/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6905522
pretty much the same with only slight variations. if you can get past ODE's, you'll be fine in either one.

>>6905532
more like PDE's, so basically the same math that physicists need without the proving stuff

>>6905616
>engineers
>doing PDEs

I'd love to see an engineer work with Sobolev spaces and pseudo-differential operators.

I thought you only needed calculus and linear algebra for engineering

>>6905633
at shitty schools like mine, yes, at real universities? no

especially overseas, engineers learn more math

i'd say for the US, electrical engineering will get you harder maths because of the concentration on electromagnetic fields and the vector analysis this involves, while mech engineers usually only need a course in computational differential equations at most (at my shitty school)

>>6905658
I'm european doing ME though, I dont know if I'm going to have more maths in my bachelor than linear algebra + multivariable calculus because I have never found an actual list of whats the curriculum of calculus and whats not compared to what I'm going to have.

>>6905622
how do you think they work with things like waves, heat transfer, MHD, etc.

>>6905622
Hurr durr I know math words guyz am I cool pls validate me

captcha: noncef could
>but cef couldn't

>>6905658
Guess you haven't taken fluids then.

>>6905671
chances are, your multivariable calc and linear algebra classes cover more than the standard american versions of those classes. if your multivariable class talks about manifolds or differential geometry at all, you're better off than half the schools in america (though you don't need that shit anyway)

The intersection.

In Control Theory(which I study), shit can get out of hand and out of hand relatively swiftly. It's the convergence of mathematics, EE and Mech E. Beautiful field.

>>6905683
i can't think of a single engineer i know who cares about the sobolev embedding theorem.

>>6906216
I can think of a single mathematician who doesn't know the domain of PDEs

Electrical. It has a bunch of ODEs and PDEs.

Aerospace (a sub-field from Mechanical) tends to deal with a bit of tensors as well.

>>6905616
Many of the physicist I know claims to study mathematics at their own time (or leisure time) and they know a reasonable amount of mathematics. I've met one guy that knows a lot about navier-stokes equations.

>>6905616
I don't think you know what math physicists need then.

>>6905522
>Engineering
>hard maths

>>6905616
>so basically the same math that physicists need without the proving stuff
I would like to see engineers dealing with spherical harmonics, not saying it's what physicists deal with after their studies.

>>6905522
>Engineering
>hard maths

At my college the math intensive courses for both meche and ece are almost exactly the same until around the third year.

>>6905616
>physicists
>proving stuff
ha! maybe hundreds of years ago. Modern physics is just about "well you can't DISPROVE string theory, so we're just going to go with that."

fluid dynamics is a bit of a headache
for me at least
my vote goes to engineers

>>6907257
*mechanical

ykwim

>>6905522
Both of them have Statistics. The worst of all maths. All the others are easy

>>6905658
I'm in vibrations and acoustics concentration and this is one hell of a field in terms of math

>>6905532

>>6905522
mechanical vibrations. Vibration resonance and dampening. Really nasty shit

>>6905522
>engineering
>hard maths

>>6907251
most physicists secretly laugh about the string theory though.

>>6907251
>implying modern physics uses string theory

DA FUQ? Modern physics uses the standard model, not string theory. In fact, NO ONE USES STRING THEORY! String theory isn't even taught in most physics programs. "String theory" isn't a fucking scientific theory, it is mathematical theory aka mathematical model. It isn't even considered science.

The overwhelming majority (like 99.99%) of all physicists in "modern physics" are experimentalist and they don't use or know or care about string theory.

>>6908838
>implying they do it secretly

Sting theory isn't a scientific theory, and it isn't used.

>>6907251
>implying physicist don't prove stuff

I'll just leave this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

>>6905522
>hard maths
>Engineering

Pick one

>>6908880
The Higgs boson has never been proven, you mong

>>6908885
>The Higgs boson has never been proven

Serious or Trolling?

>>6908888
serious, nice quads though

>>6908885
>The Higgs boson has never been proven

0/100

>>6908890
You're seriously retarded kid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

>>6905622
Also, for the hire of horses, and for hay and oats, and for straw for the beds, as well as for litter for the horses; for house.
Also for expenses incurred by randy calling bane out for stoping at the number game billz and not thinking higher than the money, metal leafs or trees and dropping that beatz but lost love for the baaa beat the bat W.DRE
taste before and after salt from
the start. call it underground ping, pong and charge wether Tax.
Ronzen/\ronson/\randyvcalling/wew
FUture Land coin scoT cleaver tax
Nope note topo ping back copy
searched flow caught the back page or 1387?

>>6908891
>>6908894
I realise I'm being b8'd, but in case you're actually serious:
There is a chance the outcomes of the measurements couldve come about without the existence of the Higgs particle

>>6908885
>>The Higgs boson has never been proven

WUT? They discovered that shit 2012 and got the Nobel prize for it in 2013

>>6908891
>>6908894
>>6908901
>kid
>those pictures
>WUT
low quality trolling

>>6908898
>No idea how science works
>can't into hypothesis testing or p-values

Do you think they don't take into account the
"chance the outcomes of the measurements couldve come about without the existence of the Higgs particle"? Are you that fucking retarded? ARE YOU?

That is called the hypothesis testing YOU DUMB FUCKING IDIOT. And it is taken completely into consideration, when we proclaim we "discovered something".

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/07/17/five-sigmawhats-that/

>>6908898
>>6908885

>>6908885
>Higgs boson has never been proven

DumbestFuckingThingI'veEverHeard.jpg

>>6908885
>The Higgs boson has never been proven

>>6908911
>>6908913
>>6908914
>>6908915
Nice samefagging

You do realise something hasnt been proven until you know it with a 100% certainty? Or as you insist on putting it: with a p-value of 0

Maths can be proven, physics can't since you will always need to rely of measurements

>>6908920
>MUUH NOTHING IN REALITY CAN BE PROVEN
>MUUH We ARE BRAINS IN A JAR

>>6908920
>only math can be proven

You are the reason people think all mathematicians are autistic.

>>6907251
>>6908885

>physics hasn't proven anything in hundreds of years

>Higgs boson has never been proven

You should take your medication boy. You got a bad case of the retards.

>>6908934
>>>ic@[/ppp]

>>6908927
lel this kid can't handle the truth so he spews memes instead

>>6908920

While this is technically true - that nothing in reality can be 100% proven - its still a fucking stupid thing to say.

Which i shall demonstrate, with my invisible tiger!

Look out! Theres a tiger behind you!
> No there isnt.
There is! Its just invisible!
> Cant feel it.
But its out of phase with reality!
> I cant feel its breath, or smell it, or interact with it.
It only does that if it wants to! It can choose!
> How is this still a tiger?
Well you cant prove it isnt! Not 100% Also, there are tigers behind everyone in the world! All the time!
> Youre a fucking idiot.
Cant prove it!

And so on and so forth.

Anyone who actually relies on that idea for anything is an idiot. Yes, we all know there science doesnt claim absolutes on anything. But the moment you start using that in your arguments is the moment everyone around you thinks you are a cunt. Or worse. Religious.

>People confusing a mathematical model of reality with the actual thing

Can /sci/ really not into physics?

>>6908941
That's just a natural language based model of reality. It doesn't pan out because it makes no useful or testable predictions but as you say there's no way to disprove it.

You guys need to come to grips with the fact that "can't know nuffins" are actually correct about the epistemic nature of the universe.

>>6908941
Proving something isnt true does not equal proving something is true, please do not use strawmen.

As long as there is uncertainty it isnt proven, you might know it with an almost 100% but that doesnt make it true

>>6908942

Yes. Its correct. But its also functionally useless as an assumption, because if we work under the assumption that we cannot know anything no matter how much evidence we have, then we cannot make any progress.

Let us say we were doing a drug trial. And the drug cures our specific disease 99% of the time. Under the 'cant prove shit-hypothesis' we naturally have to conclude that we cannot prove that the drug is effective. So we cannot use the drug despite demonstrable effectiveness, because we can never be 100%.

Or, we can say 'we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that ____ is the case' and the majority of the time, thats going to be more useful. Rather than just coming out and saying 'lel, reality is just an illusion. Cant prove anything. All your proof is fo shit' before dropping the microphone and walking out.

>>6908953
Probability still works under the 'cant prove shit-hypothesis' though.
If there was a medicine that would cure me with a 99% certainty, I would take it

Electrical Engineering.

In university mathematics you actually have time to study the subject and they go over a certain subject rather profoundly, which is good.

In engineering you are thrown into the pit and expected to learn or die.

Mechanical engineering has lots of simple but powerful theories so it's more about memorisation of all the different formulas. You don't really have to deduce that much.

But electrical engineering has a shit ton of mathematics and deduction. We also have to do mechanical engineering classes. I'm glad that the circuit analysis methods are rather simple to apply, though.

BUT: Engineering physics and mathematics rules them all. It's hard.

>>6908970

But still, in the end we all just throw the shit into a program to numerically approximate it.

Shit's good.

>>6908973
>numerical approximation is a good thing
This is why I will never get into engineering

>>6908974
Didn't say it was a good thing.

It's a god tier thing.

But really, being against numerical approximations is stupid as hell.

You don't have to like them but you sure as hell should appreciate them.

>>6908991
How does it feel to an EE trip fag who will never learn any hard math / physics?

>>6905522
>thermodyamics
>fluid mechanics
>vibration
>heat transfer
>rigid bodies
>deformable bodies
>dynamic systems
>internal combustion

>heat transfer with fluids and vibrating dynamic rigid body systems internally combusting as deformation occurs
Vibrations and Internal Combustion are a bitch...not that they aren't interesting.
The schedule is so tedious its rape.

At this rate, I think my capstone is going to be a mechanical dick and lets hope the professor doesn't want me to demonstrate(he will).

>>6905684
this is funny

>>6908974
> tfw numerical approximation is the accurate solution

>>6908970
Going into an engineering physics major at the top school in the country for it
Will I die?

Is abstract math usefull for high-end physics? As in Hilbert Spaces etc. I've been doing diff equations of n order etc. at uni and can take courses about abstract math, but was wondering if it's usefull.

Hoping to Work and research in Space related field

you don't need maths to tell ahmed to quit slacking

>>6909112
yes it is, quantum mechanics is linear algebra on hilbert spaces, GRT is differential geomentry on 4-mannifolds, classical mechanics is symplectic geometry, high energy particle physics is group theory

>>6909145
Thanks !

>>6909112
>As in Hilbert Spaces

Hilbert spaces are introduced in quantum mechanics (freshman or sophomore year). Quantum mechanics isn't "high-end physics", it is rather standard and elementary shit now of days.

And Hilbert-spaces are not advanced math concepts. Physics uses plenty of abstract mathematical concepts that are more advanced than shitty "Hilbert spaces".

>>6909132

>>6905622

>Sobolev spaces

Come on nigger, they're obviously not going to be doing the functional analysis part of PDEs. There were several engineering grad students in the first year core course in PDEs when I took it, and we used Evans so it was half classical half functional analysis.

Also,

>seriously implying that the classical theory of PDEs isn't much more difficult than babby's first functional analysis a la Lax-Milgram as introduced in a first year grad course in PDEs

Nigga please.

>>6909162
I don't understand how you can have a course in quantum mechanics in your frehman year?

At my uni we have 1. semester classical mechanics 2. semester thermodynamics 3. semester eletromagnetism 4. ot 5. semester quantum mechanics.

It must be a pretty shitty course

>>6909176
not him but
>every university follows the same semester structure as mine
>every university teaches thermodynamics in the first year

>>6909181
I just don't understand how you can start off with quantum mechanics without having Thermo, Electro and classical mechanics first not to mention all the math

>>6909184
Well too be honest you only need 1/4 of classical mechanics, basic calculus and differential equations, a little linear algebra, and a tiny bit of chemistry to understand quantum mechanics.

>>6909184
You don't really need thermo nor electro, at least not for the basis. You just need some calculus, differential equations and classical mechanics

>>6909184
>>6909176
>implying thermo and electro are needed for undergrad quantum

The only pre-rec you really need for quantum is classical, because you need to be familiar with the Hamiltonian, momenta, etc. You need that connection. You can solve all the particle's in fucking boxes, valleys, hill, and simple atoms, without knowing electro or thermo.

>>6909187
>Well too be honest you only need 1/4 of classical mechanics, basic calculus and differential equations, a little linear algebra, and a tiny bit of chemistry to understand quantum mechanics

You don't need any chemistry to understand quantum mechanics. But everything else you said is correct.

>>6909203
>You don't need any chemistry to understand quantum mechanics
by a tiny bit I mean you have to know what an atom/electron is. Basic stuff, but necessary to understand schroedinger's equation for the hydrogen atom.

>>6909207
>atoms/electrons is chemistry
my solid state physics professor would kill you if he heard that

>>6905683
This. Fucking sperg maths majors think they're special snow flakes

>>6909213
Are you really gonna get pedantic like that? You know what I mean.

>>6909207
>you need to know what an atom/electron is

That's what elementary/middle school is for

>>6909234
Indulge me, what's an electron?

>>6909226
Its high school stuff tbh

>>6909238
So is classical mechanics and calculus.

Depends on your subdiscipline. Thermal sciences generally aren't that math intensive, but can be computationally heavy. Fluid mechanics can be very math heavy, essentially working with PDEs all the time, and some disciplines of classical mechanics can be very analysis heavy (wave equation and force prorogation in solids). Professional engineers typically do everything by computation, so it's a bit of a moot point.

Personally, I've found the electric things I've done to be much more hard math intensive, and less computation based than mechanical field. Everything in electrical engineering is much more controlled and cleaner, so math is a much more useful tool for electrical engineering. Currently, the biggest part of this is hardware security. I don't know a whole lot about it, but the math theory behind it is pretty big.

>>6909236
>implying I want to indulge you

When you start QM, you only need to know the electron orbits the atom. That is it. And you should already know it. All other needed characteristics of the electron will be explained and expanded upon in the class as necessary. Elementary quantum mechanics isn't a class on particle phenomenology. You don't learn or need much info on the actual particles involved in the calculations. Most of the models are toys.

If you want to learn about the "complete set" of inherit properties of the fundamental particles, you need to take additional standard model, particle physics, or phenomenology courses.

>>6909236

>implying I want to indulge you

When you start QM, you only need to know the electron orbits the nucleus. That is it. And you should already know it. All other needed characteristics of the electron/particles will be explained and expanded upon in the class as necessary. Elementary quantum mechanics isn't a class on particle phenomenology. You don't learn or need much info on the actual particles involved in the calculations. Most of the models are toys and proof of concept.

If you want to learn about the "complete set" of inherit properties of the fundamental particles, you need to take additional standard model, particle physics, or particle phenomenology courses.

>>6908885
Steve Jobs pls go

>>6905522
electrical. complex analysis sucks dick

I'm in my second year of Electrical Engineering and I don't know what hard maths is to you OP but it's not in engineering, we do linear algebra, multivariable calc, mathematical methods and some high level stats and oh a shit ton of Fourier analysis that's it. I'm taking a physics minor just to stimulate my theoretical and mathematical side.

>>6909109
probably

>>6909236
So your answer is that an electron is a particle.

>>6909357 meant to quote >>6909267

Anyway, I was kind of hoping to bring out the ambiguousness of what an electron actually is. A particle, a field excitation, a "clump of negative charge" or what-have-you... These discussions turn out to be about semantics more often that not, but other times can become quite interesting.

very off-topic, either way.

Anyway, I find mech eng harder, and also more boring than EE.

>>6909277
What? Complex analysis is pretty fascinating if you ain't a pleb.

>>6909109
It will be extremely painful.

>>6909372i never understood whats so hard/fascinating about complex analysis, its like cauchys formula and residue theorem.

>ITT: /sci/ fails to understand comparative statements
Since you all clearly have too much autism to understand that, no, engineering math isn't hard. However, ME and EE use different mathematical models, and either if neither is hard, one can still be harder than the other, you dumb fucks.

6909112
>research in Space related field
FWIW