Without science you can't have engineers. Without engineers scientists can't conduct experiments. No one group is better then the other. As an engineer I can't create things without a knowledge of science and math. We are equal groups trying better human life as we understand it.
I respect every scientist and engineer. We may study different things but in reality we all work together to further human beings. Scientists and engineers study science and math. No one is better then the other. Both use the same knowledge to make us as a humanity better.
Not at all. Scientists test hypotheses, engineers apply them in a manner that is economically viable in the real world. Engineering is an applied science. Technically anyone can call themselves a scientist, as long as you are adhering to the scientific method, you are a scientist. Musk is not an engineer (and he corrects the interviewer at the beginning). Being an engineer requires an engineering degree and becoming a PROFESSIONAL engineer (PE) requires passing a state exam that is as long and difficult as the bar exam is for lawyers. If I were to present myself as a professional engineer without completing the state exam, I could go to jail for fraud much the same as lawyer would if they hadn't passed the bar exam. FYI, I am a degreed mechanical engineer who has passed the first 1/3 of the state exam but never took the last 2/3 because my career led elsewhere (it's a two part three day exam). The idea that a scientist makes discoveries is a purely romanticized image of a scientist.
Pretty vague old taught, many consider the light bulb a discovery. Engineering is not limited to budget, if you think so ask how much was invested in Hadron collider or in space exploration. Engineering is limited by reality, budget is a constraint to deal with regarding the country, company or particular situation of the researcher
Nope this is a gross misconception. Physics = Theoritical + Applied. The commercialization of applied physics is basically engineering. Even the engineers found in research arenas are inferior to the experimental physicists.
Your neighborhood friend that’s true, but studying engineer is more focused towards application theory concentrated, rather than studying physics which is deeper understanding but less concentrated in applications.
My greatest inspiration to go into engineering was my physics teacher. She saw my talent, and she always insisted that Engineering was the driving force and limiting factor behind physics and the progress of human capability. Just consider that: my physics teacher, with a PHD and a lifelong love of her subject, was adamant that engineering was of greater importance and potential. She taught me to see the wonder of her subject, but to find a home in my own.
Sometimes an Engineer's limited understanding of Physics is a limiting factor, like how the IEEE published a paper claiming special relativity was false.
I suppose the engineers design the hardware for scientists to make discoveries so that those discoveries can than be returned to the engineer and aiding in new creations, which can be given to scientists to make further discoveries.. so on and so forth. Its a nice Yin and Yang cycle, where neither are better just different.
100% percent agree. Without scientists I can't do my job. And without people that do something in my field science can't advance. Scientists and engineers have a symbiotic relationship.
It depends on your interests. If you want to further our understanding of physics and make discoveries then I'd study physics. If you want to create new things that better people's lives I'd study engineering. Both fields are hard work. For me I started as pre med but switched to mechanical engineering because that's what interested me more. Study a field you have a passion for.
"Sometimes people fear starting a company too much. Really, what’s the worst that could go wrong? You’re not gonna starve to death, you’re not gonna die of exposure-what’s the worst that could go wrong?" --Elon Mosque 2012
@42 Albert Einstein developed Special Theory of Relativity to know more about Space & Time. He never thought of GPS. Isaac Newton or Leibniz didn't work on Calculus for making world a better place, they just wanted to satisfy their own curiosity. Without James Clark Maxwell's electromagnetic theory electrical engineering would be impossible. So yeah Curiosity is a major driving force.
@Vanleer De Sade Claude Shannon called himself a mathematician! Of course, he liked building gadgets too. But, the engineers of his time spurned Shannon's theoretical work. Furthermore, his Phd was in math.
@@SaeedAcronia and you know that in mechanical engineering maths plays an important role which is basically discovered by mathematician ( scientists) Science> Engineering
Physics degree is a lot harder then any Engineering degree IMO. That's the truth weather you like it or not... But Engineering is more practical and deals with the real world applications. Remember Physics gave us Quantum Mechanics which help give us almost all the technologies we use today.
Not really. Mechanical, Chemical or Electrical are much harder than theoretical or experimental physics. Physics courses are generally shorter and are not really of any use apart from academia. Whereas an engineering degree prepares one for academia, industry and entrepreneurship.
@@dawson6196 what's hard or easy is subjective, so for some it might be easier for others it would be harder. But if you ask most college students that have taken higger level physics courses and engineering courses. Then most would probably say physics. Most students in STEM field that I've asked said physics is more challenging. Very few tutors in college were able to help me when I had few physics questions. Plenty of math, chemistry and biology tutors there... Physics can also be very boring for most (no denying that). This is just my opinion.
Why is there such dispute between engineers and hard scientists? They're both extremely important, just have different roles. Let's just agree they're both vital, and divert our hatred at the arts (especially the pseudo sciences and liberal arts)?
GT5champion Laymen have very high opinions on science, the reality is that a scientific career is soul killing, most scientists die to gtfo of academia.
Scientist discovered plenty of amazing and priceless truths from Hadron collider but it was built by engineers and this is mostly true, you have to backup your claims with experiments which mostly involves complex engineering. While building and creating things humanity learnt to ask better questions or I should say 'actual' questions and that's how scientists were born.
@@udaykadam5455 that's an absolutely wrong inference. The mathematics whilst creating the LHC is really child's play if you compare contemporary physics research.
Scientists plant a seed of opportunities in the form of concepts, methods and possibilities. Engineers take that science and make something truly marvelous in a field no one thought could be done there, and in a way unimaginable to the ordinary. And someone who is both a scientist and an engineer, is a monster.
I am a Japanese student of a physics college.I was VERY surprised to hear the name of Faraday and Maxwell from elon musk's speaking.But, the speed of his speaking is so fast that it is difficult to understand what he say everytime.For native speakers, is it easy?
From meeting Physics majors it seems a Physics student with a BA at a liberal arts college will claim that he is smarter than a Engineering major at MIT or Stanford.
I did CS and EE dual major, and I have to admit that CS was harder than EE. That's not to say EE is easy, but CS theory is much more difficult. Practical skills are learned quickly, advanced theory takes time to adapt to concepts.
@@RahulKumar-ec1ys "Liberal arts college" means something different. It doesn't mean it's an arts school. In a liberal arts education you do have a major (say, math) but perhaps half of the courses you take during your degree are in different topics from philosphy to ethics to humanities. The goal of it is to make a "well-rounded" thinker. In India, only liberla arts college I know is Ashoka.
Engineering is a particular application of science. You are still using scientific methods in any engineering process, but engineering has practical constraints (resources needed/available to complete the project). Science is not just a method, but also a body of knowledge that is continuously expanding. I'd argue that advances in science are what can make projects that are infeasible today trivial in the future.
people study physics because of passion , hobby or curiosity to find the mysteries of the universe not because of some mediocare job .its the meaning of finding out how the nature works not obsessed with money . physicist invent diode , mosfet , transistor , laser etc etc by a applying the laws of physics . its sole purpose is to find the truth not money ..here are some thought ::::about engineering vs physicist Engineers have contributed immensely to d society .everything from jet engine , rocket , satellite , software application , supercars ,trains, motor microprocessor, computer , supercomputer ,petrochemicals ,smartphones and many more and have transformed the economy n society and created many jobs , opened many big big IT companies but however 1. the nuclear fusion reactors like JET , EAST ,ITER and many more are located in physics department or are associated with plasma physicist or physics institutes ? 2. engineer build supercomputer or basically classical computer which are slow or can be outperformed by QUANTUM COMPUTER which are build by EXPERIMENTAL PHYSICIST and why 95% of quantum computer research are done in physics department laboratory like in JCI ,IQC ,CQC,YALE quantum physics department CALTECH physics dept . NUS quantum photonics department . IBM quantum computation. University of Bristol quantum computation dept and many more.some electrical engineers and computer scientist are following the trend 3. the world largest experiment are done in particle physics in LHC (27 km long )which search for higgs boson or LIGO experiment where engineers are just technicians and physicst designed and conduct the experiment and lastly electrical engineering was introduced under physics department in MIT n and many founders were physicist .
Richard Gold I study electrical engineering because that's my passion. Which is understanding electrical physics and phenomenon while learning on how to manipulate it for technological purposes. Takes more work compared to electrical physicist as we electrical engineers are in no way lesser than them in the knowledge of electromagentism and electrical physics, on quantum and/or macroscopic level. 1. Quantum computing can't be researched today if not for the already at hand advancement in computing technologies developed by electrical and computer engineers, for example is the transistor that was invented by the electrical engineer John Bardeen and its derivative types of MOSFETs. And many indirect development in building a supposed quantum computer by material engineers, chemical engineers, etc. 2. You need electrical engineers to convert ANY form of energy into electricity, same with nuclear reactors. No matter how advanced it is, the sole purpose of power plant is to generate electricity by moving a rotor in a generator to cut magnetic field causing EMF. Not only stopping in that, you need another sub discipline of electrical engineering i.e. power engineers to help transmitting the power to the masses. 3. Those "technicians" at CERN are no unintelligent welders and coolies. Maintaining a supercomplex installation such as LHC requires gifted engineers. Engineers need to know advanced level knowledge of physics for them to work with advanced scientific facilities, while scientists don't need to understand engineering knowledge such as complex designing, engineering installation, etc. But, let everyone has their job, shall we? Engineering disciplines should be administrated by Engineering department. End of discussion.
Richard Gold whoa I didn't see you put Transistor/MOSFETs as the invention of scientists. BAH, those were invented by electrical engineers and engineering communities are the group that released tons of journals regarding their development yearly. Try reading some IEEE journals.
Robby Julian Pasaribu Also, quantum computers can be researched by engineers as well. Engineers can do research and create new knowledge, rather than just applying pre existing one, as scientists could do the opposite.
Physics majors usually have to do a more advance science and math courses, which not anyone can do, it requires certain amount of intellect. Engineering math and science courses usually is less intense, but has a lot more hands on work, which everyone can do if he/she put in the effort. (At least this is what happen in my university). However job-wise engineering is far better than physics
Do you understand why engineering majors have the highest rate of dropouts? Do me a favour and apply to either mechanical or electrical engineering and we'll see
@@friendlydragon8999 yes they do. Don't you think engineers that design GPS don't apply Einstein's theory of relativity to accurately tell someone's position? The thing is engineers study the subjects in science if it's applicable for practical use, once the quantum world is fully understood by physicists and they signal that it has application potential, engineers have to study it too so that their invention works as it should be.
I think a lot of the times these terms (not the ppl in these majors) are one and the same. The main difference is what drives the individual. There are scientists who are driven by curiosity, they build experiments. And then invent/build machines to test that experiment. And then there are engineers who want to make a product that can be sold/used by the public. But to invent something, they first have to understand the science behind how something works (hence why engineering research exists, applying scientific method) and then they can invent or build something.
Elon said it right. Various types of sub-atomic particles & energies have been discovered, but there isn't much engineering solutions to harness that. Similarly, various chemical & biological molecules have been discovered that can change the course of humanity, but they are hard to engineer or produce them in an efficient manner. THE CONCLUSION IS: Scientists create potential through discoveries. While, Engineers put that idea into motion.
Surprisingly simplistic answer. To ask who is better a scientist vs an engineer is like asking who is better, a lawyer or a doctor. While there’s a lot of similarities or even crossovers between science and Engineering, the two are attempting to solve different problems.
There are experimental and theoretical physics. Elon Musk is where he is now, because a physic degree = being able to solve more or less every kind of problem
the title is poorly worded, seen as this video is comparing an engineer vs a physicist, not scientists. i know a physicist is a scientist, but so is a chemist.
Rudolf Clausius, German mathematical physicist who formulated the second law of thermodynamics and is credited with making thermodynamics a science. Not sadi carnot
@@anonymous-ul1ki en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_L%C3%A9onard_Sadi_Carnot He's termed "Father of Thermodynamics" who cares who formulated it? my aunt could do that too. Carnot discovered 2nd law of thermodynamics and he was an engineer not a physicist.
@@SaeedAcronia you are an engineer i suppose but physicist always have the upper hand infact whose videos you are watching mr elon musk he is also a physicist he have degrees in physics masters and business. He learned about rockets himself he proved that a physicist can be an engineer without a engineering degree.
@@anonymous-ul1ki lol he doesn't know about rockets. He's a businessman. The aerospace engineers do the job not Elon. There's nothing above an aerospace engineer not even a Nobel prize winner.
I think Elon is wrong about engineers driving the advancements in science. Whats happened is that physicists have gotten so far ahead they are waiting for the engineers to catch up. By catch up I mean that it is now up to the engineers to create the machines to actually test the physicist's theories. Both fields have their role to play and the physicists have there end done. Now it's up to the engineers.
There just theories and thoughts until engineers allow them to prove it and in order to design those machines they have to understand which they are building. They understand the science and can build it.
@@billjon2732 Engineers don't prove anything. They commercialize the pre-existing models of science. The verification is done by experimental physicists.
Your neighborhood friend who are engineers. Experimental physicists don’t just test their own theories they test other physicists theories including other experimental and theoretical physicists and even engineers. Without a tested theory it’s just a theory little Timmy.
Now physicists have slowed down as physicists will only pick up pace if engineers put all there theories in real form and when they counter new problem physicists will start again and will get new theories
Kinda. Mathematics is really abstract. It makes physics like engineering. At least you can imagine how chemistry, physics, and biology works in real life.
At the base of engineering, there are science and mathematics. In the early days of the history of modern science, scientists used to build their own instruments. Engineering wasn't there as a professional trade. Engineering evolved as a professional trade to meet the demand of society to bring scientific discoveries and inventions to the benefit of the masses. Science is an art that generates prototypical solutions to existing problems. Engineering is the trade of manufacturing those solutions on an industrial scale. Honestly, there is no comparison between these two.
The first question I got asked when I entered the engineering college at uni was "are engineers scientists?" and honestly no one answered and I wasn't sure. The truth is we both use the scientific method, which makes us scientists. It's what we're trying to figure out that makes us different. Engineers focus on the "real" world problems and finding solutions while pure scientists focus on increasing the toolsets and knowledge that can be used. If Madam Curie only discovered the radiocative elements but no one figured out how to build machines to concentrate them from raw ore and built reactors (and bombs, radiology medical equipment, ect.) what purpose would they have served mankind other than raw knowledge? But, oddly enough, we discovered more radioactive nuclides due to nuclear reactors that couldn't have been easily created in a pure lab setting. A prime example is that I'm a chemical engineer. The chemicals most chemical plants make by chemists standards are often extremely simple chemically. But, to make them in useful and profitable and pure enough amounts are actually extremely hard. But as chemists can determine new chemical makeups we can change and improve our processes to make their discoveries in quantities they'd never be able to in a lab.
@@TheNuclearGeek Actually engineer do not do that , applied scientist/inventors found different application, engineers just innovate that application on every few years
@@yashJoshi-hn6bf I think that's an overly limited view of engineers and what we do and honestly I think those kinds of clear cut divisions in who does what doesn't really exist as much as people think it does. The fields blend together and overlap much more than people seem to think IMO.
@@TheNuclearGeek Yeah, there are people who are both engineers & inventors like tesla & edison , people like these exist today too but if we go by the profession inventors/applied scientist are meant to invent while engineers are meant to innovate.
The word "science" is Latin for knowledge so there's your answer there. Science is the art of knowledge. Science is not just used by engineers, it is used by doctors, pharamists, nutritionists, psychologists, politicians ect.... It's just our was as humans of understanding the world. Engineering uses the understanding of the science (knowledge) to create product.
I would say engineers are more important because science is quite useless unless you can apply it to something useful. The whole reason why companies will even hire scientists nowadays to do research, is is to take that science, engineer something out of it and make MONEY.
No one can be judged. Elon said Maxwell are u serious? He was purely mathematical physicist and u r saying him engineer that's surprising. I think he is appreciating more to engineers bcoz they work in his company otherwise there is no obvious reason for comparison.
True. If he is saying that we need engineers for building colliders. He should know that those colliders can be only made by existing physics knowledge not Engineering
The motives are different. I believe a good engineer and scientist share a lot in common. The difference lies in what leads an engineer to scientific research and what leads a scientist to engineering application. An engineer's application of knowledge often leads to the need for scientific research [trying to improve a process or technology]. A scientist's research often requires test to prove out the research, some times new/novel, this will require engineering skills in order to generate a test plan and test set to conduct the test. Personally as an engineering, I feel I glide in between what you would call a scientist or engineer and I would never disparage either discipline.
engineer are practical scientist point to the line, its a mutual enrichment situation science power engineering , engineering allow science to move step further and the cycle goes on and on
I think both engineers and scientists are needed to the advancement of our knowledge and experience, because scientists have the time to think critically about the principles and descriptions of reality which are used creatively by engineers to design products that would transform our experience in a better way ( from learning to relaxing ) , and I think the advantages that engineers have are to try new things which may or may not work out which may helps us discover a refreshing approach to our scientific principles.
Engineering is to Physics as Physics is to math, and that's being generous. Also: Almost all words can be encoded in mathematical formalism. You could say that life is then really just shoddy theoretical physics as we attempt to solve excruciatingly complex systems.
This is like asking, whats better. The appetizer or the leftovers. Physics shows use the answers the universe provides and thinking up ideas to better society. Engineering is like mass producing what physics has designed. I think scientists are more important than engineers. It is kinda of like quality vs quantity.
This question is like an entanglement they are both the same with different spectrums. . An engineer is a scientist albeit a practical scientist with less theory whilst the other is a theoretical scientist with less practical . It's stupid trying to categorize which is greater . They are the same but in differing spectrums.
Which is better to create water, oxygen or hydrogen? the two must be complemented, neither is better than the other. As an engineer, I cannot do what I do without what the scientists have left us.
As an experienced renewable energy engineer, science and scientific discovery has helped engineering to create technology and visa versa. However, engineering will always solve the 'can we do it? problem...prototype, prototype, prototype...test. Then test again...solution
I’m from the U.K. and in year 9 I’m struggling with my options and what to take I’m going to take history and buissness but can’t decide between design technology and engineering and is computer science worth it ?!
that also is an orthodox point of view as you are not considering the possibility of discovery with application or the need to discover during application, also the possibility that an engineer will learn physics exponentially beyond what is necessary as engineers are by curious to find out how things work not just from a device point of point but as from physics, but a from a theoretical point your are right
I'd say both , both feed off of each other ,(they have this back and forth , pull push relationship, at this point i'd even say without scientists , there wouldn't be engineering and without engineering there wouldn't be science as we know it today) , an advancement in either one of these fields improves the other.
Scientist makes a equation of a invention, Engineers invents machines or technologies using those equations. Scientist are ways and Engineers are final step to technology. Smart person will get, what I am saying. :)
Engineers who discover should be called scientist bcoz its scientist job to discover and engineers job to invent or build......one who discovers something is scientist (Galileo as elon said) despite being engineer. So scientist dont invent as when they do they are called engineers vice versa. So we can't compare them both are best 👍🏻
My opinion as an Engineer, both the physicist/scientist and engineers play an important role in the world. Engineers apply the knowledge and physics to create new technologies and to solve problems. Without engineers we wouldn't have our smart phones or machines to dig out hug amount earth to create tunnels.
When people say " scientist " the mind always go to pure sciences , don't forget that "applied scientists" are almost equivalent with engineers .. The only difference is the mindset and drive towards work ,scientists prefer to discover than to create & engineers prefer to create than to discover
Try to figure out for yourself what job would give YOU the most job satisfication and how likely it is that you will get that particular job when you have the necessary degree.
Engineers aren't the only ones responsible for designing better colliders and accelerators. Accelerator Physicists play a big role, and given that most particles reach relativistic speeds and are controlled using electric and magnetic fields, understanding of Physics become very important. One of the latest advancements in particle accelerators come from the use of plasma, which is studied mostly by physicists (and some electrical engineers).
Okay but u all know the ultimate counter argument from physicist to engineer: WE ARE DOING HARD MATH, BITCH! (Just messing around, don't take it too serious:) I am a physicist and my brother is an engineer. It really does seem that physicist do a bit of harder stuff at university but engineering is such a visionary major)
back in the day , the divisions where vague people did a lot of work on many topics, its just times have changed and we need people with fine tuned skills! But he is right about the development in terms of technology, engineers have taken science to new heights and people can truly enjoy science today because of all these new creations !
I choose physics. I respect engineers building softwares, machines etc but scientists doing RESEARCH at large hadron collider CERN particle accelerators & quantum physics can harness infinite energy & NEW KNOWLEDGE. I’m studying geology but I wish God blessed me with physics.
It's a push - pull loop. Elon points out, engineering does more of the pushing/pulling. Sort of like wood is to science as wood products is to engineering. you can have wood products without wood. But wood also is used to build the mills, etc. used to process and harvest the wood. Not the best example, but first one to come to mind.
I think he's got it backwards regarding the collider. If the physicists weren't interested in having a collider for experiments, then the engineers never would have bothered working to create it. The two are complementary sides of the same coin.
Physicist discover space these days most of won’t be able to know all the stuff Whereas An engineer will work and make a lot of money, gather a team work on a super smart A.I Software and beat most physicist who got nothing to do without a phd
Without Science, Engineering is nothing, without engineering, Science is kinda limited, both feed each other, though, Science is pretty much the starting point to all of it. I still like both and wanna become both engineer and a physicist.
his main evidence being the atomic colliders is kinda stupid when you think about how the people who engineered it arent just everyday engineers, but some of the best physicists in the field to understand how to build it. its a big difference between the everyday engineer and the people who make those
JD but he also said people like Faraday, Maxwell, and Galileo were great engineers as well. Given that those people are among the most famous physicists in the world, there is some merit to what Elon is saying
Both are important in running the complete engine; Engineers provide the explosion and scientists provide the fuel; NO EXPLOSION- you are a sitting duck NO FUEL - forget everything !
good points but i think he was talking about the development of products not discovering quantum mechanics. and i agree but i guess I'm the only one that feels engineers should expand there grasp on physics which i intend to do and yes I'm going to school for engineering and i was thinking about Tesla and his work with theoretical physics
I believe, engineering is a part of science. Like History, geography, psychology, physics, chemistry, maths etc all are science. So comparing physics and engineering is like comparing Hand and its work.
Science is about figuring out how things work and engineering is about building things. You cannot figure out how things work without building things, and you cannot build things without knowing how they work. Science and engineering are dependent of each other.
if you don't have someone first creating theories then you have no theory to apply to the real world!!! That's like a surgeon operating on your heart without an understanding of how the heart works.
Guy : what's better sciencitist or engineers?
Elon: Engineers
Every engineering student : smiles(:
Lol me
@Carlos Sendra 😂😂lol
@Carlos Sendra in my country if u don't fix any home appliances ur not engineer😂
@@shamkumar3420 then your from india 😂
🙋♀️🙋♀️🙋♀️
Without science you can't have engineers. Without engineers scientists can't conduct experiments. No one group is better then the other. As an engineer I can't create things without a knowledge of science and math. We are equal groups trying better human life as we understand it.
And also there are engineers that are scientist and scientist that are engineers, there is no definite limit between the two
I agree man. As an engineer I use science daily. And I know scientists have to use engineering daily. The two groups work together.
I respect every scientist and engineer. We may study different things but in reality we all work together to further human beings. Scientists and engineers study science and math. No one is better then the other. Both use the same knowledge to make us as a humanity better.
There were engineers before scientists. For example wooden stick and wheel were not invented using any science :-D
Perfect. That's the idea. Totally agree.
engineer invents ,scientist discovers . let's leave it to that :)
Sometimes, both scientists and engineers do both
Engineers can discover too, actually most of the engineers are in research than in invention.
Absoulutely right.
Not at all. Scientists test hypotheses, engineers apply them in a manner that is economically viable in the real world. Engineering is an applied science. Technically anyone can call themselves a scientist, as long as you are adhering to the scientific method, you are a scientist. Musk is not an engineer (and he corrects the interviewer at the beginning). Being an engineer requires an engineering degree and becoming a PROFESSIONAL engineer (PE) requires passing a state exam that is as long and difficult as the bar exam is for lawyers. If I were to present myself as a professional engineer without completing the state exam, I could go to jail for fraud much the same as lawyer would if they hadn't passed the bar exam. FYI, I am a degreed mechanical engineer who has passed the first 1/3 of the state exam but never took the last 2/3 because my career led elsewhere (it's a two part three day exam). The idea that a scientist makes discoveries is a purely romanticized image of a scientist.
Pretty vague old taught, many consider the light bulb a discovery. Engineering is not limited to budget, if you think so ask how much was invested in Hadron collider or in space exploration. Engineering is limited by reality, budget is a constraint to deal with regarding the country, company or particular situation of the researcher
Sheldon Cooper wants to know ur location
😂😂😂😂😂😂
🤣
True
I was about to say that
fictional kid?
Me: Laughs in engineering physics
This is like a crossover episode.
Lmao same!
Lmao🤣🤣
@Nihareeka application of basics physics law to modern technology
@Nihareeka you can do aerodynamics
The notable difference is that "Physics is pure science and Engineering is applied science"..
No physics isn't only theoretical
Nope this is a gross misconception. Physics = Theoritical + Applied. The commercialization of applied physics is basically engineering.
Even the engineers found in research arenas are inferior to the experimental physicists.
Your neighborhood friend that’s true, but studying engineer is more focused towards application theory concentrated, rather than studying physics which is deeper understanding but less concentrated in applications.
Engineering Develop that science.
And Social Science is just pseudoscience.
Scientific discoveries are the fundamentals that makes engineering appliable
My greatest inspiration to go into engineering was my physics teacher. She saw my talent, and she always insisted that Engineering was the driving force and limiting factor behind physics and the progress of human capability.
Just consider that: my physics teacher, with a PHD and a lifelong love of her subject, was adamant that engineering was of greater importance and potential.
She taught me to see the wonder of her subject, but to find a home in my own.
What engeneering did you study?
@@ericamargant8746 Aerospace
@Sonic Hedgehog What's wrong with my Physics teacher being a woman?
Sometimes an Engineer's limited understanding of Physics is a limiting factor, like how the IEEE published a paper claiming special relativity was false.
I suppose the engineers design the hardware for scientists to make discoveries so that those discoveries can than be returned to the engineer and aiding in new creations, which can be given to scientists to make further discoveries.. so on and so forth. Its a nice Yin and Yang cycle, where neither are better just different.
interesting
100% percent agree. Without scientists I can't do my job. And without people that do something in my field science can't advance. Scientists and engineers have a symbiotic relationship.
Tyler Dunigan I can't decide whether I want to study physics or engineering physics. Can you give me some insight please?
It depends on your interests. If you want to further our understanding of physics and make discoveries then I'd study physics. If you want to create new things that better people's lives I'd study engineering. Both fields are hard work. For me I started as pre med but switched to mechanical engineering because that's what interested me more. Study a field you have a passion for.
Tyler Dunigan I might do engineering physics, which is a mix. As I want to do both, make discoveries in physics and make technological advancements
"Sometimes people fear starting a company too much. Really, what’s the worst that could go wrong? You’re not gonna starve to death, you’re not gonna die of exposure-what’s the worst that could go wrong?"
--Elon Mosque 2012
I have to disagree. Scientists do the fundamental research that engineers then later apply. The driving factor is the scientist's curiosity.
Did you know Saadi Carnot who pioneered Thermodynamics was a mechanical engineer?! That refutes your theory right there.
@42 Albert Einstein developed Special Theory of Relativity to know more about Space & Time. He never thought of GPS. Isaac Newton or Leibniz didn't work on Calculus for making world a better place, they just wanted to satisfy their own curiosity. Without James Clark Maxwell's electromagnetic theory electrical engineering would be impossible.
So yeah Curiosity is a major driving force.
@@karanpillai5690 true
@Vanleer De Sade Claude Shannon called himself a mathematician! Of course, he liked building gadgets too. But, the engineers of his time spurned Shannon's theoretical work. Furthermore, his Phd was in math.
@@SaeedAcronia and you know that in mechanical engineering maths plays an important role which is basically discovered by mathematician ( scientists)
Science> Engineering
Physics degree is a lot harder then any Engineering degree IMO. That's the truth weather you like it or not... But Engineering is more practical and deals with the real world applications. Remember Physics gave us Quantum Mechanics which help give us almost all the technologies we use today.
Not really.
Mechanical, Chemical or Electrical are much harder than theoretical or experimental physics.
Physics courses are generally shorter and are not really of any use apart from academia.
Whereas an engineering degree prepares one for academia, industry and entrepreneurship.
@@dawson6196 what's hard or easy is subjective, so for some it might be easier for others it would be harder. But if you ask most college students that have taken higger level physics courses and engineering courses. Then most would probably say physics. Most students in STEM field that I've asked said physics is more challenging. Very few tutors in college were able to help me when I had few physics questions. Plenty of math, chemistry and biology tutors there... Physics can also be very boring for most (no denying that). This is just my opinion.
@@tyrellwilson9334 these normies will not understand that both physics and engineering are important
@@dawson6196 Bruh physicist have to develop their own mathematics for their discoveries
Why is there such dispute between engineers and hard scientists? They're both extremely important, just have different roles. Let's just agree they're both vital, and divert our hatred at the arts (especially the pseudo sciences and liberal arts)?
+GT5champion fuck psychology!! lol
+Professor Moodz Gender Studies.
Why did you put "hard scientists" are they all on viagra?
GT5champion Laymen have very high opinions on science, the reality is that a scientific career is soul killing, most scientists die to gtfo of academia.
Why hate the arts? I like music and animation. What is wrong with that? Because it is not objective? Neither is love.
Isn't a engineer just a person who takes a scientist's work, and puts it into practical production?
Not that simple, put theoretical knowledge in pratic is a very complex thing to do!
@Vaas Gaming.Inc "It will be done one day", actually maybe not...
Not always
Scientist discovered plenty of amazing and priceless truths from Hadron collider but it was built by engineers and this is mostly true, you have to backup your claims with experiments which mostly involves complex engineering.
While building and creating things humanity learnt to ask better questions or I should say 'actual' questions and that's how scientists were born.
@@udaykadam5455 that's an absolutely wrong inference. The mathematics whilst creating the LHC is really child's play if you compare contemporary physics research.
engineering is applied science
It is not
Scientists plant a seed of opportunities in the form of concepts, methods and possibilities. Engineers take that science and make something truly marvelous in a field no one thought could be done there, and in a way unimaginable to the ordinary.
And someone who is both a scientist and an engineer, is a monster.
Engineer don't do that, inventors do
I am a Japanese student of a physics college.I was VERY surprised to hear the name of Faraday and Maxwell from elon musk's speaking.But, the speed of his speaking is so fast that it is difficult to understand what he say everytime.For native speakers, is it easy?
He was saying some of the greatest scientists were also engineers - such as Maxwell, Faraday and Galileo.
I am not a native english speaker, but he is quite easy to understand.
turn on the subs guy
I'm not a native speaker and it's easy to understand him. His talking speed is average...
For future readers, it isn’t the speed. It is the accent. He doesn’t enunciate certain vowels making it difficult to make out what he is saying.
From meeting Physics majors it seems a Physics student with a BA at a liberal arts college will claim that he is smarter than a Engineering major at MIT or Stanford.
I did CS and EE dual major, and I have to admit that CS was harder than EE. That's not to say EE is easy, but CS theory is much more difficult. Practical skills are learned quickly, advanced theory takes time to adapt to concepts.
Bhai ye India nhi hain jo arts college bol that🤣 hai
@@RahulKumar-ec1ys "Liberal arts college" means something different. It doesn't mean it's an arts school.
In a liberal arts education you do have a major (say, math) but perhaps half of the courses you take during your degree are in different topics from philosphy to ethics to humanities. The goal of it is to make a "well-rounded" thinker. In India, only liberla arts college I know is Ashoka.
Engineering is a particular application of science. You are still using scientific methods in any engineering process, but engineering has practical constraints (resources needed/available to complete the project). Science is not just a method, but also a body of knowledge that is continuously expanding. I'd argue that advances in science are what can make projects that are infeasible today trivial in the future.
people study physics because of passion , hobby or curiosity to find the mysteries of the universe not because of some mediocare job .its the meaning of finding out how the nature works not obsessed with money . physicist invent diode , mosfet , transistor , laser etc etc by a applying the laws of physics . its sole purpose is to find the truth not money ..here are some thought ::::about engineering vs physicist
Engineers have contributed immensely to d society .everything from jet engine , rocket , satellite , software application , supercars ,trains, motor microprocessor, computer , supercomputer ,petrochemicals ,smartphones and many more and have transformed the economy n society and created many jobs , opened many big big IT companies but however
1. the nuclear fusion reactors like JET , EAST ,ITER and many more are located in physics department or are associated with plasma physicist or physics institutes ?
2. engineer build supercomputer or basically classical computer which are slow or can be outperformed by QUANTUM COMPUTER which are build by EXPERIMENTAL PHYSICIST and why 95% of quantum computer research are done in physics department laboratory like in JCI ,IQC ,CQC,YALE quantum physics department CALTECH physics dept . NUS quantum photonics department . IBM quantum computation. University of Bristol quantum computation dept and many more.some electrical engineers and computer scientist are following the trend
3. the world largest experiment are done in particle physics in LHC (27 km long )which search for higgs boson or LIGO experiment where engineers are just technicians and physicst designed and conduct the experiment
and lastly electrical engineering was introduced under physics department in MIT n and many founders were physicist .
Richard Gold I study electrical engineering because that's my passion. Which is understanding electrical physics and phenomenon while learning on how to manipulate it for technological purposes. Takes more work compared to electrical physicist as we electrical engineers are in no way lesser than them in the knowledge of electromagentism and electrical physics, on quantum and/or macroscopic level.
1. Quantum computing can't be researched today if not for the already at hand advancement in computing technologies developed by electrical and computer engineers, for example is the transistor that was invented by the electrical engineer John Bardeen and its derivative types of MOSFETs. And many indirect development in building a supposed quantum computer by material engineers, chemical engineers, etc.
2. You need electrical engineers to convert ANY form of energy into electricity, same with nuclear reactors. No matter how advanced it is, the sole purpose of power plant is to generate electricity by moving a rotor in a generator to cut magnetic field causing EMF. Not only stopping in that, you need another sub discipline of electrical engineering i.e. power engineers to help transmitting the power to the masses.
3. Those "technicians" at CERN are no unintelligent welders and coolies. Maintaining a supercomplex installation such as LHC requires gifted engineers. Engineers need to know advanced level knowledge of physics for them to work with advanced scientific facilities, while scientists don't need to understand engineering knowledge such as complex designing, engineering installation, etc. But, let everyone has their job, shall we?
Engineering disciplines should be administrated by Engineering department. End of discussion.
Richard Gold whoa I didn't see you put Transistor/MOSFETs as the invention of scientists. BAH, those were invented by electrical engineers and engineering communities are the group that released tons of journals regarding their development yearly. Try reading some IEEE journals.
Robby Julian Pasaribu Also, quantum computers can be researched by engineers as well. Engineers can do research and create new knowledge, rather than just applying pre existing one, as scientists could do the opposite.
Copy and paste 🤦🏾♂️
you did great by telling truth...
Physics majors usually have to do a more advance science and math courses, which not anyone can do, it requires certain amount of intellect. Engineering math and science courses usually is less intense, but has a lot more hands on work, which everyone can do if he/she put in the effort. (At least this is what happen in my university). However job-wise engineering is far better than physics
I wouldn't have said it better
Do you understand why engineering majors have the highest rate of dropouts? Do me a favour and apply to either mechanical or electrical engineering and we'll see
@Rich 91 Pure math ? Elitist detected
@@robbyjulian311 but do engineers study general theory of relativity or string theory?those are the hard subject.
@@friendlydragon8999 yes they do. Don't you think engineers that design GPS don't apply Einstein's theory of relativity to accurately tell someone's position? The thing is engineers study the subjects in science if it's applicable for practical use, once the quantum world is fully understood by physicists and they signal that it has application potential, engineers have to study it too so that their invention works as it should be.
Albert Einstein wants to know your location as a ghost.
😂😂👍😅
I think a lot of the times these terms (not the ppl in these majors) are one and the same. The main difference is what drives the individual.
There are scientists who are driven by curiosity, they build experiments. And then invent/build machines to test that experiment.
And then there are engineers who want to make a product that can be sold/used by the public. But to invent something, they first have to understand the science behind how something works (hence why engineering research exists, applying scientific method) and then they can invent or build something.
It's the Scientists whose theories are used in Engineering to make an Engineer.
And an Engineer for Scientist to conduct experiment and move forward. It’s an never ending loop.
@@w1z4rd9 not if you are a theoritical one remember dirac proposed the existence positron by pure math
@@plutoniumisotope205 I’m talking from societal standpoint here.
@@w1z4rd9 society is dumb
@@w1z4rd9 bruh why would engineer have to do anything with scientist, engineers don't even invent anything
Elon said it right. Various types of sub-atomic particles & energies have been discovered, but there isn't much engineering solutions to harness that. Similarly, various chemical & biological molecules have been discovered that can change the course of humanity, but they are hard to engineer or produce them in an efficient manner.
THE CONCLUSION IS: Scientists create potential through discoveries. While, Engineers put that idea into motion.
Howard wolowitz: "yeah thats right"
Sheldon,leonard: "We're not friends anymore"
Surprisingly simplistic answer. To ask who is better a scientist vs an engineer is like asking who is better, a lawyer or a doctor.
While there’s a lot of similarities or even crossovers between science and Engineering, the two are attempting to solve different problems.
There are experimental and theoretical physics.
Elon Musk is where he is now, because a physic degree = being able to solve more or less every kind of problem
No
the title is poorly worded, seen as this video is comparing an engineer vs a physicist, not scientists. i know a physicist is a scientist, but so is a chemist.
I am a Conservation Biologists, all my knowledge that I create goes towards politicians designing policy not engineering.
Saadi Carnot, the pioneer of Thermodynamics (a huge branch of science), was a mechanical engineer.
Rudolf Clausius, German mathematical physicist who formulated the second law of thermodynamics and is credited with making thermodynamics a science. Not sadi carnot
@@anonymous-ul1ki en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_L%C3%A9onard_Sadi_Carnot
He's termed "Father of Thermodynamics" who cares who formulated it? my aunt could do that too. Carnot discovered 2nd law of thermodynamics and he was an engineer not a physicist.
@@SaeedAcronia you are an engineer i suppose but physicist always have the upper hand infact whose videos you are watching mr elon musk he is also a physicist he have degrees in physics masters and business. He learned about rockets himself he proved that a physicist can be an engineer without a engineering degree.
@@anonymous-ul1ki lol he doesn't know about rockets. He's a businessman. The aerospace engineers do the job not Elon. There's nothing above an aerospace engineer not even a Nobel prize winner.
I think Elon is wrong about engineers driving the advancements in science. Whats happened is that physicists have gotten so far ahead they are waiting for the engineers to catch up. By catch up I mean that it is now up to the engineers to create the machines to actually test the physicist's theories. Both fields have their role to play and the physicists have there end done. Now it's up to the engineers.
There just theories and thoughts until engineers allow them to prove it and in order to design those machines they have to understand which they are building. They understand the science and can build it.
@@billjon2732 Engineers don't prove anything. They commercialize the pre-existing models of science. The verification is done by experimental physicists.
Your neighborhood friend who are engineers. Experimental physicists don’t just test their own theories they test other physicists theories including other experimental and theoretical physicists and even engineers. Without a tested theory it’s just a theory little Timmy.
Now physicists have slowed down as physicists will only pick up pace if engineers put all there theories in real form and when they counter new problem physicists will start again and will get new theories
@@billjon2732 Inventors help them not engineers
isn't physics to mathematics what engineering is to physics?
+Ouwen C. yep
no
fight me bro
+SwedishVideos engineering is the application of physics and mathematics to provide a solution, product or service
Kinda. Mathematics is really abstract. It makes physics like engineering. At least you can imagine how chemistry, physics, and biology works in real life.
At the base of engineering, there are science and mathematics. In the early days of the history of modern science, scientists used to build their own instruments. Engineering wasn't there as a professional trade. Engineering evolved as a professional trade to meet the demand of society to bring scientific discoveries and inventions to the benefit of the masses. Science is an art that generates prototypical solutions to existing problems. Engineering is the trade of manufacturing those solutions on an industrial scale. Honestly, there is no comparison between these two.
The fundamental laws of physics is the key to engineering and innovation
The first question I got asked when I entered the engineering college at uni was "are engineers scientists?" and honestly no one answered and I wasn't sure. The truth is we both use the scientific method, which makes us scientists. It's what we're trying to figure out that makes us different. Engineers focus on the "real" world problems and finding solutions while pure scientists focus on increasing the toolsets and knowledge that can be used.
If Madam Curie only discovered the radiocative elements but no one figured out how to build machines to concentrate them from raw ore and built reactors (and bombs, radiology medical equipment, ect.) what purpose would they have served mankind other than raw knowledge? But, oddly enough, we discovered more radioactive nuclides due to nuclear reactors that couldn't have been easily created in a pure lab setting.
A prime example is that I'm a chemical engineer. The chemicals most chemical plants make by chemists standards are often extremely simple chemically. But, to make them in useful and profitable and pure enough amounts are actually extremely hard. But as chemists can determine new chemical makeups we can change and improve our processes to make their discoveries in quantities they'd never be able to in a lab.
😅 Engineers are simply glorified administrators😂
@@lusakomwakalenga Next time I'm working on the piping integrity for the reactor, I'll remember that.
@@TheNuclearGeek Actually engineer do not do that , applied scientist/inventors found different application, engineers just innovate that application on every few years
@@yashJoshi-hn6bf I think that's an overly limited view of engineers and what we do and honestly I think those kinds of clear cut divisions in who does what doesn't really exist as much as people think it does. The fields blend together and overlap much more than people seem to think IMO.
@@TheNuclearGeek Yeah, there are people who are both engineers & inventors like tesla & edison , people like these exist today too but if we go by the profession inventors/applied scientist are meant to invent while engineers are meant to innovate.
The word "science" is Latin for knowledge so there's your answer there.
Science is the art of knowledge.
Science is not just used by engineers, it is used by doctors, pharamists, nutritionists, psychologists, politicians ect....
It's just our was as humans of understanding the world.
Engineering uses the understanding of the science (knowledge) to create product.
I would say engineers are more important because science is quite useless unless you can apply it to something useful. The whole reason why companies will even hire scientists nowadays to do research, is is to take that science, engineer something out of it and make MONEY.
No one can be judged. Elon said Maxwell are u serious? He was purely mathematical physicist and u r saying him engineer that's surprising. I think he is appreciating more to engineers bcoz they work in his company otherwise there is no obvious reason for comparison.
True. If he is saying that we need engineers for building colliders. He should know that those colliders can be only made by existing physics knowledge not Engineering
Engineering is the practical application of physics. One hand washes the other.
Yeah it's just a application, it is not science
The motives are different. I believe a good engineer and scientist share a lot in common. The difference lies in what leads an engineer to scientific research and what leads a scientist to engineering application. An engineer's application of knowledge often leads to the need for scientific research [trying to improve a process or technology]. A scientist's research often requires test to prove out the research, some times new/novel, this will require engineering skills in order to generate a test plan and test set to conduct the test. Personally as an engineering, I feel I glide in between what you would call a scientist or engineer and I would never disparage either discipline.
Both are complementary to each other
engineer are practical scientist point to the line, its a mutual enrichment situation science power engineering , engineering allow science to move step further and the cycle goes on and on
I think both engineers and scientists are needed to the advancement of our knowledge and experience, because scientists have the time to think critically about the principles and descriptions of reality which are used creatively by engineers to design products that would transform our experience in a better way ( from learning to relaxing ) , and I think the advantages that engineers have are to try new things which may or may not work out which may helps us discover a refreshing approach to our scientific principles.
What does Todd say at 0:21 ? In phisis ?
Engineering is to Physics as Physics is to math, and that's being generous.
Also: Almost all words can be encoded in mathematical formalism. You could say that life is then really just shoddy theoretical physics as we attempt to solve excruciatingly complex systems.
No they are way different, physics is fundamental understanding of nature while engineering is just one of few uses of physics
0:33 Look how he nods after he mentions Galileo. It's like a queue to the listener to agree. There's something going on there
This is like asking, whats better. The appetizer or the leftovers. Physics shows use the answers the universe provides and thinking up ideas to better society. Engineering is like mass producing what physics has designed. I think scientists are more important than engineers. It is kinda of like quality vs quantity.
@@samuelberhie6350 practical knowledge can also be performed by engineers
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING IS A FRIEND OF KNOWLEDGE
How is working 'making callings'. Is difference of model cellphone? Or its sattelite
Engineering is a science . mech. Eng. Is a physics based also the civil . So they are all science so we may call it also a scientist
but he studied physics lol
Sadly it's really rare to see unbiased people like him.
Perry what are you studying?
Unbiased? Lol.
#spottheengineeringmajor
I'm not studying either. I called him unbiased because he chose engineering despite his physics backround.
This question is like an entanglement they are both the same with different spectrums. .
An engineer is a scientist albeit a practical scientist with less theory whilst the other is a theoretical scientist with less practical . It's stupid trying to categorize which is greater . They are the same but in differing spectrums.
Which is better to create water, oxygen or hydrogen? the two must be complemented, neither is better than the other.
As an engineer, I cannot do what I do without what the scientists have left us.
As an experienced renewable energy engineer, science and scientific discovery has helped engineering to create technology and visa versa.
However, engineering will always solve the 'can we do it? problem...prototype, prototype, prototype...test. Then test again...solution
I’m from the U.K. and in year 9 I’m struggling with my options and what to take I’m going to take history and buissness but can’t decide between design technology and engineering and is computer science worth it ?!
that also is an orthodox point of view as you are not considering the possibility of discovery with application or the need to discover during application, also the possibility that an engineer will learn physics exponentially beyond what is necessary as engineers are by curious to find out how things work not just from a device point of point but as from physics, but a from a theoretical point your are right
An engineer is a scientist. Or to put it more accurately, an engineer is a type of scientist.
No
I'd say both , both feed off of each other ,(they have this back and forth , pull push relationship, at this point i'd even say without scientists , there wouldn't be engineering and without engineering there wouldn't be science as we know it today) , an advancement in either one of these fields improves the other.
Engineers make money. Scientists don't
Come to india then..
Here no one makes money..
Bro its so amazing to see where he is now
Both are needed for each other :)
I’m an engineer, but scientists are very important as well.
both are amazing (I'm a structural engineer myself).
Yeah, both are amazing, which one is better for oneself totally depends on his taste.
Scientist makes a equation of a invention, Engineers invents machines or technologies using those equations.
Scientist are ways and Engineers are final step to technology.
Smart person will get, what I am saying. :)
You know, I respect SCIENCE and Technology . But also I give a piece of really and very respect in Engineering and innovation
...along with the LHC, the Hubble and upcoming James Webb Telescopes are examples of how engineering drives science.
Engineers who discover should be called scientist bcoz its scientist job to discover and engineers job to invent or build......one who discovers something is scientist (Galileo as elon said) despite being engineer.
So scientist dont invent as when they do they are called engineers vice versa.
So we can't compare them both are best 👍🏻
The irony of the video tho Elon him self is a physicist and says that engineering is best and it make us engineering students way more happy
Elon musk is an engineer. A physical engineer, but still an engineer.
Scientists discover and create theories and do some applications, and Engineers Do applications and sometimes discover and create theories.
My opinion as an Engineer, both the physicist/scientist and engineers play an important role in the world. Engineers apply the knowledge and physics to create new technologies and to solve problems. Without engineers we wouldn't have our smart phones or machines to dig out hug amount earth to create tunnels.
Engineer do not create technology, applied scientist/inventors do
When people say " scientist " the mind always go to pure sciences , don't forget that "applied scientists" are almost equivalent with engineers ..
The only difference is the mindset and drive towards work ,scientists prefer to discover than to create & engineers prefer to create than to discover
If you love chemistry : Scientist
Else Physics : Engineer
What?
There are chemical engineers who are engineers and there are physicists who are scientists
@@vgdfgvv4381 I mean to say that if you are interested more than other subjects 😇
@@saifmir555 a physicist is a scientist
Try to figure out for yourself what job would give YOU the most job satisfication and how likely it is that you will get that particular job when you have the necessary degree.
Engineers aren't the only ones responsible for designing better colliders and accelerators. Accelerator Physicists play a big role, and given that most particles reach relativistic speeds and are controlled using electric and magnetic fields, understanding of Physics become very important. One of the latest advancements in particle accelerators come from the use of plasma, which is studied mostly by physicists (and some electrical engineers).
Solid state physics and by extension solid state chemistry are also both very closely related to engineering and materials science
Okay but u all know the ultimate counter argument from physicist to engineer: WE ARE DOING HARD MATH, BITCH! (Just messing around, don't take it too serious:) I am a physicist and my brother is an engineer. It really does seem that physicist do a bit of harder stuff at university but engineering is such a visionary major)
back in the day , the divisions where vague people did a lot of work on many topics, its just times have changed and we need people with fine tuned skills! But he is right about the development in terms of technology, engineers have taken science to new heights and people can truly enjoy science today because of all these new creations !
I choose physics. I respect engineers building softwares, machines etc but scientists doing RESEARCH at large hadron collider CERN particle accelerators & quantum physics can harness infinite energy & NEW KNOWLEDGE. I’m studying geology but I wish God blessed me with physics.
Nice I'm studying electrical and electronics engineering at university.
Really great questions, good interview
Why was he cracking up so much when he corrected the interviewer who said Elon was trained as an engineer? I like his laugh :)
It's a push - pull loop. Elon points out, engineering does more of the pushing/pulling. Sort of like wood is to science as wood products is to engineering. you can have wood products without wood. But wood also is used to build the mills, etc. used to process and harvest the wood. Not the best example, but first one to come to mind.
I think he's got it backwards regarding the collider. If the physicists weren't interested in having a collider for experiments, then the engineers never would have bothered working to create it. The two are complementary sides of the same coin.
I m still confused what should I do engineering or comology and astrophysics 😓😓😖
Do computer scientists fall in the middle? I feel like we do a little of both.
Physicist discover space these days most of won’t be able to know all the stuff
Whereas
An engineer will work and make a lot of money, gather a team work on a super smart A.I Software and beat most physicist who got nothing to do without a phd
??hahaha
As a physics and computer science major, I’m fine either way.
Without Science, Engineering is nothing, without engineering, Science is kinda limited, both feed each other, though, Science is pretty much the starting point to all of it. I still like both and wanna become both engineer and a physicist.
the gesture at 0:13 he does is like "yes that is my name and yes you may speak to me"
Feuer Feri lol
No
his main evidence being the atomic colliders is kinda stupid when you think about how the people who engineered it arent just everyday engineers, but some of the best physicists in the field to understand how to build it. its a big difference between the everyday engineer and the people who make those
He is way to focused on entrepreneurship. I want to be a scientist and research stuff. I have zero interest in starting a company.
JD but he also said people like Faraday, Maxwell, and Galileo were great engineers as well. Given that those people are among the most famous physicists in the world, there is some merit to what Elon is saying
Both are important in running the complete engine;
Engineers provide the explosion and scientists provide the fuel;
NO EXPLOSION- you are a sitting duck
NO FUEL - forget everything !
physics is a science and engineering is an approach to apply it they're complement to each other
good points but i think he was talking about the development of products not discovering quantum mechanics. and i agree but i guess I'm the only one that feels engineers should expand there grasp on physics which i intend to do and yes I'm going to school for engineering and i was thinking about Tesla and his work with theoretical physics
But engineers engineer/invent from what has been discovered from physics... It's not like engineers come up with a new theory when inventing something
I like both Scientists and ENGINEERS
Renaissance development of technical knowledge that drive 20th-century physics advancement.
I believe, engineering is a part of science. Like History, geography, psychology, physics, chemistry, maths etc all are science. So comparing physics and engineering is like comparing Hand and its work.
Science is about figuring out how things work and engineering is about building things. You cannot figure out how things work without building things, and you cannot build things without knowing how they work.
Science and engineering are dependent of each other.
I work in engineering, I can't hold a candle to some of these scientists and theoreticians.
SCIENCE, Technology,engineering and mathematics also Innovation and idea, invention, wealthy are the Siblings of knowledge
Science and Technology, Engineering are both equal are the body of equal knowledge and application of knowledge
Applied physics may just the best way foreward
if you don't have someone first creating theories then you have no theory to apply to the real world!!! That's like a surgeon operating on your heart without an understanding of how the heart works.