δ = 0 everywhere except at its zero argument where it = 1. In the case of δ(r - r') the zero argument is when r' = r. That's when it = 1. So the integral of J(r') (meaning J as a function of r') times δ(r - r') is J(r) because r is the only point where r' is not zero.
The more I watch the more I appreciate the videos, I am just trying to provide with some feed back, and like I have said in previous comments, thank you for this!
You didn't create any thing special by this video . These all things are written in the book . Any way nice try . But I think more depthness and clarity is required for posting a video in any site .
Everything you have told all these stuffs Like Div & Curl of B are already derived in the griffiths electrodynamics and you are pretending to explaining which is actually writeen there so simply tell us About Lets Say An Easy Method to derive Those Derivations ,more logics or reason behind doing some stuffs........ Dont PreTenD YoU aRe GriFFithS Just LearN before Posting Videos...........
Poorly explained. I came here with bag full of doubts for this derivation and I am leaving with the same. You explained only those things that could be understood easily through books. You just skipped the tough parts, the tricky ones. I somehow felt that even you were not comfortable with those.
I don't get the hate people have for this style. Did you review all the previous videos? Are you grounded in multivariable calculus? I simply can't go all the way down to basics and back up again, particularly so late in the series. At this point, if you're not comfortable with curls and divs and grads, you really have no hope of understanding anything.
I agree with Shakeel, this type of explanation completely kills the intuition. There is to much of viewer's patience wasted on derivation alphabet soup. Like 80% of the video's time is wasted on marginal pedantic stuff. It really seems that you just want to spend more time listening to your own voice, than educating others. It would be more interesting to watch videos with derivation completely removed. Just leave 20% of essence and drop the unnecessary luggage. There is a lady on youtube that reduces time wasted on derivation by speeding up her videos over that part. But she also has lots of sense of humor, as well.
Unfortunately, understanding the "alphabet soup" is the key to understanding why the derivatives of the B field behave the way they do. I'm going to rant here, hopefully someone will hear. All those science TV shows where Tyson or other famous people wave their arms and talk about things you can't even begin to understand, all those nice little videos of people doodling math shapes --- if you watch a million hours of that stuff you will be no closer to being a real scientist or physicist or mathematician than if you hadn't watched it. Real math, real physics, real science, is all in the details, details that seem esoteric to the layman but have profound implications. This video, although a reproduction of a textbook that doesn't add any insight (since there is no additional insight to add) is a part of a long series I put together to teach you real physics and real math. You simply can't watch these videos and get a physics education. You have to go out there and solve problems on your own, and find out how all of your preconceived notions about how the universe works are all wrong, and then find out how pathetic and incompetent we humans are at logic and reason, and then you can begin to understand what science is really all about. If you don't like this video, it's probably because you don't like the production quality of my work (and I agree with you there.) Or maybe it's because you don't like how much work it is to learn real physics. In that case, I wish you the best of luck living in ignorance or worse, imagining you know something when you really don't. Let us part ways amicably and agree that we're not going to see eye-to-eye about science ever again.
I beg to differ. I just want a tool that will do the job. Just want the end result and examples, together with intuition of how it works. For myself, all the details and the "alphabet soup" are waste of the valuable time. In practice you'll never need the "alphabet soup" part. I totally trust you that "alphabet soup" works, so it can be excluded and some applications shown instead.
The end result, useful as it may be, is only part of the reason someone works through a book on Electrodynamics rather than an engineering treastise on EM of electronics circuits.
![Div, Grad, and Curl: Vector Calculus Building Blocks for PDEs [Divergence, Gradient, and Curl]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lKXW7DRyyro/mqdefault.jpg)
You are a monk, helping selflessly to help people you don't know. 😊
Oh, I am no monk! 5 kids!
@@jg394 😅
Why would the Dirac Delta Function replace (r') with (r) with respect to the charge density? A little clarity would be helpful.
δ = 0 everywhere except at its zero argument where it = 1. In the case of δ(r - r') the zero argument is when r' = r. That's when it = 1. So the integral of J(r') (meaning J as a function of r') times δ(r - r') is J(r) because r is the only point where r' is not zero.
I agree with PowerSmoothie. These videos are great for us auditory learners.
The more I watch the more I appreciate the videos, I am just trying to provide with some feed back, and like I have said in previous comments, thank you for this!
9:01 how?
See above 1.5.3
Good reply, Jonathan.
I'm glad that you can learn the material without the videos.
mr. i cant find the derivation for grad(r/r^2)=4π€
It's at 1.5.3
Thank u sir good explanation
y r doing great job!!!!!
If you want proof of Amperes Law, I will just leave it here:
physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101277/proving-amperes-circuital-law
thanks
Thanks sir
Sir headwrittng did not understand plzzzzz sir Clear write 🙏🙏
Headwriting lol
You didn't create any thing special by this video . These all things are written in the book . Any way nice try . But I think more depthness and clarity is required for posting a video in any site .
Everything you have told all these stuffs Like Div & Curl of B are already derived in the griffiths electrodynamics and you are pretending to explaining which is actually writeen there so simply tell us About Lets Say An Easy Method to derive Those Derivations ,more logics or reason behind doing some stuffs........
Dont PreTenD YoU aRe GriFFithS Just LearN before Posting Videos...........
Poorly explained. I came here with bag full of doubts for this derivation and I am leaving with the same. You explained only those things that could be understood easily through books. You just skipped the tough parts, the tricky ones. I somehow felt that even you were not comfortable with those.
I don't get the hate people have for this style. Did you review all the previous videos? Are you grounded in multivariable calculus? I simply can't go all the way down to basics and back up again, particularly so late in the series. At this point, if you're not comfortable with curls and divs and grads, you really have no hope of understanding anything.
I agree with Shakeel, this type of explanation completely kills the intuition. There is to much of viewer's patience wasted on derivation alphabet soup. Like 80% of the video's time is wasted on marginal pedantic stuff. It really seems that you just want to spend more time listening to your own voice, than educating others.
It would be more interesting to watch videos with derivation completely removed. Just leave 20% of essence and drop the unnecessary luggage.
There is a lady on youtube that reduces time wasted on derivation by speeding up her videos over that part. But she also has lots of sense of humor, as well.
Unfortunately, understanding the "alphabet soup" is the key to understanding why the derivatives of the B field behave the way they do.
I'm going to rant here, hopefully someone will hear. All those science TV shows where Tyson or other famous people wave their arms and talk about things you can't even begin to understand, all those nice little videos of people doodling math shapes --- if you watch a million hours of that stuff you will be no closer to being a real scientist or physicist or mathematician than if you hadn't watched it. Real math, real physics, real science, is all in the details, details that seem esoteric to the layman but have profound implications. This video, although a reproduction of a textbook that doesn't add any insight (since there is no additional insight to add) is a part of a long series I put together to teach you real physics and real math.
You simply can't watch these videos and get a physics education. You have to go out there and solve problems on your own, and find out how all of your preconceived notions about how the universe works are all wrong, and then find out how pathetic and incompetent we humans are at logic and reason, and then you can begin to understand what science is really all about.
If you don't like this video, it's probably because you don't like the production quality of my work (and I agree with you there.) Or maybe it's because you don't like how much work it is to learn real physics. In that case, I wish you the best of luck living in ignorance or worse, imagining you know something when you really don't. Let us part ways amicably and agree that we're not going to see eye-to-eye about science ever again.
I beg to differ. I just want a tool that will do the job. Just want the end result and examples, together with intuition of how it works. For myself, all the details and the "alphabet soup" are waste of the valuable time. In practice you'll never need the "alphabet soup" part. I totally trust you that "alphabet soup" works, so it can be excluded and some applications shown instead.
The end result, useful as it may be, is only part of the reason someone works through a book on Electrodynamics rather than an engineering treastise on EM of electronics circuits.
gave a good try...but the concept is wrong