physica

I second this. People on here know my position on clinical training but to repeat myself I've met plenty of graduates from clinical training that are frustrated as they simply don't have the academic firepower to do high end science. I went back and did a physics degree after years working in accident and emergency (ER) because I wanted to do proper science. I'm hopefully going into a pure physics masters next year and one of the options is tissue engineering. Bio-engineering uses a lot of different specialties. Some bio courses will help you but going heavy on math courses definitely won't hold you back. Google group theory and genetics, it's the application of a branch of maths applied to genetics.

I understand this. I am also guilty of this from time to time. Another point is that other people may browse it as a guest and think that this is proper science. I think that the simplest way is to vote down more. I'm not advocating people voting down anything they disagree with or if someone steps out of line once but the people we're talking about repeatedly make the same fallacies again and again.

There's a couple of people that I have in mind when you raised this. It's tricky. People should be free to express their ideas. When we start locking down quickly it becomes complicated as to what should be locked. We also have the freedom not to get involved in a thread and I think we should be more willing to vote with our feet. If they ignore a bunch of statements the statement they make when they are ignoring should be voted down. I think there are a couple of people who have good reps because they are nice people however, they never fail to disjoint a conversation or not take on board what people are saying or waffle on to such extremes that the point of the thread gets lost. Not mentioning names but I know of a poster who has positive rep points of over 100 but in every thread has used the fact that he doesn't understand that concept as a rebuttal to you introducing the concept. Every thread he has it pointed out but he still does it. Another repeating offence is: well I still think it's this because I've thought about it. If multiple people voted down or chose not to engage then they may take a step back and think as opposed to chalking it down to one person being unreasonably angry with them..

I've worked in accident and emergency for nearly 5 years now. The meds you are considering have side effects and alter hormone levels. You need to consult your doctor and undertake treatment with your doctor. Medical decisions are not just an academic exercise. Your doctor will have to monitor you and see what develops. Physical examination, kidney function and liver function, past medical history and family history and scan results are all factors to consider and will alter the advice. Taking medical treatment into your own hands with advice from strangers is very risky and could cause more harm than good. I personally would never give medical advice to someone over the internet. This forum doesn't support this act either. I'm writing before reporting the thread in the hope that you understand the importance of seeking medical help instead of moving onto another forum where they might not be so responsible. Good luck

After seeing the reply to my first post I didn't think the effort was worth it as it would fall on deaf ears. My hypothesis was right. Some of the people on this thread deserve a medal.

The signal to noise ratio is improved by the number of readings the MRI scanner detects. If we have a longer T2* phase does this mean that the signal lasts longer? In-turn does this mean that the signal to noise ratio increases as the T2* phase increases? Does anyone know of any references for this area? I've been searching for ages and coming up with nothing. Many thanks

You do realize that this is one huge appeal to authority. People are taking issue with what you're saying. You are getting basics wrong. As for your qualifications I notice you were a teacher. My mum taught physics at secondary school in the UK. She can't differentiate basic functions and she will be the first to tell you that she would fail and A level physics paper if she had to sit one at short notice. Now she's retired she's got some A-level maths and physics books and started to learn again. Physics and maths are the easiest to forget. Every time I revise for exams I'm always mildly shocked how much I forget from the start of the year. University of Bath states in it's admissions process that taking a gap year if you're taking physics or maths isn't advisable. The fact that you did a PGCE and was teaching a broad range of subjects makes me guess that you taught at secondary school for 10 years. That's a lot of time to forget basics. You've made some great achievements in your life, a first class degree is something to be proud of, however, your post doesn't jump out and tell me that you must know what you're talking about. Focus on the specific points that people have raised.

If there was a centrifugal force the acting radially outwards then the object wouldn't fly off at a tangent if the string snapped. Frames of reference do not change the laws of physics. You can pick a bad frame of reference and not encapsulate the fully system. If there is a net force that equates to zero there will be no change in the direction of the ball. No frame of reference will change this. No frame of reference will change the fact that the ball is changing its direction. I'm going to be a bit more direct now considering that you failed to comprehend what I said and you're brush off simply wasn't up to the mark. Just read some basic physics textbooks, right now you'd fail a high school physics exam. Once you've understood at least the basics then you'll see how wrong you are.

Your statement comes from a misunderstanding of high school physics. I'm not saying this to put you down but it's very helpful if posters get an understanding of where their knowledge base is. Think about force.... what is force?? It's the rate of change of the rate of change multiplied by the mass. Basically if you want to change the direction that the ball is moving in you have to exert a force. Now lets look at a snap shot. If I swing a ball on a string above my head we can look at when the ball is directly in front of my face, the centripetal force is acting on the ball towards my head and the velocity of the ball is orthogonal to this. We when take another snap shot when the ball is beside my head... there has been a change in the direction of the ball therefore the centripetal force has acted and changed the direction of the ball. However, the direction of the force is now orthogonal to the previous force vector. There is no change in radius because the direction of the forces and the velocity of the ball is constantly changing. Now for contrast look at what you've said, if there was a centrifugal force that cancelled out the centripetal force would result no net force (like what swansont said), this means that there will be no change in the direction that the ball is travelling, as a result the the call wouldn't travel in a circle but would travel in a straight line.

I think the belief term has been abused enough by religious people and outsiders with their own theories with no evidence. What people do when doing this is treat the term belief as an absolute as opposed to a term that has varying strengths and actions surrounding it. Yes theoretical physicists believe in their theories but they take steps to make the theory quantifiable so in-turn it can be verified by experimental evidence. Only when it is verified will it then be pushed onto other as accepted science in textbooks etc. What religious and unconventional theorists do when they believe is to push their theory on others, they do not take steps to make it quantifiable and in-turn do not make steps to verify it. Although they both have an element of belief the process, outcome and development are very different. I sometimes think there should be separate words so scientists don't have to say: we believe that this may be the outcome. It would save a lot of dishonest abuse of the term by religious/outsiders and would save us a lot of time having to constantly point out the flaw in their argument. There may be a few honest ones out there, in that case it may prevent them from becoming confused.

I really don't know why people love the illusion of time. I know of a bad pop science book written by a medical doctor that tries to make the point that time is an illusion using quantum mechanics. However, it's not convincing at all. Any first year physics undergrad can disprove it. Something we see being an illusion is nothing new. If you google Zeno's paradox in 490BC there was a school of thought that motion was an illusion..... when we discovered that sums of infinite series can be finite and we developed differential calculus this was blown out of the water. Your using the same logic that these 490BC humans had.... I think we've moved on since then. What you are doing is saying I don't fully understand it therefore it's an illusion. We have now developed the scientific method. If time is an illusion you'll have to explain the following: I put two identical meals in two identical ovens which are both at 200 degrees C. The only variable I change is time. One comes out early and is under-cooked and the other comes out late and it is burnt. If time is an illusion then it would not change the outcome. If you are going to assert that time is an illusion you'll have to come up with an alternative explanation as to why time seems to alter the outcome of the food.

This may seem a little dismissive but med school isn't really an academic education, it's a vocational degree with some academic window dressing. You will have to go back to university and study a physics/maths/engineering degree. Quantum technology is booming in the med tech industry, you will need a good math background for this. I had 4 years accident and emergency experience and went back to study physics because I have interests in physics and medical technology. Two of my friends in my department have also done the same. You will have to step up your work ethic, I've met plenty of doctors who failed maths/physics degrees and went into medicine. Unlike medicine where you can graduate bottom of your class and still work in medicine anything below a 2.1 in result in you not working in the field. There are some courses aimed at medical graduates in medical engineering but don't be fooled by these. They are there to satisfy regulation. When I was last in the research unit I saw a medical doctor doing her phd on a project on a mechanical pancreas. A phd electrical engineer and a phd physics grad were analysing graphs, coding, designing and solving problems in the trial. The medical doctor was sitting there taking blood regularly and watching. I asked her what her project was on and she said "writing up what they're doing". She was basically there to call for help if the patient deteriorated.

To update this thread and to concrete my point I have received a conditional offer from Kings College London in physics MSc which is further proof that UK universities don't care about where you did your undergrad degree. I have absolutely zero student debt. Don't be tricked into paying through the nose for an expensive undergraduate degree.

Hey I have been absent because I am coming to the end of my final year in physics. I recently got an 89% in my last quantum mechanics. I’m hoping to get a 1st so I can do a masters in physics at UCL. However, I do not understand a certain concept. Why do angular momentum operators (including the Hamiltonian) always leave non-zero answers? Looking at hydrogen (simplest for this sort of thing) is there a certain characteristic that these operators have that result in a definite non-zero state? Does this change with state? So do hydrogen atoms have definite non-zero values no matter what state they are? I’ve tried to read round the subject but I never get a straight answer. I’ve read a few pieces stating that it’s due to the fact that the operators do not commute. Is this right or am I being led down the garden path? If it is right then why do non-commuting operators give a non-zero value? Sorry for all the questions but I am really in a muddle. Many thanks for your time.

Hi I'm back again on this thread. I'll address Overtone's quote first. Slightly depressing that no one else has pointed this out. I'm not going to name names but I have had a private message from another member who has a high rep that is disappointed in the lack of objectivity from some of the other posters. So you are saying that if you get married and have kids that you're more likely to dedicate more time to work and go for promotion and not take time out???? Where is the extra time coming from??? Does everyone else agree with this?? For that matter does anyone have anything to say on the StringJunky's post??.... maybe not because it goes against their religion. You're basing your argument on anecdotal evidence Hitman Actually lowers the score if you kill innocent people so there is a difference. They build trunks around the place to hide bodies. You have to sneak. If someone sees you they raise the alarm and you lose points by killing them and hiding the body. This is just as true with countless males in the game. Some places that sell alcohol have roads leading up to them and carparks. The option exists that someone can drive up to the place. Drink alcohol and drive away. Despite there being a disincentive by the law to drink and drive we can gloss over it all and say that the drink drivers are generally encouraged. I'm not saying that what you're saying is ridiculous. What I'm saying is that the level of evidence needs to be stepped up. I clearly don't have the same view as you I am not going to be swayed by anecdotal evidence and a subjective interpretation. This is subjective. There may be some credible critics out there and I urge you to look at them not Sarkesian. This woman's "analysis" offers no stats, cherry picks and then states her own subjective opinion as if it's fact. A lovely example is when Christopher Hitchens died she tweeted that he was a sexiest, racist warmonger. Now the next part isn't my point of view but it's a display of the style of reasoning that's being depressingly sported.I'm going to start with some anecdotal evidence, then I'm going to focus on one game, then I'm going to focus on a particular part of that game. I remember once being hit by a woman but I daren't hit her back because I knew of the backlash I'd get from society if I did. This female aggression against men is present in society. If we look at the game series Tomb Raider which sold 42 million copies (5 times more than the Hitman series which only sold 8 million copies) the woman kills countless faceless males who are completely disposable throughout the game. Players are rewarded and encouraged to kill these males. One example is where the male butler who follows you around and is depicted as your servant tolerates getting shot as as much as your desire. There is also a mechanism in which you can lure him into the walk in freezer and lock him in there. The fact that this mechanism is in place means that you are encouraged to treat your male servant as a piece of meat. This aggression against males is so rife that the series even got to release a couple of blockbuster films in the cinema pushing it's aggression against men to non gamers. Or course I don't believe this it's a demonstration of how we can be here all day trading anecdotal tales and subjective interpretations. What's depressing is the positive rep that your last post got. I'm not saying that what you are saying is insane or that it deserves negative rep (notice I'm not voting it down) but I don't think that the positive rep is a testament to the reasoning you displayed but more of a demonstration of the religious zelot attitude that encompasses female victimhood. Don't get me wrong I enjoy conversing with you. You're being respectful, you're not being dishonest in what I'm saying. Don't get the impression that your post has fallen on deaf ears. After reading it I realised that I've stated my subjective opinion as fact: I of course recall that statement but we have to agree there hasn't been any progression yet. I hope you're enjoying this. If you are a woman who was encouraged to join after reading this thread to have your say then that's great. Personally I think we don't have enough women on this forum.

Thank you I will look into it

Hope you enjoyed your night on the town. Many thanks for the nudge I have now solved it. It turned out that my general solution was wrong. Applying the boundary conditions to my new general solution gave the equation given in the question.

There has been an update, I have realised that I have used spherical coordinates to derive the general solution which is silly. My new general solution is: V( r )=A(Ln[ r ])-[(pr^3)/6EE_0]+C However, my boundary conditions: V(a)=V(2a)=0 make the general solution collapse to zero completely which is definitely wrong.... is anyone out there?

The time has come for me to propose my final year project. I can do a literature review or design a practical. The two subjects I am interested in are: Quantum Entanglement and Quantum Information Magnetic Imaging in Medicine Although I am interested I appreciate that others may know more about these fields. I'm also acknowledging that simple interest isn't going to cut it in terms of getting a good grade. Realistic projects are a must. Many thanks in advance

For the record I have given you a positive rep for your enthusiasm. I've seen your video and you put a lot of effort into it. I don't think that should be discouraged. However, I'm not going to pretend that I'm too excited about the content. I know you don't want to hear this and I'm going to come across as dismissive but I recommend that you take some formal study in physics and reach for low hanging fruit first. Many teachers would love to have a student that would put the effort your putting in. The problem is that you have to learn the boring basics first. I'm getting the impression that you're not too clued up on quantum mechanics. You need to make sure that your measurements are statistically significant. Physicists with phds and great understanding are using particle accelerators and doing hundreds of thousands of collisions a day for years to get statistically significant data, they need supercomputers etc to make this happen. How can we assume this? Do you realise that spin is a probabilistic prediction? Have you calculated the probabilities of 3 positive spins happening? The units bignose has highlighted is also a warning sign. I don't want to sound derogatory but units is very basic maths. If you want some help learning physics with some ideas on how to run experiments that will concrete your understanding then there are loads of people here who would love to help you. As for your current project I'd be dishonest if I encouraged you to pursue it.

To be honest I'm a bit confused as to what you're saying here. It seems a bit of a ramble, could you clarify the point you want to discuss? We could also start basic, do you know how to accelerate a charged particle?

@Aisha: I realise that this is your first post, welcome to the forum hope you enjoy. After looking back myself it is clear that he is bias. However, this doesn't glaze over the point that Anita did lie. She said that the player is encouraged to kill the dancers. The fact that you lose points for killing innocent people goes against this. It's like saying, there's some drink drivers out there, therefore the drink driving laws encourage drink driving. As swansont has said a few times it doesn't cancel out the other. This doesn't shake my stance at all. My stance is that there is so much mess and not enough good quality data to really understand what's going on. My stance is that we don't know enough to make certain statements. Therefore I have no line to actually toe when it comes to providing evidence. I have to repeat myself because people keep being dishonest when quoting me and twisting what I said. Others asked me to clarify which in turn I have to repeat a fair bit. It's unfair to have ago at me for smelling of urine because someone else has pissed on me. We all know I'm not suggesting this. Yes we can visit this. If we look at the study: aggression among university employees (link provided below) it does say that women felt more victimised but we have to remember that this is subjective. In the conclusion it openly states we can't know for sure the degree of which victims overestimated their victimisation. One thing you can categorise is the method of aggression. The study shows that men were more confrontational like gunning for quality of work where as women tended to use social manipulation more. Attacking ones image, spreading rumours etc. http://www.vasa.abo.fi/svf/up/articles/Aggr_Among_University_Employees.PDF Now if your method is social manipulation then it makes sense to go for a less mathematically orientated field as social manipulation will give you more of an edge. Social manipulation doesn't have much stock when trying to disprove maths. Now you're allowed to disagree. I hope some of you do otherwise I wouldn't have spent my time typing this up on a forum for people to reply to but I think it's a little unfair to class it as ridiculous. I'm going to preempt the religious style attack: I don't think this is the only factor I think it's one of many factors. I have no idea about the prevalence just like we have to idea how to quantify the extent to which getting married holds a woman back in the job market. I don't think it's the main point but as reader must realise I'm simply replying to posts. I haven't really led the conversation. I think your anger is misplaced here. Somebody else brought the example into the thread. I pointed out that the example wasn't a good one and it actually highlights the messiness of the situation. I only went back to it a few times because someone was using it to falsely accuse me of defending violence.