The Differences Between Physicists and Engineers

[Lisa!]

You know I was reading a book, it was about a scintist. And his comments about engineers and physicists made me to start this thread. For example he believed people who couldn't think deeply and alot, must study engineering. He believed engineers work with their fingers more than by their mind and stuff like that.


What are the differences btw them?I mean do they have diferent views about every subject and which one needs to understand math better than another. Which one of them has to think more and consecuencely, has to use his/her brain more? Do engineers understand physics rules at all?

PS As I mentioned before, I'm tired of "X vs. Y" . So please do not start fighting here and just answer my questions.

Thanks

 

[Pengwuino]

PS As I mentioned before, I'm tired of "X vs. Y" . So please do not start fighting here and just answer my questions.

haha then i think you picked the wrong subject in the wrong forum :D

 

[Clausius2]

For example he believed people who couldn't think deeply and alot, must study engineering. He believed engineers work with their fingers more than by their mind and stuff like that. Do engineers understand physics rules at all?

WHAT?

At least that guy is not right as far as I am concerned.

In order to no start here the usual fight (I had one sometime ago with Marlon because of this stuff), I would say:

"It depends on which physicist and which engineer are you looking at. There are really dumb people in both fields. But both fields are inte-rdependant and necessary for current society".

I cannot be more light.

 

[Lisa!]

WHAT?

At least that guy is not right as far as I am concerned.

In order to no start here the usual fight (I had one sometime ago with Marlon because of this stuff), I would say:

"It depends on which physicist and which engineer are you looking at. There are really dumb people in both fields. But both fields are inte-rdependant and necessary for current society".

I cannot be more light.

Have you answered any of my question?

 

[ZapperZ]

You know I was reading a book, it was about a scintist. And his comments about engineers and physicists made me to start this thread. For example he believed people who couldn't think deeply and alot, must study engineering. He believed engineers work with their fingers more than by their mind and stuff like that.

I noticed you did not even make a proper citation of tihs "book" that you're reading.

This person made the worst characterization of engineers and physicists (he obviously doesn't realize experimentalists exist). And he really should read Bob Laughlin's Nobel Prize autobio where he clearly is a "tinkerer" and works with his fingers - and he ended up being a theorist!

There are difference between engineers and physicists, but there are also A LOT of similarities, more than there are differences. Anyone bold enough to write a book claiming to have a definitive knowledge that these two groups are different should be looked at with nothing but skepticism.

Zz.

 

[cronxeh]

Engineers are more philosophical in its approach towards their projects. There is always a question of delicate balance between cost and efficiency and physicists just don't worry about those things. An engineer always has a broad spectre of knowledge from many areas, and not so much in-depth in a certain area as compared to a scientist. Whereas a scientist will be much more in-depth in a particular area of specialty, and often times may not be aware of other sciences as much. An example is a common misconception among physicists that biology is somehow less harder than physics

For an engineer the precision is not always an issue. There are always safety factors of 3, 4 or 5-6 when a structural engineer is making calculations. This comes full circle back to cost vs efficiency issue, and in essence an engineering is broadly experience based profession. The more you have the better you are.

A physicist on the other hand is not always about experience - unless it is an experimental physicist. In such a case you are borderline an engineer. A theoretical physicist is more into abstract math, complex formulas, etc.

The differences? Well a physicist won't be successful at building a building without knowledge of engineering techniques, and an engineer won't be successful at deriving a Brownian motion without graduate knowledge of statistical physics. Simply put - each has their respective fields of expertise and shouldn't be confused

 

[Clausius2]

Simply put - each has their respective fields of expertise and shouldn't be confused

What about an engineer sciencist? There are many of them.

 

[Clausius2]

Have you answered any of my question?

I didn't even try to answer you. I was defending myself.

Zz has answered you indeed.

Good try, Lisa, but every us has learned the lesson about don't fight between us (eng. and physicists). We are in peace times.

 

[cronxeh]

What about an engineer sciencist? There are many of them.

I do believe an engineering scientist is mostly an applied physicist

 

[Lisa!]

I noticed you did not even make a proper citation of tihs "book" that you're reading.



Zz.

Sorry, but this book wasn't in En. You know I studied physics but now I prefer to study engineering and I really want to know the answer of my questions. I study Electromagnetism which was written by an engineer and another book which was written by a physicist. Both of them were trying to explain the same principles , but I noticed a lot of differences.
So base on what you said, I wouldn't have any problem to change because there are lots of similarities btw the.

 

[ZapperZ]

Sorry, but this book wasn't in En. You know I studied physics but now I prefer to study engineering and I really want to know the answer of my questions. I study Electromagnetism which was written by an engineer and another book which was written by a physicist. Both of them were trying to explain the same principles , but I noticed a lot of differences.
So base on what you said, I wouldn't have any problem to change because there are lots of similarities btw the.

Both groups may have different specific interests and passion, but these differences are really, in all honesty, highly superficial! I can show you an experimentalist who has the same "tinkering" ability as any engineer, and I can show you an enginner with the same power of analytical ability as any theoretical physicist. We just focus our efforts in slightly different areas of physical science.

Why this should be an issue, I do not know.

Zz.

 

[arildno]

Lisa!
There certainly are physics STUDENTS who go through their studies believing themselves intellectually superior to those dumb engineering folks.
However, those students good enough to end up as professional physicists become well aware of that engineering is NOT physics for dummies, and is at least as intellectually challenging a profession than their own.
Besides, as ZapperZ has emphasized, there is so much overlap that switching of careers, for example, does happen, and isn't too uncommon. It is more a question of which parts of reality that are studied in the different disciplines, rather than that the physicists studies the same stuff as the engineers, but more "deeply"

 

[wolram]

You know I was reading a book, it was about a scintist. And his comments about engineers and physicists made me to start this thread. For example he believed people who couldn't think deeply and alot, must study engineering. He believed engineers work with their fingers more than by their mind and stuff like that.


What are the differences btw them?I mean do they have diferent views about every subject and which one needs to understand math better than another. Which one of them has to think more and consecuencely, has to use his/her brain more? Do engineers understand physics rules at all?

PS As I mentioned before, I'm tired of "X vs. Y" . So please do not start fighting here and just answer my questions.

Thanks

A physicists, will publish a ten page paper on why a cicuit does not work, an
engineer will replace the fuse.

 

[Clausius2]

I can show you an experimentalist who has the same "tinkering" ability as any engineer, and I can show you an enginner with the same power of analytical ability as any theoretical physicist. We just focus our efforts in slightly different areas of physical science.
.

Although I usually don't get too much relationated with Zz, I must say he has hit the head of the nail here . His words have been very accurated. It is true both things exist, and all people must know it.

Amén.

 

[dduardo]

The Hotel Fire

An engineer, a mathematician, and a physicist are staying for the night in a hotel. A small fire breaks out in each room.

The physicist awakes, sees the fire, makes some careful observations, and on the back of the hotel's wine list does some quick calculations. Grabbing the fire extinguisher, he puts out the fire with one, short, well placed burst, and then crawls back into bed and goes back to sleep.

The engineer awakes, sees the fire, makes some careful observations, and on the back of the hotel's room service list (pizza menu) does some quick calculations. Grabbing the fire extinguisher (and adding a factor of safety of 5), he puts out the fire by hosing down the entire room several times over, and then crawls into his soggy bed and goes back to sleep.

The mathematician awakes, sees the fire, makes some careful observations, and on a blackboard installed in the room, does some quick calculations. Jubliant, he exclaims "A solution exists!", and crawls into his dry bed and goes back to sleep.

-------------

As you can see physicists and engineers are alike. The mathematicians are the black sheeps.

 

[Clausius2]

The Hotel Fire

An engineer, a mathematician, and a physicist are staying for the night in a hotel. A small fire breaks out in each room.

The physicist awakes, sees the fire, makes some careful observations, and on the back of the hotel's wine list does some quick calculations. Grabbing the fire extinguisher, he puts out the fire with one, short, well placed burst, and then crawls back into bed and goes back to sleep.

The engineer awakes, sees the fire, makes some careful observations, and on the back of the hotel's room service list (pizza menu) does some quick calculations. Grabbing the fire extinguisher (and adding a factor of safety of 5), he puts out the fire by hosing down the entire room several times over, and then crawls into his soggy bed and goes back to sleep.

The mathematician awakes, sees the fire, makes some careful observations, and on a blackboard installed in the room, does some quick calculations. Jubliant, he exclaims "A solution exists!", and crawls into his dry bed and goes back to sleep.

-------------

As you can see the physicists and engineers are alike. The mathematician is black sheep.

Great! Excellent.

As another kind of engineer, I would taken advantage of having the fire too near for testing the current theories about asymptotic methods in combustion theory released in the last number of Combustion Science. Then I would go to sleep, because hotel owner prefers his hotel burnt because he will be paid by the assurance agency.

 

[Lisa!]

Both groups may have different specific interests and passion, but these differences are really, in all honesty, highly superficial! I can show you an experimentalist who has the same "tinkering" ability as any engineer, and I can show you an enginner with the same power of analytical ability as any theoretical physicist. We just focus our efforts in slightly different areas of physical science.

Why this should be an issue, I do not know.

Zz.

Generalization is dangerous most of time, and that's why I'm asking these questions because I really want to know. Please don't take me wrong. I had some professors who had BS in engineering and PhD in physics and they usually weren't able to answer students' questions when they ask them to explain it from a physicist view and use less math equations. So I had bad impression of people who change their area.

 

[Moonbear]

The physicist tries to understand why something works, and the engineer tries to figure out how to build a bigger and better one.

*runs back to the biology forum*

 

[Lisa!]

Lisa!
There certainly are physics STUDENTS who go through their studies believing themselves intellectually superior to those dumb engineering folks.
However, those students good enough to end up as professional physicists become well aware of that engineering is NOT physics for dummies, and is at least as intellectually challenging a profession than their own.
Besides, as ZapperZ has emphasized, there is so much overlap that switching of careers, for example, does happen, and isn't too uncommon. It is more a question of which parts of reality that are studied in the different disciplines, rather than that the physicists studies the same stuff as the engineers, but more "deeply"

Unfortunately you're right ,but I didn't think like that at all. You know I thought I would have lots of problems if I ever want to study but it seems that I wouldn't. You know it's too difficult to explain and I'm too lazy to do it.
I was afraid that I would have to memorize and use physics rules without really undersatnding them, and it's impossible for me!

 

[arildno]

The physicist tries to understand why something works, and the engineer tries to figure out how to build a bigger and better one.

*runs back to the biology forum*

And the biologist comes back, crying because she has ruined her precious intstrument by not having read the instructions for how to use it properly..

Runs and hides behind a gobelin

 

[Lisa!]

The physicist tries to understand why something works, and the engineer tries to figure out how to build a bigger and better one.

*runs back to the biology forum*

How can you build a bigger and better one when you don't know how the smaller one works?
Perhaps physicists set the ball and let engineers to play with it.

 

[Clausius2]

I was afraid that I would have to memorize and use physics rules without really undersatnding them, and it's impossible for me!

Only really bad engineers do that. I have had to understand them mandatory for surviving in my studies, or at least I have had to do the effort needed for understanding them (cause one not always success in understanding them ).

 

[Lisa!]

Only really bad engineers do that. I have had to understand them mandatory for surviving in my studies, or at least I have had to do the effort needed for understanding them (cause one not always success in understanding them ).

What do you think about their personal lives? which one could be more successful in his/her social life?

 

[arildno]

However, Lisa!:
Because engineers are practically minded people, they will very often encounter situations that are too difficult to analyze completely from a theoretical point of view.
Thus, you will meet empirical formulae that has not been derived from the over-arching theory; rather, they can be regarded as best-fit formulae.

 

[dduardo]

Here's another one:

A physicist and an engineer are in a hot-air balloon. They've been drifting for hours, and have no idea where they are. They see another person in a balloon, and call out to her: "Hey, where are we?" She replies, "You're in a balloon," and drifts off again. The engineer says to the physicist, "That person was obviously a mathematician." The physicist replies, "How do you know that?" "Because what she said was completely true, but utterly useless."

 

[Lisa!]

However, Lisa!:

Why do you recently yell at me?

 

[arildno]

Why do you recently yell at me?

Lisa? Lisa! Lisa€ Lisa%

 

[Bladibla]

Who cares?

Not EVERY Physicist will be ONLY interested in theory, and not EVERY Engineer will NOT undertand what those equations show in the material universe.

I personally think all Physicists, mathematicians, and engineers should just shut up once and for all. They arn't given credit for what they say out of their mouths, except in lectures. Quotes are for gullible people. Do not mistaken this for the misconception that i disrespect them. I don't disrespect them, but Scientists give more credible value to what they want to propose with experiment/equations/etc, NOT words.

Less blah blah, more relevant action i.e. Whatever you heard lisa, is damn irrelevant to whatever will happen in the universe over 10,000 years and therefore, a WASTE of time.

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

That guy has mistaken engineers for kick-boxers I'm afraid!

 

[Clausius2]

I personally think all Physicists, mathematicians, and engineers should just shut up once and for all. They arn't given credit for what they say out of their mouths, except in lectures. Quotes are for gullible people. Do not mistaken this for the misconception that i disrespect them. I don't disrespect them, but Scientists give more credible value to what they want to propose with experiment/equations/etc, NOT words.
.

What the hell are you saying? I don't understand your point. Moreover, I am very bad at writting in english, but you seem worse, which is very difficult. Are you saying engineers/physicists/mathematicians only employ words? Please clarify

 

[russ_watters]

Hmmm... I suppose I should post in this thread.

 

[Moonbear]

Hmmm... I suppose I should post in this thread.

I see yomamma slipped silly pills into your drink too.

 

[Astronuc]

Much of engineering is applied physics - many (don't know how much) include some basic physics courses.

In nuclear engineering, more advanced physics courses are encouraged, especially if one is doing a subject like fusion, which requires some knowledge of plasma physics.

I did both physics and nuclear engineering.

 

[Lisa!]

What about Lis@, Li$a, Li$@ or L!$@, @rildn0?
Lisa

Much of engineering is applied physics - many (don't know how much) include some basic physics courses.

In nuclear engineering, more advanced physics courses are encouraged, especially if one is doing a subject like fusion, which requires some knowledge of plasma physics.

I did both physics and nuclear engineering.

Does it require quantom mechanic?

 

[JamesU]

how about:└!$@!

I see yomamma slipped silly pills into your drink too.

that guy over there with the black suit, singlasses and CIA badge told me to do it...

 

[Bladibla]

singlasses

Your soul is mine!

 

[Astronuc]

Does it require quantom mechanic?

Nuclear engineering does not require an extensive knowledge of quantum mechanics, i.e. one does not need to know the formality of the Schödinger wave equation, but it would be necessary if one is to delve into the details of nuclear physics. Physicists introduced nuclear energy as a useable energy source, and engineers as well as physicists perfected the technology.

I have encouraged nuclear engineering students to have some courses in modern physics, including some understanding of quantum mechanics.

At the sophomore level of nuclear engineering, one (usually) takes a course in nuclear physics - which deals with nuclear structure, radiation and the interaction of radiation with matter. The subject matter includes some of the experiments performed by Rutherford and other physicists.

 

[Lisa!]

Nuclear engineering does not require an extensive knowledge of quantum mechanics, i.e. one does not need to know the formality of the Schödinger wave equation, but it would be necessary if one is to delve into the details of nuclear physics. Physicists introduced nuclear energy as a useable energy source, and engineers as well as physicists perfected the technology.

I have encouraged nuclear engineering students to have some courses in modern physics, including some understanding of quantum mechanics.

At the sophomore level of nuclear engineering, one (usually) takes a course in nuclear physics - which deals with nuclear structure, radiation and the interaction of radiation with matter. The subject matter includes some of the experiments performed by Rutherford and other physicists.

Thanks a million. You know my main problem with physics is that sometimes I think I can't use it like engineers. I used to think most of physicists are the men of words and engineers are the men of action. But now I think differently.
You know when I took the quantom physics as 1 of my courses , I didn't like it alot. But particle and nuclear physics caused I like it alot.

 

[inha]

yeah that men of words and men of action distinction is completely false. just take a look at any experimentalist or any lab. a hefty chunk of working hours is always spent on designing and building set ups. and a even heftier chunk is usually spent on wondering why the hell my state of the art and awesome set up refuses to work properly.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One big difference between scientists [esp physicists] and engineers is that engineering has no place for dreamers and philosophical types as a function of the job, whereas some of the greatest physicists in history had a strong philosphical side that at times was quite public.

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. A.E.

I know of several noted physicists who have openly discussed a spiritual-like connection with physics and the search for the deepest truths that can be known.

Oh yes...

The most important piece of advice [for aspiring physicists] is to keep your sense of wonderment alive - Dr. Michio Kaku

There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors - J. Robert Oppenheimer

Creative research is having confidence in nonsense - Burt Rutan

Science progresses one death at a time - Niels Bohr

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, understanding that no insults are intended here in the slightest, but in my experience, most people who have what I consider a strong engineering mind type often don't understand or appreciate this side of physics; nor does a good percentage of physicists for that matter. But it seems that the greatest ones, those such as Einstein, often do. I think this happens because it takes, or at the least, took this sort of mind to blast through popular paradigms, and the rest of us mere mortals to make use of this new paradigm in a practical way.

Not to be mistunderstood, Newton was a pardigm buster as well. I'm not saying that all dreamers and philosphers would make good phycisists.

 

[Evo]

My dad was an electrical engineer, so I am partial to engineers. But physicists are ok too, I guess.

 

[ZapperZ]

There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors - J. Robert Oppenheimer

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. A.E.

You don't see how these two quotes contradict each other?

Zz.

 

[Astronuc]

There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors - J. Robert Oppenheimer

That is my approach to engineering, science and religion.

There is no place for dogma in engineering, science or religion.

A person, whether engineer or scientist, must be free to ask questions, to doubt any assertion, to seek any evidence, and especially to correct errors. The same holds in religion.

Much of my work has been to understand why things fail. And usually its because those responsible didn't go back to the basics, then they failed to question and doubt assertion, essentially accepting what some would call dogma (that's the way we have always done it).

Unfortunately, its only after serious errors lead to serious failures - then the errors become glaring. In the worst case, we get events like TMI, Challenger and Columbia.

In trying to understand aspects of material performance, I have to delve into the micromechanics of materials and the real physics of what is happening. In corrosion, I have to delve into the microchemistry (thermochemistry, electrochemistry, radiochemistry) and there are still things we don't properly understand after 50 years of experience in the nuclear industry. I have to go outside the field of nuclear engineering into obscure journals and dissertations to find what I need.

In order to find how a material behaves, one has to understand its environment, and that requires indirect observation and as comprehensive and complex a model as possible using computational analysis. One cannot peer inside a nuclear reactor to see directly what's happening to a material, although there are very special experiements for doing direct thermal analysis, but they are limited and very expensive. We must also rely on separate effects experiments, and then try to fit them together in a detail model. It is extremely challenging.

Anyway, a great engineer is one who goes beyond simply plugging numbers into formulae. A great engineer develops the theory and the formulae, or something new.

Modern electronics (and much of modern technology) exists because of cooperation among many physicist and engineers. And let's not forget chemists and physical chemists as well.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You don't see how these two quotes contradict each other?

Zz.

Not at all, but I think this may depend on your definition of religion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Anyway, a great engineer is one who goes beyond simply plugging numbers into formulae. A great engineer develops the theory and the formulae, or something new.

Modern electronics (and much of modern technology) exists because of cooperation among many physicist and engineers. And let's not forget chemists and physical chemists as well.

I certainly don't mean to slight the engineers, and I think in part what you are saying is that engineers often do science, but to put my comments into perspective, try this: Engineering without religion is lame. Religion without engineering is blind. Nah...

Engineers don't search for the deepest truths that exist as a function of their job. But theoretical physics and the search for a TOE is perhaps the most profound effort in human history.

Michio Kaku says that he cried when he first saw the equations for GR. I have never known an engineer who cries or would cry at the sight of equations; less those seen in difficult homework problems, perhaps.

 

[Bladibla]

I think scientists/engineers should be eclectic. A sort of bat like existence.

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

Ivan, I believe it depends mostly on the person..

 

[Astronuc]

I certainly don't mean to slight the engineers, and I think in part what you are saying is that engineers often do science

I didn't take the comments as a slight. Some engineer do basic science, many may not do basic science but rather apply some formula. As Nomy-the wanderer mentioned, it does depend on the individual. I am by nature both a 'nuts-and-bolts' engineer and one who delves into the deepest truths. Both approaches are complementary.

In order to develop sophisticated (and more importantly accurate deterministic) models, we have to get down to the atomic level, and worry about crystalline microstructure, and how it affects the bulk material thermophysical properties. That is the only way to achieve a credible predictive analysis. Specialized areas like micromechanics (its like micro-electronics) are still in their infancy, and now we have nano-technology.

try this: Engineering without religion is lame. Religion without engineering is blind. Nah...

Engineers don't search for the deepest truths that exist as a function of their job. But theoretical physics and the search for a TOE is perhaps the most profound effort in human history.

Probably true for the most part. However, engineers involved in research tend to dig for the deepest truths - much like experimental physicists.

Granted though, there is a lot of empiricism in engineering, but somewhere out there is a physicist or engineer that went through the fundamental or basic physics to develop the empirical models, and then there were plenty of experimentalists who verified those models or provided data that lead to corrections or enhancements.

Michio Kaku says that he cried when he first saw the equations for GR. I have never known an engineer who cries or would cry at the sight of equations; . . .

I can't say that I cry - but when I find some key piece of information or have a key insight into a problem, its more like an adrenaline rush.

 

[ZapperZ]

Michio Kaku says that he cried when he first saw the equations for GR. I have never known an engineer who cries or would cry at the sight of equations; less those seen in difficult homework problems, perhaps.

I almost pee'ed in my pants after finally solving an extra difficult question in my many-body physics final exam. Does that count?

:)

Zz [Still has some leftover effects from the silly pills]