The Differences Between Physicists and Engineers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lisa!
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physicists
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the perceived differences between engineers and physicists, sparked by a book's assertion that engineers are less capable of deep thinking compared to physicists. Participants argue that both fields are interdependent, with each having unique strengths and weaknesses. Engineers tend to focus on practical applications and efficiency, while physicists often delve into theoretical concepts. There is a consensus that both disciplines require a solid understanding of mathematics, though their approaches differ; engineers may prioritize empirical solutions, while physicists engage more with abstract theories. The conversation also highlights the overlap between the two fields, with many professionals transitioning between them, and emphasizes that generalizations about either group can be misleading. Ultimately, both engineers and physicists contribute significantly to society, and their collaboration is essential for advancements in technology and science.
  • #91
marlon said:
if you are a physicist yourself i want to ask you : where do you work ?
if you are no physicist i want to say to you : you obviously do not have any idea about what a physicist is and what he/she does

marlon

A physicist passes time on the name of doing abstract things which peoples say research..
They get invitations for international conferences and you can find them sleeping during conferences/lectures and wondering actively on the tourist spots after that..
They eat choclates,ice creams,sleep a lot,and when they have nothing to do,think a bit sitting on armchair about their dreams which they could not fulfill!
How is my conception of Physicists! :biggrin:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
A physicist is a person who says things which no one can understand it even himself or herself. For a physicist everything means physics even their jokes are base on physics rules.
 
  • #93
Lisa! said:
A physicist is a person who says things which no one can understand it even himself or herself..

Exactly!Sometimes they don't even have idea of what they are talking! :biggrin:

Lisa! said:
For a physicist everything means physics even their jokes are base on physics rules.

Bad Jokes! :smile:
 
  • #94
marlon said:
Isn't the explaining about inventing new models to fit experimental data, hmmm ? Duuhh :rolleyes:

No it isn't, this isn't an invention, this is an explanation...This is something that is there, that u study and u explain it, work out models to fit and stuff, it needs imagination and creation..But it's not something that wasn't there...Based on what u understand as a physicist, an engineer can make machines that were never there before, and therefore it can be called an invention..Theories are about things that do exist, so once u start making theories about things that doesn't exist, u r inventing and when u r inventing, people won't give u much attention cause u r talking nonesense..Just like when Galileo said the Earth is round, and everyone thought it wasn't but later when they proved it, people said he was right, but Galileo wasn't dreaming and wasn't inventing something that wasn't there clearly and that's why they beleived him later..


marlon said:
How on Earth can you build a practical implementation of something new if you are not able to fully caracterize it ?

Have i said that physicists are not needed or useless?? Not at all, i just said that practicality is what an engineer is all about


marlon said:
Ever heard of an experimental physicist ?

Have i said that physicists never work their hands?

definition for practicality:concerned with actual use rather than theoretical possibilities
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=practicality

Isn't that what engineers do?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #95
heman said:
Exactly!Sometimes they don't even have idea of what they are talking! :biggrin:
Because physicists' mind work faster than their tongue! :wink:
 
  • #96
So you are an Physicist :biggrin:
 
  • #97
heman said:
So you are an Physicist :biggrin:
Why are you insulting at me or perhaps physicists? :cry: :biggrin:
 
  • #98
Nomy-the wanderer said:
No it isn't, this isn't an invention, this is an explanation...This is something that is there, that u study and u explain it, work out models to fit and stuff, it needs imagination and creation..

Err, what about all the theoretical models that predicted physical quantities like anti-matter, quarks,...which weren't experimentally observed decades later. For example, anti matter was a consequence of a theoretical model that was not INVENTED to describe anti-matter, because it was not yet known. I hope you see your mistakes. Besides, the argument that 'it is already there' is very lame. For example, electrons 'have always been there' but the theoretical model that describes their dynamics (ie quantum mechanics) is not just something that was already there. you are missing the point that physics is an abstract mathematical version of what is going on in nature. The clue is to link physical phenomena with mathematical equations.


...Based on what u understand as a physicist, an engineer can make machines that were never there before, and therefore it can be called an invention..
this is contradictory since the models that an engineer uses are created by the physicist. The engineer merely implements them in order to create a product that respects certain benchmarks. In this respect, engineers create something that already has been described in theory...


about things that doesn't exist, u r inventing a

So by implication, a physicist invents and an engineer implements...voilà

Have i said that physicists are not needed or useless??

That was not my point

Not at all, i just said that practicality is what an engineer is all about

Untrue, read the above answers



Have i said that physicists never work their hands?

No you did not. When did i claim that you did ?

regards
marlon
 
  • #99
Alright Marlon, maybe it's linguistics that are standing in the way here's what the longman good old dictionary says(if my concept is wrong u cna blame the dictionary for it):"invent:USAGE One discoveres something that existed before but was not known,such as place .One invents something that didn't exist before, such as a machine."

So for me inventing is about something that is there for the 1st time, there was no telephones, airplanes, trains, or kitchen machines all over on earth, until someone invented these stuff, based on what?? Based on either a simple observation, or a theory(if it's a mere invention, if it explains something that does not exist than it cannot be valid), or a valid fact explained or experimented by a physicist...Physicist need to be creative and have wild imagination to make models, methods, theories...

Maybe i am mistaken and i don't understand u, cause i do not have the same definitions as u...But this is what i think.And instead of writing invented in caps u could simply tell me how u define that...

I understand u mean by inventing, that the models the theories, weren't written all over stuff, i know..But i believe that mathematics are there, as u said mathematics is the language u express physics, but i also believe that mathematics is existent before we can put definitions for it, it's all over, and it makes u use it and think of it. I donno how to say that in a more understandable way, but i think that sciences in general pushes us to discover more, it's something beyond our control..

In a way an engineer could be a physicist and vice versa...But still engineers need to be practical, and if they r not, they should look for another job...Physicists do not have to think about money, and there shouldn't be money problems for them, u hire an engineer to save u money...
 
  • #100
Nomy-the wanderer said:
Physicists do not have to think about money, and there shouldn't be money problems for them,
I am sorry but this is just incorrect. You obviously do not have any experience with the conditions in which physicists have to work nowadays.

regards
marlon
 
  • #101
Whatever u r convinced i am mistaken and I've no idea of anything, I'm not talking aboiut what a physicist have to face nowadays, I'm generalizing, besides it's useless to go further into this discussion...
 
  • #102
Nomy-the wanderer said:
Whatever u r convinced i am mistaken and I've no idea of anything, I'm not talking aboiut what a physicist have to face nowadays, I'm generalizing,

What are you generalizing ? You mean the activities of a physicist ? Why won't you accept you are wrong ?

besides it's useless to go further into this discussion...
Really ? :rolleyes:

marlon
 
  • #103
Yeah when u can see a dead end, u better not go futher...It's pretty useless Mr. rolleyes...
 
  • #104
Nomy-the wanderer said:
Yeah when u can see a dead end, u better not go futher...It's pretty useless Mr. rolleyes...
please do not avoid my question. I asked you how on Earth can you generalize the physicist's working environment ? How do you achieve such generalization ? You generalize this with respect to what exactly ?

regards
marlon
 
  • #105
I'm not trying to avoid anything but to stupify myself writing a 1000 useless posts, because u don't want me to avoid ur questions, u just think u r having a combat u should win, because now u say i should say that I'm mistaken and now u want me to declare my defeat...But this ain't how i look to a conversation, a conversation is something u give and another u get, and i don't think that's what we r having here...

What am i generalizing?? Obviously u care mroe about words than phrases, u learn as an engineer that the only use of u, the thing that u and only u can do, is to create the best possible tool to serve ur need spending the less possible amount of money...But from my 1st minute and this is what an engineer is:money saver...U need tyo be accurate, practical, and u always have to think about reducing the costs. This u get by experience I've to admit, but a physicist job isn't to save money...

Can u argue with that?? Of course nowadays saving money is needed, but if a company wants to imporve, gets higher quality, saves more money, it needs an engineer not a physicist...

Clear? Now keep that in mind..I hope u won't ask me what do i mean by the word clear...:P
 
  • #106
I think a simple answer to that question is that while Physicists study why engineers study how, both are needed in the development cycle of the product because while an engineer have very small knowledge about the physics of -take for a example- a MOSFET, the Physicists has nearly no idea about it's uses so for a Physicists to work alone is like working with no purpose, and about an engineer developing a MOSFET alone that just won't happen because he simply doesn't know about the physics of how it's built except in an amount which enables him to make small adjustments to fit the product

And i agree with Nomy-the wanderer, the conversation with Marlon is pointless because apparently Marlon is a Physicists and Nomy is an engineer and each of you is biased to his/her career.

But i have to say that i kinda disagree with Marlon saying that only Physicists invent and engineers implement if that is true then it can be applied to every field of science, then why do we need doctors if a Physicists knows about how a human body works better than a doctor, and how would you explain all the PhD's taken by engineers, do you think they spend 4 to 6 years trying to implement something that is simply cheaper and does not have any effect on the development of science later on...
 
  • #107
marlon said:
The engineer merely implements them in order to create a product that respects certain benchmarks.



haha, you're a funny guy.
 
  • #108
Lisa! said:
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


Anyone can be a engineer, but not many can be a mathematician or a physicist..
 
  • #109
kant said:
Anyone can be a engineer, but not many can be a mathematician or a physicist..
Anyone can speak out of their arse...
 
  • #110
Well, in my line of work, I've found that anyone can call themself an engineer (not legally, but they get away with it...).
 
  • #111
russ_watters said:
Well, in my line of work, I've found that anyone can call themself an engineer (not legally, but they get away with it...).
And there was that craze in the late 80s where everyone called themselves an engineer: "domestic engineer," a.k.a., housewife; "sanitation engineer," a.k.a. trash collector, etc.
 
  • #112
russ_watters said:
Well, in my line of work, I've found that anyone can call themself an engineer (not legally, but they get away with it...).
:smile: Most of time I see ordinary workers call each other "Engineer". Anyway I don't think anyone could be an engineer even a physicist.(I mean a good engineer)
 
  • #113
russ_watters said:
Well, in my line of work, I've found that anyone can call themself an engineer (not legally, but they get away with it...).
No doubt about that. It used to drive me crazy when I worked for a certain automotive company with a blue oval emblem that rhymes with gourd. I worked with a guy who had a couple of years as an auto mechanic. He had an engineer title. He also called himself one. Everyone in my building was an "engineer."
 
  • #114
It's just that when you are in certain industries, the title "engineer" implies something, kinda like the title "doctor" implies that you have been to medical school. In the construction industry, being an "engineer" implies you are licensed by the state. I think the law says that to have the word "engineer" in your company name, you have to have a licensed PE working there.

edit: Not enough people know that the letters "P.E." after a person's name stands for "professional engineer". We occasionally get phone calls and letters for my boss, where they ask for "Mr. Pe" (pronounced "pay"). I don't have a PE yet, but at least I went to college. I call myself an engineer, but at my level, there is absolutely no distinction made between me calling myself "engineer" or some contractor calling himself "engineer".
 
Last edited:
  • #115
russ_watters said:
It's just that when you are in certain industries, the title "engineer" implies something, kinda like the title "doctor" implies that you have been to medical school. In the construction industry, being an "engineer" implies you are licensed by the state. I think the law says that to have the word "engineer" in your company name, you have to have a licensed PE working there.
edit: Not enough people know that the letters "P.E." after a person's name stands for "professional engineer". We occasionally get phone calls and letters for my boss, where they ask for "Mr. Pe" (pronounced "pay"). I don't have a PE yet, but at least I went to college. I call myself an engineer, but at my level, there is absolutely no distinction made between me calling myself "engineer" or some contractor calling himself "engineer".

did you pass FE yet?
 
  • #116
How can one get a PE?
 
  • #117
Lisa! said:
How can one get a PE?
Minimum number of years experience working as an engineer (is it 5 or 7?), lots of studying, and an all-day, expensive exam. Your work experience and application are evaluated and they only give you permission to sit for the exam once they are satisfied you meet all the other requirements.
 
  • #118
Thanks, Moonbear!:smile:

Moonbear said:
Minimum number of years experience working as an engineer (is it 5 or 7?), lots of studying, and an all-day, expensive exam. Your work experience and application are evaluated and they only give you permission to sit for the exam once they are satisfied you meet all the other requirements.
:eek: :rolleyes:
 
  • #119
cronxeh said:
did you pass FE yet?
No. I'm lazy and a procrastinator...
 
  • #120
The FE was not too bad. I do not look forward to the PE though.

It is a bit of a boys club in the PE world. In my situation, it doesn't really do anything for me. We don't use PE's. That means I have never worked for one (which is a requirement) and I don't know 3 others for letters of reference. It kinda makes it tough to enter the fray so to speak.

I think in any field, the term "engineer" SHOULD imply something, but it's widespread misuse has killed any meaning whatsoever.
 

Similar threads

Physicist monkey and vending machine story
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
A collaboration between different forums (PF and audio)
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Other Recommendation for Mathematics for Physicist and Engineers book
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
How can some scientists deal with many different subjects?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Applied A question about mathematics textbooks for physicists
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
7K
Physicists' knowledge of differential equations
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Physicists should take pride in their work
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Other Leveraging engineering B.E. after pivoting to Physics - impossible?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Programs What subject is better for an aspiring experimental physicist?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
How to think better as a physicist?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K