Option - Quanta to Quarks (1 Viewer)

[dwatt]

What did people think of the option? That 7 marker allowed room for a whole lot of things.

What did people think of the first question? The electromagnetic radiation required to remove an electron from the second shell of a hydrogen atom...well - isn't moving it up to the third shell removing it from the second shell?

If that's the case, aren't there are whole heap of possibilities (jumps to higher quantum numbers)

And that strong nuclear force question. The wording was odd! "What would happen if two nucleons were separated by the distance as Z on the graph".

.....they would be attracted together, so long as the nuclear force is greater at that point than coloumbic repulsion. What the hell were they after for this qn?

Thought the rest was ok.

 

[sykoticx]

7 marker.. i was liek wtf?!
so many marks!! ><" i was jus rambling.. i want to die that exam was horrid!

 

[Forbidden.]

Hey Q2Qers, did they ask you a question on practical work ?

 

[James747]

They asked us about Wilson Chamber things, what we done to investiagate it. Worth 2 marks. We didn't do it in class. Teacher sucks. I revised yesterday! Hahaha....

The option was actually quite easy. I liked the seven mark one, pretty easy and straighforward. The strong nuclear force one was abit tricky, though.

 

[Forbidden.]

They asked us about Wilson Chamber things, what we done to investiagate it. Worth 2 marks. We didn't do it in class. Teacher sucks. I revised yesterday! Hahaha....

The option was actually quite easy. I liked the seven mark one, pretty easy and straighforward. The strong nuclear force one was abit tricky, though.

OK, we had a 2-marker on a practical.
Our Physics teacher foresaw practical questions were bound to be in the exam.

 

[twilight1412]

i used the geiger counter =P
we took it out and sat and watched =P
always good for a prac (it didnt say you had to talk about the cloud chamber)

for the 7 mark question i talked about matterwaves =S

 

[nealos]

ye
i thought option was easier then past years!
the main thing that i was like wtf was part a i) i took it from 2 to 1 but some are saying you take n to infinity

7 markers was soo easier.... you could go on and on !
that 2 marker for cloud chamer should have been more though, because the procedure was actually long ( wrote bout 1/2 page and a diagram)

but ye sick option this year!!!!

 

[twilight1412]

first question required you to know the formula and the ionisation energy

E₁ = 13.6eV
the formula you needed to know was

E_n = E₁/n²

 

[gaoOO]

i thought it was better than last year's, but i know i didn't do too well on this section anyway.

 

[mzduxx2006]

What did people think of the option? That 7 marker allowed room for a whole lot of things.

What did people think of the first question? The electromagnetic radiation required to remove an electron from the second shell of a hydrogen atom...well - isn't moving it up to the third shell removing it from the second shell?

If that's the case, aren't there are whole heap of possibilities (jumps to higher quantum numbers)

And that strong nuclear force question. The wording was odd! "What would happen if two nucleons were separated by the distance as Z on the graph".

.....they would be attracted together, so long as the nuclear force is greater at that point than coloumbic repulsion. What the hell were they after for this qn?

Thought the rest was ok.

well ahem. i remember saying something about if the 2 nucleon forces were seperated their repulsion forces would decrease with their attraction forces increasing. is this correct?

loved the 7 marker about debrolgi and the neutron reactor at the end as well as the wilson cloud chamber. actually it was all pretty good. xcept for the first mathematical equation. i think i done the whol rydberg constant 1. hope thats right. probly not. loved the fact it was more theory than calculations. god i hate calculations. course the rest of the core was like 90% equations so im glad i think i went well in quanta to quarks. HOWEVER having this said i would have probly only just passed the option. BAHAH. stupid physics!!

 

[kaylee_89]

what the fukk?? remove an electron.. from its 2nd shell..
what EQUATION!??

 

[Shrikar]

Wasn't the seven marker about how De Broglie thought that since a wave can have particle like properties, then shouldn't particles have wave like properties, and his little equation

Wavelength = h/mv proving that there was a mathematical relationship between the mass and wavelength of a particle

Also Davisson and Germer's experiment to test this, where they shot a beam of electrons at a nickel block which was designed to diffract the electrons which caused interference patterns and was detected by a interferometer. Thus proving De Broglie's hypothesis. And also how De Broglie proved a reason for the stable orbits in Bohr's model.

Does this sound right, or and I just talking crap?

 

[STEIN]

I hope that's right, that's basically everything i wrote about =P

 

[sami902]

for the very first qs....since E = mc^2 and E = hc/wavelength.
i equated them and thu wavelength = h/mc...soo i found the wavelength...hope thats right!

 

[twilight1412]

Wasn't the seven marker about how De Broglie thought that since a wave can have particle like properties, then shouldn't particles have wave like properties, and his little equation

Wavelength = h/mv proving that there was a mathematical relationship between the mass and wavelength of a particle

Also Davisson and Germer's experiment to test this, where they shot a beam of electrons at a nickel block which was designed to diffract the electrons which caused interference patterns and was detected by a interferometer. Thus proving De Broglie's hypothesis. And also how De Broglie proved a reason for the stable orbits in Bohr's model.

Does this sound right, or and I just talking crap?

thats what i did =)
also talked about nicklesons equation

 

[sami902]

thats what i did =)
also talked about nicklesons equation

madd!!!...

 

[Shrikar]

thats what i did =)
also talked about nicklesons equation

Nickelson's equation?

 

[Caitlin2022]

I talked about schrodinger too in the 7 mark question,
the first question was only like two marks so it can't have been that complicated can it??? I don't know it was all very weirdly worded I thought. For Nuclear forces i talked about how they would be attracted and then eventually replulsed and attracted again etc.

 

[arwin]

That first question was so ambiguous. it says "remove an electron from the second shell", i thought it means remove an electron from THE ATOM when the electron was sitting on the second shell, but u guys seem to think it just means to remove the electron from the second shell. which is what the question says lol but thats quite odd because moving it to the 999th shell is also removing it from the second shell.

I just used the balmer formula but put 1/2^2 - 1/(infinity) because that would remove it from the atom, did anyone else do that?

i said the same thing as caitlin for the nuclear force, it would attract until they get close enough that the force would be repulsive, except i said it would then stay there in a stable position instead of oscillating

 

[Kmahal1990]

For the energy to remove an electron out, i used destination electron shell = infinite

For the 7 marker, i talked about De Broglie's theory, how it was confirmed by Davisson and Germer's experient, how that explained Bohr's model of the atom and Einstein's particle theory of light, both which lacked experimental evidence. De Broglie lead to their acceptance, which equated to it's significance in the move from classical to quantum physics.