"Steve Bell" wrote in message
...
"Steve Bell" wrote in message
...
"kp" wrote in message
...
No one uses or defines Rydberg constants for every atomic element. You
have to search for ionization energy or binding energy, etc.
Here I'll do your work for you, which I'm tired of doing.
http://www.gurutech.it/polimi/misure/const_pap.pdf
Talbe III gives theoretical ionization energies for a list of elements
and if you read they explain how they use this to compare to
experimentally measured mass ratios.
kp
Thanks for the link. The value quoted for R_H is 1.096787717 x 10^7
m^-1.
Do
you interpret this number as "possessing" relativistic effects?
Steve Bell
The above number does appear to posses relativistic effects. It is very
close to the QED prediction from the paper I quoted, which is
10967877.17374
m^-1, exactly the same out to the number of CODATA digits. I consider any
QED value to be "purely equational," that is, ultimately derived from
Dirac's QED theory. Of course, experimental values of h, m, e, etc., are
the
only types we have to insert into the equation, but to me the value is
still
"a prediction." My entire argument now hinges on whether or not unbiased
spectroscopic data itself possesses or does not posses relativistic
effects.
If ground state hydrogen does indeed posses relativistic effects, and
hence
is physically in alignment with QED, and hydrogen does indeed outwardly
manifest these effects, the spectroscope should see the relativistic
effects. If the unbiased spectroscopic data do not show relativistic
effects, it would seem to me that proves QED is in serious trouble. At lea
st
now I know very explicitly what I have to try and show. Historically,
before
these consistent sets were produced, before they were "tuned" to be in
accord with QED, it sure looks like the spectroscopic data did not posses
these relativistic effects. Note that I am not saying that right now, but
it
sure looks like the older data were non-relativistic. I'll try and see if
I
can find a definitive answer and report back. And I realize that probably
all of you think this is a useless exercise, so you don't have to tell me
so, ok? But if I can definitively show proof that spectroscopic data do
not
show relativistic effects, you guys had better own up, and admit QED is
wrong. And if I can definitively show unbiased spectroscopic data do
indeed
show relativistic effects, I have been totally wrong. I will admit that
profusely and disappear forever.
Steve Bell
Here is my first attempt at showing non-relativistic effects in hydrogen's
spectroscopic data. The data are shown in a text book entitled "The Physics
of Atoms and Quanta" by Herman and Wolf, whose preface quotes a 1984 date,
reasonably modern. To get to this book, google the physics of atoms and
quanta hermann wolf and select the Google Book Results link. Go to the
right and search on the word rydberg. Go to page 98. These authors show the
actual spectroscopic data, and note how nothing but the empirical Balmer
equation is used to derive an unbiased value of R_H. No values of e, h, etc.
are used whatsoever in this derivation, which as far as I am concerned, is
the only way to get a truly unbiased empirical value for R_H. The
empirically derived value they quote is R_H = 109677.5810 cm^-1, which is
distinctly non-relativistic. Note that on p. 99, it is stated "A comparison
of the calculated spectral lines obtained from the Balmer formula (8.2) with
the observed lines (Table 8.2) shows that the formula is not just a good
approximation: the series is describe with great precision." And this is
stated using an R_H value that is distinctly non-relativistic.
There is no doubt in my mind now that hydrogen's spectroscopic data do not
posses relativistic effects, and QED is seriously flawed. But I predict none
of you will accept this clear cut experimental result, so I'll keep looking
for more proof.
Steve Bell