Collective Electrodynamics
by Carver A. Mead · first published 2000
10mentions
2recommended by
2HN commenters
2015–2025first – last mentioned
100% recommend
Affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
…becomes path-dependent! Not really. The problem is that we have sort of an "electron abstraction" which is incorrect in the Heaviside-Hertz pedagogy when fields start to store energy. I recommend "Collective Electrodynamics" by Carver Mead as a modern formulation without the silliness of an Aether: https://www.amazon.com/Collective-Electrodynamics-Quantum-Fo... > I only brought up ground (in the Earth ground sense) because…
on “Why we ground electrical systems (2015)” ↗…everybody knew was an incorrect prediction. Except that Einstein WASN'T wrong--if you put an excited atom in a photon trap and isolate it from the rest of the universe it's decay time goes way up. See: "Collective Electrodynamics" by Carver Mead http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/collective-electrodynamics
on “How did Einstein Think?” ↗…hole is a collective effect, i.e. one that requires the participation of many electrons (as well as the atom's nucleus that accounts for the hole's positive charge). Those who want to learn more about "collective electrodynamics" may consult a book by Carver Mead.
on “A New Form of Matter, Excitonium” ↗…(which don't work in motors, LOL)--and the attendant difficulty in understanding Maxwell's theory. However, if you have vector analysis and fields, then you can understand formulations like Carver Mead's "Collective Electrodynamics": https://www.amazon.com/Collective-Electrodynamics-Quantum-Fo... Suddenly, emag is a whole lot more straightforward to understand. It's not EASY as it's very math heavy, but it has a lot fewer weird…
on “Why is Maxwell's theory so hard to understand? (2007) [pdf]” ↗I'm pretty sure this is what you want: "Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism" https://www.amazon.com/Collective-Electrodynamics-Quantum-Fo...
on “Electromagnetism as a Purely Geometric Theory” ↗…big ones) where you really want a field description. Of course, a field description makes nothing simple and closed form. So, it isn't good for making exams out of. If you can deal with 4-vectors, "Collective Electrodynamics" is a really good book.
on “Why is electricity so hard to understand? (1989)” ↗…Remember, the Heaviside-Hertz pedagogy existed in a time when the "Ether" was assumed to exist. What works nicely for things that "displacement current" fails badly is a "field based" representation. See "Collective Electrodynamics" for such a pedagogy. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/collective-electrodynamics (Edit: Misspoke a bit: Field based works well for all systems. It just doesn't give nice, textbook, closed-form solutions…
on “A Technically Nice, Historically False “Explanation” of the Displacement Current” ↗…However, once you start trying to do motors and capacitors and stuff--things get weird (starting with "displacement current"). At that point, the fields formulations tend to work much better (See: "Collective Electrodynamics" by Carver Mead). However, your calculations take a jump in complexity that you didn't have to deal with before--your linear algebra and vector analysis better be pretty solid. However, dealing with…
on “No, pi is wrong: The Tau Manifesto” ↗Mostly interviews with students or grand-students. However, I think Carver Mead also mentions this about "Collective Electrodynamics". Feynman got a lot of it right, but there were gaps and he simply bulldozed over people who poked at the gaps--sometimes because he believed it obviously true and sometimes because he wanted to dissuade…
on “The Design of the Connection Machine (1994)” ↗…must dump a full quantum of energy, and it tends to do so as part of an exchange with the outside world. If you isolate an atom really well, that electron can take a really long time to decay. See: "Collective Electrodynamics" https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/collective-electrodynamics Brownian motion and standard thermodynamics almost certainly makes a stronger case.
on “The Ring of Steel” ↗