When is the distinction between science fields applicable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter random_soldier
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the distinctions between physics and engineering, particularly in the context of studying and applying physical phenomena. Physics is defined as the exploration of natural phenomena, while engineering is viewed as the practical application of established principles to create systems that meet human needs. The conversation raises questions about where the line is drawn between physics and engineering, especially in fields like integrated circuit (IC) development and fusion science. It explores whether engineers encounter unknown phenomena or if they primarily focus on optimizing existing systems. The importance of these distinctions is debated, with some participants arguing that in practice, the collaboration of both mindsets is essential, and rigid classifications may not be useful. The discussion also touches on the educational backgrounds of engineers and their engagement with advanced physics concepts, suggesting that personal experience and perspective may influence perceptions of these roles.
random_soldier
Messages
80
Reaction score
10
Something I have been thinking about and don't really have a good answer to.

For context, let's take physics and engineering for example. From my understanding, a very rough definition of physics would be the study of naturally occurring physical phenomena and understanding how they work. Engineering, again in my words, would be the application of known and well understood phenomena to create systems to achieve needs that people may have, even if that is just to better study some physics that cannot be studied properly by currently and readily available systems.

Now, to my understanding, study of dark matter or even designing a system to study it would still very much be physics as the properties do not seem well understood to my knowledge and any system designed to detect/study it would also require figuring out the physics to do so.

On the other extreme, designing a new efficient irrigation or traffic light system with the help of some new tech like internet of things or artificial intelligence would seem very much like engineering as there is no new phenomena being studied, as far as I can see into this hypothetical. All phenomena and systems are well understood and simply being rearranged for higher efficiency.

Now I don't know where to draw the line in, for example, IC development. Do electrical engineers simply never dabble in or encounter unknown physical phenomena when trying to stretch the limits of what ICs can do? Or do they just write their engineering portions and understanding and leave it to the physicists to figure out the rest? Or does it not count as physics altogether if you discover that even though the phenomena was previously not understood, it turns out to be well documented upon further study? Or do electrical engineers never do any of that in the first place?

I have similar questions for fusion science. Do engineers working on tokamaks just work on improving system efficiency from known physics while physicists think about what they see and what they want to see?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
random_soldier said:
For context, let's take physics and engineering for example. From my understanding, a very rough definition of physics would be the study of naturally occurring physical phenomena and understanding how they work. Engineering, again in my words, would be the application of known and well understood phenomena to create systems to achieve needs that people may have, even if that is just to better study some physics that cannot be studied properly by currently and readily available systems pool
It is also my personal opinion
Greetings!!
 
  • Like
Likes random_soldier
These distinctions matter less in the real world. For complex endeavors, both mindsets are needed in the workforce and from my experience, it is more dependent on personality than degree.
 
  • Like
Likes random_soldier and BillTre
If you have boxes labelled "white" and "black" but you work with grayscale objects, you will always face this kind of a classification problem. Forget about labels, problem solved :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, mcastillo356, hmmm27 and 2 others
Why is it important to you to make this distinction? Will there be better outcomes somehow?
It is important to apprehend the things you know, and far more important, the things you might not. Having worked both sides of this fence, I think the classification is not often required very seldom useful .
 
  • Like
Likes random_soldier
hutchphd said:
Why is it important to you to make this distinction? Will there be better outcomes somehow?
It is important to apprehend the things you know, and far more important, the things you might not. Having worked both sides of this fence, I think the classification is not often required very seldom useful .

I didn't have a good answer either way. So I thought I would ask.

Also never have personally heard nuclear engineers work with nuclear particles of anything higher than MeV range or talk about astrophysical gamma ray spectroscopy despite seeming qualified. Or heard about electrical engineers take a course in QM despite seeming like it would really be helpful in devising new electrical devices (isn't that what the tunneling diode is?).

Though, I am limiting myself to very particular cases. My sample size could also be limited. Or maybe the engineers moved to physics and call themselves physicists or vice versa is why I am seeing one or the other and thinking that they never do the other thing. Or I might just be splitting hairs with my limited information/perspective.
 
Similar to the 2024 thread, here I start the 2025 thread. As always it is getting increasingly difficult to predict, so I will make a list based on other article predictions. You can also leave your prediction here. Here are the predictions of 2024 that did not make it: Peter Shor, David Deutsch and all the rest of the quantum computing community (various sources) Pablo Jarrillo Herrero, Allan McDonald and Rafi Bistritzer for magic angle in twisted graphene (various sources) Christoph...
Thread 'My experience as a hostage'
I believe it was the summer of 2001 that I made a trip to Peru for my work. I was a private contractor doing automation engineering and programming for various companies, including Frito Lay. Frito had purchased a snack food plant near Lima, Peru, and sent me down to oversee the upgrades to the systems and the startup. Peru was still suffering the ills of a recent civil war and I knew it was dicey, but the money was too good to pass up. It was a long trip to Lima; about 14 hours of airtime...
Back
Top