Physics Papers: Where are the "working"?

In summary, the conversation discussed the difficulty in understanding physics papers and the role of physicists in publishing their working for review. It was mentioned that physicists only show as much as needed for their audience and that reading a paper can be challenging. It was also suggested to skip certain passages or frankly admit when something is not understood. The peer-review process for theoretical papers was also mentioned, with the best case being that reviewers work through the equations on their own. However, it was acknowledged that reviewers may also rely on their knowledge and gut feeling to determine the validity of the results.
  • #1
WWCY
479
12
Hi all,

I'm working on a school project that requires me to go through a published physics paper. However, there are arguments I couldn't fully follow.

I was wondering if physicists were required to publish some of their "working" for review, and where I might find them.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
WWCY said:
Hi all,

I'm working on a school project that requires me to go through a published physics paper. However, there are arguments I couldn't fully follow.

I was wondering if physicists were required to publish some of their "working" for review, and where I might find them.

Thanks!

Physicists are required to show only as much as needed for the audience it was meant for. If the target is other physicists in that field, then presumably, the audience already has the knowledge to know where some of the basic stuff came from. For example, I do not have to explain why the imaginary part of the single-particle Green's function is the spectral weight measured in ARPES experiment. This has been covered in a class in many-body physics and is well-known by people familiar with photoemission spectroscopy.

Only if it is a new theoretical derivation may there be a more detailed description of how the authors got from A to B.

It is why reading a paper isn't easy.

Zz.
 
  • #3
ZapperZ said:
Physicists are required to show only as much as needed for the audience it was meant for. If the target is other physicists in that field, then presumably, the audience already has the knowledge to know where some of the basic stuff came from. For example, I do not have to explain why the imaginary part of the single-particle Green's function is the spectral weight measured in ARPES experiment. This has been covered in a class in many-body physics and is well-known by people familiar with photoemission spectroscopy.

Only if it is a new theoretical derivation may there be a more detailed description of how the authors got from A to B.

It is why reading a paper isn't easy.

Zz.
Thank you for the insight!
 
  • #4
WWCY said:
Hi all,

I'm working on a school project that requires me to go through a published physics paper. However, there are arguments I couldn't fully follow.

I was wondering if physicists were required to publish some of their "working" for review, and where I might find them.

Thanks!
I'm afraid this is not the case. If you're lucky you can find some notes of seminars, where they did the same thing: working through it. But this is neither guaranteed nor easy to find. The width of the steps in a paper depend on the knowledge of the audience, which is addressed. E.g. you won't ever find lines like ##2x - 7 < 3 \Rightarrow x < 5## because it is simply too obvious to everybody. Now articles in journals are written for people who have a far broader and deeper knowledge about the matter and explaining simple steps would be boring and unnecessary. However, this little word simple makes the difference: simple for one person doesn't mean simple for another. I remember that I once spent three days of try and error and several substitutions to verify a formula about complex numbers, which was simply noted as: Clearly holds ... Yes, it was clear ... afterwards.

To make a long speech short, these articles are written for people who already studied physics for several years, if not even for specialists in the field. For your school project, I recommend to skip those passages or frankly admit, that you didn't understand them. Maybe you could add why. The alternative would be to choose an easier text.
 
  • #5
fresh_42 said:
I'm afraid this is not the case. If you're lucky you can find some notes of seminars, where they did the same thing: working through it. But this is neither guaranteed nor easy to find. The width of the steps in a paper depend on the knowledge of the audience, which is addressed. E.g. you won't ever find lines like ##2x - 7 < 3 \Rightarrow x < 5## because it is simply too obvious to everybody. Now articles in journals are written for people who have a far broader and deeper knowledge about the matter and explaining simple steps would be boring and unnecessary. However, this little word simple makes the difference: simple for one person doesn't mean simple for another. I remember that I once spent three days of try and error and several substitutions to verify a formula about complex numbers, which was simply noted as: Clearly holds ... Yes, it was clear ... afterwards.

To make a long speech short, these articles are written for people who already studied physics for several years, if not even for specialists in the field. For your school project, I recommend to skip those passages or frankly admit, that you didn't understand them. Maybe you could add why. The alternative would be to choose an easier text.

Thanks! I think that might be what I have to do.

Just out of interest, what would the peer-review process of theoretical papers be like? Do the reviewers just work through these equations on their own?
 
  • #6
WWCY said:
Just out of interest, what would the peer-review process of theoretical papers be like? Do the reviewers just work through these equations on their own?
Best case? Yes. Whereas "work through" might be easier for reviewres, which are specialists in the field, than for an ordinary student. They have many more theorems in mind, done many thousand more similar calculations before, and have a gut feeling whether results can be right or not. This leads to the usual case: Imagine you have 100 exams on your desk and you're supposed to correct them over the weekend. Would you read those of the best in class the same way as you read those you know there are probably mistakes in it? The same happens in real life. The reviewers normally know the authors and their work, so this determines a bit how carefully it is read. Maybe they even hand out some parts to their assistants to check or to search for results needed in the library. Of course they can only risk such sloppiness to the extend they can be sure it won't come back on them. In addition there are usually more than one reviewer, so it's risky not to find eventual errors.
 

1. What does "working" mean in the context of physics papers?

"Working" in the context of physics papers refers to the practical application and validity of the theories and principles presented in the paper. In other words, it means that the ideas and equations proposed in the paper have been tested and proven to accurately describe and predict real-world phenomena.

2. How can I determine if a physics paper is "working"?

To determine if a physics paper is "working," you can look for evidence of experimentation and data analysis. A well-supported paper will include experiments or observations that provide evidence for the theories and equations presented. Additionally, you can look for peer reviews and citations from other reputable sources to support the paper's claims.

3. Are all physics papers considered "working"?

No, not all physics papers are considered "working." Some papers may propose new theories or ideas that have not yet been tested or have not been widely accepted by the scientific community. These papers may still be valuable for generating discussion and further research, but they are not considered "working" until they have been rigorously tested and proven.

4. Can a "working" physics paper be disproven?

Yes, a "working" physics paper can be disproven if new evidence or experimental data contradicts its claims and equations. This is a normal part of the scientific process, and it is important for scientists to constantly question and test established theories in order to refine and improve our understanding of the physical world.

5. How important is it for a physics paper to be "working"?

It is crucial for a physics paper to be "working" in order for it to be considered a valid and reliable source of information. Inaccurate or untested theories can lead to incorrect assumptions and hinder progress in the field of physics. Therefore, it is essential for scientists to thoroughly test and validate their ideas before publishing them in a "working" physics paper.

Similar threads

  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
7
Views
446
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
999
  • STEM Academic Advising
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
Replies
30
Views
781
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
1
Views
814
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
16
Views
332
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top