I guess it really is relative

i think there's something wrong with this equation

My mind is blown.Is that a pink ribbon for breast cancer?

Didn't think of that, did you?

finite vs infinite

THANKS

Moar Quantum Tutorial Lalz

"One question is: 'Why do we have positive exponentials?' Honest answer: I don't know. A sorta handwavy answer is that ... you need the positive exponentials to get the professor's result. If you want more explanations, you should go see him."

Gotta love this TA.

What REALLY happened at the Quantum midterm.

salut martin

Salutations à notre ami Martin. Il y a recemment envoyé un courriel à les etudiants de Signals:

Dear all,

please take note that the answers to assignment 1 has been posted in WebCt.

Thanks
Martin

Je pense que c'est interessant que Martin a referé a lui-même par "Martin" au lieu du "Prof. Rochette" ou simplement "M" ("A" est utilisé par Prof. Aashish Clerk -- voir WebCT.)

Also, serious h8n on Gantt charts. My favourite part:

So a task would not take 3 days, it would perhaps have the highest probability of being complete in 3 days, but there are non-zero probabilities that it would take 4, 5, 6 days to complete.

Nous ne sommes pas seuls.

the quantum textbook strikes again

So here I am trying to be studious, reading the quantum textbook in preparation for faggot tree @ quiz. I have come across a gem.

"In this figure, r1 and r2 are the radii of two large adjacent orbits that are separated in energy by an amount dE and ω is the orbital angular frequency of the electron, where ω is approximately constant in a transition between large orbits. (The algebra is simpler if we use angular frequency instead of frequency. Recall that the connection is ω = 2 π f.)" - Modern Physics, Serway/Moses/Moyer, Page 140.

I thought it was funny that they jump from extremely theoretical handwaving to reminding us that ω = 2 π f. Thanks guys. Thanks.

From the Quantum Discussion Board...

So... I was trolling around the Quantum Physics discussion boards during my intensely interesting Introduction to Numerical Methods in Electrical Engineering with Capt'n McFee and I noticed something troubling, to say the least:

Subject: about the even numbers	Topic: Main
Author: Dawei Song	Date: January 17, 2009 13:47

i find that the book only provides answer for the odd numbered questions. is there a way that we can find answers for the even numbers?

i don't care the steps, I just want a numerical answer to tell me right or wrong. thanks you.

Reply Forward

Under normal conditions, I might have ignored the lack of capitalization, the poor grammar and the slightly eye-bending syntax. I might have even turned a blind eye to the blatant misspellings and dismissed them as typos. Under normal conditions.

I draw your attention, now, to the author of the post: it is none other than our fearless leader, Dawei Song! I hate to hate so much, but justice must be served. Please, dear readers, flame away!

Letter of Complaint

In an effort to assure our readers that better posts are yet to come, I figured I might share with you the "Complaint Letter" I will be submitting for EDEC. Enjoy.

Mr. Lorne M. Trottier,

I am writing today to notify you of a problem that I believe requires immediate intervention; a situation that is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, causing a great deal of frustration to a number of promising McGill engineering students. I pray that you will take this letter seriously, as this is an issue that I have raised with several other people over the course of several months, and, as of yet, no decisive action has been taken.
Mr. Trottier, I bring to your attention this dire situation: presently, and for the past several months, a number of florescent tubes in TR0100 have been in an uncertain state of flux, causing them to respond in an increasingly unpredictable way. Though seemingly banal, this unstable condition has caused much grief for myself and a number of other members of the student population. As a result of various other groups’ inability – or, dare I say, unwillingness – to correct this situation, I demand that you would personally see a correction of said situation through to completion.
If I may, I would like to present to you but one of the reasons which lead me to bring this idea to you with such vehemence. First and foremost, the wave-particle duality of light, and its implications in this situation, must be considered with the utmost care. As I am sure you are well aware, light can act both as a particle and as a wave: as such, it retains characteristics of the classical definitions of both categories. This implies that, as all other waves, light from various sources can interfere both destructively and constructively. Though this is a naturally occurring phenomenon which, as human beings, we have grown accustomed to, the fluctuating behaviour exhibited by the aforementioned fluorescent tubes causes a severe breakdown in the normal interference pattern, which can cause a number of side-effects, one of which is loss of concentration.
In light of this, I would first demand the replacement of those florescent tubes in TR0100 that exhibit this unfortunate pattern of light transmission. This will not only alleviate any issues of annoyance, but will also contribute to increasing student concentration. I would furthermore suggest that the custodial staff might rearrange their light verification schedule in order to prevent this situation from reoccurring – or at the very least, from dragging on for so long.
I thank you kindly for your time now, and in advance for your swift response.

Regards,

Mathieu Leduc

(Forgive me for the lame formatting - for some obscure reason, Blogger doesn't like my indentation...)

feels like there's too much scht to do

It appears that *dolf has allowed me to make blog posts. A bold move. I don't know what to write in these blog posts as I'm not much of a hater. I will vary font sizes and weight for entertainment purposes.

I did some analyzing today. It took me approx. 90 minutes to do one part of one question. There are 10 questions. This is going to go well.

As far as I can tell, the Quantum textbook is sub-optimal. It doesn't explain experimental setups very well (it barely even tries.) Not enough information is given about the theories that attempt to explain the results of these experiments. I think the explanations are too vague to be reasonably comprehensible, and certainly too vague for our level. I did the latest reading ass. and I haven't learned very much. In addition, it uses the word "proof" a few too many times for my liking.

Currently being cockblocked by Bell; the latest lolBSG episode is downloading at an extreme rate of 56KB/s.

The "car show" event has a non-zero potential for lals. That is all for now, I suppose.