Regarding learning from Griffiths

[rudransh verma]

I am a undergraduate student and have done some studying from Resnik book (principles of physics). I have also got Feynman lectures vol1 which I am planning to study with Resnik. I think it will give me a solid grasp on theory. I am getting bored now after doing some chapters from Resnik(coulombs law, electric field, gauss law, motion in 1D and 2D and 3D).

I am thinking to jump to some other book to go in detail in say electrostatics to refresh my boring routine. So I have picked up introduction to electrodynamics in which 2nd chapter is electrostatics. But I face problem with math. I don't know anything about vector analysis except vector algebra. How should I now prepare myself mathematically to understand the electrostatics part of griffiths.

How about getting a mathematical methods for physics and engineering by riley, Hobson, Bence where I can learn stuff like divergence, curl, del operator, gradient, line, surface, volume integral used in this chapter.
Vector analysis chapter is given in this griffiths book but not in much detail. I also have vector analysis by schaum's.

 

[Vanadium 50]

How should I now prepare myself mathematically to understand the electrostatics part of griffiths.

1. Finish Resnick and Halliday.
2. Worth through a book on vector calc, e.g. Thomas

 

[rudransh verma]

Worth through a book on vector calc, e.g. Thomas

I have vector analysis by schaums. Is it worth it?

 

[Vanadium 50]

1. Finish Resnick and Halliday.

 

[Doc Al]

1. Finish Resnick and Halliday.

@rudransh verma: This is good advice that bears repeating. (Again.)

Also: Solve as many problems as you can.

 

[rudransh verma]

@rudransh verma: This is good advice that bears repeating. (Again.)

Also: Solve as many problems as you can.

Getting boring 🤢

 

[CrysPhys]

Getting boring 🤢

Here's an excerpt from a reply I posted in another thread (https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...eshman-year-of-physics-at-university.1008318/). It is relevant to you as well:

"What I've gathered from reading your post is this: You are enamored of the grand concepts of physics, but you don't have the patience, discipline, and drive to work through the fundamentals. Physics is like many other fields: There's the fun stuff, and there's the not-so-fun stuff (what is fun and what is not-so-fun depends on the individual). But to succeed at the fun stuff, you also need to succeed at the not-so-fun stuff."

Jumping into intermediate level physics without a good grounding in introductory level physics (and the requisite math) is a really, really bad idea. If you continue down this path, you'll soon be posting, "I'm bored with Griffiths, so I'm thinking of taking the leap to Jackson. But I face problems with the math ..."

 

[rudransh verma]

Here's an excerpt from a reply I posted in another thread (https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...eshman-year-of-physics-at-university.1008318/). It is relevant to you as well:

"What I've gathered from reading your post is this: You are enamored of the grand concepts of physics, but you don't have the patience, discipline, and drive to work through the fundamentals. Physics is like many other fields: There's the fun stuff, and there's the not-so-fun stuff (what is fun and what is not-so-fun depends on the individual). But to succeed at the fun stuff, you also need to succeed at the not-so-fun stuff."

Jumping into intermediate level physics without a good grounding in introductory level physics (and the requisite math) is a really, really bad idea. If you continue down this path, you'll soon be posting, "I'm bored with Griffiths, so I'm thinking of taking the leap to Jackson. But I face problems with the math ..."

Seems reasonable. God help me

 

[Doc Al]

My college physics 101 professor had a sign on his office wall, with what I assume was a refrain he'd heard way too many times: "I really understand the material. I just can't do the problems." (And years later I heard it myself from my own students.)

This is why I place so much emphasis on solving as many problems as you can stomach in as many ways as you can. Especially for the basics, that's the only way to really master the material.

 

[vela]

Do you already have a year of calculus under your belt? If so, you might want to start learning vector calculus concurrently with the physics. Then you could try to make up more difficult versions of the problems in Halliday and Resnick and solve them in gory mathematical detail. For example, evaluate the flux due to a point charge where the Gaussian surface is a cube. (It'll give you a better appreciation of symmetry.)

 

[Haorong Wu]

When I learned Griffiths's textbook, I found that the first chapter is sufficient. Maybe you need to solve more problems to get familiar with vectors?

 

[paralleltransport]

If your single variable calculus is solid (You have calc BC under your belt or equivalent):
- You can study this guide at the same time as learning griffiths.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393925161/?tag=pfamazon01-20

If not, I don't think it's a good idea to study griffiths without solid single variable calculus. Some of the parts are understandable but you wouldn't be able to solve most problems.