4 ms·
Yes, we are at very early stage. Looking for other physics experts to help increasing it.
by ManuelSH 1y ago
Yes, we are at very early stage. Looking for other physics experts to help increasing it.
- somethingsome 1y agoI like the idea of having a dataset for physics, but those entries are very basics, most of the physics happens with very complicated maths and it will be difficult to make an entry for a lot of physics. For example, imagine the entry for the standard equation, should all the derivation and symbolic implementation done as a unique entry? It will be difficult to separate it in logical entries that reference each others, and many physical ideas are fundamentally different, leading to divergences. I have the impression that it should be easier to just parse reference books and format each paragraph/section as an entry, and maybe build a graph. (considering the reference book as authoritative on the subject)
- ManuelSH 1y agoI guess you mean the Lagrangian of the Standard Model… which I agree, it will be daunting… although there is no limit in a json… The idea of automatically parsing books is very nice and possibly faster, but note that: - there are already various datasets of physics papers and such content - the result will be quite different versus what we intent here, which is to have a high quality dataset of physics results with clear derivations (whenever derivation exist) Maybe we can still use your idea to achieve the last point in some way… maybe there is a book that is already formatted as the dataset and we could use it as a starting point. But I don’t know any.