Physics Grad Programs that don't require Jackson's Electrodynamics

[Simfish]

How many grad programs in physics don't require Jackson's Electrodynamics? Which ones among them, in particular?

 

[nicksauce]

Don't want to sound like a dick, but if this is a deciding factor for you in choosing a grad school, you probably shouldn't go to grad school.

 

[Simfish]

It's not completely a deciding factor, but rather, something that I do take in consideration (especially since I'm deciding whether I should go only for astrophysics only or if I should include some physics as well).

There are plenty of physics PhD students who really wish they didn't have to go through all that masochism (and believe that it didn't make them any better off). Many of those who want to do condensed matter research (as opposed to theoretical physics) don't necessarily need to go through all that.

 

[Pengwuino]

While it is true that Jackson isn't necessarily a must have graduate experience... can you really call yourself a physicist without having gone through it? :P

 

[eri]

What book to use is up to the professor teaching the course, and there's no guarantee that they won't change their mind or their professor. But I know friends who took graduate E&M at Clemson and their professor hasn't used Jackson in a few years. They also don't require the physics GRE since they didn't see much correlation between PGRE scores and finishing a PhD. But they have a high drop out rate because it's 'easy' to get in but not easy to stay in.

I would call Jackson a right of passage for graduate physics students, one horrible experience that binds us all together. And I wouldn't do it again.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm afraid I agree with Nicksauce.

Jackson may be "boot camp for physicists", but that doesn't mean that it isn't a valuable thing. Yes, I know you say a bunch of students told you it didn't make them any better off. But are students really the best judges of what they will or will not need later in their careers?

Jackson is important for a number of reasons:

1. Electromagnetism is the prototype for all the field theories that we have developed, and it is important to understand it in depth - i.e. to be able to solve problems other than those with trivial symmetries.

2. It is important as a physicist to learn how to do hard problems - problems that take hours and sometimes days. You get these in real life. Jackson is not a unique source of these problems, of course, but it's a very good source.

3. The problems require both physical and mathematical intuition (which is why they are such good problems). Students deficient in one or both learn this quickly and have the time to develop it before it is too late.

Finally, your position of wanting to learn the bare minimum is very unusual among successful scientists. Most want to learn as much as they can.

 

[twofish-quant]

I'm afraid I agree with Nicksauce.

So do I. You are going to use techniques similar to those you find in Jackson in basically everything. Now if there is a new textbook that covers the same material in a better way, that's different, but I really don't see how you can get through any field of physics (including astrophysics and condensed matter) without mastering the material in Jackson.

It is important as a physicist to learn how to do hard problems - problems that take hours and sometimes days. You get these in real life. Jackson is not a unique source of these problems, of course, but it's a very good source.

And the hard problems that you find in Jackson are pretty typical of the types of problems that you will come across in physics Ph.D. work.

 

[twofish-quant]

There are plenty of physics PhD students who really wish they didn't have to go through all that masochism (and believe that it didn't make them any better off).

That's not been my experience. The whole point of getting a Ph.D. is precisely to go through that sort of masochism, and if you are not willing to go through that sort of masochism (and enjoy it!), you really, really seriously need to reevaluate whether or not you want to go through graduate school, because unless you are an major intellectual masochist, there is a very serious chance that you are not going to survive the process.

What would be interesting is to look at the number of physics Ph.D.'s that think that Jackson is unnecessary. I don't think it's unnecessary.

 

[nicksauce]

As an Astronomy grad student, I'm expected to work 70-80 hours a week for the next 4-5 years. I'd expect it to be similar for a Physics program. If you can't go through the masochism of one measly E&M course, are you going to be able to go through the masochism of working essentially two full-time jobs for the next 5 years?

 

[ZapperZ]

It's not completely a deciding factor, but rather, something that I do take in consideration (especially since I'm deciding whether I should go only for astrophysics only or if I should include some physics as well).

There are plenty of physics PhD students who really wish they didn't have to go through all that masochism (and believe that it didn't make them any better off). Many of those who want to do condensed matter research (as opposed to theoretical physics) don't necessarily need to go through all that.

I did my Ph.D in condensed matter physics, AND, I was an experimentalist as well. So I could easily use the argument that Jackson wasn't really necessary. However, as has been mentioned in this thread, the whole learning process isn't JUST a matter of being able to master the subject. If it is, then we won't force students who want to be theorists to take any lab courses.

One's ability to work through a tough problem IS part of the evaluation of receiving a Ph.D. Furthermore, the skill, not to mention the mathematics, that one has to employ, is invaluable no matter what area one majors in. And thirdly, what if you can't find a job in condensed matter physics, but yet, people in accelerator physics are eagerly looking for a condensed matter physicists to hire to work on many of the materials-related accelerator issues? Accelerator physics is predominantly E&M, and in fact, Jackson's text is actively used and referred to! You had just closed a door of opportunity for refusing to do such advanced level E&M.

BTW, we're not just talking about Jackson's text here. This really is an issue on whether you need to take graduate level E&M at the level of Jackson and the classic Landau/Lifschitz text. If your school doesn't use Jackson, it will just Landau/Lifschitz. The pain is the same either way.

Those "graduate students" that you got that poor advice from have no idea what will be facing them when they actually have to look for a job.

Zz.

 

[twofish-quant]

As an Astronomy grad student, I'm expected to work 70-80 hours a week for the next 4-5 years.

And as a post-post-post-grad, I work about 60 hours a week working on problems like those in Jackson, and then spend at least 10 hours a week thinking about math and physics outside of work, and I'll probably do it for the rest of my life.

Since I'm an intellectual masochist, my regret is that there aren't enough hours in a day to work on this sort of stuff. There are things like eating and sleeping that get in the way of thinking about math and physics.

If you can't go through the masochism of one measly E&M course, are you going to be able to go through the masochism of working essentially two full-time jobs for the next 5 years?

It's quite worse than that. Once you get a physics Ph.D., you'll get pegged as a mathematical masochist that enjoys crunching math problems, and so the jobs you get offered will likely involve doing the sort of work that you did in grad school. Now this is great if you *are* a mathematical masochist, but it can be total hell if you aren't.

 

[Jokerhelper]

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is "Jackson's Electrodynamics"? A book?

 

[Jokerhelper]

Well, I guess Amazon says yes.

 

[Pengwuino]

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is "Jackson's Electrodynamics"? A book?

It's a fairly standard graduate level electrodynamics textbook by J.D. Jackson.

One thing about Jacksons' text that I like is the fact that it is nearly perfect as far as I can tell. After using it for a year, we were hard pressed to find actual errors in the text that weren't pointed out on the 1.5 page errata you can find online. Many of those errors were typos as well that you can naturally pick on as well. The bad thing with some texts is that you'll find errors and poorly worded problems missing information or poorly motivated arguments in the text. Not so with Jackson!

Of course, when you see things like "it can easily be shown" , it can mean 3 pages of derivations... but it is still showable!

 

[Jokerhelper]

It's a fairly standard graduate level electrodynamics textbook by J.D. Jackson.

One thing about Jacksons' text that I like is the fact that it is nearly perfect as far as I can tell. After using it for a year, we were hard pressed to find actual errors in the text that weren't pointed out on the 1.5 page errata you can find online. Many of those errors were typos as well that you can naturally pick on as well. The bad thing with some texts is that you'll find errors and poorly worded problems missing information or poorly motivated arguments in the text. Not so with Jackson!

Of course, when you see things like "it can easily be shown" , it can mean 3 pages of derivations... but it is still showable!

Yeah I just looked it up on Amazon and was skimming through the first pages of the book. I was surprised that I was able to read through 1.1 of the book. I gave up by 1.2 tho.

 

[aber_leider]

Don't want to sound like a dick, but if this is a deciding factor for you in choosing a grad school, you probably shouldn't go to grad school.

I agree. Utterly.

 

[aber_leider]

Or, they might be pretty mediocre physicists.

 

[WiFO215]

Yeah I just looked it up on Amazon and was skimming through the first pages of the book. I was surprised that I was able to read through 1.1 of the book. I gave up by 1.2 tho.

Chapter 1 mostly deals with the things one learns in undergrad. Everyone should be able to 'read' through that. I put read in quotes because reading is different from comprehending. Certain parts require you to work out some, without which you cannot comprehend just by reading.

 

[Jokerhelper]

Chapter 1 mostly deals with the things one learns in undergrad. Everyone should be able to 'read' through that. I put read in quotes because reading is different from comprehending. Certain parts require you to work out some, without which you cannot comprehend just by reading.

Well to be honest I have only one year of undergrad under my belt, just saying. I tried reading through 1.3 but I got lost in the amount of equations with several symbols I don't really know the meaning of.

 

[cristo]

As an Astronomy grad student, I'm expected to work 70-80 hours a week for the next 4-5 years.

This question is somewhat offtopic, but is this really true: are you actually expected to work 70-80 hours a week? I'm a grad student across the pond, and it's hard to think of a week where I work more than about 50 hours (and I'm not just being lazy.. that's pretty much standard for all the students I know!)

 

[eXorikos]

What's so special about this book? We used David Griffith's book Introduction to Electrodynamics.

 

[Vanadium 50]

In grad school?

 

[ZapperZ]

What's so special about this book? We used David Griffith's book Introduction to Electrodynamics.

That is an undergraduate E&M text. We are talking about graduate level E&M. What you learn in undergraduate E&M, the Jackson text covers that in just the Intro and Chapter 1!

Zz.

 

[eXorikos]

The whole book up to special relativity in one chapter? We covered the whole book in our second semester of the second year.

I forgot the grad part of the topic. :)

I've looked through the table of contents and I don't see many topics that aren't discussed in intro to electrodynamics by Griffiths. The only things that aren't in that book are according to my first reading:
10 Scattering and diffraction
12 Dynamics of particles
13 Collisions
15 Brehmstrahlung

 

[ZapperZ]

The whole book up to special relativity in one chapter? We covered the whole book in our second semester of the second year.

I forgot the grad part of the topic. :)

I've looked through the table of contents and I don't see many topics that aren't discussed in intro to electrodynamics by Griffiths. The only things that aren't in that book are according to my first reading:
10 Scattering and diffraction
12 Dynamics of particles
13 Collisions
15 Brehmstrahlung

In Griffiths, did you try to find the solution to the Poisson equation for a disk of charge off-axis, i.e. not along the symmetry axis? Or look at the waveguide problem being tackled. Is that anything similar to what you did in Griffiths? What about using Green's function with the appropriate Dirichlet or Neuman boundary conditions?

Yes, you MAY think you're solving an electrostatic problem that looked familiar, but LOOK AGAIN! All the simplified situations that you are accustomed to in undergraduate E&M are no longer adopted! As stated earlier, these are now closer to what you have to deal with in real life! In fact, if you go into accelerator physics, the first thing you'll find out is that, you NEED Jackson's book to survive!

Zz.

 

[stevenb]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about Jackson. Although I never used it as an official textbook for the four EM courses I took back in school, I bought this on my own and consider it the best book I've read on the subject.

I would think that finding a good teacher is much more important than the book anyway.

 

[eXorikos]

In Griffiths, did you try to find the solution to the Poisson equation for a disk of charge off-axis, i.e. not along the symmetry axis? Or look at the waveguide problem being tackled. Is that anything similar to what you did in Griffiths? What about using Green's function with the appropriate Dirichlet or Neuman boundary conditions?

Yes, you MAY think you're solving an electrostatic problem that looked familiar, but LOOK AGAIN! All the simplified situations that you are accustomed to in undergraduate E&M are no longer adopted! As stated earlier, these are now closer to what you have to deal with in real life! In fact, if you go into accelerator physics, the first thing you'll find out is that, you NEED Jackson's book to survive!

Zz.

Green's function with Dirichlet or Neuman boundary conditions we covered in Differential Equations. The rest we only did what's in Griffiths.

Like I said I only went through the table of contents. I never said I thought I could solve any problem. You're just assuming I feel superior or something judging by the "tone" you take against me. I know perfectly well I'm just a student in his 3rd bachelor year.

Actually we only have 2 E&M classes in our whole curriculum. The last one being the one where we use Griffiths. We also have only 4 fields where we can graduate in: theoretical, nuclear, solid state, soft matter. And I have a feeling we'll do pretty well even if we haven't used Jackson's book.

EDIT: I'm well aware of the fact that a book of 500pages that is heavy on introduction can't contain as much as another book of 800 pages with less introduction. I just thought you're statement saying that all of Griffiths is contained in the first chapter of Jackson's a big exaggeration. Not to say huge.

 

[ZapperZ]

Green's function with Dirichlet or Neuman boundary conditions we covered in Differential Equations. The rest we only did what's in Griffiths.

Like I said I only went through the table of contents. I never said I thought I could solve any problem. You're just assuming I feel superior or something judging by the "tone" you take against me. I know perfectly well I'm just a student in his 3rd bachelor year.

Actually we only have 2 E&M classes in our whole curriculum. The last one being the one where we use Griffiths. We also have only 4 fields where we can graduate in: theoretical, nuclear, solid state, soft matter. And I have a feeling we'll do pretty well even if we haven't used Jackson's book.

Er... which part of "... That is an undergraduate E&M text. We are talking about graduate level E&M... " did you miss? The Jackson text is very seldom used (I haven't seen any) at the undergraduate level. No one here is insisting that you use Jackson's text at the undergraduate level. That isn't the point of the OP.

Note that it was you who made the argument that you ".. don't see many topics that aren't discussed in intro to electrodynamics by Griffiths.. ". I countered that faulty impression by stressing the differences that you didn't realized to correct that view. The topics MAY be the same. The content isn't. It is a faulty impression to think that just because you've solve for the field along the axis of symmetry of some situation, that you can solve for the field everywhere else. In other words, I gave specific examples. It wasn't a "tone".

Zz.

 

[George Jones]

The Jackson text is very seldom used (I haven't seen any) at the undergraduate level.

In my undergraduate program, we were required to take take 5 semesters of e&m beyond first-year. In second-year, we had 2 semesters of e&m that used Purcell and Griffiths as texts. In third-year, we had a semester of applied e&m; wave guides, transmission lines, and other stuff. In fourth-year we covered much of Jackson in two semesters. We had regular assignments that consisted of Jackson questions.

 

[eXorikos]

Er... which part of "... That is an undergraduate E&M text. We are talking about graduate level E&M... " did you miss? The Jackson text is very seldom used (I haven't seen any) at the undergraduate level. No one here is insisting that you use Jackson's text at the undergraduate level. That isn't the point of the OP.

Note that it was you who made the argument that you ".. don't see many topics that aren't discussed in intro to electrodynamics by Griffiths.. ". I countered that faulty impression by stressing the differences that you didn't realized to correct that view. The topics MAY be the same. The content isn't. It is a faulty impression to think that just because you've solve for the field along the axis of symmetry of some situation, that you can solve for the field everywhere else. In other words, I gave specific examples. It wasn't a "tone".

Zz.

I clearly stated in my second reply that I read over the graduate part of the topic. So in my first reply I wasn't aware of that. You and many other stated that you need Jackson's text in your grad years. I'm assuming that is like your masters here in Europe? I know no university program here in Belgium that has an E&M course in the master of physics. So by the standards set here in this topic, we aren't real physicists when we graduate? Maybe I'm totally wrong about comparing the system undergrad/grad with our system.

Replying on the second part: Like I say in my edit (that came a bit late I guess) that I'm aware that Jackson goes deeper.

I took a bit offence to your posts also because you emphasise everything like I'm not capable of understanding it otherwise. But that might just be my imagination and is actually totally besides the point. I apologize if that wasn't your intention.

 

[Pengwuino]

I clearly stated in my second reply that I read over the graduate part of the topic. So in my first reply I wasn't aware of that. You and many other stated that you need Jackson's text in your grad years. I'm assuming that is like your masters here in Europe? I know no university program here in Belgium that has an E&M course in the master of physics. So by the standards set here in this topic, we aren't real physicists when we graduate? Maybe I'm totally wrong about comparing the system undergrad/grad with our system.

The two systems are different as far as I've read on this forums. The exact details I don't remember.

As for the two texts, if you look at them side by side, you'll see that yes, Jackson goes into way more detail using way fewer approximations. If you're like me, you'll think not so much that Jackson is going into too much detail, but that Griffiths simplified the world an enormous amount! Not even down to the "spherical cow" approximation, more like a point-like cow

 

[nicksauce]

This question is somewhat offtopic, but is this really true: are you actually expected to work 70-80 hours a week? I'm a grad student across the pond, and it's hard to think of a week where I work more than about 50 hours (and I'm not just being lazy.. that's pretty much standard for all the students I know!)

Well there's a difference between what's expected and what I actually do :p. I'd say 55-60 would be more typically for me... but I am just finishing my first year right now, and hope to increase this number up to 65-70 next year. But I definitely do know quite a few people, especially those who work in the balloon lab, that do 70-80.

 

[Ryker]

The two systems are different as far as I've read on this forums. The exact details I don't remember.

A professor from a university in Canada that did his undergraduate degree in the UK (BSc) told me that the material they covered there was roughly on par with what's covered (at least in first year) when doing a Masters in Canada. Presumably, the same applies for the US, as well.

 

[aber_leider]

Griffith's book is an excellent introduction to "the real thing" electromagnetic theory, in fact it does cover, conceptually, most of the topics that Jackson does. The difference, as has been several times stated before, is that, while both of them cover the same concepts, Griffiths makes you apply them in pretty simple problems that just require a simple grasp on the symmetries of the problem, while Jackson goes far beyond that and applies the same concepts to much more complicated problems, that require more insight on the physics, but also much much more mathematical background.

For instance, it might be true that a good undergraduate course in Differential equations might cover advanced topics like Green functions, BUT for E&M you need to build Green functions not for ordinary differential equations, but for PARTIAL differential equations and such topics are covered ussually only in firs year graduate cuorses.

If, during your undergraduate years, you had just a couple of E&M courses covering Purcell and Griffiths besides a good course on methods of mathematical physics you already have what is needed to undertake the task of facing Jackson at a graduate level. But if you never, as a grad, covered Jackson (or some other book covering the exact same material at the exact same level) well, I guess you aren't a real physicist.

There are four topics that every physicist should completely master in order to have the minimum background to facer real life research problems: Classical mechanics (at least Goldstein), classical electrodynamics (Jackson is a must), statistical mechanics (though one... maybe Cubo will suffice) and quantum mechanics (Sakurai).

 

[j93]

Has anybody used the newest edition of Jackson. It changes unit systems 3/4 (SI to CGS)into the book. The Red Edition is better but the quality of the binding is worse. If only they bound it like the new blue one but kept the information(unit consistency of the the red book).

 

[arunma]

When I was taking E&M, we used Jackson the first semester, and got all of our problems from the textbook. The second semester, Jackson was still the text (to the extent that the professor outlined the course the same way), but the professor started writing his own problems instead of assigning them out of Jackson. His problems were just as hard as Jackson's, but now we didn't have the ability to look up solutions online. The only reason I survived was because being a high energy/astrophysics student, I had seen a lot of the EM radiation stuff before.

Seriously, are you sure you don't want to use Jackson? He's hated not because his textbook is bad, but because he represents E&M, which is the hardest class in all of graduate physics (at least I think it is). Your beef isn't with Jackson, it's with E&M. I feel your pain, but I don't think you can get out of this.

 

[Academic]

I guess Ill chime in with the dissenting opinion, I don't think suffering through Jackson is necessary. Its not necessary to do real, modern science nor is it necessary to learn the 'spirit' of physics. I did finish my E&M courses with Jackson and don't feel that it was really that helpful. I am not alone on this either, at my undergrad and grad institution there is a split among the faculty. One part wants to modernize the curriculum to try to keep physics relevant, the other wants to keep it more traditional by teaching traditional techniques.

I could quickly slide into a rant on the culture of physics and current course into irrelevance, but I will stop short of that (for now).

That said, choosing your grad school based off of Jackson doesn't seem reasonable at all. At worst it will be irrelevant and hard, at best it will be relevant and easy. In either case it shouldn't factor into your grad school choice.

 

[stevenb]

... I am not alone on this either, at my undergrad and grad institution there is a split among the faculty. One part wants to modernize the curriculum to try to keep physics relevant,

I don't understand how a rigorous foundation in EM theory could not be relevant to learning and doing physics. I'm not a physicist, so maybe I'm not qualified to have an opinion here, but I see the same attitude in my own field of electrical engineering, and I detest it. So many (more than half it seems) EEs think knowing EM theory and application is no longer relevant to being a good EE. Computer/electrical engineers now only take one course in EM, while straight electrical engineering programs still require 2 courses, but don't ask the typical student to solve more than a basic problem after graduation. Then, in grad school, there is no requirement to take any EM at all. To me, this makes no sense because a high percentage of real world electrical engineering problems are solvable with classical EM theory combined with mechanics (either Newton, Einstein or Quantum), with high accuracy. Granted, simpler theories (e.g. circuit theory) also work often, but not always. I know that the significance is less for modern physicists given the success of QFT, but if one can't do EM, what hope is there of tackling QFT?

Are we heading into a future where EEs and physicists don't even know more than the basics of EM? What an embarrassment that will be, in my opinion.

On the subject of Jackson, I don't know of any engineering programs from past days that used it, and perhaps this is why the 3rd edition switched to SI units which is used by EEs exclusively. However, I always felt this was an unfortunate miss since engineers can benefit from a physicist's approach to the subject, perhaps even more than a physicist. This is why I bought this book long ago and used it to learn from. Just look at problem 1.1 from the second edition. Now that is a question that teaches something significant. I could ask 100 EEs that question, and I doubt more than 2 would be able to answer it off the top of their head. I would have expected physicists to do much better, but if the above attitude is representative of physicists in general, then perhaps I should lower my expectations.

Something is very rotten in the state of Denmark when an average engineer has more appreciation of the beauty and practicality of a physics topic, than a significant split among a physics faculty.

 

[ZapperZ]

I guess Ill chime in with the dissenting opinion, I don't think suffering through Jackson is necessary. Its not necessary to do real, modern science nor is it necessary to learn the 'spirit' of physics. I did finish my E&M courses with Jackson and don't feel that it was really that helpful. I am not alone on this either, at my undergrad and grad institution there is a split among the faculty. One part wants to modernize the curriculum to try to keep physics relevant, the other wants to keep it more traditional by teaching traditional techniques.

I could quickly slide into a rant on the culture of physics and current course into irrelevance, but I will stop short of that (for now).

That said, choosing your grad school based off of Jackson doesn't seem reasonable at all. At worst it will be irrelevant and hard, at best it will be relevant and easy. In either case it shouldn't factor into your grad school choice.

When I took Jackson, the class consisted of students in physics AND electrical engineering! I don't know how one could claim that this has nothing to do with real, modern science.

AND, if you go into Accelerator Physics, it is ALL advanced classical E&M right out of Jackson. In fact, I've seen a senior physicist told a new Postdoc to ".. review Jackson inside out.. " when he first started.

Zz.

 

[eXorikos]

Not everyone goes into accelerator physics...

 

[Vanadium 50]

Not everyone goes into accelerator physics...

True, but the number of people who end up doing exactly what they studied in grad school is very, very small.

Most of the things I work on didn't even exist when I was in grad school.

 

[ZapperZ]

Not everyone goes into accelerator physics...

But that isn't my point! My point was to counter the argument that the book has nothing to do with "real" life situation! It does! The fact that electrical engineering students also take courses using such text is the clearest argument there is. The fact that accelerator physicists/engineers have to know stuff from Jackson (and also keep that text in their offices at work) is that proof-in-the-pudding.

Zz.

 

[mordechai9]

Having been through a through a number of textbooks, I can say without reservation Jackson is one of the best books I have studied. Some books are simply incomprehensible (leaving out details in the derivations, omitting crucial facts, speaking in confusing language, speaking unclearly). Some books I get the feeling are written by people who are probably great physicists, but awful theoreticians, or at least, awful expositors of theory. This isn't surprising considering that physics is a field involved with much 'intuition' and not everyone is expected to be great at dealing with the theory. On the other hand, the book by Jackson is so comprehensible, it's simply a masterpiece.

Other books are comprehensible, but they don't teach you how to solve the problems, by leaving out too many examples, or having things too abstract, or phrasing problems too far away from the material covered. Jackson actually teaches you how to solve the problems. In each chapter, he gives you everything you need to go through and really figure out how to do the work. There are many books which don't manage to meet this common ground. Furthermore, in Jackson many (or most) of the problems have the solutions written down as well, which can be indispensable for learning.

On the downside, Jackson is not easy to skim through. If you want to look up something, it takes like 1-2 hours IMO to carefully read through the relevant sections before you can feel satisfied. But the fact that you can sit down with the book, put time into it, and really learn an answer or a solution to a deep question... it's a masterwork, like I said.

In short, I think you may have a wrong impression about this.

 

[bob101]

In my undergraduate program, we were required to take take 5 semesters of e&m beyond first-year. In second-year, we had 2 semesters of e&m that used Purcell and Griffiths as texts. In third-year, we had a semester of applied e&m; wave guides, transmission lines, and other stuff. In fourth-year we covered much of Jackson in two semesters. We had regular assignments that consisted of Jackson questions.

where did you go to school?

 

[j93]

Having been through a through a number of textbooks, I can say without reservation Jackson is one of the best books I have studied. Some books are simply incomprehensible (leaving out details in the derivations, omitting crucial facts, speaking in confusing language, speaking unclearly). Some books I get the feeling are written by people who are probably great physicists, but awful theoreticians, or at least, awful expositors of theory. This isn't surprising considering that physics is a field involved with much 'intuition' and not everyone is expected to be great at dealing with the theory. On the other hand, the book by Jackson is so comprehensible, it's simply a masterpiece.

Other books are comprehensible, but they don't teach you how to solve the problems, by leaving out too many examples, or having things too abstract, or phrasing problems too far away from the material covered. Jackson actually teaches you how to solve the problems. In each chapter, he gives you everything you need to go through and really figure out how to do the work. There are many books which don't manage to meet this common ground. Furthermore, in Jackson many (or most) of the problems have the solutions written down as well, which can be indispensable for learning.

On the downside, Jackson is not easy to skim through. If you want to look up something, it takes like 1-2 hours IMO to carefully read through the relevant sections before you can feel satisfied. But the fact that you can sit down with the book, put time into it, and really learn an answer or a solution to a deep question... it's a masterwork, like I said.

In short, I think you may have a wrong impression about this.

I have to agree the sections in Jackson are actually readable unlike the Schwinger book or other E&M books. The problems are difficult but so can problems made by a professor, I don't mean to downplay but Jackson seems like it is an easier than it could be, you could be using an awful book and have to solve similarly difficult problem.

 

[j93]

where did you go to school?

I second your question.

 

[physics girl phd]

In Griffiths, did you try to find the solution to the Poisson equation for a disk of charge off-axis, i.e. not along the symmetry axis? Or look at the waveguide problem being tackled. Is that anything similar to what you did in Griffiths? What about using Green's function with the appropriate Dirichlet or Neuman boundary conditions?

Yes, you MAY think you're solving an electrostatic problem that looked familiar, but LOOK AGAIN! All the simplified situations that you are accustomed to in undergraduate E&M are no longer adopted! As stated earlier, these are now closer to what you have to deal with in real life!
Zz.

Huzzah! This is the kind of stuff I hint at to my EM class (the intro calc-based class for engineers -- aka not even "intermediate undergrad" EM level)... when they complain tremendously about their highly simplified scenarios. I outline how the problem COULD be worse, and they are immediately thankful that their problems (though they view them as hard) are of the simpler sort.

Let's keep in mind that getting a Ph.D in physics does, in part, mean that one is judged to be qualified to teach undergraduates (and often graduate students -- even those not in one's research area, if so called upon). If the OP wishes to avoid hard problems, let's hope the OP does not plan a career under the umbrella of academia (which would probably be very-difficult with the current job-market AND especially with a Ph.D. program perhaps "known" for "cutting a corner" like Jackson's EM). Doing the hard problems means one is more likely to see the symmetries, etc. that make setting up solvable (and "original") problems at the easier levels, well, easier.

PS. I was trained under the blue text, and it's fine... probably more so, since it uses SI for a large part (which is what one would use if teaching undergrads)... though in my grad school research my problem/analysis tended to use more CGS.

Also: I did NOT use online solutions... contrary to most I am an EM fan; in grad school, I used to have friends bring beer to my office (before the days of the dry-campus) and I'd help them work the problems in exchange.

 

[cristo]

I used to have friends bring beer to my office (before the days of the dry-campus)

This is the most worrying thing in your post. You have a dry campus? Ouch!

 

[twofish-quant]

One part wants to modernize the curriculum to try to keep physics relevant, the other wants to keep it more traditional by teaching traditional techniques.

I tend to be a traditionalist when it comes to physics education. One problem with trying to keep physics "relevant" is that people in academia often seriously guess wrong what skills are useful in industry.

At least in finance, a physics curriculum that focuses on being "relevant" ends up being much, much worse than one that focuses on "traditional irrelevancies." The problem is that if you teach people to solve the problems of 2006, they get totally lost in 2010. It's better to teach problem solving based on some basic hard math that doesn't change very much, and E&M is a pretty good place for that.

I could quickly slide into a rant on the culture of physics and current course into irrelevance, but I will stop short of that (for now).

I don't see the physics curriculum becoming irrelevant. There are lots of problems that I see with the physics curriculum but irrelevance isn't one of them.

I should point out that some of the interview questions that I got for my current position was pretty much taken out of Jackson. The logic is that if you are good at math, you can very quickly learn the finance that you need, but it doesn't work the other way.

 

[diggy]

How many grad programs in physics don't require Jackson's Electrodynamics? Which ones among them, in particular?

For what its worth, I'd recommend that you attend a grad school that does use Jackson. Instead of side stepping learning the material, take this time and prepare for it by first taking a full years math methods course (you can cover the material yourself the summer before grad school if you aren't able to fit it into your schedule now). With that and an undergrad background in something like Griffiths, Jackson will be much more palpable (much of what Jackson is, is the math methods).

10 years after Jackson I occasionally still find myself looking up problems. Recently I was working on a simulation and I was amazed how everything (almost everything) I needed was found in either very concise and informative sections or problems that I'd previously been assigned (luckily those hadn't been lost).

Don't skip out on the good stuff, you'll thank yourself later. Maybe an analogy to running a marathon is appropriate. Once you start running everyday, its not work, its what you look forward to.