Polynomial division is more painful to me than this.

Lol. If you are thinking about doing physics in university, just remember it only gets harder as time goes on.

@@jokerman9295 My entire "Physical Chemistry" syllabus can be condensed to pretty much 100% of all the videos in this playlist. It feels like they just took modern phys and replaced the label with fancy chemistry for those in chem programs. srsly... I didn't go for a degree in physics for a reason, yet here I am. send help

@@andym.s.5231 Well it depends on what your teachers have you doing and how strict the tests are. If theres a lot of problem solving then just practice, no other way around it. Usually that's the best way to actually learn the science as well, instead of just passing for the degree. I'm doing computational physics right now which is such a broad and useful field, you can study pretty much any topic computationally rather than experimentally and develop coding skills.

Great job man. Hope you’re doing well.

Good point. Richard Feynman visualized parts of equations in different colors.

I've got much a lot!

ive lost brain cells truing to understand lmao

thank you😊

I didn't understood 🥲

That was an error, really he should have treated it in the same way as the kinetic energy term. In general, you cannot cancel off the argument of an operator. However, IF V is only a function of x, which is common, then in the configuration space representation (where x^ acts by multiplication by x, and p^ acts as -iℏ∂/∂x) then V^ acts by multiplication by the scalar V(x), and the calculation is okay. There are a few minor errors in the video, such as a missing constant of integration etc. when deriving the time dependence, though this can be absorbed into a redefinition of the spatial wavefunction.

I think he skipped steps to make it less complicated. I believe the constant of integration works out to be zero

yeah.......

the operator V is not got any partial derivatives and is just multiplies by the wave function, the position and time functions. So when dividing by that, they both cancel and goes to 1. So only the operator of V remains

Ooooh, Grape, just trying for a bit of lightheartedness, man. Cool your jets!

There was a short clip of water in fhe video. Some flat earthers will say "Water finds its level"

Flavio Gjoni yes, exactly! Totally disproves the globe......? I was making (trying to make) a joke and it appears I’ve been shot down in flames by a ???troll ???flatearth scout

@@johnmcclelland649 Not me lol

Flavio Gjoni I know! It was GrapeSkoda.

To separate the (x,t) function into configuration space variable only, and time variable only.

yeah, i made a really stupid error and someone caught it so i decided it was early enough to just print again

@@ProfessorDaveExplains Was it just the delta symbols?

yeah, so dumb of me!

@@ProfessorDaveExplains but amazing......🍏

Also I have a KZfaq channel called NerdyNinja education

quantum mechanics goes in the modern physics playlist. i will eventually do differential equations and that will go in the mathematics playlist.

@@ProfessorDaveExplains ohh thanks professor Dave. what about this video? which playlist does it goes in?

modern physics

i'll do electrical engineering and computer science at some point, probably next year

Reminds me of the time when I though having good grades and being first in my classroom was enough to suceed at life. Well look at me now... kids can really be dumb.

Good at the sex, tho?

@@tsvetanstoychev655 Oh, God, no. Awful.

You're a little lost, kiddo.

@@ProfessorDaveExplains earth = cat

@@ProfessorDaveExplains im just messing around lmao

One of them yes

Probably not I was able to follow mathematically as a high school student. But I really really wanted to understand this because of Nuclear physics. Piece by piece it will make more sense keep trying

Yeah, what?

Way too hard for me. I thought it would be funny. (That it's way too hard for me.) Your channel is great. It is unusual for someone to actually get into the hard stuff, given the generality of the audiences. All that said, I am super interested in our technological gaps that keep us from building these nano-scale machines. When I first started searching, I thought surely I was nuts because I could not find artificial photosynthesis. (I mean, literally, somebody running ATP synthase -- the little enzyme motor-- in a factory, or at least a lab demonstration project.)

Ah gotcha. Yeah it's tricky!

@@ProfessorDaveExplainsSooooo, since you are willing to correspond directly (I think that's rare and awesome) I have questions, when you have time... (1) Can you help me find the current state of ... Building ATP synthase in a lab or factory? I'm new to this area, painfully, but I thought we'd be farther along in imitating nature for these tiny machines. (I'm noting that we at least have some computer models that calculate the trade-off between reactivity and specificity, but that's in "catalysis" and I'm not interested in "shake and bake" chemistry. (2) I don't see any viable alternatives to the Haber process for cracking nitrogen. There are methods for cracking water, but I consider that "greenwashing." And I'm worried that Haber-Bosch is capital intensive and thus centralized. Not to be a broken record, but why is Nitrogenase so hard to study? If plants need 8 ATP molecules to power Nitrogenase, then we'd better get busy on Question 1, right? (3) I'm looking at the way human beings handle crises, and I'm thinking were gonna need to pull CO2 out of the air at the last minute. What do you think? Have you found any alternatives, even unlikely ones? I'm imagining that the rich countries might conceivably do a Manhattan Project, but even that would require a decisiveness I think we lack. What are you reading these days?