>le physics >or how textbooks teach you 10% of the information

>>8612213
>pssst
If you don't believe a "it can be shown" statement you're supposed to prove it yourself. If the authors didn't provide proof it probably isn't constructive to understanding the material.

>>8612238
that, or the proof is meant for you to do to fill in the tiny gaps. phys texts are meant to be eorked through, not read

>>8612267
this.

>>8612267
/thread

>>8612213
Not my problem you're a brainlet who finds physics "hard".

Enjoy serving fries after you drop out, faggot.

>>8612267
>>8612274
in fact, you should understand every mini step.
iuf the author doesnt even mention "this can be shown" but just gives the infos, you should also try to get there for yourself, because if not you dont really understand it and can go back to high school where you belong. (or just do the damn work.)

>>8612281
lol writes had so "hard"
>brainlet who did never work on theoretical electrodynamics.

>>8612213
If you're not intuitive then prove it to yourself, if you can't do either then find a new field of study

>>8612291
to be fair, anon, em is pretty chill once you have the math background. i mean, if you know what a greens function is and how to integrate, theres not much left. i get that the geometries in, say, jackson problems can be cumbersome, but lets not pretend em is hard like stat mech or qft

>>8612213
Kys