Maths Or Physics Degree?

DB_SamX · 25 Jun 2007 at 19:30

I would say they are both great subjects, but may edge towards Physics, for *** same reasons AcidHell2 mentioned. I did engineering, had 2 housemates do Maths, and 2 more do Physics.

Some overlap, all have good career options. Good choice!

Oh, and I would say it is very hard to get firsts at Oxbridge - it takes a lot of dedication, let alone trying to get in. My gf has just finished at Ox.

Oxbridge are a also bit odd at selecting candidates; they have to be near perfect and most "like" you, if you can catch my drift. My brother with 5 A levels didn't get a place. And I wouldn't be surprised that being from an affluent family can play a part. Odd couple. Ah well, plenty of other good unis in the Aldwich Group I believe - Manchester, Warwick, Soton, etc...

taz488 · 25 Jun 2007 at 19:47

very helpfull posts, i think im edging towards physics because i personally find it more varied with the practical element, still a bit of thinking to do.

memyselfandi · 25 Jun 2007 at 22:57

My best mate did a joint Maths/Physics degree followed by a Physics based PHD and really enjoyed all of it. If you're looking at Physics then you may want to consider the various variants which are available, (I may be biased here as I did the 4 year MPhys Astrophysics course at Cardiff

).

Most of my mates from Uni did Physics or Astrophysics, the ones who have stayed in the field all have Physics PHDs ... most have gone into various IT areas where the analytical problem solving approaches taught in this area are beneficial.

trojan698 · 25 Jun 2007 at 23:30

There's LOADS of maths involved in Physics, and employers know this. Take Physics, you have more chance of staying sane if you do.

Inquisitor · 25 Jun 2007 at 23:40

Both

I'll be off to Birmingham next year for theoretical physics & applied maths. Best of both worlds – can't wait

Tokenbrit · 25 Jun 2007 at 23:51

A physicist attends a lecture given by a mathematician. During the lecture the mathematician speaks about a function from the 11th dimension. Following the lecture the physicist approaches the mathematician, he asks him "sir, how do you manage to visualise a problem in 11 dimensions?" The mathematician replies "Ah it is easy, I just think of an "n" dimensional space and then set "n" to 11."

Basically at degree level a physics degree is nothing but applied maths anyway with one difference. The physicists do the maths, but they have no clue why they do it or how it works. I had a physicist friend who would boast to me about how he had solved a problem and that his method had converged. I asked him: O RLY? What is your rate of convergence and error bounds? To this he had no answers, the question was beyond him. Another time he boasted to me about his ability to use the Finite Element Method, after some conversation I discovered he had essentially put the question to a computer program which had solved it for him, he had no real concept of how this had been achieved. This is what it means to be an undergraduate physicist.

Inquisitor · 25 Jun 2007 at 23:59

Tokenbrit said:
A physicist attends a lecture given by a mathematician. During the lecture the mathematician speaks about a function from the 11th dimension. Following the lecture the physicist approaches the mathematician, he asks him "sir, how do you manage to visualise a problem in 11 dimensions?" The mathematician replies "Ah it is easy, I just think of an "n" dimensional space and then set "n" to 11."

Basically at degree level a physics degree is nothing but applied maths anyway with one difference. The physicists do the maths, but they have no clue why they do it or how it works. I had a physicist friend who would boast to me about how he had solved a problem and that his method had converged. I asked him: O RLY? What is your rate of convergence and error bounds? To this he had no answers, the question was beyond him. Another time he boasted to me about his ability to use the Finite Element Method, after some conversation I discovered he had essentially put the question to a computer program which had solved it for him, he had no real concept of how this had been achieved. This is what it means to be an undergraduate physicist.

Your argument of course bases itself on that maths is what matters rather than physics. If you agree with this then you'd be doing a maths degree anyway.

I counter your post by asking you whether you have any qualitative understanding of quantum theory, relativity, etc. I expect not.

The goal of a physics degree is to learn about physics, not, as strange as it may seem, maths.

Tokenbrit · 26 Jun 2007 at 00:01

Inquisitor said:
Your argument of course bases itself on that maths is what matters rather than physics. If you agree with this then you'd be doing a maths degree anyway.

I counter your post by asking you whether you have any qualitative understanding of quantum theory, relativity, etc.

I counter your post by saying that an undergraduate physicist has no such understanding.

Inquisitor · 26 Jun 2007 at 00:07

Tokenbrit said:
I counter your post by saying that an undergraduate physicist has no such understanding.

Not a complete understanding, perhaps. No understanding at all? I'd rather doubt that :/

Besides, as I said, the point in physics is to learn about physics, not maths. Maths is a tool when you're learning physics, nothing more.

For the record, I love maths with all my being, as well as physics, which is why I'm going to do half and half at uni

Tokenbrit · 26 Jun 2007 at 00:22

Inquisitor said:
Not a complete understanding, perhaps. No understanding at all? I'd rather doubt that :/

Besides, as I said, the point in physics is to learn about physics, not maths. Maths is a tool when you're learning physics, nothing more.

I think you show your naievety regarding the two subjects at this level. Physics is nothing but the easier half of applied maths with no pure at all. Maths is not a tool but a language, the language to understand the universe, a language which the mathematician is fluent in and the physicist has a O-level from a community college.

Edit: University maths is nothing like the maths you will have seen until now.

Inquisitor · 26 Jun 2007 at 00:24

Tokenbrit said:
I think you show your naievety regarding the two subjects at this level. Physics is nothing but the easier half of applied maths with no pure at all. Maths is not a tool but a language, the language to understand the universe,

I'll agree with you there. Bad wording on my part perhaps.

Tokenbrit said:
a language which the mathematician is fluent in and the physicist has a O-level from a community college.

This is where you're getting a bit too arrogant.

Tokenbrit said:
Edit: University maths is nothing like the maths you will have seen until now.

I know.

Anyway, what use is maths to a physicist if he doesn't know anything to which to apply it? Maths is the language in which physics is expressed, you're right, but ultimately, you don't take a degree in physics to learn maths.

Tokenbrit · 26 Jun 2007 at 00:31

Perhaps I was a little harsh but you see my point. Physics is not a degree to understand things. Physics is a degree to teach you crude methods to solve standard problems or for you to play with big magnets and dry ice. If you wish to do these things then choose physics, if you wish to understand choose maths.

Inquisitor · 26 Jun 2007 at 00:38

Tokenbrit said:
Perhaps I was a little harsh but you see my point. Physics is not a degree to understand things. Physics is a degree to teach you crude methods to solve standard problems or for you to play with big magnets and dry ice. If you wish to do these things then choose physics, if you wish to understand choose maths.

Over-simplifying a bit I think

Crudeness is in the essence of science really; you can't have a posteriori methods without some degree of crudeness involved in my opinion. What I like about maths is that it's purely a priori and so doesn't have such crudeness to it.

I personally agree with you that maths is absolutely essential and fundamentally important in physics; you can't take maths away from physics and expect it to work. Which is why I opted to go for the theoretical and mathematical approach to it. This isn't pure maths I know, but it's better than straight physics

But at the end of the day, if you take a degree in maths you're not going to come out with any understanding of physics, are you? That's my point really.

Hiroki · 26 Jun 2007 at 00:49

Tokenbrit said:
I think you show your naievety regarding the two subjects at this level. Physics is nothing but the easier half of applied maths with no pure at all. Maths is not a tool but a language, the language to understand the universe, a language which the mathematician is fluent in and the physicist has a O-level from a community college.

Edit: University maths is nothing like the maths you will have seen until now.

Ahhh.. that arrogance of a pure mathematician... you have got to love it!

I agree with what you are saying up to a point. However I think you are overlooking the fact that in Physics you are likely to cover a broader range of subjects (from the glances I have had of Physics courses).

You don't do physics to understand the maths, the whole point is that you are trying to model theories using mathematics.. By your same argument, you could probably argue that most subjects are rubbish in that they do not try to understand the fundamental underlyings with the level of rigour that you do in Pure maths.

The question one has to ask themselves when choosing between the two is not which is the better subject, it is more a question of whether you prefer to make things fit, or to pontificate about why they would or wouldn't fit. I personally prefer the latter, there is less mess involved!

Inquisitor · 26 Jun 2007 at 00:55

Hiroki said:
Ahhh.. that arrogance of a pure mathematician... you have got to love it!

I agree with what you are saying up to a point. However I think you are overlooking the fact that in Physics you are likely to cover a broader range of subjects (from the glances I have had of Physics courses).

You don't do physics to understand the maths, the whole point is that you are trying to model theories using mathematics.. By your same argument, you could probably argue that most subjects are rubbish in that they do not try to understand the fundamental underlyings with the level of rigour that you do in Pure maths.

The question one has to ask themselves when choosing between the two is not which is the better subject, it is more a question of whether you prefer to make things fit, or to pontificate about why they would or wouldn't fit. I personally prefer the latter, there is less mess involved!

Hole in one :cool:

Dave · 26 Jun 2007 at 01:04

You could always do what my mate at uni does, just do a dual Maths-Physics degree!

Arcade Fire · 26 Jun 2007 at 02:19

The 'Maths Vs Physics' debate is pointless. The two subjects have completely different aims, despite what many theoretical physicists (a fancy word for mathematicians) would have you believe.

The aim of mathematics is to understand the relationships between structure, space and change. Mathematics is the study of purely deductive quantitative arguments. By relating disparate areas, and generalizing ever further, we gain a deeper insight into what many see as 'pure' logic.

On the other hand, the goal of physics is to understand the real, physical world. This is related to the quest to understand mathematics, because to the best of our knowledge, the laws of physics are mathematical in nature - this is why it's naive to say that mathematics is "just a tool". If you view mathematics as nothing more than a tool, then you shut yourself out of a whole world of understanding. At the same time, though, mathematicians (i.e. theoretical physicists) need to understand that their models are precisely that - models of reality. They are fallible and prone to error, no matter how beautiful the mathematics may seem.

Mathematics is a language, but to suppose that it holds all the keys to the secrets of the universe is arrogant in the extreme. Even if it did, we're not anywhere near to being able to decode them.

D.P. · 26 Jun 2007 at 08:41

No one yet has proven maths to be complete yet in any case.

taz488 · 26 Jun 2007 at 19:34

this is a tough decision, which ever i choose to persue i will feel ive missed out on the other, ill look more into doing both like i said, and maybe ill just have to take the plunge on one or the other. for now i have to do a draft personal statement thats a bit general to both fields, thanks for replies, much appreciated

Hiroki · 26 Jun 2007 at 20:48

D.P. said:
No one yet has proven maths to be complete yet in any case.

What do you mean by complete? In the logical sense, as long as you believe the 8 or so axioms (depending on the system you are working with) then it is complete... I guess you could argue about the justification of the choice of the axioms, but that would probably make you a philosopher, and more than likely you would be missing the point.