Field theory and electronics circuit

Thread Starter

TarikElec

Joined Oct 17, 2019
80
Hello Guys,
I was reading the article about the What is Electronics in the link : What is Electronics written by Ralph Morrison. I was stuck at the following paragraph called Field Theory. after reading it two times, I am still confused and could not describe with Maxwell equation what really he meant.
Nevertheless, I fin it's very interesting to understand Electronics through Physics, as Electronics is a branch of Applied Physics.
Nowadays, I am looking for a book that make the direct connect between Physics and Electronics circuit as it struck my interest to have another perspective overt circuit theory.
what do you think?
 

Delta Prime

Joined Nov 15, 2019
1,326
Hello there :)
Nowadays, I am looking for a book that make the direct connect between Physics and Electronics circuit as it struck my interest to have another perspective overt circuit theory.
what do you think?
I like the way you think. These videos will compliment the books fellow members will happily provide you with enjoy!
Provided by Mr. @nsaspook


 
Last edited:

crutschow

Joined Mar 14, 2008
29,772
could not describe with Maxwell equation what really he meant.
To me, the remarkable thing about Maxwell's equations is that, not only did they predict the existence of electro-magnetic waves (which no one was aware of at that point), he used them to determine the speed of the EM wave from the value of the electric and magnetic field permittivity's.
Since this value was near the measured speed of light at that time, he then suggested that light was an EM wave (which we now know to be true of course).
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
9,717
Hello Guys,
I was reading the article about the What is Electronics in the link : What is Electronics written by Ralph Morrison. I was stuck at the following paragraph called Field Theory. after reading it two times, I am still confused and could not describe with Maxwell equation what really he meant.
Nevertheless, I fin it's very interesting to understand Electronics through Physics, as Electronics is a branch of Applied Physics.
Nowadays, I am looking for a book that make the direct connect between Physics and Electronics circuit as it struck my interest to have another perspective overt circuit theory.
what do you think?
https://www.wiley.com/en-us/The+Fie...ectronics+Using+Basic+Physics-p-9780471222903
A practical new approach that brings together circuit theory and field theory for the practicing engineer
To put it frankly, the traditional education of most engineers and scientists leaves them often unprepared to handle many of the practical problems they encounter. The Fields of Electronics: Understanding Electronics Using Basic Physics offers a highly original correction to this state of affairs.
Most engineers learn circuit theory and field theory separately. Electromagnetic field theory is an important part of basic physics, but because it is a very mathematical subject, the connection to everyday problems is not emphasized. Circuit theory, on the other hand, is by its nature very practical. However, circuit theory cannot describe the nature of a facility, the interconnection of many pieces of hardware, or the power grid that interfaces each piece of hardware.
The Fields of Electronics offers a unique approach that brings the physics and the circuit theory together into a seamless whole for today's practicing engineers.
 

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
18,400
To me, the remarkable thing about Maxwell's equations is that, not only did they predict the existence of electro-magnetic waves (which no one was aware of at that point), he used them to determine the speed of the EM wave from the value of the electric and magnetic field permittivity's.
Since this value was near the measured speed of light at that time, he then suggested that light was an EM wave (which we now know to be true of course).
It was also in vogue at the time to think that "waves" needed a medium to propagate through. Thus, the aether was invented to support the propagation of these waves. In reality, the waves are perfectly happy propagating through the vacuum of completely empty space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
 

k1ng 1337

Joined Sep 11, 2020
528
It was also in vogue at the time to think that "waves" needed a medium to propagate through. Thus, the aether was invented to support the propagation of these waves. In reality, the waves are perfectly happy propagating through the vacuum of completely empty space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
I was watching a documentary this week that suggested there are actually no empty points in space or if there are empty points they are so for a very short amount of time. Of course this begs the larger analysis of how exactly do we define a "point" in a dynamic, infinite frame of reference! Plenty of working assumptions have been made.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
9,717
I've built and worked on electronic systems designed by (non-engineering) physicists. Just say no unless you want unreliable gear that assumes perfection of operation. Murphy's Law 101 is not taught on the physics track and it shows on the equipment they design. Need to open a valve? OK, send a signal with no need for actual physical detection of motion from that signal before you do something physically destructive that depends on previous motion actually happening. Multiply that for every critical control sequence.
 

Delta Prime

Joined Nov 15, 2019
1,326
There are several definitions based on how you approach "theoretical physics" (The modeling approach)
Either mathematical or computational
Choose which phenomena you wish to study, continuous distribution of matter, a field, a particle, then choose a mathematical formulation, Lawrence covariance, Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's equations, Maxwell's boltzman distribution. All of this is found in textbooks. Then you make computational arguments to make
predictions. Not assumptions. In the form of tables and plots by studying the results in different circumstances we can extend our understanding of the particular phenomenon you choose to study, and that is the simplest form
Of doing theoretical physics. The other approaches. :)The constructive approach.
The abstract approach.
The unification approach.
 
Last edited:

Delta Prime

Joined Nov 15, 2019
1,326
I've built and worked on electronic systems designed by (non-engineering) physicists. Just say no unless you want unreliable gear that assumes perfection of operation. Murphy's Law 101 is not taught on the physics track and it shows on the equipment they design. Need to open a valve? OK, send a signal with no need for actual physical detection of motion from that signal before you do something physically destructive that depends on previous motion actually happening. Multiply that for every critical control sequence.
Non Ducor. Duco.
 

k1ng 1337

Joined Sep 11, 2020
528
There are several definitions based on how you approach "theoretical physics" (The modeling approach)
Either mathematical or computational
Choose which phenomena you wish to study, continuous distribution of matter, a field, a particle, then choose a mathematical formulation, Lawrence covariance, Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's equations, Maxwell's boltzman distribution. All of this is found in textbooks. Then you make computational arguments to make
predictions. Not assumptions. In the form of tables and plots by studying the results in different circumstances we can extend our understanding of the particular phenomenon you choose to study, and that is the simplest form
Of doing theoretical physics. The other approaches. :)The constructive approach.
The abstract approach.
The unification approach.

Think so eh? What about herd mentality and dogma regarding academic schools of thought? At the end of the day, a theory is a representation in our minds. Separation of abstraction from reality is key if the goal is to arrive at a conclusion without employing conjecture along the way. Whatever methods you choose to employ, the philosopher in addition to the scientist must consider if he has been viewing the world through a lens. Ironically the analogy of a lens is not far from the 'truth'. Consider what is 'known' about black holes and how that information was acquired (sight). If the human eye along with the other senses can be easily fooled eg. an illusion, how do you go about proving your theory is not an illusion when you are inherently limited by your sensory capabilities along with every other member of your species?
 
Last edited:

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
9,717
Think so eh? What about herd mentality and dogma regarding academic schools of thought? At the end of the day, a theory is a representation in our minds. Separation of abstraction from reality is key if the goal is to arrive at a conclusion without employing conjecture along the way. Whatever methods you choose to employ, the philosopher in addition to the scientist must consider if he has been viewing the world through a lens. Ironically the analogy of a lens is not far from the 'truth'. Consider what is 'known' about black holes and how that information was acquired (sight). If the human eye along with the other senses can be easily fooled eg. an illusion, how do you go about proving your theory is not an illusion when you are inherently limited by your sensory capabilities along with every other member of your species?
The easy way to test a theory like gravity is to jump off a tall building without a means of breaking the fall. A separation of abstraction from reality is the likely result. The fact we don't know everything doesn't mean we are totally clueless about the nature of existence.
https://www.wired.com/2016/10/physics-jumping-off-8-story-building-not-dying/
 

k1ng 1337

Joined Sep 11, 2020
528
The easy way to test a theory like gravity is to jump off a tall building without a means of breaking the fall. A separation of abstraction from reality is the likely result. The fact we don't know everything doesn't mean we are totally clueless about the nature of existence.
https://www.wired.com/2016/10/physics-jumping-off-8-story-building-not-dying/
There is a bit of a stretch between predicting where a softball will land and the end of the universe. Humans have learnt to quantify the world but too often we marvel at our own greatness..
 
Top