Schrödinger equation for hydrogen

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
  • MIT 8.04 Quantum Physics I, Spring 2016
    View the complete course: ocw.mit.edu/8-0...
    Instructor: Barton Zwiebach
    License: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA
    More information at ocw.mit.edu/terms
    More courses at ocw.mit.edu

ความคิดเห็น • 71

  • @zunwang2214
    @zunwang2214 5 ปีที่แล้ว +122

    When you thought you can learn QM from TH-cam at your leisure, this video made you think again.

    • @peteconway251
      @peteconway251 4 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      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?

    • @epicspartan10
      @epicspartan10 3 ปีที่แล้ว +26

      @@peteconway251 that sentence was nonsense lmao

    • @ian3018
      @ian3018 2 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      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.

    • @lil_ToT-XFZ1
      @lil_ToT-XFZ1 ปีที่แล้ว

      physics.gmu.edu/~pnikolic/PHYS308/lectures/hydrogen.pdf

    • @FalsoT
      @FalsoT 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Well fuck you for reading my mind voice i watched a 5 hour long video and unferstood 10% sht

  • @okaunis
    @okaunis 3 ปีที่แล้ว +23

    A class in mathematical Physics is needed. It's not as complicated as it looks when you know the prerequisite math.

  • @mastershooter64
    @mastershooter64 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    his board handwriting is actually really good, it's eyecandy for any mathematics/physics students who loves the symbols lol

    • @lil_ToT-XFZ1
      @lil_ToT-XFZ1 ปีที่แล้ว

      That is exactly why I prefer his lectures, so prestine!

  • @mohammedaboelhija5478
    @mohammedaboelhija5478 4 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    Nope did not understand

    • @gametopia6457
      @gametopia6457 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Congratulations no one did

  • @aprodriguesoficial
    @aprodriguesoficial 5 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    What is the point in cleaning up the units as made about 4:34 and in other classes?

    • @outroutono4937
      @outroutono4937 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      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...

  • @bobbywinston116
    @bobbywinston116 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    I struggled in HS in algebra and I watch these to make me feel dumb and depressed 🙃

    • @asfasdfsd8476
      @asfasdfsd8476 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      physics is wrong thing to get depressed about. trust....

  • @Psi01
    @Psi01 5 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    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.

  • @asyareedus
    @asyareedus 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    how can we just make up an equation for r.. and then also make it look completely random.. ^^

  • @juansamudio1171
    @juansamudio1171 5 ปีที่แล้ว +21

    Wait a minute this isn’t the pre-algebra that I’m learning

    • @seandafny
      @seandafny 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      You’re not in Kansas anymore

    • @ahmadardani2215
      @ahmadardani2215 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@seandafny i dont get a joke

  • @kgfcccvvhbbbc7565
    @kgfcccvvhbbbc7565 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Why U=p"(l+1) ? Please tell me. Thanks.

    • @philipp8276
      @philipp8276 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      it's explained in more detail 2 lectures prior to this one

    • @philipp8276
      @philipp8276 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      This one th-cam.com/video/_XDm2cxC-UU/w-d-xo.html

    • @superLegmone
      @superLegmone 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@philipp8276 which minute?, can't find it

  • @Marcofernandez12
    @Marcofernandez12 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    🙏🏾

  • @leonardbrikus9906
    @leonardbrikus9906 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    How the final equation about w comes?

    • @mikikaboom9084
      @mikikaboom9084 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      u=ro^(l+1)*exp(-ro)*w(ro)
      Calculate d^u/d(ro)^2 and substitute there.

  • @ronaldjorgensen6839
    @ronaldjorgensen6839 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

    thank you need big review 40 years away from books

  • @michaelgonzalez9058
    @michaelgonzalez9058 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Fku

  • @whitehorse1959
    @whitehorse1959 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Reality = Mathematics? Are we in a simulation?

    • @BPEREZRobertJamesL
      @BPEREZRobertJamesL 3 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      Physics is just a model. It's a model of reality, not reality itself.

    • @maxwellsequation4887
      @maxwellsequation4887 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Existential crisis time!

    • @athul_c1375
      @athul_c1375 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@BPEREZRobertJamesL math is the model
      physics is the reality

    • @BPEREZRobertJamesL
      @BPEREZRobertJamesL 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@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.

    • @athul_c1375
      @athul_c1375 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@BPEREZRobertJamesL abstarct math made in 100 yrs ago are now used for physics theorys
      For example imaginary numbers

  • @asdfasdfasdf383
    @asdfasdfasdf383 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    At some point, we're assuming that x goes to infinity - But here did this assumption come from?

    • @wlankabel2986
      @wlankabel2986 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      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
      @asdfasdfasdf383 ปีที่แล้ว

      Thanks @@wlankabel2986 I'm actually more of a lurker here, but this material is weirdly captivating. I don't even know why.

    • @wlankabel2986
      @wlankabel2986 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@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.

  • @benheideveld4617
    @benheideveld4617 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    The music of this guy’s voice is irritating me…

  • @alankovacik1928
    @alankovacik1928 5 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    Zwiebach, that's twice baked!

    • @reinerwilhelms-tricarico344
      @reinerwilhelms-tricarico344 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Alan Kovacik Twice baked is Zwieback. His name, Zwiebach, would mean Two creek(s).

  • @3rnestwood
    @3rnestwood ปีที่แล้ว

    What about factoring in consciousness. Intent. Yes we can calculate it. But what about the observer understanding that the atom is in fact conscious.

    • @sylvestermarquardt5883
      @sylvestermarquardt5883 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      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.

  • @pablodominguez526
    @pablodominguez526 3 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    What is l(l+1)?

    • @MudahnyaFizik
      @MudahnyaFizik 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I believe it's from legendre transformation

    • @jimmyb998
      @jimmyb998 3 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      It's the eigenvalue of the L² operator, which is what the whole angular dependence operator turned out to be (lectures 20 & 21)

    • @toanhien494
      @toanhien494 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      I guess, it is the squared version of the angular momentum of the electron around its nucleus

  • @kerriel.stephens5700
    @kerriel.stephens5700 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Great video Tell inks are also required

  • @thatomofolo452
    @thatomofolo452 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Great content 👍👍

  • @krishnamangal98
    @krishnamangal98 4 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    It was asked in iit 2017

  • @abhishekkumarrathore9807
    @abhishekkumarrathore9807 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    any one from INDIA preparing IIT as this equation was asked in IIT2017

    • @koro-sensei9783
      @koro-sensei9783 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      2017 paper was really challenging

    • @prerakcontractor6609
      @prerakcontractor6609 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      Yh, I mean what is the point of asking Schroedinger equation to 12th class students?

    • @gepliprl8558
      @gepliprl8558 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@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.

    • @prerakcontractor6609
      @prerakcontractor6609 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@gepliprl8558 And the worst thing is, we are not even supposed to understand it, just memorise tricks to find which orbital the equation represents :(

    • @chandramohan9531
      @chandramohan9531 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I am solving 2004 paper and came here 😊

  • @kerriel.stephens5700
    @kerriel.stephens5700 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    One bil .

  • @bitterbob30
    @bitterbob30 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    I think this guy just made up half the shit on this video.

    • @jamescollier3
      @jamescollier3 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      maybe, but it's still on the test next Friday😃

  • @lalitasharma6687
    @lalitasharma6687 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    If you learn anything from this video you are genius
    This prof is really bad at teaching