<p>I was wondering which engineering majors contain the most intense physics. In terms of number of physics classes required and overall physics involved in the given majors.</p>
<p>Ee.........</p>
<p>The Electrical & Computer Engineering degree at my school has an "Applied Physics" area. I don't think you get as much theory, but you get what you need. </p>
<p>Here are some courses in the track: </p>
<p>Fundamentals of Electromagnetics<br>
Fundamentals of Semiconductor Devices<br>
Electromechanics<br>
Applied Electrodynamics<br>
Physical Sensors, Transducers and Instrumentation<br>
Field Effect Devices and Technology<br>
Introduction to Computer-Aided Instrumentation and Characterization<br>
Data Storage Systems
Introduction to Optical Communications Systems<br>
Antenna Design for Wireless Communications<br>
Data Storage Systems Design Project<br>
Microelectromechanical Systems<br>
Micro and Nano Systems Fabrication<br>
Elements of Photonics for Communication Systems<br>
Magnetic Materials and Devices<br>
Advanced Applied Magnetism<br>
Applied Physics: Fundamentals of Semiconductors and Nanostructures<br>
Special Topics in Applied Physics: Micro and Nano Systems Fabrication<br>
Special Topics in Applied Physics: Physical Sensors, Transducers and Instrumentation</p>
<p>Obviously Engineering Physics major requires most intense physics.</p>
<p>at my school electrical engineers are the only engineers that have to take all of the lower division physics classes... so id say electrical engineers.</p>
<p>Chemical Engineering</p>
<p>EE takes the most physics at my school.</p>
<p>For colleges that have an Engineering Physics major (and many engineering schools do not), that would be the one that requires the most upper level physics course (it is somewhat more of a physics major than engineering). Another major that only some colleges have that usually has a number of upper level engineering courses that are physics intense is Engineering Mechanics. For the other more known engineering majors, it depends on what each particular college requires for the major and (as noted above) what you might concentrate on within the particular major.</p>
<p>if you just count the regular engineering degrees (not that EP stuff) then it's EE by far</p>
<p>i used to be physics major, and im transfering to eng. but anyway, most of my courses transfer. because technically we all start out the same. the maths, the basic sciences and all. but i think EE would really have more physics due to electricity has more physics than most people think (electrons and all that jazz). nuclear engineering also. basically, physics deals with all most everything you can think of (there is biophysics btw). it only differs with how you apply the science.</p>
<p>engineering is mostly an application of theoretical science.</p>
<p>Each engineering discipline teaches different types of physics. Below is a broad generalization:
EE = E&M
CivE = mechanics
ME = mechanics and thermodynamics
ChE = thermodynamics</p>
<p>Nuclear Engineering = Nuclear Physics, Thermodynamics, and Mechanics</p>
<p>the Nuclear curriculum has less physics than most would think. I reality most of the classes are focused around reactors. Yes, they are applied physics classes, but in the end I doubt it has any more physics than EE. EE is probably the most physics intensive, and rivals CS for the most math intensive.</p>
<p>EP is really a physics or applied physics degree. Thats not to say it isn't a great program. I wish my school offered it, its fairly uncommon, definitely not considered a staple engineering degree.</p>
<p>I'd say CS and EE have their equal shares of mathematics. While EE will teach you applied mathematics (differential equations, matrix/linear algebra), CS will teach you abstract topics (abstract algebra, probability theory, graph theory, etc.).</p>
<p>true, but diffq is required for almost all engineering majors, and lin al is also in the CS curriculum at most schools. Seriously though, if your in ANY engineering you should take lin al.</p>
<p>I don't agree with you. Matrix algebra is a definite necessity when solving systems of equations, but linear algebra (that is, the rigorous study of binary operations, rings, fields and vector spaces) is hardly necessary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where did you take linear algebra? In my book, rings and fields fall under intro to modern algebra or advanced linear algebra. Matrix algebra and vector spaces fall under elementary linear algebra. At most places there is an elementary and an advanced one. My elem didn't cover rings and fields in any manner and I didn't expect it to. Thats why I am taking advanced later on.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but linear algebra (that is, the rigorous study of binary operations, rings, fields and vector spaces) is hardly necessary.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're talking about abstract algebra (sometimes "modern" algebra or just plain algebra to the folks in the math department.)</p>
<p>The linear algebra most engineers will take is basically theory of matrices. "Real" or theoretical or whatever you want to call it linear algebra is the study of vector spaces and all their properties, in particular linear transformations from a vector space to another.</p>
<p>The best way to approach vector spaces is to teach it from the ground up. </p>
<p>Binary operations -> groups -> rings -> fields -> vector spaces. These topics build upon each other.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The best way to approach vector spaces is to teach it from the ground up.</p>
<p>Binary operations -> groups -> rings -> fields -> vector spaces. These topics build upon each other.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I disagree. No typical (at least non specialized) linear algebra book builds on itself like that either. Yes, you'll get a description of a field at the very beginning, since that's what you need, and then you start doing linear algebra. You don't learn any group or ring theory at all in a linear algebra class, and very very little about fields. </p>
<p>For good reason too - the other topics are very deep and it takes a good long time to go through any part of them. Besides, a deep understanding of groups, rings, ideals, or any other abstract algebraic structure isn't really necessary for linear algebra.</p>