Are you talking about this?... Opinions on BLPs molecule results
Seems that the conclusion is: 'there are basically no fudge factors in the QED predictions of nuclear masses'? But whether that's really the same thing is beyond my ken.
Thankyou. In that thread I bothered to go look at the literature. And found the new numerical techniques that allow no-fudge-factor accurate calcs. All you have to do is look at the papers, which explain methodology.
So there was this: Opinions on BLPs molecule results
Li ionisation levels calculated by QM 40,000X better than by Mills
and this:
Opinions on BLPs molecule results
There is then this FUD about fudge factors. The QED calculations are given and Drake & Yan at least, who were doing this accurate stuff, calculate everything to amazing accuracy:
During the past two decades, high precision methods to
calculate the properties of few-electron atoms in Hylleraas
coordinates have been developed by Drake and Yan [8,9]
and by Pachucki and Puchalski [10–12]. As a result, the
nonrelativistic energy of the ground state of lithium has
been calculated to a relative accuracy of 10−15 [11,13] and
its ionization energy to an accuracy of 0.001 cm−1 or better
[11,14]. The agreement of theory with experiment demonstrates
the power and utility of the methods developed
by these authors.
The purpose of this Letter is to report a dramatic advance
in the accuracy that can be achieved for the nonrelativistic
energy, fine structure splittings, and ionization energy of
the 1s2s2p 4P state of He−. The calculations are performed
in Hylleraas coordinates by the method developed by Drake
and Yan [8,9].
From: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.263007
And:
The leading relativistic corrections of order α2 Ry and
the relativistic recoil corrections of order ðμ=MÞα2 Ry are
calculated by first-order perturbation theory [for convenience
the anomalous magnetic moment terms of order α3
Ry and ðμ=MÞα3 Ry are included]
Maybe some people have the idea that perturbation theory = fudge factors? Far from it.
I think perhaps people confuse QED relativistic corrections with fudge factors? Far from it!
Following the formulation of Drake and Yan [18], the
QED corrections to the energy levels of light atomic
systems can be written in the form
ΔEQED ¼ ΔEL;1 þ ΔEL;2 þ ΔEM þ ΔEDK; ð14Þ
where ΔEL;1 denotes the QED correction to the electronnucleus
interaction, ΔEL;2 the correction to the electronelectron
interaction, ΔEM the finite nuclear mass
correction, and ΔEDK the Douglas and Kroll terms (including
second-order Breit corrections)
I have to say that slurs on the integrity of scientists who publish results, methodology, etc transparently and work over decades to refine numerical calculations made here on no stated basis are regrettable.
Unlike Mills unphysical equations, every step in the QED calculations is based on understood coherent physics, and can be reproduced by anyone from first principles. OK, to get accurate results you need the idea of using the right basis to expand the calculation from (Hylleraas Coordinates). Those are not fudge factors but a maths device that allows the perturbation expansion to converge quickly.
Would those who doubt this please explain why?
? = 2 x 1? ..... 
