Search results

Wrong. Look at my edit.

That's exactly my calculations too. However, I argued from the perspective of an opposite fictitious force from inside the car's non-inertial frame of reference. Same result though. For @Qiaochu Chen's argument, that's right. However, if you argue from the perspective of a ficticious force from...

Just a dump on what I know about Planck's hypothesis. Could you verify if my understanding is correct @Arrowshaft? Q: Describe how Planck's explanation of black body radiation changed the direction of scientific thinking in the early twentieth century. (3 marks) Prior to Max Planck's...

Honestly, the difference between an 8 & 9 is how well you express scientific ideas, not your actual understandings of them. Its pretty obvious that you understand your physics, but you do use terminology which is not strictly scientific. Little things like calling Bohr's orbits "orbit states"...

No worries. Just edited it to add an extra illustration so remember to refresh the page.

Apologies if the explanation is a bit convoluted. I'm about to go to sleep. The Davisson and Germer experiment was, pretty much Thomas Young's double slit experiment for electrons. It involved shining a beam of electrons at a nickel crystal lattice. What they surprisingly observed is an...

From the questions that I have done for practise though, I have found the Excel book's sample papers for physics to be the best.

Are you not meant to know that in beta minus decay an anti-neutrino is also released?

They did not mention it. The sample answer was surprisingly brief. I think its safe to conclude from the replies that it was just a badly made question.

Haha. That was the line of thought I went down as well. I briefly mentioned Maxwell, talked about Michelson and Morley. But then I talked about the experimental validation of the consequences of light's constant speed (time dilation, length contraction), such as the Hafele-Keating experiment and...

Recently I was doing the Independent trial paper for practise. One of their questions was something along the lines of "Assess the contributions of Einstein in creating special relativity and the second postulate on the absolute nature of light's speed in a vacuum as well as in experimentally...

Let’s end the flame war here. I shouldn’t have started it honestly but I was fed up of this guy’s attitude. The only person who was clearly explaining anything was @Arrowshaft and Buzman was making it seem like he was the smart one.

Ok. And Santa Claus is real too.

Wherever I see you Hscbuzman you're generally being a condescending arse. Just shut up and stop trying to hide your inability to explain and understand a concept clearly with vague remarks about the question's triviality.

Hopefully, just like with the chemistry exam, this new syllabus physics exam will be more calculations oriented as opposed to waffling on about theory.

Probably cannot be a picture book. This is the HSC after all. If your common module text is The Crucible though I would suggest either Orwell's Animal Farm or Clooney's Good Night and Good Luck.

I think you're likely wrong Arrowshaft. I don't remember my values but I got effective for Cu ineffective for Pb as well. Same for everyone at my school that I talked to.

Easy paper. Good fun. Lots of calculations and the reaction pathways was fun. What did you guys write for the identification tests for the last question?

I had 70min left when I got up to 14bii. But then I had a mental block for 70 minutes.

That's a big rip. What other questions did you find difficult or stuffed up?