67
u/Away-Experience6890 5d ago
Content is great. Some of those end of chapter problems tho ... I still have ptsd from those integrals.
22
u/simpsonstimetravel 4d ago
I get that a physicist is supposed to know how to integrate difficult shit, but i always just get to the integral, check if its the right one and move on.
13
u/Away-Experience6890 4d ago
It's weird because its more of a rite of passage for undergrad. In research, its mostly just symbolic integration to generate differential forms, but then these integrals are mostly just solved computationally.
22
11
u/dover_oxide 5d ago
That book still haunts my dreams and I've been out of college for more than a decade.
18
6
u/SetGold902 5d ago
Seeing this 20 min before my electromagnetic fields test
7
5
3
3
3
u/Van_Healsing 4d ago
Honestly this was such a good textbook I should by my own personal copy
3
u/EconomicSeahorse Student 3d ago
I bought a copy for my E&M classes (I prefer using physical paper books) and just kept it afterwards haha. It is currently sitting on a shelf at home (next to the quantum mechanics and elementary particle physics books)
2
2
2
u/WanderingWrackspurt 3d ago
fr, im only reading the part about vectors rn but its literally better than my classπ₯
3
u/Dimitrygol 5d ago
What's your favorite chapter? Mine's chapter 6 so far
6
4
u/EconomicSeahorse Student 5d ago
Mine is chapter 12, though that's just me being a sucker for things that are relativistic, but like the way Maxwell's equations come together in four vector/tensorial notation is beautiful
3
2
1
u/xovista_star4395 4d ago
[Cry]
2
u/brrraaaiiins 4d ago
No, thatβs Jackson
1
u/Star_Wyvern 4d ago
Correct. Griffiths is a god damn saint. An Oracle. Jackson is the Devil and speaks in tongues.
1
1
u/gsurfer04 Unphysical chemist 4d ago
Fun fact - it's forbidden to criticise that artist on r/comics.
1
u/Snoo-41360 3d ago
I got the Roger freedmen physics book for Christmas one year, best gift ever
1
1
u/sam-lb 3d ago edited 3d ago
I dunno man, I started reading Griffith's intro quantum a few weeks ago. Within the first few pages it made imprecise statements conflating probability vs probability density and claimed a blatant mathematical mistruth (acknowledged in a tiny footnote along the lines of "a competent mathematician will point out this is not true...". So why say it?) There's been a bunch more stuff like that too.
My background is pure math and I specifically chose Griffiths because I read online it was mathematically rigorous. Disappointed so far
1
138
u/No_Championship5105 5d ago
I would shed tears