[quote]Nick4 wrote:
boomerlu wrote:
I’m a physics major (so far) at Caltech.
At least here, there is a huge difference between science, math, and engineering.
Here’s how it breaks down:
Math is basically pure logic. Prove a bunch of shit, some of which may or may not be useful in the real world.
The sciences use mathematical constructs and try to prove general theories. Science is more about fundamentals, things in isolation, rather than how things work together to make our everyday world.
Engineering uses the general theories and applies them. It is very practical minded and does not care “why” something works (ie, you aren’t deriving magnetic fields from Lorentz contracting a current), as long as it works. You then try to figure out how these things work together to make technology that we use.
From what my friends tell me, this is what engineering is like:
-
You have to know math, but you don’t have to be a mathematician. IE, you should be able to take the gradient of a function and solve differential equations, but you don’t have to prove new theorems or why you’re allowed to solve things a certain way.
-
You have to know something about the sciences, but again, you don’t have to be a scientist. IE you can build a stable structure using principles of gravity and materials, but you don’t have to know where gravity comes from (which in fact, we do not at this point) or the molecular composition of a material.
-
MechE is relatively easy, EE and ChemE are bitches of majors (a lot more work). However this is school specific, so I can’t generalize that.
-
This is my own current insight (and I may actually change to CS/Applied Math):
Engineering is fun because you get to build stuff and see it work immediately. It’s also frustrating when it doesn’t work and you have no clue why.
-
It’s a lot less anal as far as correctness. If something works, by god it works, whereas in math/science very tiny logical mistakes will be your undoing.
Hope this was informative
Yike
Wow, thats way different then I’ve ever looked at that, and who are you even responding to? But maybe I’m just a dumb Mec E.
Regardless I think you missed the concept all together, an engineer is an applied scientist and an applied mathmatician.
1)Maybe not every engineer constructs mathematical proves, but some do. Fourier, for example, was an engineer and there’s much more I can referance. And you must remember… not all applied mathmaticians construct proofs, a huge portion of applied mathematics is modeling.
-
As for the idea that we are not ‘scientists’ per say is completely missguided. There are many engineers working on improving existing theory in many areas. My university (and many other Canadian universities) offer a program call Engineering physics for example; this program is a combined engineering degree with an honors physics degree. My understanding is they do mostly work at creating more rigourous models of the universive. And when it boils down to it all theorys are just models we create. On a second not I have not heard of a Material science but there is material engineering. And yes we do have to understand its chemical composition and properites (ie grain structure, atomic stacking, etc…)
-
As for you claiming MecE’s the easyiest and EE and Chem E are the hardest, I’m biased, so I wont say much. But we do a lot of the same classes. And when I was accepted to MecE, MecE required one of the higher GPA’s (as did electrical… chemical did). Not does that mean any are harder than the other… fuck no.
-
And No you Don’t generally get to build stuff right away… The design process is alot more frustrating then you think.
-
As for analness for correctness. That depends on the profs you have. I’ve had math profs let little things slide and other eng profs be sticklers for the rigorous answers. And Vise Versa.
Maybe its just cuz I’m a MecE taking the easy way out…[/quote]
Please don’t take what I’m saying about MechE the wrong way. That’s actually based on anecdotal reports from MechEs at my school. And every damn time I say something is harder or easier people assume I’m commenting on intelligence. In this case I was talking about amount of work required (and SPECIFICALLY at my school). Note those things: specific to my school, and work REQUIRED. That means the minimum required. It is entirely possible for an individual to handle much more, but this is what one takes upon him/herself.
-
To be an engineer you do not need to do proofs. That doesn’t mean you can’t. It’s just not required. If you do, in essence you are crossing over into being a mathematician. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being interdisciplinary (actually it’s a GREAT thing), but it’s still different.
-
As far as the physics/engineering program, again this is a COMBINED program. Great! But again, the point is it’s not pure. As far as Materials Science (it’s the same thing as Materials Engineering), I misspoke, I’m sorry. When you start getting down to subatomic levels it does matter. But to take what I said in a different direction: do MatSci guys need to know about particle phys or quantum chromodynamics? There’s always a certain level where the science behind things is ignored.
-
The M/E, ChemE, and EE distinction as I mentioned is probably very dependent upon the school. Also it differs VERY much from person to person based on individual talents and interests.
-
Immediate is very relative and yes I do realize how frustrating it is when things don’t work.
-
Ok, chalk that one up again to the specificity of my school. I get taken off for every little fucking thing on my math sets.
As far as distinct mindsets of disciplines I’ll explain a little more about how I came to that conclusion.
Whereas most schools have more or less the same physics and math for all majors, we split up into two tracks - analytical and practical. Analytical (anal) is meant more for phys and math majors respectively. Prac is meant more for engineers.
In anal, it’s about 70% proving stuff, 30% application. In prac it’s more like 80% application.
Again, using the example of magnetic fields, the prac class simply says that F=qv x B.
Anal says you look at a current and an electron moving with speed v. Look at these two systems in two different reference frames, one where the electron is at rest, one where the current wire is at rest. Do the Lorentz transforms and you will come out with a separate force which you then label as magnetic.
And no, the humor of analytical being anal isn’t lost on me.
