[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 731 KB, 1080x1920, Screenshot_2015-07-24-16-49-15.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7444721 No.7444721 [Reply] [Original]

Math vs physics vs chem engineering

>> No.7444723

>>7444721
Physics.
/thread

>> No.7444725

>>7444721
math is most difficult
physics second
engineering last

>> No.7444731

>>7444725
Even chem?

>> No.7444767

>>7444721

Engineers have more fun

>> No.7444770

>>7444721
Double majoring in math and physics, and between those two, I'd say physics is more difficult.

>> No.7444776

>>7444770
Physics is just memorizing equations

>> No.7444777

If they're teaching you a proper curriculum then Math is hardest followed by ChemE then Physics. It honestly depends on you though. I hate doing proofs so I shy away from topology, algebra, etc. I enjoy computational stuff, labs and data analysis so I very much enjoy higher level physics classes. ChemE is just a clusterfuck and some courses like Orgo are tough for just about everybody. Then there's probably some time consuming projects and such to go along with upper level classes. Dunno much about that though, I'm just a physics major with eng friends.

>> No.7444792

>>7444776
kek

>> No.7444793

>>7444776
well meme'd :^)

Physics students who try to get by by memorizing typically don't do very well.

If you fully understand all of the physics as you go along, there's no memorizing necessary, and you do great.

>> No.7444803

>>7444776
Not really. Memorizing an equation is not enough. If that were the case, then equations can be used as long as the dimensions of the problem match said equation. There are certainly situations where the dimensions match (which can happen more than you think), even if using the equation would be completely and utterly wrong.

>> No.7444809

>>7444776
>>7444803
Same post.

For example, when calculating the resulting velocity of some object after a collision, people who only memorize the equation of kinetic energy will get the problem wrong if the collision happens to be inellastic.

>> No.7444816
File: 149 KB, 1920x1080, laughingwhores.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7444816

>>7444793

>> No.7444824

>>7444816
Who is this semen demon

>> No.7444840

>>7444725
>Math undergrad
>more difficult than ChemE or Physics
And what makes you think this?

>> No.7445432

ChemE really harder than maths?

>> No.7445436

>>7444809
You memorize the equation for inelastic collisions

>> No.7445445

>>7444840
You have to be a genius to do pure math

>> No.7445452
File: 37 KB, 542x618, facts_1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7445452

senior cheme here. if you actually want a job with a B.S., then get the cheme degree

>> No.7445455

>>7445452
Is pure chemistry employable

>> No.7445465

>>7445455
If you want to be a beaker washer then ya

>> No.7445476

>>7444721
Math and physics doesn't even begin to compare to ChemE in workload.

Difficulty is difficult to accurately assess, because non-standardized degrees in math and physics can be obtained without doing any hard coursework. Often people compare graduate level electives they take to undergrad etc.

Nothing compare to difficulty in math and physics at top schools though.

>> No.7445630

>>7444731
Eng Chem is a meme next to Physics and Math

>> No.7445657

>>7444721
Math undergrad is difficult, but I feel like the lab components and project based work in other majors can be a real bitch, on top of the fact that they all share a base level of difficulty.

>> No.7445686

>>7445476
>tfw never gonna be a Math student at Cambridge
http://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/undergrad/pastpapers/

>> No.7445689

>>7445452
>stopping at bachelors
Jesus christ I bet you're not even autistic

>> No.7445718

>>7444721
Math > Phys > ChemE in terms of conceptual difficulty, probably. This assumes you're going to a real school that actually teaches mathematics and physics.

ChemE >> Phys = Math
In terms of work volume.

>> No.7447111

>>7445686
Part 1A exams are surprisingly less difficult than I imagined.

>> No.7447115

nuke > chemE > phys > math

>> No.7447124

>>7447115
ebin meme! 8)

>> No.7447145
File: 776 KB, 3045x2300, 1436202674091.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7447145

Simple fact of the matter is that physicist have the most intellectually intensive course at top universities known to mankind at this point, mathematicians rank slightly below them. Just because you have a lot of measuring protocols and economics classes and other bureaucratic shit like that doesn't mean your course is any more difficult. At good universities you also do stuff like ochem in physics in your mandatory electives. Either that or you specialize in much more harder physics fields. In conclusion engineers have no idea what goes on at the top univerisities physics courses and here goes objective difficulty rating

Physics > Mathematics > Chemistry >> EE > ChemE >> MechE

>> No.7447157

>>7447145
This is so ridiculously wrong and naive. Engineers take more of the same technical courses Physics majors find so difficult including QM at certain unis, for example physics might take one course in continuum mechanics and stop after the basics while engineers do far more courses in the field including dedicated continuum mechanics design, heat transfer (which is much, much more difficult than babies first dynamic heat PDE) etc. This is before the courses which bundle math more difficult than anything math majors take until senior year or even grad-school like control engineering, PDEs. Chemistry does not belong anywhere above any engineering degree other than maybe industrial.

Objective difficulty rating:
ChemE > EE = Physics > Mathematics > MechE > other E >>>> Chemistry

>> No.7447167

>>7447157
>Muh transport phenomena

I swear every post by a chem eng faggot has this as though anybody should be impressed that you can take basic ideas and then generalise them.

>> No.7447171
File: 14 KB, 162x227, pauling.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7447171

>>7447167
No fag, it's just one more thing we succeeded in solving after generations of scientists and mathematicians failed to, out of all the endless other things we improved including statistical physics, chemical solutions thermodynamics, molecular dynamics and all of chemistry. That is why the coursework to keep up with these advances is much more intense than the basic fundamentals still taught in pure science.


EVERY PROBLEM HAS A SOLUTION

>> No.7447174
File: 18 KB, 240x251, euclid.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7447174

>>7445445
sick and tired of this shit
you need to work hard to do pure math

>> No.7447189
File: 34 KB, 740x308, 2570276636_f6aab8f555_o.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7447189

there was an actual purity scale that was more serious than this meme.

anyway just posting this

>> No.7447195

>>7447189
Purity is completely irrelevant. That would literally put Philosophy and Theology on top and no one wants that. Not even Randall did when he drew that.

>> No.7447199
File: 33 KB, 292x475, Pauling.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7447199

>>7447171
Do chem eng fags really believe this? You can point to Linus Pauling all you what but all he did was apply some elementary results in QM to chemistry, it wouldn't be the first time a Nobel was given to a ridiculously simple idea (Rutherford scattering is probably the best example of this) and it won't be the last.

>Also daily reminder Linus Pauling was a bit of a moron.

>> No.7447203

>>7445445
And you have to be a genius to do groundbreaking ChemE R&D, but we both know that the undergraduate curriculum does not leave us with only those people.

>> No.7447207

>>7447115
>Nuke> ChemE
Having 3 safety classes and an extra term in materials balances does not make your field of study any more difficult. ChemE has Biomolecular and Chemistry components that more than make up for anything that Nukes staple on to their program.

>> No.7447208

>>7447174
Is that a quote from A Royal Road to Algebraic Geometry?

>> No.7447457

>>7447157

Engineer detected.

>> No.7447585

>>7444776
Tell that to a theoretical physicist.

>> No.7447713

>>7447195
Philosophy yes, but theology no