All language about "specialist" topics is jargon - whether it's the words used, or the way in which they are used - until the usage becomes common knowledge.
Most educated people now know something about my second field, economics. So, if I say that the economy is in equilibrium, 1. today I'd be lying, and 2. most people will understand, in general terms, what I mean. I hope. But that wasn't a "standard" meaning of the word even 30 years ago.
To moan that
all language must be understandable to all listeners is a very socialistic attitude which drags everything down to the lowest common denominator. Nothing progresses under those conditions. So while, if I saw "compactified" used in prose which was not related to superstring theory I might go "aargh!", I wouldn't make the same assumption if I was reading "New Scientist" or (God forbid) a text on nuclear physics. If I was interested enough, I'd go and find out what was meant by it, since, on the whole, physicists use rather precise language to describe their field.
Interestingly enough, I note that no one has challenged our old bean's use of "superstring" which is as jargonistic as all get out!
PS, SpellShredder doesn't like "superstring", it thinks that it's jargon. It suggests that I should use "superuser" instead which, of course,
isn't, is it?
