- #1
Astrum
- 269
- 5
Griffiths's proof of Ampère's Law was probably one of the ugliest things I've seen. All that product rule, integration by parts and what not, really could have brought tears to the eyes of ANY man.
I mean, have you LOOKED at this? GAAAAH it's terrible, really, terrible.
The simple statement that he presents on pg. 221 - 222 is much more elegant. But one thing confuses me.
How is $$\int \vec{J} \cdot d \vec{a} = \int (\nabla \times \vec{B}) \cdot d \vec{a}$$
I see that this is an application of Stoke's Theorem, so I guess I'm asking for a clarification of what Stoke'es Theorem actually SAYS, and why it makes sense.
I'm not sure if this belongs in the classical physics section, or the math section.
I mean, have you LOOKED at this? GAAAAH it's terrible, really, terrible.
The simple statement that he presents on pg. 221 - 222 is much more elegant. But one thing confuses me.
How is $$\int \vec{J} \cdot d \vec{a} = \int (\nabla \times \vec{B}) \cdot d \vec{a}$$
I see that this is an application of Stoke's Theorem, so I guess I'm asking for a clarification of what Stoke'es Theorem actually SAYS, and why it makes sense.
I'm not sure if this belongs in the classical physics section, or the math section.