Thank you so much, doing online learning because of covid and the way it was explained in the skript/book made no sense. Thank you! Now I understand how to do the exercices I need to do!
Dear Real Chem, If the integral is with respect to x, i.e. it ends with "d/dx", then why do we not actually see any "x" variables as part of the answer to the integral? Did I miss something? Otherwise this was an excellent video as always, thank you!! :)
Hi Guled, If you are doing an indefinite integral (one without upper and lower bounds) you are correct that an integral taken with respect to x will typically have an answer with x. On the other hand, a definite integral (where you do specify upper and lower bounds) will very often be just a numerical value. Give that we are normalizing wavefunctions, we are doing a definitive integral. The bounds are over all space that the wavefunction is defined for. I certainly could have made it more clear that these are definite integrals. Thanks for the clarifying question! Dr. Morris
Hey Omar, The quantum spin number tells us about the spin on an electron. This is somewhat analogous to angular momentum in classical mechanics. Electrons (and all other fermions) have a spin of 1/2 which tells us about there symmetry. A spin of 1/2 means a particle has to be rotates twice to get back to the same state. Wiki has a decent explanation of this with a helpful graphic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-%C2%BD
I understood more in this video than 2 hours in my Quantum Chemistry class. Thank you so much :)
Sir love from india (assam)
Great teaching
Thank you! This made more sense than what I endured over a decade ago and now returning to school.
Wish my professor had taught us orthogonal wavefunctions. This guy's way better :D
I'm beyond thankful for this video
Thank you so much, doing online learning because of covid and the way it was explained in the skript/book made no sense. Thank you! Now I understand how to do the exercices I need to do!
Thank you dear Sir.
Now I am in position to find the normalization constant very easily.
This video was so helpful. Thank you so much!
SAVED MY DAY
at 5:43 why we wrote φ^2 when we multiplying φ with φ* ? Is it the same thing? Also, thank u sm for the video you’re great!!!
Good question! Yes those are the same. When you square something that is complex valued (contains an i) you always get phi^2 = phi* times phi.
I am so grateful for your existence, you beautiful, beautiful soul.
why couldnt my physics prof explained like this and show it with a simple example? Thank you!!!! the key word is orthonormal....
Thanks a lot❤️
thats really a helpful video
Is it that Psi1 times Psi2 (komplxk.) = integ.[ psi1(komplxk.) times psi2(komplxk.)] ?
Thank you sir
Dear Real Chem,
If the integral is with respect to x, i.e. it ends with "d/dx", then why do we not actually see any "x" variables as part of the answer to the integral? Did I miss something? Otherwise this was an excellent video as always, thank you!! :)
Hi Guled,
If you are doing an indefinite integral (one without upper and lower bounds) you are correct that an integral taken with respect to x will typically have an answer with x. On the other hand, a definite integral (where you do specify upper and lower bounds) will very often be just a numerical value. Give that we are normalizing wavefunctions, we are doing a definitive integral. The bounds are over all space that the wavefunction is defined for. I certainly could have made it more clear that these are definite integrals.
Thanks for the clarifying question!
Dr. Morris
Sir, please explain to me why the quantum spin number is expressed as 1/2 and -1/2
Hey Omar, The quantum spin number tells us about the spin on an electron. This is somewhat analogous to angular momentum in classical mechanics. Electrons (and all other fermions) have a spin of 1/2 which tells us about there symmetry. A spin of 1/2 means a particle has to be rotates twice to get back to the same state. Wiki has a decent explanation of this with a helpful graphic.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-%C2%BD
@@RealChemistryVideos thank you, sir, very help full, as am studying quantum mechanics in drug designing
Nice!
Thank you!
I mean you are awesome because you sound like Seth rogan teaching me quantum mechanics
Holy ship!
Heureka-moment here..
SIR, MY QUESTION IS STILL NOT ANSWERED ?
Thank you. I'm losing hope in my chemistry class.
thank you seth rogen
horrible writing even with electronic pen and pad
Haha you're right, my writing certainly isn't great.
@@RealChemistryVideos but sir your explanation is real, love your explanation, I really enjoy it and understood it and am your subscriber now