SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Physicists avoid highly mathematical work despite being trained in advanced mathematics, new research suggests. The study, published in the New Journal of Physics, shows that physicists pay less attention to theories that are crammed with mathematical details. This suggests there are real and widespread barriers to communicating mathematical work, and that this is not because of poor training in mathematical skills, or because there is a social stigma about doing well in mathematics.
Dr Tim Fawcett and Dr Andrew Higginson, from the University of Exeter, found, using statistical analysis of the number of citations to 2000 articles in a leading physics journal, that articles are less likely to be referenced by other physicists if they have lots of mathematical equations on each page. [...] Dr Higginson said: "We have already showed that biologists are put off by equations but we were surprised by these findings, as physicists are generally skilled in mathematics.
"This is an important issue because it shows there could be a disconnection between mathematical theory and experimental work. This presents a potentially enormous barrier to all kinds of scientific progress."
http://phys.org/news/2016-11-physicists-mathematics.html
[Abstract]: Statistical Analysis of the Effect of Equations on Citations
(Score: 2) by tfried on Sunday November 13 2016, @09:29PM
Not all of them.
And wouldn't that be a truly strange world, where an interest in subject A totally precludes an interest in subject B. But one interesting bit along your line of thought may be, that there is a niche for active contributions by a mathematician in - probably - any field of science.
I always propose getting a bunch of teenagers and use analog equipment to generate a 17k sawtooth and a 17k sine and see if the kids can tell the difference.
So far, no one has done that as far as I know.
So, did you? Neither did I, but seriously, the kids would not be able to tell the difference. The ear separates frequencies spatially. Among other things that's important because any single neuron cannot fire more than around 100 per second, so the incoming signal absolutely has to be decomposed. So, to get a pretty good analogy, feed your 17k sawtooth through an FFT. You'll get a 17k sine and a lot of overtones at much higher frequencies. You'll hear the 17k sine component alright (if your ears are young enough), but those higher frequencies will not be representable - neither in a 44khz sample, nor in a human ear.