Or inverserly, where do academic theoreticians/mathematicians try to sell their ideas and hypothesis depending on how:
- potential for applications
Can some of such share here their strategy? With which kind of ideas/theorems are you going to a conference, potential collaborator, journal, blog entry. Where could a experimentalist hear about it at all and most likely?
Especially in fields where theoreticians and experimentalist are not working closely together or when there are rather interdisciplinary thematics overlaps. E.g. Topological condensed matter physics is now booming but most experimentalist also trained in higher mathematics during their studies might not understand any of the theoretical knowledge and hypothesis not specially written for physicists. Where would a topologist go thinking his work is of importance in physics and testing the waters?
Of course you could also ask how to find unexplained experimental data as a theoretician, but as this is the majority and most data cannot be reproduced, it's a rather pointless and asymmetric question as the answer is google, read, goole,....
But related to question in the title I'm wondering also how to spot easily if too much theoretical/experimetnal work in a field exists or how the balance is. There are huge unbalances in many fields of physics I know of due to staff, financial, political reasons, but how to spot this as a non-theoretician and postdoc not working for over a decade in a field and maybe work also more on theory/experiment parallel like at least some researchers in physics do? Any bibliographic or heuristic trikcs/hacks here?