Resources for conducting physics experiments at home

How do I? Recently took up physics as a former Maths student and the first thing I noticed from Griffith's electrodynamics is that it just starts with coulomb's law and treats it as axiom like wtf? I can make out some reasonings but it's just guesswork from my side as to why it might hold considering potential energy, charge distribution etc etc. I looked at another book by Bettini vol 3 where it mentioned a little about the experiments Coulomb had performed. I looked it up and found out that I could do it in my house just need to buy few thangs. Since am not in college anymore I want to know some books or sites where all these physics experiments are documented so that I can test it in my home lab(?)

>>12308 >I noticed from Griffith's electrodynamics is that it just starts with coulomb's law and treats it as axiom like wtf? If you want historical rigor don't use an undergraduate textbook known for its informality. If you want a theoretical basis for electromagnetism as a classical field theory consider the Lorentz force law and Maxwell's equations. You may derive Coulomb's law from Gauss's law and the Lorentz force law, and superposition from the linearity of Maxwell's equations. >I want to know some books or sites where all these physics experiments are documented Simple experiments such as the Coulomb's law pith ball electroscope can be found in highschool and undergraduate lab sheets and advanced experiments are usually outlined in relevant journals.

Physics Laboratory Experiments 8e 2014 Wilson,Hernández-Hall.pdf Physics Laboratory Experiments 8e 2014 Wilson,Hernández-Hall (instructor).pdf

Great Experiments in Physics 2012 Shamos.epub

>>12309 I am not in college anymore otherwise I would have contacted my professors about it >derive Coulomb's law from Gauss' but Griffiths introduces it after Coulomb's law? Although he did mention in the preface regarding various types of Coulomb's law wrt different systems(?) but am not entirely sure what he's talking about >>12310 I don't think I can get access to such apparatus >>12311 This looks good. This documents the experiments done on many fundamental laws isn't it? This is good thanks. Although I was expecting that there might be forums and spaces where people might be discussing regarding conducting such basic experiments at home however crude but it's fine.

>>12312 >but Griffiths introduces it after Coulomb's law? As I've said that's an introductory undergraduate textbook and as such it won't give you the mathematical treatment you'd find in a newer graduate level book like Modern Electrodynamics by Zangwill (which I think you can tackle if you've studied analysis). Remember, as with any subject, referencing two textbooks that approach the subject differently can be insightful.

Experimental evidence lies at the heart of modern science. It's great to see that you understand that, especially coming from a maths background. I don't think you would be satisfied by more advanced physics books with much heavier maths. In fact, if you haven't already done so, I would suggest taking the opposite approach and reading a so-called "survey of physics" book to get oriented. "The Theoretical Minimum" is one such book, and doesn't cost much. If you do get to the point where you want to tackle something graduate level, the whole Landau/Lifshitz 10 volume set is excellent.

>>12314 Mathematical and experimental treatment in science are complimentary, not mutually exclusive. Don't propagate this common misunderstanding. >>12312 You may find a brief overview of the theory without the extra historical and pedagogic context presented in Modern Electrodynamics here, written by a theoretical physicist at the National Central University in Taiwan: http://www.stargazing.net/yizen/ElectromagnetismInANutShell.pdf

I just google the thing I want to perform/build. You might want to check out hacakday's physics tab, though it has mostly more advanced stuff.

>>12315 There are many useful tools in science, including mathematics and logic, both wonderful. But the single most important tool is physical verification of hypotheses by well-designed experiments. Have you by any change read Lee Smolin's book, "The Trouble with Physics"? It describes the erosion of science caused by the massice influx of mathematicians who don't really understand how science works.

>>12319 Huh? That book has fuarrrk all to do with classical electromagnetism, not to mention Modern Electrodynamics introduces Maxwell's equations through experimental results, pg. 33: >"It is traditional to develop the Maxwell equations through a review of the experiments that motivated their construction. We do this here (briefly) for the simple reason that every physicist should know some of the history of this subject. As an alternative, Section 2.7 offers a heuristic “derivation” of the Maxwell equations based on symmetry arguments and minimal experimental input." Have you actually studied electrodynamics?

>>12320 Have you actually read the message? It's a reply to a side discussion about the fundamental importance of experimentation in science. The subject of the book is clearly stated in the message. How did you miss it? If you're talking about the Theoretical Minimum book (it's hard to tell from your poorly written message), the OP mentions learning physics, then launches straight into electrodynamics. Physics is about much more than just electrodynamics. Freshmen usually take a survey of physics course to get an overview of the major areas of physics. After that they usually take with a classical mechanics course before moving on to electrodynamics. Doing it backasswards isn't going to help you much, and that's already obvious.

>>12321 I'm not interested in insider trading about "erosion of science" woo. >If you're talking about the Theoretical Minimum book I said nothing about The Theoretical Minimum. If OP can handle Amann and Escher I assume they understand how to get started with self study, but regardless I thought it was a good suggestion

>>12313 You are right >>12314 What I realized is that although natural science relies heavily on mathematics it has different approach to inquiry than mathematics. I have an undergraduate degree in maths and my knowledge in other fields like physics chemistry etc are very timid high school level. It has been a long since I studied physics and other subjects(it was in high school) I looked into MIT OCW's physics courses and seem to like one which I am currently watching(W. Lewin's). Looked into the book by Fridman called University Physics but I found it to be very mathematically dull and boring the concepts are good and all but then I thought it maybe I should look into a little bit more mathematicallg oriented book but still at beginning level since I only have a faint memory of what I had studied during high school. Currently I have been studying from Taylor's Classical Mechanics, Griffith's Electrodynamics, Bettini's series on Classical Physics and few others The mathematics part of the subject is no big deal the only problem I had(have) during making the thread was me lacking resources to conduct those experiments which I was studying. I have Landau's books which a friend of mine had given to me. I will see The Theoretical Minimum and the books catering to "survey of physics" >>12315 Thanks for the pdf although I think someone has shared a textbook on it previously containing similar work. >>12316 Yes true looks like I have to do the same >>12319 No I haven't. I will make sure to read it. Thanks!> >12321 See above in this message I am learning Classical Mechanics & Electrodynamics in parallel. I only have blurry memory of high school physics and a decent maths background so far I haven't found anything mathematically difficulty only that I am very upset to find that I have to take many results(laws) for granted without sufficient experimentation from my side(since these things usually require equipments hence the thread asking for resources to build such place with the necessary equipments) >>12326 And yes I had studied Analysis from Amann&Escher( and few others like Zorich, Rudin etc), am aware of Algebra(abstract, linear etc), DE, Vector & Complex Analysis, basic topology etc etc Any suggestion is helpful so we don't really need to throw shade on each other. I will carefullt consider each posts, consult few of my friends and see what works

>>12328 >Freedman's University Physics I started with this one, finished it after a year with nearly every problem solved, and to me it's a perfect intro. Perhaps it depends on your edition, but mine had detailed derivations of more important results, and rough schematics of machines used in experiments. It's not a history of science book, but after reading it all, I know how they were coming up with most things. Griffith's textbook is usually a pick after a rather friendly introduction like this, and so it omits those friendly topics. W. Lewin's OCW course also goes almost exactly in par with Freedman's textbook. The lectures and the book reinforce each other REALLY well.

>>12308 There is no comprehensive list of experiments that each scientist conducted, the best you can do is take the name of the scientist and look up his biography on google, eventually you will stumble in articles from fringe places talking about their lives and maybe the experiments. Apologies for not giving you a full answer, but if it helps, it is similar to the law of universal gravitation in form because the forces are the product of a field around a proton or electron, resembling a gravitational field, differing only in their nature; the main challenge with the approach you seek is building experiments that doesn't give you bogus values, this is the reason why the teaching of physics relies so heavily in maths, it is simply less expensive to do so because it bypasses the trial and error expenses that comes with building them (or are you going to claim that the LHC can be built in your yard on your own, in one week?).