Best Textbook on Electromagnetics

[wirefree]

G'day,

I am here to seek advice on a textbook for my second-year undergraduate course in electromagnatic field theory.

My concern with the recommended textbook is that it isn't easy to read. Any author that proceeds through a proof by simply stating "Next, taking the curl of..." doesn't offer much by way of intuitive understanding. Admittedly, taking the curl of anything relates to an understanding of its rotationality, but in the context of, say, proceeding from one of Maxwell's equation to the general wave equation, a comment in english on the general idea, direction and motivation is surely the hallmark of a considerate teacher.

So, this is an appeal to anyone who has been fortunate enough to find a book by a good teacher.

Look forward to your recommendations.

Best Wishes from India on the auspicious occasion of the Festival of Lights,
wirefree

 

[smodak]

G'day,

I am here to seek advice on a textbook for my second-year undergraduate course in electromagnatic field theory.

My concern with the recommended textbook is that it isn't easy to read. Any author that proceeds through a proof by simply stating "Next, taking the curl of..." doesn't offer much by way of intuitive understanding. Admittedly, taking the curl of anything relates to an understanding of its rotationality, but in the context of, say, proceeding from one of Maxwell's equation to the general wave equation, a comment in english on the general idea, direction and motivation is surely the hallmark of a considerate teacher.

So, this is an appeal to anyone who has been fortunate enough to find a book by a good teacher.

Look forward to your recommendations.

Best Wishes from India on the auspicious occasion of the Festival of Lights,
wirefree

What is your recommended textbook? Perhaps you can supplement (instead of replacing) your recommended book with the following?
A Student's Guide to Maxwell's Equations by Fleisch

The Other options would be to get another book like Griffiths, Purcell or the best book (perhaps a bit at a higher level than you seek) - Landau . The other favorites of mine are Englert (you can get the Indian edition cheaper I believe), Schwartz, and Nayfeh.

 

[Buffu]

Best Wishes from India on the auspicious occasion of the Festival of Lights,

Best wishes to you too.

You can try Irodov, It is not the best book out there but it is free, so you can look into it for some topics that are not well explained in your textbook.
smodak gave a pretty good list anyways.

 

[deskswirl]

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393925161/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[vanhees71]

A good choice is also Vol. II of the Feynman Lectures, which are also available online for free:

http://www.feynmanlectures.info/

It's upper level undergraduate and provides also physics intuition.

On the graduate level there's of course J. D. Jacksons classic. I'd recommend the 2nd edition, because it uses the Gaussian system of units, and the switch to SI (and then within the book using Gaussian units when it comes to relativity) in the 3rd edition is not justified by the other changes of the book.

While Jackson is a traditional textbook, Landau&Lifshitz vol. II is modern in introducing the adequate relativistic point of view from the very beginning. It's among the best books with this approach. An alternative is Schwartz's book. The success of vol. II of Berkeley's physics course (Purcell) is an enigma to me. Although using the modern relativistic approach, it's rather confusing in comparison to Landau&Lifshitz or Schwartz.

Then there is Schwinger's textbook on classical electrodynamics. I'd recommend to read it as a 2nd source since it's a bit unconventional in the mathematical methods, but that's also its strength. Nowhere I have seen a more elegant introduction of the Bessel functions and many other very beautiful mathematical derivations of the classical mathematical methods needed in E&M.

 

[smodak]

A good choice is also Vol. II of the Feynman Lectures, which are also available online for free:

http://www.feynmanlectures.info/

It's upper level undergraduate and provides also physics intuition.

I forgot about this. I agree, it will be a great book for OP's purpose. A direct link to the book: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_toc.html

On the graduate level there's of course J. D. Jacksons classic. I'd recommend the 2nd edition, because it uses the Gaussian system of units, and the switch to SI (and then within the book using Gaussian units when it comes to relativity) in the 3rd edition is not justified by the other changes of the book.

This may just be me, but I never got used to this book. It always confuses me and I find Jackson is a hard to read book.

Then there is Schwinger's textbook on classical electrodynamics. I'd recommend to read it as a 2nd source since it's a bit unconventional in the mathematical methods, but that's also its strength. Nowhere I have seen a more elegant introduction of the Bessel functions and many other very beautiful mathematical derivations of the classical mathematical methods needed in E&M.

The Englert book that I mentioned above closely follows Scwinger's approach but is a bit easier to read and ,don't murder me for saying this, the way Schwinger's book should have been written?

By the way, I am reading and really enjoying Susskind's third book (also takes the relativistic approach from the get go) on field theory. This should also supplement a traditional textbook quite nicely.

 

[Buffu]

The success of vol. II of Berkeley's physics course (Purcell) is an enigma to me.

I also think the same after reading the book. I would guess that Purcell's Nobel prize had a hand in it.

 

[atyy]

I like Essentials of Electromagnetism by David Dugdale.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-349-22780-8

 

[Meir Achuz]

"On the graduate level there's of course J. D. Jacksons classic. I'd recommend the 2nd edition, because it uses the Gaussian system of units, and the switch to SI (and then within the book using Gaussian units when it comes to relativity) in the 3rd edition is not justified by the other changes of the book.
This may just be me, but I never got used to this book. It always confuses me and I find Jackson is a hard to read book."

Try:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0486813711/?tag=pfamazon01-20
It is on the same level as Jackson, but is easier to read.

 

[Dr Transport]

Wangsness, by far the best undergrad text I have ever used for electromagnetics

 

[wirefree]

First of all, can I just say: Feynman. Considerate.

 

[wirefree]

Many thanks for the responses. Thanks everyone - Smodak, Buffu, deskswirl, vanhees71, atyy, clem, Dr Transport.

Deepavali is now past. But the lights will remain till X'mas. In the meantime, I propose a face-off...

Who's facing off?

Griffiths
Purcell
Landau
Englert
Schwartz
Nayfeh
Irodov
Schwinger
Feynman
Susskind
Dugdale
Franklin
Wangsness
Sadiku (my current text's author)Face-off Protocol

All recommended authors will be measured on just one metric, which is how they derive these two (2) topics:
1) the general wave equation from Maxwell's equation
2) Poynting vector from Maxwell's equationsOver the next couple of weeks, I will attempt to gather online, free, and library based texts by the authors all of you have recommended.

Please grow this thread with your participation.

Look forward!
~wirefree

 

[wirefree]

So the face-off begins with the first of 14 authors: Sadiku, Matthew N. O.

1) the general wave equation from Maxwell's equation

https://ibb.co/gDX7GR

2) Poynting vector from Maxwell's equations

What I can't appreciate in Sadiku's approach?

Above two images highlight Sadiku's approach, which is characterised by statements such as:

"Taking the curl of both sides..."

 

[atyy]

Do Deepavali lights always remain till Christmas?

 

[wirefree]

Do Deepavali lights always remain till Christmas?

No, this would be the first time we attempt to do so. And that's only because I am finally home having spent the last 20 years in Melbourne -> Mumbai -> Berkeley -> Delhi -> Boston -> Philadelphia and now...in the foothills of the outer Himalayas.

It's quite nice here.

 

[Buffu]

All recommended authors will be measured on just one metric, which is how they derive these two (2) topics:
1) the general wave equation from Maxwell's equation
2) Poynting vector from Maxwell's equations

Why did you choose these as the criteria ?

 

[jasonRF]

Deriving the wave equation from the two Maxwell curl equations is just a mathematical exercise that is useful because we know a lot about solutions to the wave equation. If you are looking for some deep insight from the derivation then I think you will be dissapointed by every book I am familiar with. The insightful part is examining properties of various solutions: traveling waves in space, guided waves, wave generation (radiation), interference and diffraction.

Likewise, the motivation for the derivation of Poynting's theorem is that the final result is useful. Examining the terms in Poyntings theorem in different scenarios is the interesting part. Feynman has nice discussions on this.
Jason

 

[Moayd Shagaf]

Just take Purcell I myself study it and like it a lot, and many people here like it, Or Griffiths book which is another great electromagnetism book, just one of them or both and you'll be good.

 

[vanhees71]

The Poynting vector naturally occurs by the use of Noether's theorem to the space-time translation symmetry of Minkowski space. In the case of electrodynamics, however, there's a subtlety, which is gauge invariance. That is because the densities/currents of the conserved quantities is not uniquely defined by Noether's theorem, and you have to add an appropriate contribution to the canonical energy-momentum-stress tensor to get a gauge invariant one.

Alternatively you can think about, where the densities/currents really physically occur, and that's general relativity, i.e., the energy-momentum-stress tensor of matter and radiation occurs from the variation of the space-time metric components in the generally covariant matter-radiation Lagrangian providing the energy-momentum-stress tensor as the sources of the gravitational field in Einstein's Equations. Specializing this general derivation afterwards to Minkowski space yields the physical symmetric and gauge invariant energy-momentum-stress tensor of the electromagnetic field as it must be for a physically relevant quantity. Splitting in space-time components with respect to a fixed inertial reference frame yields the usual quantities of the (3+1) (3D vector analysis) formalism, including the Poynting vector as the energy-flow density.

While Griffiths is a marvelous introductory E&M book, I warn against Purcell. In its attempt to be pedagogical it mystifies the relativistic approach by not introducing the appropriate tensor-analysis formalism beforehand. On the other hand a relativistic approach from the very beginning is in principle good and appropriate for the 21st century. The best book on the graduate level is Landau&Lifhitz vol. 2. A bit more introductory and great in emphasizing physics intuition is the textbook by M. Schwartz (also a Nobel Laureate by the way):

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0486654931/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[atyy]

Purcell was mostly unreadable for me, but I think it presents these two things in pretty unique ways:
1) the derivation of the Lamor formula
2) simple scenarios to show how relativity predicts the E and B field frame transformations

Ohanian https://www.amazon.com/dp/0977858278/?tag=pfamazon01-20 also has some nice insights about relativity.

 

[Metmann]

The best book on the graduate level is Landau&Lifhitz vol. 2

Do you really think so? I think for L&L it especially depends on personal taste. Russian books have a very unique style and in my opinion not everyone can grasp their points. Whether you love or you hate L&L-series. (in some way this holds also for Weinberg's books) Maybe these books are best suited for experienced physicists, not really for undergrads.
[Just my personal opinion]

 

[wirefree]

Thank you everyone for keeping this thread going.

@Buffu: My studies presently cover these topics; hence, the curiosity.

@Moayd Shagaf: Thanks, I'll try to review Purcell next.

See my next post on Griffiths.

@vanhees71: Intrigued. Much intrigued.

Thanks for the Purcell caution. And I do believe I've a Schwartz in my list above; hoping it's the same one.

 

[wirefree]

Taking this opportunity to continue the face-off...my next author is Griffiths.

Introduction to Electrodynamics by David J. Griffiths (4th ed. - Kindle edition)

The author, instead of stating the next step, cosiderately furnishes a reason for the next step. Decoupling is the keyword for me and my key takeaway. The "Taking the curl of..." approach is thoughtfully open-circuited.



I prefer Griffiths approach because he begins the section on Poynting Theorem by defining the total energy stored in EM fields. This approach contrasts cheerfully in comparison with efforts that jump right into the dot products & cross product mechanids of it all.

 

[Buffu]

Purcell next.

I second @vanhees71 and @atyy, I also find Purcell unreadable and I don't recommend it.

 

[wirefree]

Electricity and Magnetism by Edward M. Purcell (2nd ed.)

1) the general wave equation from Maxwell's equation

Although Purcell does not derive the wave equations, per se, I find his conversational style of writing much more paletable than my assigned textbook. The chapter on electromagnetic waves reads like the Mumbai breeze in October.

I know I am in concert with atleast Smodak and Maoyd Shagaf on that front.

Above comment is limited just to the readability aspect of the book and not on its technical underpinnings, whose critique I understand vanhees71, atyy et. al. to be.

2) Poynting vector from Maxwell's equations

I have been unsuccessful in locating this topic in Purcell.

 

[vanhees71]

Purcell is very confusing. If you want the relativity-first approach, better read Schwartz, Principle of Electrodynamics.

 

[wirefree]

"They say: 'Look, these differential equations—the Maxwell equations—are all there is to electrodynamics; it is admitted by the physicists that there is nothing which is not contained in the equations. The equations are complicated, but after all they are only mathematical equations and if I understand them mathematically inside out, I will understand the physics inside out.' Only it doesn’t work that way. Mathematicians who study physics with that point of view—and there have been many of them—usually make little contribution to physics and, in fact, little to mathematics."

~The Man Himself

 

[Demystifier]

"They say: 'Look, these differential equations—the Maxwell equations—are all there is to electrodynamics; it is admitted by the physicists that there is nothing which is not contained in the equations. The equations are complicated, but after all they are only mathematical equations and if I understand them mathematically inside out, I will understand the physics inside out.' Only it doesn’t work that way. Mathematicians who study physics with that point of view—and there have been many of them—usually make little contribution to physics and, in fact, little to mathematics."

~The Man Himself

I would like to see what mathematical physicists, such as @[URL='https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/author/urs-schreiber/']Urs Schreiber[/URL] , have to say about that Feynman's quote.

 

[Urs Schreiber]

I like to caution against this habit of dividing people studying field theory into camps (such as theoretic physicists, mathematical physicists, mathematicans studying physics) and then declaring what people in the camps do or do not understand; this seems misguided and alien to the nature of scientific investigation. There is the unique subject of quantum field theory, and we need all the tools and all the heuristics that we can get hold of to understand it. The implicit suggestion of many of these arguments that a theoretical physicists is somebody who should not be bothered with trying to understand what they are doing is not helping the field.

 

[Demystifier]

I like to caution against this habit of dividing people studying field theory into camps (such as theoretic physicists, mathematical physicists, mathematicans studying physics) and then declaring what people in the camps do or do not understand; this seems misguided and alien to the nature of scientific investigation. There is the unique subject of quantum field theory, and we need all the tools and all the heuristics that we can get hold of to understand it. The implicit suggestion of many of these arguments that a theoretical physicists is somebody who should not be bothered with trying to understand what they are doing is not helping the field.

I agree, but I would add also philosophers of physics to your camp list. They also contribute to full understanding of "what theoretical physicists do".

 

[Urs Schreiber]

I agree, but I would add also philosophers of physics to your camp list

For what it's worth, I argued for not considering any such list of camps. Maybe academic bureaucracy forces researchers to pretend being part of a camp, but for the sake of science, one should try to transcend this. Certainly one should try to not further amplify it.

 

[Demystifier]

For what it's worth, I argued for not considering any such list of camps. Maybe academic bureaucracy forces researchers to pretend being part of a camp, but for the sake of science, one should try to transcend this. Certainly one should try to not further amplify it.

Well, even if we do not call them "camps", it is certainly true that there are different styles of reasoning in physics. Some are more phenomenological than others, some are more mathematical than others, some are more philosophical than others, etc. Since each style has its advantages and disadvantages, it is wise to foster them all.

 

[vanhees71]

I agree, but I would add also philosophers of physics to your camp list. They also contribute to full understanding of "what theoretical physicists do".

Well, here I object. All that philosophers do is to confuse the physics. One should have a clear no-nonsense approach, which forbids philosophical gibberish to enter the scientific debate. Urs is of course right. From the more angles you study QFT (and as a prerequesite also classical FT, i.e., classical electrodynamics and General Relativity) the better you can understand it. I've still to learn all these methods of the axiomatic QFT community yet. So I'm very sure to not have understood QFT as well as it's possible to understand it, but for sure there's nothing philosophy can add to understanding any physics, and mathematics is not philosophy but according to a newer classification of the sciences belongs, together with informatics, to what's called a "structural science".

 

[Demystifier]

Well, here I object. All that philosophers do is to confuse the physics.

I am not talking of philosophers as such. I am talking of physicists who attack physics problems from a philosophical point of view. A great example is Bell (who in the particle-physics community is best known for ABJ anomaly), whose philosophical point of view led him to Bell inequalities and Bell theorem.

 

[wirefree]

In the few months I had the opportunity to spend at M.I.T. undertaking undergrad courses, I saw engineers-to-be of great caliber having to undertake a philosophy course on 'Minds & Machines'.

It confused & frustrated the Jesus out of some of them, with the class witnessing great talents giving up exasperated at all the twin-Earth nonsense.

But I recognised the brightest kid in class to possesses the malleability of mind to straddle laughingly through the brick-meets-mortar world of Newtonian mechanics as well as he did through the world of thought experiments that that course in philosophy of minds & machines entailed.

This was way back in 2006, but I've held on to the image of that brilliant kid who sat, always smiling, on the front row seat.