/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10073818
Double major in mathematics and physics at undergraduate and decide for yourself.

And if you like neither start coding in final year and get out of all this.

Coincidentally, I made a complex guide to assist people in this very decision.

>>10073824
My two interests are probability theory and cosmology. The former is math, the latter is math-heavy, and my university accepts math majors for graduate studies in the HEP/particle physics and cosmology departments. So I thought I'd major in math and minor in physics, but I'm wondering if I'm overestimating the mathematical component in theoretical physics.

>>10073870
At B.S. level in physics all the mathematics you need is covered in the beginning of the books and by the professor.

Most of the mathematics used is mechanical and application based.

I don't know much about graduate level physics though.

While B.S. math is more rigorous and usually concerned with abstractness.

If you are really interested in pure math i.e. defining abstract structures and using them to prove things then pursue B.S. mathematics.

If you are interested in solving problems and learning tricks and techniques for mathematics take up physics with some applied math minor.

A big drawback of double majoring is your lack of time you will not get to pursue electives and projects under professor which are ultimately more important if you want to get to graduate school.

>>10073818
>>10073826
I am very dumb.

I do Physics, can confirm. I perform well through the sheer power of memorization and conformism.

If you want to be employed, which you should, do applied math or CS.

>>10074093
>conformism
What do you mean?
And how do you get by in physics just by memorizing shit?

>>10074134
If you can't even memorize things, you must be dumber than me, Anon. I'm sorry to break it to you.

You should've gone for Chemistry.

>>10074141
did you actually even go to college?

>>10074141
I never said I had problems with memorization, work on your reading comprehension. I asked how you managed to get by in a physics BSc just by memorizing things.

>>10073826
That said if you want a job choose Math

>>10073870
>probability
Statistics or applied math/cs if there is a large ml/ai focus in those departments.

>cosmology
Only pursue this if you're really interested but probably physics with lots of math

>>10074203
>large ml/ai focus
No, the department I’m interested in deals with the purely mathematical side of probability, not applied math or CS.
>Only pursue this if you’re really interested
You mean because of the lack of industry applications? I don’t mind, I want to do research.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yowuo4pH8Lc

>>10073818
Engineering fag

My school only has to take up to Junior year math for physics. 4 qtrs calc, 1 qtr LA, 1 qtr DE. So you might be able to decide after Gen Physics if you preferred Math or Physics.

>>10073818
If you are genuinely smart do physics. If you are not smart and want a job choose math.

>>10073818
do both. the overlap is large enough that you aren't wasting your time if you switch from one to the other, and even so, math helps with physics and physics with math. if you arent bitchmade, you can handle it.

>>10074552
>Not smart
>Math
wat

>>10074552 >>10074652

Math coursework to learn is harder than Physics.
However getting a job as a Physicist is much harder than as a Mathematician.

Physicists struggle with a fierce competition for few jobs.

Mathematicians is more versatile since they can easily get jobs in Computer Sci, Finance/Biz, and even (Mathematical) Physics.

Mathematicians have an easier time finding job.

>>10074552 >>10074652

Math as subject is harder to learn than Physics.
However getting a job as a Physicist is much harder than as a Mathematician.

Physicists struggle with a fierce competition for fewer jobs.

Mathematicians is more versatile since they can easily get jobs in Computer Sci, Finance/Biz, Statistics and even (Mathematical) Physics.

Mathematicians have an easier time finding job.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304096/Graduate-physics-PhD-31-fell-death-block-flats-taking-job-centre-qualified-for.html

>>10074195
Extremely fake

>>10073818
Major in math unless you are sure you want to get a PhD or you want to teach high school science. A Bachelor's in math will get you a decent job, a bachelor's in physics wont.

>>10073818
Do a PhD in math, then study physics as hobby while you get paid for economical calculations.

Fucking wroth it.

>>10073826
What if I'm just slightly dull?

>>10073818

>obvious answer is economics

>>10075047
Physics PhDs are just as employable in finance as math PhDs
You don't know what you're talking about. Quant trading is boring shit, too

>>10075066
Applied math

>>10074705
many more mathematicians commit suicide too

>>10076827
If you have a PhD in math (or even a master's) from a school that isn't shit-tier, yet you can't find a job, it's 100% your own fault.

This is what worked for me. I was interested in both math and physics, so I signed up for a class of each each semester. Eventually, I decided I was more imtrested in physics but had nearly enough credits to earn a minor in math, so I did that too.

>>10073818
read the sticky and never post here again

>>10073818
>>10073818
Doing Chemistry at the moment but have a huge interest in astronomy. My university makes it possible for people who have a Bachelor in Chemistry to go for a Master in Astronomy and I'm eager to go into that direction. If I do that eventually, do I need to fear certain subjects? Is there anything I should learn in my free time?

>>10073826
>>10074652
>>10074705
>>10074962
physics is the best guage of RAW INTELLECTUAL STRENGTH. you only downplay this because you're an autistic, sheltered little shit of a brainlet with an equally embarrassing understanding of physics.

nobody gives a shit that you can show some irrelevant X is isomorphic to Y in your little useless bullshit "proof". nobody cares about your hugely curved grades in undergraduate linear "algebra".

physics. is. king.

>>10074141
chemistry would be actually useful

>>10073818
how badly do you wanna stay a virgin

>>10077277
Physicists are cute little number punchers that believe whatever you tell them. They'll read a formula in a book and memorize it, to use it to answer the exercise questions at the end of the chapter.
Mathematicians demand proof for all statements that aren't axioms or definitions.
In this way, mathematicians are actually more "empirical" than even physicists, and beat them at their own philosophy.

Mathfags in this thread fail to understand the pure power of applied math

>>10077291
Good physicists will demand proof and a lot of the time they are exactly the same proofs you'd see in maths

both are memes

the amount of jobs where you can work within your field is limited and for the majority means to end somewhere else where you are just second grade material.

Is quantum computing more about applied math or physics?

>>10077297
What kind of applied math?
Anything statistics or probability related forces you to work either in finance or doing machine learning/big data bullshit.

>>10077317
Physics.

Is it weird that I find physics to be more difficult than mathematics by a non-negligible margin?
I'm not even naturally good at math, but I find it easier to reason rigorously with abstraction than to acquire the level of "flexibility" physics requires, if that makes sense. I never know which formula to apply to a given situation and I have trouble visualizing how the mathematical tools translate to real-world physical phenomena.
Math feels clearer and more straightforward.

>>10074942
Job market for physicists is pretty good, especially if you have a PhD. Mathematicians can get a job with NSA but are executed on retirement to avoid spilling secrets.

>>10077297
>>10075066

>>10073818

>>10077538
>solves single digit multiplication eletronically
Fucking kek.

>>10077529
>Mathematicians can get a job with NSA
Is that the only thing mathematicians can get hired to do that doesn't involve selling their soul to a bank or insurance company?

>>10073818
Double major and decide for grad school, that's what I did.

>>10077291
>Physicists are cute little number punchers that believe whatever you tell them. They'll read a formula in a book and memorize it, to use it to answer the exercise questions at the end of the chapter.
Lmao you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

>>10077628
http://dl4.libgen.io/get.php?md5=BC0718C8E796593ADF1AC9B9EBDA9EA5&key=VEH6RV2B7VT4C8T9

>>10077291
Math is just examining axioms/assumptions and connecting them together until you get to an "interesting" result. It's a glorified game of connect the dots.
Mathematicians think they are the only ones who can be rigorous, when in reality physics is rigorously proved every step of the way. The only reason you see handwaving arguments in introductory physics is because physics is so far beyond the aberage layman/undergrad's comprehension.
Physics is a superset of mathematics that actually provides benefits to the world. Without physicists, we wouldn't be where we are today, but without mathematicians... well, all physicists are necessarily also mathematicians.
Mathematicians project a lack of rigour onto physicists due to their deep-seated insecurity. Insecurity about their intelligence, insecurity about their worth, insecurity about their lack of job prospects and social life. Physicists do everything mathematicians do but better. Keep seething, mathfag.

>>10077547
>Do you love math but hate its rigor.
>Physics

Okay, somebody definitely doesnt do physics here. We couldnt care less about the math, the point is that it is the only way to describe nature and that is what a good physicist seeks to do. We dont do it for the math, we do it for physics.

>>10077835
see: >>10077635

>>10077802
>Without physicists, we wouldn't be where we are today, but without mathematicians...
>Implying
Also all the math behind advanced physics was done by mathematicians, not physicists. Einstein's understanding of diff geometry was really poor.

>>10077802
someone post the physicists-and-mathematicians-should-work-together comic with the sad Einstein.

>>10077802
Also,
>when in reality physics is rigorously proved every step of the way.
This is just untrue. You do see more rigor as a physicist in grad school but not as much as an actual mathematician. There's a whole subset of math dedicated to applying rigor and proofs to physics called mathematical physics. It was literally invented after Hilbert took a look at it and realized how sloppy physicists were with their math
Don't get me wrong though, it's probably just impossible to do both at the same time. Theoretical physicists just cant afford to be rigorous when coming up with new models, and it's the mathematicians job to make sure all the mathematics is consistent

>>10073818
If you want a well paying job do math and try to work on wallstreet. If you really want to spend your days thinking in theory then do physics and hope you are autistic enough to get hired in a lab.

>>10078177
>Thinking in theory
>Lab
This doesn't happen, you literally have to pick one

>>10078157
I talked about this in another thread. Mathematicians exist to save physicists time so they can do the real work. Just because mathematicians have developed models in the past doesn't mean that physicists can't. And in fact, many times physicists create and have created mathematical models where none existed or mathematical models that they did not have knowledge of.

Physics is applied math.. guys the fields are really interdependent such that trying to 'prove' one is better than the other is simply a failed exercise, actually there is even the distinction of pure math and applied math outside of physics, in which case you may be working on problems in theoretical computer science for example or statistics. But at the end of the day a physics degree is an applied math degree and those skills can be transferred to other related fields. For example as a physicist you may be doing data analysis and programming to prove your model meets criteria, traditionally you would get a statistician or programmer to do that work but since the skills for applied maths people are similar you wear many hats. That being said I don't think as a physicist you would be asked to put on your pure math hat very often, unless you work in mathematical physics where rigorous proofs are the norm.

>>10073818
>Do I want to be an Arch-Wizard, or a Wizard.

Anon, make the right choice.

>>10077277
physics is gay and you are gay

>>10073818
>math or physics
philosophy

if I had a dollar for every "math or physics" person who ended up dropping it all for philosophy I could easily buy myself lunch

>>10078795
Philosophy is even more useless than pure math

>>10077628
>t. butthurt physicist

>>10077802
>Physics is a superset of mathematics
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
IMAGINE ACTUALLY TELLING YOURSELF THIS HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>10073818
are you the type of person to be ok with approximating or using a theory that only applies under certain conditions?
or are you the type of person who prefers a more rigorous, formal field that might have less real-world applications (until someone finds them)?

they kinda overlap but if you're more of the former just do physics. if you care more about proving everything and exploring more abstract concepts then math is better

Physicists are closer to animals than men. They can't think of anything that they can't themselves see or sense in some way, or with the help of some contraption.
Every single great physicist that has existed either was actually a mathematician, or needed a mathematician to do the work for him. The loser physishit itt says "w-we just get the mathematicians to do that so we can do the real work!!" when the math IS THE REAL WORK. Literally any retarded animal can see that objects fall, fucking dumbass birds use this principle to kill prey all the time. It takes a MATHEMATICIAN to formalize it, and the formalization of it is the actual thing that matters.
There is also no such thing as "applied math" vs "pure math". There is only mathematics.

I can't decide whether to watch my wife's son's mother get railed by Chad or Tyrone!

>>10079214
>S-Stem nerds are all cucks!
The brainlet cope.

I legitimately flipped a coin to decide when I was in the same boat. Ended up Math. Stupid fucking coin.

>>10077802
not really, mathematical reasoning can allow you to derive very insightful truths about both concrete and abstract things.
take a look at recent advances in pairing-based cryptography for example, without the concepts of group theory and number theory it wouldn't be possible.

physics can be and is quite rigorous, just usually not so much in the field. in grad school it may seem important but once money is on the table the job done matters more than the job being done with high rigor

>>10078157
physics and math are mutually inspired, as advances in classical mechanics spurred the conception of calculus, which in turn led to advances in pretty much all fields of physics which in turn gave birth to analysis when there was a need to formalize the notions of a limit etc.

>if you're a physicist (especially theoretical), you have to know somewhat advanced mathematics by default, but if you're a mathematician, you can go your entire career without touching physics
How true is that statement?

>>10079216
It is the thinking man's fetish, after all.

>>10079243
If you have a math degree you can go to graduate school for electrical engineering, physics, cs, even biology. It literally doesn't even matter. B.S. degrees are just there to show you aren't retarded imo.

At my school they invited math majors to do jobs in *BIOTECH*.
People who major in math can do anything apparently.

>>10079275
That's an American thing. In Europe you can't go to grad school for biology if you didn't study biology or at least minored in it during your undergrad, same for physics.

>>10077802
>>10078171
Reminder that programming has more rigor than math since our proofs actually have to be valid and we can't implicitly overload our syntax.

>>10079285
i went to MSc biology and i have BA in something else, i studied biology in high school tho

>>10079208
So how are the mathematicians getting along with string theory? When "mathematical beauty" and symmetry are allowed to trump reality you know mathematicians have gone off into the weeds.

>>10079592
Can I get into cosmology as a mathematician? I'm interested in theoretical physics, but I fucking despise classical mechanics, thermodynamics, measures and all that shit.

>>10079605
Cosmology is still physics so if you try to research in grad school, you'll still have to take the core courses and pass the qualifiers if they have them. Out of curiosity, why cosmology? There are many implications of classical mechanics and thermodynamics/statistical mechanics throughout.

>>10079614
I'm interested in rigorous formulation of physical theories with math, I just don't like bothering with the practical side of physics and know very little about it. String cosmology looks fun from what I've seen.

by choosing physics

>>10079177
nothing is more useful than philosophy

Why does /sci/ pretend physicists and mathematicians hate each other when in academia nobody gives a fuck about any alleged rivalry?

>>10073818

>>10079190
I would say this is pretty accurate. I would also say that it's VERY difficult to know which one you prefer if you haven't had much exposure to either, which is a shame.

I'll say this much: if you decide to pursue grad school and beyond, you'll pretty much be able to choose which path you go down, regardless of what you major, but you'll have to shore up your deficiencies in either area (this is honestly regardless of anything, undergrad education is always pitifully underdone). If you don't want to go past undergrad and just get a job, both are honestly pretty bad options but I'd say physics will marginally help you get a job, depending on what other skills you learn along the way (read: learn how to code, it's simple and useful for pretty much any technical job nowadays).

A good check might be to see if you enjoy doing physics labs (or labs in general) or not. I hated every fucking lab I did as a physics undergrad, including the 3 years of working in a nonlinear optics lab. I did fine, but I just really did not enjoy the experimental process. As you might be able to guess, I'm also a pain in the ass to my professors and peers when it comes to being rigorous with the mathematics.

Physics phd student in US btw.

>>10079865
>I hated every fucking lab I did as a physics undergrad,
What made you choose to pursue physics at the PhD level then?

>>10079605
>Can I get into cosmology as a mathematician?
Perhaps.

Often mathematicians move in on a physics field after a breakthrough. Einstein commented on this once, that the mathematics of relativity was beyond his understanding. Same with High Tc superconductivity, a lot of modelling was heavy on mathematics.

I'd be cautious about string theory. If that tanks it will drag a LOT of careers under with it. The situation with strings, dark matter, dark energy and all that stuff is like the UV breakdown that came before quantum physics cleared everything up. Before that the epicycles were killed by ellipses. And now I think it is about time string theory is due a revolution.

>>10079898
Dumb question, but if string theory does end up as a dead-end, is there any way to predict what fields are going to require new and thorough mathematical modelling?

>>10079914
>is there any way to predict
that is hard to say. We first need a breakthrough. Given how many decades people have been struggling with it I guess we need an Einstein grade scientist.

>>10079928
Why is it commonly accepted that string theory will lead nowhere, yet it's still researched so extensively? I understand that its invalidity needs to be proven, but why not look for other models?

>>10079980
>why not look for other models
String theory's current competition is even more crack pot than it is

>>10074426
that’s basically nothing
>>10079348
you would have difficulty getting into a graduate program without taking bio courses in america all of the best grad schools demand math and physicsfags to take o-chem, evo bio, genetics lab etc

>>10074093
Chemistry is better for memorizing. Maybe biology too. That's how girls brute force it

If physics is so superior to math for a bachelor's degree, then what jobs are available with a physics degree?

>>10080831
>>10079865
>>10079348
>>10079208
>>10078519
>>10077802
>>10074040
>>10073818


Why is there no dedicated /uni/ board for all things related to education? Advice sucks ass and when I post here my posts get deleted by mods.

>>10080938
Uni/Academia board would be pretty sweet. No point trying to talk about that stuff on /adv/ because they are brainlets who don't know the different between a research assistant and laboratory technician.

>>10080957
/adv/ is genuinely the worst board on 4chan, and yes I'm including /co/, /b/, /v/ and whatever else.
I don't understand how the board's community can be so different and secluded from the rest. Everyone there is a fucking retard who has no idea what they're talking about.

Why are math and physics nerds always the worst?

One-skill monkeys and subpar career opportunities.

>>10080815
So girls are better at working with real things instead of simplified models?

>>10077802
/Sci/ eternally BTFO!

>>10080957
>>10080967
Lmao agreed.

>>10079980
>Why is it commonly accepted that string theory will lead nowhere, yet it's still researched so extensively?
All they have is a hammer, so all they can see are nails. Same with epicycles, Check up the history. Each time a deviation was seen further layers of circles were applied.

>I understand that its invalidity needs to be proven, but why not look for other models?
They are looking for other things but those, like MOND, leave huge elephants swept in under the carpet.

Latest issues:
https://science.slashdot.org/story/18/10/18/2236217/measurement-shows-the-electrons-stubborn-roundness#comments
>A new article in Nature reports of a new, extremely precise measurement of the electric dipole moment of the electron. The conclusion is that, within the margin of error of the measurement, the electron remains a perfect sphere. This implies that supersymmetric theories keep running out of corners to hide, that another nail is driven into their coffin, and that string theory looks less and less compelling.

>>10080967
Basically.
For the record, wsr is best board.

>>10082150
In terms of quality probably, alongside the slow as fuck boards like /c/ or /po/. It's not very interesting, though.

A mathematician is able to contribute to physics whereas no physicist ever contributed in a substantial way to pure mathematics.
Theoretical physics is invaded by mathematical physicists and even pure mathematicians. The most renowned physicists always have extensive pure math knowledge as well, see Witten
Even in history, the best physicists were either mathematicians, or piggybacked off the work of mathematicians (see Einstein and Riemann)
The only thing physicists are generally better at is applying math quickly and efficiently, but that leads to a lot of handwaving. Physicists are usually very good at integration, for example, but lack rigor.

tl;dr: the only time you should choose physics is if you want to be an experimental physicist. For anything else, choose math.

>>10079980
>Why is it commonly accepted that string theory will lead nowhere, yet it's still researched so extensively?

Because it is not commonly accepted at all.

>>10082947
that physicist created a theory of percolation but cannot write a rigorous mathematics paper about it

smirnov and werner won fields medal for rigorous mathematics paper on percolation

>>10074705
Reading isnt a good research uni at all. And its pretty shit for physics and then expected a job center to find him a good job
Shouldve just become a teacher

>>10073818
Depends on how the university functions. Enter which-ever is easier to transfer out of and take courses for both for the first two years. As a layman, you probably don't have enough experience with upper mathematics or physics to know which you enjoy more, so split the difference until you can more knowledgeably make the choice.

>>10073818
Depends what you think a proof is. Would you accept extreme correlation as a proof? Then do physics. If you'd only accept a proof from first principles argument, then go with math.

>>10083537
>As a layman, you probably don't have enough experience with upper mathematics or physics to know which you enjoy more
They require different ways of thinking and reasoning, don't they? Isn't there a way to determine which one might be more fitting?

>>10083590
Are their methods of thinking all that different? They share quite a bit of academic culture.
There are plenty of fields of applied math that think like physics. There are plenty of subfields of physics that consist of almost nothing but abstract math.

The honest truth is that if you get into either of them and turn out to be good, you'll eventually come to enjoy that one more. It's a simple fact of human psychology: If you're good at something and get rewarded for it in a meaningful way(with high grades, or praise, or research opportunities, or friendship, or whatever else), you will enjoy doing that thing and want to do it more. If you're consistently good and consistently rewarded, you'll consistently want to do that thing more.

Don't sweat the decision. It really isn't that important. You can always just change your major; there are perhaps no real majors easier to transfer between than math and physics.

>>10083604
>There are plenty of fields of applied math that think like physics. There are plenty of subfields of physics that consist of almost nothing but abstract math.
Isn't it easier for a pure mathematician to contribute to physics than it is for a physicist to contribute to math?
Math seems more "versatile" in that physical sciences, even experimental, rely on mathematics as a backbone. Maybe I'm wrong though.

>>10083609
It depends entirely on what the pure mathematician is specializing in. If you study something that has use in physics, you're probably going to end up contributing to physics even if you don't intend to. And likewise if your a physicist that works in an area that requires interesting math, you'll end up contributing to mathematics. Some of the greatest mathematicians were physicists (e.g., Edward Witten).

I think I should be more careful in what I'm saying. Mathematics is certainly more versatile if we take the definition you gave, but there are no mathematicians alive who study "mathematics." The age of the polymath ended a long time ago. If you study math, you'll find some small niche to specialize in. Maybe that's 4-manifolds, or PDEs, or moduli spaces. Some parts of math have broad applications in the physical sciences. Some have next to none.

Its certainly easier to go from a degree in mathematics to a degree in physics. That's just the gradient of specificity: It's easier to learn something specific if you have general knowledge. But that specific knowledge isn't nothing.

>>10083647
>Some parts of math have broad applications in the physical sciences
Aside from PDEs what would those be?
Aren't some areas of pure math which were thought to be inapplicable actually useful for theoretical physics nowadays (correct me if I'm wrong, but string theory itself is pretty much a branch of math). So isn't it impossible to say which parts of math have no applicability in the real world?

>>10083730
You seem to have posed a question and then defeated it in the same post. There a plenty of areas of mathematics with obvious and current application (stochastic processes, 4-manifolds). There are plenty of areas whose application, if they have any, I am unfamiliar with (e.g., K-theory, HoTT). That may be because they have no application or because I'm just don't know enough about them.

I also don't know enough about string theory to comment on how mathematical it is with any real confidence, but what I've been told is that string theory will remain in the realm of pure theory until we've substantially progresses our ability to do high energy testing. It's mathematical enough the Witten won the Fields medal for his work in it, at least.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with these questions.

>>10082947
You don't understand how research in physics work.

>>10083647
No one goes for niches, not before having one of the rare post-doc jobs.

>>10077277

>>10074211

>>10077835
but mad physishit stfu. you dumb sack of shit. your field is such a joke. hurr durr i cant explain something let me just put the adjective dark in front of it and suck off my superior to get money for research.
pic related
>you

>>10073818
Whatever choice you make, do a double major in CS so you at least have a job once you graduate

>>10084385
>double major
Doesn't exist here in Europe.

>>10084180
You have no arguments. Stamp collector?

>>10084180
Then enlighten me, cunt.

>>10082947
>whereas no physicist ever contributed in a substantial way to pure mathematics
This dude has never heard of Witten.

>>10079335
>since our proofs actually have to be valid
What the fuck do you think "valid" means, idiot?

I wear new balance shoes, does that make me maths or physics?

>>10085964
Read the entire post you brainlet

>>10084385
You can easily get a code monkey job with a math or physics degree

>>10079753
okay, this is epic

>>10073818
doesn't matter you will end up a coder anyway once you realize you need to pay the bills

>>10084524
yurop doesn't exist

>>10084524
>Doesn't exist here in Europe.
it does in germany