[aj7]

No. I disagree, and I’m a Physics SB and PhD (lasers). EE is a discipline unto itself. A stack of physicstextbooks and coursework is useless when you need to build a circuit that does what you need. Indeed, even writing down the desired circuit specs in a reasonably professional manner has zero overlap with physics.

[krapht]

If it's just circuit design, the difference between an EE and a physicist is 6-9 credit hours of courses. You will both share all the necessary prerequisites in mathematics (mostly Fourier analysis, linear algebra, basic statistics, and differential equations) and electromagnetics.

New graduates in EE also can't do the things you listed :)

[aj7]

6-9 credit course of courses and you’re a circuit designer? You are dreaming. Which capacitors are used for what function? What kind of trouble can you get into if your comparator is too fast? Do they tell you that a 7800 series regulator needs a load? Going to school is good. But if the alternative is 6-9 course hours, I’ll get further with scope, meter, soldering iron, app notes, and LTSpice in the same time than that student. And I assure you, from the bottom of my heart, as a near-expert in both, that the Fourier analysis in quantum mechanics, solid state physics, optics, etc. bears little resemblance to that used in signals and systems and DSP. LITTLE. RESEMBLANCE.

[exmadscientist]

> New graduates in EE also can't do the things you listed :)

That was the spirit of my point, yes :)

More than once I've heard a coworker complain that "I wish I had learned about that in school instead of [filler course so useless that I forgot what they said]."

[throwaway348422]

Very good point. Often I think the hardest part about being an EE is using our CAD tools.

[billfruit]

Also perhaps units conventions etc may be different in EE and Physics, like use of Gaussian units in electrodynamics in Physics, and also things like the mysterious 'Z'-transform that seems to pervade much of EE.

[exmadscientist]

Gaussian units seem to be on their way out. I, for one, won't miss them. (Or cgs.)

The Z-transform is much more related to the others than is clear at first glance. This post on transforms [0] from the The n-Category Café is fascinating, and my go-to for understanding what the Laplace transform really is, even if I don't quite grasp many things in the post. (And I also have a math degree! But not a graduate one in active use, as most of the people around there do.)

https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2019/07/what_is_the_lap...

[nyanpasu64]

> the Laplace transform is really just a generalization of the familiar Laurent series representation of complex analytic functions, but where the exponents are allowed to be non-integers and to “vary continuously” rather than discretely.

I understand some of these words... they're very familiar to me...

I'm saying this as someone who's dealt with the discrete and continuous time Fourier transforms, and Z-transform, and wants to get into Laplace transforms.

[posterboy]

https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2018/02/mlab.html

it might as well be from a random text gwnerator

[aj7]

Gaussian units make physics prettier.

“Avoid for new designs”

[billfruit]

Only now I had noticed, in the Gaussian system, the unit for capacitance is centimeters.

[aj7]

Exactly. Quick now, how many farads in a cm?