The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

TSR Physics Society

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1160
Avatar for Kyx
Kyx
6
Original post by Kallisto
So the colors are imaginary and given by properties of particles to distinguish from. Especially the sub particles to the sub particles, so the up and down quarks to the nuclear particles. And I guess to get an overview about the structures. Thus the colors are just used to give a system, is that right so?


Here we go: the colour charge is similar to the electric charge.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=df4LoJph76A[/video]


Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm planning to do a Physics degree at a pretty respectable university this September,
is there any content that I should learn before starting the degree? I haven't taken Further Maths by the way, I only have Maths.
Reply 1162
Avatar for Kyx
Kyx
6
Original post by Kyou
I'm planning to do a Physics degree at a pretty respectable university this September,
is there any content that I should learn before starting the degree? I haven't taken Further Maths by the way, I only have Maths.


I believe it is all covered in the first year so everyone gets up to speed :smile:

But I would still try to self-learn a few things on the first year course (it should be on the website/prospectus/whatever) :smile:


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Kyx
I believe it is all covered in the first year so everyone gets up to speed :smile:

But I would still try to self-learn a few things on the first year course (it should be on the website/prospectus/whatever) :smile:


Posted from TSR Mobile


Maybe you could teach him. I wish I could learn more from you.
Original post by Kyx
Here we go: the colour charge is similar to the electric charge.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=df4LoJph76A[/video]


Posted from TSR Mobile


Thanks for that! will watch it as soon as possible to get answered my question to that. At the moment, I am not pleased to do.
Reply 1165
Avatar for Kyx
Kyx
6
Original post by Kallisto
Thanks for that! will watch it as soon as possible to get answered my question to that. At the moment, I am not pleased to do.


No problem :smile:

Also by the same guy, you should watch this one afterwards. Together I think they explain it pretty well :smile:

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=72pprrSSDK0[/video]


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 1166
Avatar for Kyx
Kyx
6
Original post by The_Mediocre_One
Maybe you could teach him. I wish I could learn more from you.


Well, I could teach special relativity. That's relatively simple :tongue:

The only problem I have atm is remembering exactly how to reach E=mc^2

I can get the other equation, l=l(sub)0/(sqrt)(1 - [{v^2}/{c^2}])


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Kyou
I'm planning to do a Physics degree at a pretty respectable university this September,
is there any content that I should learn before starting the degree? I haven't taken Further Maths by the way, I only have Maths.


Nah, take a break. Maybe very close to the time try and get your head around complex numbers (that was a sticking point for some people on my course), possibly from YouTube videos, but you won't miss out by not doing further maths.

Original post by Kyx
Well, I could teach special relativity. That's relatively simple :tongue:

The only problem I have atm is remembering exactly how to reach E=mc^2

I can get the other equation, l=l(sub)0/(sqrt)(1 - [{v^2}/{c^2}])


Boy I remember thinking special relativity was simple, but I haven't done very well in any exams on it at uni... Needless to say it gets quite a lot harder.

This Wikiversity article has a decent derivation of E=mc2E=mc^2 https://en.m.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/E_%3D_mc²
Reply 1168
Avatar for Kyx
Kyx
6
Original post by Cerdic
Nah, take a break. Maybe very close to the time try and get your head around complex numbers (that was a sticking point for some people on my course), possibly from YouTube videos, but you won't miss out by not doing further maths.



Boy I remember thinking special relativity was simple, but I haven't done very well in any exams on it at uni... Needless to say it gets quite a lot harder.

This Wikiversity article has a decent derivation of E=mc2E=mc^2 https://en.m.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/E_%3D_mc²


Yes, it seems like it can get pretty difficult :frown:

Thanks :biggrin:


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Kyx
Well, I could teach special relativity. That's relatively simple :tongue:

The only problem I have atm is remembering exactly how to reach E=mc^2

I can get the other equation, l=l(sub)0/(sqrt)(1 - [{v^2}/{c^2}])


Posted from TSR Mobile


The best way to teach derivation (in my opinion) is not to show how this is done but provide it as an exercise or homework problem where the setter provide logical steps (that is by asking questions) to lead the students to derive them.
Original post by alow
S1>M2. The content in M2 will really not be that useful, especially if it involves coefficients of restitution, etc. Almost everything in S1 will be useful when you have to interpret data from any labs you do.



Doubt it.


I agree with @alow view. If you will be going through most the M2 stuff in your physics course "again", why you want to go through them twice. If you know we will learn them, you are more likely to be motivated to self learn them. (I may be wrong).

I would say S1 will help to provide a bit of foundation for students to appreciate error analysis in doing their lab reports. Error analysis can be a bit overwhelming for students who have not study any statistics as how to interpret standard deviation properly.
Reply 1171
Avatar for Kyx
Kyx
6
Original post by Eimmanuel
The best way to teach derivation (in my opinion) is not to show how this is done but provide it as an exercise or homework problem where the setter provide logical steps (that is by asking questions) to lead the students to derive them.


Using that method it took months for me to learn the derivation of the suvat equations, and I still didn't know.

Then I read in the textbook how it's done and now I could do it after half an hour :s-smilie:

Then again, when attempting to derive l=l(sub)0/(sqrt)(1 - [{v^2}/{c^2}]), I drew a picture and asked the teacher what to do next. He just said to use Pythagoras, and I managed to derive the equation.

I'm more of a visual learner than an auditory learner :s-smilie:


Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Kyx
Using that method it took months for me to learn the derivation of the suvat equations, and I still didn't know.

Then I read in the textbook how it's done and now I could do it after half an hour :s-smilie:

Then again, when attempting to derive l=l(sub)0/(sqrt)(1 - [{v^2}/{c^2}]), I drew a picture and asked the teacher what to do next. He just said to use Pythagoras, and I managed to derive the equation.

I'm more of a visual learner than an auditory learner :s-smilie:


My point is the learners need to think about it first and when they are stuck, steps are then provided. It is like doing a question. The setter or lecturer need to ask good leading questions or hints to guide the students in deriving the necessary relationship.

It has nothing to do with visual learner or auditory learner. I am quite surprised that people are still hooked up of the different learning styles thinking where a lot of research has already shown that it does not "really" exist. :smile:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=855Now8h5Rs

By the way, this is just my viewpoint. I believe that there will be people who would not agree with me. I am good about it.

Can I ask what is this formula that you are trying to derive?
I=I01−v2/c2I =\dfrac{I_0}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Kyx
Using that method it took months for me to learn the derivation of the suvat equations, and I still didn't know.

Then I read in the textbook how it's done and now I could do it after half an hour :s-smilie:

Then again, when attempting to derive l=l(sub)0/(sqrt)(1 - [{v^2}/{c^2}]), I drew a picture and asked the teacher what to do next. He just said to use Pythagoras, and I managed to derive the equation.

I'm more of a visual learner than an auditory learner :s-smilie:


Posted from TSR Mobile


You should learn some LaTeX\text{You should learn some LaTeX}

https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/revision/mathematics/latex
Original post by Cerdic
You should learn some LaTeX\text{You should learn some LaTeX}

https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/revision/mathematics/latex


Not sure do you realize there are typo in the website.
Reply 1175
Avatar for Kyx
Kyx
6
Original post by Eimmanuel
My point is the learners need to think about it first and when they are stuck, steps are then provided. It is like doing a question. The setter or lecturer need to ask good leading questions or hints to guide the students in deriving the necessary relationship.

It has nothing to do with visual learner or auditory learner. I am quite surprised that people are still hooked up of the different learning styles thinking where a lot of research has already shown that it does not "really" exist. :smile:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=855Now8h5Rs

By the way, this is just my viewpoint. I believe that there will be people who would not agree with me. I am good about it.

Can I ask what is this formula that you are trying to derive?
I=I01−v2/c2I =\dfrac{I_0}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}


Length contraction


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 1176
Avatar for Kyx
Kyx
6
Original post by Cerdic
You should learn some LaTeX\text{You should learn some LaTeX}

https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/revision/mathematics/latex


I've tried using LaTeX but it never worked


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Kyx
Length contraction


Posted from TSR Mobile


I doubt that this is length contraction formula when I replace the I I by l l .

l=l01−v2/c2 l =\dfrac{l_0}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}

Length contraction should be

l=l01−v2/c2 l = l_0 \sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}

Unless UK has a different notation or I misinterpreted your formula.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction
Reply 1178
Avatar for Kyx
Kyx
6
Original post by Eimmanuel
I doubt that this is length contraction formula when I replace the I I by l l .

l=l01−v2/c2 l =\dfrac{l_0}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}

Length contraction should be

l=l01−v2/c2 l = l_0 \sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}

Unless UK has a different notation or I misinterpreted your formula.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction


I was dividing the original length by gamma :s-smilie:


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Kyx
I was dividing the original length by gamma :s-smilie:


Posted from TSR Mobile


I am surprised that you use Pythagoras theorem to in deriving this formula. I thought normally Pythagoras theorem is used in deriving time dilation. Again I may be wrong.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you