[spoiler:lit]
>>12753981No. Physicists aren't taught anything about design. That's the main difference. The base theory is the same, but engineering skims the theory while learning applications, while physicists go in depth. They are not exchangeable.
Notice how the retard arguing that they are has focused on lab work and modeling. Lab working isn't real engineering work, at least not what is taught. It's mostly researching and modeling, which is reliant on theory. Anyone can model a transmission line if they understand the theory and math, but if you ask even a PhD physicist to impedance match a line and antenna, they're not going to know where to begin. They might be able to if their personal projects dealt with it, but their knowledge won't help. Sure a CS monkey getting a modeling job is believable, no matter what they're modeling. It's not that hard. I have a buddy who does genome sequencing working on the entire software pipeline for their lab. Do you think the CS guy is going to know how to do sequencing? Fuck no. But he can make a model given the mathematical parameters, or write a program that uses prebuilt libraries that do the heavy lifting for him, which is what my budding is doing.
Deriving from fundamentals isn't helpful either. It will take ten times as long, and design makes so many assumptions and shortcuts, that sometimes the fundamentals aren't even related to what you're doing.
We'll take
>>12754907 as an example. DEs are useful for state-space variables, but useless beyond that. Stability criterion, bode/nyquist plots, tuning PID controllers. None of it requires physical knowledge. A physicist isn't going to be taught any of that, and looking at my university's degree plans, they don't even learn the math needed.
And you're not designing a midband amplifier with just Kirchhoff laws. I've yet to meet a physicist (or mathematician) that knew Miller's Theorem.
t. EE graduate
tldr: Yes for research and modeling, no for design.
