Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 Ask a Mathematical Physicist

views
     
Intermission
post Aug 11 2013, 02:06 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
825 posts

Joined: Aug 2012
QUOTE(ystiang @ Aug 6 2013, 09:23 PM)
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

*
As a unsuccessful wannabe math olympian who never had any formal training in mathematical olympiads, I participated in this year's OMK Sulong 2013. Here are a few of my crude attempts at solving those questions. tongue.gif
The answers that I gave during the actual competition are:

1) 125. Looks quite obvious. So didn't give much thought to it.

3) 8125. Through last 4 digit analysis. the last 4 digits 0625 , 3125, 5625 and 8125 recur for every increment of 4 powers of 5. Since 5555= 4(1388) + 3, 8125 is the answer.

4) Is it 108? Wait, I think I made a mistake here. Not sure what I was thinking back then.user posted image[/URL][/IMG]

5) 279? Forgive me for my crude workings. 4! implies the number of permutation of the 4 digits. Minus 3! at combinations including the digit zero because one does not simply start a number with digit 0.
user posted image[/URL][/IMG]

6) 83. It took me forever to do it by trial and error but I got there. tongue.gif

As for section B,

1) b) Heron's Formula!

3) I tried doing it by induction but I am not sure if I have done it correctly. The working is so long that I feel it is almost certainly wrong.

This post has been edited by Intermission: Aug 11 2013, 02:18 PM
Intermission
post Aug 13 2013, 05:30 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
825 posts

Joined: Aug 2012
QUOTE(ystiang @ Aug 11 2013, 11:01 PM)
Bravo. Me too haven't had any formal training but surely you're more success than me.

For Section A, I think I only have one question correct, yup that prime factor.
Actually, 8051 = 8100 - 49 = (90^2) - (7^2) = (90-7)(90+7) = 83*97

Q3 should be easy though but I wrote 625 and the answer is 8125 TvT
Q1, Q4, Q5... just randomly put some answers...

Section B, I hate those prove, prove and prove...
*
Are you planning to go for it again next year? It will be the last time we are allowed to participate in OMK.

QUOTE(maximR @ Aug 13 2013, 01:14 PM)
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «


Another great post !  biggrin.gif
This is the first time I've read that Newton originally stated that Impulse is directly proportional to the Change in momentum . So he actually considered the time in which a force acts on a body . Interesting .

So if I get this right , the reason why G appears in Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is because the unit of force is defined as amount needed to accelerate 1 kg of mass at the rate of 1 m/s² , therefore G should be added to ensure that the units on both sides of the equation are the same ? And that after careful experiments , experimental physicists discovered that the force on gravity between two bodies does not vary simply as F = Mm/r^2 , so there must be a constant to account for the interaction between the two bodies ?

And that means Newton never really had accurate calculations since he couldn't determine G , and did not include them in his equations ? ( or did he ? if yes , then how did he come to the conclusion that there is a constant just by empirical observation ? or did he derive it mathematically , or did he think that since the force of gravity is usually very small between two bodies , there must be something that accounts for this , therefore , a constant must exist ? )
*
This surprised me when I re-learn physics at AS level too. Actually it is not the formula F=ma that leads to F=(mv-mu)/t but rather the other round when newton first formulated his 3 laws of motion.
Intermission
post Aug 14 2013, 10:23 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
825 posts

Joined: Aug 2012
QUOTE(maximR @ Aug 13 2013, 10:47 PM)
I was well aware that Newton did not explicitly state that F = ma ( It's derived from his 2nd law ) , and I've read that force is defined as the rate of change of momentum early on when I first started learning dynamics . Did you really not read anything other than your SPM Physics reference book in form four and form five ?  blink.gif

But I didn't know that he said Ft α mv - mu
*
Admittedly, no. Not quite. I was paying more attention to the application rather than the origin of the ideas which was fine at SPM level. But now at A level I realize it would be imprecise to define or explain force using F=ma instead of F=(mv-mu)/t. That could pose some problems when answering structure questions at A level.

QUOTE(Critical_Fallacy @ Aug 14 2013, 07:50 PM)
By the way, care to tell me about the reception of your Science Fair project? laugh.gif
*
Of all posts, why quote this one? tongue.gif

Didn't manage to finish before the deadline due to many reasons but mostly because of my incompetence. Might participate again next year if possible.

QUOTE(maximR @ Aug 14 2013, 06:20 PM)
So that means after SPM I can straight away buy STPM books and start doing ?  drool.gif Good idea to fill those 3 months .
*
Hmm....I think A levels would serve a better purpose for this because for AS physics mechanics/Mathematics Mechanics 1 the knowledge from SPM can be extrapolated quite easily to fit the needs of the question. If you do exercises from STPM however, watch out for pre requisite knowledge.

QUOTE(maximR @ Aug 14 2013, 03:28 PM)
For beginners like me , how do I develop the intuition to manipulate the equation so p exists in that KE equation ?
Also , if KE becomes 2KE , p becomes 2p as well ? How to prove this ? 

*
Learn to relate different quantities together by the use of formula you already know. A good exercise would be proving formulas that you know, such as differentiation by 1st principle, proving E=mgh and E=0.5mv^2 from W=FS, proving P=h(rho)g from P=F/A and other formulas and so on. Proving trigonometric identities as mentioned by Critical_Fallacy is good too.

I couldn't stress how important this skill is if you are planning to study Physics/Mathematics/Further mathematics at A level/STPM.
Intermission
post Dec 16 2013, 11:04 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
825 posts

Joined: Aug 2012
Hi everyone, I have some confusion about sampling.

Suppose 30 bottles of bottled water were randomly chosen from a batch, and the measurement of the actual volume of water in the bottle was done by 2 scientists who took 10 bottles and 20 bottles respectively, who later decided to share their data. Assume that they have measured the volume the same way with the same degree of precision. They end up having the same Variance, but slightly different means.

How many "samples" are there? 1? or 2? What happens if we apply weighted average to calculate the mean of 30 bottles? Is this something related to pooled variance? If they end up with the same mean in the first place, would this be considered as one sample?

This post has been edited by Intermission: Dec 16 2013, 11:11 PM
Intermission
post Dec 18 2013, 04:48 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
825 posts

Joined: Aug 2012
QUOTE(Critical_Fallacy @ Dec 18 2013, 12:19 AM)
30 bottles are randomly selected from a single batch.

The data from 10 and 20 measurements are obtained from the same batch (parent population).

Batch production occurs when many similar items are produced together in which small batches of product are made one at a time. Say there are 5 batches in daily production. Suppose that 30 bottles of bottled water are randomly selected in each of the five batches. We usually perform a single test called analysis of variance, for the hypothesis “all five population means are equal” for QA/QC purposes. icon_idea.gif
Have you asked mumeichan ? sweat.gif
*
The batch thing is to imply that the parameters of the population(mean, variance) is unknown, but lol what I was thinking tongue.gif . I apologize for confusing you with my brain fart. tongue.gif

So if the mean and variance of the population is not known.....How should the sample(s) as mentioned in the post be treated? mumeichan


QUOTE(maximR @ Dec 18 2013, 02:49 PM)
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «


Thank you . However , I cannot decide based on the topics given . I need to get to the heart and meat of the topic , the contents .

As of yet I'm still leaning towards theoretical aspect of Physics . I just bought a First Term Physics STPM book , and I have two volumes of the older version books . Instead of lying to myself that I like a course without even knowing about it ( which many of my friends do )  , I will tell you how I 'feel' about topics in a certain syllabus , I will use STPM Physics' syllabus because I have the books . I believe that this is a sure-fire way of demonstrating my passion towards a subject because I've seen and read the actual contents of the topics , instead of bluffing you that I love Petroleum Engineering ( I am not interested in pipes , not interested in economical ways to transport gases and fluids , not interested in developing new methods or compounds that can sustain the Oil and Gas industry , etc ) . Here you go :

I like the 'sureness' of mechanics , I like the idea that the universe behaves in those elegant set of rules ( but I have come to terms with the fact that Newtonian mechanics are just approximations ) . I like Gravitation . I like the study of states of matter ( like force between molecules , etc ) . In the Kinetic Theory of Gases , I like the derivation of the density and pressure of a gas using simple concepts in Newtonian mechanics , the speed of molecules of different gases , and the degrees of freedom of molecules . In Thermodynamics , the molecular explanation of the process of conduction caught my eye . 

In Second Term , for unknown reasons this part : https://keterehsky.wordpress.com/2011/06/24...etic-induction/ makes me excited on a metaphysical level . tongue.gif The fact that trigonometric functions are used in the study of a.c is also interesting .

But what really turns me on is Third Term Physics STPM , Waves and Modern Physics . Geometrical Optics is kind of bland for me , but I like Wave Optics . I really , really like the Atomic Structure sub-topic , everything about Bohr's Postulates are highly intriguing , simply because some assumptions are radical and some parts still use Newtonian mechanics , when I first learned it , I was blown away how I could follow the derivations for the energy levels of a hydrogen atom ( I watched Donald Sadoway's Solid State Chemistry videos for this , Donald Sadoway is an amazing teacher ) . The representation of electromagnetic spectra using different series in Maths is still beyond me but they excite me ( instead of things like our Constitution which really bores me ) . I like everything about X-Ray and Elementary Particles in STPM Physics ( although I feel they are quite short and less emphasised ) .


So there you go .
*
What if I tell you.....

Trigonometric functions are also used in the study of oscillations? tongue.gif (related in the same way like a.c, graphs!)
Exponential relationships exist in damping, capacitance and nuclear physics?

So you like the mathematical aspects of physics? unsure.gif
Intermission
post Dec 27 2013, 08:49 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
825 posts

Joined: Aug 2012
QUOTE(delsoo @ Dec 27 2013, 05:29 PM)
Hi this is my question. It's part II since the electric potential is equal to zero. Then why not the electric potential energy also equal to zero?
*
The electric potential energy of the system has nothing to do with the electric potential at the centre because it refers to the potential energy of the 4 charged particles in the diagram. There's nothing at the centre of the diagram!

Just calculate the potential energy of the 4 charged particles.
Intermission
post Jan 14 2014, 10:10 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
825 posts

Joined: Aug 2012
I am confused about a few statements regarding internal energy.

1) When boiling water, the potential energy of water changes because:

- Temperature remains constant during boiling, no increase in average kinetic energy.
- Separation between water molecules increases, thus potential energy is increased.
- Work is done against atmospheric pressure by water as the volume increases when water changes into steam.
- By first law of thermodynamics, d for delta: dU = dQ + dW, where dW=-p(dV), where dV is the change in volume.
- So dQ= dU+ dV. And dU is............latent heat?

So..... under these circumstances I'd deduce that the potential energy of gas(steam in this case) is higher than the potential energy of liquid(water) as Potential energy of water increases during boiling.

But then I learned that:

2) The potential energy of an ideal gas is zero.

Now, I know that steam is hardly an ideal gas, and that the reason that the potential energy of an ideal gas is zero is because it has no intermolecular forces. But I'd still deduce that real gases like steam, have some potential energy, but that the potential energy must be lower than its value in liquid state as the intermolecular forces are stronger in liquid state. But this seems to contradict what I deduced in (1).

I know I am definitely wrong somewhere in (1), I'd be grateful if you can point out and underline the statements that I got wrong Critical_Fallacy. Am I supposed to consider water and steam as 2 separated systems, or had I simply deduced wrongly?

Intermission
post Jan 15 2014, 06:50 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
825 posts

Joined: Aug 2012
QUOTE(Krevaki @ Jan 15 2014, 05:23 PM)
Are you asking about internal energy or potential energy?
*
Potential energy in the context of internal energy. Internal energy is the sum of potential energies and kinetic energies of the molecules. I want to know about the changes in potential energy component of internal energy when boiling water.

This post has been edited by Intermission: Jan 15 2014, 06:52 PM
Intermission
post Jan 17 2014, 07:40 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
825 posts

Joined: Aug 2012
QUOTE(Krevaki @ Jan 17 2014, 04:35 PM)
Potential energy is the energy stored due to forces. One of the assumptions of an ideal gas is that the forces between particles are negligible. Therefore?
*
Therefore as mentioned in my first post, ideal gases don't have potential energy, that I know as a fact. But that's not the problem you see. If water at 100 degrees celsius is converted to steam at 100 degrees celsius, are you saying water loses internal energy as we heat it? sweat.gif

This post has been edited by Intermission: Jan 17 2014, 07:41 PM
Intermission
post Jan 21 2014, 10:39 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
825 posts

Joined: Aug 2012
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «


shocking.gif notworthy.gif

A big thank you to you. If anything, this is yet another strong reminder of the need to view potential energy from different perspectives. sweat.gif I am not sure why, I've had problems with visualizing gravitational potential (The GM/r kind, where zero potential is at infinity, not the mgh kind which had been ingrained in my mind since the days of SPM and have only recently changed. sweat.gif ) and electric potential earlier on but eventually figured it out after tremendous effort. So when I began learning about internal energy, I have the predisposed mindset to define the potential energy as in the case of an ideal gas. Now I realize my mistake is thinking the potential energy solely in terms of intermolecular forces, and failing to realize that work done on the molecules itself can also result in an increase in potential energy.

In hindsight, I should have known that thinking potential energy in terms of intermolecular forces is problematic as it doesn't explain why internal energy of water increases by simply pumping it to a higher place. tongue.gif

That said, this revelation brought more questions than answers, but a simple yes/no answer would do for these if you don't have time:

1) Even though there is a limit to the magnitude of the potential energy due to intermolecular forces, isn't there another way to increase the potential energy by doing work on it at a macroscopic scale(e.g pumping water from a low place to a higher place)?

2) The increase in potential energy when melting ice is slightly greater than the heat supplied during melting because work is done by atmospheric pressure on ice as the volume of liquid water is smaller than the volumer of ice before it melts. icon_idea.gif Isn't it? This only applies to water though, as most other substances have a higher volume in solid state compared to liquid state.

3) Which zero level is more commonly used? zero potential energy at ideal gas or solid? sweat.gif

This post has been edited by Intermission: Jan 21 2014, 10:40 PM
Intermission
post Jan 27 2014, 04:39 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
825 posts

Joined: Aug 2012
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

Q1) I see an error in your calculation of change in momentum. Velocity is an vector, the direction matters. And also I believe what you calculated is just the rate of change of momentum when one hail stone strikes the roof, multiplied by 30.

Q2 you do need the angle for (a), revise your calculation

Maths Q2) the equation given is the function of a circle with centre (-5,12) and radius 14, now think what (x^2+y^2) represent.

This post has been edited by Intermission: Jan 27 2014, 04:54 PM
Intermission
post Feb 14 2014, 04:08 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
825 posts

Joined: Aug 2012
QUOTE(Screen @ Feb 14 2014, 01:42 PM)
Anyone went for the Euclid Maths Contest before? Is it worth to join the contest?
*
I went for the Euclid maths contest last year, 2013 paper. Most of the questions, like 8 out of 10 of them can be answered if you know your SPM Add Maths very very well. The last question is usually an olympiad-level question.

I got 70/100, cutoff for certificate (Top 25%) was 60/100 last year, Top scorers are usually in the (80>/100) region. All past year questions, solutions, results available here. The cutoff is this high as you are competing internationally, see the results for more info. Since there's no award for you if you score less then the cutoff, don't bother joining if you feel that you are not up to par.

In the Australian Mathematics Competition on the other hand, one can get a distinction by getting less than half the questions right.......as you are only competing with your fellow Malaysians. rolleyes.gif But then what's the point of that?

This post has been edited by Intermission: Feb 14 2014, 04:19 PM
Intermission
post Mar 1 2014, 09:06 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
825 posts

Joined: Aug 2012
QUOTE(delsoo @ Mar 1 2014, 08:16 PM)
for this, isn't the resistor connected in parallel resistance and the effective =3 ohm? but the ans is B ...
*
Did you notice that there is internal resistance? sweat.gif

Erm no. Actually you are right that the resistors are in parallel with each other, but in fact the internal resistance is in series with the 2 parallel resistors. So the total effective resistance is actually 6 ohms. This gives you 2A total current by ohm's law and when it branches out to resistor Y, it gives you 1A.
Intermission
post Mar 5 2014, 09:23 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
825 posts

Joined: Aug 2012
QUOTE(delsoo @ Mar 4 2014, 12:48 PM)
is there any way to enhance my understanding on effective resistance in a complex circuit.. although I have done many question I can't still really understand and work out a single difficult question by my own....heres another question.. how to calculate the resistance across A and B?
*
Is the answer 7.5 ohms? I could imagine this stopping 90% of students in their tracks in exam if resistors are replaced with capacitors instead. tongue.gif

You still only need kirchhoff laws to solve it.

This post has been edited by Intermission: Mar 5 2014, 09:28 PM

 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0489sec    0.42    7 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 24th December 2025 - 04:59 AM