The discussion revolves around the submission of papers for peer review, particularly focusing on the necessity of mathematical understanding in the context of General Relativity (GR) and the qualifications required to be considered a peer in the field of physics. Participants share their perspectives on the importance of mathematical rigor versus intuitive understanding in theoretical physics.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the necessity of mathematical understanding versus intuitive approaches. Multiple competing views remain regarding the qualifications needed for peer review and the nature of understanding in theoretical physics.
Limitations include the varying definitions of what constitutes a peer in physics, the subjective nature of perceived hostility in responses, and the unresolved debate on the balance between intuitive and mathematical understanding in theoretical work.
Good luck!Enos said:
That does indeed seem unfair. The "maintenance" guy servicing the superconducting magnets or whatever is probably every bit as educated as the guys actually writing the paper. He or she must be left with a rather bad taste in his/her mouth.berkeman said:
