> If you haven’t solved the Schrodinger equation before Heh heh, define "solved"... If I remember my QM class correctly, we "solved" the Schrodinger equation f

> If you haven’t solved the Schrodinger equation before Heh heh, define "solved"... If I remember my QM class correctly, we "solved" the Schrodinger equation for the hydrogen atom; the book achieved this by observing "... which gives us <equation>, and, hey! look at this! it turns out that FamousLastName polynomials--which you've never heard of--turn out to solve this equation, here's their definition, and... problem solved!" (If I remember correctly they were Legendre Polynomials, but maybe that was some other equation. And to be fair to the book, it was a pretty good book.) After having "solved" the equation for one isolated, most-basic atom, they went on to say, "basically we have no idea if there is an analytic solution for anything more complex". If manipulating bra and ket vectors symbolically around an equals sign counts, we did a lot of that, although it did not develop in me the least intuition about QM. But then, I never really understood what those bra and kets were doing, and my grades steadily dropped (fortunately for my GPA there were only three courses). So it's possible I might have developed some intuition had I understood what was going on.