I believe I heard it from the Leonard Suskind lectures about how classical physics is what emerges when you take the collective averages into consideration. and you kind of demonstrated that here with the k bar at 30:30. Amazing.
18:25 Check your understanding: I simplified my answer down to (1/(2*sqrt(pi * a))) * (ike^(ika) - ike^(-ika)). 35:45 Check your understanding: All false, but that's a Hail Mary from me. I have no idea about this part, I'll appreciate anyone who can explain (for me and those who come after). Let me know if anyone differs in answers, thanks!
The first one looks more like a derivative. When you integrate e^-ikx you have to pull out -ik out of the 1 in front of the e. So basically (-1/ik)*e^-ikx.
Why did you assume k_1 is approximately equal to k_2 at the end there? What would happen if you assumed the difference between k_1 and k_2 is arbitrary?
Hi. If k1 and k2 are far apart, the calculations are the same, the result is the same, but the animation is more "fuzzy", the animation wouldn't be so "neat". Cheers :D
Absolutely beautiful exposition of Group and Phase velocity! Those slanted lines were great!
I believe I heard it from the Leonard Suskind lectures about how classical physics is what emerges when you take the collective averages into consideration. and you kind of demonstrated that here with the k bar at 30:30. Amazing.
Check your understanding:
1) False: for k
Yet another superb video. This is a really interesting series, very well explained and described. Thank you professor once again.
18:25 Check your understanding: I simplified my answer down to (1/(2*sqrt(pi * a))) * (ike^(ika) - ike^(-ika)).
35:45 Check your understanding: All false, but that's a Hail Mary from me. I have no idea about this part, I'll appreciate anyone who can explain (for me and those who come after).
Let me know if anyone differs in answers, thanks!
For 18:25 we can probably apply a trig identity. It looks possible at least.
I got something similar to that the first one I mean phi k
The first one looks more like a derivative. When you integrate e^-ikx you have to pull out -ik out of the 1 in front of the e. So basically (-1/ik)*e^-ikx.
what is the answer to the "check your understanding" qst. Its pretty hard to check ones understanding not knowing the answer.
Ye, that's the one short coming of these videos.. he didn't upload the answers anywhere accessible to people.
May be he doesnt know the answers.
Did I just watch a twisted derivation of the Fourier Transform? :O
Twisted but effective!
i guess I am kinda off topic but do anyone know a good site to stream newly released series online ?
@Nickolas Connor try FlixZone. You can find it by googling :)
@@brendanxzavier3649 you arent fooling anyone
excellent work about group velocity and phase velocity understood it at right the last animation thanks so much
Thanks ...
I really liked the introduction of wave packet ....
Thank you very much!! beautifully explained.
28:24 that should have a t (as corrected later at 30:12)
Great course! Thanks a lot man
Why did you assume k_1 is approximately equal to k_2 at the end there? What would happen if you assumed the difference between k_1 and k_2 is arbitrary?
Hi. If k1 and k2 are far apart, the calculations are the same, the result is the same, but the animation is more "fuzzy", the animation wouldn't be so "neat". Cheers :D
Many thanks! it helps me a lot :D
21:54 Quantum Mechanics in a nutshell
thanx a lot :)
There is a mistake: Integrate(exp(ikx) exp(-Ik'x))=2 Pi delta(k-k'), not just delta(k-k')
Could you point out where in the video?
Axel Arnone 12：22
Seriously this person is very confusing.