New Physics Iz Wacko!!!! (1 Viewer)

[VanCarBus]

HI,
Recently I've been looking up physics stuFF in ma school library and found out that old Phyiscs syllabus was more like 4 unit maths. Hmm, about 10 years ago, physics was realLLL:
*circular motion
*forces
*weights and inclined planes
*conservation of energy and momentum thingys
*lots n lots of motion related topics

All topics above have been proven, solved and applied commonly to the real world

NOW:
*relativity = why?
*plank's blackbody - prove please? NOT just memorise theory Crap
*superconductivity cooper's pairs - y does this happen, why do ions attract electrOns to pair. Theory!!! Theory!!!
* MRI - why do nuclei spin? Why?

VAn

 

[Viper]

I just like doing Physics..... I dont care if its the old course or the new course... I'm sure that the both have their good points. And im sure that the HSC course in Physics was changed for a good reason.

Although, i must say that i feel that i would have been rewarded more in the old course, as i can memorise the formula's and constants but now they are given to us... I wouldn't mind if we had to remember them instead.. that way the good students can really impress

Cheers

 

[Rahul]

there are some areas that i feel are left out in the new syllabus, like the work of debroglie and rutherford on the model of the atom. that is quite interesting and links up well with maxwell's electromagnetic waves(part of the syllabus).

as for relativity, i think it is one of the most interesting topics in the syllabus. but we dont pay too much attention to it. we are meant to look at it very briefly. i dont think that amount of time is enough for us to understand the concept. what can/should be the outcome; this section also gets ditched or we look into relativity alone much more deeply(which is unikely). it is such an interesting topic and we probably waste space in our syllabus for it because we cant really study it in enough detail.

 

[Dash]

Everything in physics is interesting
But I agree that the syllabus should go more into detail!
Also, I think that there should be more maths in the syllabus instead of theory...

 

[Lexicographer]

I think that adding the society aspects was a mistake. We didn't sign up for physics to learn how society has changed because of electricy, we do that in Modern History. I took physics to learn about fucking PHYSICS, planets and ions and charges and wave/particle duality. I don't CARE about sociological advancements!

 

[Maddogg]

i have 2 agree wit Lexicographer who cares about wat happend 2 society i wana learn physics who cares about frikn society i wish there was more maths... cause then id beat every1 lol

 

[...]

more problem solving would be nice...

darn, relativity is like my fav. topic...if only i could also learn general relativity too

 

[dandaman]

haha a bit of a amoral technocrat lexi? theyre just suggesting that the next time we drop an atom bomb we know what were killing... not much to fuss over i suppose?

 

[Lexicographer]

Originally posted by dandaman
haha a bit of a amoral technocrat lexi? theyre just suggesting that the next time we drop an atom bomb we know what were killing... not much to fuss over i suppose?

Personally I think that's an issue for university, where they encourage you to THINK rather than REGURGITATE A SYLLABUS. Scientific morality is for scientists, not students of basic scientific history (high schoolers).

 

[jm1234567890]

new physics has too much history and not enough real "physics" it was changed to attract more humanities students.

who prolly won't do phisics in uni

 

[forsaken_99]

Physics is much easier though because all you have to do is memerise perfect extended answers on impacts and you get lots of marks.

Chem is more interesting though because of all the theory involved which actually may be needed at uni

 

[ND]

Originally posted by forsaken_99
Physics is much easier though because all you have to do is memerise perfect extended answers on impacts and you get lots of marks.

Chem is more interesting though because of all the theory involved which actually may be needed at uni

I think there's more memorising in chem than phys. In phys, all i can think of is effects on society of transistors, transformers. Then there is planck vs einstein, effects of powerlines (that's still in it right?), contributions of a scientist.

In chem there is history of acids, all that ethanol as a potential fuel, haber process implications, all the waterways stuff, more history in SCC, assessing impact of CFCs... actually i think they're about equal.

 

[forsaken_99]

That's probably true but the way our chem and physics teachers teach it just makes it seem that way.

All overheads in physics but thinking and writing up your own stuff in chem.