Physics >?//grmpff=/=+- Chemistry

They are not the same.

By the Engineer's reasoning Mechanical Engineering is also the same as Physics and Chemistry because all three deal with (in some way, shape or form) matter.

Given the information provided, what an idiot.

To make it more mysterious: and (link to) quantum mechanics?

He was probably speaking in general they have some similarities....(but that's not what he said)

Here's a discussion.....↓

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=240813

the field is so large........ in speaking in Physical Metallurgy.... sure.

You all made a good point - see the GA's -. Of course it is a cheap way of thanking you all. So, what are all these diversified Phd's and Engineering categories good for?

Why not just Electromechanics, Chemistry and Electronics? At the end, how the evolution takes us, we will need 100 different qualifications to sign off a simple household product? I leave space for Civil, Safety and Commercial degrees too.

With these we have built and destroyed fractions of our world today. What can be a possible change, besides (un)needed discussions, for the better with complicating elementary things? Or will the last 30 years be known as less productive, same as the music after the Stones and Beatles?

No idea who's salt is the eldest, but I see some similarity. I have a strong impression that these work domains are better separated in the old world. When you play the practical string, you outnumber me by 10 years. (and that is a cautious minimum)

Thanks for the answer. Nice work. I enjoy it.

I had the general impression that chemistry was interested in what happens, while physics was interested in why it happens.

The disciplines will continue to divide into named subdivisions as they become specialized with increasing knowledge. The learning curve is longer and the work itself takes longer now. I am a structural engineer, time was when that was part of civil engineering, along with all that we now associate with the discipline. Bridge design is a sub-disciple of structural and may become separated.

Ask a physicist, for example, how a nucleophilic substitution reaction can change an optically active compound from the dextrorotatory form to the levorotatory form and explain the reaction mechanism. If he/she knows the answer (without looking it up on the internet), then you might be able to claim that physics and chemistry "are the same."

Chemistry could be viewed as a specialized field within physics; micro-physics.

.

You have to admit that the lines distinguish chemistry from physics get pretty fuzzy for certain fields in physics.

.

The comment still strikes me as someone attempting to boost their own ego, by claiming that everyone else is just one variant. You could just as easily say that engineers, physicists, and chemists are all just technicians of applied mathematics...and it would be just as worthless in its over-simplification.

If you change mathematics by Science, I can agree.

I can't offer help (others have already done that well), but I can say that I used to work for a Fortune 500 company developing electrophotographic materials. If you were in a room that was full of their chemists and physicists, saying chemistry and physics were the same would have gotten you killed.

jhammond

Actually it depends on the branch of physics you are talking about. I went back to grad school for a physics PHD (my family needs sort of ended this) and the niche area I was studying in very closely paralleled some of the EE courses I had taken, and also could be very useful to a chemist. Solid state engineering and surface physics all inter mingle. Further intermingling is apparent when you consider I graded papers on the same subject for a mechanical engineering prof while in grad school. The physics dealt with the why, while the engineering courses, and the chemistry are how to use what the physicist knew.

However, go into classical physics and that is much closer to traditional mechanical engineering and a world away from chemistry and electrical engineering.

Then you have the sub-atomic particle physicists and they are in their own little dark corner of the basement with their particle coliders.

It been some time since I looked into it....... but if you get you professional engineering license, no matter what discipline, there is always a registered Chemical Engineer on the board, no matter what discipline whether it Mechanical, Structural, Civil, .......

I just thought that was interesting,

Well, next time just send a mathematician. Everything is just a math equation. (just ask Charlie on Numbers)The way the world works is:

1. The mathematcian discovers an equation

2. The physicist says "hey that explains why this behaves the way it does and from the math, the following should also occur."

3. The engineer or applied scientist says "hey what the physicist discovered can be used to do this."

Matter is tackled from a theoretical scientific approach quite far away from enginnering or chemistry, which are both applied science or scientific knowledge. I could agree both are the same, if speaking at the scientific side of engineering or chemistry schools but not for the majority of cases and proffesionals whose environment are very different. When talking about quantum physics I am sure he was talking about basic concepts of matter, materials or interaction.

What king of work did he have to approve?

The usual drawings you need to have approved to build. Tks

Chemistry is all about changes and reactions in molecule bonding, and molecule bonding and behavior is all about how the particles react to each other, and how the particles behave is nothing but physics.

Watch this video, ,,Michio Kaku: The Universe in a Nutshell,, it explain how the particles react to each other and what is a mass/mather...

He is just trying to say he is smarter than everyone else. Probably has an inferiority complex he is trying to over compensate for..... Don't let the BS'ers get you down..

The Nobel prize for the discovery of DNA was awarded to/for Physiology and medicine. Much of the work involved both physics and chemistry and probably some electrical engineering as well. I think it is good that there are many fields of expertise so that more jobs can be found. The story of DNA also highlights the advantages of having people from many disciplines in the same building as Watson and Co used the findings of Rosalind Franklin, who did x ray crystallography on the same campus, to build their theory.

Jim

I worked in Semiconductor manufacturing for 20+ years. That endeavor requires Chemistry, Physics, Math, Mech E, EE, Chem E, Industrial E, and more. So, from my little corner of the elephant, this blind man says it's all Semiconductor Engineering.

When I went to college, we studied chemistry, physics, mechanics, mathematics and electricity. Obviously each course of study is linked to one another.

Check out Paul Davies. He is an Astro Physicist helping in the fight against cancers. AND he is not the only one! Suggesting that Astrology and medicine are closely linked.

And maybe there's a link to cardiovascular problems also.

Astrology? Are you sure you don't mean cosmology or astronomy?

Maybe I am missing something here but;

Are not all disciplines subject to and governed/controlled by the Laws of Physics?

Is there really any action or reaction that is not governed by the Laws of Physics?

If there is, I have not yet been made aware of it.

Maybe this is what the Mechanical Engineer was alluding to.

I am relatively sure that any person placing major focus on the study of Physics and once becoming competent in such would very easily understand the basic realm of Chemistry.

However this does not necessarily in my book, entitle nor endorse their competentcy as a Chemical Engineer.

I would assume that a competent Chemical Engineer would have to reduce the scope and size of their focus down to specializing in chemistry rather than remain in the very broad field of Physics in order to be effective.

I am also fairly certain that the reason we have separated disciplines is because of the inability of most human beings to master more than one discipline.

I liked your post.

I fairly recently saw a great BBC program that basically said "everything is really Physics", no matter what it is, which fits in with your thoughts rather well I feel.

Its just that other sciences feel that they are being forgotten/ignored I expect!!!

I liked your post.

I fairly recently saw a great BBC program that basically said "everything is really Physics", no matter what it is, which fits in with your thoughts rather well I feel.

Its just that other sciences feel that they are being forgotten/ignored I expect!!!