Comments on: Talk Like a Physicist Day

By: Jack Bishop

Jack Bishop — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 02:14:17 +0000

I feel obliged to mention that mutually exclusive quantities or conditions would, if represented algebraically, have a negative inner product instead of a zero inner product, and thus not be orthogonal.

I try to keep my metaphorical use of orthogonal to quantities which are independent of each other.

By: Geof F. Morris

Geof F. Morris — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:57:39 +0000

I feel better.

I think.

[I still feel like being management is eating my brain. Pretty soon, I might not remember that m=Fa.]

[[UHOH.]]

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:25:15 +0000

Geof: Several people in Chad Orzel’s comments pointed out that a lot of these are used in general geekdom, never mind other scientific disciplines. Don’t get too existential on me. If it makes you feel better, thanks to my job I now speak fluent physicist and engineer, and can tell the difference. You’re definintely enginner.

Seth: This is the sound of me slapping my forehead because I forgot “order of magnitude”.

By: abovenyquist

abovenyquist — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:31:58 +0000

Joyce has pointed out that I use “non-trivial,” particularly “non-trivial exercise,” all the time.

By: seth vidal

seth vidal — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:26:11 +0000

Stephen, You’ve left out ‘order of magnitude’ which is an excellent choice for talking like a physicist.

For very specific physicists you can also switch ‘which’ and ‘that’ in a sentence then switch them back.

For theorists I’ve found the use of the phrase ‘monte carlo’ seems to spring up quite a lot more than is necessarily warranted, too.

Oh, but it has been years now since I’ve had the opportunity to socialize with physicists.

-sv

By: Geof F. Morris

Geof F. Morris — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:30:25 +0000

Um … I say some of that stuff. Regularly.

Lord knows that I’m an engineer-turned-manager, not a physicist.

I think I’m gonna have a fit of existential angst now …