How does a Physics class differ from an Engineering class?

[Dr.D]

By this latest definition, most of the "physicists" so described are educated in engineering classes.

How many physicists do you think work on applications of everyday, down to earth, things like vacuum cleaners, office furniture, mix masters, and ball point pens? There is a lot of theoretical and experimental work in fluid mechanics, structural mechanics, lubrication, etc. that goes into all of these things, but I don't think you are likely to learn any of these things in a physics department.

 

[Klockan3]

By this latest definition, most of the "physicists" so described are educated in engineering classes.

How many physicists do you think work on applications of everyday, down to earth, things like vacuum cleaners, office furniture, mix masters, and ball point pens? There is a lot of theoretical and experimental work in fluid mechanics, structural mechanics, lubrication, etc. that goes into all of these things, but I don't think you are likely to learn any of these things in a physics department.

If you had read my post and used some logic you would have realized that I did not consider any of those as applications. They are products that you can sell on a market. An example of an application would be the transistor, while a kind of radio would be a product. A transistor is an application of EM theory.

But to explain further, what I meant with "application" is a use of theoretical physics that haven't been thought of before, which basically means that you invent new objects for engineers to play around with, aka you make applications out of the theoretical stuff.

 

[LewisEE]

In my experience, I have an undergrad in physics and have never taken an undergrad engineering course, I am now doing graduate studies and have taken a couple graduate courses in the physics department and am taking one in the engineering department, the expectations in an engineering course, (and thesis from the ones I have watched defended) are pretty much a joke if you are used to pure physics courses. Also, I know in my undergrad, I had many pure physics classes that engineers took as an elective, and 100% of them dropped out by a week after the midterm as they couldn't hack it.

This was a gem of a post. He didn't hold back on details or examples, either!

 

[Cantab Morgan]

Scarce, as in, compared to the mountain of problems/projects/designs you'll be doing for your engineering classes. If you think that 15 physics problems a week is bad, wait until you have 3 engineering projects coming due at the same time.

I agree with you, AUMathTutor, but if one is only doing the assigned problems in Physics, then he's going to fail. (Unless he's a supergenius, I suppose, or unless Physics is insufficiently challenging at a particular uni.)

In my experience, there was never enough time to do all the Engineering coursework, and there was never enough intelligence to do all the Physics coursework. If engineers have taken that as an insult, then I have expressed myself poorly. One needs a lot of both to do well in either.

 

[Mute]

The point of my story is just this: Both the physicist and the engineer would like to solve the problem, but when it gets messy, the physicist often seems to be inclined to say, "It has a solution, but it is not worth the effort to actually find in most cases. We will only work the simple special cases."

The engineer, on the other hand, is much more inclined to say, I have to have the solution for all cases, so even though it is messy, I will resort to a numerical solution as a matter of routine.

Now I am well aware of the fact that in research, physicists often do use numerical methods of solution. But it is in the undergraduate teaching area that I have never seen it happen, whereas it is fairly routine to apply numerical methods in undergraduate engineering problems. To return to your question, this is the significant mathematical difference that I see between Engineering and Physics education.

You characterization of the professions there seems a little disingenuous, and your qualification at the end doesn't really reverse that impression.

Though in some sense a physicist might not "put out the fire", you seem to say it's because it's too messy and complicated for them, whereas engineers are much more willing to get their hands dirty. Rather, any competant physicist should be able, and willing, to get messy to solve the problem if necessary; the reason they may not is that solving the problem in full detail is simply not what they are interested in - they want the core physics of the situation, not every detail.

The 'core physics' is often are there regardless of how complicated the system is, hence it is seldom enlightening to model the whole system when a simplified model captures the essential physics one is interested in. All the complexities of the system could even obscure the core physics one is trying to look at. Take Newton's first law being obscured by the presence of friction, for example.

An engineer, on the other hand, is much more interested in the practical application of the physics she knows, and to that end solving the problem in full detail is necessary to produce a real version of the system. Similarly, any experimental physicist who needs to model some appartus in order to calibrate it, etc, is going to model the hell out of it - they won't simplify a damn thing.

So, although your 'story' may in some sense be an accurate characiture of physicists, mathematicians and engineers, it's important to stress WHY their actions are different - because what they're fundamentally interested in aren't the same for each - and I don't think you did that with your post, so it was somewhat misleading for someone like the OP.

As for why solving things numerically isn't done in undergrad - well, I suppose to some extent it's again because they're interested in different things. It's also probably somewhat due to the confidence of physicists that they're clever enough to figure out how to do something if they really need to. I've never taken a computational physics class so I don't know what sorts of things are taught in one, or what detail is achieved. I've certainly done coding in undergrad for various classes that involved various levels of modelling things - perhaps not quite at the level you're envisioning, though.

 

[elect_eng]

In my experience, I have an undergrad in physics and have never taken an undergrad engineering course, I am now doing graduate studies and have taken a couple graduate courses in the physics department and am taking one in the engineering department, the expectations in an engineering course, (and thesis from the ones I have watched defended) are pretty much a joke if you are used to pure physics courses. Also, I know in my undergrad, I had many pure physics classes that engineers took as an elective, and 100% of them dropped out by a week after the midterm as they couldn't hack it.

I feel it is important for me to provide an alternate view here. If this is your experience, I have no right to deny it. However, to provide a balanced view for the OP, I'd like to say that this is not my experience. I was always torn between physics and electrical engineering. I finally chose EE, but only did so because I decided that I could take many physics classes along the way. I took them every chance I could as electives in place of engineering courses. Then, in grad school (both MS and PhD) my classes were equally split between physics and EE courses. I also had physics professors on my thesis and dissertation committees. The caliber and quality of professors, courses, students, thesis/dissertation work etc., in both physics and electrical engineering, were on par with each other. There are definitely differences between, engineers and scientists, but also, much in common. A case like the one cited above, where one discipline seems far superior to another, would seem to me to be an isolated case of a poor department and a good department existing at the same university.

 

[djeitnstine]

I simply believe that this is all how one views physics and one views engineering. Both are implicitly difficult in their own way. If CaptainQuaser's post were simply true, then tell me why is no influx in engineering degrees across the globe?

In my experience, the main thing that makes physics difficult is the copious amounts of difficult mathematics involved. Engineering has a lot of mathematics but is much more conceptually challenging in comparison to the mathematics it requires.

I am currently taking AE with a physics minor and I could eat up just about any physics class you throw at me any day.

It simply depends on how you think and process your information that would allow one to do well in one or the other.

 

[Hessami]

I'm 4th year Mech. Eng, from Australia. Don't really know how our courses stack up to you guys in America, but over here I have seen a noted difference in the classes run by the Engineering and those run by the maths/physics department.

Engineering classes (with a few rare exceptions) seem to be more inclined to helping you solve a problem, pass an exam, scrape through with the minimum knowledge required. You can very easily get yourself an Engineering degree, while not actually understanding ANY of the concepts that you are supposedly being taught.

Maths/physics classes generally focus on the concepts behind the work, and not so much the actual formulae, or the outcomes of the calculations, and usually result in the student having a much deeper understanding of the topic, though with a narrower view.

Engineering does have a reputation for being quite shallow, with no real understanding of the concepts that their work is based around. However a good Engineer will do their best not to fall into the trap of taking the easy road, and to sometimes think of problems more from the perspective of a physics student.

In fact, many of the concepts in engineering are MUCH simpler, if you delve a little deeper, and put in the hard work on the foundations. I would recommend ALL engineering students to expose themselves to some advanced mathematics/physics classes, as they can help make the difference between an air conditioner salesman and what I would call a REAL engineer.

 

[kote]

There seems to be a lot of discussion on how a physicist thinks compared to how an engineer thinks. Many of the people I studied engineering with were just physicists who wanted jobs. We had a lot of double majors in physics and math.

As for the differences between the courses, physics is more theoretical and will involve more derivations etc. Engineering has its fair share of theory though. At my school, math through calc3 and differential equations was required with upper level courses recommended. Physics through the introductory 3 course sequence was required with mathematical physics optionally replacing optics.

There are some other differences that I haven't seen mentioned yet. Overall, the engineering major had about twice the required courses of the physics major. Upper level physics courses often had take home exams that were only due at the end of the semester. You'll never have take home exams in engineering - just problem sets, labs, projects, and in class exams.

The physics degree is useful if you want to study physics in grad school. The engineering degree is useful if you want a job. This last distinction is really the only one that matters in my opinion.