Difference between EE and Physics E&M?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights the differences between electromagnetism (EM) courses for Electrical Engineering (EE) and Physics majors. EE programs focus on applied aspects, emphasizing transmission line theory, waveguides, and practical applications of Maxwell's equations. In contrast, Physics courses delve into theoretical concepts, including advanced topics like special relativity and multipole expansion. While both fields cover fundamental EM principles, the approach varies significantly; EE courses are more practical and job-oriented, whereas Physics courses prepare students for theoretical research. The depth of coverage also differs, with Physics offering a more comprehensive exploration of topics. Ultimately, the choice between the two paths depends on career goals, with EE being more job-focused and Physics providing a stronger foundation for advanced studies.
zyj
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
I'm just wondering, but what sort of difference is there between the electromagnetism that Electrical Engineering majors learn and the electromagnetism that Physics majors learn?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm also interested in this. In the end, the EE will probably know more about electromagnetism (at least applied) than a general physicist. At my university, electrophysics both applied and theoretical are a subset field of EE.
 
I can give you an example for the school I am currently attending (University of Toronto)

Here is the syllabus for the third year EM course in Physics:

"Solving Poisson and Laplace equations via method of images and separation of variables, Multipole expansion for electrostatics, atomic dipoles and polarizability, polarization in dielectrics, Ampere and Biot-Savart laws, multipole expansion in magnetostatics, magnetic dipoles, magnetization in matter, Maxwell’s equations in matter."

Here is the syllabus for the fourth year EM course in Physics:

"Special Relativity, four-vector calculus and relativistic notation, the relativistic Maxwell’s Equations, electromagnetic waves in vacuum and conducting and non-conducting materials, electromagnetic radiation from point charges and systems of charges."

Here is the syllabus for the third year EM course in Engineering Science (EE/EngPhys):

"An introduction to transmission line theory: voltage and current waves, characteristic impedance, reflections from the load and source, transients on the line, Smith’s chart, impedance matching. Fundamentals of electromagnetic theory: Maxwell’s equations, Helmholtz’s theorem, time retarded scalar and vector potentials, gauges, boundary conditions, electric and magnetic fields wave equations and their solutions in lossless and lossy medium. Plane wave propagation, reflection and transmission at boundaries. Constitutive relations and dispersion. Radiating dipole and waveguides."

And here is the syllabus for the third year EM course in EE:

"Voltage and current waves on a general transmission line, reflections from the load and source, transients on the line, and Smith’s chart. Maxwell’s equations, electric and magnetic fields wave equations, boundary conditions, plane wave propagation, reflection and transmission at boundaries, constitutive relations, dispersion, polarization; Poynting vector; waveguides. "

*note that there is no 4th year EE pure EM courses


So if you notice, there is a heavy emphasis on transmission line theory and waveguides in engineering disciplines, which makes sense. Physics usually offers a much more theoretical approach, whereas engineering is much more applied. So there is a difference. Unless you want to do pure theory in graduate school, you should be fine taking either version of the course.

That said, it differs a lot between schools and professors also. Often the syllabi include things which are never even close to being covered due to time constraints. Most often the biggest differences between the courses are the things that get left toward the end, ie. the specialties such as applications and whatnot. Other than that EM will always be EM no matter what way you slice it.
 
The EE E&M is an extremely watered down version of the physics E&M, by the end of the year I will have taken both and from reading just griffiths e&m in preparation for wangness which I've also read through there is no comparison.
 
You wouldn't go deep into anything in EE undergrad including E&M. But EE does have E&M research area. In EE graduate school, you will learn deeper E&M.

I believe the purpose of EE undergrad degree is to get you a job not lead you into further research studies. On other hands, you will find it hard to get a job after Physics degree. But, you will be in good shape to go further into higher studies even in EE.
 
The graduate level EE E&M course I took (kind of a graduate level overview of EE EM) was a combination of the syllabus nicholls posted for the third year EM course in Physics and the third year EM course in Engineering Science (EE/EngPhys).
 
Bit Britain-specific but I was wondering, what's the best path to take for A-Levels out of the following (I know Y10 seems a bit early to be thinking about A-levels, but my choice will impact what I do this year/ in y11) I (almost) definitely want to do physics at University - so keep that in mind... The subjects that I'm almost definitely going to take are Maths, Further Maths and Physics, and I'm taking a fast track programme which means that I'll be taking AS computer science at the end...
After a year of thought, I decided to adjust my ratio for applying the US/EU(+UK) schools. I mostly focused on the US schools before, but things are getting complex and I found out that Europe is also a good place to study. I found some institutes that have professors with similar interests. But gaining the information is much harder than US schools (like you have to contact professors in advance etc). For your information, I have B.S. in engineering (low GPA: 3.2/4.0) in Asia - one SCI...
I'm going to make this one quick since I have little time. Background: Throughout my life I have always done good in Math. I almost always received 90%+, and received easily upwards of 95% when I took normal-level HS Math courses. When I took Grade 9 "De-Streamed" Math (All students must take "De-Streamed" in Canada), I initially had 98% until I got very sick and my mark had dropped to 95%. The Physics teachers and Math teachers talked about me as if I were some sort of genius. Then, an...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
17
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Back
Top