Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 25 references

Advanced physics transposition (APT): A new name for a not-so-new field of research

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes naming the line of educational research that translates active, complex physics into material teachers can use 'advanced physics transposition' (APT), and counts 144 such publications, about 5% of the output of two…

desk verdict A clearly written naming-and-systematization proposal for a real but scattered line of physics education research; the central idea holds, but the bibliometric support is too opaque to be the paper's main leg. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17755 v1 pith:E5LMLGLN submitted 2024-12-23 physics.ed-ph

Jorge Pinochet This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ed-ph
keywords advancedphysicstranspositionteacherssecondarystudentseducationresearchdidacticfrontier
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that an already active but unnamed line of educational research deserves recognition as an independent field: work that takes frontier physics—general relativity, quantum mechanics, black holes—and simplifies it so school and college physics teachers can learn it and carry it to their students. It gives this field the name advanced physics transposition (APT), defines it as making advanced physics available to teachers and, through them, to students, and distinguishes it from the older idea of didactic transposition, which adapts all scholarly knowledge for the classroom. As evidence that APT is already a measurable field, the paper counts articles in two major teaching-oriented physics journals over the decade 2014–2023 and identifies 144 APT publications, roughly 5% of the total, falling into six areas: general relativity, special relativity, astrophysics and space science, black holes, quantum mechanics, and nuclear and particle physics. The proposal matters because giving the field a name and a boundary lets the researchers who do this work recognize each other, accumulate results more systematically, and attract more people to it.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the working definition of APT and the classification built on it. The paper defines advanced physics as the part of physics and astronomy that is active and usually highly complex and specialised, then treats transposition as a three-step movement of knowledge from frontier research to teachers and through them to students. Around this, it builds an operational taxonomy: six research areas (general relativity, special relativity, astrophysics and space sciences, black holes, quantum mechanics, nuclear and particle physics) and two modes (theoretical TAPT and practical PAPT). The quantitative claim flows from applying that taxonomy to a decade of publications: the 5% figure is simply the share of articles the taxonomy catches.

What would settle it

Re-code the 2014–2023 tables of contents of the two journals with an independently specified rule for what counts as advanced physics transposition. If a second coder does not reproduce the 144-article count and the 5% share, or assigns articles to very different areas, the paper's quantitative evidence for an already measurable field fails; the naming proposal would then rest only on definitional appeal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central finding is that advanced physics transposition exists as a coherent research line despite having no name: a community of physics-education researchers already publishes work whose goal is to transpose advanced physics, understood as the active, usually complex and specialised parts of physics and astronomy with open questions, into forms accessible to teachers. The paper codifies this line with a three-step picture—advanced physics, the transposition process, and transposed knowledge—and splits it into theoretical transposition (TAPT), typically done with simplified mathematics, dimensional analysis, and heuristic calculations, and practical transposition (PAPT), done with low-cost experiments and model-based activities. Its quantitative observation is that in the two journals surveyed between 2014 and 2023, 144 APT articles appeared, about 5% of all publications, concentrated most heavily in astrophysics and space sciences, with no clear year-to-year trend.

Load-bearing premise

Everything about the size and shape of the field rests on one person's judgment about which of the 144 articles count as APT and how to sort them into six areas, a judgment the paper admits is partly arbitrary and not analysed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If APT is accepted as a field, researchers who translate frontier physics for teachers gain a shared name and can position their work against a defined body of literature instead of scattering it across general physics-education categories.
  • The six-area taxonomy gives future bibliometric studies a ready-made starting map, and the TAPT/PAPT split gives a way to compare theoretical and practical strands of the field.
  • The paper's definition implies that APT products are not classroom-ready lessons: they target teachers, who then use didactic transposition to adapt them to students, which clarifies the division of labour between APT and curriculum design.
  • The roughly 5% share over one decade suggests the field already has enough output to sustain dedicated reviews, special issues, or conference strands without being mistaken for a minor curiosity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit: if APT becomes a recognised category, journal editors and funding bodies may start tagging or soliciting such work, which could change publication patterns in ways the 2014–2023 count could not have captured.
  • Because the definition of advanced physics is tied to what is currently active and open, the taxonomy is dynamic: topics such as quantum computing, machine-learning physics, or new gravitational-wave results would likely enter the six areas or create new ones as they mature.
  • The equal 50/50 split between theoretical and practical papers in one journal could be partly an artefact of the other journal not using abstracts, so the true balance across the field remains untested.
  • A testable extension would be to survey APT researchers and ask whether they recognise the name and the six-area map; positive recognition would support the paper's central proposal more directly than journal counts do.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the name 'Advanced Physics Transposition' (APT) for a line of physics education research that seeks to make advanced, active, and complex physics accessible to school and college teachers and, through them, to students. It defines advanced physics as the part of physics that is the subject of active research and is usually highly complex and specialized, distinguishes APT from didactic transposition (DT), and introduces the TAPT/PAPT distinction between theoretical and practical transposition. The paper also presents a quantitative analysis of publications in Physics Education (PED) and The Physics Teacher (TPT) from 2014 to 2023, reporting 144 APT publications representing approximately 5% of the total, organized into six research areas: general relativity, special relativity, astrophysics and space sciences, black hole physics, quantum mechanics, and nuclear and particle physics. The overarching argument is that APT is a sufficiently mature, independent field that deserves a name and systematic recognition.

Significance. If accepted, the paper provides a useful organizing label and a first taxonomy for a scattered literature, and it is explicit about its own limitations. The conceptual core—defining advanced physics and distinguishing APT from didactic transposition—is clearly stated and defensible, and the paper is honest about the arbitrariness of its classification. The quantitative estimate is weaker: the 144-publication count and 5% figure are not reproducible from the information given, and the claim that this represents 5% of 'total publications in educational physics' overreaches the two-journal corpus. Nonetheless, the central proposal does not collapse if the exact percentage is revised; the paper would be strengthened by making the empirical support transparent or reframing it as illustrative.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4; Introduction] The quantitative support for the 'comparatively small field' claim is not reproducible. The paper reports 144 APT publications and approximately 5% of the total output of PED and TPT, but it does not provide the list of articles, the search or screening protocol, the inclusion/exclusion criteria for what counts as APT, or the total number of publications used as denominators. The paper itself states that the classification criteria 'always contain a margin of arbitrariness' and are 'not explored here.' Because the 5% figure and the six-area taxonomy are used to characterize APT as a measurable field, this is load-bearing: another researcher applying different 'conventional' criteria could obtain materially different counts. In addition, the Introduction's claim that APT represents 'approximately 5% of the total publications in educational physics' overstates the evidence, which covers only PED and TPT, not the whole field. Please provide a supplementary file with the full list and explicit criteria, and either expand the corpus or restrict the percentage claim to the two journals analyzed.
  2. [Section 4, Fig. 7(b); Section 2] The TAPT/PAPT split is computed only for PED because, as the paper notes, TPT does not use abstracts. Yet the text in Section 4 says 'It can be observed that the total number of works is divided into equal parts' without clarifying that this result applies only to PED. Since Section 2 introduces TAPT and PAPT as a general typology of APT research, the empirical support for this typology is partial. Please state explicitly in the text and figure caption that Fig. 7(b) is PED-only, and temper the generalization that APT research is evenly split between theoretical and practical work.
  3. [Section 4, Table 1] The operational boundary between APT and non-APT articles is not specified. The conceptual definition in Section 2 is clear, but the assignment of individual articles to the six areas in Table 1 is said to rely on 'entirely conventional' criteria that are not described. Without a rule for deciding whether an article concerns 'advanced physics' as defined, the reader cannot verify that the 144 publications satisfy the paper's own definition. For example, an article on Hubble's law could either be standard introductory astronomy or a transposition of current cosmological research; the criteria for making that call are absent. Please specify the operational rules used, or present the analysis as an illustrative rather than a quantitative claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'I the name' appears to be a typo; it should read 'I suggest the name.'
  2. [Section 1] The description of PED and TPT as 'the leading international scientific journals' should be qualified, since there are other significant physics education research journals that are not included in the analysis.
  3. [Figure 6 caption] The caption reads '(a) Total articles on APT published in (a) PED and (b) TPT,' which contains a duplicated '(a).'
  4. [Section 4, Table 1] In the text, 'T able 1' should be 'Table 1.'
  5. [Section 2, references for black-hole examples] The text cites '[8–12]' as examples of black-hole APT articles, but reference [13] (Pinochet, 'The little robot, black holes, and spaghettification') is also clearly a black-hole example; the cited range may be incomplete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a conceptual proposal and bibliographic survey; its central claim does not reduce to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's argument is definitional and empirical, not derivational. It proposes a name (APT) for an existing line of educational research, defines 'advanced physics' by two stated criteria (active research, complexity/specialization), and supports the field's existence with a reported bibliographic count of 144 PED/TPT articles (about 5%) classified into six conventional areas. No equation, parameter fit, or prediction is involved, so there is no fitted input being relabeled as a prediction. The author's own papers are cited as examples of APT work, but they do not carry the central claim: the six areas and the 5% figure are asserted from a literature review, and the argument would stand or fall on the reproducibility of that classification, which is an empirical or verification weakness rather than a circularity. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the classification criteria are conventional and not explored, further showing that the classification is not presented as a consequence of the APT definition. Hence, no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on conceptual definitions rather than free parameters. The main axioms are the definition of advanced physics as active and specialized research, the assumption that teachers need a transposition step, and the ad hoc division of the corpus into six physics areas. No invented physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Advanced physics is defined as research that is active, open, and usually highly complex and specialized, with examples including general relativity, particle physics, and black holes.
    This definition sets the boundary of APT and excludes inactive fields like classical thermodynamics and Lagrangian mechanics. It is asserted without empirical justification.
  • domain assumption A typical physics teacher cannot access advanced physics directly and needs a transposition step.
    The entire motivation for APT rests on this premise, stated in Section 2 and used to justify the need for a dedicated research line.
  • ad hoc to paper The 144 publications from PED and TPT in 2014 to 2023 can be classified into six APT areas using conventional but unreported criteria.
    The author admits the criteria contain 'a margin of arbitrariness' and are not explored in the paper. This classification drives the 5% figure and the area-level counts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Advanced physics transposition (APT): A new name for a not-so-new field of research." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E5LMLGLN

@misc{pith2026241217755,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Advanced physics transposition (APT): A new name for a not-so-new field of research},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E5LMLGLN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17755}
}
read the original abstract

Research into educational physics is a field of study that has undergone sustained growth in recent decades. Among the topics addressed in educational physics, there is a relatively new field of research that seeks to make advanced physics accessible to teachers in this area, that is, physics that, due to its novelty and complexity, is beyond the reach of a typical high school teacher. For the reasons discussed in this paper, I the name advanced physics transposition or APT is suggested for this field of research. The objective of this work is to make a first attempt to systematise this field, to draw attention to the place it occupies, and no less important to give it a name that represents the objectives, methods and results that characterise it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17755 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Relationship between advanced science and advanced physics, with some examples. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In general, advanced physics transposition consists of three steps: a body of knowledge to be transposed (advanced physics), the transposition process, and the transposed knowledge. Other examples of advanced physics include quantum mechanics, particle physics, cosmol￾ogy, black holes, gravitational waves, exoplanets, dark matter and dark energy, and quantum gravity. All of these research areas are very active, spar… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Research into APT may be theoretical or practical. As noted above, due to the complexity and innovative nature of advanced physics, a typical physics teacher cannot access it directly. First, advanced physics must undergo a simplifica￾tion process that brings it closer to teachers, which requires a line of research dedicated to this task. As indicated in the introduction, this line of research exists and has been de… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Total publications on APT in PED and TPT in the decade 2014-2023; (b) percentages of publications on APT with respect to the total published between 2014 and 2023. After a general review of the literature in educational physics, six major areas of physics could be …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Total numbers of articles on APT published in PED and TPT between 2014 and 2023, separated by year. These six areas correspond to what we have defined as advanced physics, and satisfy the definition of APT given above. These areas closely resemble the typical syllabus …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Total articles on APT published in (a) PED and (b) TPT over the decade 2014–2023. year, while Figs. 6(a) and 6(b) show the same information, but separated by journal. The graphs do not reveal a pattern or trend, but rather random distributions of the numbers of art…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Total publications on APT in PED and TPT separated by area; (b) total publications on APT in PED, separated by type of manuscript [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Williams, Happy Birthday Physics Education, Phys

    G. Williams, Happy Birthday Physics Education, Phys. Educ. 51 (2016) 030101. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031- 9120/51/3/030101

    doi:10.1088/0031- 2016

  2. [2]

    Einstein, Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativit¨ atstheorie, Annalen Der Physik 354 (1916) 769–822

    A. Einstein, Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativit¨ atstheorie, Annalen Der Physik 354 (1916) 769–822

    work page 1916

  3. [3]

    Pinochet, Classical Tests of General Relativity Part I: Looking to the Past to Understand the Present, Physics Education 55 (2020) 65016

    J. Pinochet, Classical Tests of General Relativity Part I: Looking to the Past to Understand the Present, Physics Education 55 (2020) 65016

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Pinochet, General relativity in a nutshell I, Phys

    J. Pinochet, General relativity in a nutshell I, Phys. Scr. 98 (2023) 126103. https://doi.org/10.1088/1402- 4896/ad0c34

    doi:10.1088/1402- 2023

  5. [5]

    Lemons, A Student’s Guide to Dimensional Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017

    D.S. Lemons, A Student’s Guide to Dimensional Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Redish, Using Math in Physics: 1

    E.F. Redish, Using Math in Physics: 1. Dimensional Analysis, The Physics Teacher 59 (2021) 397–400. https://doi.org/10.1119/5.0021244

    work page doi:10.1119/5.0021244 2021

  7. [7]

    Mahajan, The Art of Insight in Science and Engineering, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 2014

    S. Mahajan, The Art of Insight in Science and Engineering, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Mahajan, Street-Fighting Mathematics, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 2020

    S. Mahajan, Street-Fighting Mathematics, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    I.A. Barr, A. Bull, E. O’Brien, K.A. Drillsma-Milgrom, L.R. Milgrom, Illuminating black holes, Phys. Educ. 51 (2016) 043001. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/51/4/043001. 9

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    Kontomaris, A

    S.V. Kontomaris, A. Malamou, A presentation of the black hole stretching effect, Phys. Educ. 53 (2017) 015010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/aa8d22

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Black holes ain’t so black

    J. Pinochet, “Black holes ain’t so black”: An introduction to the great discoveries of Stephen Hawking, Phys. Educ. 54 (2019) 035014

    2019

  4. [12]

    Pinochet, Five misconceptions about black holes, Phys

    J. Pinochet, Five misconceptions about black holes, Phys. Educ. 54 (2019) 55003. [13] J. Pinochet, The little robot, black holes, and spaghettification, Phys. Educ. 57 (2022) 045008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ac5727

    2019 doi

  5. [14]

    Cowley, S

    M. Cowley, S. Hughes, Characterization of transiting exoplanets by way of differential photometry, Phys. Educ. 49 (2014) 293. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/49/3/293

    2014 doi

  6. [15]

    Della-Rose, R

    D. Della-Rose, R. Carlson, K. de La Harpe, S. Novotny, D. Polsgrove, Exoplanet Science in the Classroom: Learning Activities for an Introductory Physics Course, The Physics Teacher 56 (2018) 170–173. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5025299

    2018 doi

  7. [16]

    J. Ford, J. Stang, C. Anderson, Simulating Gravity: Dark Matter and Gravitational Lens- ing in the Classroom, The Physics Teacher 53 (2015) 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4935771

    2015 doi

  8. [17]

    Hyde, Exploring Hubble Constant Data in an Introductory Course, The Physics Teacher 59 (2021) 159–161

    J.M. Hyde, Exploring Hubble Constant Data in an Introductory Course, The Physics Teacher 59 (2021) 159–161. https://doi.org/10.1119/10.0003654

    2021 doi

  9. [18]

    Low, The Chandrasekhar limit: a simplified approach, Phys

    A.M. Low, The Chandrasekhar limit: a simplified approach, Phys. Educ. 58 (2023) 045008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/acdbb0

    2023 doi

  10. [19]

    Ma, S.-N

    Y.-Z. Ma, S.-N. Zhang, Hubble expansion is not a velocity, Phys. Educ. 51 (2016) 065011. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/51/6/065011

    2016 doi

  11. [20]

    Pinochet, Illuminating dark matter: II

    J. Pinochet, Illuminating dark matter: II. A guide for physics teachers, Phys. Educ. 59 (2024) 045002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ad3605

    2024 doi

  12. [21]

    Diget, A

    C.A. Diget, A. Pastore, K. Leech, T. Haylett, S. Lock, T. Sanders, M. Shelley, H.V. Wil- lett, J. Keegans, L. Sinclair, E.C. Simpson, the B.B. Collaboration, Binding blocks: building the Universe one nucleus at a time, Phys. Educ. 52 (2017) 024001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361...

    2017 doi

  13. [22]

    Koura, Three-dimensional nuclear chart—understanding nuclear physics and nucle- osynthesis in stars, Phys

    H. Koura, Three-dimensional nuclear chart—understanding nuclear physics and nucle- osynthesis in stars, Phys. Educ. 49 (2014) 215. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/49/2/215

    2014 doi

  14. [23]

    Nikolopoulos, M

    K. Nikolopoulos, M. Pardalaki, Particle dance: particle physics in the dance studio, Phys. Educ. 55 (2020) 025018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ab6952

    2020 doi

  15. [24]

    Chevallard, La transposition didactique: Du savoir savant au savoir enseign´ e [Didactic transposition: From scholarly knowledge to taught knowledge]

    Y. Chevallard, La transposition didactique: Du savoir savant au savoir enseign´ e [Didactic transposition: From scholarly knowledge to taught knowledge]. La Pens´ ee Sauvage Editions, Grenoble, (1991)

    1991

  16. [25]

    Chevallard, M

    Y. Chevallard, M. Bosch, Didactic Transposition in Mathematics Education. In: Lerman, S. (eds) Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education. Springer, Dordrecht, (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 94-007-4978-8 48

    2014 doi

  17. [26]

    Achiam, Didactic transposition: From theoretical notion to research programme

    M. Achiam, Didactic transposition: From theoretical notion to research programme. Paper presented at the biannual ESERA (European Science Education Research Association) doctoral summer school August 25-29 in Kappadokya, Turkey, (2014). 10

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.