Is there a preference for microscopic physics?

[Chuckwalla]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I have noticed in the practice tests that most of the physics tested is microscopic like waves, fluids, circuits, and optics. Is this accurate or am I managing to miss the more macroscopic things like translational motion, torque, and machines?

 

[HawkeyePostOp]

Translational motion and torque are certainly within the scope of AAMC questions, although they're usually pretty basic. I've haven't seen a machines problem yet, but either way it's not a major topic. I would only worry about it if you're scoring 13's and 14's regularly.

Not to be a nerd or anything but quantum mechanics is the only true "micro" thing. Optics, circuits, fluids, and most of waves are macroscopic phenomena and closer to Newtonian mechanics than anything else.

 

[Chuckwalla]

Thanks for the confirmation and yeah, you are a nerd.

 

[MCP1]

I thought the same thing especially after doing the AMCAS practice exams. On my real MCAT however, most of the physics was more classical (force, torque, acceleration etc.) so definetly review those problems.

I am better at the optics, light, sound problems and was lulled into a bit of a false sense of security after the AMCAS exams.

 

[engineeredout]

I could never stand kinematics problems even back in physics class. So glad I'm not a mechanical engineer. Taking entire courses on statics/dynamics, ugh.