<p>Many of my friends believe that physicists are more contributive and important to science, since physics is pure, while engineering is the application of physics. Is it possible for me to do any major research in science as an engineer, or should I just switch to physics?</p>
<p>FWIW, the most valuable member of my engineering team has a PhD in phyisics.</p>
<p>“Is engineering inferior to physics?”</p>
<p>This question is stupid. If you want to do physics-related stuff, physics is the way to go. If you want to do engineering-related stuff, major in engineering. Both have plenty of contributions to society.</p>
<p>Physicists study the physical universe. Engineers put the science that physicists discover into practical use. The two fields are complementary in terms of “contributions to society”.</p>
<p>“Is engineering inferior to physics?” is a trivial question. Your friends are biased because they are probably physics majors themselves. Sure, physicists are superior in the respect that they push the frontiers of knowledge and research more than engineers but their paychecks are inferior to those of engineers. So its all apples and oranges as far as I am concerned. I feel that unless you are doing calculus at the age of 11 (meaning your gifted) you are not going to be redefining the laws of physics and will most likely be doing grunt work at some research university for the rest of your career. Neil Tyson is the exception :].</p>
<p>One time I was blinded by science…but that was weird science.</p>
<p>But seriously. I don’t know about other people, but I put a lot of stock in applications. Nothing gets done with out someone figuring out a way to apply something and make it actually create worth in a society. </p>
<p>“Pure” or not… The education is pretty demanding. PhD engineers are contributing to research areas just as much as the PhD physicist.</p>
<p>@UWHuskyDad: FWIW, the most valuable member of your engineering team is an engineer. All engineers are physicists. Not all physicists are engineers.</p>
<p>Physics is physics. Physicists study physics, engineering students study physics.
It’s the same. The focus is just different (exact and deep knowledge vs knowledge relevant to applications).</p>
<p>Bad engineering is inferior to good physics. Bad physics is inferior to good engineering.</p>
<p>From the perspective of humanity they’re equal, the focus is just different. But bad is bad and good is good. So whether you’re an engineer or a physicist, just focus on that you make good things and you’ll not be inferior, that’s how you make something meaningful.</p>
<p>WHO would take the time to wonder about whether one difficult major is more prestigious/superior to another difficult major?</p>
<p>Usually, I don’t attack OP questions, but this one has absolutely NO BEARING on the grand scheme of things.</p>
<p>To be honest, this feels like a ■■■■■ thread. Who comes on an engineering board and asks if engineers are inferior to another “discipline”.</p>
<p>It is superior in the sense that it is more “pure” and that physicists probably have a better grasp of the fundamentals than engineers. But pure physics has a habit of considering important “low level” details as “trivial details” and I have heard more than one physicist complain about how physics seldom deals with “stuff that happens in the REAL world.” A physicist, for example, will know the intricate details behind why atoms behave the way they do, but they still know squat about chemistry (and they will never admit that this is so).</p>
<p>Physics and engineering are like a left hand and a right hand. Both have their place and one is pretty meaningless without the other.</p>
<p>I have found that in order to do the kind of physics research I do, I need to be competent at some aspects of engineering as well. Furthermore, I would contend that it benefits an engineer to have a good grasp of physics (probably a bit more than is common in undergraduate curricula in the U.S.). As others have said, this is a red herring of a question.</p>
<p>I’m an engineering physics major. Both things are better <em>for different things.</em> Want to know how orbits work? You need physics. Want to make a spacecraft that can change orbits? That’s an engineering problem. Physics can say “apply this force in this direction” but an engineer implements that.</p>
<p>Some science PhDs have engineering BSes and vice versa.</p>
<p>
[quote]
@UWHuskyDad: FWIW, the most valuable member of your engineering team is an engineer. All engineers are physicists. Not all physicists are engineers.[\quote]</p>
<p>I very much disagree. Not all engineers are physicists in any practicable definition of the word. Many EEs and compEs work on an abstracted level and do not touch physics much. CivEs, aero, mech, chem, etc do work that involves one aspect of physics but they are often lacking the larger part of physics that is outside their domain, and all but some grad-level researchers work with abstract, plug and chug formulae rather than come to grips with the physics.</p>
<p>
[quote]
@UWHuskyDad: FWIW, the most valuable member of your engineering team is an engineer. All engineers are physicists. Not all physicists are engineers.[\quote]
^^^Sounds about right to me. I think EE’s and compEs delve even more into the fundamentals of physics considering each year microchips are getting smaller and closer to the quantum level.
““CivEs, aero, mech, chem, etc do work that involves one aspect of physics but they are often lacking the larger part of physics that is outside their domain,””
What does this even mean? On the macroscopic level, yes, they encompass pretty much every domain of physics. What is your definition of “coming to grips with physics”?</p>
<p>It was a theoretical physicist named Richard Feynman who found the engineering flaw that lead to Challenger disaster. :D</p>
<p>Let me tell you this. When it’s all said and done, most Engineers will have an easier time finding a job in the workplace than a Physics major because Engineers have applied skills to create newer and more efficient products. What can a Physics major do? Lecture about Newtonian Mechanics and the fundamental laws of the Universe? It’s common sense.</p>
<p>They are both great. I mean, without physics, engineering would be useless but we need engineering to apply what we’ve learned to our daily lives.</p>
<p>Do your friends watch that show Big Bang Theory. I work with a guy that expresses that he feels engineering is inferior to physics, not really knowing what either of them do (he thinks all engineers build skyscrapers and all physicists are genius philosophers) and he quotes that show all the time. I read another forum post one time (not here) where the guy asked pretty much verbatim, “Why is engineering inferior to physics? If you don’t believe me watch Big Bang Theory.” It seems there is a bit of misinformation/false perception going around about the two. I can’t imagine any respectable engineer or physicist ragging on the other major/discipline, they’re both important and both a intertwined.</p>
<p>If you want do engineering but also get involved with research (which isn’t uncommon), get involved with research opportunities at your school. Research is a big part of engineering, though these jobs typically go for those with a graduate degree.</p>
<p>APPLES and ORANGES people!</p>