Courses Math Methods Vs. Analysis Track

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around a student's decision on which math track to pursue at Cal for their Engineering Physics major. The two options are math 121A/121B, focusing on mathematical methods for scientists and engineers, and math 104/185, which covers real and complex analysis. The student aims to prepare for graduate studies in materials science, particularly in battery and solid-state device research. Advisors generally recommend the math methods track, emphasizing its practical applications in future physics courses like Quantum Mechanics and Electromagnetism. Concerns about missing out on real analysis are addressed, with insights suggesting that while real analysis is valuable, the topics in the math methods courses—such as PDEs and integral transforms—are more directly applicable to the student's intended studies. It is noted that real analysis may not significantly aid in understanding upper division physics courses, but it could be pursued later if desired.
Ethan Klein
Messages
18
Reaction score
2
Hi Everyone,

I am transferring to Cal in the fall for Engineering Physics and am currently deciding which math track to take. The first option is to enroll in math 121A/121B, which are mathematical methods courses for scientists and engineers (covers series, complex numbers/integration, PDE's, etc, in an applied manner). My other option is to enroll in math 104/185, which are real/complex analysis, respectively.

In the long run, I plan to go to grad school for materials science, primarily focussing on research in batteries and solid state devices. While I do enjoy pure mathematics, I want to enroll in math courses that will prepare me for what is to come in my junior and senior years and beyond (QM, E&M, Solid State, MatSci, etc). Among the profs and advisers I have spoken to, the general consensus is to go for the math methods track. However, I am curious to know if forgoing real/complex analysis will hamper me in any future courses (especially those that are math/physics related) and/or my understanding of upper div/grad level material?

Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ethan Klein said:
Among the profs and advisers I have spoken to, the general consensus is to go for the math methods track.
I agree with your advisors. Also, in most cases your adviser will give you better advice than random people on the internet.

Ethan Klein said:
However, I am curious to know if forgoing real/complex analysis will hamper me in any future courses (especially those that are math/physics related) and/or my understanding of upper div/grad level material?
1 minute on Google tells me that the math 121 sequence covers complex analysis:
https://math.berkeley.edu/courses/fall-2019-math-121a-001-lec
The other topics covered in the math methods courses (integral transforms, PDEs, series solutions to ODEs and special functions, calculus of variations, etc) are way more useful than real analysis. However, once you have taken the math methods courses, if you still really want to learn real analysis and it fits in your schedule then you can go ahead and take it for fun. Just note that a real analysis course will not help with the vector calculus (or almost any other subject, for that matter) you will use in your upper division physics courses.

jason
 
TL;DR: Jackson or Zangwill for Electrodynamics? Hi, I want to learn ultrafast optics and I am interested in condensed matter physics, ie using ultrafast optics in condensed matter systems. However, before I get onto ultrafast optics I need to improve my electrodynamics knowledge. Should I study Jackson or Zangwill for Electrodynamics? My level at the moment is Griffiths. Given my interest in ultrafast optics in condensed matter, I am not sure which book is better suited for me. If...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
41
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K