Are Electrical Engineers Secretly Physicists?

[Pengwuino]

is it just me or do electrical engineers think they are physicists? I've gotten in quite a few arguments with people over the validity of special relativity, cold fusion, etc and it seems like the only people who will use their degree as backup are electrical engineers and they are fully convinced either SR is wrong or cold fusion has been done (adn in some cases, is being covered up by the government) or that the face on Mars is an alien sign... ugh... what's with these people! I think you need a logic exit exam in order to get a degree...

 

[mezarashi]

Woah. Not looking good for me then. I'll be graduating with such a degree >.<

 

[Pengwuino]

Woah. Not looking good for me then. I'll be graduating with such a degree >.<

*grabs your shoulders and shakes you violently*

SPECIAL RELATIVITY WORKS, COLD FUSION DOESNT, UHM... WHATEVER THE THIRD THING I SAID! AHHHHHHH

 

[mezarashi]

No way dude. We engineers even made this website especially for you
http://www.crank.net/einstein.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Most engineers that I have known don't really want to accept the core of modern physics. I had a buddy who was just sure that once we got into Relativity in physics, he would prove that I was all wrong about time dilation and "all of that nonsense". He just knew this had to be wrong. And try discussions of non-locality, or worse [God forbid], the Many Worlds Theory!

I don't know about electrical engineers in particular, but for me this has been true with electrical, industrial, chemical, and ME/Aerospace engineers. I think modern physics and the typical engineering mindset are contradictory by nature.

 

[Pengwuino]

No way dude. We engineers even made this website especially for you
http://www.crank.net/einstein.html

haha you know what i find hilarious about these idiots who make webpages like the ones found on there... they won't just say one theory is wrong... they'll attack like, 10 or 15 different theories trying to say they are all wrong. I mean come on, very few people who are taken seriously are ever wrong so many times...

 

[Pengwuino]

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1917/proof.html

haha i love this guy. So its all done by airplanes but according to him, airplanes are too heavy to fly. Idiot.

 

[mezarashi]

And try discussions of non-locality, or worse [God forbid], the Many Worlds Theory!

Oh yeah, those discussions get real messy. I have this high school friend of mine who was one of those "UFO's are real, believe in the Roswell" kind of people. We have constant 'discussions' on MSN regarding anti-gravity and the possibility of faster than light travel. It can become entertaining in many ways.

I don't know about electrical engineers in particular, but for me this has been true with electrical, industrial, chemical, and ME/Aerospace engineers. I think modern physics and the typical engineering mindset are contradictory by nature.

Alot of engineers end up in careers not even related to engineering. My school's career counseling section says more than half. It's no wonder they couldn't care less about physics. Many engineering jobs related to front end design can be done without much science, and that seems to be the kind of job most of my friends in school want.

But for engineers who value engineering, especially electrical engineering, I don't see why modern physics can be so rejected. Quantum physics is the core of designing micro and now nano-electronic devices. Quantum weirdness like electron tunelling or the wave nature of particles need to be well acknowledged. Those in satellite communication need to acknowledge special + general relativity to correct timing errors in transmission. The nuclear part would be the most irrelevant I would suppose, unless you're in nuclear engineering...

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...917/proof.html

haha i love this guy. So its all done by airplanes but according to him, airplanes are too heavy to fly. Idiot.

ROFL. I'm serious, after reading some of these, you can become convinced. I remember this other guy who wrote a 500 page 'thesis' showing that all the math we know now is WRONG!

 

[FredGarvin]

Q. - What about satellites ? Who transmits all our T.V.channels, telephone & computer links, etc ?
A. - Human-made satellites don't exist, because flying into space to launch them is impossible. Believe it or not, all the data transmission that is now being allegedly done by satellites, actually happens with the aid of AWACS airplanes, which cover the whole Earth surface in a network of dozens of planes. They stay up in the air for 24 hours a= day, and get a tank fill regularly from a special aircraft.

Oh dear lord...Thanks for that link Peng.

 

[cronxeh]

COLD FUSION DOESNT

Are you sure about this? Id like to see some proof that it is theoretically impossible.

Actually save your googling. http://psroc.phys.ntu.edu.tw/cjp/v29/115.pdf

cold fusion does exist, its just not as viable as we all hope it was today.

 

[russ_watters]

I think modern physics and the typical engineering mindset are contradictory by nature.

I disagree, but I will say that a big part of what makes a crank a crank is lack of knowledge in the area that he/she is exploring. So by default, it is extremely difficult for a physicist to be a crank physicist (otherwise he/she would never have succeeded in becoming a physicist in the first place). But scientists often become cranks in other areas of science - Pons and Fleishman, for example, where chemists who thought they could rewrite physics.

All it takes is ignorance in one subject and arrogance due to competence in another - it doesn't matter where they actually come from. And as others pointed out, engineering requires science - if science didn't work, engineering wouldn't either.

(I realize you were separating the way engineers do think from the way they should think - I still disagree)

cronxeh - it is difficult to categorize muon catylized fusion as "cold fusion", and in any case, the term doesn't really mean anything scientifically - it's a term mostly just used by cranks. What is clear, however, is that what Pons and Fleischman were trying to accomplish (fusion via dissolving hydrogen in a metal matrix) is theoretically impossible.

 

[cronxeh]

cronxeh - it is difficult to categorize muon catylized fusion as "cold fusion", and in any case, the term doesn't really mean anything scientifically - it's a term mostly just used by cranks.

http://meson.riken.jp/ral/muCF.html

Its very much a scientific term. The muons orbit very close to the nuclei, shielding the positive charge of the nuclei and allowing them to move close enough to fuse -- to me, that's as best a definition of a catalyst as it gets. Even at poor yields and small sticking probability, it is still a topic worth researching into.

On the other hand, as chemistry is moving more and more into 3D we will see more advanced explosives and perhaps one day, imho, we'll see nuclear fusion done by biological entities.

 

[KingNothing]

Hmm..I was planning to go to college for electrical engineering. I don't doubt modern physics or anything, I don't believe in cold fusion...

I wonder why it'd be engineers that think that way?

 

[russ_watters]

Its very much a scientific term. The muons orbit very close to the nuclei, shielding the positive charge of the nuclei and allowing them to move close enough to fuse -- to me, that's as best a definition of a catalyst as it gets.

I'm not sure we connected there: I said "cold fusion" is not a scientific term - "muon catalyzed fusion" most certainly is. All I was saying is that they aren't necessarily the same thing.

 

[Lisa!]

I want to ask a fair question as a well let say a physicist: what's cold fusion? :shy:

Don't explin it please. Iknow what's it. But I thought engineers might give me some money if I ask this question![/color]

 

[cronxeh]

I'm not sure we connected there: I said "cold fusion" is not a scientific term - "muon catalyzed fusion" most certainly is. All I was saying is that they aren't necessarily the same thing.

I agree. However, I'd like to have cold fusion be synonymous with muon catalyzed fusion or at least be defined as fusion under STP conditions. Of course Stanley Pons and M.F's work is not cold fusion because, well technically there was no nuclear fusion.

I just don't agree with people who say "cold fusion is impossible" - because it does exist, it is possible, and it is the way of the future.

 

[Lisa!]

Cold fusion!

 

[russ_watters]

I agree. However, I'd like to have cold fusion be synonymous with muon catalyzed fusion or at least be defined as fusion under STP conditions.

The problem is that "STP conditions" still isn't a good enough description. When dealing with processes on an atomic level, the concept of temperature doesn't have any meaning (which is why the better term is "low energy nuclear reactions"), so the very term "cold fusion" - regardless of what it is meant to describe - is unscientific.

Of course Stanley Pons and M.F's work is not cold fusion because, well technically there was no nuclear fusion.

That's circular reasoning, though. It's like saying the sound barrier was a real barrier until it was broken - it's either possible to break it ahead of time or it isn't (just like what you say below about cold fusion). And what P&F claimed they did, they didn't, and not for lack of trying - what they claimed was possible, isn't. If it had worked, it would have meant that cold fusion works - since it failed and it's theoretical basis is nonexistent, it means that cold fusion (what they described as cold fusion) doesn't work.

I just don't agree with people who say "cold fusion is impossible" - because it does exist, it is possible, and it is the way of the future.

Well, aside from the question of definitions, there's a pretty steep uphill burden of proof that doesn't appear likely to be overcome any time soon.

And yeah, we're kinda getting OT here...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh yeah, those discussions get real messy. I have this high school friend of mine who was one of those "UFO's are real, believe in the Roswell" kind of people. We have constant 'discussions' on MSN regarding anti-gravity and the possibility of faster than light travel. It can become entertaining in many ways.

Well that's more than a little scary. Aside from the statement that the current physics is incomplete hence there could be surprises, what exactly do you spend so much time discussing?

 

[Pengwuino]

Well that's more than a little scary. Aside from the statement that the current physics is incomplete hence there could be surprises, what exactly do you spend so much time discussing?

If his arguments are anything like what I tend to notice... they probably argue the same crap over and over and over again :P "No no, I'm right because physics is incomplete which means there's a way to make anti-gravity", "no you're wrong, just because we don't know everything doesn't mean everything you want does indeed exist"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I disagree, but I will say that a big part of what makes a crank a crank is lack of knowledge in the area that he/she is exploring. So by default, it is extremely difficult for a physicist to be a crank physicist (otherwise he/she would never have succeeded in becoming a physicist in the first place). But scientists often become cranks in other areas of science - Pons and Fleishman, for example, where chemists who thought they could rewrite physics.
All it takes is ignorance in one subject and arrogance due to competence in another - it doesn't matter where they actually come from. And as others pointed out, engineering requires science - if science didn't work, engineering wouldn't either.
(I realize you were separating the way engineers do think from the way they should think - I still disagree)
cronxeh - it is difficult to categorize muon catylized fusion as "cold fusion", and in any case, the term doesn't really mean anything scientifically - it's a term mostly just used by cranks. What is clear, however, is that what Pons and Fleischman were trying to accomplish (fusion via dissolving hydrogen in a metal matrix) is theoretically impossible.

Interesting change of subject, but my point is not how anyone should think, it is about how people do think and why they chose the majors that they did, or do. In most cases, and obviously in my expience, engineers by nature are practical. They often see no use for these extreme ideas and fundamental questions. But from my point of view, except for practical considerations such as post graduation employment, why would anyone seriously interested in physics study engineering? The greatest attraction for me to study physics was in fact QM. The greatest attraction for most engineers is something else entirely; and certainly something practical that can be used today. And there are physicists like this as well, but they should have been engineers.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In a nutshell and as an average, here are twenty years worth of observations: Where the physicist's eyes light up, the engineer's eyes roll.

 

[Pengwuino]

And everyone rolls their eyes at mathematicians :D

 

[Danger]

"No no, I'm right because physics is incomplete which means there's a way to make anti-gravity

Push him off a cliff and tell him to invent it on the way down.

 

[Pengwuino]

Push him off a cliff and tell him to invent it on the way down.

 

[Ouabache]

... my point is not how anyone should think, it is about how people do think and why they chose the majors that they did, or do. In most cases, and obviously in my expience, engineers by nature are practical. They often see no use for these extreme ideas and fundamental questions. But from my point of view, except for practical considerations such as post graduation employment, why would anyone seriously interested in physics study engineering? The greatest attraction for me to study physics was in fact QM. The greatest attraction for most engineers is something else entirely; and certainly something practical that can be used today. And there are physicists like this as well, but they should have been engineers.

You don't fool me you are saying all this tongue-in-cheek to rouse a few engineers, get their dander up.. Well I'll jump in with my 2 cents. Engineers are taught the same physics that physicists learn. I'm an electrical engineer and enjoyed my Modern Physics and all my physics classes. I also like learning about cosmology through the inspiration of popular physicists (Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawkings, Michio Kaku, Brian Greene), their books and videos feature enlightening interviews with many other practising physicists. Engineers are taught that their discipline is all applied physics, so in a real sense we are also physicists.

What is the attraction for engineers to engineering? For me, it was a passionate curiosity to learn how electronics behaves and to hone my creative skills to be able to build cool and useful circuits for today and for the future.. There are engineers that propose designs for ships we might use for intergalactic space travel, or develop nanotechnology (nanobots) to augment medical treatment of passengers on these ships.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What do you think we were doing while you were taking engineering classes?

And yes I was poking fun a little but not entirely; and it wasn't intended as an insult. There is a difference between engineering and physics. And there is a difference in what drives people to choose one over the other. For me it was a passion that simply could not be compromised. I considered an EE degree as an option before starting my upper division courses, but in the end I wouldn't have gotten some of the classes that I wanted the most, and I couldn't afford the luxury of a double major.

Sorry for all of the late edits but I haven't thought about some of this in quite some time. I wasn't going to risk one minute of lectures or study that might reveal insight into the essence of existence.

 

[tribdog]

In a nutshell and as an average, here are twenty years worth of observations: Where the physicist's eyes light up, the engineer's eyes roll.

you are in the wrong job man, you should have been a poet.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

you are in the wrong job man, you should have been a poet.

Well if you like that I wrote a really snappy one in the fifth grade.