Jump to content

IB Physics HL P1/P2


Razorlance

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Polybos said:

Your calculation is good. The problem is that it was a trick question. You assume it was unpolarized light that hit the polarizer which is what the IB usually does. However this time the light was horizontally polarized initially. If you want you can think of it as having three polarizers. One horizontal, one that rotates and one vertical. Then you can use your formula and see that cos 90 = 0.

Nowhere do I assume that it is unpolarized.

The axis of polarization goes from horizontal to at an angle (45° in my example) which is perfectly valid.

Then from a 45° angle it meets a vertical polarizer and it gets polarized vertically which is also valid.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bynary said:

massive props to admitting... most people would have just left :D

Guess I know why these people are doing their petition. This was nowhere in the book we have. Looking back our teacher had actually thought us this though so props to him, Impressed someone got it right though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Polybos said:

When you divide the diameter by two the absolute uncertainty is also divided by two. So percentage uncertainty stays the same. Therefore when you cube it the percentage uncertainty is the same anyway. Just think of it as doing d/2 in the formula for the sphere. 2 is just a constant so it doesn't matter for percentage uncertainty as it does not have an uncertainty itself. This is quite important for paper 3 so I would advise you to learn it. 

For the polarizer question the light was already horizontally polarized, so when it went through the vertical polarizer nothing would go through regardless of what the first polarizer was. A bit of a trick question, but oh well. 

Is the percentage uncertainty the fractional uncertainty multiplied by 100? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Polybos said:

Yeah.

Because I put the answer with pi. In the data booklet the formula for the uncertainty shows that you have to multiply by the volume. As a consequence I got pi in the value. Could anyone tell me if this is wrong because I will need it for tomorrow. Thanks guys :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pi does not have any uncertainty as it is a constant and should not be included in fractional uncertainty or percentage uncertainty. If you multiply by pi both the value itself and its absolute uncertainty gets multiplied by pi, which is why fractional does not change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Polybos said:

Pi does not have any uncertainty as it is a constant and should not be included in fractional uncertainty or percentage uncertainty. If you multiply by pi both the value itself and its absolute uncertainty gets multiplied by pi, which is why fractional does not change.

I multiplied by pi because when calculating the uncertainty the formula in the data booklet is 

uncertainty y:y

pi is included in the value of y. when calculating the uncertainty I thought we needed to multiply the by value of y. 

I hope what I meant is clear and not confusing lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Polybos said:

Pi does not have any uncertainty as it is a constant and should not be included in fractional uncertainty or percentage uncertainty. If you multiply by pi both the value itself and its absolute uncertainty gets multiplied by pi, which is why fractional does not change.

This is what I meant

image.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...