Redpill me on this
Flipping a triangle is like flipping a cross. Death to jews
The book or electrodynamics in general?I can tell you there's no such thing as electrons, and it's all fields and magnetism, but the math werks.
>>102442829I hope you don’t use apple mobile devices
>>102442839The Dirac field has a number operator.
>>102442786Why do you ask this on /g/ of all places?
>>102443080For the memes
>>102442786I read this during high school for olympiads, super nice book but where technology you nigger
>>102442839>I can tell you there's no such thing as electrons, and it's all fields and magnetismWhere to learn and understand this?
>>102443184>Where to learn and understand this?Nowhere besides that guy's own mind
>>102442786Not the most comprehensive book on the subject, but probably the most clearly written.What's your interest in it?
>>102443184check your chemistry notebook and ionic bonds and reassess the quoted statement
>>102443184Depends how deep down that rabbit hole you want to go. It all just comes back to quantum mechanics in the end, which the same author also wrote a pretty good book on.
>>102442839>I can tell you there's no such thing as electrons, and it's all fields and magnetism, but the math werks.literally this.and by extension the same is true for photons
all nonsense jewish resurrectted hebrew when a rock that came out of the ground subjected to polarized neutron bombardment gives free energybut no, you need to study the hebrew for 30 years before being allowed to have a tiny fraction of that free energy
>>102442786>thisimprove your fundamentals rather than jumping into textbooks you will never finish. read pic related and then come back to electrodynamics
>>102448637Those are basically different topics, although obviously related
>>102449055>different topicOP should just read the book instead of making a thread about said book>obviously relatedbetter than related, my recommendation is 100 pages and easily available at your local public library and will give you the fundamentals instead of learning 50 equations you don't actually need because there's no exam at the end of the tunnel
>>102449935He was asking about a book on electrodynamics, you suggested one on thermodynamics
>>102449961chapter 8 in his book is what I recommended as an easy read, if OP didn't want specifics he shouldn't had used the book cover. Only chapter 7 is actually electrodynamics. Again OP should just read this book isn't of asking about it, he's never putting it to use unless he has an actual electrical engineering degree to go with it
>>102450049wtf are you schitzoposting
>>102450106>wtf are you schitzopostingwhat is your problem anon
>>102450123> OP Asks about a book> You post a book on a different topic> Tell him he should just read the entire book instead of asking about it
>>102450138>> OP Asks about a bookthank you, now can you show me your reply answering OP about such matters
>>102450146lol. What a bizarre conversation this is
>>102442786it should not be jpgpng would be great
>>102450166it is because I looked into OP's book and you didn't, he wants to get into electrodynamics, unless he's an undegrad doing this for a course and eventually works as an electrical engineering, the value you out of it is marginal. the "redpill" is to read wikipedia slop instead of a book designed for a semester class. inside that book, it's a lot of equation you don't really care for anything g related but the themes of thermodynamics, the big idea is there and it's better served reading the very short introduction book I posted because it's designed for an easy read and above wikipedia slop but for some reason this bothered you instead of all the other replies going muh flipping triangles, muh there's no electrons, muh free energy. Literally another anon said it goes back to quantum mechanics, I agree with that but that's even more unrelated yet you had nothing to say to them
>>102442786The difficulty spikes in chapter 2 when you have to do a bunch of surface integrals to get the net field. It gets a lot easier later with Gauss theorem where that stuff is removed by choosing the right geometry.Griffiths' QM text is similar where in chapter 1 he gives you Buffon's needle problem which is absolutely going to filter 95% of undergraduates that aren't at MIT
>>102450204You know electrodynamics and thermodynamics are different topics right?Of course it's a lot of equations, that's a good thing for a physics book. The question is if it has good explanations and examples of these equations.
Isn't vector calculus like calculus 4?
>>102450227>electrodynamics and thermodynamics are different topicsno, it turns out that many electromagnetic phenomena can be understood through this same lens>Electromagnetic radiation/thermal radiation>Joule heating/electric fields/thermal energy>Thermoelectric effects/Seebeck/ Peltier effect just a two-way coupling between thermal and electrical behaviors>Quantum electrodynamics: virtual photons just forces/energy exchangeblah blah blah, electrodynamics work done by electromagnetic fields can be understood in similar terms, with analogous formulations. My recommendation isn't even outlandish, now please direct me to your effort post reply to OP's initial request
>>102442786electric moves thingsthx
>>102450267His request is redpill me on this. What is there to redpill you on? Even if you knew the math you'd have to use a computer to do the calculations unless you want to start filling out chalkboards.
>>102449935>>102450049does that book rely on actual scientific facts and trials or just a personal essay made on way to get some degree
>>102450304>His request is redpill me on this.a thread with just a book cover redpilled you to read the book? I agreed with reading the book, just telling you it's not worth your while if you're asking on g instead of sci
>>102442786Ohanian is better, it gives a more unified presentation by having a stronger focus on relativity. Griffiths isn't bad though, it has a more general discussion of the radiation fields and covers some interesting topics like the Abraham-Lorentz force, but these topics are always covered in more advanced books anyway.
>>102450321>scientific factsgo to >>>/sci/
>>102450267He asked about electrodynamics, reading about heat capacity of molecules and gas laws will be less directly useful to him than just reading a book about his topic of interest.OP said nothing about his background, so we can assume he is either an undergrad or maybe just an autism interested in that topic specifically.
>>102450343>go to /sci/thanks but I'm still functional
>>102450356>OP said nothing about his background, so we can assume he ispic related, if you're serious about a topic you go on the sci sticky and read the curated book charts on said topic instead of asking g with 4 words and no context
>>102442786>>102450227>The question is if it has good explanations and examples of these equationsNTA but I worked through this text and thought it was a good introduction. For engineers, there are questions that involve both fundamental physics and applications. For example, I specifically remember a problem on coaxial cables that was fun.But it's an undergraduate text through and through, so expect for difficult or deep topics to be brushed over. The section on relativistic EM is very superficial and mostly just a taster, there's also no quantum EM or optics. Griffiths also seems to consciously avoid PDEs which makes the introduction to waves a little peculiar. He intuits his way towards solutions that would be rigorously found by solving the wave and/or Helmholtz equations. If you don't have much of a maths background then that might be attractive but it's also non-standard and, I think, weakens understanding. At the academic level, I've seen more articles cite Jackson than Griffiths, though Jackson is much less readable while also being a lot deeper. The maths requirement isn't very high, mostly vector calculus, because PDEs are ruled out.
>>102450212Anyone can do surface integrals and the needle problem, you don't have to be at MIT.
