Why do people prefer engineering/applied science over pure science?

[metalrose]

Hi,

I am a physics undergraduate student, and was wondering why so many people would prefer to become an Electrical Engineer or Mechanical Engineer as opposed to a Theoretical Physicist or a Mathematician or a Biologist?

What attracts you to the applied science fields so much (APART FROM THE MONEY). Do you not find it exciting to ask fundamental questions like "Where did the universe come from?" or "How does it all work?" or "Why does it all exist?" or "What new knowledge mathematics can produce?" or "How and why life evolved?" ?

I know, working as an electronics engineer for example, can be exciting too, making new kinds of circuits that could possibly change current technologies and take our societies forward.
But isn't that more close to "helping societies progress", or in other words "social service"?

One can get great pleasure from serving the society at large and making a difference in world at a practical level. And so, the excitement that you may get from being an engineer or an applied scientist, isn't it basically the excitement that you get from serving the society at large?

Because, according to my personal view, as far as the excitement of new knowledge is considered, the pure and fundamental sciences do a better job of giving that.

For example, as an electrical engineer, you may create a great deal of circuits having varied applications, some or most of which would be responsible for bettering our lives. But in the end, whatever you may create or do, rests on the four equations of maxwell, and a bit of math.

So in the process, you have produced applications, different ways of doing a thing, bettered the human life, but have essentially produced no new fundamental knowledge.

Working on applications is important, else the world wouldn't be the way it is today, but as far as excitement and fulfillment is considered, I guess pure sciences do a better job at that.

These were my opinions. I'd like to hear from all you students of engineering/applied science and applied scientists out there.

 

[Rebound]

I think it's mostly a case of preferring to be hands-on. I've known quite a few people who just don't derive satisfaction from working with problems on a purely theoretical level.

 

[Fragment]

I think it also has something to do with employability. Graduates from pure degrees tend to find it harder to find field-relevent jobs, as compared to graduates from applied degrees.

 

[russ_watters]

I also have an issue with spending a lifetime on a project with no guarantee it will go anywhere.

 

[TMFKAN64]

Some people like to build stuff, while some people like to know stuff.

 

[Phyisab****]

What attracts you to the applied science fields so much (APART FROM THE MONEY). Do you not find it exciting to ask fundamental questions like "Where did the universe come from?" or "How does it all work?" or "Why does it all exist?" or "What new knowledge mathematics can produce?" or "How and why life evolved?" ?

Science will not answer these questions in the foreseeable future in a way which will satisfy me. It's just much more satisfying for me to work on things which have a direct impact on the real world.

Also, the money.

 

[Klockan3]

http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/02/22/Why%20You%20Want%20to%20Be%20An%20Engineer.gif

 

[Ben Espen]

There are many different answers to this at different levels. Money is not irrelevant to the career choices people make, afterall prices can be seen as a probabilistic manner of communicating information about value and scarcity. Also my job satisfaction is partially measured in USD.

In terms of what people like to do, it is not fun to do something that you are not good at. The level of intellectual ability and personal dedication required to become a successful theoretical physicist is probably 2 standard deviations above that required to become an electrical engineer. This means that many fewer people have the ability to be theoretical physicists than EEs. It should not be surprising that people don't want to do things they can't do well.

Do you not find it exciting to ask fundamental questions like "Where did the universe come from?" or "How does it all work?" or "Why does it all exist?" or "What new knowledge mathematics can produce?" or "How and why life evolved?" ?

As for fundamental knowledge, I'm not sure that science is really so good at that. They kinds of questions you posed are properly metaphysical questions rather than scientific ones. Like the computer in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the only answer science can give you to those questions is '42', because science is quantitative. Science depends upon philosophical assumptions that usually go unsaid, for the reason that they are so settled that everyone unconsciously relies on them. If they were spelled out you would just say, "Duh!".

What the pure sciences do differently than the applied sciences is give more abstract answers, that apply over a broader range.

For example, as an electrical engineer, you may create a great deal of circuits having varied applications, some or most of which would be responsible for bettering our lives. But in the end, whatever you may create or do, rests on the four equations of maxwell, and a bit of math.

Thus, it is true that those of us who are engineers rely upon pure science in our work, but it is not really true that everything we do is nothing but plugging the right numbers into already known equations. The known physical laws underdetermine the behavior of actually existing things. To make a math analogy, there are more unknowns than equations. The difference between engineering and math is that instead of ending up with a family of solutions you end up with one, unique object that you have to experiment on to figure out how it actually works, as opposed to how you think it is going to work. If you did the science right, then you have an idea, but you don't know all the answers yet.

Put another way, when I design something, I am creating an object that has never before existed in the history of the universe. The behavior of that one thing is not necessarily going to change everything, but then again it may do something pretty cool that has never been done before. You could call this hands-on, but I prefer to think of it as bending matter to my will. Scientists generally attempt to let matter alone so you can see what it does when you aren't fiddling with it.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I think you might have an inaccurate view of fundamental research. I do fundamental physics research and the sort of questions I ask most often are less along the lines of "why is there more matter than antimatter" and more along the lines of "who stole my screwdriver"?

 

[Ben Espen]

I wouldn't dispute that Vanadium.

Also, Klockan3, that cartoon is awesome!

 

[Math Is Hard]

...and the sort of questions I ask most often are less along the lines of "why is there more matter than antimatter" and more along the lines of "who stole my screwdriver"?

I always saw you as more of a scotch and soda guy.

 

[DR13]

So in the process, you have produced applications, different ways of doing a thing, bettered the human life, but have essentially produced no new fundamental knowledge.

You can easily flip this on its head. For someone in pure science you may (if you are very good and very lucky) find out something that answers some fundamental question. However, you have done nothing to better human life. Let's say that you go on to prove m-theory to be true. That's all fine and dandy and you will be immortalized in the physics community, but that really doesn't help the average joe. Most of America would rather have someone engineer a way to have clean, affordable than have someone have a big breakthrough on SUSY.

In my personal opinion I see the value in both applied and pure sciences.

 

[metalrose]

Thank you all for the responses. I guess why people shun from doing pure science is 1.)huge amounts of dedication required, 2.)very small probability of success, 3.)and ofcourse the money.

@phyisab**** and Vanadium 50,

I'm still at an undegraduate level so I guess you guys know better. But I think the question of why or how the Earth revolves around the sun was as fundamental and the answer to which was as unforseeable in the times of Newton or galileo as the questions like "why the universe exists" are today.

So I really don't think that science doesn't have the capacity to answer those questions. It might take time and it might be hard work but I don't think such questions will go unanswered.

 

[fasterthanjoao]

Thank you all for the responses. I guess why people shun from doing pure science is 1.)huge amounts of dedication required, 2.)very small probability of success, 3.)and ofcourse the money.

To me, no, those aren't the reasons - and they aren't the reasons that people have given. Why do you think that there's somehow less dedication involved in working outside a 'pure' topic? And it isn't the probability of success that is off-putting - for a lot of people (myself involved) going into applied science is more of a way of doing something actually useful for the world. For many years my interests were set in pure-research, and I love the stuff but I just felt that something else was missing. Being able to work on a project that could actually make a difference to peoples lives was a big pull for me.

You should probably quickly get rid of the 'tier' mentality that is common among undergraduates. So-called 'pure' subjects are not at the top - there isn't one, and it just ends up snooty if you're confused as to why anyone would study anything other than what you, yourself, are interested in . Each discipline is valid and has it's own attractions for each individual.

And I don't get paid any more than I would were I in a 'pure' subject.

questions like "why the universe exists" are today.

So I really don't think that science doesn't have the capacity to answer those questions. It might take time and it might be hard work but I don't think such questions will go unanswered.

You problem might also be the overlap with questions that can have a physical answer and questions that are purely philosophical.

 

[ZapperZ]

Hi,

I am a physics undergraduate student, and was wondering why so many people would prefer to become an Electrical Engineer or Mechanical Engineer as opposed to a Theoretical Physicist or a Mathematician or a Biologist?

This may be slightly off-topic, but I think there is an opportunity here for me to once again correct a severe misconception about "theoretical physics" and "applied physics". Here's the bottom line:

Theoretical physics and applied physics are NOT mutually exclusive!

You can do theoretical physics in applied physics! Condensed matter physics, atomic physics, accelerator physics, etc.. are areas that often considered to be applied physics. Phil Anderson, Bob Laughlin, etc.. are all theoretical physicists in condensed matter, and they won the Nobel Prize as well! The physicist that I consider to be the most influential physicist of our time, John Bardeen, was a theorist, and the only person ever to have won the Nobel Prize in Physics twice! His first Nobel Prize also gave the clearest example of a theorist at work on an applied field - doing the necessary theoretical calculation on a solid-state transistor to aide its design Shockley and Brattain.

So the first myth that needs to be destroyed here is that one cannot do theoretical physics in an applied area. This misconception needs to be buried for good.

Secondly, the myth that doing "applied physics" doesn't address anything fundamental about the universe. This is severely shortsighted.

One only needs to look at the hunt for the Higgs at the Tevatron and LHC. Everyone agrees that the Higgs physics is very fundamental, and part of what we call basic physics that addresses the Standard Model of elementary particles. Yet, look at where the Higgs mechanism came from! Would you believe that it was inspired by the same physics that was used to study superconductors? Phil Anderson's broken symmetry principle was a huge part of the development of the Higgs mechanism. Peter Higgs himself clearly stated this (see a http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/19750" ).

"When I moved back to Edinburgh in October 1960 I was not sure where I was going next," he recalls. That all changed the following year when he read a paper by Yoichiro Nambu that based a theory of elementary particles on an analogy with the BCS theory of superconductivity. "This is where the idea of a spontaneously broken symmetry being the way in which the mass of particles could be generated first arose," says Higgs. "Although my name gets thrown around in this context, it was Nambu who showed how fermion masses would be generated in a way that was analogous to the formation of the energy gap in a superconductor."

There was, however, a problem with the Nambu approach. Although the spontaneous breaking of symmetry generated particles with mass, Jeffrey Goldstone, Salam and Steven Weinberg had shown that it also generated a particle known as a Goldstone boson that had no mass. This was bad news because no such particle was known to exist.

Once more help arrived from the condensed-matter community when, in 1963, Phil Anderson pointed out that the equivalent of a Goldstone boson in a superconductor could become massive due to its electromagnetic interactions. But did Anderson's argument apply in the relativistic case? No, said a paper by Walter Gilbert in an issue of Physical Review Letters that arrived in Edinburgh the middle of July. Yes, said Higgs, after thinking about it over the weekend.

In other words, you don't need to be in particle physics, string theory, etc.. etc. to study fundamental physics. If you have fallen asleep and missed all the brouhaha surrounding the recent discovery of the topological insulator, WAKE UP. This family of material has been viewed not only in the applied sense, but also in the fundamental sense, since many of basic, elementary particle physics physics might be exhibited in this family of material!

So the second and final myth that needs to be destroyed here is that one cannot study anything fundamental or basic when doing applied physics. There are numerous examples to show that this is utterly false!

Thus, this render the topic moot. You CAN do applied physics, and you CAN do theoretical applied physics, and you CAN do basic, fundamental research studying the deepest questions about the universe doing theoretical applied physics. And you can have your cake and eat it too!

Zz.

 

[metalrose]

@fasterthanjoao,

I do understand that each field has its own attractions for different individuals. And that's what I wanted to know through this question, as to what are those things that would pull somebody into the engineering/applied fields.
I already mentioned 3 reasons in my previous post.

I guess I missed an important one out there, as you pointed out.
The pleasure of serving the society and producing something tangible.
So I guess there are people out there, yourself included, who don't get the satisfaction unless they do "hands-on" or see their work affecting people at large, for good of course.

And that's great I guess. But I would say that is closer to social service than producing fundamental knowledge. Not to say that serving the society is any less important than producing fundamental knowledge.

But I get disappointed when I see people failing to appreciate the beauty of the universe. Humans are the only creation of nature, as far as we know, who can understand themselves and the world around them. It's sad to see people turning away such a marvellous opportunity nature has given us. And as einstein once said,

"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed."
--"The World As I See It," originally published in FORUM AND CENTURY, 1931.

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

@ZapperZ

Applied fields helping produce new knowledge in the pure fields may not be that rare, but that is not what the applied fields actually concern themselves with. In many cases, it might turn out that applied fields lead to new knowledge, but that is more of a coincidence or being lucky enough.

To produce new knowledge is not the main concern of the applied fields, that's why they are called "applied". So I don't think, on the basis of just a few instances in the past where applied fields have helped the pure ones, one can say that applied fields do definitely produce fundamental knowledge.

correct me if I have misunderstood anything.

Thanks...

 

[603nothing]

Well first off, I think that in order to answer some theoretical questions about applied science technology has to be made, so that's where I "apply" myself as an EE.

Mostly, though, you can get the best of both worlds. As an EE I'm right now trying to understand the theory behind the memristor, arguably the fourth basic fundamental component of circuitry but at this point it's all theory of proving its existence, which is seen but rather unexplainable. I'm actually not quite sure, remember, I'm digging deeper?

 

[ZapperZ]

@ZapperZ

Applied fields helping produce new knowledge in the pure fields may not be that rare, but that is not what the applied fields actually concern themselves with. In many cases, it might turn out that applied fields lead to new knowledge, but that is more of a coincidence or being lucky enough.

To produce new knowledge is not the main concern of the applied fields, that's why they are called "applied". So I don't think, on the basis of just a few instances in the past where applied fields have helped the pure ones, one can say that applied fields do definitely produce fundamental knowledge.

correct me if I have misunderstood anything.

Thanks...

It is a misunderstanding. While that may be true way back when, it is no longer true now. Certainly, many people, even outside of the so-called applied fields, have accepted that fact that these fields DO produce fundamental knowledge. See http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1741" .

The idea that fields such as condensed matter are only applied is outdated. This is what I'm trying to convey. Most theorists who go into this field will realize this extremely fast as they face the courses they take at the graduate level AND realize that many of them are in string, elementary particles/high energy, etc. And as they begin their research work, they'll realize it even more.

Zz.

 

[DR13]

Applied fields helping produce new knowledge in the pure fields may not be that rare, but that is not what the applied fields actually concern themselves with. In many cases, it might turn out that applied fields lead to new knowledge, but that is more of a coincidence or being lucky enough.

To produce new knowledge is not the main concern of the applied fields, that's why they are called "applied". So I don't think, on the basis of just a few instances in the past where applied fields have helped the pure ones, one can say that applied fields do definitely produce fundamental knowledge.

Applied fields produce new knowledge all of the time. Transistors, computers, nuclear reactors, etc are all products of applied science. I believe that one would consider this new knowledge. And if you want to talk about knowledge by accident look no farther than Bohr. When he first came up with his model for the atom, he said that he believed that it would never have an applied purpose. It is now the basis of nuclear science. So in pure sciences people come up with things that have no use and then it is up to the applied scientists to actually find a use for it.

 

[metalrose]

@DR13,

Sorry for the use of bad language, but when I say new knowledge, I mean new "FUNDAMENTAL KNOWLEDGE". A transistor runs on principles of physics and the invention of a transistor hasn't produced a new understanding of how nature works.

So yes, all the applied fields do produce knowledge, just like most other fields, but that's not fundamental in nature, that's all I am tryin to say here.

 

[metalrose]

@zapper z,

Maybe the particular field of condensed matter physics has a large overlap with the pure part of physics, and thus maybe it has been incorrectly viewed as a purely applied field.

But what I'm trying to say, is that the purely applied fields, not just in physics, but outside of it too, have got little to do with advancing our fundamental knowledge about nature.

Maybe you could consider condensed matter physics as a pure field having quite a no. of applications as well, so that in sense the argument may not apply to condensed matter phy. in particular, but I was talking about applied science in general.

Do you agree, or have I still not understood something?

Thanks.

 

[DR13]

OK, I am going to try to make this simple. People like to go into applied sciences to help the world around them (at least this is my reason). I just don't get why you are not accepting this as a legitimate reason. If all science people wanted to go into pure science we would be screwed and still living in the stone age. Plus, who do you think makes all of the fancy equipment that pure scientists use? The applied scientists. Hopefully you are content with this answer.

 

[Japelleum]

I am a physics undergraduate student, and was wondering why so many people would prefer to become an Electrical Engineer or Mechanical Engineer as opposed to a Theoretical Physicist or a Mathematician or a Biologist?

For me, it was all about the better job prospects. When I was studying 2nd year undergraduate physics, I could find no jobs related to my field of study. This really put me off, and I lost all motivation to work hard in my studies (and I had been an A student); in those days, my favorite thing to say was how hard physics was and how it was "all for nothing, all for sh**". It's just one of those hard facts of life that you are 100 times more likely to find employment with a B.Sc. in an applied field like EE than say a pure field like physics (at least that's how it works here in Canada). There is, of course, always graduate school, but my rationale was that I'd spent the last 12+ years in school and wanted to get out of it and not just get another degree that you "can do anything with" (not unlike a HS diploma).

Do you not find it exciting to ask fundamental questions like "Where did the universe come from?" or "How does it all work?" or "Why does it all exist?" or "What new knowledge mathematics can produce?" or "How and why life evolved?" ?

Yes, in fact I love thinking about such questions, but I'd much rather do it from the comfort of my relatively secure middle class life than that of a post doc struggling for tenure, or researcher worried about government cuts, and c. I can pick up a book anytime to find out more about such questions, but to convince someone that I am employable requires a practical degree I'm afraid.

 

[Dale]

What attracts you to the applied science fields so much (APART FROM THE MONEY). Do you not find it exciting to ask fundamental questions like "Where did the universe come from?" or "How does it all work?" or "Why does it all exist?" or "What new knowledge mathematics can produce?" or "How and why life evolved?"

For me it is because I enjoy the creative process more than the analytical process. I actually don't find the "how does it all work?" questions nearly as enjoyable as, "how can I build a device that will do X?"

If I hadn't gone into engineering I probably would have become an artist before a pure scientist.

 

[Klockan3]

Why do people prefer engineering/applied science over pure science?

Why do people prefer sex over porn? Basically the same reason, most prefers things which is closer to their reality. Porn is far away, you lack emotions for it except for its comparable purity while sex is hands on, dirty and filled with emotions.

I think that you need to be somewhat emotionally detached from reality to like the pure sciences.

 

[ZapperZ]

@zapper z,

Maybe the particular field of condensed matter physics has a large overlap with the pure part of physics, and thus maybe it has been incorrectly viewed as a purely applied field.

But what I'm trying to say, is that the purely applied fields, not just in physics, but outside of it too, have got little to do with advancing our fundamental knowledge about nature.

Maybe you could consider condensed matter physics as a pure field having quite a no. of applications as well, so that in sense the argument may not apply to condensed matter phy. in particular, but I was talking about applied science in general.

Do you agree, or have I still not understood something?

Thanks.

No, I disagree.

You really should do a bit of reading on what "condensed matter physics" is. It has a lot of applications, and it studies basic behavior of interactions present in matter.

Rather than trying to rename a cow as an elephant, why not simply accept the fact that the cow has plenty of elements of an elephant, and go on with the rest of our lives? This "need" to really compartmentalize various specialities, and THEN trying to deny various aspects of each of them, is awfully silly.

The OP made statements based on two outstanding myths about physics. What is so uncomfortable about destroying those myths?

Zz.

 

[metalrose]

A variety of opinions here...thank you all...

 

[physicsdude30]

Hi,

I am a physics undergraduate student, and was wondering why so many people would prefer to become an Electrical Engineer or Mechanical Engineer as opposed to a Theoretical Physicist or a Mathematician or a Biologist?

Perhaps engineers see the "Big Picture" vs "Details" differently? To illustrate where I'm coming from, most would say Isaac Newton was a big picture thinker. He saw an apple fall from a tree and though "gravity". He saw past the "here and now details" of apple and other activities of his time, and saw a bigger more universal picture. Now let's say you're the owner of a big business. The big picture is your business. The mitochondrial and chemical reactions in your workers arms/legs are details. Mitochondrial and chemical reactions are more universal and have a bigger impact on society, but they're details in this context. The same for the principles of economics. Likewise, most owners of a business are going to say the same of all the laws of physics/science. Physics may be more universal and a bigger impact on society as a whole, but so does mitochondrial/economics/stock marker/interior design/colors. As far as seeing the "forest from the trees", the big picture is the business. If you go outside and walk on the sidewalk, from your perspective the principles that went into making the concrete for the sidewalks below you is a detail. However, the person who studies that for a living sees you as a here and now detail and the principles that he's working on as more universal and having a bigger picture on society. If you see your friend, your friend is the big picture, while the biology behind pigmentation in his hair is a detail, while those who study that see your friend as the here and now detail.

It seems like a lot of engineers think the same about physics and the economics of their project, the different aspects may be more universal but they're still details, even if useful details.

To further illustrate this concept, think about the last time you went to the grocery store. If a nerd to one side of you keeps on talking about economics, you'll see him as a details rather than a big picture thinker. The same would be true about the nerd talking about mitochondrial. Seeing the forest from the trees, you have to think about the grocery store to be a big picture thinker. However, from the perspective of these two nerds they see you going to the grocery store as a here and now detail and themselves as analyzing something which is much more universal and bigger impact on society. With this knowledge, most out there still wouldn't be interested in studying economics, interior design, or colors for a living, even if all these are much more universal and have a greater impact on society as a whole than perhaps owning a large business, your family/friends, etc. I'm interested in Science and not engineering, but I figure this is how it's seen from the other side.

What are your thoughts?

 

[physicsdude30]

For me it is because I enjoy the creative process more than the analytical process. I actually don't find the "how does it all work?" questions nearly as enjoyable as, "how can I build a device that will do X?"

If I hadn't gone into engineering I probably would have become an artist before a pure scientist.

Analytical instead of creative? Something to consider, many think of creativity as art or making cool inventions. However, there's another type of creativity, scientific creativity where you come up with new discoveries. To illustrate how originality works, a woman makes a wedding cake out of baby diapers. All these other women say, "Cute! Hey, that's really original!" Whoever originally came up with that idea used two ideas which already existed, baby diapers and wedding cakes, and put them together in a way that's unique. Now let's say you're not familiar with either diapers or wedding cakes, how would you know if it's original? Also, when people say "Yea, yea, details" that means they're not interested. Just because someone may not be familiar with what's going on doesn't mean an idea wasn't original/profound when put into the proper context. You could say the same thing about how layman actually see what engineers do. Many just see their work as details in the background of their daily lives, although engineers who are familiar can quickly see what's original and what's not. A layman gets in her car to go to work, the way the engine works are seen as details in the background and the big picture her job. She uses a drinking fountain, details in background. Drives across a bridge? Same.

What are your thoughts?

 

[snshusat161]

Well, it's not at all interesting. I can see pure science students enjoying their lives after their classes and we (engineering students) are burdened with lot of assignment and thoughts. We don't have any time to enjoy. It may be interesting for people but it is a kind of challenge as well.

So, Money is the one of the very powerful reason.

What's the use of knowing nature if you don't know to make use of it. For instance, you know what moment is but still pushing the door by hinge. I know you don't do but this was just an example, when I'll go in higher semesters then I'll give you a proper example.

 

[metalrose]

What are your thoughts?

Well, I guess you are right to an extent as to how most of us would view what we do as the big picture and the rest as details.

But I think it's not so relative as you suggest. I guess there are some things that ARE really a bigger picture than the rest of the things. And I think Pure science, and more importantly, the physics-maths combination more so.

While a physicist might view his job as a bigger picture and the rest as details, but the fact is, that the physics-math combo is the EDGE OF KNOWLEDGE or rather the FRONTIER OF FUNDAMENTAL KNOWLEDGE.

You could think of the physics-math combo as the surface of a balloon expanding outward into the unknown. Every other body of knowledge, lies inside this balloon.

So physics-math is the only thing that is heading into the previously unknown.
By unknown here, I mean something "totally or fundamentally unknown".

Every other body of knowledge, though produces new knowledge, but that new knowledge still relies on an even fundamental knowledge that was already known.
And that's why no other body of knowledge produces completely new and and previously unknown knowledge.

That is why I call physics-math the FRONTIER OF KNOWLEDGE, THE SURFACE OF THE EXPANDING BALLOON OF KNOWLEDGE, and every other body of knowledge lying within this balloon.

what do you say?

 

[metalrose]

What's the use of knowing nature if you don't know to make use of it.

A similar question was posed to Michael Faraday once by somebody after he had discovered the laws of electro magnetic induction.

Someone asked Faraday, "The electromagnetic induction thing is all okay, but WHAT'S THE USE OF IT?"

And to this, Faraday replied, "You tell me, WHAT'S THE USE OF A NEW BORN BABY?"

I would like to ask you the same question as Faraday.

The use, if you really want to know, is the satisfaction of knowing rather than the uneasiness of not knowing. The use, is quenching the thirst of knowing.

Everything need not have a practical every-day use. Playing music or dancing or painting don't have any use as such (apart from personal fulfillment, similar to personal fulfillment gained from knowing nature).

 

[Ryker]

A similar question was posed to Michael Faraday once by somebody after he had discovered the laws of electro magnetic induction.

Someone asked Faraday, "The electromagnetic induction thing is all okay, but WHAT'S THE USE OF IT?"

And to this, Faraday replied, "You tell me, WHAT'S THE USE OF A NEW BORN BABY?"

Haha, every time I hear this anecdote, our fine Mr. Faraday has a different answer ready

 

[rhombusjr]

I think that you need to be somewhat emotionally detached from reality to like the pure sciences.

I disagree. Just go on YouTube and watch videos of Richard Feynman (The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, Fun to Imagine, etc.). In general, I don't know how you can study science being detached from reality; science is the study of what physically exists, what's real.

Personally on the subject of why people study applied vs. pure, it seems to me more of a case of apples to oranges. Why do some people devote their lives to building guitars and violins rather than playing them? Both musicians and luthiers create beautiful works of art, one is tangible and can be used as a tool, the other is intangible, but no less real or beautiful. The way I look at it, engineering and science are two different subjects, just like biology and chemistry are two different subjects. I don't think you can treat one as the retarded version of the other or one as the pointless esoteric version of the other. Why would someone study one over the other? It all boils down to personal preference. Which is "better"? Star Trek or Star Wars? Kung Fu or Karate? Rock or Jazz? Why are some people happy assembling car engines rather than studying the dynamics of combusting fluids? I think both engineers and scientists get their satisfaction from solving problems. The difference is the kinds of problems they like to solve and what they like to get out of their solutions.

 

[TMFKAN64]

Haha, every time I hear this anecdote, our fine Mr. Faraday has a different answer ready

I prefer the "Someday, you will be able to tax it" answer myself.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

I disagree. Just go on YouTube and watch videos of Richard Feynman (The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, Fun to Imagine, etc.). In general, I don't know how you can study science being detached from reality; science is the study of what physically exists, what's real.

Personally on the subject of why people study applied vs. pure, it seems to me more of a case of apples to oranges. Why do some people devote their lives to building guitars and violins rather than playing them? Both musicians and luthiers create beautiful works of art, one is tangible and can be used as a tool, the other is intangible, but no less real or beautiful. The way I look at it, engineering and science are two different subjects, just like biology and chemistry are two different subjects. I don't think you can treat one as the retarded version of the other or one as the pointless esoteric version of the other. Why would someone study one over the other? It all boils down to personal preference. Which is "better"? Star Trek or Star Wars? Kung Fu or Karate? Rock or Jazz? Why are some people happy assembling car engines rather than studying the dynamics of combusting fluids? I think both engineers and scientists get their satisfaction from solving problems. The difference is the kinds of problems they like to solve and what they like to get out of their solutions.

And besides they also overlap sometimes (if not most of the times).
E.g, Control theory in EE is mainly mathematical Ode and Dynamical systems applications.

PS
There are also people who like to combine, you can't make this dichotomy as simple as it might be.

 

[physicsdude30]

Well, I guess you are right to an extent as to how most of us would view what we do as the big picture and the rest as details.

But I think it's not so relative as you suggest. I guess there are some things that ARE really a bigger picture than the rest of the things. And I think Pure science, and more importantly, the physics-maths combination more so.

Your question wasn't what has a broader impact overall, but rather what attracts people to become engineers versus pure research. My response above was meant to be more of where they're coming from, rather than an argument of what is more useful. As far as usefulness it has to do with context, even if things more universal have a broader impact (physics, economics, biology, chemistry, interior design, etc).

I guess why they chose that path instead, to them it's like asking, "Why become an engineer? Why not get a doctorate in economics since it'll have more impact in the long run compared to designing that bridge? Economics more of a soft science compared to physics? Well think of this, physics used to be soft and less unified and then Galileo/Newton did things to help bring it together. Others thought these intellectuals were details thinkers while harvest time was seen as the big picture, although Galileo years later was seen as big picture." I mean, a lot of people don't just jump up saying they want to study economics, mitochondrial, muscle fiber cells, physics, etc, because they see them as details in the background. All these have a broader impact/universal, but they're details when looking at the here and now project big picture. Think about this, when you see your mom, you think "Mom is the big picture," rather than, "Her hair is __ color, and colors are much more universal than my mom. She has mitochondrial in all her cells, that's more universal and has a bigger impact on society. There's such and such postulates about cells from biology, and that's more universal."

I'm more interested in pure than applied research, but above is the reason I'd guess why some choose to be engineers rather than pure research. I mean, I talk to others who are interested in Science and they discuss how Science expands your horizons and is a big picture. Then I talk to an athlete and they think only nerds talk about "uncreative details" like Science and they'll give me a hard time for actually being interested.

 

[metalrose]

@physicsdude30

Yeah I guess i misunderstood you a bit. That seems to be a good enough answer to my question.

Everyone has different perceptions, and I guess it is this very diversity in perceptions, as you also said, that is ultimately responsible for people choosing to do what they do.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[jasonRF]

Some people are simply realists - I know I fell into that category. I love physics, but quickly realized that the majority of people I knew (both directly and indirectly) that got physics degrees were not "doing physics". They were working in industry essentially as engineers, or became lawyers, or were writing software, etc. Back when I was in high school my father knew a fellow with a physics degree that worked in industry - he worked side by side with the engineers doing the same job, only he got paid $10k US less.

At least in the US, unless you have a PhD in physics and get either an academic or national lab job then you will likely not be "doing physics" either. And even then, if it is theoretical physics you want to do it is even harder, since it seems like more than half of the academic jobs seem to be experimental. After all, it can take many experimentalists to build an experiment to test the theories of a few theorists.

Astronomy seems to be even harder - I studied space plasma physics in grad school (in EE dept so I was still easily employed!) and took some astronomy classes and got to know some of the astro PhD students. One was dropping out to go write software, since there were only a few astro academic jobs available each year in the entire country (someone basically has to die to free one up) and at least a hundred new PhDs, so he decided not to prolong the inevitable since he wasn't even in the top few in his class at our university, let alone in the country/world.

When it came time to pick a major, I just knew that I loved electromagnetic theory and wanted to see more consequences of Maxwell's equations - so I did EE but just made sure I took extra physics to satisfy my curiosity. Today, many of the "engineers" I work with have physics degrees.

I find the same thing with mathematics - most folks I know with math degrees (including my wife) do not "do math" at all, and the same comments above pretty much hold. A few of the "engineers" I work with have math degrees.

If you want to really "do" physics, you must be willing to make many sacrifices in your quest to get a tenured position, and you must realize it is possible to never get such a position. I wasn't willing to do that, but I applaud those that have such strong dreams and drive that they pursue and succeed in such a quest.

Best of luck,

jason

 

[metalrose]

@jasonRF

Well actually I am currently doing an electronics and communication engg. course, not because I want to, and also not because it would give me better job prospects, but simply because I couldn't get any decent enough physics undergrad. course because of various technical reasons I won't discuss here.

But, anyway, I am studying all of undergraduate physics on my own currently and plan to join grad. school in the US.

It does sound scary when you read on sites like these, about so many people who have a tough time finding an academic job, and how many of them move on to other fields despite having Ph.D's. Now that is scary. I wouldn't want to go all the way through a Ph.D. with dreams of being a physicist and not being able to do it in the end, because of scarcity of jobs in academia.

But being put off by such scenarios at this stage, and not going in for grad. school wouldn't be such a great idea too. I'd rather give it a shot than feel frustrated for an entire life for not even having given it a shot.

Thanks for sharing your experiences...

Cheers!

 

[Astronuc]

Some people prefer engineering/applied science, some prefer pure science, and some prefer a mix/blend, and perhaps there is a continuous spectrum of interests.

I prefer a mix.

Under Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) there is a broad array of pure and applied science.
http://www.ne.doe.gov/AdvModelingSimulation/program.html

 

[chill_factor]

Let's put it this way:

theoretical chemistry - calculates the property of chemical reactions from the level of quantum mechanical interactions. what the reaction actually produces or whether it is a useful reaction is an unimportant detail, the real question is, getting the software code and the equations to work out to highest accuracy and lowest memory requirements.

applied chemistry - uses facts known from theoretical chemistry to design useful reactions to produce drugs, polymers, paints, etc. the quantum mechanical properties of drug molecules, polymers, colloids, are all unimportant details. the real question is, how do you make them (precursors, temperature, pressure, catalysts, reaction kinetics, basic fluid flows and mass transport) and analysis for quality control (spectroscopy, chromatography).

chemical engineering - the reaction itself is an unimportant detail. whether it is a pesticide, a drug, a protein or paint that you're making, it doesn't matter. all you need to know is whether the things you make and their intermediates are corrosive or not, their states, whether they are hydrophobic/hydrophilic and their boiling points. the real question isn't even what you're making, it is, what type of equipment is needed for the reaction designed by applied chemists to be magnified from the gram-kilogram scale to the kiloton-megaton scale. then you'll be dealing with much more reaction kinetics, much more fluid flow and mass transport, but also heat transport, process controls, building design and layout, and even economics.

now can you see the difference between pure science, applied science and engineering? they are all concerned with different details, with engineering being more towards what "exactly happens" in the real world and how to make useful things from existing knowledge, applied science being more towards a "part of the engineering problem that require in-depth research and design" and pure science being towards "what are the physical laws that govern all this"?

 

[viscousflow]

I'm going to be a late commenter here but:

I honestly enjoy a perfect mix of both. I'm somewhere in between as astronuc mentioned. I am finishing up my aerospace engineering degree however, I enjoy flight controls. Now this is heavily theoretical however, there are major design aspects and obvious applications also. Not only that you get to see what you designed come alive!

So, I enjoy:
-Controls Theory
-Controls Design
-Aerospace Controls Application

I would go purely theoretical however, to me there is no satisfaction in not being able to see your hard work "come alive". From design to application, simply gets me excited!

 

[nocturne-e]

I'm choosing to go engineering versus pure science because I believe for me the return on investment is significantly greater.

I think much of it involves money and job avaibility, though I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. People seem to look down on going into jobs because of their pay but I disagree with that viewpoint. I think that you have to have a balance - do what you're naturally inclined to do and enjoy but you have to be realistic. It's something to definitely consider. I don't believe in simply "doing what you love" because doing what you love might not feed your family. In the same respect, though, I wouldn't choose a high paying career that I completely despised (eg. even if an art history major actually led to a good salary, I would still not even consider going into it!)

"What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?" as the Good Book says.

I'm not naturally passionate about engineering but I'm fixing my attitudes towards it in order to someday be able to say yes, I do actually enjoy in many respects what I do for a living.

If you're willing accept the consquences of going into a career that you love but is less stable than other options, more power to ya. Sadly, it seems that many people at the end of the day find themselves with a career they enjoy but one that's cannot afford them the lifestyle they want. Then it becomes a problem for them.

 

[kramer733]

Let's put it this way:

theoretical chemistry - calculates the property of chemical reactions from the level of quantum mechanical interactions. what the reaction actually produces or whether it is a useful reaction is an unimportant detail, the real question is, getting the software code and the equations to work out to highest accuracy and lowest memory requirements.

applied chemistry - uses facts known from theoretical chemistry to design useful reactions to produce drugs, polymers, paints, etc. the quantum mechanical properties of drug molecules, polymers, colloids, are all unimportant details. the real question is, how do you make them (precursors, temperature, pressure, catalysts, reaction kinetics, basic fluid flows and mass transport) and analysis for quality control (spectroscopy, chromatography).

chemical engineering - the reaction itself is an unimportant detail. whether it is a pesticide, a drug, a protein or paint that you're making, it doesn't matter. all you need to know is whether the things you make and their intermediates are corrosive or not, their states, whether they are hydrophobic/hydrophilic and their boiling points. the real question isn't even what you're making, it is, what type of equipment is needed for the reaction designed by applied chemists to be magnified from the gram-kilogram scale to the kiloton-megaton scale. then you'll be dealing with much more reaction kinetics, much more fluid flow and mass transport, but also heat transport, process controls, building design and layout, and even economics.

now can you see the difference between pure science, applied science and engineering? they are all concerned with different details, with engineering being more towards what "exactly happens" in the real world and how to make useful things from existing knowledge, applied science being more towards a "part of the engineering problem that require in-depth research and design" and pure science being towards "what are the physical laws that govern all this"?

Could you also clarify between the differencves of mathematics and applied mathematics? I don't really understand what applied mathematicians do. Are statisticians considered applied mathematicians?

 

[chiro]

Could you also clarify between the differencves of mathematics and applied mathematics? I don't really understand what applied mathematicians do. Are statisticians considered applied mathematicians?

Hey kramer.

Applied mathematicians are usually given a problem to solve. One should note that the answer or advice to the problem they received is communicated to people often with no or little mathematical aptitude.

The above applies both to statisticians and other applied mathematicians.

Typically the mathematicians do not simply get a mathematical system and solve it: they have to generate the system based on the information they are given: in other words, they are given a problem from which they generate assumptions that hope to represent the system they are analyzing with the minimum amount of assumptions as possible.

A lot of problems will include optimization problems like maximizing profit or minimizing expenditure. Other problems include finding critical values or fixed points in systems.

Some examples include fisheries, where you want to maximize yield without generating a species extinction of the fish so you can guarantee a harvest with max profits. The optimization problems should be easy to visualize.

With pure, the audience for this kind of work is usually going to be other mathematicians, but it may include other scientists or engineers as well. Typically you won't have to dumb things down like the applied folks do to managers and business executives.

 

[Shaun_W]

I find the OP's tone somewhat patronising (I'm studying [mechanical] engineering, so not a "pure" subject) but I won't get my panties in too much of a twist about it.

To answer the OP, no, I don't really find it all that exciting to answer fundamental questions about the universe. I find it much more exciting to generate a brand new product, from start to finish.

Of course, money and job prospects fit into the equation as well. I'm liking the starting salaries for engineers, the median salaries for those who are chartered (which only takes four years real life engineering experience after a masters degree) and the fact that once you're in the door, you can branch out into management and business if you desire. When looking at degrees, engineering and other applied ones had better employment rates and better salaries than their pure counterparts.

And there's also satisfaction. To become a top scientist, I'd have to do a PhD, which is a long hard slog. To become an engineer, once I've done my integrated undergraduate masters degree, that's me done with university forever if I want. Which is free for us at the undergraduate level, might I add, whereas PhDs cost tens of thousands.

Then there's also the fact that not everyone who studies a pure science goes onto research in that field. In fact, very, very few do. I've seen some statistics that around 80% of maths and physics graduates from the top universities here will end selling their souls and working in finance. Because the job prospects in science and maths research here are just so poor, and the pay so little, many realize that London wants their ability to solve partial differential equations so much that they'll pay silly amounts of money for it.

And lastly, there's the fact that most universities here simply don't teach to a rigorous standard to allow their graduates to go onto become top scientists, and I'm not from the correct social class to fit into a university of high enough quality in one of these fields.

 

[Theorem.]

I think above all else, money and stability
Edit: although I should add that this is not a 100% accurate statement, but more or less could account for a decent proportion of the difference between the amount of people that enter applied and pure. Its important to remember that some people just find applied sciences much more interesting, rewarding (or at least more frequently rewarding) and stimulating.

 

[lurky]

Late to the party, but...

I have a degree in biology. I studied biology because it was fun and interesting. However, the first thing I noticed upon graduation was that I needed a Master's degree if I wanted to stay in my field and not just be physical labor going out and collecting traps or something that any high school drop out could do. I briefly thought of getting that Master's degree, but then I asked myself if I honestly believed that, after getting a Master's, I would not once again be faced with the "now what?" conundrum.

I'm studying engineering, now. You can actually get a job in engineering with just a bachelor's degree. Every time I look at job listings, I always see listings looking for engineers with a bachelor's degree (not Master's or Ph.D.). Oh sure, there are companies looking for Master's and Ph.D.s, but you can also find lots of jobs that are for people with just the basic degree.

So for me, the answer is one that is very much grounded in reality: I want a job. And if I have to get a Master's just to make myself employable, then I would much rather just switch fields now, because when the Master's starts becoming the base degree, that means that there are simply too many fish in that pond. Maybe engineering will also eventually head that way, but it isn't there yet.

Oh and I considered medicine and law as alternatives, but the truth is that I'm a total geek. I love technology.

 

[Kevin_Axion]

Condensed Matter Physics is blend of both which is why I'm planning on studying that, I still have to high school so I have a long way to go!