Who is more smart: mathematician or physicist?

[questfortruth]

The physics is simply applied mathematics. Thus, to be a mathematician is more satisfactory (for one who enjoys finding the truth about reality or fantasy), than to be just a physicist. Chemistry is applied physics, biology (part about animal and plant life) seems to be applied chemistry.

Do you agree? Can you give me movies, which are encouraging young people to study math or physics?

 

[Rival]

@Harel13 is.

 

[questfortruth]

@Harel13 is.

This video (and analogous titles in YouTube) suggests, that math is the basic science:

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Do you agree?

No. The sciences use mathematics to help understand carefully observed and collected data about the cosmos.

I'm not even sure what you are trying to convey with "to be a mathematician is more satisfactory (for one who enjoys finding the truth about reality or fantasy),"

To be a mathematician, one can learn about the various branches of mathematics, some of which seem to apply pretty well to the cosmos as we observe it, others not so much. It seems to me that the sciences (which use mathematics in the study of reality) brings us much closer to 'the truth' about reality, and identify that which is fantasy, than mathematics alone.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Oh, and your thread title, "who is more smart..." isn't answered by your OP...which apparently hinges on whether pure mathematics or mathematics as applied to physics is 'more satisfactory.' That's a subjective value judgment. And it doesn't address whether or how smart an individual is...

 

[questfortruth]

No. The sciences use mathematics to help understand carefully observed and collected data about the cosmos.

Google: applied math. It is physics.

 

[Vouthon]

I think its a false dichotomy.

Yes, mathematics is essential to the study of physical phenomena, given its predictive power and the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics - and complex numbers are particularly important to the 'wavefunction' in quantum mechanics - but 'physics' also involves a skill-set that goes beyond that of 'pure mathematics'.

Physics, like every science, is subject to the criterion of testability. The maths is all very well and good - but you need to empirically test a theory. A scientist can predict something in advance through the language of mathematics (we don't know whether its true or not), then they make an experiment and its confirmed (or falsified), that then gives us reason to rely upon it.

Einstein’s theory of General Relativity has made innumerable correct predictions using mathematics - from the gravitational bending of light to the time dilation measured by our GPS phones - but this had to be empirically validated, which requires a different and additional skill-set.

As such, both (pure) mathematicians and physicists are equally "smart". They just use somewhat different skill-sets (which overlap to some extent).

 

[exchemist]

This is about as useful as arguing whether gorgonzola is better than the colour red.

Maths is not science.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Google: applied math. It is physics.

All sciences are/use applied mathematics

 

[exchemist]

All sciences are/use applied mathematics

Actually I don't think this is true. I can think of plenty of science that does not use mathematics much, if at all.

The essence of science is observation of nature. Often this is quantitative but it does not have to be. A great deal of biology and earth science, and some chemistry, is not mathematical.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Actually I don't think this is true. I can think of plenty of science that does not use mathematics much, if at all.

The essence of science is observation of nature. Often this is quantitative but it does not have to be. A great deal of biology and earth science, and some chemistry, is not mathematical.

Yes, there are aspects that are qualitative rather than quantitative, but every one relies on some core mathematics and logic in order to be a science...

As a social scientist, it was the common description that all sciences suffer from physics envy...

If a field doesn't rely on mathematics, it falls into [GASP! Say it ain't so!] The Humanities...

And you can't go no lower than that!

 

[exchemist]

Yes, there are aspects that are qualitative rather than quantitative, but every one relies on some core mathematics and logic in order to be a science...

As a social scientist, it was the common description that all sciences suffer from physics envy...

If a field doesn't rely on mathematics, it falls into [GASP! Say it ain't so!] The Humanities...

And you can't go no lower than that!

Yeah I've always thought this Rutherfordian snobbery about maths rather objectionable among scientists. (Rutherford is supposed to have sneered that in science there was only physics and stamp collecting.)

Darwin didn't need any maths. Palaeontologists don't use it - or only incidentally. It's possible to do most organic chemistry with only a bit of arithmetic. Try telling an organic chemist he or she works in the humanities.

 

[Ponder This]

The physics is simply applied mathematics. Thus, to be a mathematician is more satisfactory (for one who enjoys finding the truth about reality or fantasy), than to be just a physicist. Chemistry is applied physics, biology (part about animal and plant life) seems to be applied chemistry.

Do you agree? Can you give me movies, which are encouraging young people to study math or physics?

If you are really smart you study both

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Chemists are clearly real sciences since much of what they do depends on mathematics and measurement. they can be quite detailed in their measurements and calculations, many points to the right of the decimal.

Management Science people, on the other hand (including me). Many of my fellows keep trying to get three or more places to the right of the decimal, but the reality is that we're only capable of accuracy to the second, and sometimes in really good studies, the first place to the right. Economists like to think they are as good as chemists, astronomers and physicists...but they suffer from the same definitional and measurement limitations that I experience in public affairs and management.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The physics is simply applied mathematics. Thus, to be a mathematician is more satisfactory (for one who enjoys finding the truth about reality or fantasy), than to be just a physicist. Chemistry is applied physics, biology (part about animal and plant life) seems to be applied chemistry.

Do you agree? Can you give me movies, which are encouraging young people to study math or physics?

Biologists are smarter, but I could be biased.

 

[questfortruth]

Chemists are clearly real sciences since much of what they do depends on mathematics and measurement. they can be quite detailed in their measurements and calculations, many points to the right of the decimal.

Management Science people, on the other hand (including me). Many of my fellows keep trying to get three or more places to the right of the decimal, but the reality is that we're only capable of accuracy to the second, and sometimes in really good studies, the first place to the right. Economists like to think they are as good as chemists, astronomers and physicists...but they suffer from the same definitional and measurement limitations that I experience in public affairs and management.

I think its a false dichotomy.

Yes, mathematics is essential to the study of physical phenomena, given its predictive power and the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics - and complex numbers are particularly important to the 'wavefunction' in quantum mechanics - but 'physics' also involves a skill-set that goes beyond that of 'pure mathematics'.

Physics, like every science, is subject to the criterion of testability. The maths is all very well and good - but you need to empirically test a theory. A scientist can predict something in advance through the language of mathematics (we don't know whether its true or not), then they make an experiment and its confirmed (or falsified), that then gives us reason to rely upon it.

Einstein’s theory of General Relativity has made innumerable correct predictions using mathematics - from the gravitational bending of light to the time dilation measured by our GPS phones - but this had to be empirically validated, which requires a different and additional skill-set.

As such, both (pure) mathematicians and physicists are equally "smart". They just use somewhat different skill-sets (which overlap to some extent).

Check this out: Mathematical universe hypothesis - Wikipedia
But it would be more correct if in the description of the MUH hypothesis one writes:
"not all of the mathematics has application in physics. For example, multidimensional space could have no analog in physical reality. However, the physics is applied mathematics. "

 

[exchemist]

If you are really smart you study both

To do physics, knowledge of a fair amount of maths is indispensable, so there's no choice about it.

 

[rational experiences]

Mathematics says it understands information via numbers and age.

Yet in understanding age, it is to apply an equation to what they agree an age is, to then remove it back to what it never was.....changed.

In my psyche that does not make logical sense about it being imposed to represent going back in time....for then the agreement would mean back in time no MASS existed...as you remove it.

Physics says I know aware information due to being conscious, where light gets removed as a natural observation, yet it is never removed. So how does that make you correct?

Who is more smart in natural life....a human who does not substantiate reasoning to destroy what owns its own natural presence, just because it does....which a human taught was to accept natural.

If you are always discussing information about what it is not, then you are not very intelligent actually.

 

[Yerda]

The hardest courses I've ever taken have been physics ones. If that counts for anything.

Also, I love Sabine.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I don't think there is a 'smarter than' but mathematics sure seems to have a way of dividing people - even when they might be just as intelligent in most things but where some just seem to get it and some others don't.

Perhaps it has more to do with work ethic or obstinacy.