Search results

Guys. Everyone knows that @Hscbuzman is just a troll. Ignore him. It is bullshit that you are not allowed to disclose your name or subject for your award. The first in states are public for crying out loud. You can see them right now. He's just a sad guy who likes to put people down...

Anyone estimate the mark required to state rank software?

How do you find out who got the state ranks?

More applying theory than regurgitating it. I liked it compared to the old syllabus.

Uhhh I don't know. I have terrible estimation for long responses. However, assuming that you wrote a substantial amount on each, I'd say 5-6. The main problem is it doesn't have much continuity.

You have an excellent understanding in Planck. Sucks that you weren't able to show it.

@Arrowshaft My worry about the inverse square law is that the form I used is not the form on the sheet.

Probably irrelevant to talk about equipartitioning theorem (this is not a theory question on Planck so why should you talk about Rayleigh-Jeans). Here was my thought process / structure condensed: 1. Sun yellow main sequences -> proton-proton chain -> Not massive enough to provide pressure &...

One thing which I'm a bit worried about is that the inverse square law is not given on the formula sheet. Would I be penalised for using it? Is it even valid to use it?

@Arrowshaft for the 9 marker, to calculate power, what did you do? I used the inverse square law. B = \frac{L}{4 \pi d^2} Rearranged to calculate for luminosity (L) which is the power output.

In a way. Pretty much follows the same arc with every groundbreaking discovery. Guy proposes theory. Everyone else calls the guy nuts, and laughs him off. Experiment shows that guy is right. Insert nobel prize.

That moment when you see into the future and see a ground breaking experiment... during your HSC physics.

Hey that's a clever choice. I didn't see that you could tie in the Nature of Light module by talking about photons (which are a part of the Standard Model).

Good choices. How in depth did you go for the electron experiments? I went very in depth when I wrote about Thomson, doing all of the equation derivations and talking through the consequences of each step.

Btw, what did everyone write for the experiments question? Just curious to see what people picked. I wrote about Thomson's cathode ray experiment -> Shows that electrons are subatomic and fundamental. I also wrote about the SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator) in 1969 which verified the...

How?

No. Around the same difficulty honestly. But that's just my personal opinion.

@Arrowshaft is right @Qiaochu Chen. It is only 1 mark. It is a very minor error. I bet a majority of the state were not able to complete it fully.

Jimmy is wrong. As said in my previous post, ignore the motion of the car and look at the bob as its own independent object in uniform circular motion. It must have a centripetal force. This force is the net force acting on it (sum of string tension & its weight). It would be unreasonable to...