This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- How to prepare for BPhO Round 1
- University of Hertfordshire
- University Of Hertfordshire vs University of East London
- STEM is not the future !
- University of East London vs University of Hertfordshire (Msc. Data. science)
- Finding a mentor
- Bemused at difficulty of Maths of 1st Year Physics.
- Which A level is harder physics or further maths?
- Improvement in work experience application in medical physics
- Bristol Engineering Design
- Physics personal statement advice
- How to stop being told that I'm "too good for teaching"?
- Sports elitism?
- Salary progression for medical physicist?
- Famous Hungarians
- Should I reconsider applying to medicine if I love maths?
- Oxford Demystified – Physics and Philosophy
- online masters transformative oncology at University of Manchester
- BMO & Trinity college
- alevel choices
who is more clever -- the physicist or the mathematician?
Scroll to see replies
A clever physicist is cleverer than a dumb mathematician.
(
)
Dumb thread, most people here (who are making equally good points, I should add) have forgotten that being a physicist or being a mathematician is based on interest and not intelligence. Some mathematicians/physicists might be cleverer than most physicists/mathematicians but simply not be using all their intelligence because their interests lay elsewhere.
(
)Dumb thread, most people here (who are making equally good points, I should add) have forgotten that being a physicist or being a mathematician is based on interest and not intelligence. Some mathematicians/physicists might be cleverer than most physicists/mathematicians but simply not be using all their intelligence because their interests lay elsewhere.
Sidhe
To rate one above the other is stupid and misleading, however a good way to judge is by overall achievement, how much work you have done to further your field. I think someone like Schrodinger who was both a profoundly talented mathematician and an instrumental physicist of the 20th century probably are brighter than pure mathematicians in fact there are some notable physicists that would have eaten most pure mathematicians alive for sheer mathematical talent.
To say that top physicists from the last couple of hundred of years would have 'eaten pure mathematicians alive' seem quite silly to me. Yes some might have been good. Yes many may have been able to understand the maths. But few would have had the neither the time, the ability, nor the undertsanding to study the fields in to such a depth to have had the creativity, insight, perseverance to discover and develop the mathematics and to exhaustively prove and back up their developments to leave no one in any doubt over the accurracy of their work.
I take it your a mathemetician. I suppose you have to put up with people demeaning maths all the time 
. I have to agree though if you spend your time just working through difficult problems related to say nth dimensional topography that have little or no application, then to be frank your not going to get the respect, no matter how hard you work, probably not fair but people like to see results.
I'm well aware that maths requires creativity, but I was referring to physical creativity, the ability to turn an equation into a reality, to extrapolate maths into something that changes the world.
Einstein may have been slow to get to grips with some of the more complicated maths, but I'd rate him higher on the cleverness scale than many mathemeticians, because of the ideas he developed, they were quite simply inspired.
By the way most famous physicists of both the 21st and 20th century were extraordinarily gifted at maths, in fact these days to do anything ground breaking at least in theoretical physics it's practically a pre-requisit. Pure maths is meh but pure and applied maths, that gets you the chicks and the fancy cars I'd argue that it's more intellectually difficult to do both. But then many mathemeticians don't apply themselves, why I have no idea, don't think I'm demeaning there intellect though, it is probably every bit the equal.
. I have to agree though if you spend your time just working through difficult problems related to say nth dimensional topography that have little or no application, then to be frank your not going to get the respect, no matter how hard you work, probably not fair but people like to see results.I'm well aware that maths requires creativity, but I was referring to physical creativity, the ability to turn an equation into a reality, to extrapolate maths into something that changes the world.
Einstein may have been slow to get to grips with some of the more complicated maths, but I'd rate him higher on the cleverness scale than many mathemeticians, because of the ideas he developed, they were quite simply inspired.
By the way most famous physicists of both the 21st and 20th century were extraordinarily gifted at maths, in fact these days to do anything ground breaking at least in theoretical physics it's practically a pre-requisit. Pure maths is meh but pure and applied maths, that gets you the chicks and the fancy cars
I'd argue that it's more intellectually difficult to do both. But then many mathemeticians don't apply themselves, why I have no idea, don't think I'm demeaning there intellect though, it is probably every bit the equal.
It's silly really to say one is more cleverer than the other. Both physicists and pure mathmos have made significant contributions in their own right and both require intelligence/skill in their respective positions.
Personally, I am a physicist but rate pure mathematicians quite highly because I just couldn't do maths to that level (aside from the fact that I find pure maths such as analysis and probability theory quite boring). On the flipside, I do have pure maths friends who rate physicists quite highly because they find it difficult/boring to get their head around things like classical dynamics and electromagnetism.
From an A-level students' perspective, this may be quite a simple or trivial argument, but that is quite a poor vantage point to be judging something like this since A-levels are fundamentally flawed. A-level physics is not real physics, it's just qualitative understanding of physical principles, minus the maths; once you get to university you realise that mathematical skills are one of the cornerstones of physics. Conversely, as a mathematician you realise the input and development of maths stimulated by physics.
Ultimately, the answer to the question is 'neither', and maybe this changes once you have an appropriate context to consider the question from, but generally, the answer is neither.
Personally, I am a physicist but rate pure mathematicians quite highly because I just couldn't do maths to that level (aside from the fact that I find pure maths such as analysis and probability theory quite boring). On the flipside, I do have pure maths friends who rate physicists quite highly because they find it difficult/boring to get their head around things like classical dynamics and electromagnetism.
From an A-level students' perspective, this may be quite a simple or trivial argument, but that is quite a poor vantage point to be judging something like this since A-levels are fundamentally flawed. A-level physics is not real physics, it's just qualitative understanding of physical principles, minus the maths; once you get to university you realise that mathematical skills are one of the cornerstones of physics. Conversely, as a mathematician you realise the input and development of maths stimulated by physics.
Ultimately, the answer to the question is 'neither', and maybe this changes once you have an appropriate context to consider the question from, but generally, the answer is neither.
At the highest levels Pure Mathematics is on par with Physics, but at undergraduate there is no contest - Physicists. Having done a bit of both at Uni, Maths is simply regurgitating(sp) proofs and definitions, there is no reasoning involved, where as Physics you have to apply your knowledge to new and unkown situations and come up with solutions.
As I said, at the highest levels, pure mathematics is on par, because you need a special kind of insightful thinking to develop new mathematics and try new things, but at lower levels physics requires far more lateral thinking.
As I said, at the highest levels, pure mathematics is on par, because you need a special kind of insightful thinking to develop new mathematics and try new things, but at lower levels physics requires far more lateral thinking.
Worzo
The question is meaningless. There is no distinct characteristic level of intelligence associated with either role. Newton and Einstein were arguably two of the most intelligent physicists ever. However, Euclid and Euler were equally intelligent. Historically, both physicsts and mathematicians have been very clever indeed and it makes no sense to try and say which is more clever.
And trying to evaluate the intellectual ability required for each role on the basis of A-level difficulty is just ridiculous, since A-levels require no real intellectual ability anyway, just a good memory.
And trying to evaluate the intellectual ability required for each role on the basis of A-level difficulty is just ridiculous, since A-levels require no real intellectual ability anyway, just a good memory.
i would prob say neither because i dont consider myself to be particularly clever yet i managed to do AS physics, by "training" myself to answer particular questions..
x.narb.x
At the highest levels Pure Mathematics is on par with Physics, but at undergraduate there is no contest - Physicists. Having done a bit of both at Uni, Maths is simply regurgitating(sp) proofs and definitions, there is no reasoning involved, where as Physics you have to apply your knowledge to new and unkown situations and come up with solutions.
As I said, at the highest levels, pure mathematics is on par, because you need a special kind of insightful thinking to develop new mathematics and try new things, but at lower levels physics requires far more lateral thinking.
As I said, at the highest levels, pure mathematics is on par, because you need a special kind of insightful thinking to develop new mathematics and try new things, but at lower levels physics requires far more lateral thinking.
I disagree, I think that both physics and maths (and any other science or subject) at undergraduate level requires a personal discovery of already known things apart from the research project (although some academics don't let their undergraduates do proper research which is a great shame). The undergraduate physicists is no more likely to come across truly unknown (by humanity I mean) situations than the undergraduate mathematician.
although i prefer maths over physics any time 
... the physicist is the more clever one 
... the physicist is the more clever one 
There is no way you can define the level of physics and maths using A level standards. I've always liked maths as an subject, this is the reason why I love physics because you can apply mathematical methods to solve things. All of my stupid questions like why things happen are answered by physicists though...
In terms of A level, AS physics was taking the piss.. hm A2 is more involved and much more interesting especially when you starts to see how you can use all the stuff you have learned to answer a question that seems very impossible before and that is what kept me going - sense of satisfaction 
. But A level further maths is definitely the most challenging
In terms of A level, AS physics was taking the piss.. hm A2 is more involved and much more interesting
especially when you starts to see how you can use all the stuff you have learned to answer a question that seems very impossible before and that is what kept me going - sense of satisfaction . But A level further maths is definitely the most challenging 
This thread is futile. A person's intelligence is not defined by their discipline. I think what you're asking is which of the subjects is harder, which is again a pretty meaningless question. Both the most advanced areas in physics and the most advanced areas in maths are very difficult indeed.
That being said, there are several suggestions that I take issue with. First off, someone has suggested that university maths is simply 'regurgitating formulae and proofs'. The person who made this judgement must've been on a very poor course, or not seen it through. One could reasonably argue that I'm biased, being about to embark on a university maths course myself, but I'm basing my opinion solely on what I've heard from those who have taken the courses.
Secondly, it's been said that mathematics lacks creativity. Without creative thinking in mathematics, we would have no new results. We'd also be very much behind in our physics, as it's often the case that pure mathematicians wil discover a field of mathematics that will, months or years later, be found to apply to a certain physical phenomenon. So, whilst the mathematicians are not credited for their work having real world applications, it's often the case, it's just as of yet unnoticed. The progress of the field of physics is very dependent on the progress of maths. That being said, the progress of maths isn't neccessarily always furthered by mathematicians, it's just usually the case.
Finally, on the subject of teaching, through my four years of physics teaching (That is, GCSE and A-Level), I've had two reasonable teachers, one sub-par teacher, and one thoroughly awful teacher. Compared this to maths in which I've had one excellent teacher, two above average teachers, and a sub-par teacher, I'd say the quality of teaching in maths is, in my experience, rather better. That said, I'm just a single person, and my experiences could well be anomalous.
That being said, there are several suggestions that I take issue with. First off, someone has suggested that university maths is simply 'regurgitating formulae and proofs'. The person who made this judgement must've been on a very poor course, or not seen it through. One could reasonably argue that I'm biased, being about to embark on a university maths course myself, but I'm basing my opinion solely on what I've heard from those who have taken the courses.
Secondly, it's been said that mathematics lacks creativity. Without creative thinking in mathematics, we would have no new results. We'd also be very much behind in our physics, as it's often the case that pure mathematicians wil discover a field of mathematics that will, months or years later, be found to apply to a certain physical phenomenon. So, whilst the mathematicians are not credited for their work having real world applications, it's often the case, it's just as of yet unnoticed. The progress of the field of physics is very dependent on the progress of maths. That being said, the progress of maths isn't neccessarily always furthered by mathematicians, it's just usually the case.
Finally, on the subject of teaching, through my four years of physics teaching (That is, GCSE and A-Level), I've had two reasonable teachers, one sub-par teacher, and one thoroughly awful teacher. Compared this to maths in which I've had one excellent teacher, two above average teachers, and a sub-par teacher, I'd say the quality of teaching in maths is, in my experience, rather better. That said, I'm just a single person, and my experiences could well be anomalous.
I think everyone got the jist of the thread and realised that people aren't ingelligent based on what subject they study.
I also mentioned that at higher levels(research student) mathematics requires as much creativity and lateral thinking as physics. At undergraduate level, it definitely doesn't.
So basically you completely missed the point argued about things nobody was disputing.
I also mentioned that at higher levels(research student) mathematics requires as much creativity and lateral thinking as physics. At undergraduate level, it definitely doesn't.
So basically you completely missed the point argued about things nobody was disputing.
Interesting thread, and by that i mean the answers, the question can't really be answered can it?
I mean, how can you say, for example, that just because one person finds it harder to use their creativity to apply theorectical knowledge to a physical situation than to derive a mathematical result, that everyone else also does? Nobody knows what it feels like to be in somebody else's mindframe so in that respect you can really make any sort of judgement.
I couldn't care less to be honest though, i do it cause i enjoy it and that's what matters in the end
I mean, how can you say, for example, that just because one person finds it harder to use their creativity to apply theorectical knowledge to a physical situation than to derive a mathematical result, that everyone else also does? Nobody knows what it feels like to be in somebody else's mindframe so in that respect you can really make any sort of judgement.
I couldn't care less to be honest though, i do it cause i enjoy it and that's what matters in the end
before i started this thread, i have speculated the usual "this is meaningless" comments and whatever; i just wanted an answer based on experience, however. let's assume 2 twins with identical brains with identical intelligence levels are born. one studies physics up to masters' level and the other studies mathematics. which one could be defined as "more clever" by popular culture?
yes i know the question is meaningless and can't be answered -- i only want your opinion. sheeeeesh...
yes i know the question is meaningless and can't be answered -- i only want your opinion. sheeeeesh...
madima
which one could be defined as "more clever" by popular culture?
The physicist - Albert Einstein and Steven Hawking (or 'that guy in the wheel chair' or even 'the other one with the computer voice' as if there are only two physicists in the world) are both powerful symbols of genius in UK culture and both are physicists. This is of course if you give people less than a second to answer the question.
ChemistBoy
The physicist - Albert Einstein and Steven Hawking (or 'that guy in the wheel chair' or even 'the other one with the computer voice' as if there are only two physicists in the world) are both powerful symbols of genius in UK culture and both are physicists. This is of course if you give people less than a second to answer the question.
But would it be reasonable to say that people don't understand physicists properly whereas they are completely oblivious to mathematicians?
Sure, general culture has vague ideas about special relativity, but they have no idea whatsoever about Fermat's last theorem?
Siddhartha
But would it be reasonable to say that people don't understand physicists properly whereas they are completely oblivious to mathematicians?
Sure, general culture has vague ideas about special relativity, but they have no idea whatsoever about Fermat's last theorem?
Sure, general culture has vague ideas about special relativity, but they have no idea whatsoever about Fermat's last theorem?
Absolutely. People know of theoretical physics, they know of it as something very hard that only very clever men like Einstein are capable of doing. Maths is only remembered as the boring subject at school people don't really know of maths as an area of academic research.
I'm making sweeping generalisations here but it is broadly true.
x.narb.x
At the highest levels Pure Mathematics is on par with Physics, but at undergraduate there is no contest - Physicists. Having done a bit of both at Uni, Maths is simply regurgitating(sp) proofs and definitions, there is no reasoning involved, where as Physics you have to apply your knowledge to new and unkown situations and come up with solutions.
I'm a mathematician who became a physicist and can see both areas are enormously complex. You'll find mathematicians who lack comprehension as often as you do physicists. You'll find mathematicians who make you think "Wow" as often as you do physicists. Don't be putting too much faith or weight on how the subjects appear at A Level or in your first year or two. Mathematics might have more of an air of "It's crazy hard" to it, but the media/common view of things is not always correct.
One thing both have in common is that there's definitely some correlation between maths/physics ability and a lacking in common sense. This is coming from a guy who still has the marks on his face from swimming into a swimming pool wall a month ago.... face first.
Related discussions
- How to prepare for BPhO Round 1
- University of Hertfordshire
- University Of Hertfordshire vs University of East London
- STEM is not the future !
- University of East London vs University of Hertfordshire (Msc. Data. science)
- Finding a mentor
- Bemused at difficulty of Maths of 1st Year Physics.
- Which A level is harder physics or further maths?
- Improvement in work experience application in medical physics
- Bristol Engineering Design
- Physics personal statement advice
- How to stop being told that I'm "too good for teaching"?
- Sports elitism?
- Salary progression for medical physicist?
- Famous Hungarians
- Should I reconsider applying to medicine if I love maths?
- Oxford Demystified – Physics and Philosophy
- online masters transformative oncology at University of Manchester
- BMO & Trinity college
- alevel choices
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 weeks ago
Unofficial Mark scheme: AQA GCSE Biology Paper 1 Triple Higher Tier 16th May 2023Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A Level Business Paper 3 (7132/3) - 14th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A-level Psychology Paper 2 (7182/2) - 25th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A-level Physics Paper 2 (7408/2) - 9th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
Edexcel A Level Mathematics Paper 1 (9MA0 01) - 6th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Maths Exams
2960
Last reply 2 months ago
Edexcel A-level Mathematics Paper 1 [6th June 2023] Unofficial MarkschemeMaths Exams
156
Trending
Last reply 2 weeks ago
Unofficial Mark scheme: AQA GCSE Biology Paper 1 Triple Higher Tier 16th May 2023Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A Level Business Paper 3 (7132/3) - 14th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A-level Psychology Paper 2 (7182/2) - 25th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A-level Physics Paper 2 (7408/2) - 9th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
Edexcel A Level Mathematics Paper 1 (9MA0 01) - 6th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Maths Exams
2960
Last reply 2 months ago
Edexcel A-level Mathematics Paper 1 [6th June 2023] Unofficial MarkschemeMaths Exams
156
