Andrew Dotson How long did it take you to get to this point in your understanding of physics? My question comes from the fact that I am 27, but only recently decided to change directions in life to push towards my true passion of majoring in physics and seeing where it takes me. Anyways, just curious man. Thanks in advance.

@@K24_ej1 Romans, I can't speak for Andrew, obviously, but I can briefly tell you my experience. I decided to make a career change when I was 28. I was in a dead end job with no prospects, so I decided to start working on a Physics degree at my local University as a part time student (2 classes per semester). Bear in mind that I already had a degree (art related), so I did not need to take my General Education classes again, just the math and science courses. I kind of had to reshape my entire life. I needed to keep a full time job to pay the bills, so I applied for and finally found a full-time clerical position at the school I was attending. I was able to get a tuition discount from the school since I was an employee, use my lunch break for classes, etc. That was about 4 years ago. I'm almost 32 now. I graduate this coming May. I have a bunch of applications out right now to graduate schools to hopefully start my PhD work in the Fall. If you are dedicated, persistent, and perhaps a bit obsessive compulsive than anyone can learn the material. It's the whole "4 years of your life" thing that will stop most people. It's been a major undertaking, but worth every second for me, especially since I can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. The material he is covering here is, truth be told, not overly complex. It's certainly not beginner material, but it's not the most complicated either. Good luck with whatever you decide.

Lyle Arnett, Jr Thank you for the reply Lyle. That definitely gives me a boost in confidence since we seem to be (were) living in the same boat. Dead end job. GE our of the way in college etc. I’ll take note of the things you said. I do appreciate it. 🙏🏻 thanks so much.

Lyle Arnett, Jr What kind of art did you study, and why did it lead you to a dead end job? Asking 5 a friend

@@K24_ej1 You'll do well, man. Go on!

Mike Warrecker that’s how mafia works

What does that make Feynman?

C'mon now, Schrödinger still did a very useful thing there! Just as we don't need even Special Relativity to do a lot of physics, we can still do a lot of QM with Schrödinger's Equation. It gives us quantized energy levels for confined particles, hydrogen wave functions, quantum tunneling, etc., etc. Fred

@@ffggddss Yes I understand, it's just a joke going on around here on the internet with lvl 1 crooks and lvl 100 boss.

@@jibran8410 OK, thanks for the warning. I'll be on the lookout for that ;-) Fred

And after this video, I watched...kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a91zn8eI1M6oeZs.html

Hey epic math time

I'm just naturally hype af

Malcolm Hall awesome!

@@AndrewDotsonvideos 😭😂😂

But still hoodwinked a generation of mathematicians, physicists, sundry academics , politicians, and generals and made off like a bandit.

Both the schrodinger equation and relativity work... so what point is anyone trying to prove here?

@@woofle4830 but not together.

Ohok

@@Nebukanezzer exactly and with this demostration we define one of the problems scientists want to solve

Math is literally a language, and so is logic. Look up formal systems and formal languages for more information. English is a natural language (along with the rest of the spoken languages).

@@ClayonTutorials I was going to say something similar. Physics is a nation, they speak calculus there.

math, logic, geometrie are per definition languages. All Equations are sentences about quatitative or countable relations of individual elements of a defined universal set and so on. They all have the same structure as normal languages, they have a syntax, a semantics and a truth value and the only thing which can be true is a sentence (ok in normal language its utterances, which include context and sentence, because in normal languages there is also a context principle)

@@ClayonTutorials True, but I'd rather order my food in any other language than math. 😊

@@narata1541 But you should always "order" your internet using math: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/kJl5g7mIs5OVm6c.html.

Do not worry this calculation Is very easy, just standard derivation and substitution. You will understand It fully in a few years

What there anything specific that was unclear that I can work on?

@@AndrewDotsonvideos oh no, it's not your bad, just a bit of a lack of understanding on my part.

@@AndrewDotsonvideos formulations in applications is algorithms. I am not smart enough to follow formulations, always. Takes me long time to get to the applications, then guess the algorithms and then look at the formulations and definitions of the universes and multiverses. The attempted long term goals of the algorithms is to change the definitions.

No, he doesn't differentiate them, because v is constant, so that makes the whole γ factor a constant. Because v is the velocity of the moving inertial reference frame S'. If v was a function of t that would mean, that S' is not inertial, because it would have acceleration.

Also it's not pronounced d

But the wave function is scalar. Complex, but scalar.

@@danielplacido8746 Nope. It changes under a Lorentz transformation.

@MetraMan09 For a constant velocity, gamma is a constant; it only varies with time when you have acceleration.

@@dXoverdteqprogress Wish I had seen this comment before I spent time writing my own.

We have to keep a phase factor then this problem gets super duper complicated

Ohhh I've figured it out. That "lingering" term actually needs to be there! (tldr: the Schrodinger equation is in fact invariant under Galilean transformations.) In taking the partial with respect to t', we're taking x' to be constant, not x. But in verifying the validity of the transformation, we have to start with the non-transformed Schrodinger equation, which originally uses psi(x,t) not psi(x',t'). In taking the partial of psi(x,t) with respect to t' (keeping x' constant, not x!), there is an extra term v(delPsi/delx) which is exactly what is cancelled out by the "lingering" term.

Hmmm, actually, quantum mechanics forbids this

which is to regard the partial derivatives as operators.

walter lewin, and griffiths book

Definitely the Griffiths book. Greets from Frankfurt

Andrew Son cosθ

tysm

Newtons. If wayy to big, then Einsteins GR.

Right but at first glance you don't recover the schrodinger equation because there's still the extra factor of d/dx'. You'd need to place more focus on the wave function itself to get everything to come out alright under Galilean transform.

you're right! my bad

Geoffry Gifari no what you said would totally work, it would just be a lot of effort😅

Thomas Marquez you can watch the whole class online so use youtube

It’s even worse, at least for me (I’m not sure for others tbh), that his d looks like a partial derivative notation.... so if he wrote both the regular derivative and partial derivative notations, I will be one confused fuck

He is Andrew Dotson not dude. Respect for him!

Go Mezant The answer is always “it depends on the error you’re willing to accept”