"For the present you just have to accept that in particle physics the mathematics are way ahead of the explanation and no one is prepared to play 'catch up'."

after just two days lurking around on this forum, i'd have to say they this quotation is one of the best i've read.

I'm not a physics expert, but do enjoy the science and theories, to the limited extent that i understand them. In reading posts, it's become clear that physicists literally speak their own language. i'm not just talking about the terms of art. i mean that some of the more technical posters here are simply not good at explaining their "math" in words that most people would use/understand.

I'll give you an example. One post i read (about sound intensity and two flutes) included the following: "When two sources are involved, what happens is dependant on the relative position of the two sources and the position of the observer (i.e. the phase difference)." Now, that sentence has some problems. it made no sense to me, a non-expert, on my first read. there are redundancies ("two sources"...followed by "position of the two sources"). second, the "associative principle" has not been applied. it works in math, and in grammar - if you can pull a factor/term out of an operation/phrase, then do it; i.e. change "a*b + a*c" into "a(b+c)." in our example, don't say "the position of the sources and the position of the observer" say "the positions of the sources and observer." also, wrong words have been used. the phrase "what happens" is a question, not a sentence subject. that should eb replaced with "the result." also, the phrase "depends upon" isn't quite right, either. The result doesn't really "depend upon" anything...it will be what it will be. It's more correct explain that the result may vary as certain circumstances change. finally, it's in the passive voice...better writing is active (no "be" verbs). I would re-write the sentence as follows: "The relative positions of the two sources to the observer (phase shift) influence the result." Less words, active, easier to understand.

mind you, i know that sometimes a technical explanation is required. And if everyone with a physics degree would understand exactly what the poster meant, then why should he/she put in the effort to make the writing more concise, simpler, active? But i most enjoy the posts with analogies and explanations linked to everyday things, in simple terms.

In my profession, as a lawyer, it's my job to put my client's "story" into words and ideas that a jury (or judge) will understand. i have to speak their languge, or get them to understand mine. On a school exam, if you don't demonstate to the professor that you know the answer, you won't get full credit. Notice that I didn't say "if you don't know the answer, you won't get credit." If you use phrases, terms, and style of your teacher (i.e., speak his/her language) you will do much better. That's why I got virtually straight As in high school, college, and law school by doing nothing more than attending every class (almost) and paying attention to the teacher.

I realized early in school that i had somewhat of a "gift" in this regard. I listened to people ask questions in class and I knew that they were using the wrong term, or phrasing it the wrong way, such that the teacher didn't understand what they REALLY wanted to know. The teacher would try to answer, but the student didn't get it. If the student had been better at using the teacher's language, or if the teacher had been better at understanding the student's, the question would have been easy. I was always able to undertand both. I often raised my hand and explained what i "thought" the person was really asking (i was always right) so that the teacher could better respond...or i'd approach the person after class. My gift was the ability to understand what people were really trying to say/ask, even if they didn't know themselves. (This made me a great tutor...i could guarantee anyone an A in any class that I got an A in.)

my intended point is that physics would be a lot less mysterious, to most people, if the ideas were conveyed in a more streamlined/efficient (not necessarily simpler) way. Obviously, i think the physicists should take the lead here and work on their writing. It's easier to get them to write better and more clearly than it is to get the general population "up to speed" on physics terms and language.

This is my point of view.

Firstly, as a physics student, huge amounts of marks can potentially be lost for being ambiguous. As such get into the habit of writing in a way that does not lend itself to interpretation. Also, consider the circumstances, I'm writing posts in my spare time at work, I don't really have the time or patience to make my posts reader perfect. Clearly, if it was intended for submission or publication the circumstances would be different.

If you ever need clarification on a post, just ask. There are many people on PF with a great knack for explaining some pretty difficult concepts. Analogies are good, but they are rarely perfect, so I tend to avoid them where possible.

Finally, don't get fazed by the jargon, often it is a necessary evil to avoid ambiguity. I hope you can perservere long enough to enjoy learning some interesting physics.

Cheers.