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 rleigh on Sunday November 13 2016, @09:56PM
There's nothing wrong with mathematical equations. But the point of scientific research is to communicate ideas, and often a graph or other visualisation of an equation can greatly help understand what's going on in addition to equations. A paper which is nothing but dense equations is vastly less readable than one which goes the extra mile to present the information in a more easily digestible form. I'm a scientist, but not a mathematician. It can take a lot of effort to plough through all the working and fully appreciate what is being written. Sometimes a few paragraphs of explanatory text or a figure can do the same job. I'm not saying equations are bad, just that if you wish to get your ideas across to a wider audience, they might not be sufficient on their own.
I've been to some meetings about modelling complex biological systems at the cellular scale. Some people had a few slides of equations and then showed renderings of their models so we could see in realtime the dynamics of the systems they were modelling. Others had 40 slides of dense equations, with several pages of terms at the start. I was lost by slide 6 when I'd already forgotten what the terms were on slide 3, as had the entire audience. 30 pages of difficult equations aren't something an audience can grasp in an hour. A paper is different, since you can go through it at a much slower pace. But I still think some considerations for a wider (non-mathematical-genius) audience can be very helpful. Even amongst scientists who are good at mathematics.