[Phys-L] Re: LaTeX in physics

[James Frysinger <frysingerj@COFC.EDU>]

On Wednesday 13 April 2005 14:56, Robert Cohen wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2005 12:40 PM, James Frysinger wrote:
> >         By comparison to AJP, IEEE used to require LaTeX
> > (with AMS extensions) then reverted to Adobe Framemaker
> > (prefered) or MS Word (accepted). They claim that too many
> > people loaded too many obscure "macros" and style documents.
>
> My wife and I went to the same grad school and were both in the physics
> department.  My wife, however, had her advisor in EE.  Whereas I used
> LaTeX, my wife was told she had to use Word.  Her experience was fairly
> recent.  Perhaps that was related to the IEEE decision?  Or is there
> some cultural difference between the physics and engineering
> communities?

        Cultural differences between EEs and Physicists? It's like they say about the
U.S. and Great Britain --- two great nations separated by an ocean and a
common language.

        As far as technical writing and journal articles, no, there is no great
difference. Depending on the publication, IEEE articles look very much like
AIP articles --- and each community has a large gamut in terms of brevity,
style of writing, etc.

        As far as the ability of practitioners to use modern technology, there is no
difference that I can see. Both fields have their luddites and their
luminaries. Of course firewire (IEEE Std 1394) and wireless routing networks
(IEEE Std 802.11x) are IEEE standards, but not all EEs are conversant on
them. Some make 'tricity for your TV and 'fridge.

        Terminology is sometimes quite a different matter. I'm on a team with a few
EEs and a few physicists and it has gotten pretty hot when we discuss which
model and terms to use for magnetics, etc. (Ask one of each what the vector B
is called!) Both fields use the same laws of nature and the same math, but
sometimes the words are different.

        If anything, engineers tend to be a bit more rigid about standards, since
they live and work with them. Engineering standards come from some place
closer to Mt. Sinai than physics standards (if there are any such critters).
Generally, engineers are better at using the SI and using it properly than
physicists. Yep! As Vice Chair of the IEEE SCC14 Committee, I'm the IEEE lead
reviewer for standards compliance to the SI. So all IEEE standards come
through me (and some of those then get passed by me to my colleagues) for
compliance with the SI. I don't think AIP has such a system.

        Alas, IEEE articles don't get the same review for compliance. But, if they
did, I never would see my pillow at night. Still, due to the compliance with
the SI in standards, their articles generally comply with the SI more than
physics articles do.

        I have been a chemist (till my friends and neighbors sent me a non-friendly
greeting), a naval submarine nuclear engineer (which I did since it did not
involve rice paddies), and now a physicist (non-Ph.D.) and educator, so I've
had the chance to work in one engineering and two science fields. I'm about
to decide what I want to be when I grow up. Both EE and physics look good to
me.....

Jim

--
James R. Frysinger
Lifetime Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist
Senior Member, IEEE

http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj
frysingerj@cofc.edu
j.frysinger@ieee.org

Office:
  Physics Lab Manager, Lecturer
  Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
  University/College of Charleston
  66 George Street
  Charleston, SC 29424
  843.953.7644 (phone)
  843.953.4824 (FAX)

Home:
  10 Captiva Row
  Charleston, SC 29407
  843.225.0805
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l