Programs Choosing a major physics versus EE

[Locrian]

In the past, like a century ago, technology mainly depended on the development of natural sciences, but now, I think technologies are built upon each other, and sciences don't seem to participate much in their development..

I can think of lots of examples to the contrary. . . but that doesn't mean what you stated is wrong in general - it's tough to quantify it.

The phenomenal increase in hard drive density over the past 15 years has certainly been driven by condensed matter physics (GMR). The entire area of organic electronics (we're seeing OLED displays appearing here and there already, and more are soon to come) are built off the combined work of chemists and physicists in the 80's. Maybe in a decade negative index metamaterials will be having an equally large effect on technology. There are many other examples.

As far as I can tell, the commonly stated belief here on physicsforums that important parts of our technology (such as processor speed, for instance) are technological rather than scientific endeavors is wrong. I believe these advances require both.

 

[Locrian]

Assume a company is working in a whatever project...The ratio of EE required to the Phyicists required is about 10:1...
You don't need many phyicists, but you will certainly need to many EE...

I have no idea what the numerical factor is, but I'd certainly agree with Dark Knight's conclusion - you need more EE's than physicists in industry.

However, as we've already said, there are many more EE's than industry-capable physicists educated.

Determining what the final demand comes to is tricky business, and I'm not sure anyone really has a great answer that is easy to apply to many situations.

 

[Dark Knight]

I can think of lots of examples to the contrary. . . but that doesn't mean what you stated is wrong in general - it's tough to quantify it.

The phenomenal increase in hard drive density over the past 15 years has certainly been driven by condensed matter physics (GMR). The entire area of organic electronics (we're seeing OLED displays appearing here and there already, and more are soon to come) are built off the combined work of chemists and physicists in the 80's. Maybe in a decade negative index metamaterials will be having an equally large effect on technology. There are many other examples.

As far as I can tell, the commonly stated belief here on physicsforums that important parts of our technology (such as processor speed, for instance) are technological rather than scientific endeavors is wrong. I believe these advances require both.

I do agree with you...But the fact is that the largest party in the technology fields doesn't actually require a rapid scientific development..

I mean, I'm an EE student, I discoverd that physicists only support the idea, but we (as engineers) develop it, that it may turn out to be a whole other invention than what the physicist came by!

We develop our technologies more rapidly than physicists develop physics..
And for economical purposes, countries and companies spend much more money in developing technologies, rather than natural sciences..

I know this is not how this thing was supposed to work, but I think it's happening already!

I have no idea what the numerical factor is, but I'd certainly agree with Dark Knight's conclusion - you need more EE's than physicists in industry.

Well, I was just guessing that ratio
From my knowledge of many industries, I came up with that conclusion, and I think it's pretty reliable...Isn't it?


(P.S. I always wanted and still want to be a theoritical physicist!)

 

[Younglearner]

I agree with Dark Knight as far as more EE are needed than physicists. I would also say that I think that the 10:1 ratio might even be fairly accurate, maybe a bit on the low side even. Is it wrong for me to conclude then that because more EE are needed that they have more security. I am thinking that more EE jobs mean more EE applying which means more competition. On the physics route, there are fewer physicists in industry so the competion is less. Yes, you have to be good, but there is physically (pardon the pun) less competition. Could be totally wrong, but that is what I see. Give me a holler!

Younglearner

 

[berkeman]

In your opinion, what would make a strong EE candidate for your R and D lab? Could you possibly answer the questions that you posed to me. Oh, what is IMHO?
Thank you for your time; I know that dealing with young people can be a hassle.

Not a hassle at all, Younglearner. The PF is a great place, made up of lots of different people with different backgrounds. That's part of what makes it such a useful and interesting place to stop by and help out.

I think I mentioned earlier somewhere that when we interview new graduates for positions in our Lab, we are looking for someone who did very well in school, truly understands the subject matter (didn't just learn the material to pass the tests), and has some hands-on experience with real projects. Either they did them on their own, or they have internship or summer job experience.

As for the questions, it was common for me to work > 40 hours per week on my studies outside of class in undergrad, and it paid off with very good grades, and helped me get a summer job at Tektronix, and then a scholarship for my MSEE with Bell Labs. One of the projects that I built outside of school work was a laser deflection mirror for music visual effects. Very cool and I learned a lot.

IMHO = in my humble opinion. www.acronymfinder.com

 

[Younglearner]

Out of curiosity, berkeman, how did you come up with the ideas for your out of school projects. I would definitely consider doing stuff like that. I am what most people call, a fiddler. I like to fiddler with stuff in my spare time. Examples: I built a tooth pick bridge in a vacuum to see if it would become stonger (It didn't break, but it did bend like crazy-do you know if there is a market for unbreakable but ultra flexible bridges?) and building a motor from scratch (wanted to see how hard it was).

 

[berkeman]

For me, it was just following stuff that you enjoy, and thinking up projects in areas that you are interested in. Like with the laser light show thing -- it started when I bought an inexpensive oscilloscope that happened to have an x-y mode, and I put in 60Hz on the horizontal and music on the vertical, and got some awesome displays with the right Rock and Roll songs. "Out here in the fields..." Great fun at parties. And I also bought an inexpensive HeNe laser, and wanted to figure out how to make the same x-y figures on the wall with the laser. So to do that, I had to learn about voice coils and other deflection mechanisms, electromechanical things, power amps, etc. I never got it working great, but it was a great learning experience, and I used that later in real work on a similar project.

I think that it's a good idea to find a couple electronics kits that interest you, and build them and play with them for a while. Then think of more complicated stuff you'd like to build, and work on that. Especially nowadays, it's good to build up microcontroller-based projects, both in kit form, and from scratch on your own. Here's an example of a source of kits:

http://www.transeltech.com/kits/kits1.html

If you have a local Radio Shack or Frys Electronics, they are also good sources of kits. Have fun!

 

[Younglearner]

Thanks berkeman, I will definitely check this website out. And thanks for the insight that you have given me. It is insane how high schoolers have to start thinking about the complexities of life so early, but it is always good to have a place to throw out questions and get some different answers.

Thanks
Younglearner

 

[Dark Knight]

Hey berkeman, I guess you are an EE..right?

Well, I'm studying EE and don't really know what to choose between, high voltage, automatic control, utilization, or machines as my specialization..

Can you (or any other one) give me some hint for what each of them really does?...I will be really thankfull :)

(Sorry I know this is off the thread!)

 

[berkeman]

Hey berkeman, I guess you are an EE..right?

Well, I'm studying EE and don't really know what to choose between, high voltage, automatic control, utilization, or machines as my specialization..

Can you (or any other one) give me some hint for what each of them really does?...I will be really thankfull :)

(Sorry I know this is off the thread!)

I'm not very familiar with the specialties that you list "high voltage, automatic control, utilization, or machines".

I'm more familiar with specialties like communications, or semiconductor design, or RF systems, etc.

 

[Dark Knight]

Well, I'm specialized mainly in electric power, with the specialities I mentioned..
In my university, what I mentioned, and what you did are two separate departments: ''Electrical power and machines'', and ''communications and electronics''...

Thanks anyway berkeman :)

 

[maverick280857]

Wow, this thread sure has progressed since I last checked it
I had to search for my last post

I'll try to rephrase my original question...

Okay I understand its a personal choice (between EE or Physics or between any two fields). But I wanted to get a perspective of both worlds in academia and not industry (I am well aware that with an EE degree, I'll get a job straight off). Somehow, the discussion tends towards industry jobs and so on. Sure, physicists may not easily get industry jobs. But my interest is more towards research (if you ask my areas of interest, well, they're all listed in the very first post). So its basically a binary choice.

I was also curious about how easy/difficult it is to do pure physics after a bachelors degree in electrical engineering. What if your interests are also in theory? Is it possible to get into a PhD program in say, theoretical physics, after EE? What are the requirements (I know they vary from univ-univ but still..) and so on. Those were the kind of questions I wanted to ask.

 

[acpsiddhartha]

if you like to get a job and lead a happy life with money and stuff then go for EE. if you have passion do to something real good research then go for physics... but in my opinion if you are interested in experiment never do experimental physics... EE guys are much more smart in experiment...

 

[maverick280857]

if you like to get a job and lead a happy life with money and stuff then go for EE. if you have passion do to something real good research then go for physics... but in my opinion if you are interested in experiment never do experimental physics... EE guys are much more smart in experiment...

I'm surprised. Most people tend to suggest EE for the monetary reasons. I'm sure you're aware that there is research in EE too. And what exactly is "real good research"? What about physics after EE?

Also, in undegrad education what is the difference between experimental and theoretical physics anyway? Everyone has to do the same courses..doesn't the distinction arise only in grad school? But yes, I agree with you that some EE courses are more hands-on and involve a lot of practical work.

 

[trickae]

Believe me - EE gets harder every year with industry demands. Depending on which college you go to EE may make or BREAK you. Its not for the light hearted and its not something you should pick because it may be 'easier'. There's no easy path through college and I honestly think EE has got to be the toughest form of engineering around. Its incredibly rewarding but for the most part my last two and a half years in EE were more hell than smiles. Its basically 4 years of problem solving. You have to be prepared to devote significant hours a day towards just solving problems. Its not just reading the chapter - because many times i found that after reading a chapter or re-reading a chapter I'm clueless when it comes to problems.

Be prepared for long assignments and demands from courses left right and center. When I was splitting my EE courses with compE courses i found i had weeks where I had 3 assingments due and tests - and on average that semester i slept every other night.

though i have a habbit of scaring ppl out of EE and CompE - i'll still recommend it at the same time. Its an amazingly rich course and there are so many aspects to EE that it starts making more and more sense as you get closer to your final year.

I'll post up a response i gave someone here that'll convince you to stick to it.

 

[maverick280857]

Yes, certainly its not 'easier' (nothing is I guess). Anyway thanks for your inputs. I am interested only in research at the moment, so either way I will try for a masters after my undergraduate education. However, since my interests are cross-linked, I just want to make sure that a particular choice does not severely limit my options while going to grad school. Thanks for the inputs.