Hydrogen atom radial wavefunctions

[@fornasm]

Finally, Prof Carlson clarifies the objective of its math's, and this is another good lecture. Thanks!

[@hudsonbarth5641]

Griffiths skips so many crucial steps and explanations in this section. Thanks for making this video, helped me a lot.

[@shino5bi]

Its not just the griffiths, every litterature i found on this subject skipped the crucial steps. I'll never understand why

[@pandjizamzamifathurrohman1282]

What's the crucial steps?

[@mizar199]

Excellent supplement to Griffiths. Thank you.

[@Isaiah700Bman]

I thought it was completely over in this class, then I saw your videos. thanks a bunch

[@karabomothupi9759]

The greatest lecture of all time

[@MsNoerchen01]

Thank you so much for these well explained quantum mechanics videos. It is incredibly helpful.

[@arijruwaii]

I think this will save my final grade! thank for sharing this on youtube. very helpful

[@itsanna123]

Hey Prof, your radial graph of n=3 and l=0 at time point 46:47 (green curve) does not match the Griffiths radial function n=3, l=0. Griffiths page 141 shows that n=3 and l=0 crosses the x-axis more often than yours. Are the graphs not supposed to be the same? Figure 4.4 in Griffiths.

[@spdas5942]

Sir, many thanks for making me unerstand the asymptotic behaviour .

[@melanienielsen8740]

At around 40:45. Isn't it supposed to be n-2l-1 in the subscript according to the definition?

[@MeganLouisaYoung]

Are there solutions to your "check your understanding" questions anywhere? Apologies if I've missed this info in one of your videos +Brant Carlson

[@mbalimoreki6279]

Wow , it made the lecture i just had more understandable.

[@serwaffewrtewrwe314]

41:13 The subscript for the associated Laguerre polynomial is q+p NOT q-p. Common rookie mistake!

[@paladin1147]

I think not, look at the book again where it is defined {L^p}_q

[@hershyfishman2929]

6:11 how could a function of r be = to a function of kr?

[@official-zq3bv]

Hello. Thank you for your lecture. I have a question: why is it not allowed to let the wave function blow up near 0?

[@integration8274]

Because it doesn't make any physical sense, often in electrodynamic we came across such cases and there we choose the constant as zero.

[@zahirmuhammad9133]

great sir. i am fallowing u excellenct

[@Salmanul_]

39:36 I get why j_max is an integer but what about l?

[@SLB_Labs]

Go back and watch/read the section on spherical harmonics. We found that l must be a positive integer from the differential equation who's solutions are the associated Legendre polynomials. I hope this helps!

[@krishnendusaha6190]

is this is the part of jee syllabus

[@th3wlis]

i love you for this thank you

[@dm3248]

Thank you!!

[@peterwan9076]

I don't understand the part where you have two definitions on dv/dp where the indicies are offset by 1. I agree you can use either definition as long as you stick to one form only. But when you do the second derivative, you use both form of indices definitions in one expression. Is that ok? I don't get it. It is like my boss shifting the decimal point on my salary to the left by one place.

[@Mohammed-cc5ox]

why did you change exp(rho) to exp(-rho) from where the minus came

[@hamzahajji5814]

+Zniber Mohammed from the asymptotic form rho -> infinity => u = Aexp(-rho) because the Bexp(rho) blows up

[@rhophysicsclassesrunby-roh8539]

Visit my channel Playlist quantum mechanics Lec8

[@PedroTorres-mn2jn]

I am sorry for the dumbness, but I didn't understand where did the Bessel associated functions go.

[@alexanderdavidsonbryan7264]

+Pedro Torres That was for the spherical barrier problem. A more trivial case he demonstrated as a (not very realistic) example.

[@abbacle]

I just have a question about the recurrence relation. For the QHO, you were able to set K = 2n + 1, so the numerator turned from 2j + 1 - K into -2(n - j.) In this problem, p_0 = 2n. For the this recurrence relation, would we keep the numerator as 2(j + l + 1) - p_0, or make it 2( j + l + 1 - n)? Thank you