mmmmmm.........got that result through complex statististical mechanical foundational system state unit structure with units of energy and claim that we get #4^N(0)_!!- everything and then take that numnuts result and encapsulate this guys teaching ability. WTF?
idk man, i'm learning this stuff at university rn. I think this guy just chose a very convoluted way of reaching a solution. This stuff is definitely learnable. Just find a good textbook.
I remember doing this for physical chemistry and it's as long as I remember. This is just for one hydrogen atom though, the first and "lightest" element... It's different when you consider that hydrogen is usually a molecule of 2 atoms, which makes it more complicated with 2 nuclei such that you have to use the born-oppenheimer approximation to make the math a bit easier.
because when u doing the differential equation, its better to find a way to write a expression that is continuous. the variables "r", etc are all quantized, therefore is really hard to find a solution for de D.E. if you write it in therms of continuous variables u can guess solutions easier. usually exponential: because in differential equations we want aways to deal with continuity and so on...
It works “beautifully” for hydrogen; actually solving in closed form. But then already Helium is an approximation in SE and then atoms bigger than that are numerically crunched only. Nothing beautiful about that to me.
I think he was forcing for normalization for x or rho to infinity. Because every solution in quantum mechanics (at least as far as I know) has to have a solution even into infinity. (Think of a free particle in an infinite space. If you solve for the whole space into infinity it has to be somewhere thus yield a solution)
@@asdfasdfasdf383 Yeah quantum mechanics can be wierd sometimes but it's a beautiful ride. If my explanation was a bit off you can search for normalization condition.
consciousness is an oscillation (or a spin or angular momentum, if you will). It is fundamental and measured in h bar. It cannot be factored. It is eternal. And true physicists call it action. Peace.
@@athul_c1375 So are you saying that things can decide which path they should take (from Lagrangian Mechanics)? And that the universe is lazy (again from Lagrangian Mechanics)? That's what the math says if you take it literally. These totally absurd predictions by physics pretty much tells us that it is just a model of reality but not reality itself Another reason why physics cannot be reality itself is because it is literally a set of approximations. Even if we get to the theory of everything, there would still be a very large chunk of physics where approximations rule. And math cannot be a model of reality. Math is about abstract patterns and stuff, not real things. Let me clear this up. A model is something that is useful in making predictions in reality. Math can be used in models, but math itself isn't. For example, take number theory. It is a branch of math that is about integers and their structure, but idk if that can be useful in modeling any physical phenomena. Plus I have already said what the "purest" of math is all about: abstract stuff and patterns.
@@prerakcontractor6609 Wonder the same thing. Asking scroedinger problems to 12th class doesn't imply the quality of education there. You're simply studying too hard.
@@gepliprl8558 And the worst thing is, we are not even supposed to understand it, just memorise tricks to find which orbital the equation represents :(
A class in mathematical Physics is needed. It's not as complicated as it looks when you know the prerequisite math.
When you thought you can learn QM from UA-cam at your leisure, this video made you think again.
mmmmmm.........got that result through complex statististical mechanical foundational system state unit structure with units of energy and claim that we get #4^N(0)_!!- everything and then take that numnuts result and encapsulate this guys teaching ability. WTF?
@@peteconway251 that sentence was nonsense lmao
idk man, i'm learning this stuff at university rn. I think this guy just chose a very convoluted way of reaching a solution. This stuff is definitely learnable. Just find a good textbook.
physics.gmu.edu/~pnikolic/PHYS308/lectures/hydrogen.pdf
Well fuck you for reading my mind voice i watched a 5 hour long video and unferstood 10% sht
his board handwriting is actually really good, it's eyecandy for any mathematics/physics students who loves the symbols lol
That is exactly why I prefer his lectures, so prestine!
I remember doing this for physical chemistry and it's as long as I remember. This is just for one hydrogen atom though, the first and "lightest" element... It's different when you consider that hydrogen is usually a molecule of 2 atoms, which makes it more complicated with 2 nuclei such that you have to use the born-oppenheimer approximation to make the math a bit easier.
What is the point in cleaning up the units as made about 4:34 and in other classes?
because when u doing the differential equation, its better to find a way to write a expression that is continuous. the variables "r", etc are all quantized, therefore is really hard to find a solution for de D.E. if you write it in therms of continuous variables u can guess solutions easier. usually exponential: because in differential equations we want aways to deal with continuity and so on...
Great video Tell inks are also required
It works “beautifully” for hydrogen; actually solving in closed form. But then already Helium is an approximation in SE and then atoms bigger than that are numerically crunched only. Nothing beautiful about that to me.
I struggled in HS in algebra and I watch these to make me feel dumb and depressed 🙃
physics is wrong thing to get depressed about. trust....
thank you need big review 40 years away from books
At some point, we're assuming that x goes to infinity - But here did this assumption come from?
I think he was forcing for normalization for x or rho to infinity. Because every solution in quantum mechanics (at least as far as I know) has to have a solution even into infinity. (Think of a free particle in an infinite space. If you solve for the whole space into infinity it has to be somewhere thus yield a solution)
Thanks @@wlankabel2986 I'm actually more of a lurker here, but this material is weirdly captivating. I don't even know why.
@@asdfasdfasdf383 Yeah quantum mechanics can be wierd sometimes but it's a beautiful ride. If my explanation was a bit off you can search for normalization condition.
Why U=p"(l+1) ? Please tell me. Thanks.
it's explained in more detail 2 lectures prior to this one
This one ua-cam.com/video/_XDm2cxC-UU/v-deo.html
@@philipp8276 which minute?, can't find it
Zwiebach, that's twice baked!
Alan Kovacik Twice baked is Zwieback. His name, Zwiebach, would mean Two creek(s).
how can we just make up an equation for r.. and then also make it look completely random.. ^^
Wait a minute this isn’t the pre-algebra that I’m learning
You’re not in Kansas anymore
@@seandafny i dont get a joke
What about factoring in consciousness. Intent. Yes we can calculate it. But what about the observer understanding that the atom is in fact conscious.
consciousness is an oscillation (or a spin or angular momentum, if you will). It is fundamental and measured in h bar. It cannot be factored. It is eternal. And true physicists call it action. Peace.
How the final equation about w comes?
u=ro^(l+1)*exp(-ro)*w(ro)
Calculate d^u/d(ro)^2 and substitute there.
Great content 👍👍
It was asked in iit 2017
that's why iit suck
What is l(l+1)?
I believe it's from legendre transformation
It's the eigenvalue of the L² operator, which is what the whole angular dependence operator turned out to be (lectures 20 & 21)
I guess, it is the squared version of the angular momentum of the electron around its nucleus
Nope did not understand
Congratulations no one did
🙏🏾
Reality = Mathematics? Are we in a simulation?
Physics is just a model. It's a model of reality, not reality itself.
Existential crisis time!
@@BPEREZRobertJamesL math is the model
physics is the reality
@@athul_c1375 So are you saying that things can decide which path they should take (from Lagrangian Mechanics)?
And that the universe is lazy (again from Lagrangian Mechanics)?
That's what the math says if you take it literally. These totally absurd predictions by physics pretty much tells us that it is just a model of reality but not reality itself
Another reason why physics cannot be reality itself is because it is literally a set of approximations. Even if we get to the theory of everything, there would still be a very large chunk of physics where approximations rule.
And math cannot be a model of reality. Math is about abstract patterns and stuff, not real things. Let me clear this up. A model is something that is useful in making predictions in reality. Math can be used in models, but math itself isn't. For example, take number theory. It is a branch of math that is about integers and their structure, but idk if that can be useful in modeling any physical phenomena. Plus I have already said what the "purest" of math is all about: abstract stuff and patterns.
@@BPEREZRobertJamesL abstarct math made in 100 yrs ago are now used for physics theorys
For example imaginary numbers
One bil .
any one from INDIA preparing IIT as this equation was asked in IIT2017
2017 paper was really challenging
Yh, I mean what is the point of asking Schroedinger equation to 12th class students?
@@prerakcontractor6609 Wonder the same thing. Asking scroedinger problems to 12th class doesn't imply the quality of education there. You're simply studying too hard.
@@gepliprl8558 And the worst thing is, we are not even supposed to understand it, just memorise tricks to find which orbital the equation represents :(
I am solving 2004 paper and came here 😊
The music of this guy’s voice is irritating me…
Fku
I think this guy just made up half the shit on this video.
maybe, but it's still on the test next Friday😃
If you learn anything from this video you are genius
This prof is really bad at teaching