This thread is closed

Oxbridge Physics Prelims Revision

Reply 1020

~Raphael~

9

RichE

Poor, poor interviewers :rolleyes:

<Though you're not going to be the handful that they might have feared :eek:

>

My joke was better :biggrin:

And more than one handful :cool:

Reply 1021

oxymoron

7

Ok, all the Oxford physicist's who's email addy's I actually know will shortly be getting an email from me about tomorrow's post-exam drinking session. Would be nice if we could make quite a big thing of it and for once socialise as a subject! Good luck everyone if I don't see you before we go in!!! (PS. This is still Chloé on simon's account!)

Reply 1022

Willa

11

tbh i think we all now presume oxymoron is you unless simon actually says it's him.

why you always on his account anyway?

Reply 1023

RichE

15

LennonMcCartney

o_O...

Don't be mad LM, Raph can't help it :rolleyes:

You should see what his like have done to the Suicide thread - no respect :rolleyes:

Reply 1024

oxymoron

7

Willa

tbh i think we all now presume oxymoron is you unless simon actually says it's him.

why you always on his account anyway?

we use each other's rooms alot...i get more work done in here as I don't usually get distracted by TSR as he sits at the desk by the computer and I work quietly in the chair (plus he's there to tell me "WORK!!!!!"). However, he's gone to a rehearsal and left me in here all alone and now I'm not working...MWHAHAHAHAHAHA! Plus he was in my room a lot a while back as his room was freezing cold and he never got the sun and he hates working in the library! Basically, never assume that the person on either of our accounts is the person who actually owns the account (oh well, he needs to increase his post cont so I'll spam a bit for him! :p:

)

On a separate note...last minute panic attack! A fellow Lincolnite has told me that he thinks the formula the "penguin" gives for the Balmer Series for Hydrogen is wrong and should be the one given here:
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/balmer.html
Is this right, or is the one in his lecture notes correct?!

Arghh I hate quantum and I should be working, but without Simon here to tell me off, TSR seems so much more appealling.... :rolleyes:

Reply 1025

~Raphael~

9

ROFL Chloe, you're a card :biggrin:

Reply 1026

Willa

11

oxymoron

we use each other's rooms alot...i get more work done in here as I don't usually get distracted by TSR as he sits at the desk by the computer and I work quietly in the chair (plus he's there to tell me "WORK!!!!!"). However, he's gone to a rehearsal and left me in here all alone and now I'm not working...MWHAHAHAHAHAHA! Plus he was in my room a lot a while back as his room was freezing cold and he never got the sun and he hates working in the library! Basically, never assume that the person on either of our accounts is the person who actually owns the account (oh well, he needs to increase his post cont so I'll spam a bit for him! :p:

)

On a separate note...last minute panic attack! A fellow Lincolnite has told me that he thinks the formula the "penguin" gives for the Balmer Series for Hydrogen is wrong and should be the one given here:
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/balmer.html
Is this right, or is the one in his lecture notes correct?!

Arghh I hate quantum and I should be working, but without Simon here to tell me off, TSR seems so much more appealling.... :rolleyes:

well i dunno what your notes say but the formula on that website is definitely correct. What's different in the notes? Is it just the Rydberg constant bit? cos the constants in that section should come to that value anyway!

Reply 1027

rokin blenda™

yea, that website is correct. he's missed out R in his lectures (in the formulae hes given in lecture 3 anyway).

Reply 1028

oxymoron

7

~Raphael~

ROFL Chloe, you're a card :biggrin:

why you say that? :confused:

Grrr I MUST go do some work now!!!

and thanks Persad...thought he'd missed something out in his notes!

Reply 1029

F1 fanatic

16

I think he gets it right for sure later when he says it for a single energy level as:

E= -R/n^2

I always derive the rest from that. It seems easier.

Reply 1030

F1 fanatic

16

rokin blenda™

yea, that website is correct. he's missed out R in his lectures (in the formulae hes given in lecture 3 anyway).

Wow you too are bumping your post count up all of a sudden arent you. :s:

My post rate is pretty insane but Nick is thrashing it. He must be at like 30 a day. :cool:

Reply 1031

rokin blenda™

F1 fanatic

Wow you too are bumping your post count up all of a sudden arent you. :s:

My post rate is pretty insane but Nick is thrashing it. He must be at like 30 a day. :cool:

its just that quantum is soooo boring, i cant imagine what it will be like next year! :frown:

Reply 1032

Willa

11

rokin blenda™

its just that quantum is soooo boring, i cant imagine what it will be like next year! :frown:

yeah i'm worried that i can barely cope with the material we've done this year, i dunno how i'm gonna cope next year when it gets oh so v complex!

Reply 1033

F1 fanatic

16

rokin blenda™

its just that quantum is soooo boring, i cant imagine what it will be like next year! :frown:

rather like it is now but with 50x more maths me thinks. I like quantum. Its fun :biggrin:

- I dont like the maths but the ideas are great. :rolleyes:

Not that Ive done much either. Im gonna make do with my 6 hours of revision. :s:

Reply 1034

Bezza

2

rokin blenda™

yea, that website is correct. he's missed out R in his lectures (in the formulae hes given in lecture 3 anyway).

in lecture 3 he's just used c which i think he means to be a constant (ie rydberg constant) not the speed of light

Reply 1035

LennonMcCartney

You joking? Quantum is much more interesting than classical mech. or electromagnetism. Even the maths involved is a bit more interesting than just ODEs; we get linear algebra, operators, PDEs (although we've had a bit of that this year) and goodness knows what else!