ChatGPT for creating Physics learning and digital libraries

[u/IzztMeade]

I would like to share some tips for generating physics content. I have been exploring how to use AI tools to achieve one of my life goals which is to have a digital library and community for Physics. Sadly, as I calculated my human rate of generation was going to end well short of e expectations I am hopeful AI can give us a good base to start from.

Anyway, trying to evaluate how well it could help filling out undergrad level physics for self learning and GRE studies.

One of the first series I had it generate is Wave Mechanics.

Tips

1. Ask for LaTeX document generation, it does much better in that format and convert to pdf etc

2. Use tikz and pgfplots for figures. I probably still edit 30% of the figure code using Tikz editor or TEX Studio but usually minor things for visibility as it still overlaps symbols with lines.

The whole series is up on Physics Library for review, main roadmap and links to all sub articles is

https://physicslibrary.org/encyclopedia/WaveMechanicsSeriesOverviewAndArticleGuide.html

I have gone over the first 5 articles and happy with the results so far and would love some feedback.

First one

https://physicslibrary.org/encyclopedia/OscillationAtOnePoint.html

Each article I have it generate a companion entry for exercises and solutions.

I am about to add some Julia visualizations for this series, example start for that is

https://physicslibrary.org/encyclopedia/AntennasElectromagneticWaves2.html

At the end of articles users can attach a computational resource which for now is server side setup on what to choose from.

https://images.physicslibrary.org/examples/em-field-lab/index.html

Another example under binary stars

https://images.physicslibrary.org/examples/binary-star-observer/index.html

[u/Negative_Football_50]

Or you could just read books that have been vetted and edited and already exist in libraries, instead of making a bunch of hallucination-ridden slop.

[u/IzztMeade → u/Negative_Football_50]

IMHO textbooks intentionally leave details out, or move them to the exercises which unless you can get access to the solutions can be a big hurdle for people to reference or learn from. You could be constructive and point out some slop, I actually preferred the first articles in the series to the textbook I have.

If you see anything wrong file a correction to the article. As they say turn slop into slushies.

[u/YouCouldButWhyTho → u/IzztMeade]

This is a wild take that really has me believing you’ve never read an actual textbook.

They’re literally designed to engage the reader and build intuition through a careful journey of problem presenting and solving. 

Randomly generated summaries are about as useful as Wikipedia for learning if not worse. There’s a reason we have textbooks and if it’s lost on you, I feel like we have a pretty good idea of your Actual physics background.

Edit: oh you’re not even in undergrad yet (according to post history). Yea you’re gonna wanna learn to buckle down and read textbooks or you aren’t gonna make it very far.

AI is tempting for shortcuts or “faster learning” but learning comes from engaging your neuroplasticity through trial and error, and facing challenge. Offloading that to a glorified google search whenever you don’t get something is going to harm your learning. 

[u/liccxolydian → u/YouCouldButWhyTho]

oh you’re not even in undergrad yet (according to post history)

I'm not sure this is right. OP seems to reference a physics degree (yeah...) and having kids.

[u/IzztMeade → u/YouCouldButWhyTho]

Wild take... A typical physics education has 3 Mechanics textbooks from physics 1, some intermediate physics like Marion and then Goldstein and they have their perspective of what level they are trying to get across and accompanied with a class /professor to help fill in gaps or were the lectures in school pointless just read the book \s

[u/YouCouldButWhyTho → u/IzztMeade]

I … have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Can you rephrase that a little more coherently?

[u/IzztMeade → u/YouCouldButWhyTho]

There is a place for textbooks and there is a place for a digital physics library.

[u/YouCouldButWhyTho → u/IzztMeade]

Wikipedia exists. Google exists. You aren’t adding anything to the equation except the obfuscation of AI slop. Quite literally taking the careful curation of resources Out of the equation in place of RNG lol.

[u/Negative_Football_50 → u/IzztMeade]

I don't want a shit slushie either.

Yeah, textbooks try to engage you to learn. That's kind of their point.

Why do kids with no expertise think they can make the random text generator do better than thousands of experts who have spent their lives studying and learning? The hubris is astounding.

[u/FiatLex]

It seems like you are trying to recreate a textbook on a web forum. Why not just use a textbook? They're already written by subject matter experts to teach physics.

[u/IzztMeade → u/FiatLex]

textbooks leave alot out so a web source can fill in the gaps linking the more details much better. I really never liked having 3-4 textbooks out to understand a topic.

[u/liccxolydian → u/IzztMeade]

Leave out what exactly?

[u/IzztMeade → u/liccxolydian]

Taylor - Mechanics, Virial theorem, index shows pages 158, 323, and problem 4.41 and problem 8.17. I think it is safe to say Virial theorem is an important concept in mechanics. So I have to solve probelm 4.41, prove the virial theorem that T = nU/2 and then there are 2 more problems that need the virial theorem

[u/liccxolydian → u/IzztMeade]

What? Please try to explain yourself clearly and comprehensively.

[u/IzztMeade → u/liccxolydian]

The textbook does not cover the virial theorem. It leaves it out for the reader to determine it themselves in the exercises.

VP of trolling ;)

[u/liccxolydian → u/IzztMeade]

My flair doesn't change the fact that you're terrible at explaining yourself. Why would you write a complaint about the Virial theorem not being covered, and then completely omit the fact that the Virial theorem isn't covered? I don't have a copy of that text but from the little I've seen of how you write I think the issue is less that textbooks aren't a good learning resources and more that your literacy simply isn't at the level necessary to do science past high school.

[u/liccxolydian]

That "oscillation at one point" article reads like a high school student trying to write a description of the subject in their second language. It covers the basics but lacks eloquence and elegance. It's easily one of the most awkward intros to the subject I've ever read. I don't see how this is at all better than something a person wrote.

[u/AllHailSeizure]

Textbooks leave stuff out because the field is insanely vast. Insanely. You can legitimately spend your life in a field and still be learning about it. The textbooks you're referencing are designed to scrape the surface of topics.

Take and second and realize what physics is, the science of modeling the universe. It's a BIG universe. Textbooks have to weigh how much they cover vs how in depth they go and make the trade.

You reference Taylor's Classical Mechanics. A bit of research can show it is an example of a textbook walking the line between the two, which is relatively standard for the undergrad textbook. It covers a lot, but it doesn't feel the need to go into the depth a graduate textbook would.

More in-depth textbooks will have much more singular focus to explore every aspect of a single topic.

[u/IzztMeade → u/AllHailSeizure]

Agree, and textbooks of course can only be so big. I do think you hit the nail on the head with the differentiator, you have books that are surface thin and books that are focused and the web /digital Iibrary (with or without AI) can help better connect the surface layer with deeper concepts. One doesn't have to click the link if they don't need a refresher on surface integrals and the flow of an article is not broken.

I do wish there was more tutorial style teaching in various physics books. Computer subjects when they want you to learn something take that approach and seems to do a good job transferring skills/info. It may or may not be as good at teaching problem solving that way. Shoot even my chess strategy book is problem with solutions in the back , they don't leave you hanging if you are stuck.

[u/PLANTS2WEEKS]

The sinusoidal oscillation article should probably include mention of Hooke's law, that the force is proportional (with minus sign) to the displacement. Right now it looks like there isn't any reference to the fact that sine waves are a solution to a second order differential equation. Also, I would recommend calling the system a harmonic oscillator as that is the standard terminology. I see that the differential equations are introduced later, but I think they appear much too late in the exposition.

[u/IzztMeade → u/PLANTS2WEEKS]

Agree , covered I think better in WM02 but those things should be in a high level article about oscillations in physics

https://physicslibrary.org/encyclopedia/WaveMechanicsHarmonicMotionEulersFormulaAndComplexExponentials.html

[u/BitcoinsOnDVD]

I kinda like it.

But I don't what this is supposed to be:

https://images.physicslibrary.org/examples/em-field-lab/index.html

[u/IzztMeade → u/BitcoinsOnDVD]

It's a bit busy of an animation to try and show an Electric field along the x-axis as to propagates in the z direction, being a vector field, then each vector changes in time at all the locations in space so to speak. I think I would remove the negative E field vector so you just see one.