Re: CODATA's Value for Hydrogen's Rydberg Constant R_H


"Steve Bell" <sb635@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:55881$481691da$943f641c$14028@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"kp" <4vector@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9ef5d563-7301-4d11-966a-74fbc21b4e8e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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


.