

Has the time come for a physics notation standard? - another
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/01/your-g-is-my-e-has-time-come-for.html

======
oddthink
I doubt it, to be honest. In my experience, universities are locally
consistent: the E&M class isn't going to contradict quantum, at least by much.
And once you're out of undergrad, it's pretty easy to figure out what's going
on, given the context.

If we try to standardize, we'll end up with some awful compromise position
that no one likes. For example, I still dislike the push for MKS units where
CGS would work much better, such as E&M, plasma physics, and much of
astrophysics.

------
esharte
As an undergraduate I sit in classes being taught to use meaningful variables
in code. Then I walk into one of the many math and physics lectures and wonder
what meaningless single letter variables are we see scribbled on the
whiteboard today.

This wouldn't be so bad if I didn't have a class with a different lecturer
using different notation afterwards.

Should each lecturer introduce their notation the first time its used in
class?

Why can't they just use use proper meaningful variable names?

~~~
oddthink
If you have a seminar-like class with a different lecturer every week, then,
yes, it's a problem if they can't get consistent notation. I'd hope that's
rare in undergraduate courses, though.

And meaningful variable names would be absolutely horrible for anyone trying
to calculate with them or visually comprehend them. Energy = lorentzFactor *
restMass * speedOfLight^2? You'd be writing all day to get anything done, and
it would be hard to see the forest for the trees.

See also the brevity of notation in J, q, and APL, and the "tacit" style of J
and "point-free" style of Haskell.

~~~
Retric
Having seen "i" used for 3 different things on the same blackboard at the same
time and 4 in a single lecture, A reasonable shorthand seems like a great
idea. Limit things to 4 or 5 letters and spL, lorzF, Enrg, rtMa are all clear
in context and hardly wasteful.

The other option is to use 3 symbol code for common notation which might take
a little effort to standardize and memorize, but could probably cover all of
science, math, and engineering.

~~~
stevep98
It's also pretty difficult to google for things like 'η'. And how do you
actually type a formula with an integral sign without knowing how to type ∫

Physics and math needs an alternate notation without all these 'greek' symbols
which aren't on keyboards.

------
jkmcf
Proper (?) writing style says the first time you introduce an acronym, such as
the dreaded Three Letter Acronym (TLA), you write out the acronym the first
time you use it and put the abbreviation in parentheses.

It makes sense to do this for notation in all fields where the reader might
become confused. I'm not sure a standard is needed, maybe only a movement of
reviewers rejecting papers containing the vagaries.

~~~
Normati
A table of symbols is extremely helpful. I hate reading a paper where the
author defines things when they first appear. If you missed that bit, you have
to spend minutes searching for it, and forget what you were thinking about.
It's worse in a text book where you have to search many chapters to find where
it was introduced. Complete waste of time.

I don't think there can be "palletes" to choose from, because
interdisciplinary work will find there's no pallete that fits.

~~~
1971genocide
I am glad someone else feels the same way. I always make sure to have a huge
table of symbol just after the index page. If I am writing a 100+ page thesis
I want to make sure I can "call" one of the symbols to express my idea. The
trick is to give nice easy to remember names to your variables and leave as
many common variable letters like a,b,c,d,x,y,z to be used as local variables
if needed.

