I am reading Introduction to Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, by David Griffiths; on page 328, he states, "Apparently God just didn't make any magnetic charge..."

I have noticed this a lot in some of the physics textbooks that I own; is this a standing joke among physicists?

(May 24, 2017 at 4:47 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I am reading Introduction to Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, by David Griffiths; on page 328, he states, "Apparently God just didn't make any magnetic charge..."

I have noticed this a lot in some of the physics textbooks that I own; is this a standing joke among physicists?

I really hate this shit. 

The problem with ALL religions is that they all pull this crap. Many in their ranks can accept science but only up until it conflicts with their core claims. 

All one has to do to know this is nonsense when Christians or Muslims or Jews or Buddhists or Hindus do this, is simple.

Do a goggle search and put any religious label in front of the word "science" and you will find that there are a slew of every religion with links that claim that science points to their club.

It does not work when ANY religion tries to co opt science.

(May 24, 2017 at 4:47 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I am reading Introduction to Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, by David Griffiths; on page 328, he states, "Apparently God just didn't make any magnetic charge..."

I have noticed this a lot in some of the physics textbooks that I own; is this a standing joke among physicists?

I strongly suspect Griffiths is tongue-in-cheek invoking Einstein's use of God as nature here...

That being said, magnetic monopoles are not ruled out to exist at all. They appear rather automatically in extended field theories as opposed to pure electrodynamics where they are somewhat unnatural.

(May 24, 2017 at 5:01 pm)Alex K Wrote:

(May 24, 2017 at 4:47 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I am reading Introduction to Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, by David Griffiths; on page 328, he states, "Apparently God just didn't make any magnetic charge..."

I have noticed this a lot in some of the physics textbooks that I own; is this a standing joke among physicists?

I strongly suspect Griffiths  is tongue-in-cheek invoking Einstein's use of God as nature here...

That being said, magnetic monopoles are not ruled out to exist at all. They appear rather automatically in extended field theories as opposed to pure electrodynamics where they are somewhat unnatural.

In all fairness to Griffiths, he does not rule-out magnetic monopoles entirely.  I have noticed the same "God verbiage" in Halliday, Resnick and Walker's book Fundamentals of Physics, also.  Of course, Alex, you are definitively "in the know" on this one, and so, I think that you are correct here.  I have heard that physicists are the most unbelieving of the sciences, but have also heard that of biology, also.

Wasn't it Darwin who remarked God had an uncommon fondness for beetles ?


And your vorlon adds:

despite being profoundly evident in the world, that fondness is MYSTERIOUSLY unremarked upon in Scripture . . .

(May 24, 2017 at 6:44 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Wasn't it Darwin who remarked God had an uncommon fondness for beetles ?


And your vorlon adds:

despite being profoundly evident in the world, that fondness is MYSTERIOUSLY unremarked upon in Scripture . . .

No, I think it was Haldane ..

If it wasn't featured on The Big Bang Theory......

I think Darwin spoke in code then so as to not offend the status quo.
He was referring to the dung beetle of course with all the emphasis on the dung!

Makes more sense now dunnit?