Talk:Rydberg constant

message: == RH = 2.179 X 10^-18 J = 1.10 x 10^7 m^-1== My love khushbu
Why in the world does this article only include the Rydberg constant expressed in the form 1.10 x 10^7 m^-1???  This is easily understood by intermediate chemistry students as the Rydberg cosntant after it is divided by the speed of light and Planck's constant, but it doesn't at all explain the original ACTUAL constant (2.179 x -18 J) and how it relates to ΔE=hν=hc/γ.  Why would that not be included anywhere in an article that is to be seen by people who have never dealt with Rydberg before?  If I come back in around 6 months and the article looks the same I guess I'll add a whole new section explaining this, unless someone else would rather go ahead.
2605:6000:FE40:A400:38CD:1C6A:D1E7:BF4F (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

message: I strongly suggest that the articles on the Rydberg Constant and the Rydberg Formula be merged into one article. These two articles overlap a lot, and the reason is that you can do one derivation in quantum mechanics, and out of that pops both the Rydberg constant and the Rydberg formula. voila!
Then, all you have to say is that in the mid-1880s, Dr. Rydberg worked out the whole formula experimentally and empirically -- well-before quantum mechanics had been developed. Rydberg had a value for his constant, but he had no idea where thatn constant came from. He didn't know that it was a simple (mathematically) function of the charge on the electron, the mass of an electron, the permitivity of free space, and the speed of light - plus another constant that he had no idea about because it wasn't discovered until 1900 or a little later: Planck's Constant.
98.67.111.148 (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion about the articles 

message: The given formula for the Rydberg constant R_\infty would lead to a dimension of mass times velocity, whicjh is obviously not an inverse length.
DumbBoy 12:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As the formula for the Rydberg constant contains no less than five other physical constants, namely  the elementary charge e \ , the electron rest mass m_e \ , the permittivity of vacuum \epsilon_0 \ , reduced Planck's constant  \hbar \ , and the speed of light in vacuum c \ , it is one of the most well-determined physical constants. Measuring the Rydberg constant confirms the proportions of the values of the other five constants.
Melchoir 16:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong units

message: "The Rydberg is a unit of energy defined in terms of the ground state energy of the Hydrogen atom (see Rydberg formula).
E=\frac{-m_e e^4}{2\hbar^2}\frac{Z^2}{n^2}
The Rydberg is abbreviated Ry.  1 Ry = \frac{-m_e e^4}{2\hbar^2} = 13.6 eV "
I don't know how correct this info is, so i'm putting it here for now. Fresheneesz 23:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Info from former page "Rydberg"

message: I am quite used to seeing the formula expressed as \frac{1}{\lambda} = R(\frac{1}{n_f^2} - \frac{1}{n_i^2}). It would be more intuitive if the formula were expressed this way.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.126.99 (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the Wiki article for the formula, but the one for the constant. There is another wiki article on Rydberg formula where the equation you mention is given sooner. Take a look at that Wiki article and see what you think. SBHarris 04:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I did some rewriting. The lead contained a lot of errors, and was poorly written. The body of the article duplicated a lot of material from the lead, and also from Bohr model.--76.93.42.50 (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewriting

message: User Razorflame reverted my edit in which I took out the derivation of the Bohr model, which IMO was a pointless duplication of material at Bohr model. I've invited Razorflame to talk about this here.--76.93.42.50 (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is fine.  I realized my mistake, and I immediately self-reverted my reversion that I made to this article.  If I made a mistake, feel free to ask me again on my talk page. Cheers, Razorflame 04:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool -- I'm glad we were able to work it out :-) --76.93.42.50 (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Derivation section

message: In this article it says that the Rydberg constant can be calculated from fundamental constants using quantum mechanics. The equation to be used is
:R_\infty = \frac{m_e e^4}{8 \varepsilon_0^2 h^3 c} = 1.097\;373\;156\;852\;5\;(73) \times 10^7 \ \mathrm{m}^{-1},
where me is the rest mass of the electron. However, in the article electron rest mass, it says that the rest mass of the electron is calculated from the definition of the Rydberg constant, namely
:R_{\infty} = \frac{m_{\rm e}c\alpha^2}{2h} \Rightarrow m_{\rm e} = \frac{2R_{\infty}h}{c\alpha^2}\,.
So, the question is, which constant is calculated from the other one and which is not? The article says that, as of 2010, the Rydberg constant is the most accurately measured fundamental physical constant. But if it is calculated from the electron rest mass, wouldn't it be necessary that the electron rest mass is even more accurately measured? --Kri (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the article to make it clearer: R_\infty is known by measuring atomic spectral lines. It is not obtained by multiplying e and m_e and h etc. (OK, well, it involves more than just directly measuring atomic spectral lines...there are also complicated theoretical calculations to correct for finite nuclear mass and various other effects.) --Steve (talk) 04:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

text: The most pedantic and logical (but not pedagogical) approach would be to say that R_\infty = m_e e^4/(8 \varepsilon_0^2 h^3 c) by definition, and it just coincidentally happens to describe (in a good approximation) the spectrum of hydrogen. On the other hand, the most pedagogical approach -- the approach taken by intro-physics books and courses -- is to forget about fine structure and say (untruthfully) that the Rydberg formula is exact, and R_\infty is defined in terms of the spectrum of hydrogen, and then it was the brilliance of Bohr to discover that R_\infty just happens coincidentally to be a simple function of the electron mass etc. For this article, I don't know what the best approach is, i.e. how to keep things pedagogical and simple without saying anything inaccurate. I'm sure it can be done...maybe if I have more time later... --Steve (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

text: UPDATE: I had a go re-editing the intro and first three sections. Does it help? --Steve (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circle reference?