Refer David J Griffiths' Intro to Electrodynamics, Third Edition.
Page 305-306. Griffiths has claimed that we may split the electric field as E1 and E2 where E1 is due to the charges, and E2 is due to the changing magnetic field. He's referred to E2 as G in the footnote. He then says that as far as G is concerned, divergence of G is zero. Why is it so? He's claimed that it is due to Gauss' Law. But Gauss' Law is defined for E1, right. Or is it that this is something like Extension of Gauss' Law to include E2, i.e. G?
Introduction
Friday, 18 April 2008
Wednesday, 16 April 2008
Oh seeker of Beauty...
The following was put up by our Maths professor (an excellent one at that; Prof. Gopal(a) Krishna Srinivasan) in one of his lecture notes, which are used to teach in class. He taught us MA 108, Differential Euqations, during Spring Semester 2008.
'Oh seeker of beauty,
Come, take a walk in my Garden,
But curse me not if you do not find flowers,
For beauty sometimes sleeps upon a blade of grass!'
It might make more sense if you consider that this was put up after a comfortably lenghty sum, which involved quite some racking of the best branis a IITB!
'Oh seeker of beauty,
Come, take a walk in my Garden,
But curse me not if you do not find flowers,
For beauty sometimes sleeps upon a blade of grass!'
It might make more sense if you consider that this was put up after a comfortably lenghty sum, which involved quite some racking of the best branis a IITB!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)