The Differences Between Physicists and Engineers

[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 a lot. But particle and nuclear physics caused I like it a lot.

 

[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]

 

[brewnog]

As an engineer, I love to know how and why things work, but am usually happy to accept any explanation which goes beyond the physics (and maths!) which I've learned along the way, provided that a lack of complete understanding doesn't compromise the task at hand.

I have never felt joy, elation, happiness, or even vague satisfaction in arriving at the solution of pages of equations. I get my satifaction out of putting the calculations and theory to use, and seeing something actually happen as a result of all the paper-based work.

 

[FredGarvin]

I have had close to religious experiences when I have been in the room when a turbine let loose after overspeeding. Does that count?

IMO, the main thing that separates the two of us is the level of detail that the two go to. I really don't need to know down to the quark level details that most physicists do on things. I don't have a problem saying "good enough" when it comes to designing or discovering or anything else. When it becomes necessary for me to know things to a greater detail I will go that extra step. Until then, I have too many things to do and learn to worry about those details. I let the physicists do it.

Ask me what time it is and I'll tell you. Ask a physicist what time it is and they'll tell you how to build a clock.

 

[ZapperZ]

Ask me what time it is and I'll tell you. Ask a physicist what time it is and they'll tell you how to build a clock.

Not necessarily. You are forgetting that some of us are experimentalists and have to be as practical as engineers. :)

The problem here is in the nature of the question being asked. If someone just wants to know the time and ask me "what time is it?", then I'll tell him/her. However, when the context of the question is the ISSUE of the nature of space and time, then the answer isn't as straight forward. One might even be frustrated to be asked "well, tell me what you mean by this "time" that you want me to tell you about". That isn't trying to be cute or difficult. This is because when someone hears that you're a physicist, they want you to explain certain things based on what they have heard about so-and-so theory. Or, the question of the nature of time is being studied. Then the answer isn't obvious because the fundamental definition is the actual thing being studied.

So yes, you may or may not get a straight answer when you ask a physicist "what time is it", because it can depend entirely on the context of the question.

.. and this reply is a prime example of that! :)

Zz.

 

[Telos]

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

Same with my dad.

I can definitively proclaim that the difference between physicists and engineers is that engineers have neater handwriting.

 

[Moonbear]

Same with my dad.

I can definitively proclaim that the difference between physicists and engineers is that engineers have neater handwriting.

I've seen engineers' handwriting! You mean it can get worse? I thought only M.D.s had worse handwriting.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

It depends. Was it a spiritual pee?

 

[arildno]

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]

Just an advice:
Start wearing diapers if you think you are about to make a breakthrough in superconductor physics..

 

[FredGarvin]

I've seen engineers' handwriting! You mean it can get worse? I thought only M.D.s had worse handwriting.

Ex-squeeze me? I think most of us have exceptional handwriting. Of course, you could be talking about cursive handwriting and in that case mine looks like I grab a pencil with a club hand and have a serious case of the shakes. My printing is pretty good though.

 

[FredGarvin]

Not necessarily. You are forgetting that some of us are experimentalists and have to be as practical as engineers. :)

The problem here is in the nature of the question being asked. If someone just wants to know the time and ask me "what time is it?", then I'll tell him/her. However, when the context of the question is the ISSUE of the nature of space and time, then the answer isn't as straight forward. One might even be frustrated to be asked "well, tell me what you mean by this "time" that you want me to tell you about". That isn't trying to be cute or difficult. This is because when someone hears that you're a physicist, they want you to explain certain things based on what they have heard about so-and-so theory. Or, the question of the nature of time is being studied. Then the answer isn't obvious because the fundamental definition is the actual thing being studied.

So yes, you may or may not get a straight answer when you ask a physicist "what time is it", because it can depend entirely on the context of the question.

.. and this reply is a prime example of that! :)

Zz.

Hmmm...maybe the time-clock thing wasn't the right quote to use...Generalizing is so much fun.

 

[hhh79bigo]

Engineering is a branch of physics. The physics look in most cases at the models of universal problems where as the engineer puts that model in the real world perception.

Both are intellectually the same subjects.

Both will go into different details of different topics, and both can rely on each other to be able to do what the other cant