Normalization of the wavefunction 

It would have been very difficult to jump start my my self learning QM using Griffith's book if had not found your videos. Thanks for making these videos.This was just what I needed.

No real magic there... 1/i is equal to -i. You can see that starting with i^2 = -1. Dividing both sides by i should give you i = -1/i, so multiplying both sides by -1 gives you -i = 1/i. It's handy sometimes to move i to the numerator, so I've made that 1/i --> -i conversion.

Best explanation of wave function normalization on RU-vid.

It's worse than that, actually -- Psi(x) can be positive or negative, and can even by complex. The missing piece is that Psi (the wavefunction) is not itself the probability density. Instead, we treat |Psi(x)|^2, the squared absolute magnitude of Psi(x), as the probability density, and |Psi(x)|^2 is always a positive real number.

An Excellent exposition of Griffth's much abbreviated proof in chapter 1 of the 2nd ed.

You are excellent at explaining your mathematical reasoning. Your mini visual proof of e ^-ix multiplied with it's complex conjugate was very helpful. thanks

great explanation of probabilistic interpretation! I finally understood the relationship thanks.!

soo much thanks mahn, been searching for this for years

Great explanation! Much appreciated before my exam!

Fantastic series! Thanks a lot for sharing

thanks, clear and concise!

this will greatly help in my today's exam.... superb!!!!

@Brant Carlson Could you please expand on the @18:48

This is golden. Thanks alot!

Thank billion time for this amazing video , go ahead for such amazing explanations👍🏻😩😩😩

Great lecture. Thank you!

What software are you using?

Excellent lecture...thank you.

thank you so much prof. carlson. i learned a lot from your lecture videos. do you have lec videos on many particle physics or quantum field? thanks :)

would love a video on expectation values and spherical polar coordinates

What calculus you talked when you solved the integral?

dear,i m confused here,once you said that infinite square amplitudes are not normalizablet,right,as in dirac delta function,/////then you fit this idea to integral(summation) of infinite basis. as we know that square integrable functions converges in hilbert space in h2 space,i.e in infinite basis. so normalizable.

If the wave function satisfies the conditions for normalisation does it suffice to differentiate the integral of psi squared dx = 1 wrt time? And then the RHS goes to 0?

at 14:34 it should be PSI* (psi star) :)

great video.

dear sir there is a slight mistake in the 1st term of schrodinger equation on the RHS at 6:24 Great video sir.. thank you :D

Hi I am having trouble understanding what you said at 5:35 that it is not posible to have a function that stays non zero or goes to infinity as x goes to infinity and still have to be integrable. If you could explain that will be great thanks.

Brilliant!

sounds like main guy from that 70s show

thank u sir...

At around 13:30 You divide the Schrödinger equation by ih, and the way I would have computed that, the i would have stayed next to (2m), however you have placed it as if you were multiplying the equation by i. I also am unsure of what happened to the negative symbol in that step. Could you please explain the reasoning behind these steps?

Didn't know Eric Foreman taught quantum mechanics.

At 23:08 why did you not integrate from negative infinity to positive one but negative one to positive one?

I took QMI last semester and aced it. I had no idea what any of the math meant, but thanks to you know I understand what this means!! only took me 2 weeks into QMII to realize I didn't know what I was doing

I can't get the part when you bring up functions in 02:37 how can probability be negative? sigh represents probability of finding a particle in some point of x right? well how can it be negative?

explain ???//

Brant Carlson, May I know why 18:48 is true?

hi, can the constant be a negative value

wrt the derivative of the partial derivative of psi*, why isnt +(iV/h-bar)psi not psi star?

14:48 There is a star missing on the last blue psi for those who are confused :)

I'm pretty sure that the normalization constant at the end could also have been MINUS the square root of 15/16.

Position density

at 19:08 the reason it is true that because differentiation is a linear transformation hence superposition and homogeneity is preserved, for people who wonders as to why he was able to rewrite the expression

I dont know who the first person was to put arrows on graphs but that person deserves some sort of punishment

can anyone show the step for 22:00?

3:44 am and 6 hours till ny final

d'fuck??