Reddit reviews Classical Electrodynamics Third Edition

Oppenheimer didn't believe it would happen. He had several strong theoretical reasons to indicate it should happen, so he went looking for evidence to prove it. Belief is acceptance without proof, something a scientist cannot professionally do. Faith is a religious thing, has no place in science.

That's why the quote from the post is from the Bible, and not Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics

There are incompetent physicists, and there are incompetents who call themselves physicists. This response which says "experimental data is not to be debated" is representative of a field not just in crisis but about to experience an extinction event due to the truth of classical physics. If you want to really understand the depth of the problem in modern physics -- the fracture of reality and experiment - lots of math, little reason - read this essay.

Loud public pronouncements that show you don't understand something GUISED as a debate is DAMAGING. These posts are best to be ignored but I have encountered physicists who do google searches and come across people like "CSurveyGuy. " They actually seize his lampoon logic as justification that the hydrino is not worth a look.

There are all levels of people in every field - medical school grads, practiced family doctors, and neurosurgeons - a "doctor" is meaningless as to whether you can be taken seriously. Saying "I'm a physicist" is meaningless. Let's help clarify the prereqs to Mills.

- You need Jackson textbook level E&M to tackle Mills. This is graduate level E&M and many quantum physicists aren't up to speed on it. Since the electron is electromagnetic you need advanced E&M. If you don't have it, go back to school.

- You need strong intuitive capacity. Surprise, surprise, most physicists can't "see" new architectures very well. Brett Holverstott has done a masterful job read hi book for a start. Remember, special relativity was first published in 1905 (interestingly the year the Wright brothers first flew continously and only 10 years early Lord Kelvin physicist of the day said "flight of heavier than air objects is impossible."). Einstein's work was not "seen" nor accepted by ACTUAL elite physicists (not CSurveyGuys heckling in the town square). Proof? In 1931, "100 Authors Against Einstein" is published ( https://archive.org/details/HundertAutorenGegenEinstein ).

- You need to work very hard. Mills flat out has the most powerful intuition we've probably seen for nature in a long time. He "sees" things as obvious that aren't because he imagines nature. He designed the electron architecture - literally imagined reality - and then proved it works - the electron has spin etc. The electron solution is probably the Taj Mahal of science, if you will.

​

Many physicists are plug and chug quantum physicists who use the theory to crank out some marginal results. They don't have any vested in the truth, and may believe we cannot even find the truth about physical reality (it's unknowable to them - the uncertainty principle).

"CSurveyGuy" (and the bucket of similar internet dwellers) may want to actually solve something using this new theory - rather than flailing in public his lack of understanding. Statements like "big, horrible problems, like violating known rules of math" means this person is likely a time-waster. Reddit is not the place to do science.

If anyone is interested in an actual real debate on the theory - read "Reconsidering the validation of multi-electron standard quantitative quantum mechanics" by Dr, Jonathan Phillips (he is on the Navy's Energy Academic Group and his resume speaks for itself). Which is an all out attack on quantum mechanics that it isn't even a valid theory, as it is a jumble of theories none of which validate against experimental data. You can't read the abstract, you have to actually read the details. In that paper, near the end he says that CQM (Classical QM- i.e. Mills theory) DOES appear to be a valid theory since it matches energy levels of electrons and distinguishes them, and matches the experimental data that is the focus of the paper.

Addressing a smattering of other points

- Dr. Randy Booker was chair of UNC's physics department. The UNC chemist there Dr. Rick Maas said the "experimental data is so convincing it is time to stop the bickering about the theory". See the BBC Focus Article "Water Power" from 2005.

- 3 body problems go away because of the architecture of the atomic electrons

- Rathke was fully discredited by Mills who showed Rathke made mathematical errors that nullified all arguments. Since it has been 14 years since this all occurred the case is closed. Rathke was an ant who got crushed by a giant. The almost comedic part of this is that even Nobel laureates - who I have contacted - said they "haven't had time to look into the experimental evidence." A total revolution in science, but "my dog at the homework" type responses.

Since these back and forths won't end. It is best to disengage from internet "physicists" unless they talk about facts, not histrionic claims guised as "debate". I am sure if you took a Family Physician from the 1800s and brought him here today to talk about cloning sheep - he would flatly deny it is possible, and would rail against the theory, and would be an emotional mess because the world has changed. Physics was ripe for disruption - everyone admits that - and now we all play catchup.

This doesn't answer your question, but for some classes, there are very standard texts. It's anecdotal, but every single recent physics graduate student I've met used Jackson for electricity and magnetism (http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Electrodynamics-Third-Edition-Jackson/dp/047130932X). There are other texts out there I'm sure, but Jackson is by far the most common.

Answer key:
(a) 8/3, assuming no momentum loss to the air.
(b) 64/9, treating the stings as massless ridged rods.

This is nowhere near as bad as physics problems get. You want to see tough look at this book.

Here's a good primer to the physics of the neural nets you'll be encountering in the wiring as well; required if you're going to be doing some logic-level debugging (which is pretty much all the time if you want to go beyond the usual Swedish teutonic - which is why you're here, right?)

I was going to do something similar but the second picture was going to be this

For practice with your problems, Schaums' guide are the best. If you feel like a badass

Surprised no one has mentioned Classical Electrodynamics by Jackson.

Third edition?

At least, that's what google says.

Can you get through a paywall?

Here is a tutorial on optical antennas. Pretty nice, if I do say so myself ;)

Jackson's electrodynamics has a chapter on the dielectric response of metals. Chapter 7, section 5. "Frequency dispersion characteristics of dielectrics, conductors, and plasmas."

Novotny's nano optics book has a brief review of dielectric response, and talks a lot about the antenna analogy.

For Statistical physics I would second the recommendation of Pathria. Huang is also good.

For electromagnetism the standard is Jackson. I think it is pedagogically terrible, but I was able to slowly make my way through it. I don't know of a better alternative, and once you get the hang of it the book is a great reference. The problems in this book border from insane to impossible.

So that's the basics. It's up to you where to go from there. If you do decide to learn QFT or GR, my recommendations are Itzykson and Carroll respectively.

Good luck to you!

Probably some combination of Griffiths, Jackson, and Zangwill

Serious question: what makes you say these are the "standard route"?

[Griffith on electromagnitism] (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Electrodynamics-Edition-David-Griffiths/dp/0321856562/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407283809&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=Griffith+electromagnism)

[Griffith on quantum mechanics] (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-2nd-Edition/dp/0131118927/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1407283809&sr=8-2-fkmr0&keywords=Griffith+electromagnism)

[Jackson on electromagnetism] (http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Electrodynamics-Third-Edition-Jackson/dp/047130932X/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407283929&sr=8-1&keywords=jackson+electromagnetism)

[Sakurai on quantum mechanics] (http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Quantum-Mechanics-2nd-Edition/dp/0805382917/ref=pd_sim_b_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=081X3T6SB9XHEZWNTVNB)

A class using Jackson E&M for classical electrodynamics is a standard first year grad course. Quantum electrodynamics is part of field theory, and that's usually the next level up. Most people who aren't either particle physicists or theorists don't take it though (which is a shame).

I think it's that E&M is just a more difficult/less interesting subject. If you plan on going to grad school for physics you will almost certainly use this. You'll love Griffiths after dealing with Jackson, as Griffiths acts as a sort of Rosetta stone between English and bizarre Greens Function hieroglyphs.

halliday and resnick for general physics

1 - goldstein

2 - griffith

3 -

4 - griffith or jackson