Engineer Vs Physicist (DEATHMATCH )

[franznietzsche]

Here you showed a bit of unreal superiority, didn't you?. I don't know how is engineering in Belgium, but here a physicist is unable to do something in the third, fourth, and fifth year of my engineering program. Our knowledge is more general and at the same time more specific in areas not covered by physicists. For intance, an usual physicist here don't know anything about Resistance of Materials, Machine's Design, Structural Engineering, Fluid Dynamics, Heat Engineering, Electrical Engineering, and Finance and Administration of Businesses.

You know, a new knowledge takes away some time in your life and some space in your brain, so it is impossible you have had the time and space to have both knowledges.

Fluid Dynamics is a subfield of condensed matter physics.

Same with resistance of materials.

Heat engineering, see thermodynamics.

Electrical Engineering, my school goes so far as to have an electronics or electro-optics concentration for the physics major.

The only one a physicist would not be able to match in would be the ambiguous business admin part. Of course, this is entirely out of disdain rather than inability, we tend to make fun of the college of business very much.

 

[marlon]

But the inverse situation is also true. I would find easy to learn about theoretical physics due to my little knowledge in physics.

Untrue. trust me it would be more difficult for an engineer to study QFT then for a physicist to study mechatronics for the first time...
Beeing a physicist that is following the engineering curriculum right now, i know what i am talking about.

marlon

 

[marlon]

Fluid Dynamics is a subfield of condensed matter physics.

Same with resistance of materials.

Heat engineering, see thermodynamics.

Electrical Engineering, my school goes so far as to have an electronics or electro-optics concentration for the physics major.

The only one a physicist would not be able to match in would be the ambiguous business admin part. Of course, this is entirely out of disdain rather than inability, we tend to make fun of the college of business very much.

amen to these wise words...Besides i also studied opto-electronics and lasers when i was in my senior year.

marlon

 

[Clausius2]

Fluid Dynamics is a subfield of condensed matter physics.


Heat engineering, see thermodynamics.

Heat engineering, see thermodynamics?? What's that?

Do you think heat engineering, Heat Engines, Heat Transfer, Propulsion Engineering, Fluid-dynamics engineering are merely concentrated in a themodynamic course?? There are several engineers who are studying these topics all their life. And these fields are 90% covered by engineers, I know this field very very very very well.

Here you are putting the problem upside down. You are forgetting that are the engineers and not the physicists who are present at many many fields, some of them being far away from their original knowledge. Is for this reason the industry demands engineers. The polivalence is in our side, not in yours. And this is a fact.

 

[Fritz]

In general, is engineering a lot easier than physics?

 

[Clausius2]

In general, is engineering a lot easier than physics?

SURE NOT

Where are the engineers here? I'm alone??

 

[vanesch]

In general, is engineering a lot easier than physics?

For the record, I started out as an engineer (Electromechanics) and after that I did a masters and a PhD in experimental particle physics. I've been working both in physicist-dominated, and engineering dominated environments.

My general opinion is that the cultures are quite different. Physicists have quite advanced courses (conceptually more difficult) as compared to engineers ; however, I have the impression that engineers afterwards apply more theoretical knowledge than physicists, and probably this is because the course material tought to engineers is "closer to real-world application" than are the more fundamental matters tought to physicists.
Take an example: signal processing. For the physicist, this is easy: the theory of linear differential equations for continuous signals, and of linear algebra in the case of discrete signals. However, if a physicist has to actually design a digital filter, that's another piece of cake. For engineers, they lack maybe the overall view on the mathematics but they've spend so many more hours on actually DOING signal processing, that they can apply it.
Recently I had another example: most of the people around me are physicists, and know very well electrostatics. But to actually sit down and calculate the electrostatic field in a given setup (in this case using conformal transformations), I was the only one able to do it from A to Z.

 

[Clausius2]

For the record, I started out as an engineer (Electromechanics) and after that I did a masters and a PhD in experimental particle physics. I've been working both in physicist-dominated, and engineering dominated environments.

My general opinion is that the cultures are quite different. Physicists have quite advanced courses (conceptually more difficult) as compared to engineers ; however, I have the impression that engineers afterwards apply more theoretical knowledge than physicists, and probably this is because the course material tought to engineers is "closer to real-world application" than are the more fundamental matters tought to physicists.
Take an example: signal processing. For the physicist, this is easy: the theory of linear differential equations for continuous signals, and of linear algebra in the case of discrete signals. However, if a physicist has to actually design a digital filter, that's another piece of cake. For engineers, they lack maybe the overall view on the mathematics but they've spend so many more hours on actually DOING signal processing, that they can apply it.
Recently I had another example: most of the people around me are physicists, and know very well electrostatics. But to actually sit down and calculate the electrostatic field in a given setup (in this case using conformal transformations), I was the only one able to do it from A to Z.

Now, Marlon, yes, it's the time for, as you said:

AMEN TO THAT!

 

[JasonRox]

We have a engineering fan going on a "better-than-you" trip.

The reason why a physicists would probably never to extremely well in engineering is because he will get bored. Being so used to studying things rigorously and quickly, and going down a level to the very basics will cause boredom. Boredom cause people to not go to class, which causes bad grades in most cases. In the eyes of a physicists, why bother with such boring stuff.

This applies to engineering people too. Engineers think it is useless to learn things that can't be applied or what not.

Who really cares anyways?

I don't care if someone thinks their subject is harder than mine. I really don't care. I am not taking it because its hard or easy. I am taking it because I LLLIIIKKKEEE IIITTT!

Get over your cocky attitudes.

 

[russ_watters]

I stayed out of this thread because I didn't like the tone of the opening post, but by request...

as a high school student who likes physics, i wanted to know what would be better?? the degree of engineering or a degree for becoming a physicist ( a physics major i guess ) ?

As said, "better" is subjective, and a lot depends on what you like. But, to me, the most important reason to become an engineer and not a physicist is that the point of college is to prepare yourself for a career and there are more jobs in engineering than physics.

Second, engineers and physicists often have fundamentally different ways of looking at the universe: physicists deal with the theoretical and engineers deal with the practical. I have firsthand experience with a brilliant physicist-turned-engineer for whom reality existed only in his head and as a result, couldn't engineer himself out of a wet paper bag. He made stupid mistakes because while he could figure out what was needed, he didn't consider whether the ideas in his head would actually work: is there a product that does what you want?, does it fit where you want to put it?, can it be connected to the existing system?, how much does it cost?, etc.

Third, in engineering there is a lot more teamwork, interpersonal relations, and, above all, responsibility involved - so more opportunity to use and develop leadership skills.

Fourth: the chicks prefer engineers (evidence already presented)

Basically, the way to decide between the two is ask yourself: "Self, what do I want to do after I graduate?" If you want to push the envelope of what we know, physics is a good choice. If you want to build satellites the day after graduation, engineering is the way to go.

Also, the idea that one or the other can easily be converted into the other/one is pretty naive. There is some overlap, but not as much as some people think. Note: I'm not talking about getting a degree in physics then a masters in engineering or vice versa, but about the implication that a physics major could pass a thermodynamics test or a physicist could do an engineer's job.

edit: as far as difficulty/intensity level in college goes, there is wide variation in engineering. But I would put EE or Aero up against physics any day. With one caveat: I think everyone has a point at which they level off in the complexity of math they can learn. The math of physics does pretty much just keep going up. And while much of that is available to engineers, it generally isn't required. For me, calculus was a piece of cake, but I had trouble getting my arms around differential equations. And that's not just about intelligence - attention span and memory play a big role as well.

 

[JasonRox]

I think this post should be closed/locked since the intentions are obvious.

In the end, we all love each other and let's not allow a dumb thread cause problems.

 

[Moonbear]

Another consideration for choosing between the two: would you prefer to be confined to a lab all day long, or to work in an office and occassionally escape to do some field work in the great outdoors? Physicists, by and large, will find themselves working in a lab, perhaps windowless, perhaps below ground, perhaps in a facility that requires security clearance so they can't even tell their family what they do all day (though, truthfully, this probably is a good thing, or you'd suffer the disappointment that while they let you talk, they really don't care or have a clue what you're telling them). Engineers get to work in more traditional office settings, but also get to talk to non-engineers more often than physicists will deal with non-physicists. Engineers have to talk to the people who will actually be building whatever they are designing, or the people who will be buying what they are making. Depending on the field of engineering, fieldwork may be involved, and it may force you to get down and dirty and play in mud or water, climb around construction sites, visit manufacturing or processing plants, dodge cars on busy highways, and maybe even do some heavy lifting. For some who like to stay clean, this is a drawback, for those who get claustrophobic in an office setting, they may embrace this chance to go play in dirt once in a while. With physics, a lot of what you will do will deal with things too small to see...this delving into the subatomic world will fascinate some. Others will prefer engineering, where you get to see what you designed once it's built, you can point to it and show your friends...hey, I designed that car, microchip, bridge, plant, etc.

In every field of science, there is an applied field and a basic science field. Both are good, both are important, and you'll be attracted to one or the other based on your own personal objectives, likes, dislikes, etc. The most important thing is to keep the flow of information between the two, which doesn't always happen as well as it should. Personally, I most enjoy working a bit between those two realms to usher basic science into the hands of those who can apply it.

 

[Moonbear]

I think this post should be closed/locked since the intentions are obvious.

In the end, we all love each other and let's not allow a dumb thread cause problems.

I don't see the thread heading in a bad direction...I'm sure Evo is keeping a close eye that it doesn't go astray. I think it's useful for people to see why folks in a given field chose that over another one that seems similar to those just starting out and trying to choose between the two. There's nothing wrong with asking people to put their best argument forward as to why they chose their field of study/work, and why they think it's the very best thing to choose. You can do that without needing to put down other fields. Just tell folks what all the great things are that you get to do in a day. The vast array of choices available are not understood or even known to all those high school students who need to start making choices about them. When I was in high school, I had no idea what an engineer did. I didn't even know there was such a major as engineering, or options in science other than chemistry, biology and physics. Some of you probably take it for granted that everyone knows these things, but if you grow up in a blue collar family in a blue collar part of town, you don't have any exposure to people who can tell you what your options are. So, share with the folks here, what do you get to do with your field of physics or engineering...take the high road while educating some folks here who will appreciate learning the different options available.

 

[Evo]

Fourth: the chicks prefer engineers (evidence already presented)

I'm mixed on that. I've dated tons of engineers, mostly aerospace (I lived near NASA in Houston), also a chemical engineer, a software engineer, structural engineer, etc... Engineers, for the most part are CHEAP and stress over every nickel and dime they spend. On the other hand physicists will not call you for three days and then explain it by saying they lost track of time.

My dad was an electrical engineer, btw.

 

[neil_m]

Thank you people for realising that this isn't meant to ultimately have one discipline claim dominance over the other. I wanted people who knew what they were talking about, to give their opinions that's all. I want everyone to know I am seriously considering the two on every level, and I just wanted to see the personal attatchment individuals have with their respective discipline. I have noting but respect and love for Engineering and Physics...(and Mathematics) -(hey even the Arts...umm sorry...not much for business though...)...and still believe being based generally on the same things, they are equal but different and CANNOT be compared based on their worth. Which is why ONCE AGAIN, this is a comparion between OPINIONS.
thank you, thank you, thank you, people. (keep it clean please, and thanks again)

 

[neil_m]

and special thanks to moonbear!

 

[JasonRox]

not to be an a-hole, but i am conducting a study here.
I want to see some Physicist VS Engineer action.
In here we know what an engineer and physicist do, we want to know who's better and why they think that.
COME ON PEOPLE!
LETS GET THIS STARTED!

Your intentions have changed, and let's hope your passion for science doesn't change.

 

[singleton]

While many in this thread have opted out of the requested response because they feel that it somehow belittles the other in a pissing-contest way, I will only say what interests me in one instead of the other. My view is not absolute, it just means to say why I find one more INTERESTING but certainly not "better" (we need everyone...from the garbage men to the rocket scientists!)

My family has many engineers in it. A few friends from high school went into engineering. I thought about studying it at university but came to the conclusion I have no interest and here is why:

Engineers (in my LIMITED view) are bound by a set of rules and told what sort of box to work in. They do have a certain amount of creativity and flexibility which is great because I value fields that allow creativity (coming from a background in coding). Overall I feel there are too many constraints for most engineers. They are given requirements and told the outcome; they actually make it happen. I very much appreciate the outcome from engineers. But, to me, it is almost like an engineer is just asked to jump and they respond with "how high?"

As for physics: I am greatly interested in it. One (obvious) reason is that it governs the universe we are in--the very rules at most basic form. I find it very interesting and neat that you can mathematically identify the way in which things will happen when using physics. Physics is, of course, still governed by rules but the great thing about it is that many of them aren't even known at this point (or possibly ever). Physics (theoretical) allows you to think unconventionally and outside of the box in hopes to find out about nature. Because of my personality I like this sort of thing a great deal. I like putting great thought into how things work and trying to understand. While the ends aren't creative in themself (you don't invent the rule, just discover) you are still creative in the journey towards it? If that makes any sense... I'm tired :P

That is just my view and I'm sure I've stereotyped both fields in many ways so don't get too worked up on me

 

[JasonRox]

You work in a box in physics too.

The biggest box of all, the universe. :)

 

[singleton]

Oh and physicists get wayyyyy more women--you just haven't met them yet because they are sort of in a parallel universe

 

[neil_m]

JasonRox: I hope you can tell the difference between what was said in joke, and what was said in seriousness. I meant for this to not be taken personally by anyone, I just wanted people's own opinions.
Going back, I think you took offense to someone making a comment (which wasn't to be taken personally) about what drives a mathematician, (please read what I added right after your post, which was meant for you) i agree with you. I value too your opinion, but shouldn't we let people talk? I have said it before anyone who starts getting obnoxious or rude doesn't really let their intelligence show. So I think we would know who's comments to disreguard.
I just thought people wouldn't take offense, and would catch the playfullness I started this with. (I called this a deathmatch- obviously I didn't expect Physicists and Engineers to fight to the death...it was just fun)
I totally agree that looking down on other disciplines or students of various disciplines IS petty, only if you are taking it TOO seriously.
Friendly competition is just friendly, PLUS it's individual opinions. Everyone has the right to like or dislike, I just want to hear it. And at least have fun with it. Most people in here have had fun and/or valid things to say about their choices.

My passion for Science and burning desire for knowledge, will always be. ;)

and thanks for your opinion too; i hope you can see this was meant as a fun thing.
(and yes i see, my over quoted "not to be an a-hole" post, does make me out to be an a-hole...I suppose It wasn't interpreted the way i meant it... i suppose that post lacked some =P and jk! cus it was meant to be playful and silly...I suppose I should be more careful, ...sorry 'bout that folks...)

 

[The_Professional]

On the other hand physicists will not call you for three days and then explain it by saying they lost track of time.

Must be theoretical physicists...

 

[JasonRox]

My passion for Science and burning desire for knowledge, will always be. ;)

We can never be satisfied.

 

[Moonbear]

I'm mixed on that. I've dated tons of engineers, mostly aerospace (I lived near NASA in Houston), also a chemical engineer, a software engineer, structural engineer, etc... Engineers, for the most part are CHEAP and stress over every nickel and dime they spend. On the other hand physicists will not call you for three days and then explain it by saying they lost track of time.

My dad was an electrical engineer, btw.

You know, my experience was totally the opposite, the engineer I dated (and his friends too) were all a bit too big of spenders for me. Of course I was still in grad school then, so I didn't have two pennies to pinch together, so everything seemed extravagant if it cost money at the time.

 

[DaVinci]

Well, let's see. First year there were 200 "physics majors." Second year there were 100. Third year 40, and 18 graduated witht the BS. Most transferred to engineering.

Some say they were the smart ones, because they figured out that they were not smart enough to finish the physics degree, so instead took the "more emplyable route."

And I am sure with the paycheck difference between a physics degree and an engineering degree, they feel pretty darn smug with their choice.

Being smart enough means nothing. Anyone can get the degree if they apply themselves. But I happen to be an EE major w/ physics minor, with aspirations to an electro-optics degree and then more physics course work to catch up.

You can't go to school if you don't have money and seeing as how an undergrad EE makes the same starting out at the company I used to work for as a masters level physicist...

Do you want deeper understanding and a Buick or not as deep understanding and a BMW?

Now that I said all that... if I had the guts I would just say screw it and go with the physics major and continue all the way up to the big PhD. More interest. Just need to make sure I have a safety net... hence the EE first.

 

[JasonRox]

I'm willing to settle for an even deeper understanding and no car.

I enjoy life as it is and a BMW wouldn't change anything.

If I were a prof, I would probably cut my salary in half so we can hire another prof in the department because that would add more people into the world of science/mathematics.

 

[Evo]

For those in the US, or planning to work in the US, here is some great information that might help you decide.

For physics http://bls.gov/oco/ocos052.htm

For engineering http://bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm

You can search on a particular field such as nuclear engineer, electrical engineer, etc... here http://bls.gov/search/ooh.asp?ct=OOH

 

[franznietzsche]

Get over your cocky attitudes.

Physicists are better than Mathematicians too. Except maybe Chaoticians. I still consider them Physicists.

 

[DaVinci]

I'm willing to settle for an even deeper understanding and no car.

I enjoy life as it is and a BMW wouldn't change anything.

If I were a prof, I would probably cut my salary in half so we can hire another prof in the department because that would add more people into the world of science/mathematics.

In all honesty... and it does come as really funny timing... but I just sat down with my wife tonight and discussed changing my major from EE to Physics.

My post was more in general... but I agree with what you are saying... but the higher paycheck would be nice.

 

[Gokul43201]

Second, engineers and physicists often have fundamentally different ways of looking at the universe: physicists deal with the theoretical and engineers deal with the practical.

Not true. The majority of physicists are experimentalists. And even among theorists, most work in accord with experiment, but a few are very poor at relating theory to reality.

I have firsthand experience with a brilliant physicist-turned-engineer for whom reality existed only in his head and as a result, couldn't engineer himself out of a wet paper bag. He made stupid mistakes because while he could figure out what was needed, he didn't consider whether the ideas in his head would actually work: is there a product that does what you want?, does it fit where you want to put it?, can it be connected to the existing system?, how much does it cost?, etc.

I hope you are not basing your generalization on this one data-point.

Let me tell you what our group (a fundamental physics group - we do experiments that probe electron-electron interactions) has been involved in over the last couple of years :

We have built our own Class 100/10 Cleanroom.
We have built the HVAC controls for our very specialized requirements (that use 6 computers that control an air-flow baffles, a humidifier, a heat-exchanger, a re-heater and a liquid nitrogen back-up)
We've designed, bought, machined (whenever something could not be bought or needed to be modified) and installed 3 cryostats with all the necessary electrical and plumbing support (this actually took a couple of years from start to finish)
We've resurrected and modified a 25 year-old Rapid Thermal Annealer that used archaic hardware.
We've made (as in designed and machined from scratch) various specialized experimental devices.
We have not bought a single computer as is, for our lab which houses 5. We've assembled all our computers.
We've worked with contractors, electricians, vendors, architects, and others.

 

[ygolo]

Strange topic

I'm not sure how I landed on this thread.

I am a practicing computer engineer, and double majored in Computer Engineering and Math in Undergrad. At the same time, I minored in Physics.

I did better than most (though certainly not all) of the physics majors in the physics classes. With that said, I have to whole-heartedly agree that the "concepts" in physics are quite a bit harder to master. However, I think those who graduate with physics B.S. degrees are nowhere near mastery, but by-in-large, engineering Bachelors have mastered the concepts they need. Engineering has few difficult "concepts" to master, but plenty of "techniques". In fact, in terms of declarative knowledge, a very good engineer could be a dunce. However, even very bright physicists could have trouble dealing with the "problems of the large" (like in a VLSI system). Many may use excuses about things being "boring" or "trivial" when having to deal with sheer volume of data to be processed. If you read Feynman lectures on computing, I think you'll get that impression form his tone. Part of an engineers skill set is the ability to "deal with" large repetitive problems. Some intellectually lazy engineers may simply "deal with" them by trying to "do" them directly, but most know better.

I view science and engineering to be wholly different but complementary processes. Science, including physics, is a process of analysis, while engineering is a process of synthesis. One uses the other in its service and cannot operate without the other.

So, the notion of what is "elegant" is quite different. Physicists drive for explanations deep and unifying. Engineers drive for easily applicable equations (even if strictly empirical, or derived from horribly inaccurate assumptions). Depending on the level of detail needed, even some thing that falls with in the right order of magnitude is enough. I realize engineers like more unifying models when they don't over complicate situations, and that physicists are perfectly OK with being crude when they need to be, but the over-arching goals are different.

The approach to problem definition and solution is also different in broad terms. Generally, engineers are working for a "fit" between "form and context". Read some of Henri Petroski's or Chris Alexander's books for further explanation. Essentially, there is a strong subjective component to engineering (a bit like art). Engineers often also have to consider the psychology of their users, customers, co-workers, etc. in creating a design. The problem is never well-defined (even when "solved"). Physicists on the whole aim at being objective. They try to "define the problem", then proceed to theorize and experiment. However, Einstein's talk about "religious feeling" makes one thing that some amount of subjectivity is needed to "engineer" a good theory. (How's that for talking beyond my scope of knowledge?)

I think clashes of egos between fields often also bing with them clashes of cultures, predominant thought processes, perspectives on usefulness, and goals in their careers. In general, I've seen that physicists and engineers are moving in different enough circles to not bother each other.

I have seen more of:
Physicist vs. Mathematician
Computer Scientist vs. Electrical Engineer (and us hapless Computer Engineers caught in the middle)

I am not sure the characterization of being "practical" applies that much to computer folk (do I seem practical?). We have our share of space-cases too.

 

[franznietzsche]

"Physics is to Mathematics what Sex is to Masturbation"

 

[vanesch]

My general opinion is that the cultures are quite different. Physicists have quite advanced courses (conceptually more difficult) as compared to engineers ; however, I have the impression that engineers afterwards apply more theoretical knowledge than physicists

I would like to add something, because it might have given the impression that I chose the "camp of engineers". This is not the case. In fact, I find physics much more fun and much more intellectually stimulating than engineering by itself. However, there are moments (especially in professional settings) where you have to come up with a real-world result, done from A to Z, with all the "boring" details right. And then you're in the engineer's park. Doing everything right from A to Z also gives intellectual satisfaction. Nevertheless, I have to say that much engineering stuff started to make more sense to me after I completed my physics degree. You UNDERSTAND much more as a physicist than as an engineer. But you CAN DO much more as an engineer than as a physicist, at least in the beginning.

Now, I somehow agree with Marlon that after having completed a physics curriculum, you have all the potential knowledge you need to pick up a book on a specific engineering discipline and to work your way through it. However, most physicists I know never do that. I don't know why.
The other way around is a bit harder (but I did it, so it can be done).

 

[neil_m]

as JasonRox said "I'm willing to settle for an even deeper understanding and no car.
I enjoy life as it is and a BMW wouldn't change anything."

I must say that's how I feel, but when I talk to those "successful" types, especially those who are family, they always tell me that is an unrealistic, or immature attitude.
I always say the paycheck isn't important, but then they get all over me, and tell me I don't understand.
(Family are Lawyers,Business people, essentially NON-science oriented... i figure they just don't understand what I see in Science...as i ceratinly don't see waht they see in business...)
I suppose if I had the money in my pocket to spend on education I would go for Physics... but if someone else is paying, I doubt they want to see me becoming highly educated, only to get a "lower" salary. (It is my observation, that Business types see this as an investment, and if I don't get a good(high paying) job, because I chose something I like, they would see it as a bad investment or something)
Although I would chose physics, this doesn't say I do more than engineering, but the impression i get(from them) is that it is better for the salary. (I certainly do not want to make a decision based on that)
My initial concern was losing the broad scope of physics, if i chose engineering, but on the other side of the spectrum becoming a jack of all trades, by 'understanding it all' an not being able to apply it to a career, as effectively as someone was who was trained for it.
I have however learned from some people here, that I can go for Engineering Science, or something similar and still fit (on my own time) Physics studies- If I REALLY wanted to.
I think maybe it is wise to have a "saftey net" (as someone said earlier), and then to pursue learning whatever it is you may have your heart set on, later.
But i still hope I can find the right balance the first time! :P

 

[Evo]

neil_m, I wanted to be either an archaeologist or astronomer, my dad wouldn't pay for my college for either one of those, I had to take business courses which he selected. He wanted to make sure I was employable and made good money. He meant well, but I have never been happy.

humanino is another member here that first got his engineering degree and is now getting his PhD in physics. I think it is a good path.