2003physics=engish (2 Viewers)

[...]

There's a difference between not reading tonnes and tonnes of history and not understanding the concepts.

did i say anything bout the maths is related to history???

ALSO, maths isn't about plugging numbers into formulas, maths is more about deducing conclusions from premises. I suggest you learn more maths before criticising(indirectly) maths in this way.

i think u should think b4 u criticising other ppl
since when did i critise maths, i do maths...and the pt i am making is that ppl want more maths in physics and i understand why, but the whole pt is that why did formulas have such and such values or how did they come from...thats part of theory...

Ofcourse, to learn maths you would have to read through the major works of Gauss, Euler, Cantor, Hilbert, Godel, Riemann, Cauchy, Euclid, Russell, Galois etc .

ur so smart..want a medal?

You are mistaken, There isn't much theory in the course, the theory they teach is very shallow, the only things which are abundant are 1. Jargon, and 2. History.

not much theory?? maybe compare to old syllabus it may be, but still, there is a substantial amount of theory involved...

 

[Affinity]

ur so smart..want a medal?

So you see how ridiculous it is teaching us all these names in physics?

since when did i critise maths, i do maths...and the pt i am making is that ppl want more maths in physics and i understand why

You understand why? don't try to patronize anyone, you don't understand why.

And I guess you see maths as a very mechanical and 'dry' subject?

but the whole pt is that why did formulas have such and such values or how did they come from...thats part of theory...

Exactly.. for example nowhere in the course am I offered an explanation of why the absolute GPE = - Gm1m2/r and not r^2 or r^2 [maybe not, there's a problem with the dimensions] but I don't see why it isn't (2r) or (r/2) instead of r in the formula.

Another example -> there isn't any explanation of why the centripetal acceleration of an object undergoing uniform circular motion = v^2/r

 

[gnrlies]

Originally posted by Affinity

Exactly.. for example nowhere in the course am I offered an explanation of why the absolute GPE = - Gm1m2/r and not r^2 or r^2 [maybe not, there's a problem with the dimensions] but I don't see why it isn't (2r) or (r/2) instead of r in the formula.

Another example -> there isn't any explanation of why the centripetal acceleration of an object undergoing uniform circular motion = v^2/r

Well all of the textbooks that i have seen do attempt to explain these equations.

Its not directly in the syllabus, but i think that the dot point implies an understanding to how the equations have been devloped. The only thing is that they will never ask you in the exam "show how this forula is derived".

Its just not a part of the physics that is taught in this course. I mean some of that stuff is pretty complicated, and im sure if they were to go off on a tangent everytime having in depth information as to how forumlas are derrived etc etc, then it would not provide the fundamentals of the subject.

 

[...]

You understand why? don't try to patronize anyone, you don't understand why.

dun make a judgement on a person u dun know...its a very stupid thing to do...and i ain't patronizing anyone

And I guess you see maths as a very mechanical and 'dry' subject?

i dun see maths as a dry subject, i like it and i always wonder y i dun do so well...but its life and i take it...
in parts of maths i do find it mechanical, but does that mean i say it is fully mechnaical...i wish it is so then i can perform better...in my school maths test, if u take maths as a mechanical thing, u'll perform up to an extent...and i knew that, maths isn't mechnical and it will never be...and did i ever say maths was mechanical...

Exactly.. for example nowhere in the course am I offered an explanation of why the absolute GPE = - Gm1m2/r and not r^2 or r^2 [maybe not, there's a problem with the dimensions] but I don't see why it isn't (2r) or (r/2) instead of r in the formula.

some teacher explains(my explains some, not all), some dun...and if urs dun and u want to find out, ask...no harm asking

 

[Affinity]

since your teacher explained it, care to reproduce the explanation for the formula of the GPE? I just hope it is not some vague explanations/shaky extrapolations.

The only explanation I saw involves calculus.

And why do you think people want more maths in physics?

 

[wogboy]

If you intend to do something like engineering or science at uni, just wait till you see what physics is like there. It is very mathematical (a lot of calculus and derivations used) and gives you alot more insight into the way that things work and behave, rather than just glossing over the details, as is done with the HSC physics. It's certainly no surprise that average marks for Physics in my course are markedly lower than previous years (with a larger proportion of students failing), and interstate/international students are on average getting higher marks than us who've done the HSC. It shows just how crappy HSC physics has become. I can honestly say that for the mechanics part of uni physics, maths ext 1 & 2 helped more than physics did at high school.

By it's nature, physics is heavily dependent on maths, just like journalism (for instance) is dependent on English. Trying to encourage people who are not good at maths to do physics (which is the aim of the Board of Studies) by reducing the math content is certainly not a good idea. It's as stupid as trying to encourage people who aren't good at english (have bad grammar/spelling/punctuation etc) to be journalists, by taking away the requirement of journalists to write fluently. The end result is that you have newspapers with spelling mistakes all over it, and horrible/punctuation grammar errors. In the case of physics, you have physicists who don't have insight into their work, and can't produce accurate results.

 

[gnrlies]

well the only comment i would make to mr wogboy is that it needs to be accessible to everyone.

I mean at the end of the day it is only a taste of what you might end up doing at uni. It isn't meant to provide you with any real skills in the subject area. Its just for a bit of understanding so that you can see what you might like to do after school...

If it were really maths based, then it wouldn't really be what physics should be about. it would be a bunch of meaningless numbers which is why the theory is so important.

 

[...]

some teacher explains(my explains some, not all)

(my explains some, not all)[/

even i want to know the difference coz i can't cram formulas in and this one is similiar to N's gravitation law...if u want, i'll ask my physics teacher but the answer i'll get is probably bugger off, its too hard for u kids atm...and when my teacher explains the formulas, he derviates them and tell us why...(eg, escape velocity formula, yes it may be simple, but thats all i could remember as an example for the time being...my teacher actually went through each step as to how to derivate the formula, though i dun take notes as to why, coz its not gonna be asked...)

as for ppl want more maths in physics, different ppl have different opinions to it...i have heaps of friends coming from HK and they do physics as well, they are very very maths orienated and its not a joke...
its not that they have a bad english skill, some are surprising good, but the fact that some ppl have the impression physics is another branch of maths...(some call it applied maths or practical maths), i can understand why coz given that nickname, the HSC dun give that much maths into it as it should have...(coz if i can pass the course with lil hope in maths, its gotta be a problem)
u may have ur opinion on it but thats wat my friends told me...and i can understand why...

 

[gnrlies]

well i guess it comes down to the fact that physics is not aimed at providing you with direct skills in the subject area. It is more about the study of physics and a taste of what you might experience at UNI...

I am glad that it is more theory based becuase i find it more interesting that doing number crunching all the time. It also allows be to do better in it compartively cos im shit at maths!

 

[wogboy]

I mean at the end of the day it is only a taste of what you might end up doing at uni. It isn't meant to provide you with any real skills in the subject area. Its just for a bit of understanding so that you can see what you might like to do after school...

Not saying that it should be at uni difficulty level or anything like that, but I'm just saying that it's way on the other extreme. The key here is moderation, not too much complicated maths (like at uni), but not too much verbal/history/non-technical content. I believe the old physics HSC course was a much better balance of these two elements, compared to the new one which prioritises non-technical content too much. Besides the fact that a student chooses to do Physics indicates a desire for technical knowledge and (mathematical) understanding of concepts, otherwise the student shouldn't be doing Physics .

 

[gnrlies]

well not being familiar with the old course i cant really comment, but i mean its not as though all we do is history and stuff...
we do a lot of technical stuff with maths and theory, perhaps not as much as the old course (i dont know it), but it is ok.

I wouldn't think anything of it...

some points i would want to get rid of like all the impacts to society and stuff, but they are only small fragments which barely get assessed (probably only in assignments and in class research)

 

[...]

Besides the fact that a student chooses to do Physics indicates a desire for technical knowledge and (mathematical) understanding of concepts, otherwise the student shouldn't be doing Physics .

i can't put that into any better form...

but the biggest thing that should be get rid of more than social impact would be the history...i mean, who cares bout Einstein's view of political, its physics, not god damn history or legal or watever...

 

[gnrlies]

haha

next thing they will start putting in things like einsteins family tree and we will need to know who his great grandfather is, and all that kinda stuff:

"Identify data sources, gather, analyse and present information on Einsteins greater family including his mother, father, great grandfather, second cousin, and friend Billy Rose to the contreception of Einstein"

 

[wogboy]

some points i would want to get rid of like all the impacts to society and stuff, but they are only small fragments which barely get assessed (probably only in assignments and in class research)

Have a look at the past couple of HSC exams

"Identify data sources, gather, analyse and present information on Einsteins greater family including his mother, father, great grandfather, second cousin, and friend Billy Rose to the contreception of Einstein"

lol:rofl:

Not to mention: "Investigate and critically analyze the psychological processes going through Einstein's head when he married his cousin".

 

[...]

wogboy, i know ur smart, can u derivate the GPE formula...i'm sure more than 2ppl in this forum wants to know

 

[wogboy]

F = GMm/x^2 (Newton's law of universal gravitation)

(F = weight force, G = gravitational constant, M = earth mass, m = mass of object, x = displacement from centre of earth)

You've also been taught that:

W = Fxcos@

(W = work done, F = force, x = displacement, @ = angle between direction of force and direction of displacement)

obviously, @ = 0, because the direction of the weight force (for a perfectly spherical earth) is always towards the centre of the earth. So:

W = Fx

however, this is only valid when F is constant. In a gravitational field, F is not constant since it varies with position x. The more general definition of W is:

W = integral F dx

(sorry I can't draw up a proper integral sign)

W = integral GMm/x^2 dx
W = GMm/x/(-1) + C
W = -GMm/x + C

The only troublesome thing in there is the constant C. But look at the quantity W (work done), what does it mean? From where have we moved the object to point x, in order to do work on it?

We define the object to have zero potential energy (U), whenever x = infinite, since there is no gravitational field at this hypothetical position at all. You also know that W is simply the change in U, so it has the same dimensions:

0 = -GMm/(infinity) + C (anything divided by infinite is zero)
C = 0

hence:

U = -GMm/x
(some people like to use r instead of x, or E instead of U etc)

The reason for the minus sign is to show that there is energy stored in the object, rather than energy being applied to it.

From this result, you can determine the work done (W) to move any object from x=x0 to x=x1 using the following formula:

W = Ufinal - Uinitial = -GMm/x1 + GMm/x0

compare this to the approximation of:

W = mgh = mg(x1 - x0)

 

[Affinity]

but the biggest thing that should be get rid of more than social impact would be the history...i mean, who cares bout Einstein's view of political, its physics, not god damn history or legal or watever

seems like we agree on things

 

[...]

we can agree on many things...but we need to understand each other more b4 we make any judgement

 

[+:: $i[Q]u3 ::+]

lol.. there prolli should be like.. "adv physics" and "physics in society" to satisfy everyone.. like maths heheheh...

adv physics; students get to learn REAL physical principles and the reason for their existence (maths isn't physics.. maths is just the tool hehe)... i can see them bringing thermo back into the course...

physics in society; based a lot more on the application of physics to the world eg. impact of transformers, history of quantum theory, advantages/disadvantages etc.. almost like a humanities subject with the odd formula or two...