data and compare predictions to it. If any of you think that what's going on here, you are completely fooling yourself. Apparently you think it's totally ok to claim omnipotence when in fact, all you are doing is comparing prediction to prediction, not prediction to observed. You are unbelievably poor scientists, and the pathetic thing is, you don't even realize it. You claim omnipotence in predictive capability, and that you understand *everything* that can be understood about hydrogen, like some freakin' god. If you are going to be that arrogant, I therefore have a right to demand you prove it. I demand that you yourself substantiate this god-like claim. I demand that you yourself follow correct scientific methodological procedure. I demand you yourself find an unbiased observed value of R_H and compare it to your omnipotent prediction. If you yourself can not do this, you are unbelievably dishonest scientists. Steve Bell > > Since this isn't my cross to bear and since driving an hour to a > > library is too much for you to do to get an answer to your 4+ year old [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Steve Bell Your say that "R_infinity is found from spectroscopy data." In an "absolute" sense, that is actually impossible. Since we must observe an atom in spectroscopy, and no atom has a nucleus with infinite mass, R_infinity can never be directly observed. Always, there must be some use of equations to "massage" the experimental data to get an R_infinity value. So you massage the data with some theory, then use the same theory to make a prediction, and when it agrees omnipotently well (duh!), you claim omnipotence. You guys really do not understand what the hell you are doing. Of course, this is quite understandable from someone who thinks the external world is physically whatever they think it is. Such people will *always* say whatever their equations predict is actually the truth, regardless of what the experimental data show. Steve Bell > Since this isn't my cross to bear and since driving an hour to a > library is too much for you to do to get an answer to your 4+ year old [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > kp You say go get a reference you will agree to. Fine. You say CODATA is a good reference. Fine. I say I can't find R_H on the CODATA site. You say it's there. Please post what CODATA says is the value of R_H. Steve > > Since this isn't my cross to bear and since driving an hour to a > > library is too much for you to do to get an answer to your 4+ year old [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Steve Would the value of R_H on Wikipedia's site allow us a starting point for discussing things? Steve Bell > > http://alpha.chem.umb.edu/chemistry/ch379/documents/exp2_Hatom_000.pdf > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > kp The document states on the first page a value of 109677.5805 cm^-1, and yes, I was wrong in interpreting this as an actual experimental value derived from the described experiment. But note the authors refer to this value as "the established value of R_H." Any "established value" *for some particular atom* must necessarily be interpreted as what that atom shows in nature, or else something is amiss with the "establishment" of the value. A value of R_infinity absolutely must be only theoretical, and is "just a constant" because no atom has an infinitely-massed nucleus. But values quoted for *some particular atom* like hydrogen must, imo, be interpreted as what that atom shows in nature, otherwise, what's the point in even quoting the value? Just simply to confuse someone? I have never been discussing R_infinity, only R_H. In the above paper, the "established value" is essentially identical to the unbiased values I've quoted all along, where it is clear the authors (I've given every reference) definitely were referring to an experimentally derived value, with a standard error in the +/- 1-2 m^-1 range. And as I have point out many times, this is plenty accurate enough to see the significant difference between it and a QED prediction. And this difference equals the first order specially relativistic effects. Do you really think this is a coincidence? The above document tells the student to do the experiment (meaning collect the spectroscopic data) and compute a Rydberg constant for hydrogen using simple linear regression. I assume it means to then to compare it to the "established" value the teacher him/herself quoted on the first page. Also, the experimental procedure was very well statistically thought out, talking about if data are rejected, then justify why based on good sound statistical procedure, etc. I congratulate the teacher. Like I said, if you do not accept a value close to 109677.5805 cm^-1 as a good, solid, unbiased experimental value, find one yourself. In my opinion, I have provided sound logic as to why this should be accepted as such. Every single solitary value for R_H I have ever found where it was directly stated "from experiment (line spectra)" or from "recent spectroscopic data" has always been close to 109677.5805 cm^-1. I fully admit, I may be completely wrong (anyone, not only me, but including you, can make a mistake), but the only way I'll accept that is if someone, anyone, can come up with an R_H value that is not just a theoretical value, not "just a number", where it is directly stated or clearly implied it is an unbiased observationally determined value, and it also does indeed significantly differ from 109677.5805 cm^-1. Look, we do not need to rehash this again. If you want to prove me wrong, you yourself find a clearly unbiased, experimentally determined value for R_H. Then we'll go from there. This is what I tried to do at the begging of the other thread, to establish what *we all* could agree upon what is a good, accurate, unbiased, experimentally determined, observed (how many ways can I say it?) value for R_H, but was pissed on just because I was trying to follow the scientific method. Steve Bell This message is brought to you by Androcles http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ |I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a | fundamental prediction made by QED. I have presented these data according to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] | on that site can an experimentally determined Rydberg constant for hydrogen | can be found? No, I find it strange that some cretins and bigots cannot answer the simplest of questions and go on believing the garbage Einstein churned out. > Why did Einstein say > the speed of light from A to B is c-v, > the speed of light from B to A is c+v, > the "time" for each journey is the same ? > I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a > fundamental prediction made by QED. No, you have not. [snip] On Apr 27, 5:22 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote: > I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a > fundamental prediction made by QED. No, you have not. [snip] I take it you accept CODATA as a valid reference location. If so, could you please go there and try to find a value of R_H? I've tried and I can't find one. On the opening page, there is a search button, and I typed in rydberg constant hydrogen and hydrogen rydberg constant, and both responses were nothing found. I also looked at several of their links, and I can't find what CODATA says is a value for R_H. Also, could you state what you think the value of R_H is? Please give a reference if you do. Steve Bell > I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a > fundamental prediction made by QED. I have presented these data according to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Steve Bell For the latest results, please see the thread CODATA's Value for Hydrogen's Rydberg Constant R_H. Steve Bell |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.