Hey Veeky Forums

Then go invent/explore. That's easy. What do you want to invent or explore more than anything? That's a direction. I have no direction. I feel like I could pick up anything as easily as the next thing, some areas more than others, but as far as a specific career path in a specific area? No clue.

Ugh, this is such a hard question, but I will try to give actual reasons while reducing my mental farts:

1.Generally speaking, you should always go for Physics over Math because it is bigger, it requires more intelligence. One can be a mathematician but an awful physicist, if you pick high enough standards, or one can be a physicist who is actually good at math by definition, and by the same standards.

2.You can check IQ differences as well.

3.Math is not a science in the first place, pursuing it pretty much makes you an unscientific philosopher, while pursuing Physics makes you a scientific philosopher. Side note: an exclusive interest in math is unnatural, you will eventually pursue Philosophy if you are not mentally ill, (because math is part of philosophy anyway but whatever)

4.It is cool to learn about advanced math on your own, instead of having to be forcefed with boring bullshit just get a job at a fast food and not starve in the streets like a loser

5. This one requires some thought: All human math is contained in physics. Our brains work inside physics, so just like an hypothetical scenario of a plane falling is inside Physics, all possible brain events are inside Physics. Physics also includes all possible models of reality, even when we rule them out, so in all cases infinite models are being considered in order to advance Physics. Physics corrects our abstraction, you can think of math containing Physics only if you are dumb enough to not realize that you are thinking such thing within Physics in the such place. Not only that, if you think that math contains Physics, you have a very loose definition of Math.

6. Trivia: Physics contains Chemistry and Biology(math doesn't), it contains the reason for our specific languages, and very interestingly, it contains the Turing machines that we popularly call "computers", which are essential to modern math. For fun: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry–Howard_correspondence

Is this pasta. Getting intense deja vu from this thread, but the archive shows nothing. Maybe it was down when the last one was made.

Hey guys, I've found physics major!

>I want to innovate and create something new in this world and leave my mark on it.

From this alone you should know that you want to do engineering.

Note that I am not biased in this, I myself am a math major and I could not give 2 shits about engineering, but you sound like you'd like it.

It also helps that engineering by definition merges many sciences, in a single engineering you could be learning math, chemistry, physics and some CS stuff as those are now pretty standard all across the board. The usual programming and algorithms, I mean.

That degree would probably be Nuclear Engineering.

But then you could do electrical engineering and you have math, physics, ciphers, encryption algorithms and machine learning.

By the way, you see this guy?

He is biased because he is majoring in what he is recommending you, obviously he'll have a super positive opinión of it.

Research engineering degrees and you will find out that at least one will have all the stuff you listed, but I would put my money on EE.

major in math if you want to make 300k starting

i-i-is this meme true? what is the legend behind this meme? why does it exist?

>Note that I am not biased in this, I myself am a math major
lol, no. you're obviously the mad faggot engineer from the other thread. looks like you'll have to close this tab too after getting called out

Theoretical physics is just applied math. Literally. At many departments in good schools, theoretical physics is in the applied math section.

>One can be a mathematician but an awful physicist, if you pick high enough standards, or one can be a physicist who is actually good at math by definition, and by the same standards

My knee bone is connected to my shin bone. One can also be a physicist and an awful mathematician. You didn't make a point there.

>an exclusive interest in math is unnatural, you will eventually pursue Philosophy if you are not mentally ill

Correct, math is not a science but this sentence makes no sense at all. Where the fuck did you come up with this? Go into the math department at any school and you will find a group of people interested math and I doubt many of them give any thoughts towards philosophy.

>Physics contains Chemistry and Biology(math doesn't)

Do you know anything about applied math at all? Computational chemistry and mathematical biology are things you know?

I prefer math over physics because physics is limited by reality and math is only limited by logic. I respect your field and I have no problem with physicists but goddamn you're saying some stupid shit.

He is exactly right though. The guy wants to create something new and innovate and lists a broad range of interests. I would suggest more along the lines of Engineering Physics though.

>Theoretical physics is just applied math
It isn't, I am sorry. Might as well say Physics is just Applied English.
>One can also be a physicist and an awful mathematician
Not really, I can define "good" for you. It is above average in academia. So a physicist learns math and gets above average at it. While a mathematician doesn't learn physics nor gets at an acceptable level at it.
>and I doubt many of them give any thoughts towards philosophy
Math is part of philosophy by definition. And all mathematicians I know care about non-mathy philosophy, so you are mistaken.
>because physics is limited by reality
Have you even read my text? All the math you could think of happens within a brain within Physics.

Anything else? You seem to be incredibly anxious about this.

>what is the legend behind this meme?

shitposting

what shitposting happened that created the math 300k meme?

>Have you even read my text? All the math you could think of happens within a brain within Physics

What a useless statement. Physics is happens inside a brain inside the physical world. Physics is not the universe, it's just an attempt to describe it.

>Math is part of philosophy by definition. And all mathematicians I know care about non-mathy philosophy, so you are mistaken.

No it's not. If math is just philosophy then theoretical physics is just applied math. It's the same ignorant mentality. None of my professors have done work in philosophy, like, you're not making any sense with that point. They tend to be curious people being researchers and shit so they talk about a lot things. You can base your view of all mathematicians on the ones you know personally I guess..

>Not really, I can define "good" for you...

Yeah sure... I know mathematicians who've contributed to physics. Mathematicians take theoretical physics classes all the time

Somehow this thread has not been deleted yet, so I will give a useful tip:
Choose whatever you think you can REALLY obsess over.
Before university I think most people have an idealized fantasy of what their future field of study will be like, so choose the one where you think you won't get disappointed if it doesn't turn out to be quite as "badass" as you thought it would be.

Learning ciphers, cryptography, encryption, and encryption algorithms is completely worthless and a waste of time, user. You'll never need it.

>Anything else? You seem to be incredibly anxious about this.

Says the one vehemently advocating physics by posting long ass texts.

Why do you say that? Isn't information security extremely critical considering that we're in the Information Age?

Bump

Shameless bump

>One can be a mathematician but an awful physicist
Mathematicians are never worse then bad at physics.
>one can be a physicist who is actually good at math by definition
Most physicists are bad at math. Many of the blow past awful into terrible.
Especially as you talk about fields of math that have less and less to do with numbers.

There are more physicists that are great at math then their are mathematicians that are great at physics,
but on average mathematicians are better at physics than physicists are at math.

t. computer engineering pleb

I guarantee that you are autistic, have no friends, or both

REEEE MY MOMMY SAYS I'M A SPECIAL PIE

bump

If you want to make money, go for some Engineering.
If you want to innovate and create something, try biochemistry or biophysics. There is ton of work still to do and an unimaginable number of applications limited only by butthurt engineers and vegans/anti-vax/anti-OGM/religious people.
And it's about our survival. No engineer can save humanity from overpopulation and super-bacterias.

You don't think biophysics is too specific to do undergrad? How could it be applicable to space exploration?

We need time to arrive to FTL travel, and we won't have it if we can't master biology first, especially vegetal biology.
Probably you can become a biophysic from Physic faculty. I don't know how it works in America... but yes, is something that requires specialisation. I proposed it because it's biochemistry +physics, and probably informatics for the protein structure elaboration.

You can do math, encryption and Machine learning together.

I hope that OP is not too smart, I don't want to see an AI removing the unuseful monkeys

Not that guy but
>You don't think biophysics is too specific to do undergrad?
No.
>How could it be applicable to space exploration?
Well, I've heard that the cytoskeleton deforms in low gravity, so that's one area where knowing some biophysics might be useful.
If you are interested in space exploration you should probably study astronomy/engineering instead of biology though...

So is encryption and machine learning useful or useless to learn? Should it just be studied in free time? Or should a math major be done in addition with a Physics major for this?

Both are useful to learn.
Both are easy to study in your free time at first.
Both can get extremely complicated later on.

Encryption gets more complicated.
Machine Learning gets complicated more often.

Just took a Myers-Briggs test, looks like my personality most of the time is ENTJ. Any suggestions for careers, specifically science related?

buuuuuump

Do you think those skills are high in demand now a days? Got any resources to study from?

Machine Learning recently became very popular.
But not /so/ recently that every Tom, DIck, and Harry have started writing shitty books to cash in on it.
Just about any book on the subject should be a good starting point. Here's a good one:
>deeplearningbook.org/

I don't no any good cryptography resources off-hand (I took a class on it),
but I'll half-ass a primer for you later toady. There's not much to the basics.

That's awesome! Looking forward to that, anyone else have any resources on this topic that they can share?

REEEEEEEEEEE

statistics. you'll be able to approach anything.

Part I/II
A degree gives knowledge in one specialized field, it doesn't limit you in any way. All that matters is how well you can apply your knowledge, it doesn't matter how you got that knowledge.
Many people with wide interests simply choose to stick with something which at a time interests them the most then they switch to something else either temporarily or permanently. Think about that.
I can think of three degrees which cover most of your requirements Physics, EE, CE.
EE and CE could be reduced to EE by taking the right courses, especially if you want to get into the physics side of things.
A physics degree is broad, you might also take a lot of courses related to your other interests. It seems to me that your interests in the CS side of things are largely applied so I would go with a physics degree. There are probably applied- and biophysics degrees which cover most of your interests.
However you should also ask yourself how you want to do things? Is it a priority for you to be able to build and design things or with keeping this perspective in mind find new ways to design things/solve problems using physics? (If necessary do research mostly in applied phy.?) Eng.
Do you want to only extend your knowledge and do purely theoretical research without regard for real world applications or when you do focus on real world stuff you're mostly interested in the core underlying theory, the basics to do it? Physics.

Part II/II
You can go from one to the other depending on the type of research (especially if you do a second degree), but you should get your first depending on your primary interests.
Are you in between the two "extremes"? Combine them? Different bsc/msc. Maybe second degree later on in your life.
You can even have a phd in engineering if you want to maximize your knowledge from the engineering side and work with theory all day.
Keep in mind that physics is not universal in the way some people tell you it is, it doesn't cover a lot of real world applications which requires additional insight to make something work in the real world. As such not every physicist is suitable to be an engineer and not every engineer is suitable to do research in (applied) physics (related stuff).
Also from what I hear the job prospects with physics aren't too good. Either you're the top from the very start and you get into academia or you can do programming (CS), although it might be related to physics (FEM simulations, modeling, etc.). In finance they also hire physicists to do work with complex financial models. Maybe some physicist reading this thread can give a better insight?
With at least a bsc in engineering you can get a variety of jobs. You might be able to do your msc in physics with (quite [if you haven't done anything during your bsc]) a bit of catching up.
I would recommend finding out which side you like better and then choose. Go to university experience both physics and engineering then decide. Try to go to a university which actually teach properly engineering theory and related stuff.
Yes, I'm an engineer you Veeky Forums sperglords, bite me.

Why you say that?

Your absolute lack of manners is disgusting, and is not me by the way. You should know I compĺetely ignored your commentary because of its bad quality.

Overall, read my post properly Because you are saying the opposite

>Mathematicians are never worse then bad at physics.
Whatever this rhetorical garbage means, this is just not true. Mathematicians are horrible at science in general. They pretty much lack the interest that would had made them scientists.

>Most physicists are bad at math.
Wrong.
>Especially as you talk about fields of math that have less and less to do with numbers.
Even more wrong, physicists would be bad at things like number theory etc, at something like stamp collection, naming obscure chems etc

>There are more physicists that are great at math then their are mathematicians that are great at physics
>on average mathematicians are better at physics than physicists are at math.
Can you please write properly, it is hard to take your words seriously if you can't even differentiate "there" and "than" from "their" and "then". Secondly, if there are more physicists that are great at math, and they are both "great", like you just said, then on average, physicists are better at math than mathematicians are better at physics. So you are just bloody bad at math since you just said that, which makes sense because "Computer Engineering" must be around the retarded IQ of "Computer Science" in my picture.

Somebody vehemently dislikes Mathematics.

What is it user? Are you reduced to spewing fallacies because you're not good at Maths, or did a mathematician anger you once?

You can avoid the philosophy and less useful side of Maths and focus on the applied material (e.g. Statistics, probability, etc...) if you make half decent choices at a half decent university.

Pick the one you're best at by comparison with everyone else.

You won't have such an easy time innovating in an area where others are more competitive than you are.

If you truly enjoy all of them and feel you can be competitive in all of them, pick the one which, to you, stands to hold the most promise for the improvement of the human condition.

I see no relation between what I said and your shitpost. I never said or implied that I dislike Mathematics, to conclude this is to be, in every sense of the word, dumb, therefore you can't be a mathematician if mathematicians are not this dumb. So I will ignore questions like "did a mathematician anger you once" and "are you bad at math".

>You can avoid the philosophy and less useful side of Maths and focus on the applied material
I think anyone here knows this, so this is a simulation of baby talk, which is a disgusting behavior.

Your post is equal to nothing.

> So you are just bloody bad at math since you just said that, which makes sense because "Computer Engineering" must be around the retarded IQ of "Computer Science" in my picture.
Kek. Found the angry physicist who has to call the engineer at his job boss.

>So you are just bloody bad at math since you just said that, which makes sense because "Computer Engineering" must be around the retarded IQ of "Computer Science" in my picture.
CS is a pretty interesting field, though it's certainly gone to shit over the years with all this OOP garbage.

Beyond that,
>lumping hardware in with software

>Secondly, if there are more physicists that are great at math, and they are both "great", like you just said, then on average, physicists are better at math than mathematicians are better at physics.
>not understanding distributions this badly

>differentiate "there" and "than" from "their" and "then"
there -> indicative
their -> possessive
than -> comparison
then -> chronology
>it is hard to take your words seriously
You seriously waste time editing before posting?

>Overall, read my post properly >8083894
At least you're right that I stopped reading your initial post at the second line.
At least you can get a consolation prize for not being wrong about /everything/.

Distribution is not the case here, because we are exclusively talking with terms like "great", "good", etc. It is not like we can say "He has 756 points in his Math skill" and do a distribution. You have not considered this because you probably think like a /v/head manchild. You specifically said "great" for both, you should have said "great" and "good" or whatever. It is against the evidence(IQ comparison, how useful and general is physics compared to math, etc)... and I really could go on here, and mention that some aspects that a brainlet associates with math are actually from physics, but hey, you are a goddamn lazy retard, right? So why bother? And seriously, if you can't read my post, nor edit your own, then, please, stop talking to me. Just shove your ego up your ass for once.

You are still between engineering and CS, which is under math and physics.

>You are still between engineering and CS, which is under math and physics.
This is what deluded physics and mathfags actually believe.

I'm between electrical engineering (under physics) and math.

Why are physicists this insecure?

>Why is Veeky Forums this insecure?
Fixed.

Here you go:
>Veeky Forums
>undergrad mathfags
>undergrad physicsfags
>high school fags who think popsci is real
>superiority complex without anything to back it up
>no real knowledge to apply to real world problems
>they believe that one's degree defines him/her not the other way around
>they believe that physics is only for physicists and math is only for mathematicians
>False values like the belief when something considered more abstract or requires greater "dedication" and as such generally called "harder" means it's superior. They do this instead of valuing intelligence/knowledge and personal interests/curiosity.
>having "false" interests in physics without ever seeing real physics
>no real understanding of different degrees
This is Veeky Forums in general. I wonder why they hate engineers so much.

you sound like a cynical, lazy asshole that resents Veeky Forums's ideals of intellectual hard work

>you sound like a cynical, lazy asshole that resents Veeky Forums's opinions on what is considered intellectual hard work
Ftfy
Except that Veeky Forums has no ideals of "intellectual hard work" and they don't do hard work either. They just circle jerk over meaningless and useless bullshit instead of doing their shit and being good at it.
Almost any university level pursuit in a STEAM field can be intellectually hard work and intelligence always helps.
Personal interests make the work more enjoyable, plus people are usually a lot more creative when they enjoy their shit and they can also do better when it's stuff they enjoy.
This is common sense and contrary to Veeky Forums's insecure "math/physics is superior" and "there's only a single degree in the universe" beliefs it's closer to real-life and makes you more balanced than someone who spends his entire free time circle jerking 24/7 and proving his "Intellectual superiority because he studies math aka the only real major".
Almost all threads are like this nowadays. After a while the trolling starts. Rare is the thread where more than a few proper replies exist.

Do crypto

y?

Is Math major best for that? Or is physics okay?

what happened did someone not manage to get past calculus i?

>implying shitposting is hardwork

>want to study Astronomy
>love space
>no idea what sort of job I could actually do
>low IQ sub 3.5 GPA

Amateur Astronomy is at least something. Shame I live in a heavy urban area where the light pollution kills all the good sights. And, things like VR and games all we me an illusion of what I love.

I hate this.

>be me
>want to do engineering physics / applied physics; more broadly I want to work on inventing and innovating on new technology and I assume engineering physics or applied physics is the best path towards this (?)
>more specifically I'm very interested in the three areas of space propulsion, fusion energy and electronics
>My uni (which is the best STEM uni in my country and the only one really worth a fuck) offers both a physics and an engineering physics programme, so you'd think I'd choose the engineering physics degree, but the engineering physics program is a five year integrated masters and they don't do any research at all on space technologies or fusion, some minor research on electronics but mostly they focus on material science and bio/medical physics
>Therefore I decided to take a 3 year bsc in physics at this uni and then take my masters in the US, UK or Germany

With regards to my ambitions of wanting to invent and innovate new technology, mainly in space propulsion, fusion energy and electronics, am I on the right course or is there something else I should do or consider?

same situation

>I love popsci, i'm part of the scientist club :^)
The Thread

>give an answer
>-WHY ARE YOU INSECURE
are you literally a girl

pretty sure geochem and condense matter physics aren't popsci

2/10 b8 m8

don't be so close minded and perpetuate the gender binary, when there is a whole spectrum, you close-minded bigot

he might be a bigot but at least he's not a faggot like you

:^)

D: t-t-take that back!!!11!

quads of justice, take back your hateful, racist, sexist, slurs

oh it's this guy again

REEEEEEEEEEEEE