# PHYA5 ~ 20th June 2013 ~ A2 PhysicsWatch

Announcements
6 years ago
#301
(Original post by The H)
What do we think about potential 6 markers for turning points?
I'd say maybe something to do with special relativity or discovery of the electron
Electron microscope

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
6 years ago
#302
(Original post by cavalera94)
Electron microscope

Posted from TSR Mobile
Transmission maybe? Because I think there has already been a scanning tunnelling?
Or it could be both I suppose
0
6 years ago
#303
(Original post by The H)
Transmission maybe? Because I think there has already been a scanning tunnelling?
Or it could be both I suppose
Yeah it being on both and comparing the two could be a possibility, maybe even for seven marks. There has been one before
0
6 years ago
#304
(Original post by posthumus)
I see what you mean here... logically in that respect the other person would be travelling 1.2c relative to you.

What would we then do to find the time relative to the "other person" (to go from A to B)... you could have the time you saw them go from A to B... but if you use 1.2c in the Lorentz factor... you can't square root that?

So they couldn't possibly ask us to do a calculation in situations such as this one?

Maybe they could ask it as a written question instead... where we'd have to quote E=mc^2 & that KE is converted into mass, therefore in reality it would never actually reach that speed?
Yeah respective to you someone's travelling at 1.2c however this is impossible as nothing can travel faster than the speed of light , c.

So for all of this to work, you have to change other factors like time and length.

I wasn't saying that they'd ever ask anything about it, but I never really understood the point of special relativity until someone explained it to me like that, that was all sorry if I've confused you aha

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
6 years ago
#305
(Original post by SortYourLife)
Yeah respective to you someone's travelling at 1.2c however this is impossible as nothing can travel faster than the speed of light , c.

So for all of this to work, you have to change other factors like time and length.

I wasn't saying that they'd ever ask anything about it, but I never really understood the point of special relativity until someone explained it to me like that, that was all sorry if I've confused you aha

Posted from TSR Mobile
aha no it's okay... I'd actually never thought of it from the perspective... "head on" hehe

Also I am confused because even a person would not be able to observe something with their eyes... something going faster than the speed of light, it is quite confusing, but pretty cool

I think it would be a good question, as a written question
0
6 years ago
#306
(Original post by posthumus)
aha no it's okay... I'd actually never thought of it from the perspective... "head on" hehe

Also I am confused because even a person would not be able to observe something with their eyes... something going faster than the speed of light, it is quite confusing, but pretty cool

I think it would be a good question, as a written question
I know, something travelling that fast and you can go oh hey that was only 16m long, not the 120m it is at rest.... Aha :')

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
6 years ago
#307
(Original post by Fabz.)
Guys how many significant figures should we generally use?
If the question does not specify, then you always quote your answer to the number of significant figures of your least accurate term in the calculation. Hope this helps
0
6 years ago
#308
Sorry if this has been asked/discussed before but I'm late ITT.

Possible 6 markers for nuclear and astro?

The nuclear paper has had two nuclear based long-answer Qs, and 1 thermal. So I'm thinking maybe thermal will come up, the derivation of pV = 1/3 NM(crms)^2 perhaps?

No idea about astro though tbh
0
6 years ago
#309
Can anyone direct me to some Applied Physics notes? I missed most of the lessons due to absences and could use some notes and questions.

Thanks!
0
6 years ago
#310
(Original post by UnknownOrigin)
Sorry if this has been asked/discussed before but I'm late ITT.

Possible 6 markers for nuclear and astro?

The nuclear paper has had two nuclear based long-answer Qs, and 1 thermal. So I'm thinking maybe thermal will come up, the derivation of pV = 1/3 NM(crms)^2 perhaps?

No idea about astro though tbh
For the nuclear paper I think it may be something to do with molecular kinetic theory, unless they repeat something they've already done.
But I don't do astrophysics
0
6 years ago
#311
(Original post by UnknownOrigin)
Sorry if this has been asked/discussed before but I'm late ITT.

Possible 6 markers for nuclear and astro?

The nuclear paper has had two nuclear based long-answer Qs, and 1 thermal. So I'm thinking maybe thermal will come up, the derivation of pV = 1/3 NM(crms)^2 perhaps?

No idea about astro though tbh
Derivation of pV=blah blah.. I'm hopin that comes up because I won't attempt the 6 marker anyway and that one most people will get 0/6 because it's really hard, so lower grade boundaries overall (not to sound harsh or anything). Other than that radioactive waste, something to do with specific heat/latent heat.

Astro could be evidence for big bang theory, how reflecting telescopes work and advantage over refracting, life cycle of stars (giants and main sequence), something annoying on spectra and spectral classes.
0
6 years ago
#312
(Original post by JRP95)
Derivation of pV=blah blah.. I'm hopin that comes up because I won't attempt the 6 marker anyway and that one most people will get 0/6 because it's really hard, so lower grade boundaries overall (not to sound harsh or anything). Other than that radioactive waste, something to do with specific heat/latent heat.

Astro could be evidence for big bang theory, how reflecting telescopes work and advantage over refracting, life cycle of stars (giants and main sequence), something annoying on spectra and spectral classes.
If I'm not mistaken, I thought the derivation of the kinetic theory equation wasn't required for this spec? :s.
0
6 years ago
#313
No worries, sorted.

On the topic of this exam, we're doing turning points and the paper they give on it is ridiculously hard, anyone else doing turning points?
0
6 years ago
#314
(Original post by amish123)
If I'm not mistaken, I thought the derivation of the kinetic theory equation wasn't required for this spec? :s.
Yeah I doubt it really it's too complicated for A2.
0
6 years ago
#315
Can someone explain the electron diffraction experiment to me? I found it in one of the papers but none of my books :/
0
6 years ago
#316
(Original post by Beth_L_G)
Can someone explain the electron diffraction experiment to me? I found it in one of the papers but none of my books :/
Was it a 6 marker ?

- Fine beam of electrons accelerate via p.d. within vacuum tube
- diffracted by tiny graphite crystals, as the size is similar to the de broglie wavelength of an electron
[quote lambda = h/mv ]
- if you increase p.d. the velocity of the electron will increase
- since p.d. inverse proportional relationship with lamda, wavelength will also decrease
- circular diffraction pattern observed on a screen

EDIT: Oh and this works because the electron can act as a wave (wave-particle duality), so mentioning that could possibly get you marks too
1
6 years ago
#317
(Original post by UnknownOrigin)
Sorry if this has been asked/discussed before but I'm late ITT.

Possible 6 markers for nuclear and astro?

The nuclear paper has had two nuclear based long-answer Qs, and 1 thermal. So I'm thinking maybe thermal will come up, the derivation of pV = 1/3 NM(crms)^2 perhaps?

No idea about astro though tbh
I doubt the derivation would be a sixth marker. Or come up at all, its a pretty simple derivation. They would probably ask about the assumptions.
I'm hoping for a kinetic theory one to explain the gas laws or to do with the Rutherford scattering experiment, as long as its not nuclear energy
0
6 years ago
#318
Anyone do the applied physics option 5C, I believe it is.
0
6 years ago
#319
(Original post by lochbeau)
No worries, sorted.

On the topic of this exam, we're doing turning points and the paper they give on it is ridiculously hard, anyone else doing turning points?
Yeah I am, but honestly i'm more worried about the nuclear part than turning points
0
6 years ago
#320
Guyyss anyone knows why
only large unstable isotopes decay with alpha??.
in the aqa physics book one of the questions ask this..
and their are no answers pg 187 of the aqa bk
thanks
0
X

new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### See more of what you like onThe Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

### University open days

• University of Surrey
Wed, 23 Oct '19
• University of Bristol
Wed, 23 Oct '19
• University of Exeter
Wed, 23 Oct '19

### Poll

Join the discussion

Yes (53)
25.85%
No (152)
74.15%