Quantum physics 2016

Transcription

1 Quantum physics 2016 Quantum Physics (53110VT16) Results of survey Startade: den 9 maj 2016 Avslutad: den 24 maj 2016 Svarsfrekvens: 31% ( 23 / 75 ) Elektroniskt utvärderingssystem

2 Quantum physics 2016 Hi. Here come the evaluation for the Quantum physics course. \Patrik and Thomas Kurs/grupp-frågor: Course evaluation for <course name>, x hpthe course evaluation consists of four parts. The first part consists of the three university-wide issues, the second part deals with learning outcomes, the third part deals with the lectures and the fourth part deals with the laboratory work. University-wide issues 1. Program Code 23 svar, medelvärde = 2,87 work on your own or together with other students), you have on average spent on your studies on this course? (about... hrs / week) 30 Hard to estimate 25~30hours 8hrs/week Very hard to estimate % (18) h, although this is combined with the other courses we had simultaneously. 1hourws per week Bachelor Bachelor... Physici... Maybe 2 hours per week. This is a weak estimation!! I really don't know. Master progr... Teach... Single cours How would you rate the overall quality of the course? (1 indicates the lowest rating and 5 the highest rating) 23 svar, medelvärde = 3, % (6) 65 % (15) The course was very good, the book is good, but I really think that all information should be available on the cambro homepage (or at least there should be a link from the cambro -page to any external page) and that lowers the rating from a 5 to a How many hours per week (scheduled lessons and About as much as it was expected from a 4.5 credits course I 8 believe. 4. How would you rate the overall treatment given to you as a student during the course? (1 indicates the lowest rating and 5 the highest rating) 22 svar, medelvärde = 4, % (5) 23 % (5) 55 % (12) The lab supervisors were extremely rude and not helpful to the students. Learning outcomes

3 Contents 5. Do you feel like you have sufficient knowledge in Quantum physics to go on to the Quantum mechanics course? 22 % (5) 74 % (17) 6. Can you explain who the wave function squared can be interpretate as a probability function? 7. Can you descibe why classic mechanics cannot explain the structure of atoms and interation between EM-waves and matter? 17 % (4) 70 % (16) 8. Can you solve Schrödinger's equation for the hydrogen atom? 9. Can you explain the quantum numbers in a hydrogen atom? 78 % (18) 10. Can you discuss how the Pauli exclusion principle affect the structure of the periodic system? 23 svar, medelvärde = 1, Can you describe how waves and matter interact? 23 svar, medelvärde = 1,26 87 % (20) 12. Can you extensivly explain the structure and physics of the nucleur of an atom? 22 % (5) 74 % (17) 13. Can you find infomation about this subject on internet and explain in writing and orally in English? 23 svar, medelvärde = 1,00 Lectures 14. Did you have enough prior knowledge? 23 svar, medelvärde = 1, % (23) 100 % (23) Some. I was registered for a course in Quantum physics back in 2006 and attended most lectures (as far as I can remember) and also did the photo-electric lab as well. However, I think most of that course dealt with Thomas Wågbergs part of the course so I guess you could say I had prior knowledge to half this course? 15. How has the education been? It was good very good good. ok It was good, I liked that the first part was compressed into one week. I have ever studied quantum physics in my home country a little bit Great! Interesting lectures. Den har varit bra. Jag tror dock att patrik (och studenterna) skulle tjäna på att föreläsningen gavs på svenska! Patriks engelska funkar men det är inte hans modersmål så det känns ändå som om han inte riktigt lyckas förklara saker så väl som han egentligen hade velat. Och det känns ju såklart väldigt tråkigt.. Så överväg detta. I like that it was split into two distinct parts and that the lectures were pretty close together for each part. Great!

4 It was enough to pass the exam. Mostly satisfactionate. 16. What do you think about the course literature? 23 svar, medelvärde = 4,22. I think it works well to split the course in two halves ok with one exam each. Great with exams. 17 % (4) 43 % (10) Appropriate. If possible, a midcourse test (dugga) would be great. 39 % (9) "Introduction to Quantum Physics" by Griffiths is a really good book. A couple of times I kept reading further than what was included in this course just because it was so well written and interesting. "Modern physics" was also good, but I think it read more like a history book. It's an interesting read, but while working through some problems or studying for the exam I sometimes found it hard to find the relevant passages or formulas. The book was really good but the literature for the first part was not that good, but adequate. But example problem have no enough solution. So we need more exercise program. For part 1 it was decent, but the book for part 2 it is clearly a good book. 17. How has the availability of the information and materials been? 22 svar, medelvärde = 3,68 18 % (4) 27 % (6) 45 % (10) I really think everything that is related to the course should be available on the cambro-page. If you want to use an external page, fine, but make sure everything there can be found on cambro or at least put a link to the site on the cambro homepage. Fler gamla tentor! 18. What do you think about the examination form? - It was good to evaluate students. good good with two part Tentan var bra, lite upprepande på ett ställe men ändå med nya utmaningar så var ok. En fråga lite knepigt ställd,s vårt att veta vad man ska göra. Någon felskrivning på ett par ställen men överlag bra. With the course being split into two parts with a month gap between, it's good that we had separate examinations for each part.! It would be no problem to mostly study old exams only and still get the highest grade, even with only decent understanding of the subject. The exams are almost copies of the old ones. However if they were not, I assume the course would be too hard for 4.5 credits. It was easy. Would say that it was lack of theory part checking. I did like the idea of making two exams for each part of the course. 19. Opinions and suggestions for improvement: Since the course is only 4,5 credits and some of those points are labs, it is not reasonable to have a 4-page long exam taking 4-6 hours to complete. Assuming both parts of the course are about the same amount of credits, the latter part should be no more than 2 credits, for which a 2 hour exam would be suitable. Please note that I don't mean that you should just give the students an shorter exam time, you should also shorten the number of exercises by the same amount. 1/3 of this exam would be more reasonable in relation to the number of credits the exam gives. thing special. It could be benefitial if the course uses our previous knowledge in Fourier analysis so that one has more of a red thread throughout the education programme. Sometimes the course is a bit too basic. For the second part of the course I would have liked to be able to study at least one exam more recent than the ones from 2010 as I did not find those completely representative for the exam we took. t that they were misleading, (and Patrik did state quite clearly in class what possible questions to expect besides those found in the 2010 exams) but they did not paint the whole picture. NO idea. On the second half, it'd be nice to have more old exams to

5 look at. Som jag nämnde tidigare, svenska föreläsningar skulle ge mycket bättre kvalitet på föreläsningarna är jag helt övertygad om. Perhaps add a formula sheet for the second part with all needed formulae and not allow Physics handbook? I didn't really mind that we had Physics but Patrik said something about it being bad because Physics has the solutions to most of the solvable situations involving the Schrödinger Equation. The language (words and grammar) in the exam could be improved. t really. I don't think anyone could solve the Schrödinger's equation for the hydrogen atom for real after taking this course. On the examination you did not need this kind of knowledge. Knowing the product rule and some algebra was sufficient in our case, and it therefore required no understanding of the hydrogen atom or Schrödinger's equation. More focus on understanding the subject if possible. Part 1 feels like it gave a really good background to the modern physics. Of course it is easier to gain a good understanding of part 1 than of part 2 though, considering how much harder part 2 was. I just took the nuclear physics course as well and it was very helpful to recently have studied part 1 of this course. More motivation for students to solve problems on the desk at classes. The laboratory sessions 20. Did you have sufficient theoretical knowledge? 21 svar, medelvärde = 1,10 10 % (2) Inga kommentarer 90 % (19) 21. How has availability and performance of the equipment been? 21 svar, medelvärde = 4,00 and when leaving the temperature knob at a certain position, the temperature still went back and forth between two temperatures approximately 80 degrees celsius apart. 22. Has the tutorial worked well? 21 svar, medelvärde = 3,81 29 % (6) I don't know which tutorial is meant here. 43 % (9) 23. What is your opinion about the labs as a whole? 21 svar, medelvärde = 3,95 19 % (4) 29 % (6) The labs were fine but especially the Franck-Hertz 48 % (10) experiment was quite hard to understand before hand. They were really fun to do! 24. Opinions and suggestions on the laboratory work: thing special. Jag gjorde labbarna ifjol men de var bra då, lite onödigt mycket rapportskrivande med tre kurser parallellt. Blev nästan snudd på löjligt.. Men bra labbar. The laborations were good, but working in groups usually leads to some people doing most of the report work, and some people who are not putting much effort in it will never learn how to write a report themselves. Solo reports on one lab(like the photoelectric effect, which is quiet simple) would be necessary, but I understand that it would take a lot of time for the supervisors. More pleasant supervisors. They were not specific on the requirements of the lab report. And also paying more attention on the look than on the sense. 52 % (11) The oven for the Frank-Hertz lab didn't really work as expected which led to it taking way too long to do this lab. The problem was that the thermostat didn't work properly