lecture vs book (1 Viewer)

[tennille]

wah, are u into astronomy also?!?!?

i absolutely love astronomy, shouldve taken that distinction course (cosmology)

damn

Same here. It is the most interesting thing ever!

 

[dark_angel]

Same here. It is the most interesting thing ever!

ah i'm researching a bit more on black holes, because i did the philosophy distinction course, i learned a bit about quantum mechanics and the aspects of further astronomy like naked singularities and the like...pretty good stuff.

i just wrote a paper on the copenhagen interpretation and the "many worlds" theories on quantum mecanics but i recently heard that many worlds was proved wrong?!?

lol...........

 

[zeropoint]

hmmm i have to say that some of the people dont respond.....and all the editions are old. (most of the science books anyways)

Stewart calculus is quite old so you should have no problem finding it. The latest edition of university physics, however, was published in 2004 and comes with some online CD thingy so you will probably need to buy it new from co-op.

 

[dark_angel]

Stewart calculus is quite old so you should have no problem finding it. The latest edition of university physics, however, was published in 2004 and comes with some online CD thingy so you will probably need to buy it new from co-op.

yeah no worries i got the 2004 edition

edit: brand new for half price as well

 

[transcendent]

i strongly suggest turning up to lectures and tutorials ( especially ) as the lectures sometimes hint what will be in the exams so you can focus on what's important to study and what's not. by not following this simple advice i failed 4 out of 6 units -_-" not that i was trying very hard to study mind you
textbooks are for further reading so you can understand more in depth about the course you are undertaking. it is also neccessary as remembering the recommended textbook cover to cover doesn't mean you'll excel to do honours if that's your goal. wider reading of newpapers and journals are also recommended by lecturers of current/past issues not available in set textbooks. if you want to really get ahead you have to realise that everyone is reading from the set textbook and lecturers read that same dribble year after year and they want outstanding work presented to them.

 

[dark_angel]

i strongly suggest turning up to lectures and tutorials ( especially ) as the lectures sometimes hint what will be in the exams so you can focus on what's important to study and what's not. by not following this simple advice i failed 4 out of 6 units -_-" not that i was trying very hard to study mind you
textbooks are for further reading so you can understand more in depth about the course you are undertaking. it is also neccessary as remembering the recommended textbook cover to cover doesn't mean you'll excel to do honours if that's your goal. wider reading of newpapers and journals are also recommended by lecturers of current/past issues not available in set textbooks. if you want to really get ahead you have to realise that everyone is reading from the set textbook and lecturers read that same dribble year after year and they want outstanding work presented to them.

yes that is pretty obvious, in fact we need to for subjects like chem, but the issue here is to learn as much as possible before we start uni (well for me anyway)


thanks for the advice regarding the lecturers

 

[zeropoint]

i just wrote a paper on the copenhagen interpretation and the "many worlds" theories on quantum mecanics but i recently heard that many worlds was proved wrong?!?

lol...........

I heard this too, but never verified it. Do you know the source of this info?

Astronomy I've always found interesting. I'm particularly interested in Einstein's special/general theories and their application to astrophysical phenomena.

 

[LoneShadow]

Get second-hand books from that textbook exchange thing on the net. You would have received that in that bag with the diary.

You can go on the website and check how much they are once you register (which is free).

kool....thnx...I'll have a look at it.

 

[xiao1985]

lolz omg i feel so old talkin to u guys...

as regard to text book issue... i never read it durin semester but i always go thru before exams... because inevitably, u will encounter blind spots where u were never properly taught... if u are eager enuf to know the answer (which i believe most of u are), u'd resort to text books... cuz apparently, lecturers ain't avaliable 24 7...

edit: ps, it's also handy when u try to counter argue some statments claimed by ur collegues... =)

 

[zeropoint]

Hey LoneShadow,

You're interested in quantum physics right? Do you know what's up with the many worlds theory and whether or not it has been discredited?

 

[dark_angel]

I heard this too, but never verified it. Do you know the source of this info?

Astronomy I've always found interesting. I'm particularly interested in Einstein's special/general theories and their application to astrophysical phenomena.

hmmm well i heard it from someone in this forum (which highlights the fact that we need a proper source) when i started the "is anyone into quantum mechanics thread" which i fear has been deleted due to lack of posts....

i couldnt find the thread...sorry abt that

uh huh, esp conversion between matter and energy, and its implications


oh uncertaintly principle is awesome also...what was that other one...i cant remember the maths one oh yeah godels law or something...lol

 

[LoneShadow]

......I tried to go to www.textbooks4u.com.au ...but it doesn't work!...WaaaAaaAAAAAaaaaaa..

 

[LoneShadow]

Hey LoneShadow,

You're interested in quantum physics right? Do you know what's up with the many worlds theory and whether or not it has been discredited?

I said I was "intrested"...not "expert"......I'll answer all your questions when I get my "trusty" textbook...

 

[LoneShadow]

lolz omg i feel so old talkin to u guys...

as regard to text book issue... i never read it durin semester but i always go thru before exams... because inevitably, u will encounter blind spots where u were never properly taught... if u are eager enuf to know the answer (which i believe most of u are), u'd resort to text books... cuz apparently, lecturers ain't avaliable 24 7...

edit: ps, it's also handy when u try to counter argue some statments claimed by ur collegues... =)

u r old...end of statement.....[u'll not be pissed at my reply unless u r a girl...so...I dare u to argue about it...]

edit:...btw duckie xioaie d00d fella mate......do u still have ur textbooks....if so..I want them...not for free...

 

[zeropoint]

hmmm well i heard it from someone in this forum (which highlights the fact that we need a proper source) when i started the "is anyone into quantum mechanics thread" which i fear has been deleted due to lack of posts....

i couldnt find the thread...sorry abt that

uh huh, esp conversion between matter and energy, and its implications


oh uncertaintly principle is awesome also...what was that other one...i cant remember the maths one oh yeah godels law or something...lol

Yeah, quantum physics sounds very interesting, but I've never looked into it too deeply because of its sheer mathematical complexity. Mass-energy equivalence is also an interesting consequence of relativity. More interesting, I think is the concept of 4-dimensional space-time whose spacial dimesnions mix up with the time dimension at high velocities. Even more interesting is the fact that space-time itself is curved by matter and energy. That's when things become really funky and the full on tensor analysis of general relativity must be employed.

 

[dark_angel]

Yeah, quantum physics sounds very interesting, but I've never looked into it too deeply because of its sheer mathematical complexity. Mass-energy equivalence is also an interesting consequence of relativity. More interesting, I think is the concept of 4-dimensional space-time whose spacial dimesnions mix up with the time dimension at high velocities. Even more interesting is the fact that space-time itself is curved by matter and energy. That's when things become really funky and the full on tensor analysis of general relativity must be employed.

ah yes good old 4-dimensional space-time.

but dont forget M-theory/superstring theory, there may be 11 dimensions

 

[Xayma]

But the problem with M-theory and supersymmetry string theory (also Bosonic string theory) is that in the forseeable future there is no way known to show evidence of it. The graviton would be a start, but otherwise there is no way known whether it is true or just a neat mathematical trick.

However, due to the complexity of 0 Dimensional particles present in particle physics, M-theory is certainly attractive, at least from a mathematical stand point.

 

[withoutaface]

Are M and string theory the same thing?

 

[Xayma]

Yes and no.

M theory is a string theory.

There are 5 main string theories:
Bosonic String Theory and four super symmetry string theories.

M-theory shows that the 5 are equivalent as viewed from different limits.

 

[zeropoint]

But the problem with M-theory and supersymmetry string theory (also Bosonic string theory) is that in the forseeable future there is no way known to show evidence of it. The graviton would be a start, but otherwise there is no way known whether it is true or just a neat mathematical trick.

Of course there is. The only evidence required to accept string theory is that it predicts the experimental results more accurately than either of the existing theories.