Physicists VS Computer Scientists

<p>(1) Computer scientists are not scientists, and are just engineers with fancy names. Agree or not?</p>

<p>(2) Physicists are more contributive and important than computer scientists because physicists map the universe while computer scientists only study things about computers. Agree or not?</p>

<p>If you don’t agree with (1) and (2), please explain why.</p>

<p>Thank You For Your Opinions!</p>

<p>1) No. Computer Science and Computer Engineering are two very different things. The most dumbed down way of explaining it is that CS is closer to the inner programming side of computers while CE is closer to the hardware programming and such. My statement isn’t 100% accurate but I think you understand. </p>

<p>2) Again, I disagree. In CS you often work with physics to make sense in your programming and things alike. “Contributive” and “important” are very loose words. Computer Science is a huge part of the reason you are on the internet typing what you type. CS is also responsible for many of the programs physicists use these days, which further out understanding of the universe. CS fuels the technologies of today and the future. </p>

<p>Why are you asking these questions?</p>

<p>im hoping to be a physicist someday. still, i’ll be voting for both. without the genius comp. scientists out there, the physicists will have a hard time doing their stuff…</p>

<p>Of course computer scientists are scientists, by any definition of the word. Take the wiki definition: the broad “one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge” (most definitely true) or the more narrow “an individual who uses the scientific method” (also true). As the wiki article notes, “Scientists are also distinct from engineers, those who develop devices that serve practical purposes,” which is an important point. Yes, some CS practitioners have the goal of developing more practical devices (just like physicists, chemists, and every other scientist), but a large portion (if not the majority) don’t share that goal necessarily. CS is an extremely broad field, with subfields from the theory of computation to databases to systems to artificial intelligence. Each of these has theoretical foundations, as well as applied ones, and researchers in the field can engage in either or both. Anyone who thinks that computer scientists are just glorified engineers don’t know what CS is.</p>

<p>Some might be seeing CS as “less legitimate” than physics for this reason: physics is one of the natural sciences, which is what most people think of when they think “science,” whereas CS is one of the formal sciences, which include mathematics, logic, and statistics. The difference between the two is captured in one of Einstein’s quotes:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This applies to computer science as well. We know, provably, that some things are not computable (computability); that some processes are intractable (complexity); that parallelism is often the only solution; that X amount of information can be captured by at minimum Y data (information theory); and so on. Both physicists and computer scientists are attempting to seek truth and acquire knowledge; the former looks to the natural world (or if you’re a string theorist, your buttocks :p), the latter to the mathematical structures (broadly construed) that we already know, in many cases using computers as a platform for experimentation.</p>

<p>It’s impossible to say that one field is more important than another. But if we’re looking only at the effects on the world, physics can’t compare. Computers have changed the course of civilization forever. Physics, too, will likely have long-lasting effects, but in terms of what each field has contributed, I don’t think 400 years of physics research can match what CS has done in the past 50.</p>

<p>Of all the sciences, physics is always seen as the “most probing” for asking the most fundamental questions about the physical world, but math and all its subfields, including CS, ask even more fundamental questions, independent of the physical world. This perception of physics is very common; one computer scientist, who works in AI, told a story about an awards ceremony for the Benjamin Franklin Medal (given to scientists in all fields):</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But by the same token, everything (including your brain) is a computational process. In fact, one theory of the physical universe is that it’s one big computer, and the laws of physics are simply “necessary algorithms.” In this view, everything is a computational (even deterministic) process, and physics itself is attempting to figure out what that process is. You can look up “computational universe theory” and “mathematical universe hypothesis.”</p>

<p>It’s important to note, also, that the majority of physics today employs computational methods, and much of it uses only such methods. For example, the LHC would be useless without the enormous parallel-distributed computing that processes the data it produces; this computing is the result of decades of research in CS. So physicists owe computer scientists quite a lot.</p>

<p>IMO physicists are just mad that their research costs millions or billions of dollars whereas computer scientists can buy their equipment for $300 at Best Buy. ;)</p>

<p>I am not an expert, but I wonder whether such comparisons of contribution make much sense when the fields are in a sort of loop:</p>

<p>advances in physics help to make advances in electrical engineering possible, which help to make advances in CS possible (indirectly if not directly), which help to make advances in physics possible, …</p>

<ol>
<li><p>I don’t really know much about CS.</p></li>
<li><p>No, I would say that both are equally important, with the edge being given to the CS because we are in the information age, and practically speaking, computers are more important than “mapping the universe” and whatnot. Maybe intellectually speaking, physicists are much more important.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is true. CS and physics are intersecting in a very significant way: quantum computing. If the physics work out, it would be a boon for CS research. By the same token, physics research would be greatly enhanced by the advantages that QC offers. And research into terahertz processors, memristors, and many other devices is enabled by advances in materials science, which is enabled by research in physics and chemistry.</p>

<p>(1) Disagree.
(2) Disagree.</p>

<p>thank you, phantasmagoric. i was going to be mad and post a huge rant about quantum computing and modern information theory, but you’ve covered it beautifully already :smiley: to anyone who’s interested about the intersection of physics and computer science, seth lloyd’s “programming the universe” is a lovely intro book</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Amen. 10char</p>

<p>Agreed on the Seth Lloyd recommendation - that guy’s awesome. To me his most fascinating research (and one of the most fascinating facts ever) was a calculation of the total processing capacity of a kilogram of matter, which is not only ridiculously huge but also shows the intimate and beautiful relationship between physics and computer science.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Oops, I meant to link to this article to finish the ‘loop’ that austinareadad discussed. In short Stanford/Harvard researchers used complex computational analysis and physical/chemical data to narrow down the possible materials for organic semiconductors, shortening the research process by months or even years.</p>

<p>[Faster</a> organic semiconductors for flexible displays can be developed quickly with new method](<a href=“You’ve requested a page that no longer exists | Stanford News”>You’ve requested a page that no longer exists | Stanford News)</p>

<p>So again, CS -> physics -> materials -> CS…</p>