Re: Unbiased Spectroscopic Data Prove QED is Inaccurate


"kp" <4vector@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bc22f2f4-17d3-4699-b279-40448af0f4ad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 22, 8:45 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Once again, you are being derisive when you say "and you think you can
neglect this" which is not a question, but a statement implying I am some
kind of idiot if I do think I can neglect this.

For someone who has outright call me as much, you read a lot into
legitimate questions.


I certainly do not think I
am neglecting it.

Well according to your original post you have, where none of these
affects were taking into account, but you stilled claimed QED is wrong
even though you have neglected the energy level splittings having the
the same order of magnitude as the claimed failure.

kp



The energy level splittings most decidedly do not have the same order of
magnitude as the n = 1 shell error I have always been referring to, which is
the 1.81 x 10^-4 eV = 146 m^-1 value between Dirac's ground state/ionization
energy (about 119 m^-1 when the QED effects are included) and the ground
state/ionization energy as estimated by analyzing the unbiased experimental
data. Given the small 1.2 m^-1 standard error as provided by Eisberg and
Resnick, this is a gigantic statistically significant difference. I just did
a new regression analysis where I forced the regression coefficients to be
in agreement with the QED R_H prediction. The residual sums of squares
increased by a factor of almost 3 (300%). This is in complete "statistically
significantly different" agreement with the previous hypothesis testing I
did before. The data do not lie: QED fairs much worse at predicting the
unbiased spectroscopic data than does non-relativistic QM. If you do not
believe me, do the regression analysis for yourself. In fact, I wish you
would. If all of this succinct, high-quality data analysis does not convince
you, then nothing will. Once again I have to say that you appear to be so
QED-biased, that not even what non-QED influenced data itself demands is the
truth will convince you that your acceptance in the "extreme accuracy" of
QED is flawed. I knew this would happen. I knew the bias in favor of QED is
so great now, that not even actual experimental data that directly and
obviously contradicts QED's claim of essentially exact prediction of
experimental data would show the QED believers that their "perfect" theory
is seriously flawed. If hydrogen does not outwardly manifest relativistic
effects, as I have now proven with rigorous data analysis, this is a
profound fact, one that will, I predict, herald the end of QM. I probably
will not be around to see it, but much more importantly than just my own
insignificant lack of personal satisfaction about not being around for the
fall, neither will Einstein. He knew QM is simply not the way nature works.
There is no magic in nature. He disbelieved in QM's magic, and so do I.

Steve Bell

.