MIT 8.04 Quantum Physics I, Spring 2016 View the complete course: ocw.mit.edu/8-04S16 Instructor: Barton Zwiebach License: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA More information at ocw.mit.edu/terms More courses at ocw.mit.edu
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...
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.
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.
@@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 :(
