Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

What would contain harder maths, engineering or Physics?

Scroll to see replies

In my degree (eee), when compared to my flat mate who studies physics, we study the same maths. Infact from what I've seen reading up on other physics disciplines, I haven't seen much difference in the maths studied.

Yes but they'll likely continue to take maths courses throughout the duration of their physics degree whereas with engineering you'll likely stop them after a few years and instead get design projects, group work etc.

Reply 61

Zero Nowhere

Original post by doggyfizzel

Which is a reason it not going to be studied in anymore depth in an applied field. If you are studying Engineering somewhere in there you need to study the Engineering component of the degree, either you study everything we do in physics then the Engineering component in the same period of time, chemistry, statistics and economics all on top or you are going to have to make a sacrifice somewhere. In physics we do cut corners compared to the maths guys, not formalising every proof or taking things at face value, its necessary as we cannot spend the length of the maths course on the maths or we would lose the physics, so instead we sacrifice a level of mathematical rigour, in exams even more so. What you are saying about specialisation happens naturally as a result of the degree. For the quantum example, quantum mechanics is the compulsory 3rd year course with almost zero application, unless you somehow learn that course in the condensed period of time then study signal processing as a mandatory part of the course you cannot then move on the to more complex quantum theory within the same period of the course. By the end of the course you cannot have studied the same level of everything in the same period of time constrained by the length of a degree course as someone who studied the same area but without any engineering component. Where is the sacrifice coming in your degree that allows for the engineering component?

We don't study economics, we are taught in one or two modules in first year economic priciples as part of the subject, which is still mostly a engineering subject ie. I learned it on top of first year power engineering where we mostly learned the mathematics and science behind power generation. I've not done very much in chemistry other than touching on it when speaking of conductivity of certain materials or along those lines. Chemistry is that perhaps is taught more in mech eng.

And I'm not saying studying singal processing or comms is the same as studying the quantum mechanics or scientific principle that lies behind it. That is obvious and goes without saying. I'm saying the pure maths needed to understand these respective subjects will be the same. The understanding of the pure maths behind it is what I'm getting at not the understanding of the scientific aspect.

Perhaps I'm not being clear, I'm never going to understand physics to the degree a physicist ever will, I'm arguing an engineer will have the same level understanding of the pure mathematics behind each respective principle as a physicist or indeed scientist will. A better example would be someone that studies chemistry may use the exact same mathematics to understand some chemistry principle as a physicist would for their respective principle. Neither will be able to understand the others subject as clearly as the they would their own, since they haven't studied the subject as indepth (or at all). But they will both equally be able to understand the mathematics behind each principle. The same can be said for engineers.

Reply 62

You Failed

Original post by Zero Nowhere

By that you mean general relativitey mathematics, which is derived from differential geometry, which engineers study, matrix models, which engineers study, lie algebra, which is used directly in communications. I love how you've taken scientific principles (applied mathematics) and called them pure mathematics in the hope that I wouldn't realise the fallacy. The pure mathematics used in these subjects are the same as used in engineering and infact the applied principles, as stated, are also used in engineering.

The maths in general relativity is far, far more in depth than simple differential geometry, namely due to the fact that you're working in 4 dimensional spacetime, not just 3 dimensional space, so really what I was referring to was higher dimensional geometry theories. I never mentioned matrix models, matrices aren't ever explicitly written in general relativity, while everything written is technically a matrix, indice and 4 vector notation is used. Everything I mentioned is pure mathematics as well, I don't know where you got the idea that it's not from. General Relativity is applied mathematics, but I never said, engineers don't study general relavity, I said engineers don't study the principal mathematics behind general relativity, which is pure. Higher dimensional differential geometry was developed by mathematicians long before Einstein came along.

Can you show me how lie algebra is used in communications? I don't doubt you, Im just failing to see the application and would find it interesting to see.

Reply 63

0le

Dunno why this keeps coming up but my friends and I have discussed it a little and came up with the following conclusion(s):

Physics is the the harder degree in terms of the difficulty of the content alone. Quantum Physics, Particle Physics, Gravitational fields, Relativity, Electromagnetism etc etc etc. But my friends and I concluded Engineering was probably a slightly more difficult degree because of the quantity of the amount of work, coursework and group work you have in a very short amount of time.

Really, you can go to and fro, the mathematics in Physics (I'm guessing) is more pure whereas in engineering (I have just finished my degree...) is applied nearly all the way through.

Opinions will vary and to be honest, who really gives a ****? They are both difficult degrees.