Watching video lectures along with solving problems in a book?

[Hamiltonian]

I recently started studying electrodynamics from Griffiths and found It rather challenging.

I was able to finish the first chapter on basic math, Although my concepts on things like greens/stokes theorem were quite shaky as I am finding it rather difficult to follow the derivation of said theorems and when I moved on to electrostatics I was able to understand Coulomb's law but right after that I started facing difficulty in the examples&problems on the application of gauss law.
I feel I am unable to solve those examples(I find them quite challenging even after reading the solutions) and exercises because my concepts are pretty shaky even after spending quite some time on the topics.

I am not taking any classes on the subject(maybe that's why I am finding the book challenging?) and my sole source of information is the book and the internet. I feel maybe watching lectures on said topics might be beneficial but I have also heard that directly watching someone explain everything to you kills the imagination and doesn't really make you better at the subject as to learning the concept on your own. I would like to know if this is true and whether slogging through the book will be the better option(and if video lectures are recommended I would love some recommendations on electrodynamics lectures/videos that cover the contents of Griffiths)

 

[Vanadium 50]

slogging through the book will be the better option

That is a bad idea. If you don't have the mathematical background you won't get anywhere.

 

[Hamiltonian]

That is a bad idea. If you don't have the mathematical background you won't get anywhere.

the first chapter of the book isn't enough?(also it isn't the math that I find difficult when I solve problems)

 

[Vanadium 50]

the first chapter of the book isn't enough?

I am finding it rather difficult

It would seem not.

 

[PeroK]

I recently started studying electrodynamics from Griffiths and found It rather challenging.

I was able to finish the first chapter on basic math, Although my concepts on things like greens/stokes theorem were quite shaky as I am finding it rather difficult to follow the derivation of said theorems and when I moved on to electrostatics I was able to understand Coulomb's law but right after that I started facing difficulty in the examples&problems on the application of gauss law.
I feel I am unable to solve those examples(I find them quite challenging even after reading the solutions) and exercises because my concepts are pretty shaky even after spending quite some time on the topics.

I am not taking any classes on the subject(maybe that's why I am finding the book challenging?) and my sole source of information is the book and the internet. I feel maybe watching lectures on said topics might be beneficial but I have also heard that directly watching someone explain everything to you kills the imagination and doesn't really make you better at the subject as to learning the concept on your own. I would like to know if this is true and whether slogging through the book will be the better option(and if video lectures are recommended I would love some recommendations on electrodynamics lectures/videos that cover the contents of Griffiths)

If you find bona fide online lectures at the right level they are a useful supplement to book learning. You could check MIT for undergraduate level EM, for example.

I wouldn't be too worried about finding something too difficult first time. You might come back in six months or a year with more knowledge and maturity and make a lot more progress. It's a good sign that you recognise you are struggling. That's far better than simply not noticing that you are not fully understanding the material - which seems to be quite common.

If something is too hard it's also good to take a break from it. Your brain does lots of processing in the background. Sometimes, you come back to a subject and your brain has sorted a lot of stuff out in the meantime. Even though you weren't actively studying it.

 

[jtbell]

I am not taking any classes on the subject(maybe that's why I am finding the book challenging?)

Have you previously studied introductory physics (including electromagnetism) at the level of e.g. Halliday/Resnick/Walker's Fundamentals of Physics? In the US at least, E&M courses that use Griffiths generally have as prerequisites, such an introductory course, and three semesters of calculus, including vector calculus. The first chapter of Griffiths is mainly intended as a review and augmentation of previously-studied math.

 

[Hamiltonian]

Have you previously studied introductory physics (including electromagnetism) at the level of e.g. Halliday/Resnick/Walker's Fundamentals of Physics? In the US at least, E&M courses that use Griffiths generally have as prerequisites, such an introductory course, and three semesters of calculus, including vector calculus. The first chapter of Griffiths is mainly intended as a review and augmentation of previously-studied math.

I have done electrostatics, gauss law and electric potential from Halliday Wresnik but it does not contain multivariable/vector calc and as for calculus I thought the first chapter of Griffiths would be enough I tried a few sources but usually got really lost in the proofs and the derivations(formally at school we have been taught single variable calculus in depth hence I felt it shouldn't be too difficult to teach myself vector calc).

 

[Mondayman]

You got to have the math background, otherwise you'll get nowhere. For Griffiths, if you should learn multivariable calculus, vector calculus, and some differential equations at the least.

I bought Jackson Electrodynamics as one of my first textbooks when I first got into physics. I didn't realize how much math was necessary, I was blown away when I first looked into it.

 

[Zexuo]

For upper division physics in general you'll want to first go through introductory physics with calculus and a math methods book at least on the level of Boas' Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences, a book to which Griffiths refers in Introduction to Electrodynamics.

 

[DrClaude]

If you think your knowledge of calculus is good and just want to learn vector calculus, then I recommend H. M. Schey, Div, grad, curl, and all that.

For lectures, check out Walter Lewin's course at MIT

 

[mpresic3]

For what it is worth, I always felt there are two or three major "transitions" in studying physics. One of the hardest, perhaps the hardest, transition is going from lower undergraduate, Resnick and Halliday, Electrodynamics, to upper undergraduate, Griffith, or Reitz/Milford, or Marion, Electrodynamics. The mathematical techniques are the reason. You may have to solve some problems in Schaum's outlines in some chapters where vectors and green's/stokes equation are discussed. One thing is for sure, you are not alone. I think every physicist finds this transition a hard one.

Boas is a good textbook for mathematical methods. Learning mathematical physics will pay dividends across all of your courses in physics.

I know Griffith is popular, but I find his style too glib. He sometimes tries to avoid mathematics in favor of physical reasoning. This is not bad in itself, but I think it might be more instructive to show the full comprehensive way, and then show how the student could obtain the same result in an easier manner with the appropriate justifications. I think his manner encourages the student to look for solutions as a grab bag of tricks rather than the development of techniques. As long as you do not necessarily need to use this textbooks for your coursework, you might be better served with another textbook, like Reitz/Milford, Corson/Lorrain, Schwartz, Wangsness, maybe a few others.