Engineer Vs Physicist (DEATHMATCH )

[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 what 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.

 

[marlon]

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).

I also don't understand why physicists don't get involved in engineering much much more. Of my class i am the only one that started a study in egineering instead of a PhD, though i had the necessary scores for it. To be honest i would defend the engineers more then the physicists to some extent although physiscs is more difficult and challenging to study and discover...at least that is my opinion.

marlon

 

[JasonRox]

I pay for school so I don't have those problems. :)

Business is boring **** you know.

 

[marlon]

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.

Well that depends,...you cannot study for electronical engineering and then start a PhD in QFT or QCD-related topics. For these matters you need to be a real physicist in your heart and brain. Experimental and applied physiscs is much more accessible for some engineers then theoretical physics will ever be...
marlon

 

[Evo]

Well that depends,...you cannot study for electronical engineering and then start a PhD in QFT or QCD-related topics. For these matters you need to be a real physicist in your heart and brain. Experimental and applied physiscs is much more accessible for some engineers then theoretical physics will ever be...
marlon

True. I just meant that if you want to be a physicist, getting an engineering degree first is not a bad idea. humanino is definitely a physicist in heart, mind and soul.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

Could you explain that a little: what is the purpose of the experiments if not to test theories? Do you mean that a lot of the experiments are meant to push technology, not theory?

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

Its a generalization I've heard elsewhere that I have verified with one data point. Obviously its a limited set of data though.

 

[Maxwell]

I'm an engineering student, and though most of my friends are engineers, I have a few that are physicists. As a whole, engineers have it much harder! We need to understand MORE. Physicists may need a deeper understanding of some topics, but we have the job of taking the theory and APPLYING it to something. Yes, there are constraints. But there are constraints in EVERYTHING you do. We are practical people.

Physicists discover what is already there. Engineers create something using a combination of the math and science tools they learned in school, plus a creative mind that is able to solve the problem efficiently and within the bounds set for them. I can't think of any job that is harder.

It may be easier for a physicist to turn into an engineer...IN THEORY. But understanding what the tools do does not mean you can USE them.

And on the topic of mathematics majors, well that is much easier! For people who are mathematically inclined (including physicists and engineers), learning more math is not so daunting. When I joke about changing my major because I have 4 tests in one week, I always say I will change my major to mathematics. It would be fun, relaxed and most importantly...NO LABS!

In summary, all 3 majors/occupations are INCREDIBLY important and fulfilling. It depends on how you view life. Do you want a deeper understanding of a certain topic or do you want a broad range of tools and fuse that with your creativity to give birth to something new.

 

[marlon]

Physicists discover what is already there.

You really mean that ? Why ?

It may be easier for a physicist to turn into an engineer...IN THEORY. But understanding what the tools do does not mean you can USE them.

I am a physicist who is studying engineering now (photonica). I can tell you that a profound knowledge of physics makes the practice a lot more easy. Personally, i found it much more difficult to learn QFT and QM or General Relativity then courses on electronics and photonics...

regards
marlon

 

[JasonRox]

And on the topic of mathematics majors, well that is much easier! For people who are mathematically inclined (including physicists and engineers), learning more math is not so daunting. When I joke about changing my major because I have 4 tests in one week, I always say I will change my major to mathematics.

Assuming this is applied mathematics, which is what engineers take.

Try pure mathematics.

 

[vanesch]

Well that depends,...you cannot study for electronical engineering and then start a PhD in QFT or QCD-related topics.

No, you have to get your masters first of course !
Which makes people look upon you as a nutcracker: you have your engineering diploma and you go back to the license years.

 

[urhere2]

I think one of the big differences is that an engineer learns a formula and when to apply it. A physicist learns to understand where the formula comes from, what each part means, and how to apply it in new ways to solve bigger problems. Also, there seems to be more analytic training to teach the physicist to look at the world in a different way than most people.

As a disclaimer, I have a B.S. in physics and took some EE courses.

It does seem much easier to get work with an engineering degree. It is almost a must to get a PhD as a physicist to find a job. Of the 6 students that graduated around the time I did that I know, only one has work using his degree. 3 of us went on to graduate school right away, 1, 2 years after graduation because he couldn't find work. I left graduate school after a year, and have been unable to get but 2 interviews in 2 years.

 

[marlon]

I think one of the big differences is that an engineer learns a formula and when to apply it. A physicist learns to understand where the formula comes from, what each part means, and how to apply it in new ways to solve bigger problems. Also, there seems to be more analytic training to teach the physicist to look at the world in a different way than most people.

As a disclaimer, I have a B.S. in physics and took some EE courses.

It does seem much easier to get work with an engineering degree. It is almost a must to get a PhD as a physicist to find a job. Of the 6 students that graduated around the time I did that I know, only one has work using his degree. 3 of us went on to graduate school right away, 1, 2 years after graduation because he couldn't find work. I left graduate school after a year, and have been unable to get but 2 interviews in 2 years.

In my senior year in physics we were with 12 students. 5 of them started a PhD, one started to study engineering (that's me) and all the other six started to look for jobs in the industry. All of them are currently working in high-technological industries. To name some companies : Sony, Philips(In the Netherlands), nettech(optical fibre communication)...


IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO FIND A GOOD JOB WITH A PHYSICS DEGREE

regards
marlon