Romero's ad hominem arguments aside, I have to agree with his assessment of those examples. (I wasn't at Penn Bowl or the mirror -- I'm just going by what Romero typed.) In particular, a physics bonus with Davisson-Germer, Franck-Hertz, and Stern-Gerlach is an excellent bonus in terms of reflecting what a physicist might actually learn about in coursework, albeit kind of difficult for an invitational. Along with Michelson-Morley, those are core experiments in modern physics, and anyone who has taken a survey course in modern physics should be able to 30 that bonus -- certainly all 3 are featured prominently in the first 8 chapters of Tipler/Llewellyn. I took the course in my "junior" year at FAU, and some physics programs have it at sophomore level. No offense, dude, but if y'all are taking QM courses at CalTech, that shouldn't be an overwhelmingly difficult bonus. --Raj Dhuwalia, UF P.S. What happened in the tournaments this weekend? I haven't seen any brief or non-brief results yet. > And though I have not taken Quantum Physics, neither Davisson-Germer > nor Franck-Hertz is extrordinarily difficult. Both are in the canon > and have been answers before. I also believe that both are relatively > important in the history of physics so maybe your crew of physicists > should figure out what is in the quiz bowl canon, or just get your > quantum teacher(s) to explain those experiements to you.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST