Oxbridge Physics Prelims Revision

Camford

When's Michaelmas start in Oxford this year? If it starts earlier than Cambridge, I might pop down and see my friends there.

Lectures start Monday 10th October

Most people will be around a week before that, certainly from Thursday 6th

Reply 645

Camford

When's Michaelmas start in Oxford this year? If it starts earlier than Cambridge, I might pop down and see my friends there.

You might get horrid germs :eek:

The might quarantine you and not let you back into Camb :p:

Reply 646

Elles

17

Hoofbeat

Our tutor told us, probably 10th week, so we have a long wait (at least that means we can enjoy 8th/9th week!!! :smile:

). They post the results up then and our tutors get them shortly afterwards, so he's going to email us the moment he knows.

a "long" wait is the whole of the easter vac.. count yourselves lucky! :p:

& i'll be around in 10th (& indeed, 11th, 13th, 14th then -2, -1, 0th :rolleyes:

) if anyone wants me to pop up to exams schools for them (which is pretty near by!) because our tutors sent a congrats email to all of us, but with no further details on a friday evening - which was rather frustrating..! :wink:

Reply 647

~Raphael~

You might get horrid germs :eek:

The might quarantine you and not let you back into Camb :p:

Hmmmmmm

no more invites for you to our little bit of Utopia :p:

EDIT: anyway Elles could no doubt cure you of any germ-like nasties :rolleyes:

Reply 648

RichE

Hmmmmmm

no more invites for you to our little bit of Utopia :p:

EDIT: anyway Elles could no doubt cure you of any germ-like nasties :rolleyes:

No more invites won't really make a difference at the moment :rolleyes:

I don't think Elles likes me :bawling:

Reply 649

~Raphael~

I don't think Elles likes me :bawling:

What makes you say that? :eek:

And isn't it in the Hippocratic oath somewhere to take care of people as disturbed as you? :p:

Or is it just repressed tories that want to cure people as pervy as you? :rolleyes:

Reply 650

RichE

What makes you say that? :eek:

And isn't it in the Hippocratic oath somewhere to take care of people as disturbed as you? :p:

Or is it just repressed tories that want to cure people as pervy as you? :rolleyes:

Nevermind

For my level of twistedness, Harley Street is required :eek:

Reply 651

~Raphael~

Nevermind

For my level of twistedness, Harley Street is required :eek:

I need to keep track of these "nevermind"s - have definitely been clocking them up recently

It's either me getting slower or you more random and harder to follow - call me an old fool, but I suspect the latter.

wonder if I can predict your next post?

Reply 652

RichE

call me an old fool

wonder if I can predict your next post?

You old fool.

Reply 653

~Raphael~

You old fool.

Did you see the writing in white - and so complied? :rolleyes:

- or are you just predictable? :eek:

Reply 654

RichE

Did you see the writing in white - and so complied? :rolleyes:

- or are you just predictable? :eek:

I am all-seeing :biggrin:

Reply 655

Willa

11

help me! I've got myself in a right pickle over understanding the lorentz transformation. I used to understand it but just cant quite remember the key point that makes it click into place. Here's my problem....

I'm just trying to understand the simple transformation: x' = gamma(x-vt)
Now if in the stationary frame, a distance to a point is measured as distance: x, I want to find the distance to that point as measured by the moving frame (assuming the measurement is for time t'=0=t). From simple length contraction, x'=x/gamma doesnt it? so why does that not match up with the first equation?

Any help much appriciated...thanks!

Reply 656

Willa

help me! I've got myself in a right pickle over understanding the lorentz transformation. I used to understand it but just cant quite remember the key point that makes it click into place. Here's my problem....

I'm just trying to understand the simple transformation: x' = gamma(x-vt)
Now if in the stationary frame, a distance to a point is measured as distance: x, I want to find the distance to that point as measured by the moving frame (assuming the measurement is for time t'=0=t). From simple length contraction, x'=x/gamma doesnt it? so why does that not match up with the first equation?

Any help much appriciated...thanks!

Because you need to remember to measure distance between simultaneous events in the O' frame

If we take the point (0,0) in the O-frame then this this has O' co-ordinates (0,0). But (ct,X) will be simultaneous with this in the O' frame when

t = vX/c^2

(not when t=0)

So you end up measuring distance

gamma(X - v (vX/c^2)) = X/gamma

Reply 657

Willa

11

no sorry i dont quite get this whole thing still....can you try explaining it in a specific example. I.e. there is an object 1 metre away as measured by observe in stationary frame (x=1). Why dont you take t=0 when using x'=gamma(x-vt)...if you say you want to find out the distance from a moving observer who is at x=x'=0 at t=t'=0??

Reply 658