Engineer -> Experimental Physicist -> Theoretical Physicist

In summary: I don't dream of becoming a theoretical physicist. :confused:Id like to build airplanes (like boeing), rather than derive equations. Much more interesting to me.Re the OP: I don't think this is true in general. In fact many engineers that I've known couldn't understand why someone would choose physics as a major.
  • #1
omega_M
2
0
New member ! This is my first post.

Long ago, I remember one of my friends talking about how engineers dream of becoming experimental physicists who in turn dream of becoming theoretical physicists. I remember the context but don't remember whether it was an explicit joke or musings of some engineer or physicist. Just wanted to know if any of you are aware of this and would point me to it's source.

Having said that, I am myself an engineer (doing PhD atm) and I would love to be known as a physicist of some sort. http://img.tranceaddict.com/smilies/new/0711/noteeth.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I don't dream of becoming a theoretical physicist. :confused:

Id like to build airplanes (like boeing), rather than derive equations. Much more interesting to me.
 
  • #3
Re the OP: I don't think this is true in general. In fact many engineers that I've known couldn't understand why someone would choose physics as a major.

My answer has always been that I wasn't going to do that much work for something that I didn't love, but all along it was no secret that engineering degrees are more marketable than physics degrees; and that I would likely work as an engineer after graduation.
 
  • #4
I'm going for my undergrad in physics, and there's times I just want to be an engineer. I'm constantly considering getting a degree in EE after I get my physics degree, but I probably won't because I'll want to spend that time working towards my career.
 
  • #5
Yeah I just remembered this but I haven't been able to find a reference to this quote, even if it's a joke. If one talks about progressive degrees of abstraction (and may I also say intelligence) required to do their jobs, theoretical physicists are probably at the top of the ladder.
 
  • #6
Pythagorean said:
I'm going for my undergrad in physics, and there's times I just want to be an engineer. I'm constantly considering getting a degree in EE after I get my physics degree, but I probably won't because I'll want to spend that time working towards my career.

I came within hours of switching to an EE before starting my junior year, which is a pretty easy point to do this as the curriculum is much the same until then. But I bought one of the EE books and began so look it over, and then I grabbed a book for nuclear physics that I had already purchased, and looked it over...

In fact I did want to learn more about EE, and did so after graduation.
 
  • #7
ok, this joke comes close...but i still think the stuff I remember involves only physicists and engineers. lol


Psychologists think they're experimental psychologists.
Experimental psychologists think they're biologists.
Biologists think they're biochemists.
Biochemists think they're chemists.
Chemists think they're physical chemists.
Physical chemists think they're physicists.
Physicists think they're theoretical physicists.
Theoretical physicists think they're mathematicians.
Mathematicians think they're metamathematicians.
Metamathematicians think they're philosophers.
Philosophers think they're gods.
 
  • #8
That's really ugly... it can be shortened by a ton

Psychologists want to be biologists.
Biologists want to be chemists
Chemists want to be physicists
Physicists want to be mathematicians
Mathematicians want to be philosophers
Philosophers want a job
 
  • #9
Ivan Seeking said:
I came within hours of switching to an EE before starting my junior year, which is a pretty easy point to do this as the curriculum is much the same until then. But I bought one of the EE books and began so look it over, and then I grabbed a book for nuclear physics that I had already purchased, and looked it over...

In fact I did want to learn more about EE, and did so after graduation.

I have a year left of physics, so I'm definitely going to go for it, but I might poke at an EE.

Also, not to sound arrogant but considering that physics usually studies the general case, is it that tough to teach yourself EE once you've learned the physics?
 
  • #10
omega_M said:
New member ! This is my first post.

Long ago, I remember one of my friends talking about how engineers dream of becoming experimental physicists who in turn dream of becoming theoretical physicists. I remember the context but don't remember whether it was an explicit joke or musings of some engineer or physicist. Just wanted to know if any of you are aware of this and would point me to it's source.

Having said that, I am myself an engineer (doing PhD atm) and I would love to be known as a physicist of some sort. http://img.tranceaddict.com/smilies/new/0711/noteeth.gif
[/URL]


i can think of 2 examples of people going from engineering, not to any kind of physics, but all the way to pure math! a prof at my old university did his first degree in electrical engineering, now he does pure math. stefan banach did engineering also, thinking that nothing new could be discovered in math.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
Pythagorean said:
Also, not to sound arrogant but considering that physics usually studies the general case, is it that tough to teach yourself EE once you've learned the physics?

I might hazard a guess that it's not. Although I hate to think that engineering is any easier than physics. Then again, engineering is generally the application of physics. Further, you need to distinguish theoretical physicists from experimental physicists. A number of the experimental guys might well be engineers.
 
  • #12
omega_M said:
I might hazard a guess that it's not. Although I hate to think that engineering is any easier than physics. Then again, engineering is generally the application of physics. Further, you need to distinguish theoretical physicists from experimental physicists. A number of the experimental guys might well be engineers.

as an undergrad, there's no difference between experimental and theoretical. We both receive the same undergrad training. I don't know if there's even that much difference in the grad programs.

I don't want to differentiate myself with those labels since I don't completely understand them. I like both experimenting and theorizing.
 
  • #13
omega_M said:
Long ago, I remember one of my friends talking about how engineers dream of becoming experimental physicists who in turn dream of becoming theoretical physicists. I remember the context but don't remember whether it was an explicit joke or musings of some engineer or physicist. Just wanted to know if any of you are aware of this and would point me to it's source.
I think it a joke. I start off in physics but moved into nuclear engineering - and did pretty much what I was going to do in physics + engineering.

The work I do now is combination of theoretical development and the applying that in practical real world applications - basically nonlinear thermo-mechanical analysis of nuclear systems. Basically we solve very complex systems of equations (numerical models) which deal with the way materials behave in high-temperature radiation environments. There is also some chemistry in the mix, since we have to model corrosion processes and the attendendant degradation of mechanical properties.

While we use empirical models, they are often based on the fundamentals in order to retain validity over a wide range of conditions. Of course, with better computing power and more experimental work, we can develop less empirical and more mechanistic models - which really is necessary if one uses a broad range of different types of materials and thermophysical conditions.

I think nuclear engineering evolved from engineering physics at some universities. One of profs during undergrad had majored in engineering physics, and his work was primarily accelerators.
 
  • #14
My degree is in Math, but I work as a software engineer. I found there was more satisfaction in solving practical problems. In my spare time I study physics, but I don't think of myself as a scientist at all nor do I aspire to become one.
 
  • #15
When i was in high school, i always saw myself like the lab coat type as my work. I liked the idea of studying physics, and becoming a theoretical physicist like Dirac... Anyway, when i started heading that way (college), i realized that what i liked was engineering and that i had a big misconception of what a physicist is/does.
 
  • #16
both physicists and engineers deal with physics and mathematics. the two professions mainly differ in the scope of their problems. physicists seek answers to fundamental questions whereas the engineers work for the industry. having said that, the physicists need engineers to test their ideas and develop instrumentation to refine measurement technology. the engineers need theorists to come up with better tools to develop new technology. kind of a circular dependence. it is quite possible to blur the distinction between a physicist and an engineer if the physicist works for industry or if the engineer works in fundamental fields of science like astronomy or particle physics.
 
  • #17
I never wanted to be a physicist. I've always loved design. To me, solving difficult problems within certain design constraints is extremely satisfying. I would not have been happy studying physics.
 
  • #18
Pythagorean said:
Also, not to sound arrogant but considering that physics usually studies the general case, is it that tough to teach yourself EE once you've learned the physics?

That was partly my thinking as well. Once you learn the most general case, the rest should be manageable. All in all I would say that is has served me well in spite of the obvious marketing disadvantages.

Either way, college teaches you how to learn, and that is the most valuable skill of all.
 
  • #19
physicists seek answers to fundamental questions whereas the engineers work for the industry. having said that, the physicists need engineers to test their ideas and develop instrumentation to refine measurement technology.
I have known a number of physicists who were involved with development of instrumentation (look at IBM or GE), and I know (and work with) engineers who do fundamental research. Folks at the National Labs and NASA have physics and engineering degrees - and they overlap. In at least one case, an engineer works with a group of physicists. The engineer does do the primary application of the some software that was originally developed by the physicists, but the engineer learns the fundamental or theory behind the applications and works with the physicists to improve the software.

In the field in which I work, there is a tremendous overlap of physics and various engineering disciplines, and there are those who do theoretical or numerical methods (simulations), those who design and manufacture components and integrated systems, and those who do experiments and applications. There is a dynamic feedback among the three - experimental results help us to improve the theory, the improved theory helps us develop better materials or at least understand how materials perform, and we devise better experiments or push further the performance envelope.

One really hot area for physics and engineering is nano-technology. For example - FEI produces a line of electron microscopy systems, including TEM, SEM, DualBeam™, and FIB, which are designed, engineered and manufactured to address a wide range of applications. Different types of electron microscopes provide distinct capabilities for end-users.
( http://www.fei.com/Products/Types/tabid/59/Default.aspx [Broken] ) The folks at FEI are a mix of engineers and physicists, as are the end users of the equipment.

Engineering is essentially applied physics, and depending on the discipline, the engineer may apply a little or a lot of fundamental physics. Certainly a structural engineer designing a bridge or other large structure is not going to use QM, QFT or Maxwell's equation, but an nuclear engineer working on a fusion device or other nuclear system may.

And then there are hybrid folks like engineering physicists or material scientists.

I often wonder why people get hung up on arbitrary distinctions or categories.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
Psychologists want to be biologists.
Biologists want to be chemists
Chemists want to be physicists
Physicists want to be mathematicians
Mathematicians want to be philosophers

What is the ordering relation that produces this chain?

It could be reverse earning potential

It could be about abstraction.

It could be about ego/intelligence.

It could be about reverse practicallity.

But I don't think it is about any of these things. The ordering relation is about ambition. Not personal ambition, but altruistic ambition.

No one wants to be useless at their job (peter principle: every worker is promoted just past their point of competence). I would rather (hypothetically) be a productive engineer than a fustrated mathematician who works on an obscure topic just because of 'publish or perish' pressure. I talked to a chemist once who said "I like the idea of engineering/physics but I would rather be a good chemist then an average physicist".

In other words, ambition should be balanced by the ability to get results. Philosophy can effect the human race on the grandest of scales, but this is balanced by the fact that philosohpical insights are extremely rare. A top notch enginnering record is much more valuable to the world than an uneventful stint in philosophy, but those who contribute that which is truly worthwhile in this field deserve to be on top of our 'altruistic careers' heierarchy.
I often wonder why people get hung up on arbitrary distinctions or categories.

Categories are useful for beginners, but not so much so to those with the experience to see through them.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
The joke I've heard has nothing to do with professional envy, but rather goes like this:

An engineer, an experimental physicist, a theoretical physicist, and a philosopher are taking a walk through the Scottish highlands when they come across a black sheep. The engineer blurts out "hey look, the sheep in Scotland are black!" The experimental physicist turns to him and says "some of the sheep in Scotland are black." The theoretical physicist, looking bemused, chuckles and says "actually, at least one of the sheep in Scotland is black." The philosopher, who had been kneeling to examine a flower, looks up and says "on one side, anyway."
 
  • #22
Crosson said:
What is the ordering relation that produces this chain?

It could be reverse earning potential

It could be about abstraction.

It could be about ego/intelligence.

It could be about reverse practicallity.

But I don't think it is about any of these things. The ordering relation is about ambition. Not personal ambition, but altruistic ambition.

No one wants to be useless at their job (peter principle: every worker is promoted just past their point of competence). I would rather (hypothetically) be a productive engineer than a fustrated mathematician who works on an obscure topic just because of 'publish or perish' pressure. I talked to a chemist once who said "I like the idea of engineering/physics but I would rather be a good chemist then an average physicist".

In other words, ambition should be balanced by the ability to get results. Philosophy can effect the human race on the grandest of scales, but this is balanced by the fact that philosohpical insights are extremely rare. A top notch enginnering record is much more valuable to the world than an uneventful stint in philosophy, but those who contribute that which is truly worthwhile in this field deserve to be on top of our 'altruistic careers' heierarchy.




Categories are useful for beginners, but not so much so to those with the experience to see through them.



Jeez, lighten up dude ! It's a joke http://img.tranceaddict.com/smilies/new/0509/wtf.gif

My interpretation is that a person wishes to be recognized as an intellectual and abstract reasoning / thinking can be a measure of your intelligence in some way. Hence an engineer would love to be thought of as a physicist because generally, physicist works on a more abstract level than an engineer. At least that is what I think the joke is all about, looking at the last two lines.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
I want to be a physicist (going to school for it) but I do not want to be an intellectual. They seem like boring people to me.
 
  • #24
I majored in electrical engineering because I could not leave my city to major in physics. I later got degrees in materials physics because that was what I could study in my state of Baja California. My thesis was theoretical.
I did not like to work as an "engineer" because in Mexico, you never will design anything. I did not like to be an "experimental physicist" because it seemed to me that in my graduate school, they did not need to know anything about physics, but only to push buttons and be obedient. I was pushed by this into theoretical physics, but I am not particularly excited about it. I love to understand how things work, not to dedicate my life to understand to the very deep a single phenomenon.
I teach physics and I have published on physics but I do not feel a physicist, nor an engineer, by the way.
This fall, I am going to RIT to study microelectronics. I hope it is not to late for me to apply my knowledge on physics and get some hands-on experience on this exciting technology.
It seems that I am too engineer for physicists and too physicist for engineers.
I do not have anything against of labels, if we use them as tools not as life sentences.
 
  • #25
The source of this ranking system is Aristotle. Aristotle argued that a life of growth and reproduction is the good life for plants, and pleasure is the good life for animals, but the good life for humans must involve abstract and rational thought, since this is the unique function of man.

Aristotle is also responsible for a large number of other things which are now considered folk wisdom, such as 'virtue lies in moderation' or that we have 5 senses. Inevitably, because of the anti-philosophical bent on these forums, someone will respond by saying that these statements have always been obvious and did not originate with Aristotle's writings. The reason most people don't appreciate the benefits of philosophy is that they take them for granted: the best philosophical realizations are quickly (within one or two generations) incorporated into common knowledge e.g. the scientific method, the realization that our eyes are not a window into the objective world, the distinction between mind and body, etc.
 
  • #26
I'm currently doing electrical engineering and becoming a physicist has always been one of my desires. I'm happy to see there are others that are similar to my position here, however I feel as if I study physics I would waste my time / become overqualified as I can already tell there are very little use for an electrical engineer / physicist in Australia...
 
  • #27
purity.png


On the other hand, physicists like to say physics is to math as sex is to masturbation.
 
  • #28
Engineer? Physicists? You are just going to end up writing software in either case...
 

1. What is the difference between an engineer and an experimental physicist?

Engineers typically focus on designing and building practical solutions to real-world problems, while experimental physicists conduct experiments to gather data and test theories. Engineers often use known scientific principles to solve specific problems, while experimental physicists may seek to discover new principles through their experiments.

2. How does one transition from an experimental physicist to a theoretical physicist?

The transition from experimental physicist to theoretical physicist typically involves obtaining a higher level of education, such as a graduate degree in theoretical physics. It also involves a shift in focus from conducting experiments to developing and analyzing mathematical models and theories.

3. What skills are important for an engineer to have in order to become a successful experimental physicist?

A strong understanding of physics principles, as well as skills in data analysis and experimental design, are important for an engineer to become a successful experimental physicist. Additionally, critical thinking and problem-solving skills are crucial for interpreting and analyzing experimental results.

4. What is the role of a theoretical physicist in the scientific community?

Theoretical physicists use mathematical models and theories to explain and predict physical phenomena. They play a crucial role in advancing our understanding of the natural world and are often involved in developing new technologies and solving complex problems across various fields of science.

5. Can one be both an engineer and a theoretical physicist?

While it is possible for someone to have knowledge and skills in both engineering and theoretical physics, it is rare for one person to excel in both fields simultaneously. The two disciplines require different approaches and ways of thinking, and it is more common for individuals to specialize in one or the other.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
568
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
18
Views
6K
Replies
26
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
6
Views
3K
Back
Top