What Causes Friction Between Engineers and Theorists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chaoseverlasting
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the perceived tensions and differences between engineers and theorists, particularly in the context of problem-solving approaches, methodologies, and the nature of their work. It touches on various aspects including mathematical techniques, research focus, and the application of theoretical knowledge in practical scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express frustration with the perceived disconnect between engineers and theorists, citing differences in problem-solving approaches, such as the use of Laplace transforms versus numerical methods.
  • Others argue that engineers and theorists are not necessarily opposites, suggesting a distinction between applied and fundamental research, with engineers focusing on practical applications.
  • There are claims that the original question posed is somewhat ignorant of the complexities within the fields, as both engineers and theorists can have overlapping interests and methodologies.
  • Some participants highlight the differences in mindset, with engineers prioritizing practical solutions and efficiency, while theorists may focus on precision and theoretical exploration.
  • One participant mentions the confusion surrounding the use of imaginary numbers in different contexts, noting that terminology can vary between fields.
  • Another participant reflects on the relationship between engineering and science, suggesting that engineering is an application of scientific theories rather than a pursuit of new scientific truths.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the nature of the relationship between engineers and theorists. Some agree on the distinctions between their approaches, while others challenge the framing of the question itself.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in understanding arise from differing definitions of what constitutes a 'theorist' and the varying contexts in which engineering and theoretical work are applied. The discussion also reflects a mix of personal anecdotes and broader observations about the fields.

chaoseverlasting
Messages
1,051
Reaction score
3
What irks engineers about theorists and vice versa?

I mean, to solve DE's for example, a lot of my friends prefer the Laplace Transforms (I'm studying EE), but my mathematics professor's kinda against the L(f) to solve DE's. :-p

What other quirks have you guys come across?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Errrr, what?

Nothing irk's engineer's about theorists. What an igonrant question.


I don't understand what your personal story about your math professors has to do with anything. There's good reason why they are against using it. They want you to know how to do it via various methods, and the Laplace transform doesn't work for any old function. So, how are you going to use it for functions that don't have laplace transforms?

You can't take the laplace transform of exp(x^2), for instance.

Also, what do engineers care about 'theorists' in the first place?
 
Last edited:
Engineers and theorists are not necessarily polar opposites. Many engineers work on very theoretical research. The main thing is that the engineers work on theoretical projects that ultimately have some application.

A better dichotomy would be engineering/applied research vs. pure/fundamental research. The former is focused on research that is suspected to have some practical application, whereas the latter conducts research that may not necessarily have a practical application.

Or, perhaps another dichotomy is experimental research vs. theoretical research.
 
Cyrus said:
Errrr, what?

Nothing irk's engineer's about theorists. What an igonrant question.

You can't take the laplace transform of exp(x^2), for instance.

Thank you. Thats very helpful. And I'm pretty sure you can take the laplace transform of exp(x^2). I could show you how.
 
chaoseverlasting said:
Thank you. Thats very helpful. And I'm pretty sure you can take the laplace transform of exp(x^2). I could show you how.


Please do, by all means. This is exactly why your teachers DONT want you :bugeye: blindly :bugeye: taking the laplace transform and trying to solve diff. equations.


I really think your question makes no sense. Sorry. I don't even know what you are defining as a 'theorist'.

All in all, it was a bit harsh of a response - I apologize. But it irks me when students of science ask such questions. You should know better than to post a question like that <tisk, tisk>. It's along the lines of posting, which area of engineering is 'the hardest' to study, - whatever that's supposed to mean. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
chaoseverlasting said:
I mean, to solve DE's for example, a lot of my friends prefer the Laplace Transforms (I'm studying EE), but my mathematics professor's kinda against the L(f) to solve DE's.

Well for those of us that don't live in 1935, we like to use numerical methods instead.

I understand why this question is asked. I have often had conversations with math friends that think their going to change the world with topology. :rolleyes: Engineers are more about getting things done and getting them done quickly. This usually means fudging some things or using the common saying "close enough". While fundamental people, or "fundys" need everything perfect and exact no matter what the time or cost.
 
I have many friends who are theoreticians (in physics) and engineers. I'm really sorry to say that, but, as unlikely as it seems, Cyrus is perfectly right on this one, and incredibly good looking. The original question is kind of... ignorant of the real world. There are as many engineers and theoreticians species as they are all single individuals.

You could have asked what bothers professionals in job A about job B. But that's a different question. For instance, theoreticians might not like to finalize a product to the point where it can be sold, as opposed to just solving a problem (even in principle).

edit
Time-machine update. I just lost all credibility. :-p
 
Last edited:
humanino said:
Cyrus is perfectly right on this one, and incredibly good looking .

The more you post, the more I love you. Best post you have ever made.
 
Maybe I worded the question wrong. I just thought it a bit funny how these little things get to people. And you're right, you can't take the laplacian of exp(x^2), I misread it. I thought it was exp(-x^2).
 
  • #10
Well, there's the whole i vs. j thing concerning imaginary numbers. But it really shouldn't irk anybody. It just seems a little weird if you're used to using i and then read an engineering paper or book where it's ejωt everywhere.

But after a while you get used to it.
 
  • #11
humanino said:
...as unlikely as it seems, Cyrus is perfectly right on this one, and incredibly good looking.
You know, you only have to say that when he's wrong. You can crush him like a bug, but once you tell him he's good looking, he completely forgets whatever came before it.
 
  • #12
Engineers, in their work, apply the already existing knowledge of scientific theories in order to construct things, in much the same way as computer scientists borrow use mathematical theorems to build computers and ideas from linguistics to construct programming language.

Generally, what they're doing is not theoretical science but application of science to the real world, and not discovering truths about the natural world like a scientist does.

I think it's pretty clear the two are distinct and people with an engineering mindset aren't necessarily good scientists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering#Relationships_with_other_disciplines
 
  • #13
I was theoretically thinking about getting an engineering degree.
 
  • #15
russ_watters said:
You know, you only have to say that when he's wrong. You can crush him like a bug, but once you tell him he's good looking, he completely forgets whatever came before it.

:smile: I am good looking! say...what were you talking about again? Oh well, I'm going to go back to looking at myself in the mirror. Doot-de-dooo-dooo-doooo.
 
  • #16
"Almost all engineers working on new designs find that they do not have all the needed information. Most often, they are limited by insufficient scientific knowledge. Thus they study mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and mechanics. Often they have to add to the sciences relevant to their profession. Thus engineering sciences are born."

Somehow I always thought engineering was a natural extension to science.
 

Similar threads

Admissions How Can I Improve My Chances of Getting into a PhD Program in Engineering?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Programs What subject is better for an aspiring experimental physicist?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
Studying Need some help deciding between Physics, EE and CE
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
Undergrad Integrating factor vs. Laplace. Engineering problems
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
What Are the Differences Between Theorists and Experimentalists in Physics?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Life is based entirely on obsession and apathy?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Programs How qualified would I be for EE as a math major?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Women in Engineering - advice from a dad
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
What are the physical implications of control theory in engineering?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Programs General Engineering/Chemistry/Biosciences/Physics - what to choose?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K