Why physicists are better than engineers

Well, while the answers could be pretty long and we could go on and on about every single aspect of what makes their jobs different, luckily, our friends at Quora have summed it all up for us. The main difference between the two that everyone seems to agree on is that Physicists study the universe and its laws, whilst Engineers create things using those laws as a guide.

The engineers I know use a knowledge of physics to do so, but at the end of the day, their goal is not to probe the rules by which the universe operates.

Knowledge of physics is a means to an end. Source: Charles Iliya Krempeaux. Dan Church provides an even more technical explanation on the difference between the two. More time suck is spent collecting, tabulating and otherwise reducing data to make some small point. There are journeys to conferences, and endless correspondence discussing ideas with peers. And their professional achievement for something new is to patent a new invention.

As a PhD student it was almost a competition in our lab to see who could achieve results with the most Heath-Robinson-like equipment.

By focusing on function, rather than form, niggling problems cropped up as I gave too little thought to fastening, electrical contacts, the differential expansion of materials and so on.

All these problems could have been solved overnight if only I had thought more like an engineer. Doing so would probably have let me produce more and better data in a shorter time. One reason why physicists look down on engineers is that their two disciplines are often artificially divided.

In most universities, for example, the physics and engineering departments are usually physically far apart, which is both odd and silly, as each discipline has complementary knowledge and skills.

In fact, physicists suffer more than engineers from this estrangement. Physicists in the company had argued that these junctions consumed significantly less power than the competing silicon technology of the time and, moreover, could be switched in less than 5 ns. However, the project eventually ran into the buffers because it simply proved too difficult to reliably fabricate the necessary lead-lead-oxide junctions and too expensive to cool the machine to superconducting temperatures.

Of course, the project also failed because of the ongoing improvement in silicon microelectronics. Undaunted, in the s the electronics industry turned to gallium arsenide as a possible replacement for silicon in certain applications. But standard silicon-based microelectronics has continued to get better and, two decades later, gallium arsenide has been edged out of contention even in these specialized areas.

This quite staggering improvement in performance has been brought about by engineers tweaking and tinkering with silicon on a daily basis over two decades. Another field where engineers will win the day is energy. But in trying to solve the energy crisis what do physicists do? They think big and start a decades-long project that seeks to harness the power of the Sun in a big shed. But despite the billions of dollars so far spent, not a single joule of useful electricity has been produced from such experiments.

Engineers, meanwhile, have been doing more mundane — but much more useful — things. They have increased the efficiency of generators and transmission systems, and are now poised to exploit new sources of energy such as wind, tidal and photovoltaic. To be fair, physicists have often helped with this work, but it is largely driven by engineers. More energy has probably been generated by wind turbines than by the combined man-made fusion reactions, and this will continue to be the case for a very long time.

But in terms of providing a practical route to replacing coal and nuclear power stations, it is almost irrelevant. Physicists are going to have to realize that governments and the public may ultimately feel misled by the spin that physicists are giving to fusion. In both these examples, physicists underestimated and understated the sheer size of the task and the practicalities involved. Used a computer? Drunk clean water? For all of these things and countless other reasons, you should thank an engineer for impacting your life.

While physicists learn about the world and how and why things work, an engineer takes those principles and uses them to design, build, and produce things we often take for granted.

With a myriad of career options, an engineer can fit into just about any field — aerospace, agriculture, biochemistry, computer systems, industrial, robotics, wind energy, and a host of other branches. The list of famous engineers is also impressive and includes Alexander Graham Bell, who patented the first telephone; Nikola Tesla, who contributed to the development of the modern AC electricity supply system; Emily Roebling, who led the development of the Brooklyn Bridge; and Steve Wozniak, one of the founders of Apple.

With all of these subdivisions, it makes sense that there are more than 40 different educational paths for those who aspire to become an engineer.

While each has its own specialty coursework, all of the programs require courses in math, physics, chemistry, biology, and writing.

Unlike physicists, a Ph. As with physicists, salary varies greatly, depending on your field of choice. Aside from being school-smart, it is equally as important to possess interpersonal skills to work well and effectively communicate with others. Finally, it is essential to maintain a curiosity and desire to learn for the field you are in. There is so much more to learn about the world and so much more to evolve.