> I guess my point is that you were able to understand the Schrödinger equation without covering a whole bunch of other stuff first I did cover a bunch of othe

> I guess my point is that you were able to understand the Schrödinger equation without covering a whole bunch of other stuff first I did cover a bunch of other stuff though: 3 semesters of calc, linear algebra, diffeq, classical mechanics & electromagnetism, all before I even studied any of Rayleigh’s experiments. Granted my understanding of Schrödinger wasn’t prereq’d by my understanding of, say, 5/2R solution for the classics ball rolling down a plane and up through a loop no slipping (one of those things you never forget, unfortunately), but like the original derivation Schrödinger did for the wave equation in constant potential field (at least the ones from the textbook I read) goes straight back to Netwon’s F=ma & dp/dt = F for its basis. So you can absolutely bet that my understanding of Newton’s formulation of force was crucial to my understanding of Schrödinger. It was the interplay of linear algebra, complex mathematics, differential equations, and Newtonian intuitions. That is a huge foundation to be building on top of. Furthermore I have done exercises with bras & kets that let you treat the whole thing like a great big matrix, but my experience in building my education has been that if I try to skip a chapter it invariably is a building block that I need to go back and reread. It’s like executing code: eventually, you have to step down inside the function call and execute all its lines before proceeding. And to tie things back around this is precisely why the guy with the website is saying “look, if you want to talk directly to Nobel prize winning physicists, pay your dues, there are no shortcuts.” We’re in a world of climate disaster because we’ve allowed too many shortcutters to drive the boat for too long.