Mixing physics and engineering?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the career options for high school students interested in physics and engineering. Participants explore the relationship between physics education and engineering practice, considering how to combine interests in both fields. The conversation includes perspectives on the nature of work in physics versus engineering, potential educational paths, and personal reflections on career aspirations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses a desire to study physics but is concerned about the typical career paths of physicists, which seem focused on teaching and research.
  • Another participant suggests that many physics graduates pursue engineering graduate programs, indicating a pathway from physics to engineering.
  • Some participants propose looking into engineering physics programs or dual majoring in engineering and applied physics as potential solutions.
  • A participant questions the perception of physicists' work, suggesting that many have a narrow view based on popular representations.
  • Concerns are raised about the specialization of engineering compared to the broader knowledge offered by a physics degree.
  • One participant shares their experience in a physics-heavy engineering field, highlighting the integration of physics into engineering practice.
  • Another participant notes that many engineers in their company hold PhDs in physics, suggesting overlap between the two fields.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying opinions on the roles and perceptions of physicists and engineers. There is no consensus on the best educational path or the nature of work in either field, indicating multiple competing views remain.

Contextual Notes

Some participants base their views on limited information from official sources, which may not fully represent the diversity of careers available to physicists and engineers. There are also indications of misconceptions about the work physicists do and the applicability of their skills in industry.

Who May Find This Useful

High school students considering careers in physics or engineering, educators advising students on career paths, and individuals interested in the intersection of physics and engineering disciplines.

electrifice
Messages
37
Reaction score
1
I'm attending high school, and I'm seriously thinking about my career options. I have always loved thinking and solving problems. This year, I'm taking physics and I love it, I also do well in math. I definitely want to major in something related to physics, but what? I think I will enjoy the education that a physics undergrad receives, but I simply do not like what that education is geared towards, like teaching and research. On the other hand, I really like the kind of work engineers do. I know engineers also use and learn physics, but I think I won't be truly happy unless I study physics, but then I don't like what "physicists" generally do.
So, what kind of an education would provide the knowledge and undderstanding of physicists, but the skills of an engineering? Is it possible and wise to do something like a BS in Physics, and then to merge into engineering? or to double major in physics and engineering? (although I'm not really considering doing that) I just can't help thinking that an all out physics degree might be fun to get, but it might get boring afterwards. Quite simply, how can one learn what a physicist does but be employed as an engineer? Any thoughts and suggestions would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Many of our physics BA graduates go to grad school and get a master's in some engineering field.
 
look into an engineering physics program, or maybe dual major in some engineering field and applied physics.

Also, many physics programs have tons of open electives, and you can fill all of those open electives with engineering classes if you wish.
 
May I ask what is there you don't like and find boring in what physicists generally do? I am right now in my 1st year at university studying physics, and I'm really questioning myself what I'll be doing later.
I on the contrary don't even consider engineering for some reason (I'm thinking to try myself in theoretical physics, but still I'm unsure). On the other hand I don't know really much about their work possibilites. What is there you like so much in engineering?
 
vladb said:
What is there you like so much in engineering?

$$$$ :biggrin:
 
electrifice said:
I'm attending high school, and I'm seriously thinking about my career options. I have always loved thinking and solving problems. This year, I'm taking physics and I love it, I also do well in math. I definitely want to major in something related to physics, but what? I think I will enjoy the education that a physics undergrad receives, but I simply do not like what that education is geared towards, like teaching and research. On the other hand, I really like the kind of work engineers do. I know engineers also use and learn physics, but I think I won't be truly happy unless I study physics, but then I don't like what "physicists" generally do.

I'm sorry, but I had to ask.

What exactly do you think physicists "generally do"?

I find that many people, especially kids your age, have a very jaundice impression of what a "physicist" is, thanks to Brian Greene and all the slanted coverage of physics.

Zz.
 
Thanks for the replies everybody...
First of all, my knowledge of engineers and physicists is based primarily on "official" kind of perspectives found on websites, etc. Where a description of a physicist suggests something like... to be a physicist you must get a PhD to be even considered as a physicist, and that a physicist works on researching generally abstract concepts, as a professor in college/university while also teaching. Of course, these sources also mention that physicsts have a wide set of skills and can use their experience in a variety of jobs/careers as "hidden physicists." Personally, I like the broadness of a physics major, and I think that engineers and physicists are comparable, just that engineers are more specialized and have more technical knowledge relevant to their field.
So, I think that physicists are more involved in research, and as I read on some website, they are concerned with shooting arrows in the air and drawing targets where they land... whereas, engineers have targets and try to find the best way to shoot at them. I like to solve problems (ie: shoot at targets). For example, I like computer programming because you must find a way to write a program that is efficient and does whatever you want it to do, by using what you know.
What I like about physics/physicists: broad knowledge and skillset
What I dislike about physics/physicists: others don't generally see the applicability of physicists and prefer engineers in industrial jobs (at least that's the impression I have got from researching this topic thus far)
What I like about engineering: They can be employed to solve problems, create, build, and APPLY their knowledge
What I dislike about engineering: Its more specialized than a physics major, and since I love physics, I don't think I want to miss out on it
Please correct any misconceptions I have... I would think that reality is a lot diffferent than what I can find on the internet, so your opinions will be helpful. Thanks
 
Wow, I'm in the exact same position you are. I've been considering computer engineering vs. physics for almost all the same (potentially wrong) reasons. But I've applied to all my universities through the faculty of science so I'm kind of stuck.

You should go to the website of a few companie's you can see yourself working for and check what they want physicists for. IBM and Intel are examples.
 
This might interest you:

(from the "Physics Engineering" thread)

Integral said:
I work in the technology development section of a High Profile company. Several of the engineers I work with have PhDs in Physics. There may be companies who have positions entitled Physicist but I will bet you will find most positions are called engineers. Few if any of the engineers in the company I work for are Certified PEs.
 
  • #10
ZapperZ said:
I'm sorry, but I had to ask.

What exactly do you think physicists "generally do"?

I find that many people, especially kids your age, have a very jaundice impression of what a "physicist" is, thanks to Brian Greene and all the slanted coverage of physics.

Zz.

Can I hear the way you define what a physicists generally do? I only ask you because I would most likely fall in the age group with the 'jaundice impression' of what physicist do, and would like to correct my view now.

Thanks in advance.
 
  • #11
Well, you can always do what I'm doing, which is studying a highly physics-laden area of engineering (specifically, quantum electronics). Not only do you get to study the design portion of engineering, but you also have an excuse to take a bunch of physics courses. However, you should probably know that while I have taken a bunch of QM-related courses, my knowledge of classical mechanics and relativity is sorely lacking.
 
  • #12
GluonZ said:
Can I hear the way you define what a physicists generally do? I only ask you because I would most likely fall in the age group with the 'jaundice impression' of what physicist do, and would like to correct my view now.

Thanks in advance.

If one were to look at the divisions under the wing of the American Physical Society (a professional organization that physicists in the US belong to), one would see that the LARGEST division is the Division of Condensed Matter Physics/Material Science. This means that close to half of the practicising physicists are in this field. But what is it?

It is the field that studies, among other things, semiconductors, superconductors, magnetism, nanoscience, materials properties, magnetoresistance, etc.. etc. Condensed matter/material science is the ONLY subject area that has TWO different sections in Physical Review Letters journal. Physical Review B is the LARGEST monthly publication of any of the Physical Review series produced by the APS - and yes, it publishes condensed matter/material science papers. This is the subject area in which a direct practical application is your modern electronics.

Yet, this field is not well-known to the general public. What most people see physicists as are those typify by Brian Greene, Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein, etc... who are all THEORISTS. There's nothing wrong with that, but a significant and large chunks of physicists are experimentalists, and we work in areas that are not esoteric, not abstract, and not without direct applications.

I wrote this in my journal a while back about this area of physics, but since most people have no reason or inclination of reading such thing, I'll repost it here:

ZapperZ's Journal said:
Consider the fact that when most bright-eyed physics majors in their first year entering a university, they are either not aware, or hardly know anything about a field of physics known as condensed matter. Yet, if they go on to receive their Ph.D in physics, there is a 55% to 60% chance that they will be graduating with a specialization in such a field! It is estimated by various professional physics organizations that roughly 50% of all practicing physicists are in condensed matter physics/material science. It is certainly the largest and most dominant division under the wing of the American Physical Society. It also produces the largest amount of peer-reviewed publications.

So what is "Condensed Matter Physics"? Condensed matter (CM) is the study of matter. It is not the study of atoms, molecules, and particles in isolation, but rather it is the study of atoms, molecules, and particles when there's a gazillion of them AND they are also interacting with each other. This is what goes on in solids, and very often in certain types of liquids and gasses also. Solid State physics is a large part of CM. This means that CM covers a huge range of phenomena, ranging from the properties of metals, semiconductors, insulators, to superconductivity, to magnetism, etc. It is because it is such a huge field that CM is the only area of physics with two separate sections in the Physical Review Letters. It is also the only subject area of the Physical Review journals series that produces FOUR volumes per month (Physical Review B).

So why is CM so huge and so important? The most obvious reason is that this is the one area of physics that produces direct practical applications. All of the advances in modern electronics came out of our understanding of the properties of materials and our ability to fabricate, manipulate and control them. So when someone asks if physics has any practical applications, chances are he/she isn't aware of this area of physics.

However, the non-obvious reason that is equally important is that the advancements and discoveries coming out of CM have important and wide-ranging implications throughout physics. At the most fundamental level, CM studies how things interact with each other. This knowledge transcends CM physics and is important in any field of physics. Important discoveries made by Phil Anderson on the broken gauge symmetries are now common principles used in field theories and particle physics. The Higgs mechanism itself came out of CM. Thus, the progress in the theoretical understanding of CM systems have wide-ranging impact on practically all of physics.

The third reason why CM is so important is because this is the area of physics that consistently produces a description of a phenomenon with some of the highest degree of certainty. Because of the ability to fabricate and control a measurement, CM phenomena can often be tested repeatedly, often by simply changing one parameter at a time. This allows for some of the most reproducible results anywhere in physics, giving it the highest degree of certainty. In fact, the value of physical constants such as the Planck constant "h" and the elementary charge "e" are determined from values measured from CM physics experiments. CM experiments also produce some of the most convincing evidence for the validity of quantum mechanics and special relativity.

There are many exciting discoveries and phenomena left to be studied in CM, which leads the study of many-body phenomena. I highly recommend readin Piers Coleman recent article on this, which should also give a flavor of the importance of such a field. I can only hope that many incomming students would at least be aware of the wide horizon that is out there, and that physics isn't just some esoteric area of study that is confined only to nuclear, particle, or even (ugh) string theory.

http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0307004

There is also one other issue involved that Integral has mentioned. There are MANY physicists with PhD's in condensed matter who work in places such as Intel, Applied Materials, Xerox, Hewlet-Packard, etc. Unfortunately, their positions are titled with an "Engineer", such as process engineer, program engineer, etc.. yet, these people have Ph.D's in physics. It is why some people think these are engineering degree holders.

Zz.
 
  • #13
Ah. I understand. Thanks for the clarification, ZapperZ. I checked out the rest of your journal which was an excellent read, by the way.
 
  • #14
I think it's entirely possible for someone to find physics research boring (yes, I see that condensed matter research IS applicable to electronics industry, but probably decades after the research has initially found something (if extremely lucky)), while they find physics curriculum very intellectually satisfying and thus exciting.
Considering electrifice is a high school student, he seems to have a very well-informed idea about what might work for his own interests.
I think most physicists in academia (if not all) will agree that physics research is reserved for those who are interested in physics for physics' sake only.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Thank you ZapperZ for the informative reply. It provides more insight about physicists. I understand (after reading the excerpt), the application of condensed matter physics to modern electronics, but it seems that this field like other physics fields involves heavy research (which unlike some other physics research is far more applicable to electronics, etc.) However, the portion of a physics education that does not interest me IS the research. Although I don't hate "research" itself, I want to research and create and build something from existing knowledge, rather than completely conducting research in order to find new knowledge, to expand the frontiers of science or even condensed matter physics in this case.
Nevertheless, I am considering (more heavily now), a B.S. in physics because it seems to be quite flexible and leaves many choices open for grad school (correct?) I would like to know, therefore, how useful is a B. S. degree in physics? I would like to be able to find employment in something physics/engineering related before entering grad school. Is that possible with this degree. I am not interested in the amount of pay (right out of undergrad studies, at least), just employment. Again, thanks for all your opinions, its quite helpful.
 
  • #16
A BS in physics won't open many doors in terms of employment without going to grad school. You also wouldn't be able to work as an engineer after a BS in physics, since engineers need accreditation. If you go into physics, you must be ready to go for at least a masters, and most likely a phd.
 
  • #17
tmc said:
A BS in physics won't open many doors in terms of employment without going to grad school. You also wouldn't be able to work as an engineer after a BS in physics, since engineers need accreditation. If you go into physics, you must be ready to go for at least a masters, and most likely a phd.

How does that compare with a degree in Applied Physics? Also, many sources mention that physics degree holders are able to work as engineers, and that many do, so do they also get the engineering accreditation? btw, I am ready to go for at least a masters, just not sure whether a masters in physics, which is why I am curious to know how one can transition from a physics degree to a masters in an engineering field.
 
  • #18
electrifice said:
How does that compare with a degree in Applied Physics? Also, many sources mention that physics degree holders are able to work as engineers, and that many do, so do they also get the engineering accreditation? btw, I am ready to go for at least a masters, just not sure whether a masters in physics, which is why I am curious to know how one can transition from a physics degree to a masters in an engineering field.

You don't need "engineering accreditation" to practice as an engineer in any state.

However, to stamp engineering designs that have a safety liability, then you need to be a licensed P.E. Also, if you want to practice engineering independently (aside from a corporation) you must have a P.E. If you want to open your own private firm and you don't have a P.E., then another principal (if any) must have a P.E.

To get a P.E. in michigan (requirements vary from state to state) you must graduate from an ABET accredited engineering program (no physics majors), take the FE exam (and pass), work 4 years as an engineering in training under a P.E., and then take the P.E. exam. the FE and PE exams are both 8 hours long. the FE is closed book (they give you a reference seet with various constants), and the PE is open book (you can pretty much bring any reference you want. Thre are people that bring an entire card of books along.)

So people with physics degrees can work as engineers for industry, but there are certain things they cannot do that a licensed engineer can do, like open their own engineering firm.
 
  • #19
leright said:
You don't need "engineering accreditation" to practice as an engineer in any state.

[...]

So people with physics degrees can work as engineers for industry, but there are certain things they cannot do that a licensed engineer can do, like open their own engineering firm.

So, would you possibly be considered for a position (as a physicist) that asked for an EE/CE if a PE wasn't needed?
 
  • #20
cscott said:
So, would you possibly be considered for a position (as a physicist) that asked for an EE/CE if a PE wasn't needed?
I was also wondering about that... how does a physicist compare with an engineer for an engineering job... Its obvious that the engineer would be better suited, but how would a physics major compare, especially one with a masters in an engineering discipline?
 
  • #21
In EECS we usually divide designing into three layers
The system layer,The circuit layer & The material layer
According to my information about physicist I'd say they would do just fine working for the material layer as they do have solid understanding of the physical concept behind matters and that is just what is needed to be a good material engineer, the other two layers i think that an engineering firm will not consider a physicist for the position unless he has prove that he has the knowledge required for the position ,which i might add he will acquire after going through hell just to know what any undergraduate in engineering does
 
  • #22
abdo375 said:
[...] the other two layers i think that an engineering firm will not consider a physicist for the position unless he has prove that he has the knowledge required for the position ,which i might add he will acquire after going through hell just to know what any undergraduate in engineering does

Would an engineering diploma help any in situations like this, or is it still too limited?
 
  • #23
Would an engineering diploma help any in situations like this, or is it still too limited?

First i want to ask, if your willing to take an engineering diploma and then work as one then why don't you enroll in an engineering undergraduate program in the first place?


If you go and study physics, get an engineering diploma and then turn to be an engineer your just wasting 6 -and may be more- years of your life to get where you could have been in the first place, if you choose to work in a system/circuit design level then your throwing all the education you acquired from the physics degree into the trash, since you will not be anywhere near using it

and wither a company would consider an physicist with an engineering diploma to work at the circuit or system design level is something you should be asking yourself, would a company hire a physicist with an engineering diploma-which is simply just a 2 year engineering technician since circuit and system design does not involve much physics- to do what an engineering graduate can do properly twice as better?
 
  • #24
Thanks abdo375... that's the kind of reply I was looking for. If so much of physics education is NOT required for engineering.. what kind of an education do egineers get. A physics major learns about physics... what does an engineer learn about (other than math and physics)?
 
  • #25
Basically Two things, design and problem solving skills, which is pretty much the same when your an engineer , most engineers will have a will defined goal to achieve with normally very little tools in hand, in designing you will be required to meet certain goals, be that goal cost, performance ,size or in most cases all three of them, so you will use both your design and problem solving skills to bend and twist both the math and physics you learned to achieve your goal, I remember a prof of mine told me once that what engineering truly teaches you is the engineering sense, which is basically how to solve problems while balancing the results,and I think that's probably why engineers make great CEO's and project mangers.
 
  • #26
One more thing i failed to mention I'd like to recommend a book for you it's
Engineering Student Survival Guide (BEST Series) - 3rd edition
by Krista Donaldson
but that will probably get you to biased to be an engineer so I'd also recommend for you to find any close friend whose a physicist and explain to you what a physicist really does and then it's up to you to realize what you want to do with your life.
 
  • #27
still undecided

Well, I've thought about all your replies, and I'm leaning towards physics. In essence, I find physics intellectually stimulating, and it is what I want to learn about (for the sake of knowledge). I would, however, like to use it in a more applied sense, not necessarily engineering, but not research/teaching either.
So, I want to know what kind of decisions during my entire time in university would lead to greater employability. I am completely willing to go as far as a Ph.D. I also have interest in computers, mainly in programming. Can I somehow combine my physics interest with my interest in computers and engineering. As someone has already stated, "why not start with engineering?" I don't think I would like not knowing the fundamentals. I had originally intended to pursue graduate education in engineering but someone has pointed out that that would only lead to something like the work of a technical engineer, is that correct?
Your advice is appreciated.
 
  • #28
Doesn't the university you want to enter have Applied Physics? It seems like the most suited for you, which is somewhere between physics and engineering. At my uni we shall have to choose between Fundamental Physics and Applied Physics at our 3rd year (till that it's just Physics). I myself haven't yet decided which one to choose.

As for computers, skills like programming will always be very handy for any physicist I think. A lot of programming tasks require knowledge of physics and often you have to write a program for your physics related task. This surely makes you a better/more valuable professional and gives more opportunities.

About your last question, I don't really know. It differs from country to country.
 
  • #29
Applied physics sounds interesting, but what is an applied physicist? What do they do? Who employs them, what do they do in grad school (usually)?
Another thought, well, two thoughts really...
What is a double major in physics and engineering like. How much more workload would there be?
And what kind of work would a MSc in EE and a BS in Physics be applicable to?
 
  • #30
Applied physics might actually be a good option for you to pursue. I am currently pursuing a dual major in electrical engineering and applied physics. the applied physics program is almost the same as the professional physics program, except the applied physicists take statics and dynamics instead of analytical/statistical mechanics. Also, the applied physics majors just have engineering classes to fill their open electives instead of physics classes. Both majors (pure and applied) require all of the contemporary physics, QM, condensed matter, optics, lasers and micro, all the same math reqs, thermal physics, EM, etc.

It seems like you like some aspects of engineering (you like the 'design' part, and the greater number of options at the BS level, but dislike the slight lack of depth when compared to physics...however, keep in mind that engineering classes still go very very deep, except instead of deriving all physical theories, you will derive and learn design theories also) and some aspects of physics (you like the deeper understanding of physical principles, but dislike the lesser career options available at the BS level). Maybe you could look into doing a double major in applied physics and engineering (EE seems to produce the most overlap between these two majors). It is easier than you might think. It's about 25 more credits than a single bachelors degree at my school. A bit more than the requirements for a minor.

Doing a double major in physics and EE isn't necessarily more or a workload than a single degree, because a lot of double majors simply go for 5 years and spread the work out. However, it might be a challenge doing the double major in 4 years.

the reason I am taking 5 years to do the double major is mostly because I was a chemistry major for a brief while, and took lots of chemistry classes...13 credits to be exact (My indecision is ticking me off and it delayed the completion of my degrees).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K