How Can ChemE Students Effectively Bridge Physics and Engineering?

  • Context: Studying 
  • Thread starter Thread starter dRic2
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenges faced by chemical engineering students in bridging the gap between physics and engineering. Participants explore the relevance of advanced physics topics, such as classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, to their studies and future careers, as well as the balance between personal interest and academic requirements.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses a desire to deepen their understanding of physics beyond the standard curriculum, questioning whether studying less favored topics like classical mechanics would enhance their grasp of other subjects.
  • Another participant suggests that foundational courses, such as classical mechanics, are essential for a comprehensive understanding of engineering and physics, even if they are not immediately applicable.
  • A participant clarifies that they have completed basic courses but struggles with advanced problem-solving in classical mechanics, raising concerns about the necessity of further study in subjects they do not find engaging.
  • Discussion includes the mention of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian methods, with some participants noting their importance and relevance to both classical mechanics and quantum mechanics.
  • One participant shares frustrations about the lack of guidance in their education regarding advanced topics and the pressure of self-study, leading to feelings of overwhelm.
  • Another participant reflects on the necessity of self-directed learning in higher education and the challenges of developing effective study methodologies.
  • A later reply introduces a discussion on the relationship between elementary particles, mass, and spacetime, suggesting a connection to the broader themes of physics and engineering.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement on the importance of foundational knowledge while also highlighting differing views on the necessity and enjoyment of studying certain topics. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to balancing personal interest with academic requirements.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their understanding and the challenges of self-study, as well as the varying quality of educational resources and support available to them.

dRic2
Hi PF,

let me explain the title because I couldn't think of anything better... I'm a chemE student and I like to understand industrial processes and stuff like that, in order to "create" something. I just think that to reach the "level" of understanding that I want the physics which we are taught is not enough: it's really helpful to learn the stuff you will probably encounter in day-to-day work, but it also lacks of generality. I started to think that I want to be a sort of "physicist who applies his skills in engineering", rather than "just" an engineer (no offense to all engineers in here :) ). So I started to study more on my own and taking some extra courses. Being a chemE student though, I have 2 years of engineering (not physic!) as background... so I have some "nice" understanding of some branches of physics (like thermodynamic, fluid-dynamic and I'm also staring a course on QM) but I'm very bad in others (like classical mechanics, electromagnetism ecc...). I do not pretend to be a professional physics or something, I just do it for myself. Finally, here is my question: do you think I should "open up" to other studies or just follow my path? I mean if I study something I do not like (for example classical mechanics) at an "higher" level would my understanding of other stuff (like, for example, physic-chemistry) benefit from that?

PS: the more I know the better, but I don't want to end up dying studying something I do not enjoy... :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If life were only so simple. Often you can't control where you will go in life instead the courses you take , the decisions you make and the opportunities you get based on your successes determine what direction your life will take. One of the first things you'll need to discard is the notion of liking or not liking a course. Look at the course as far as its usefulness to what you are learning. Does it fill in a gap? Does it complete your understanding? Does it open new doors?

In the case of classical mechanics, its a foundational course, the basis for most engineering and physics. It even appears in biology too and can give you a deeper understanding of p-chem so in my opinion its a good course to take if you have the math background for it.
 
Thanks for the reply. Maybe I wasn't clear: I already took all basic courses like classical mechanics; I just stopped there for lots of them. For example I had like 4 exams on thermodynamics but only two on classical mechanics. This means I have the basic concepts but I struggle to solve problems of a certain difficulty (while same difficulty would be no problem in other courses). My question is whether I should go further the "fundamentals" in more courses or just stick to what I'm doing. Of course if I find something I need I'll study it, but I don't see the point in studying something I do not need other than just for personal growth (which is good, but time is limited).
 
What book did you use in Classical Mechanics? If it was Goldstein or Marion then you've taken the highest undergrad CM course.

If you're referring to the Physics survey courses that freshman take then there's another higher level that would benefit you more.

Basically, are you familiar with Lagrangian and Hamiltonian methods for CM problems?
 
I studied on professors' dispenses and the course was easy. I'm quite familiar with Lagrangian and Hamiltonian methods but I never used or saw it on CM. I self studied them for a course on QM for a while and I mainly used them there.
 
You know, that is exactly a problem. Take Lagrangian and Hamiltonian methods as example. No one bothered to tell us what they were but the professor of QM. But it also said that, if we want a better understanding, we should study them on our own because it is not required for an engineer in day to day job. Also the course was not
mandatory so they kind of told me "it is your problem". Although my university is the first-ranked in my country (but it is not globally high-ranked) I hate this way of thinking. Last month I had like a breakdown because I tried to study too much on my own while taking classes. I took some weeks off now, but I'm really struggling because I do not know what to do...
 
The langrangian brings in the notion of energy and systems working in a conservative way ie Least Action principle. That was quite a revelation when I first learned it and then it became less mysterious when Newtons F=ma was derived from it showing an equivalence.

In the end though, it is your problem. At college you must learn to teach yourself because in the real world as a PhD you will have to do just that and you will have to produce papers of a caliber that other PhDs will marvel at and criticize but not think that you are incompetent. Its similar to being a lawyer, judges will show you some respect and consider your arguments before they show the same respect to an ordinary citizen attempting to argue a case.
 
get your point and maybe you think mine was a silly question. I May be overthinking about It. The fact is: I find something I do not know I study It. I don't have a methodology. I feel like I can mess up or like I'm wasting time... anyway thank you; i never spoke about this with anybody in college, I'm sort of relieved and motivated
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jedishrfu
dRic2 said:
get your point and maybe you think mine was a silly question. I May be overthinking about It. The fact is: I find something I do not know I study It. I don't have a methodology. I feel like I can mess up or like I'm wasting time... anyway thank you; i never spoke about this with anybody in college, I'm sort of relieved and motivated

Your question wasn't silly it comes from not having lived long enough to see how your decisions really unfold and having to rely on others for advice. We all go through this period some longer and tougher than others.

It's great that you've given us the chance to talk about it again. This question is a staple of some time travel stories "oh if only I'd did this or bought that then I'd be famous or wealthy or both or neither and vice versa..."
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dRic2
  • #10
Elementary particles have mass. Mass tells spacetime how to curve and spacetime tells mass how to move. Elementary particles are described by QM. Hence we need to understand how QM and GR fit together.

The black hole phenomena magnifies this in a big way as we ask what happens to particles that fall into the black hole.
 

Similar threads

Studying How to self-study physics past High School Level?
  • · Replies 102 ·
4
Replies
102
Views
9K
Other How can I fill course requirements for Physics Master's program?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Is this a good self-study program?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Uncertainty in pursuing Engineering
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
How Can a Math-Loving Physics Student Excel in Mathematical Physics?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Considering Switching from Physics to Computer Engineering
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Programs Trying to decide what program to study (physics or engineering)
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Other After an Engineering Physics BSc, can I enroll in a Physics MSc?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Studying How Should I Study Quantum Mechanics and Which Math Should I Know?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Schools Need to decide whether to study Physics or Engineering
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K