2 сағат бұрын
7 сағат бұрын
14 сағат бұрын
21 сағат бұрын
14 күн бұрын
14 күн бұрын
14 күн бұрын
14 күн бұрын
14 күн бұрын
14 күн бұрын
14 күн бұрын
14 күн бұрын
14 күн бұрын
14 күн бұрын
21 күн бұрын
21 күн бұрын
Пікірлер
@brynevans7944 22 минут бұрын
What is your email?
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 4 минут бұрын
@@brynevans7944 [email protected]
@waleed-city123 11 сағат бұрын
Hey Blake, I’m looking to take the PAT this year, and I’m finding the exam very intimidating, how would you recommend practicing? Is it just a case of practising with past papers over and over? I’m hoping to study engineering at Oxford
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 4 сағат бұрын
I'd say a combination of past papers and honing your A-level skills, particularly for maths (many of the maths questions are very similar to A-level questions, whereas the physics questions are more varied). The format of the PAT has changed a fair bit over recent years, so the more recent papers are better practice. Don't rush through all of them - try some out, take a close look at where you went wrong, then repeat those questions to see if you've absorbed the learning. Then try out your new skills on another paper. Topics like calculus, logarithms, and binomial expansion come up quite a lot, so make sure you are slick on those key maths skills. Similarly on the physics side with electricity, mechanics, waves/oscillations. Grouping by question type can be useful - for example, pick 3 papers and have a go at all the calculus questions, or all the binomial questions. Preparing for the PAT isn't easy so try to keep positive - it's a tough exam so it's impressive being able to even attempt it.
@GeoffryGifari 21 сағат бұрын
I have a weird thought on the 3rd law: suppose you have 2 lumps of matter A & B. You cool them down as low as you can. The 3rd law states that entropy approaches a constant as T -> 0, _but it doesn't specify that minimum value of entropy for a specific system_ . Let's say the entropy of A approaches Sᵃ and entropy of B approaches Sᵇ as T -> 0, and importantly Sᵃ =/= Sᵇ. What would happen when A and B come into contact? could heat flow due to entropy difference even though they're cooled to the same temperature?
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 20 сағат бұрын
This is probably one of the reasons why most pre-university textbooks avoid the laws of thermodynamics! The zeroth law deals with whether heat flow will occur. The third law is dealing with the entropy of a closed system, so as soon as you put A and B in contact they aren't closed systems anymore. It's like entropy being reset for a new system as soon as they come into contact.
@GeoffryGifari 20 сағат бұрын
@@BlakeTerrorPhysics Ahhh do you think the entropy would eventually equalize? Or does it only make sense to define the entropy of the combined system, rather than split the entropy for its parts?
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 4 сағат бұрын
@@GeoffryGifari It's statistical stuff looking at the whole system and how the microstates can give rise to the macrostates, so we need to look at the whole system from a microscopic/statistical point of view rather than bits of it in a macroscopic/temperature-like point of view.
@zeroonetime Күн бұрын
There is no standard model other than Time Timing 010 Timeism.
@AllenDavis-yg1hh 2 күн бұрын
Very good explanations, thank you ✅
@GeoffryGifari 3 күн бұрын
If the cosmological constant were reversed (collapsing universe), do you think the arrow of time would be reversed with it?
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 3 күн бұрын
A tricky problem in oscillating universe models - I don't know, maybe. Or maybe not, depending on future discoveries such as what's going on with dark energy.
@GeoffryGifari 3 күн бұрын
Would you cover statmech ensembles in the future?
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 3 күн бұрын
Probably not, and definitely not in the short-term. It's beyond the level I'm aiming at in these videos.
@ballcorek7045 4 күн бұрын
Sir, I did not understand why the potential and kinetic energy on question 23 were not equal in middle
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 4 күн бұрын
Ok, maybe this will help. First notice that this situation is different to some other situations that we are familiar with (such as a mass oscillating on a spring). We analyse a mass on a spring as a closed system (i.e. the total energy is constant). Here we are just looking at the boat, which is not a closed system because energy is transferred back and forth between the water and the boat (like if we analysed the mass but not the spring - energy goes from the mass to the spring, and then from the spring to the mass, so the energy of the mass is not constant). Secondly compare two different water waves of the same amplitude but different frequencies. At the low point of each wave the boat would have the same minimum potential energy and zero kinetic energy. At the mid-point of each wave the boat would have the same potential energy (because the waves have the same amplitude) but different kinetic energies (because the higher frequency wave gets to the mid-point faster than the lower frequency wave). So we can't give a precise relationship between potential energy and kinetic energy unless we know more about the wave (such as it's amplitude and frequency). Let me know if you are still unsure about it.
@ballcorek7045 4 күн бұрын
@@BlakeTerrorPhysics wow that is really interesting. Thank you for your precise explanation Sir.
@MajorBorris 4 күн бұрын
Well done
@GeoffryGifari 4 күн бұрын
If entropy tends to a constant as temperature decreases, can that entropy limit be any finite value?
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 4 күн бұрын
The change of entropy varies from system to system so there isn't a particular value everything is aiming for (if I've interpreted your question correctly).
@GeoffryGifari 4 күн бұрын
When all the bosons in a BEC occupy the lowest quantum state, are they still filling a finite volume of space (not collapsed to a point)?
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 4 күн бұрын
I'm far from being an expert on Bose-Einstein Condensates, I'm afraid. My understanding is that if you take what could be described as a gas of bosons, and suck most of the energy out of this gas, then the resultant quantum mechanical interactions between the bosons becomes visible on a macroscopic scale. The idea of "filling space" can get a bit awkward at the quantum level, but when the bosons are occupying the same quantum state they behave as a single entity, so they share the same quantum mechanical wave nature and can start forming interference patterns on a larger scale. It's like being distributed but unified; a collection of points but acting as one. BECs is definitely a topic where I am trying to open the door to something new (and BEC is a topic that I get asked about a lot by pre-university students) without having the knowledge to take it much further. I don't know if that helps but it's all I've got!
@FranzBiscuit 5 күн бұрын
Interesting stuff! So do we have actual proof that the temperature of the universe is in fact decreasing over time? Also, any thoughts on why the temperature lower bound of 38 pK exists? Surely this is why atoms "jiggle" at the atomic level. The fabric of the universe itself must be awash in "fluxions" which then interact with physical matter, imparting an intrinsic vibration to the system in the process....
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 4 күн бұрын
Thank you for watching, I'm glad you enjoyed it! The 38pK is the current lowest temperature achieved but it isn't a lower limit, I'm sure someone will go lower (someone may have already done so). Actually getting to absolute zero appears to be out of reach, and I'll be saying a bit more about this in a video on entropy which I think is scheduled for tomorrow. As for the temperature of the universe, we'll have to leave proof to the mathematicians but the weight of evidence (such as measurements of the universe expanding, and our understanding of thermodynamics) very strongly suggests that the universe is cooling down. Who knows what will be discovered in the future!
@MadogMurpy 5 күн бұрын
Love your videos!
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 5 күн бұрын
Thank you! It's always nice to hear that someone is enjoying them.
@matthewmcbrearty6020 8 күн бұрын
For never having seen a question related to amplitude modulation, your explanation on how you would sketch a graph was superb. 👌
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 8 күн бұрын
Thank you for letting me know, I really appreciate it. I'm glad you found it helpful.
@aocxe 9 күн бұрын
Hi, with question 24 I ended up with the same answer as you but the question cost me lots of time since I was confused as to whether to account for the source being moved 10x closer. Surely that would mean the decay would be 100x more according to the inverse square law? I tried accounting for this but the maths clearly would not work so I ended up ignoring it and putting the 40,50,300 answer.
@aocxe 9 күн бұрын
I also would agree this paper was really strange, the maths part was horrible and the multiple choice were dead easy, along with other weird questions all over.
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 9 күн бұрын
That would be a factor in some situations but in this question they say that it is a parallel beam of radiation, so there won't be an inverse square drop off. I probably should have mentioned that in the video - I've seen so many of this type of question that I take the parallel beam for granted.
@aocxe 8 күн бұрын
@@BlakeTerrorPhysics Ahh I see. I didn't notice that in the question since I haven't really seen something like that before.
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 8 күн бұрын
@@aocxe Yeah, they used to have questions like this all the time on the Physics Olympiad. At least you were doing something sensible based on proper physics (and you got the right answer anyway!).
@luthermcgee3767 10 күн бұрын
Sir, if you don't mind me saying so, you should prepare schematics before your presentation and as you step by step present it, bring up the schematics consecutively.
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 10 күн бұрын
No, I don't mind you saying so. Schematics would be nice but using other people's stuff runs into copyright issues, and creating my own would take too long. As I'm doing this alongside earning a living and having a life, my only realistic option is me and a pen, in one take, with minimal editing. Thank you for watching, though, I hope you found it useful.
@luthermcgee3767 9 күн бұрын
@@BlakeTerrorPhysics , I did find it useful. It was the dialogue that sparked my interest. I will tune in again.
@aocxe 10 күн бұрын
Hello again, I have a query. In the application for oxford there is the PAT test, predicted grades, GCSEs, personal statement and interviews. They always say it is marked holistically but could you provide an estimate of the percentages each category would account for if you have an idea?
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 10 күн бұрын
I can't help much with this one as my experience of the application process is limited to helping people prepare for the test and the interview. I think it is reasonable to say, however, that the aim of the application process is to determine if a particular student is capable of succeeding at Oxford, and that this depends on more than if they are academically capable. In particular, the teaching style at Oxbridge is very different to that at most other universities. It's possible to be a brilliant physicist and also not be well suited to that style of education - sometimes it is best to study somewhere else. This is why it's not possible to say which part of the process is most/least important - it will vary from student to student. That probably isn't much help, but it's all I've got!
@cmdcs1 12 күн бұрын
This channel is a fantastic resource for anyone wanting to learn Physics. Many thanks, Blake, for your continued efforts
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 12 күн бұрын
Thank you for the kind words. There's lots more on the way! I'm hoping to finish the first wave of physics content this year, and then move onto maths and coding.
@SnoopyAKQJT 13 күн бұрын
If memory serves: 1. Ernest Rutherford won a Nobel Price in Chemistry in 1908 and was not quite happy about it. He wanted a Nobel Physics prize. 2. Rutherford had 14 Nobel Laureate students, one of them was Hans Geiger, the inventor of the Geiger counter
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 12 күн бұрын
He was quite the guy. It's easy to see why he has so many things named after him!
@davep8221 14 күн бұрын
So, we're still basically in the steam age.
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 12 күн бұрын
In many ways, yes. Steam is useful stuff!
@davep8221 15 күн бұрын
Please keep making these kinds of videos!
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 15 күн бұрын
There are plenty more on the way. I'm glad that you are enjoying them.
@davep8221 15 күн бұрын
But Love is the strongest force of all!
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 15 күн бұрын
Because it has no limits! Maybe I should have included that in my Einstein video!
@tybeedave 5 күн бұрын
it do make the world go round :)
@user-ko3vw5wp7d 16 күн бұрын
Make my idea: Bomb physics
@nickush7512 16 күн бұрын
Well presented refresher, thanks.
@aocxe 16 күн бұрын
Hello again, for part F I thought the height would be 18m rather than 20 since he is 2m tall and he only has to get the top of his body to the nest to place back the egg?
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 16 күн бұрын
Yes, you are right, 20m is too high. This also raises a good point about these PAT papers (and many other questions, for that matter) - there is often some uncertainty or ambiguity in the questions so there can be multiple valid answers. In this case the man has to bend, pick up the egg, and then raise his centre of mass from bent over to some undetermined height in the tree. As you say, this height will be less than the 20m that I have used, and 18m is a better choice. It could even be lower if he reaches up to the nest. Providing you choose sensible numbers, you will be given the marks, particularly if you add a short sentence of explanation. Think of yourself as being in a dialogue with the person marking the paper, as this will show the depth of your thinking - just as you've done here. In this case, I think your choice is better than mine.
@aocxe 15 күн бұрын
@@BlakeTerrorPhysics Yeah fair enough, I guess the marking is different to standard A-Level marking in that way. Although while my answer may have made the answer more accurate, it certainly didn't make the maths for the next part easy!
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 15 күн бұрын
@@aocxe Yes, that's true! You may have done this anyway or have a different method, but borrowing a ten on the numerator of a fraction can be very helpful. So if you have 16/45 (which I think is your answer), then borrow a x10 to make 160/45, rewrite as 3 and 5/9, rewrite again as 3.55555..., then return the x10 that you borrowed to give 0.35555...
@aocxe 13 күн бұрын
@@BlakeTerrorPhysics Yeah I got the same answer but used some bus stop method division which took time. I'll bear that method in mind next time. I'm going to be doing the PAT this year when calculators are allowed (although a digital version) so I'm not sure why I'm even practicing all this mental maths lol. I guess I just want a realistic mark for the paper. Also I was going to ask are the papers closer to 2024 harder? And if so, how much harder?
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 13 күн бұрын
@@aocxe I wouldn't say that the more recent papers are harder. It can vary quite a lot from year to year and, of course, it's often personal preference regarding the type of questions. Personally I've found the more recent papers a little bit easier, but there's no guarantee that I've answered them correctly so maybe I'm mistaken! Plus I've had practice by doing the earlier papers first, so maybe I'm just better prepared. There are some interesting differences in the recent papers - most notably that some of the easiest questions are now often at the very end of the paper and offering a lot of marks. I think that the maths questions have become a bit easier (more like standard A-Level questions) and the physics questions more varied (more on waves and new topics that need to be understood while reading the question). Graph sketching is mostly a bit easier and combined with calculus. The probability questions have been a bit harder. Make sure you can do logs, trig equations, series, and binomial expansion, as they come up a lot. Don't spend too long on the multiple choice (there are usually 10 easy ones and 2 tricky ones, so a couple of minutes on each, cut your losses and move on to the big marks). Of course, everything might change this year! Skim through for your favourite topics, the high mark questions, and questions that don't have much to read. Come back to the rest if you have time. Then do your best and see what happens! It's a great achievement just to be sitting the test, so whatever the outcome you will have done something special.
@Theclergymane 17 күн бұрын
Great video with timeless information. Thanks a lot !!!
@aocxe 17 күн бұрын
Hello, on question 4, surely the answer would be 1/6 rather than 5/36 for the first part since you have to count the 3,3 option twice? I'm still working through these papers btw, your videos are the most helpful thing ever since u make it seem so easy!
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 17 күн бұрын
Hello, I'm glad to hear that you are finding these videos useful! As for question 4, we can't count the 3, 3 option twice because there is only one way to roll a double-3. The other options may appear to be double counted but really we are noting that rolling 2, 4 is different to rolling 4, 2 (and similarly for 1, 5 and 5, 1). If you need more convincing then compare it to the second part of the question: we are twice as likely to roll an 11 compared to a 12 because we are comparing 5, 6 and 6, 5 (for eleven) with 6, 6 (for twelve).
@aocxe 17 күн бұрын
@@BlakeTerrorPhysics Yeah, you're right, I had it in my head you could throw the two threes in a different order and therefore double but it's wrong. Thanks for clearing that up.
@Govstuff137 18 күн бұрын
Thank you so much. It's a much better understanding almost a clear understanding. Much better than It was!!! 🙃😁🥳🤯⚡
@NicholasWilliams-uk9xu 20 күн бұрын
Check it. Particles are like standard candles, these standard candles are what you detect, and it's also relative to where you are when you detect them, then there is the structure which the detectable kinetic oscillations are travelling on, and is energy unaccounted for by quantum mechanics, meaning it's not a accurate explanation of the system therefore making it hard to solve for. This is why general relativity is important to decompose what both theories (general relativity and quantum mechanics) actually are fundamentally and thermodynamically. If you take the initial velocity speed of the big bang convection energy (speed = energy), then divide it by inertia (local intersecting velocity direction differentials over real volume) then you get your local_c local_h local_G value, which derives the local mass scaling factors in that area and your gravitational power output relative to moving into that area from a previous local_c local_h local_G area, you will radiate a higher G value when moving from high local_c location to a low local_c location in order to remain thermodynamically in equilibrium with the new location, and inverse if you are traveling the opposite way (constants are just normalization relative to mass observers, G_true is a measure of power loss). Because hc^5/PlanckEnergy^2 = G is the left over output of power relative 1 planck energy power factor being inversely interacted with another Planck unit's energy density over the area of that power. Therefore the correct equation factors in relative frame shifts (previous local_c * previous local_h)^5/(current local_planck_energy)^2. It's also important to note, while planck scale energy is very high, it counteracts itself, meaning it interacts weakly on you. When you have a differential between a local_c compared to another local_c, you have curvature in alignments of planck units, therefore general relativistic space and gravitational gradient power dynamics emerges from differentials in planck energy within non-warpable 3D space. Which is beautiful, it ties them together nicely (adhering to thermodynamics, and observations more consistently than other models like inflation). When planck units exert power hc^5/PlanckEnergy^2, this leads to the formation of more planck angular momentum quanta, over the same volume, which renders a expanding general relativistic space, and matches with observations of black holes evaporating relative to the amount of gravitational radiation they emit, and deltas in the gravitational field (deltas between power and energy between planck units). Welcome to quantum relativity.
@runningfree1236 20 күн бұрын
These are so helpful - thank you!
@plranisch9509 21 күн бұрын
Asking different questions like the one here helps us to think along with theory. Nice!
@runningfree1236 22 күн бұрын
Thank you so much for the video! At 05:03 you mention the light coming into the right hand side, into n2, but I thought that the light would be travelling from the ring to the observer, and so coming out of the right hand tank. I don't understand why a critical angle would occur at the membrane as the light is travelling into a denser medium?
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 21 күн бұрын
Yes, a good question. You pick up on an interesting point when talking about light travelling between object and observer. You are correct that in reality the light is travelling from the ring to the observer. There is, however, a tendency for people (e.g. me in this question!) to treat optics problems as geometry problems because all light paths are reversible. So whether we talk about the light going from object to observer (forwards in time) or observer to object (backwards in time) we get exactly the same answer. As for moving from n2 to n1, it's then a reverse way of thinking about critical angle - rather than what angle leads to total internal reflection when moving from n1 to n2, we are thinking of what is the maximum angle we can produce in n1 when moving from n2. Because people are usually more comfortable thinking about critical angle when moving from high to low density, this is why they often reverse the light path (as I did when answering this question). I hope that makes sense! One other point on the reversibility of light rays (i.e. moving backwards and forwards in time gives the same path) - this is similar to how we can give consistent answers to projectiles questions or particle interactions both backwards and forwards in time. Something that makes the Second Law of Thermodynamics all the more interesting as we encounter processes that can only move forwards in time.
@runningfree1236 20 күн бұрын
Thank you! This explanation has really helped :)
@plranisch9509 22 күн бұрын
Thanks!
@plranisch9509 22 күн бұрын
Thank you very much for your efforts!
@plranisch9509 23 күн бұрын
🎉
@MAGH1O1 23 күн бұрын
Thanks for sharing. Very clear and informative. Question: can we detect or prove the interactions?
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 21 күн бұрын
Good question. Yes, we (or at least those clever people working with particle accelerators, such as at CERN) can provide evidence for these interactions. When they smash particles together they are initiating different interactions - they don't know exactly what will happen with each collision (because it's probability based, as we see in the array of Feynman diagrams for each interaction) but they do know what won't happen (because everything has to be conserved through the collision: mass-energy, momentum, quantum numbers, etc). They have wrap-around detectors that collect data on what is produced by a collision and can then fill in the gaps by analysing the data. Other interactions can be inferred in different ways, such as the detection of neutrinos that I talk about in my latest video (Particle Physics - Experimental Evidence).
@MAGH1O1 23 күн бұрын
Excellent lecture. Thanks for sharing 💐
@plranisch9509 23 күн бұрын
Thanks
@solounomas0 24 күн бұрын
Quite entertaining I totally suscribe I am also trying to make videos on KZbin. Keep It hard
@plranisch9509 24 күн бұрын
Thanks!
@plranisch9509 24 күн бұрын
🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉Thanks
@claudiamanta1943 25 күн бұрын
16:33 Time 0 from whose perspective? Definitely not the positron’s. The positron’s time 0 starts at what and whose time?
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 25 күн бұрын
@@claudiamanta1943 Hi, thanks for the comment. I'm trying to aim this at 16-18 year olds who have never seen a Feynman diagram before. Of course, that doesn't mean that my explanation couldn't be clearer or more accurate. If you can add another comment with some more detail that helps towards my aim then that could be useful - there's always room for improvement!
@claudiamanta1943 25 күн бұрын
@@BlakeTerrorPhysics It was not a criticism 🙂 I know absolutely nothing about quantum physics and your explanation made me feel that I understood something (which you should take as a huge compliment). I was just thinking ‘out loud’ as I find it interesting.
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 25 күн бұрын
@@claudiamanta1943 Thank you. I was taking it as constructive criticism! There will be many ways I can improve these explanations, and I found this one particularly difficult because it's such a complex subject.
@sidneymonteiro3670 24 күн бұрын
@@BlakeTerrorPhysics I benefited from this video. Keep them coming.
@ishaand6370 26 күн бұрын
Really helpful cheers
@aocxe Ай бұрын
Smart approach to the last question, I tried working out both the diagonals from both centres to the touching point which took much longer.
@BlakeTerrorPhysics Ай бұрын
Thanks. Although having just watched it back, I don't know why I used Pythagoras rather than just saying x=3r cos45. Maybe my attachment to Greek geometry is stronger than I realised.
@user-jq6ko8ms8z Ай бұрын
nice one sirrrrr
@aocxe Ай бұрын
Thanks for the video, this is really helpful! I'm revising for the PAT atm and this is the best video I could find for this paper.
@BlakeTerrorPhysics Ай бұрын
That is very nice of you to say so, thank you. I'm glad you found it useful. I'm uploading 2021 PAT today and should be up to date with 2022 and 2023 by early next week.
@aocxe Ай бұрын
@@BlakeTerrorPhysics excellent!
@fluffycrabvideos394 6 күн бұрын
This is super useful, i just have one nitpick: im still a bit lost on q5, because you dont properly explain how to go from mv to 1/2mv^2 ×2m Brilliant rest of video though!!!
@BlakeTerrorPhysics 6 күн бұрын
@@fluffycrabvideos394 Yes, I can see how it could be confusing. It might make more sense in the reverse order to how I did it - the accelerating potential gives kinetic energy = eV to the electron, but we want the momentum. If you take any kinetic energy, multiply it by 2m (to give m^2 v^2) and square root it, then you get the momentum. It's one of those things that once you start switching between KE and momentum in this way, it's easy to take it for granted (just as I did in the video!). Thank you for asking the question, it's useful to be able to clarify things and make these explanations better.
@aocxe 6 күн бұрын
@@fluffycrabvideos394 Oh good sir let me answer this for you. Simply put - you can rewrite mv (momentum) as the square root of 0.5mv^2 x 2m. This creates the square root of m^2 x V^2 which equals mv. Since we don't know the velocity we can replace the 0.5mv^2 part with e(charge) x V(potential difference). This is because e x V = Energy. Then we can easily finish the question. The goal was to simply remove velocity since it was unknown. Hope this answered your question!
@abhiroopkumar1064 Ай бұрын
Actually this proved more useful than my previous school years. It's my fault to some extent but your videos kind of feel like a course. I am in 11th and these videos are fun. Thanks
@abhiroopkumar1064 Ай бұрын
I wonder why I didn't find this channel before. I am grateful to ur content. Thanks
@BlakeTerrorPhysics Ай бұрын
Thank you for saying that, it's nice to know that someone finds it useful. There is plenty more content on the way - I'm about 30% through the physics videos, then I'll be doing maths and coding.
@abhiroopkumar1064 Ай бұрын
@@BlakeTerrorPhysics I have those subjects as well. I await your videos.
@Meeeee__jn Ай бұрын
For question 11, why does C remain the same? Is it just by considering only the outer loop as a single circuit? Haven't done this topic in a while
@BlakeTerrorPhysics Ай бұрын
Yes, that's right. It's a combination of Kirchhoff's second law (i.e. the voltage one) and the symmetry of the circuit. Alternatively, once you see that there is no potential difference across d, it is evident that c is the same as b.
@Meeeee__jn Ай бұрын
@@BlakeTerrorPhysics Alright, thank you!
@epimaths Ай бұрын
Về hình hộp....