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?