| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| classes:2009:fall:phys4101.001:q_a_1116 [2009/11/16 22:20] – yk | classes:2009:fall:phys4101.001:q_a_1116 [2009/11/20 14:08] (current) – myers |
|---|
| ====Anaximenes - 19:10 - 11/14/09==== | ====Anaximenes - 19:10 - 11/14/09==== |
| I guess might as well ask what people thought of the test. I didn't know what to expect going in seeing as how the material we covered was mostly just the solution to the hydrogen atom, which doesn't lend itself well to a test format. The first problem seemed a little out of place to me; the practice test is the only place I recall seeing anything like it so far in the course. (I knew the units of <math>\eps_0</math>, so I didn't have any problems, but I'm curious if that was the kind of thing the proctors would answer; did anyone ask during the test?) All of the problems were straight-forward, though, and I felt like I had enough time. I don't know what to think of problem 3; using the spherical gradient made the problem trivial, so I tried to use the other method as well and made some errors. As a result, though, I now have a somewhat better understanding of partial vs. regular derivatives. Does anyone else have any comments? Agreement/disagreement? Something completely different? | I guess might as well ask what people thought of the test. I didn't know what to expect going in seeing as how the material we covered was mostly just the solution to the hydrogen atom, which doesn't lend itself well to a test format. The first problem seemed a little out of place to me; the practice test is the only place I recall seeing anything like it so far in the course. (I knew the units of <math>\eps_0</math>, so I didn't have any problems, but I'm curious if that was the kind of thing the proctors would answer; did anyone ask during the test?) All of the problems were straight-forward, though, and I felt like I had enough time. I don't know what to think of problem 3; using the spherical gradient made the problem trivial, so I tried to use the other method as well and made some errors. As a result, though, I now have a somewhat better understanding of partial vs. regular derivatives. Does anyone else have any comments? Agreement/disagreement? Something completely different? |
| | |
| | ===Captain America 11-18 10:21=== |
| | I'll answer this a few days late, maybe someone will read it. I thought the test was fairly straight-forward and followed the practice exam well. I actually really liked question 1 because it connected quantum physics with more real-world type physics. It's easy to forget what all of these things (specifically h) mean in a physical sense and then just pretend like this is a math course, but it is good to remember that these things can (more or less) be related to physics we already know. I don't know if you saw, but in the last 5-10 minutes of class he put the units of <math>\eps_0</math> on the board, so I assume the proctors would have answered that question. Problem 3 was a bit annoying, if you did it the quick and easy way I fear you won't get full credit because I'm pretty sure they wanted us to show our work plugging in spherical stuff, but if you did it the second way then I fear most people (myself for sure) won't get full credit because it either took too long or some small mistake slipped into the solution. |
| | |
| | But overall I'd say I enjoyed this test much more than the second, in terms of what I was expecting. |
| |
| ====Jake22 - 15:32 - 11/15/09==== | ====Jake22 - 15:32 - 11/15/09==== |
| If we look at the probability density of the spherical harmonic <math>\|Y({\theta},{\phi})\| ^2</math>, we can see that it is always expressed only in terms of a polynomial of degree 2l in <math>cos\theta</math>. How can or has this relationship been exploited? | If we look at the probability density of the spherical harmonic <math>\|Y({\theta},{\phi})\| ^2</math>, we can see that it is always expressed only in terms of a polynomial of degree 2l in <math>cos\theta</math>. How can or has this relationship been exploited? |
| | |
| | ===Esquire (age of concurrence)=== |
| | I was also curious toward this issue. |
| |
| ====Blackbox 10:42 - 11/16/09==== | ====Blackbox 10:42 - 11/16/09==== |