Are many physicists not fluent in the language of physics?

In summary, a recent paper found a statistically significant negative correlation between mathematical equations in papers and the number of citations those papers receive.
  • #1
Gort
46
8
Most physicists would agree, I believe, that mathematics is the language of physics. Mathematical models are used to describe the physical world.
I therefore found it somewhat amusing but disconcerting that a recent paper found a statistically significant negative correlation between mathematical equations in papers and the number of citations those papers receive.
See https://zenodo.org/record/58792/files/eq_physics_2pager_2016-07_27_Analysis.pdf
If that correlation is not a fluke (always a possibility), do many physicists simply not fully understand the mathematics published by others? Do many physicists suffer from the same math anxiety as many in the general population? Is there a more benign reason?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Gort said:
Is there a more benign reason?
Sure. Increasing the size of a paper reduces its quality, whether you are measuring size in number of equations or some other metric.
 
  • Like
Likes Auto-Didact and cnh1995
  • #3
Not sure I follow. By analogy, a short story is higher quality than a novel because it has fewer words. Surely the number of equations can't be the metric by which quality is judged - can it?
 
  • #4
I am not sure why you think that the only reason a very "mathy" paper wouldn't get cited as much is because physicists are intimidated by them. While it's true that equation-dense papers may have less broad appeal, there are myriad other factors. For example:

Perhaps the correlation between writers who use many equations and writers who don't understand the virtue of brevity is strong and positive.

Perhaps papers with fewer equations get more citations because they get more traction in other branches of physics that are not as familiar with the particular mathematical nuances of the paper's subfield.

Generally speaking, the more work that the reader has to do to understand a paper, the less likely he or she is to cite that work. Sometimes an overly mathy paper may lead to that. Sometimes an overly verbose paper may lead to that. The two are also not necessarily independent phenomena.
 
  • #5
Gort said:
Surely the number of equations can't be the metric by which quality is judged - can it?
Not "the" metric, but certainly "a" metric. I suspect that the number of equations simply correlates with the length of the paper and the length of the paper correlates negatively with the quality.
 
  • #6
I think the "citations outside the paper's subfield" is an interesting and valid argument. I'm less inclined to accept the brevity argument (if it's a good source, it's still a good source). But maybe that's just me.
 
  • #7
Gort said:
I'm less inclined to accept the brevity argument
It is not so much an argument as a (testable) hypothesis. I think that it is a much more plausible hypothesis than the idea that physicists are uncomfortable with math.
 
  • #9
Frankly, I find the whole analysis rather silly. Sure, they found a correlation, but I wouldn't read anything more into it.
 
  • #10
I think the "uncomfortable with math" hypothesis was thrown out there simply to generate alternative hypotheses. They're all testable, though - I'm not a statistician, but I'm sure it would require a much more extensive study to develop any real conclusions.
Disclaimer - I don't have any evidence. But if I were voting on the "better" hypothesis, I'd put "citations outside the paper's subfield" as the main influencer, followed by brevity, followed by a lack of mathematical dexterity. I don't think "math anxiety" would even make my list.
 
  • #11
Thank you for pointing out the existing thread. Consider it closed.
 
  • #12
Gort said:
I think the "uncomfortable with math" hypothesis was thrown out there simply to generate alternative hypotheses.
I think that it was thrown out there simply to generate public interest (and thereby additional funding)

Gort said:
I'm sure it would require a much more extensive study to develop any real conclusions.
Precisely.
 
  • #13
Dale said:
Not "the" metric, but certainly "a" metric. I suspect that the number of equations simply correlates with the length of the paper and the length of the paper correlates negatively with the quality.
It may not just be quality -- it is also possible that physicists, like humans, have limited attention spans.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #14
Alexander Pope said:
“Words are like leaves; and where they most abound, much fruit of sense beneath is rarely found.”
Is there a correlation between words, leaves and equations? :smile:
 
  • #15
kuruman said:
Is there a correlation between words, leaves and equations? :smile:

At the end of every paragraph type 20 words of nonsense,...change the text colour to white and print it...does wonders for your word count.
 
  • #16
There are many reasons why there might be a correlation. I don't think math anxiety is the cause.
 
  • #17
As an experimental physicist I would think that experimental publications would cite more experimental papers to start which would probably have less math. These papers could be linked to a theory or not for example if it is a new experimental technique. If a paper is tied to a particular aspect of a theory there might not be plethora of relevant papers . I any event if a paper is important and relevant it should be cited even if one cannot fully appreciate the math.
 
  • #18
Note also that articles published in high-impact journals (Nature, Science, PRL etc) are supposed to be written for a non-specialists (not that it always is). This in itself limits the amount of math you can include in a short paper. This will obviously affect the result since papers published in these journals are generally highly cited.

Note also that the math we use in physics tend to be very specialized; the problem is not understanding what the symbols mean (we can probably all -mostly- do that) but that the formulas rarely mean much unless you have the necessary background to put them into context; you need to understand WHY a certain formula is used and (ideally) also have built up enough familiarity with similar results that you can see what e.g. the form of a specific Hamiltonian is telling you.
 

1. Why is fluency in the language of physics important for physicists?

Fluency in the language of physics is important for physicists because it allows them to communicate complex ideas and theories with precision and accuracy. This is crucial in order for the scientific community to understand and build upon each other's work.

2. Is it common for physicists to struggle with the language of physics?

It is not uncommon for physicists to struggle with the language of physics, especially when first starting out. The concepts and equations can be complex and require a lot of practice and dedication to fully understand and use fluently.

3. Can physicists still be successful without being fluent in the language of physics?

While it may be possible for physicists to have some success without being completely fluent in the language of physics, it is highly unlikely. Fluency is necessary in order to accurately communicate and understand the intricacies of the field, and without it, progress and advancement may be hindered.

4. How can physicists improve their fluency in the language of physics?

Physicists can improve their fluency in the language of physics by consistently practicing and studying the concepts and equations, as well as actively engaging in discussions and collaborations with other physicists. Attending conferences and workshops can also help improve fluency.

5. Is fluency in the language of physics necessary for all branches of physics?

Yes, fluency in the language of physics is necessary for all branches of physics. While some branches may have more specialized terminology and equations, the fundamental principles and language of physics remain the same, and fluency is crucial for success in any field of physics.

Similar threads

  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
57
Views
12K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
8
Views
431
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
1
Views
863
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Sticky
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
30
Views
7K
Back
Top