Ok, I've had 5 different professors so far make a joke/comment about the Poynting vector. It's starting to get old. :/
I have never had a professor make a joke about it.
Though I did have one giggle with the rest of the class at "retarded potential."
[editline]22nd February 2012[/editline]
Welcome to middle school, now populated with university students.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;34820252]I have never had a professor make a joke about it.
Though I did have one giggle with the rest of the class at "retarded potential."
[editline]22nd February 2012[/editline]
Welcome to middle school, now populated with university students.[/QUOTE]
SN2 reactions, always come from behind.
My physics teacher in high school said that he was once teaching a class with a lot of Hispanic students and they all laughed when he got to Coulomb's Law. (Coulomb sounds like culo, which means ass in Spanish.)
[QUOTE=Mr._N;34821588]My physics teacher in high school said that he was once teaching a class with a lot of Hispanic students and they all laughed when he got to Coulomb's Law. (Coulomb sounds like culo, which means ass in Spanish.)[/QUOTE]
So what about Columbia?
Fuuu- my GR grader is so damn picky. Got a C on my first midterm. Would have been a B except: There was a section where we were given a functions and had to say whether or not they were injective or surjective. Lost 2 points on one because I wrote "surjective" without specifying that it was not injective. Actually lost 6 points there in total but I fought with the professor for 4 back. Lost another 3 on the a problem where I had to say if f: R -> (0,infinity) defined by f(x) = e^x was diffeomorphic or not. I said it was and explained all the reasons why, but I lost points because I didn't say that it and its inverse were continuous even though I did say they were differentiable and differentiability implies continuity.
Those 5 points would have got me a B. :[
[editline]27th February 2012[/editline]
Can believe I got those points off and yet on the one where I had to say if R^2 and R^3 are homeomorphic, I got full credit even though I made a HUGE leap of faith in claiming the fact that R^1 and R^2 are not homeomorphic implies R^2 and R^3 aren't.
Great gorilla of Manila, I finally understand what Michio Kaku was going on about when he said relativity is sexy and quantum mechanics is ugly.
Quantum mechanics fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.
Finding any work experience for Geology for a 6th former is impossible :(
[QUOTE=Mort and Charon;34946759]Finding any work experience for Geology for a 6th former is impossible :([/QUOTE]
Dude, don't even worry about field-related work experience for applying for geology. If you can get work experience in geology, that's fucking awesome. If not, nobody expects you to.
If I'd needed physics-related work experience, I'd not be studying at the University of Nottingham. What I did do instead was go to some physics lectures at the Royal Society in London with my friend and put that down instead. If you can find some geology lectures somewhere, go attend them :v:
[URL]http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/events/shelllondonlectures12[/URL]
I know field based stuff is not essential, but since I'm aiming for oxford and the school has given us a week before we finish the year for work experience I thought I'd look. I sent an email to the Lapworth Museum in Birmingham University, think there are also a bunch of lectures there.
[QUOTE=Mort and Charon;34949317]I know field based stuff is not essential, but since I'm aiming for oxford and the school has given us a week before we finish the year for work experience I thought I'd look. I sent an email to the Lapworth Museum in Birmingham University, think there are also a bunch of lectures there.[/QUOTE]
Good idea. If it helps, my friend who got an interview at Oxford didn't have any explicit physics-based work experience either.
So I've been reading and looking up a bunch of stuff about Apophis, all about the "key hole" and ways to change its orbit.
But, would it be possible in the near future, to change this orbit so precisely, that it will eventually go in an orbit around the earth. So we could potentially mine it.
Is there any chance that this could work? Or would it simply be too difficult to do with our current technology (or the technology 20 years from now).
[QUOTE=booster;35019296]So I've been reading and looking up a bunch of stuff about Apophis, all about the "key hole" and ways to change its orbit.
But, would it be possible in the near future, to change this orbit so precisely, that it will eventually go in an orbit around the earth. So we could potentially mine it.
Is there any chance that this could work? Or would it simply be too difficult to do with our current technology (or the technology 20 years from now).[/QUOTE]
Who are we kidding?
The technology reached its maximum potential in some branches and in others it will reach it soon.Alas,we still wreck earth and its surroundings and soon we wont even have the fuel to propell the space ships to apophis
[QUOTE=godfatherk;35019363]Who are we kidding?
The technology reached its maximum potential in some branches and in others it will reach it soon.Alas,we still wreck earth and its surroundings and soon we wont even have the fuel to propell the space ships to apophis[/QUOTE]
Maximum potential in 2012?
Which branches are you referring to?
Writing my high-school chemistry report on the concentration of the OCl- ion in domestic bleach, while looking at cost effectiveness.
God I love chemistry.
[QUOTE=kebab52;35024569]Writing my high-school chemistry report on the concentration of the OCl- ion in domestic bleach, while looking at cost effectiveness.
God I love chemistry.[/QUOTE]
you should do a degree in it
[QUOTE=mike;35024644]you should do a degree in it[/QUOTE]
I've got a conditional offer for an MSci in Applied Chemistry with Chemical Engineering at Strathclyde University, Glasgow.
So if all goes well, that's the plan.
IF WE EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS Y R THERE STIL MONKYS
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting" - Swebonny))[/highlight]
Guys I've only had 1 physics course in 3 years.
Now help me calculate the Schwarzchild radius for VY Canis Majoris.
2 x 6.67 x 10^-8 x 40 x 1.99 x 10^33/ 2.998 x 10^10
How hilariously wrong am I?
[editline]7th March 2012[/editline]
I get 3.5403...
No clue what that means though :v:
PI IS EXACTLY 3!!
So hard to find the science thread now that its in general discussion...
Someone explain Schrodinger's cat to me. I understand the concept, but last time someone made a thread about it there was a cluster fuck of information and misinformation. Someone said that Schrodinger didn't even believe in the experiment and he was using it as a thought experiment to mock a theory, or something along those lines.
Explain plz
[editline]27th March 2012[/editline]
Nevermind wikipedia had the answer.
Schrödinger intended his thought experiment as a discussion of the EPR article—named after its authors Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen—in 1935.[1] The EPR article highlighted the strange nature of quantum entanglement, which is a characteristic of a quantum state that is a combination of the states of two systems (for example, two subatomic particles), that once interacted but were then separated and are not each in a definite state. The Copenhagen interpretation implies that the state of the two systems undergoes collapse into a definite state when one of the systems is measured. Schrödinger and Einstein exchanged letters about Einstein's EPR article, in the course of which Einstein pointed out that the state of an unstable keg of gunpowder will, after a while, contain a superposition of both exploded and unexploded states.
To further illustrate the putative incompleteness of quantum mechanics, Schrödinger describes how one could, in principle, transpose the superposition of an atom to large-scale systems. He proposed a scenario with a cat in a sealed box, wherein the cat's life or death depended on the state of a subatomic particle. According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead (to the universe outside the box) until the box is opened. Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum.[2] The thought experiment illustrates the counterintuitiveness of quantum mechanics and the mathematics necessary to describe quantum states. Intended as a critique of just the Copenhagen interpretation (the prevailing orthodoxy in 1935), the Schrödinger cat thought experiment remains a typical touchstone for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. Physicists often use the way each interpretation deals with Schrödinger's cat as a way of illustrating and comparing the particular features, strengths, and weaknesses of each interpretation.
So what is the common consensus on the Copenhagen interpretation and all that?
I'm really interested in microbiology and I'm currently looking at the US as my designated country of university/college, more specifically in the state of California.
Anyone here have experiences with either and could tell me a bit about it?
IB chemistry :suicide:
Anybody studying any Marine science degrees?
Oceanography represent
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;34820252]I have never had a professor make a joke about it.
Though I did have one giggle with the rest of the class at "retarded potential."
[editline]22nd February 2012[/editline]
Welcome to middle school, now populated with university students.[/QUOTE]
Had a new physics joke made by a professor the other day, this one about Killing fields.
[QUOTE=NorthernFall;35433560]Anybody studying any Marine science degrees?
Oceanography represent[/QUOTE]
I played Endless Ocean, does that count?
Pro alchemist here.
Jesus, my nuclear physics demonstrator is a cunt. She marked me down for using a logarithmic graph over a linear one (even though it made MUCH better use of the available graphing space and showed the data a lot better), and also marked me down for having horizontal grid lines on said grapg saying that they "don't make reading the graph any easier." Well I beg to differ - we humans are programmed to think linearly. If you remove the grid lines it suddenly becomes a lot harder to appreciate the logarithmic nature of the graph and your mind just kind of wants to default back to thinking linearly.
[QUOTE=titopei;35433049]IB chemistry :suicide:[/QUOTE]
I feel ya' IB bro. Have my minimocks in 2 weeks and Chemistry is going to be tough.
I suck everything related to Quantitative Chemistry. :(
Okay here comes a ridiculously laughable claim by someone with an incredibly basic understanding of quantum mechanics, but I'm interested in learning and I figure posting a stupid question would be a natural part of that so;
Could quantum entanglement be that though subatomic particles are separated in 3D space, they are actually multidimentional, 4 or more. I am terrible at explaining things, I made a graphic of sorts;
[IMG]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/44722719/Stupid.jpg[/IMG]
God I bet I sound stupid now but gotta start somewhere, eh?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
