Books recommendation on electrodynamics

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the challenges of transitioning from Griffiths' "Introduction to Electrodynamics" to Jackson's "Electrodynamics." Users express difficulty with Jackson's book, noting its rigorous mathematical approach and complex problems. Suggestions for alternative texts include Schwartz's "Principles of Electrodynamics," which is praised for its readability, and Melia's Electrodynamics, which has received positive feedback. A participant raises questions about the differences between the older red edition and the newer blue edition of Jackson's book, suggesting that the latter may have simplified some mathematical rigor while incorporating more practical applications. There is a consensus that the new edition mixes SI and Gaussian units, leading to some confusion among readers. Overall, the thread highlights the varying levels of difficulty in electrodynamics texts and the search for accessible resources.
jasum
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
I just finished Griffths intro. to electrodynamics and works half of the problems Griffths provided. Now,I attempt to read Jackson's electrodynamics and found it is very hard for me...
Indeed, should I need to go back to Griffths's electrodynamics and learn those concepts again? or I should try another book?any suggestions for a good E&M books? Thank you ~!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Jackson's EM book

Hello everyone,
I have some confusion about Jackson's electrodynamics book.
Once upon a time, my lecturer showed me his Jackson's EM book. I think it was an old edition. It has red cover.
He admires it a lot and so do I and he always stresses that it's probably one of the best EM books, a standard EM book with rigorous math formulations and difficult practice questions too.
But when I went to book store and found a Jackson's EM book, which is certainly a new edition one, I did not find such characteristics. I think the level is about the same as Griffith's. I just get confused why the new (dark blue cover) edition of Jackson's seems to be different from the old edition. I guess the common trend is that new books tend to be 'more pragmatic' than the older versions, removing 'assumedly-excessive and unnecessary mathematical rigors', though they may include new developments, which may not be novel from basic science principle perspective, but may be more relevant and of more practical values for real and recent world applications. Does indeed this really happen to Jackson's EM book, the new version? Or did I just get the wrong impression because I hadn't even gone thru the new version book thoroughly?
Any comment would be much appreciated

regards
 
Maybe not many people have had a chance to compare the red and blue editions of Jackson. I do know that the blue edition mixes SI and Gaussian units. I recently got a good (but musty smelling ) used copy of the red edition from alibris.com.
 
The book is fascinating. If your education includes a typical math degree curriculum, with Lebesgue integration, functional analysis, etc, it teaches QFT with only a passing acquaintance of ordinary QM you would get at HS. However, I would read Lenny Susskind's book on QM first. Purchased a copy straight away, but it will not arrive until the end of December; however, Scribd has a PDF I am now studying. The first part introduces distribution theory (and other related concepts), which...
I've gone through the Standard turbulence textbooks such as Pope's Turbulent Flows and Wilcox' Turbulent modelling for CFD which mostly Covers RANS and the closure models. I want to jump more into DNS but most of the work i've been able to come across is too "practical" and not much explanation of the theory behind it. I wonder if there is a book that takes a theoretical approach to Turbulence starting from the full Navier Stokes Equations and developing from there, instead of jumping from...

Similar threads

Replies
26
Views
5K
Replies
21
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
10K
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Back
Top