Help
The following is an actual question given on a University of Arizona chemistry midterm, and an actual answer turned in by a student.
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.
Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct..... ...leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God.'
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+.
Page 1 of 1
is this hel
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,577
- Joined: 2005-March-01
- Gender:Male
- Location:Erlangen, Germany
-
Interests:Astronomy, Mathematics
Nuclear power
Posted 2011-April-22, 04:55
Consider this:
Isaiah 30:26 reads
Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days. So in Heaven, the sun is 49 times as bright as on Earth. Not counting greenhouse gases, the Earth is approx. at 270 K. This gives us a heaven temperature of 270 * 49^(1/4) = 714 K (441°C).
We know that in Hell, lead is liquid so it can't be hotter than 445°C. Of course, hell will freeze over when lead becomes solid (327°C). If you want a decent tan at that point, better go to heaven.
So in fact, why behave? You will be toasted one way or the other.
Isaiah 30:26 reads
Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days. So in Heaven, the sun is 49 times as bright as on Earth. Not counting greenhouse gases, the Earth is approx. at 270 K. This gives us a heaven temperature of 270 * 49^(1/4) = 714 K (441°C).
We know that in Hell, lead is liquid so it can't be hotter than 445°C. Of course, hell will freeze over when lead becomes solid (327°C). If you want a decent tan at that point, better go to heaven.
So in fact, why behave? You will be toasted one way or the other.
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,289
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2011-April-22, 18:16
Quote
Numbers Chapter 22, verses 28-30.
"Then the LORD opened the donkey's mouth, and she said to Balaam, 'What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?' Balaam answered the donkey, 'You have made a fool of me! If I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.' The donkey said to Balaam, 'Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?' 'No,' he said."
"Then the LORD opened the donkey's mouth, and she said to Balaam, 'What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?' Balaam answered the donkey, 'You have made a fool of me! If I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.' The donkey said to Balaam, 'Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?' 'No,' he said."
My advice on physics questions? Just ask the jackass sitting next to you for the answer.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,787
- Joined: 2009-August-02
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, UK
Posted 2011-April-23, 03:48
#5
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 222
- Joined: 2008-April-20
- Gender:Male
- Location:Greensboro NC USA
Posted 2011-April-23, 04:42
In a simuilar vein, and more likely to be a true story, we have the "Barometer Problem":
Determine height of building using barometer
The author of this piece was a Washington University Physics professor and advisor
on examination contruction and evaluation. He relates the story without qualification
as to its truth.
Modrn Urban Legend has it that Niels Bohr was the student, but that is sure to be incorrect.
Determine height of building using barometer
Quote
Some time ago I received a call from a colleague who asked if I would be the referee
on the grading of an examination question. He was about to give a student a zero for
his answer to a physics question, while the student claimed he should receive a perfect
score and would if the system were not set up against the student. The instructor and
the student agreed to submit this to an impartial arbiter, and I was selected.
I went to my colleague's office and read the examination question, "Show how it is possible
to determine the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer."
The student had answered, "Take a barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope
to it, lower the barometer to the street and then bring it up, measuring the length of the rope.
The length of the rope is the height of the building."
I pointed out that the student really had a strong case for full credit since he had answered
the question completely and correctly. On the other hand, if full credit was given, it could
well contribute to a high grade for the student in his physics course. A high grade is supposed
to certify competence in physics, but the answer did not confirm this. I suggested that the
student have another try at answering the question. I was not surprised that my colleague agreed,
but I was surprised that the student did.
I gave the student six minutes to answer the question with the warning that the answer should show
some knowledge of physics. At the end of five minutes, he had not written anything. I asked if he
wished to give up, but he said no. He had many answers to this problem; he was just thinking of
the best one. I excused myself for interrupting him and asked him to please go on. In the next minute
he dashed off his answer which read, "Take the barometer to the top of the building and lean over
the edge of the roof. Drop that barometer, timing its fall with a stopwatch. Then using the formula
S = ½at², calculate the height of the building."
At this point I asked my colleague if he would give up. He conceded, and I gave the student almost full credit.
In leaving my colleague's office, I recalled that the student had said he had many other answers
to the problem, so I asked him what they were. "Oh yes," said the student. "There are a great many ways
of getting the height of a tall building with a barometer. For example, you could take the barometer out
on a sunny day and measure the height of the barometer and the length of its shadow, and the length
of the shadow of the building and by the use of a simple proportion, determine the height of the building."
"Fine," I asked. "And the others?"
"Yes," said the student." There is a very basic measurement method that you will like. In this method
you take the barometer and begin to walk up the stairs. As you climb the stairs, you mark off the length
of the barometer along the wall. You then count the number of marks, and this will give you the height
of the building in barometer units. A very direct method."
"Of course, if you want a more sophisticated method, you can tie the barometer to the end of a string,
swing it as a pendulum, and determine the value of 'g' at the street level and at the top of the building.
From the difference of the two values of 'g' the height of the building can be calculated."
Finally, he concluded, there are many other ways of solving the problem. "Probably the best," he said,
"is to take the barometer to the basement and knock on the superintendent's door. When the superintendent
answers, you speak to him as follows, 'Mr. Superintendent, here I have a fine barometer. If you tell me
the height of this building, I will give you this barometer.'"
At this point I asked the student if he really did know the conventional answer to this question. He admitted
that he did, said that he was fed up with high school and college instructors trying to teach him how to think,
using the "scientific method"
on the grading of an examination question. He was about to give a student a zero for
his answer to a physics question, while the student claimed he should receive a perfect
score and would if the system were not set up against the student. The instructor and
the student agreed to submit this to an impartial arbiter, and I was selected.
I went to my colleague's office and read the examination question, "Show how it is possible
to determine the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer."
The student had answered, "Take a barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope
to it, lower the barometer to the street and then bring it up, measuring the length of the rope.
The length of the rope is the height of the building."
I pointed out that the student really had a strong case for full credit since he had answered
the question completely and correctly. On the other hand, if full credit was given, it could
well contribute to a high grade for the student in his physics course. A high grade is supposed
to certify competence in physics, but the answer did not confirm this. I suggested that the
student have another try at answering the question. I was not surprised that my colleague agreed,
but I was surprised that the student did.
I gave the student six minutes to answer the question with the warning that the answer should show
some knowledge of physics. At the end of five minutes, he had not written anything. I asked if he
wished to give up, but he said no. He had many answers to this problem; he was just thinking of
the best one. I excused myself for interrupting him and asked him to please go on. In the next minute
he dashed off his answer which read, "Take the barometer to the top of the building and lean over
the edge of the roof. Drop that barometer, timing its fall with a stopwatch. Then using the formula
S = ½at², calculate the height of the building."
At this point I asked my colleague if he would give up. He conceded, and I gave the student almost full credit.
In leaving my colleague's office, I recalled that the student had said he had many other answers
to the problem, so I asked him what they were. "Oh yes," said the student. "There are a great many ways
of getting the height of a tall building with a barometer. For example, you could take the barometer out
on a sunny day and measure the height of the barometer and the length of its shadow, and the length
of the shadow of the building and by the use of a simple proportion, determine the height of the building."
"Fine," I asked. "And the others?"
"Yes," said the student." There is a very basic measurement method that you will like. In this method
you take the barometer and begin to walk up the stairs. As you climb the stairs, you mark off the length
of the barometer along the wall. You then count the number of marks, and this will give you the height
of the building in barometer units. A very direct method."
"Of course, if you want a more sophisticated method, you can tie the barometer to the end of a string,
swing it as a pendulum, and determine the value of 'g' at the street level and at the top of the building.
From the difference of the two values of 'g' the height of the building can be calculated."
Finally, he concluded, there are many other ways of solving the problem. "Probably the best," he said,
"is to take the barometer to the basement and knock on the superintendent's door. When the superintendent
answers, you speak to him as follows, 'Mr. Superintendent, here I have a fine barometer. If you tell me
the height of this building, I will give you this barometer.'"
At this point I asked the student if he really did know the conventional answer to this question. He admitted
that he did, said that he was fed up with high school and college instructors trying to teach him how to think,
using the "scientific method"
The author of this piece was a Washington University Physics professor and advisor
on examination contruction and evaluation. He relates the story without qualification
as to its truth.
Modrn Urban Legend has it that Niels Bohr was the student, but that is sure to be incorrect.
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,277
- Joined: 2004-September-22
- Location:Northern Maryland
Posted 2011-April-23, 06:20
I had heard both of these stories before and of course I can't say whether there is any basis in fact. However here is a perhaps amusing though less punchy episode that I can vouch for.
Graduate students in mathematics at the University of Minnesota in the 1960s were required to have a minor. I have never heard of this at any other time or place but that's the way it was. Many minored in physics of course. The department of the minor sent representatives to serve on both the preliminary (before thesis) and final (after thesis) oral exam. There was a guy in the physics department, call him X, who apparently was pursuing a vendetta against mathematicians. In one case he asked the candidate to explain extra-sensory perception in terms of quantum mechanics and when the candidate drew a blank he failed him. Another time he asked the candidate to explain how water flow in a flushed toilet could be modeled as a partial differential equation. Not an entirely crazy question for investigation but pretty far out for an "answer this with three minutes of thought while standing in front of us" situation. My friend Glen was coming up for his preliminary oral and X was on his committee. Uh oh. X had failed something like the last three candidates he had questioned, each time coming up with pretty oddball questions. Glen passed and we were all both happy and curious. Glen explained it as follows:
Professor X was the first to ask questions, and he asked me "What would the universe be like if all the particles in it were bosons?"
Well, Glen continued, I had just recently been in the physics library reading an interesting journal article called "What the universe would be like if all the particles in it were bosons". So I told professor X what the universe would be like if all of the particles in it were bosons. Then a funny thing happened. Professor X signed my form as passing and he left the room.
We figured he was buzzing off to the library to see if he could find an article in Chinese to ask the next student about.
My chosen minor was philosophy. This was, let us phrase it with moderation, somewhat easier than physics. Definitely no bosons. No bozos like X either.
Graduate students in mathematics at the University of Minnesota in the 1960s were required to have a minor. I have never heard of this at any other time or place but that's the way it was. Many minored in physics of course. The department of the minor sent representatives to serve on both the preliminary (before thesis) and final (after thesis) oral exam. There was a guy in the physics department, call him X, who apparently was pursuing a vendetta against mathematicians. In one case he asked the candidate to explain extra-sensory perception in terms of quantum mechanics and when the candidate drew a blank he failed him. Another time he asked the candidate to explain how water flow in a flushed toilet could be modeled as a partial differential equation. Not an entirely crazy question for investigation but pretty far out for an "answer this with three minutes of thought while standing in front of us" situation. My friend Glen was coming up for his preliminary oral and X was on his committee. Uh oh. X had failed something like the last three candidates he had questioned, each time coming up with pretty oddball questions. Glen passed and we were all both happy and curious. Glen explained it as follows:
Professor X was the first to ask questions, and he asked me "What would the universe be like if all the particles in it were bosons?"
Well, Glen continued, I had just recently been in the physics library reading an interesting journal article called "What the universe would be like if all the particles in it were bosons". So I told professor X what the universe would be like if all of the particles in it were bosons. Then a funny thing happened. Professor X signed my form as passing and he left the room.
We figured he was buzzing off to the library to see if he could find an article in Chinese to ask the next student about.
My chosen minor was philosophy. This was, let us phrase it with moderation, somewhat easier than physics. Definitely no bosons. No bozos like X either.
Ken
Page 1 of 1