The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by munchee
uuhh what? I don't remember this question..stop it you're scaring me!!


im already scared
Original post by janine803
dammit. yes, you're right. arghhhh.

can anyone remember what the MCQ was asking about what affects the g on a person or something? and what was the answer for that?


I selected C. Reaction force depends on rate of rotation but not weight

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 43
:console:
Original post by janine803
im already scared
Original post by Daniel Atieh
I really forgot what i did here. I think i used the equations separately, but i believe i got it correct.

Why alpha particle gained most of the energy?


I used the equation p^2= 2mE to explain that :erm:

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by RoyalBlue7
I used the equation p^2= 2mE to explain that :erm:

Posted from TSR Mobile

I just said about mass and added some random lines haha.
I really dunno.

What did you select for the shm mcq?
and what boundary you expect?
Original post by RoyalBlue7
I used the equation p^2= 2mE to explain that :erm:

Posted from TSR Mobile

same here:tongue:
Original post by Munchee
:frown: Wishing I had your brains...


Aw, nah! I am really not that smart, just thought of the right things at the right time :wink:

Btw, the answer to the first MCQ was KE is same for all gases, it came in pp once, May 2010 I think.
Original post by Daniel Atieh
I just said about mass and added some random lines haha.
I really dunno.

What did you select for the shm mcq?
and what boundary you expect?


For the SHM it had to be none of the energies as SHM could still take place when total energy increases (resonance) or decreases (damping). In free oscillations only it is constant.

I expect it to be the higher than any recent paper. There was an overdose of calculations with little theory.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by RoyalBlue7
For the SHM it had to be none of the energies as SHM could still take place when total energy increases (resonance) or decreases (damping). In free oscillations only it is constant.

I expect it to be the higher than any recent paper. There was an overdose of calculations with little theory.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Same here, you re utterly right!

Please dont say +70?
maybe 69 right?

What did you say for the very last question (3 marker)
Here's why I picked infinite size instead of open universe for the dark energy question....i was thinking open/close are theories associated with dark MATTER but here it's asking about something entirely different. and if dark energy was accelerating our expansion...it would "suggest" the universe has been expanding for even longer than we thought (it's even older than 13.7 bil years) so it COULD be infinite.

does anyone else agree with this?
Reply 51
Original post by AliNSiddiqui
Aw, nah! I am really not that smart, just thought of the right things at the right time :wink:

Btw, the answer to the first MCQ was KE is same for all gases, it came in pp once, May 2010 I think.


STILL wishing I had your brains..I am not exactly stupid, but I think I panicked...what was your gravitational field strength for the question about Felix whatshisface
Original post by Daniel Atieh
Same here, you re utterly right!

Please dont say +70?
maybe 69 right?

What did you say for the very last question (3 marker)


i hope it's not higher than 70 that's a little extreme. i think despite it being a conveninent paper even A* candidates out there made blunders.....i think 67 for A* the lowest.
Original post by janine803
Here's why I picked infinite size instead of open universe for the dark energy question....i was thinking open/close are theories associated with dark MATTER but here it's asking about something entirely different. and if dark energy was accelerating our expansion...it would "suggest" the universe has been expanding for even longer than we thought (it's even older than 13.7 bil years) so it COULD be infinite.

does anyone else agree with this?


Nope, we have no evidence so far to suggest that either matter or space/time are infinite. Open universe was the correct answer for that question I think.

Original post by saifulahmed
in that question we had to find the mass of a planet, did you need the given mass?for me the given mass got crossed out in both questions.

Same here, I got slightly confused trying to figure out why they gave us that mass when we apparently didn't need to use it.

Overall the paper certainly wasn't bad, although there were a few things I was unsure about. I reckon A* will be around 65 or 66.

How did you guys calculate the velocity of the Pb nucleus?
Original post by Munchee
STILL wishing I had your brains..I am not exactly stupid, but I think I panicked...what was your gravitational field strength for the question about Felix whatshisface


That's the one question I messed up. I got 100,000 or something like that, which is obviously wrong. I calculated the mass of the Earth and got something x 10^24, which checking Google is correct, but then I put it in the equation of g=GM/r^2 (Using 36,600m as r) and got too large of an answer.
Original post by janine803
Here's why I picked infinite size instead of open universe for the dark energy question....i was thinking open/close are theories associated with dark MATTER but here it's asking about something entirely different. and if dark energy was accelerating our expansion...it would "suggest" the universe has been expanding for even longer than we thought (it's even older than 13.7 bil years) so it COULD be infinite.

does anyone else agree with this?


No no, I disagree.

If the universe is infinite in size or would be infinite then it shouldn't be expanding. If it is expanding with an increasing rate I reckon that it should be described as not possessing a minimum possible size. Infinity means no end but an expanding universe whatever the rate has to have an end to be expanding.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by ultra-musketeer
Nope, we have no evidence so far to suggest that either matter or space/time are infinite. Open universe was the correct answer for that question I think.


Same here, I got slightly confused trying to figure out why they gave us that mass when we apparently didn't need to use it.

Overall the paper certainly wasn't bad, although there were a few things I was unsure about. I reckon A* will be around 65 or 66.

How did you guys calculate the velocity of the Pb nucleus?


Initial momentum is zero, so final must be zero, then calculate mass of Pb nucleus by multiplying the nucleon number by the proton mass, and that's how I did it, not sure about it though.
Reply 57
Original post by AliNSiddiqui
That's the one question I messed up. I got 100,000 or something like that, which is obviously wrong. I calculated the mass of the Earth and got something x 10^24, which checking Google is correct, but then I put it in the equation of g=GM/r^2 (Using 36,600m as r) and got too large of an answer.


Damn...I got something like 0.36...apparently the answer was roundabout 9.36...
Oh well I guess even the best of us fall sometimes
Original post by AliNSiddiqui
Initial momentum is zero, so final must be zero, then calculate mass of Pb nucleus by multiplying the nucleon number by the proton mass, and that's how I did it, not sure about it though.


Proton mass or unified atomic mass? :redface:

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Daniel Atieh
Same here, you re utterly right!

Please dont say +70?
maybe 69 right?

What did you say for the very last question (3 marker)

I used formular to calculate half life,and get a several-month longth(guess this worth 2 marks) it's so small that the isotope will decay quickly.won't last for a few yrs. (1 mrk)

Latest