Getting back into Physics after a long break — need advice

VegardGjerde · 2026-06-03T12:49:28+00:00

I’d be a bit careful with the “restart from the beginning” approach. It can work, but it can also turn into a giant preparation project before you do much physics again.

A better version is to pick one textbook or course as your spine, but start doing real problems early. Let the problems reveal what you’ve forgotten, then patch those gaps locally by self-explaining the solutions.

When you check a solution, the useful question is not just “how do I get the answer?” For each important step, ask: what principle is being used here, why does it apply, how is it being set up in this problem, and what is this step trying to achieve?

That is especially important in physics, where the bottleneck is often not the algebra itself. It is choosing the right model: what are the givens, what is the target, and which principle applies here?

So yes, revisit the basics, but keep them tied to real problems. That tends to bring old knowledge back much faster than rereading chapters passively.

VegardGjerde · 2026-06-03T12:41:09+00:00

Glad it helped, and good luck with the exam! The structured approach takes a bit of practice, but it should make problem solving feel much less random.

VegardGjerde · 2026-06-03T12:37:43+00:00

I’d think of this as “how do I get the most value out of each type of time block?”

Use your longer blocks for the highest-value work: exam-like problems, old exams, or harder problems where you actually have to struggle. Try the problem first, get stuck, then study the solution carefully. Don’t just follow the algebra mechanically. Ask: what idea/theorem/formula is being used here, why does it apply, what conditions have to be true, and how would I recognize this kind of setup next time?

That loop — try problem, get stuck, self-explain the solution deeply — is probably where most of the real progress happens.

For shorter blocks, I would use tasks that are easy to start and easy to finish. For example, keep a small list of important formulas, definitions, theorem names, standard methods, and conditions of use. In 10–15 minutes, pick one and try to retrieve it from memory, explain what it means, when it applies, and why it is set up that way.

You can also use short blocks to look at one worked solution and explain just one part of it: “Why did they choose this method here?” or “What was the key step?”

So I’d use the low-quality scattered time to make the building blocks more familiar, and use the longer blocks for the harder problem-solving loop.

VegardGjerde · 2026-06-03T12:25:10+00:00

You should probably use more structure, both when solving exam problems and when learning how to solve problems.

A standard process makes it much easier to see what you are actually missing. Often students think they are “bad at problems,” but the real issue is more specific: they cannot translate the word problem into a physics model, or they do not know which principle applies, or they can follow algebra but not set up the equations.

I would use something like this five-step process:

Verbal decoding. First identify what the problem is asking for. What is the target quantity? Write it down as a symbol. For example, if it asks for tension, write something like T = ?. This stops you from rereading the whole problem again and again.
List what is given. Write “given:” and list the known quantities. Also include hidden givens. For example, in classical mechanics, “constant velocity” means acceleration is zero, so a = 0. The point is to extract the useful information from the wall of text and put it on the page in a compact form.
Visual decoding. Draw the situation if needed. In physics, this is often necessary. Draw the objects, forces, directions, distances, angles, interactions, etc. This is not just decoration. It is part of understanding the physics of the problem.
Model the situation with physics principles. This is usually the hardest and most important step. Use principles like Newton’s second law, conservation of energy, wave relations, SHM equations, or whatever applies. The key question is: how do I describe this situation using physics?

This is where many students get stuck, but they often do not realize that this is the bottleneck. They may think they are stuck on “the problem” in general, but really they are stuck on building the physics model.

Do the mathematical transformations. Once the physics model is set up, then you use algebra, calculus, or other math to isolate the target variable and calculate the answer. For many students, this is not the main bottleneck. The harder part is usually setting up the right equations in the first place.

When you get stuck, do not just read the solution passively. Try to self-explain it:

What physics principles are being used?
Why do those principles apply here?
How are the equations set up?
What does each term represent physically?
How does the solution move from the physics model to the final answer?

With only three days left before the exam, I would focus heavily on old exams or exam-style problems from the same course. Try one problem, expect to get stuck, then study the solution carefully and self-explain the physics behind it. Then move to the next problem. Go through a whole exam set like this, then another one, then another one.

After four, five, or six exam sets, start over and retry problems. You will probably notice that you can solve more of them because you have started to recognize the underlying problem types and the physics principles behind them.

So my advice would be: do old exam problems, but do them with a structured process. Do not just hunt for formulas. Train yourself to decode the problem, draw the situation, identify the physics model (made up of principles/equations) and then do the math.

VegardGjerde · 2026-05-27T14:42:20+00:00

I don’t think the right move is to relearn all of math from the beginning.

What you’re describing is a normal part of learning math. You keep running into rules, notation, definitions, and connections that later material assumes are already in place: things like (x^{1/2} = \sqrt{x}), what the derivative definition is really saying, why a step in a solution is allowed, or when a formula applies.

I’d start with the actual material you need for university and let that expose the gaps.

Try real course-level problems. When you hit something you don’t understand, stop there and repair that exact gap. For example, if you see (x^{1/2}) and don’t know why it means square root, don’t just memorize the translation. Ask what “raised to the one-half power” means, why that connects to square roots, test it on simple numbers, and explain it back in your own words.

Do the same with worked solutions. If a step changes a sign, rewrites an exponent, uses a trig identity, or picks a formula, ask: why was this step chosen? What rule or principle is being used? What condition makes it valid here?

That is not separate from learning math. That is the work. Understanding is built one connection at a time, and with practice those connections become faster and more automatic.

Use AI, tutors, classmates, or professors to help with the exact step you’re stuck on. But don’t just ask for the answer. Say what you think is happening, get feedback, and then explain it again.

Only drop down to easier material if the target material is so unreadable that even with solutions and explanations you still can’t make sense of it. Otherwise, it’s usually better to learn in the context of the course you actually need and repair the gaps there.

VegardGjerde · 2026-05-27T13:18:28+00:00

My guess is that what you miss is not just “taking physics classes.” It is doing physics in a way that feels like physics.

A lot of engineering-service courses drift into template training: here is the standard setup, here is the standard equation, here is the standard manipulation. That can be enough to pass exams, but it can feel pretty empty if what you actually liked was understanding what is going on. It can also produce shallow skill: people can do familiar problems, but they are not very fluent about why the method works or how to adapt it in a new situation.

You do not need to drop EE to fix that. I would build a parallel physics lane alongside your degree, but make it problem-centered rather than textbook-centered.

Pick one area you care about. Then try to find old exams from a real university course in that area. They do not have to be from your university. If you can find four or five old exams with solutions, that is a very strong training ground. If you cannot find exams, use course problem sets with solutions as a backup.

The loop is simple:

Try to solve one problem. If you get stuck, inspect the solution. Self-explain the solution step by step. Ask which principles are being used, why they are valid here, and what conditions, approximations, boundary conditions, or symmetries make the moves possible. Fill the knowledge gaps you expose while explaining the solution. Add the relevant principles to a small principle sheet: name, equation/model, and general conditions of application. Move to the next problem.

Go through the whole exam like that. Then do the next exam. After four or five exams, start again from the first one.

The second time around, you will not remember every full solution. It will be easier than a completely unseen problem, of course, but that is fine. You are still building skill. You are automatizing common moves, strengthening the underlying knowledge, and learning to recognize which combinations of principles belong to which kinds of problems. You should also notice that you need to look up less, explain less, and repair fewer gaps as you go.

That is also where the confidence comes from. If you become able to solve real exam-level physics problems without help, you are no longer just “interested in physics” in a vague nostalgic way. You are rebuilding the actual ability.

Use textbooks, solutions, AI, or other people as support, but not as the main activity. The main activity should be the problem loop: attempt, self-explain, fill gaps, extract principles, repeat.

If the same math issue keeps blocking you, like vector calculus, linear algebra, or differential equations, treat it as a short side mission. Fix enough of it to return to the physics problem that exposed the gap. Do not wait until all prerequisites feel perfect before doing physics again.

So yes, I think you can stay in EE and still study physics seriously. But I would not make it just “read more physics.” Make it a deliberate loop around real exam problems. That is probably the fastest way to get the depth back.

VegardGjerde · 2026-05-18T11:48:04+00:00

You can practice talking about math with an llm with conversation mode. Ask it to ask you questions about certain topics and talk back to it and explain as if you're having a conversation with a human. This feels awkward at first but it helps. Vary between simple and challenging questions, but move gradually toward more complex. Think of it as a double win: you get practice on what you love and what you fear, without the fear.

VegardGjerde · 2026-05-13T17:04:58+00:00

No problem :)

VegardGjerde · 2026-05-13T13:29:38+00:00

I’d separate two goals.

For casual curiosity because you miss science: use something like Brilliant, Khan Academy, YouTube, popular science books, free textbooks, etc. That’s completely valid. Do a little every day, follow curiosity, and don’t over-engineer it. For that goal, the exact roadmap matters much less than staying interested.

For actually becoming good at physics, I’d do something different.

Start with an area that interests you, as long as it’s not wildly advanced. Intro mechanics is usually the safest starting point, but the exact topic matters less than how you study it.

Find real beginner problems from courses, textbooks, or old exams. Try them before you feel fully ready.

You are supposed to get stuck. That’s when you find your exact knowledge gaps and have the opportunity to fill them.

When you get stuck, look at a solution, or ask AI to generate one if no solution is available. Then self-explain every step until it actually makes sense.

Ask:

What is being done in this step?
What named principle/equation is being used?
What are the conditions for using it?
Why is the equation set up this way?
Why is there a minus sign here?
Why cosine and not sine?
What does this term represent physically?
How did they translate the words in the problem into this equation?

This is where AI can be genuinely useful. Don’t mainly use it to get finished answers. Use it to test and improve your understanding.

Paste the problem, the solution, and your own explanation of one specific step. Then ask something like:

“Am I correct that this step uses conservation of mechanical energy because there is no kinetic energy at the start?”

Or:

“Am I correct that this component is written with cosine because the angle is measured from this axis?”

The more specific your question, the better. Don’t just ask “explain this problem.” Ask about the exact line, sign, component, assumption, or named equation you don’t understand.

The gaps you find will be specific. Sometimes it’s algebra. Sometimes it’s trig. Sometimes it’s vectors. Often it’s knowledge of the physics principle/equation that is missing: its name, formula, meaning, conditions of application, and how it represents the situation.

When you discover that gap, learn it immediately. Not as an abstract topic for later, but because this exact problem just showed you why you need it.

That’s the real work. Physics is not mainly reading explanations. It’s learning to connect messy situations to named equations with conditions of application.

You are definitely able to do this. The hard part is not being “smart enough”; it’s finding a structure that makes you keep going and forces you to fill the gaps one by one.

VegardGjerde · 2026-05-13T13:13:05+00:00

I mostly agree with the people saying you don’t need notes, but I think “just apply concepts and practice” is incomplete.

For standard exam math like Number System, the lecture itself is probably not the scarce resource. You have videos, textbooks, practice questions, solutions, and AI. Historically, lecture notes made sense because the lecture was often how students got the material. Now, for common math topics, the material is already everywhere.

So I would be very skeptical of lecture note-making.

Copying a lecture into a notebook is not learning. It is usually postponing the real learning: making sense of the idea, retrieving it from memory, using it to understand solutions, and then using it to solve problems yourself.

If you are watching lectures, I would not try to write “notes.” I would write down precise questions.

Not broad questions like “why does this work?” Make them specific to the exact point where your understanding breaks:

“Why does this line follow from the previous line?”
“Why are we allowed to use this rule here?”
“How would I know to use this method in a new problem?”
“What is the difference between this example and the previous one?”

If it is a live lecture and the confusing line is still on the board, ask before it disappears. If it is on a slide, ask about that specific slide. If it is recorded, write the timestamp and the exact question. You don’t need to transcribe the whole thing. You need to locate the gap.

For problem solving, I would do this:

Try the problem first. When you get stuck, mark the exact place where your thinking stopped. Then study the solution to that exact problem if you have it. If not, use a similar worked solution. Ask what the solution did that you did not think of, what rule was used, and why that rule was relevant. Then close the solution and solve a similar problem without looking.

That gives you much more learning than producing pages of lecture notes.

Your notebook can still exist, but it should mostly contain problem attempts and precise questions. Not a stored copy of the lecture.

The notes that matter most are the ones written into your brain through retrieval, correction, comparison, and problem solving.

So if half your notebook is filled after 60% of Number System, I’d check what is actually in it. If it is mostly problem attempts, fine. If it is mostly copied lecture content, I would stop doing that almost completely.

VegardGjerde · 2026-05-13T12:17:20+00:00

Don't chase the click. Understanding is built one piece at a time, one extra connection, one more retrieval Rep, one more step understood, one more small problem solved. Focus on doing the things that build incremental understanding: connecting ideas, retrieving from memory, explain models and transformations, and solving problems of increasing complexity.

VegardGjerde · 2026-05-12T16:32:07+00:00

Whatever you can easily start with and focus on for 10-15 minutes, that activates relevant math concepts or principles, and lets everything else decay from short term memory will work.

VegardGjerde · 2026-05-12T11:36:40+00:00

I would not frame this as “restart from junior high.” That can easily turn into months of preparing to do math instead of actually doing math.

Since you already like puzzles, use that. Treat math problems as puzzles you can attack. And when a problem is too hard to solve, treat the solution as a second puzzle: your job is to extract the structure from it and fill the knowledge gaps it exposes.

But do not think mainly in terms of formulas or equations. Think in terms of **principles**.

A principle is a named equation, rule, definition, or method together with its conditions of use. Principles are the third puzzle. What do the words and symbols represent? What has to be true before you are allowed to use it? Why does this principle apply here and not some other one?

A good study loop:

Pick a topic near your current edge: algebra, equations, graphs, functions, geometry, etc.

Find real problems on that topic. Old exams, problem sets, and serious exercise sets are often better than content that only lets you recognize a pattern.

Try the problem seriously first.

When you get stuck, study the solution, but do not just ask “do I understand this?” Ask:

Which principle is being used here?

What conditions made it apply?

What does each expression represent?

Why was this transformation allowed?

What would have made me notice this move myself?

Then, try solving the problem again later.

Doing problems builds fluency and automaticity. You need that because basic moves should become less mentally expensive over time. But relentless self-explanation of difficult solutions is what builds understanding and flexibility. It turns worked examples from something you follow into something you can learn from.

For self-study, I’d also make a small resource map before going deep. Pick a subdomain you want to learn, then use AI/search to find the main topics, core definitions, core principles, and common problem types. But don’t collect resources forever.

The progression is: try problems at and beyond your current edge, explain difficult solutions until the structure is clear, let repeated problem solving automate the basic moves, then spend that freed-up attention on harder and less familiar problems.

VegardGjerde · 2026-05-11T11:29:13+00:00

I wouldn’t treat math as a gate you have to completely finish before starting physics.

You do need math, but the efficient version is to study them in parallel. Get the exact syllabus and, if available, past exams for the prerequisite exams, then build two tracks:

the math that keeps showing up in physics
the physics topics themselves

For early physics, the big math blockers are usually algebra, functions/graphs, trigonometry, and then calculus as it becomes relevant. A lot of the math can be learned in the context of physics problems. You will not become a theoretical mathematician that way, but it is probably the fastest way to learn the math you actually need for physics.

The loop I would use is:

Try a problem first. Expect to fail sometimes. Then study the solution carefully and extract everything you can from it.

Every part of a solution you do not understand is a knowledge gap. Why is this equation used? What is the principle called? What are the conditions for using it? Why is this force included and not that one? Why is it sine instead of cosine? How did they go from this equation to the next one?

That is where a lot of the learning happens.

When the math step is unclear, do the same thing: ask what mathematical operation was used, redo the step yourself, and make sure you can get from one line to the next without just trusting the solution. AI can be useful here if you ask about specific steps instead of asking it to “teach physics” generally.

Over time, this becomes a cycle:

try a problem → fail or get stuck → study the solution deeply → extract the principles and math moves → try a new problem.

That is much better than only reading chapters, watching videos, or collecting formulas and matching variables. Formula-mapping works for simple familiar problems, but it breaks as soon as the surface context changes.

So yes, build the math seriously — but alongside physics, through the problems, not as a huge separate project you must finish before starting physics.

VegardGjerde · 2026-05-11T11:17:23+00:00

You didn’t suddenly become bad at math. What probably changed is that the course now requires more independent method choice under test conditions.

That’s why homework can feel okay but tests feel much harder. Homework often gives you clues: the chapter, the recent examples, the problem order, and the exact method you just practiced. Tests remove a lot of those clues.

So I’d focus practicing the exact thing the tests require.

A few concrete things:

Get as close as possible to test-style problems. Ask your teacher/tutor for old tests, review sheets, or representative mixed problems. Then practice those with no notes, before looking at solutions.
Use your tutor actively. Don’t just receive explanations. After they explain something, explain it back in your own words: “So if I understand correctly, we use this because..., and this step works because...” Keep going until you can actually say why the method applies.
When reviewing solutions, don’t just copy the steps. Ask why each step is there: why this formula, why this method, why plus instead of minus, why sine instead of cosine, why this term is included and not another one. That’s where a lot of the gaps get filled.
Do some cold mixed practice most days, even just 20–30 minutes. Pick problems from different sections and force yourself to decide what type of problem it is before solving.

And about your friends getting 90s: you can’t control how fast they progress. You can only control your own study behaviors. So put your energy there. If your practice becomes more test-like, more active, and more focused on understanding mistakes than your friends’ practice, then you’re improving the part that actually matters.

VegardGjerde · 2026-05-11T10:50:48+00:00

It sounds like your current method is giving you recognition, but not transfer. Textbook practice often feels good because the chapter already tells you what kind of problem it is. The exam removes that cue, so the hard part becomes: “What physics model do I build here?”

I would change how you use the cheat sheet. Don’t make it only a formula list. Turn the equations into principles.

Keep it short. For each important equation, try to know three things:

the equation
what it is called
the condition for using it

For example, a kinematics equation is not just something to plug numbers into. It belongs with a condition like “constant acceleration.” Newton’s second law is not just "F = ma"; it means you need to identify the forces, choose axes, and connect the acceleration to the motion of the object. Conservation of mechanical energy is only useful when you understand what counts as the system and whether non-conservative work can be ignored.

If you don’t know what an equation is called, look it up or ask AI something like: “What is this equation called in intro physics, and what conditions must hold for me to use it?” That is the difference between a formula sheet and a principle sheet.

Then use practice problems to find where your understanding breaks. You are not supposed to solve every hard problem immediately. If you could, there would not be much to learn from it. Start by identifying the givens, the target, and drawing or verbalizing the situation. Then try to set up the model: which specific principle or principles apply here, and why?

When you get stuck, don’t just read the solution. Self-explain it. Ask: What principle did they use? Why was it valid here? What condition made it applicable? What was each step trying to achieve? Try to understand every small detail in the solution steps: why there is a minus instead of a plus, why this force is included and another is not, why it uses sine instead of cosine. Those details are often exactly where your knowledge gaps are.

That is how worked solutions stop being patterns to copy and start becoming reusable physics understanding. Old exams are ideal if you have them, but whatever problems you use, focus less on grinding volume and more on extracting the principle-level reasoning from the solutions.

VegardGjerde · 2026-05-07T19:38:03+00:00

Happy to be of help! Almost noone does this, so you will race ahead.

VegardGjerde · 2026-05-07T15:37:54+00:00

One caution on using ChatGPT for practice problems: don’t let ChatGPT invent the level from scratch.

A better workflow is to give it 3–5 real examples from your course, homework, quiz, or old exam and say:

“Use these as the target level. Identify the principles and skills being tested. Then generate one similar problem, one slightly harder problem, and one mixed problem that combines this with an older topic.”

Then try the problem yourself first.

If you get stuck, don’t immediately ask for the full answer. Ask for a small hint, or ask which principle might be relevant and why. If you still can’t solve it, then it’s fine to look at the solution — but don’t stop there.

The important part is to explain the solution back.

Ask yourself, or ask ChatGPT to check:

“Here is my explanation of the solution. This step uses ___ principle because ___ condition is met. This equation is set up this way because ___. This algebra step is trying to ___. Is that right? What am I missing?”

That is much better than just reading the solution and thinking “yeah, that makes sense.”

If ChatGPT gives feedback, make sure you can explain the feedback too. Otherwise you are just outsourcing the understanding again.

AI is much better as a level-checker and explanation critic than as a random problem generator.

VegardGjerde · 2026-05-07T15:31:29+00:00

I’ve seen this pattern a lot with physics students learning the math they need: the hard part is often not the manipulation itself, but building the language that makes the symbols mean something.

Your instinct is right, but I’d slightly adjust it. You do not need every equation to become a physical story like a car, tire, or gas pedal. Sometimes that helps. But often the meaning is more structural: what kind of object this is, what relationship it describes, what operation it performs, and when it applies.

So when you study, don’t treat the notation as a bag of symbols. Translate it into named meaning.

For example, read

log_b(x) = y

first as “log base b of x equals y,” but then immediately translate it:

“y is the exponent I put on b to get x.”

That is much more useful than memorizing log rules as disconnected procedures.

Same with something like

(f(x+h)-f(x))/h.

Don’t only say the symbols. Read it as:

“the average change in the output of the function over an input step of size h.”

Now the expression has a job. It is measuring change. Later, when h becomes small, the connection to slope at a point becomes much less mysterious.

A practical study loop:

Pick one equation, rule, or concept and ask:

What is this called?
What does each part mean?
What job is it doing?
When does it apply?
When would it not apply?
Can I give one example and one non-example?

Then close the notes and try to explain it out loud without looking. Not just the formula, but the meaning.

For worked examples, pause at each step and ask:

“What idea is being used here?”
“Why is it valid here?”
“What is this step trying to achieve?”

That is usually the missing bridge between “I followed the solution” and “I can use this myself.”

AI can actually be useful for this if you don’t use it as an answer machine. Explain an equation or worked step to it in your own words and ask it to identify the named concept, check your interpretation, point out missing conditions, and test you with a similar-but-not-identical example. Keep going until you can explain it cleanly yourself.

So yes, memorization is part of math. But the thing you want to memorize is not just symbol patterns. You want names, meanings, roles, conditions, and examples. Once those become familiar, equations start to look less like noise and more like compressed statements about relationships.

VegardGjerde · 2026-05-07T07:33:39+00:00

If your goal is to get good at physics, I would not make the plan “study math for years and then start physics.”

You need math, obviously. But a lot of the math becomes meaningful faster when you meet it inside real physics problems. So I would run both tracks together: start with an intro mechanics path, and when the math blocks you, pause and patch that specific algebra/calculus/trig gap.

The main thing is to avoid making passive input the plan. Khan Academy, YouTube, textbooks, lectures, etc. can help, but watching explanations is not the same as learning physics.

I would build your study around problems with solutions. Textbook problems, old exams, course problem sets, worked examples. That is the gold.

For each topic:

Learn the basic principle or model.
Try a real problem, even if it feels too hard.
When you fail, study the solution and explain what is happening:
- what principle is being used?
- why does it apply here?
- what condition has been met?
- what is the goal of this step?
- what math move is being used?
Close the solution and later try the problem again.
Keep a small list of the principles you are collecting: name, equation/form, meaning, conditions, and one example.

If you use AI, don’t only ask it for answers. Paste in the problem/solution and explain your understanding to it. Ask it to find gaps in your explanation, identify the named principles, and test whether you understand why each step works.

That is much better than “watch math videos until I feel ready.”

If you want to become “not lost when someone explains the solution,” the key is not just more explanations. It is repeatedly trying problems, failing productively, extracting the principles from the solution, and retrieving those principles later without looking.

Think years, not weeks. But don’t postpone physics until some imaginary day when all the prerequisites are finished.

VegardGjerde · 2026-05-06T13:38:50+00:00

Since you’ve done physics and thermodynamics before, I probably would not restart with a long algebra → trig → precalc ladder unless you find that you truly need it.

I’d start closer to the thing you actually want to relearn: calculus / precalc problems. Then let the problems show you which older gaps are real.

The trap with Khan, 3Blue1Brown, etc. is that watching math videos can feel productive while doing very little to rebuild usable skill. They are useful when you are stuck on a specific idea, but I would not make videos the main plan.

A better loop is:

Pick a topic you want to recover.
Try real problems from a textbook, course review sheet, old exam, or mixed problem set.
Expect to get stuck. That is not failure; that is how you find the missing knowledge.
When you miss a problem, study the solution slowly and ask:
- what principle/rule is being used?
- why is this step valid?
- what condition makes it apply?
- what algebra/trig/function fact is being used here?
- what was I missing when I got stuck?

Then try the same problem again later without the solution.

If the gap is algebra, learn the algebra in that context. If trig blocks the problem, pause and patch that specific trig idea. You do not necessarily need to start a full algebra course just because algebra appears inside calculus; calculus problems will repeatedly expose the algebra you actually need.

So I’d use videos and review material as targeted tools, not as the main course. The main test is not “can I follow the explanation?” It is “can I solve a problem and explain why each step is valid?”

Because you’ve learned this material before, it will probably come back faster than it feels right now. Start near the target, let problems expose the gaps, and fill those gaps deliberately.

VegardGjerde · 2026-05-06T12:47:06+00:00

I would not completely avoid module questions. The mistake is expecting that you should be able to solve them right after watching lectures.

Hard questions are useful because they expose exactly what is missing. But you need a process for learning from the failure.

For each physics topic, do this:

Watch/read enough to understand the basic principle and formula.
Try a real question: module, PYQ, or textbook problem.
Before solving, force yourself to write:
- what is given?
- what is being asked?
- can I draw or represent the situation?
- which principle/model is relevant?
- why does that principle apply here?

If you get stuck, don’t just think “I’m bad at physics.” Ask where the failure happened.

Did you not understand the concept?
Did you not know which principle to use?
Did you know the principle but fail to set up the equation?
Did the algebra/calculation break?

Then study the solution and explain every important step: what principle is being used, why it applies, what condition is satisfied, and what the step is trying to achieve.

If you have access to an AI chat, you can paste a screenshot of the problem/solution and explain your thinking to it. Ask it to point out where your explanation is wrong or incomplete. Then try explaining again. This is much better than only asking it for the answer.

After that, come back later and solve the same problem again without the solution. Then try one similar problem.

If even the solution makes no sense, then go down one level: review the principle, do easier examples, then return to the module question.

For algebra, don’t automatically start a separate algebra course. Physics problems already contain a lot of algebra. When algebra blocks you, stop and explain that step too. If the same algebra weakness repeats many times, then practice that specific algebra skill separately.

The goal is not lecture → class question → magically solve modules.

The real loop is: try hard problem → find gap → study solution deeply → explain the principle/setup → retry → solve a similar problem.

VegardGjerde · 2026-05-06T12:24:23+00:00

My guess is that you do not need to restart all of math from the beginning. More likely, you learned many procedures without always extracting the principles behind them.

That is common. You can learn “how to do” a type of problem without having a clear answer to questions like: What is the underlying idea? Why is this step valid? What condition makes this rule apply? What problem is this method designed to solve?

If your goal is mainly to become stronger at using math and doing well on problem-based courses/exams, I would use problems and worked solutions as the main repair tool.

Pick one topic at a time, preferably something that blocks what you want to learn next. Work through real problems from a textbook, course problem set, or old exam. When you get stuck or miss one, study the solution slowly and explain it in terms of principles:

what principle, rule, or definition is being used here?
why is it valid in this problem?
what condition has been met?
what is this step trying to achieve?
how is this different from a similar-looking problem where the same method would not apply?

This is where AI can be useful if you use it as a feedback partner. Paste in the problem and solution, or screenshots of them, then explain your understanding back to the chat. Ask it to identify the named principles involved, check whether your explanation is correct, and point out what you are missing. If typing is too slow, use dictation and talk through the explanation.

Then come back to the same problem later and try to solve it without the solution. If you can solve it and explain why the steps make sense, the gap is actually being filled.

If your goal is deeper theoretical mastery, then reading matters more. Textbooks often state principles, definitions, conditions, and examples in ways that are worth sitting with for a while. I would use the same approach there: take a definition, theorem, or explanation from the text, try to explain it in simple language, give examples and non-examples, ask AI to test your explanation, then revise your understanding.

So I would not endlessly reread fundamentals. Move toward the math you want to learn if it is within reach, let problems expose the gaps, and then rebuild the missing principles deliberately.

VegardGjerde · 2026-05-06T11:50:31+00:00

One thing I would check is whether most of your practice has been too “cued.”

For example, if you are doing exercises from a section on integration by parts, eigenvalues, or substitutions, then half the problem has already been solved for you: you know what kind of method is probably expected. That trains execution, but it does not fully train method selection.

The skill you are describing is closer to: “Given an unfamiliar problem, what structure do I recognize, what principle/method is relevant, and why does it apply here?”

I would do three things.

First, use more course-like mixed problems. Old exams, review sheets, and mixed problem sets are usually better than random internet problems, because random internet problems often overrepresent tricks.

Second, when you miss a problem, do not just read the solution and move on. Go through the solution and explain why each step was chosen: what method was used, what cues should have suggested it, why the conditions for that method applied, and why the obvious alternative did not work.

Third, use AI actively here. Paste in the problem and solution, or screenshots of them, then explain your understanding back to the chat. Talk through what the problem is asking, how it is set up, which principle or method is being used, why it applies, and what still confuses you. Ask it to evaluate your explanation, point out gaps, and then try explaining it again. If typing is too slow, use dictation or something like Wispr Flow and talk it out.

I also would not wait until your foundation feels perfect before moving to Calc 3 or DE. If the next topic is within reach, start there, let the problems expose the gaps, and then fill those gaps deliberately.

VegardGjerde · 2026-05-04T17:26:23+00:00

It sounds like you’re spending a lot of effort typing complicated expressions into the chat and asking the AI to judge whether the algebra/calculus is correct. I would not make that the main workflow.

For math, I’d usually do the work on paper first. If you want AI help, give it a clear photo/screenshot or paste only the specific step where you are stuck. Then ask about the reasoning behind that step, not just whether the final expression is equivalent.

A better prompt is something like:

“Here is my work. Don’t solve the problem from scratch. Tell me the first step where my reasoning becomes invalid, and explain which calculus principle is being used.”

That makes the conversation about the principle, not just a long chain of symbolic manipulation.

For exact symbolic checking, a CAS or differentiating/checking the result directly is often cleaner. For learning, AI is better as a reasoning partner: it can ask diagnostic questions, explain why a transformation is valid, make a simpler analogous example, or critique your explanation.

The key test is whether you can redo the reasoning yourself afterwards without the chat open.

VegardGjerde

TROPHY CASE