The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

meh i remebr it being 1.

o well, im soooo over it

lol
Reply 101
lawrywild
So the top was 4 and the bottom was 0.01?


No, the top was 0.4; and btw "relative probability" just means that when you add up all the separate probabilities it doesn't have to come to 1.
Reply 102
I edited my post dude :wink:

I got 0.4 as well (not in the exam though lol) (4 came from when you typed 1 not 0.1)

Atleast i got one mark
BJack
No, the top was 0.4; and btw "relative probability" just means that when you add up all the separate probabilities it doesn't have to come to 1.


oooo

yeah i thought in this context "relative" was implict then lol.
BJack
The relevant lines of the table were:

AmpProbInt.?0.16321?2\begin{array}{r|l|c} Amp & Prob & Int. \\ \hline ? & 0.16 & 32 \\ 1 & ? & 2 \end{array}

And since I=kA2I = kA^2 and P=A2P = A^2 finding the two missing boxes should have been quite straight forward.


the top left box is 4 lol not 0.4 because think about it

the other one was 1 x 1 = 0.01 so u divide it by 100 so 4 x 4 = 16, 16/100 = 0.16

and also it cudnt have been 0.4 as this is a smaller amplitude than 1 and it has a higher probability lol
Rob_dob
However much revision I do, there's no way I could have done better than I did today, and I don't think I did too well. I've been constantly revising for so long for this exam, yet nothing I revised helped. I was constantly having to try to think outside the box, stuff which simply wasn't included in the syllabus. They deliberately try to trick you don't they, they just love it.

First one was poor for me, second was better but not by much. I'm really annoyed that I won't get rewarded for the work I put in. Dam you OCR


know exactly how u feel mate :wink: pisses me off
Reply 106
Did anyone answer that question that said something about 0.75 the increasing factor every 200 virations. And we were given the frequency and had to show that something is 5% more than blahhh blahhh
My teacher said that was something beyound our level (AS) and they shouldn't have included that becuase exponential was not part of our syllabus
Reply 107
Rid1n
Did anyone answer that question that said something about 0.75 the increasing factor every 200 virations. And we were given the frequency and had to show that something is 5% more than blahhh blahhh
My teacher said that was something beyound our level (AS) and they shouldn't have included that becuase exponential was not part of our syllabus

I got dat right :s-smilie:
Yh...I only got that because I remember exponential decay/growth from GCSE (plus theres some in relation to e in C3).
Rid1n
Did anyone answer that question that said something about 0.75 the increasing factor every 200 virations. And we were given the frequency and had to show that something is 5% more than blahhh blahhh
My teacher said that was something beyound our level (AS) and they shouldn't have included that becuase exponential was not part of our syllabus


i did it.

its gcse maths.

im pretty sure it says in the specification about prior knowledge being gcse maths.
Reply 110
did u do sumfin like 0.75 to the power of 8?
Reply 111
Btw about that relative probability question. isn't it quitre obvious that :

Amp | Prob | Intensity
? 0.16 32
1 ? 2

RELATIVE Prob = Amp^2 (it is usually Prob = k Amp^2)...but coz both of them will have a k in it..the k cancels out.

So ?^2 = 0.16 --> first one is 0.4 1^2 = 1 --> second one is 1!
That doesn't mean the probability is 1...it just means that photons are 1/0.16 ~ 6 times more likely to arrive there.
Reply 112
I'm sure it was 4, that's what I got, and it makes sense.

It has to be a higher intensity, as the probability is 16x higher.

Square root of 16 is 4, and scale it backwards to get 4.

Latest