physics vs chemistry: a general question

College Majors Engineering Majors
21

<p>Patclaus,</p>

<p>I didn't quite understand the last part of your post, but yes, physical chemistry is a HUGE field.</p>

<p>Chemistry isn't just a table of elements. It can be as mathematically rigorous as physics. Anyone doing electronic structure calculations can attest to this fact. The s, p, d orbitals you learn about in HS aren't just pretty pictures in intro textbooks; there is a whole mathematical basis (ignore the pun) for these wave functions that only about 100 people in the world truly grasp. </p>

<p>In the academic literature, hundreds of pchem papers are being published every week. There are several top journals (J. Phys. Chem A/B/C, J. Chem. Phys., Mol. Phys.) that deal with this area. In fact, the top physics journal Physical Review Letters is largely composed of pchem papers. </p>

<p>The real problem with this discussion is that we seem to think physics and chemistry are separated from each other. In fact, there is considerable overlap, and the question of which field is more useful really relies on which subarea of each field you want to explore. Everything these days is blurred.</p>

<p>A better categorization of the hard sciences IMHO would be 1. quantum mechanics, 2. general relativity, and 3. statistical mechanics. They are more distinct at the postulational level (fundamental assumptions are different).</p>

22

<p>Perhaps to oversimplify, chemistry is derived from the very fundamental laws of physics, namely the characteristics of the electron, atom, molecule, and so forth. The life sciences are also governed by the laws of physics. In a nutshell, physics is the study of how the universe works, the very basic laws that can be applied to life sciences, physical sciences, etc. Each branch extends almost ad infinitum it seems like. Could we qualify or quantify on a whole which one(s) is the most difficult? Maybe. Any doctoral/advanced level sciences require incredibly intelligent minds, but it seems to be especially the case for mathematics and physics, not to take away from the life sciences. I just don't have much of an interest in them, though.</p>

23

<p>definitely physics...all the main laws on which chemistry stands were established through physics...physics is by far the mother of all sciences..</p>

24

<p>"physicists are the smartest people in the world."</p>

<p>theoretical physicist=physicist?</p>

<p>also, astrophycisist=phycisist?</p>

25

<p>Well, it depends more on what you're interested in than which is harder/easier. IMHO, physics is more math-based than chemistry, whereas chemistry requires learning lots of related but disparate things. I've always done better with math, as my memory for facts isn't that great - and biology was the bane of my high school existence, as it required extensive knowledge of names of organs, processes, etc. I would say that physics is to chemistry what math is to biology, but to a lesser extent... in fact, you could think of chemistry as the arithmetic mean of physics and biology.
And yes, physics does explain chemistry, but then again, physics explains everything. Both are useful, and, in my estimation, very interesting.</p>

26

<p>Which one do you think is more important for our understanding of the universe?
--If you don't understand or have a gist of any physics, chemistry can make little sense. Chemistry is alot of particle level studies - there's not much you can relate to. However it is a mistake to say that Chemistry is physics; much of chemistry is a field of its own. Properties of substances are hardly related to fundamentals of physics at all.</p>

<p>Which one do you think has more real world applications?
-biased, but physics. Throwing a ball = Physics. Opening your doors = Physics. Turning on your lights = physics. Flying planes = physics. TONS! Physics = Life! </p>

<p>Which one do you think helps develop your mental abilities the most?
-They both rigorously develope your mental abilities. However don't let the math of physics scare you out, it can be not much harder than advanced chem.</p>

<p>Personally I find physics easier to understand and follow, but I have done much more work on it. I let it make sense, whereas I usually have to "suspend my disbelief" with chemistry.</p>

27

<p>They're different, yet they are similar. Basically, my understanding is that physics is concerned with the laws of our universe, and providing formulae (which engineers use) that explains how these laws, forces, etc work.</p>

<p>Chemistry overlaps with physics where elements and substances etc are concerned. Now in our industrial economy, everything in the built enviroment is manufactured, which requires chemists and chemical engineers.</p>

<p>Both are critical for our society. Now which will develop critical thinking skills? Both, however, I think physics might teach you to model "things" (i.e equations and situations etc) better.</p>

28

<p>There hasn't been a chemist of the stature of Newton or Einstein - enough said</p>

29

<p>“Biologists defer to chemists; chemists defer to physicists; physicists defer to mathematicians; mathematicians defer only to God.” Can you take a joke? :-)</p>

30

<p>I am a graduating senior chemistry major (honors) with a math minor and have been accepted to 3 chemical engineering PhD programs that will remain unnamed. To say the chemistry is intellectually less demanding than physics and that physicist are the most intelligent scientist is on par of ignorant. Besides this I also want to comment on the role of science in engineering. </p>

<p>Chemistry deals with abstractions that physics does not require. Perfect examples are organic chemistry and biochemistry. These subdiscipline require individuals to utilize chemical theory to make deductions and mental jumps (aka science) that are not as prevalent as in physics. Many engineers and physicist do their worst in college in these types of courses, and to talk as physicist are the most intelligent people is ridiculous because if you want to speak of genius, many physicist have attempted to dabble in philosophy at the advent of the probabilities of quantum mechanics to only realize that they were mere mental midgets. So genius is only relative so lets watch the language.</p>

<p>And physical chemistry is not the same as chemical physics. It encompasses theoretical thermodynamics, statistical mechanics of molecules, spectroscopy (light interacting with matter) and quantum mechanics.</p>

<p>To correct the previous posters, I would like t phrase it like this:</p>

<p>" physicist look at the universe from the macro to the micro, and physical chemist look at the universe from the micro to the macro. It is two different point of view that aim at the same cause".</p>

<p>Oh and by the way, I’m doing chemical engineering because there I would like more application in my life. However I would never trade my chemical background for any other discipline. I believe an engineer with a strong theoretical background is better equipped than an engineer with an application background. It is easier to learn application than it is to learn science.</p>

<p>If you want only the relevant situation then become and engineer. If you want to know all the possible situations then do science (or math). However why not do the best of both worlds, BS in hard science and then MS/PhD in engineering. It only makes sense to learn how to apply theory AFTER you have learned and mastered it.</p>

<p>Without science there is no engineering. PERIOD. </p>

<p>And for anybody who says that physics explains everything. WRONG</p>

<p>Mathematics explains everything, BEAUTIFULLY. Every physical observation that can be made is just an explanation of what you see. Those observations follow mathematical models and formulas. </p>

<p>SO whatever way you want to look at it, there is no better.</p>

<p>Now if u want to talk about what makes better money… guess why im getting my grad degree in engieering :)</p>

31

<p>Max Plank.</p>

32

<p>That’s a great post algirau… I’m a junior chem major and math minor and am planning to get Master (non-thesis) in Chemical Engineering afterwards</p>

33

<p>My dad told me that he majored in chemistry b/c he thought it was easier than physics and he liked chem labs better than physics labs. He also picked chem over bio b/c he didn’t know English that well (Bio has a lot of reading to it).</p>

<p>Personally, I prefer physics because it is much more based in math, yet not as abstract as pure math. Though, I will be taking AP Chem next year (after having taken AP Physics B this year) and I will decide which I like better then. Of course, if I like both then I may pick an area where both merge (maybe quantum physics/chemistry, atomic physics, or physical chemistry).</p>

<p>As for Bio, I feel that large parts of it are like humanities classes, which means lots of reading and memorizing info (less math intensive). Personally, I would rahter take a history or social science class over a bio class for that reason (I find those humanities more interesting than bio). In college I will probably fulfill bio requirements with classes like bio psych or bio anthropology.</p>

34

<p><quote>11-23-2008 05:19 PM
DocT There hasn’t been a chemist of the stature of Newton or Einstein - enough said</quote></p>

<p>If Fritz Haber hadn’t been a chemist, 5 billion people wouldn’t be alive today on this planet.</p>

35

<p>I found nice article here,</p>

<p>[Difference</a> between physics and chemistry - Wiki Uncle](<a href=“Home - Health&Beauty”>Home - Health&Beauty)</p>

36

<p>If you go to Queens, it has both Eng Chem, Eng Physics and Chem eng. And you needn’t decide at the outset. You will have tons of opportunity to learn more about each major, and also have more coursework under your belt before you choose.</p>

37

<p>Wait…hold on… Im writing this from a smartphone so bear with. Physics is simply a mathematical way to describe our Universe… Specifically the laws in which it mathematically occurs. A rules of the road manual to describe what we can physically observe. To chemistry physics simply is the mathematics of chemistry in terms of the physical observable properties. Totally not the same thing but seriously related to each other. Now you guys make arguments that talk about Gen Chen vs orgo vs pchem vs physics and so on. Why? It makes no sense to compare them together in that way. For example if I want to describe why we as humans can observe colors based on light hitting off pi electrons of an object well that is more a chemistry thing to me. </p>

<p>why? Because the chemical makeup of the structure is the reason why we see color specifically to the electrons… Is there physics involved? Of course but is it as important as the “chemistry”? No way. It would be asinine for me to explain it with physics as the core answer.</p>

<p>If I need to talk about exactly where that light is on its wave length and how it travels and the distance then perhaps physics is the better explanation here. but I wouldn’t do that. </p>

<p>In a deeper sense everything is chemistry… What is anything without mass? What is that mass made of? A chemical. No matter what we describe that can be observed is a particle from chemistry down to the electron…</p>

<p>Now here is the rub… As we find or hypo smaller particles how do we include those in chemistry as we define them and apply their law through physics? Haaaaa… For this reason is why I feel the answer was so abstract and confused from you guys… String theory… Posan particles and the lot are being worked out right now through physics. Its cool and exciting… But if we can grab hold, manipulate and define them and perhaps place them on a table they will belong with chemistry… Or pchem… Get it right get it tight.</p>