I've gone to the CODATA site (google CODATA) and I tried to find their value
of hydrogen's Rydberg constant R_H, and I could not 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. Can anyone point to where in CODATA's site this
value can be found?

Thanks,
Steve Bell

On Apr 28, 4:30*pm, "Steve Bell" wrote:
I've gone to the CODATA site (google CODATA) and I tried to find their value
of hydrogen's Rydberg constant R_H, and I could not *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. Can anyone point to where in CODATA's site this
value can be found?

Thanks,
Steve Bell

What's the point of doing research now when you have spent the last
four years arguing about it?

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
...
On Apr 28, 4:30 pm, "Steve Bell" wrote:
I've gone to the CODATA site (google CODATA) and I tried to find their
value
of hydrogen's Rydberg constant R_H, and I could not 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. Can anyone point to where in CODATA's site this
value can be found?

Thanks,
Steve Bell

What's the point of doing research now when you have spent the last
four years arguing about it?

I'm interested about people's interpretation of some particular value,
whatever value it may be. Since no one seems to accept any of the values
I've referenced, I thought that if we could agree on the reference to some
value, we would have agreement on that, at least.

Steve Bell

"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 least
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

On Apr 28, 8:03*pm, "Steve Bell" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

...
On Apr 28, 4:57 pm, "Steve Bell" wrote:



"Eric Gisse" wrote in message

...
On Apr 28, 4:30 pm, "Steve Bell" wrote:

I've gone to the CODATA site (google CODATA) and I tried to find their
value
of hydrogen's Rydberg constant R_H, and I could not 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. Can anyone point to where in CODATA's site this
value can be found?

Thanks,
Steve Bell
What's the point of doing research now when you have spent the last
four years arguing about it?

I'm interested about people's interpretation of some particular value,
whatever value it may be. Since no one seems to accept any of the values
I've referenced, I thought that if we could agree on the reference to some
value, we would have agreement on that, at least.

Steve Bell
Try a reference that isn't based on power point slides for an
undergraduate QM course.

I have. kp kindly provided one.

Steve Bell

Why can't you do your own research?

"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

"kp" wrote in message
...
OK this is my last post on this.

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

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

cheers,
kp


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

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

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

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

Steve Bell

"Steve Bell" wrote in message
...

"kp" wrote in message
...
OK this is my last post on this.

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

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

cheers,
kp


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

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

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

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

Steve Bell


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

http://courses.washington.edu/phys33...ass_theory.pdf

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

Steve Bell

"Steve Bell" wrote in message
...

"Steve Bell" wrote in message
...

"kp" wrote in message

...
OK this is my last post on this.

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

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

cheers,
kp


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

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

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

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

Steve Bell


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

http://courses.washington.edu/phys33...ass_theory.pdf

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

Steve Bell



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

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

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

Steve Bell

"Steve Bell" wrote in message
...

"Steve Bell" wrote in message
...

"Steve Bell" wrote in message
...

"kp" wrote in message

...
OK this is my last post on this.

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

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

cheers,
kp


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

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

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

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

Steve Bell


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

http://courses.washington.edu/phys33...ass_theory.pdf

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

Steve Bell



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

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

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

Steve Bell



Here is another reference:

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~dodds/Files...ectroscopy.pdf

It does not quote R_H, but rather R_inf. But I can see now, if you get the
non-relativistic R_inf from these fundamental experiments, that's tantamount
to also saying R_H is non-relativistic.

Steve Bell