Electrodynamics Books | Graduate Level Suggestions

[Suman Saha]

Friends, can you suggest for some good books which can be studied in graduate level. Except Griffiths, I've completed it.

 

[Doc Al]

Though I hesitate to "recommend" it, there is the inevitable https://www.amazon.com/dp/047130932X/?tag=pfamazon01-20. Not sure if anything's replaced it in the the normal graduate curriculum, but it was ubiquitous back in my day.

 

[TSny]

In addition to Jackson's text, I recommend https://www.amazon.com/dp/0486439240/?tag=pfamazon01-20.
Inexpensive, too!

 

[dextercioby]

There's always the option of Landau & Lifschitz 3rd volume, but now I like the relatively new book by Scheck very much:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/3642279848/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[mpresic]

Landau and Livs 3rd volume is non-relativistic QM not EM. Panofsky and Phillips and Jackson can be considered graduate level. Another one not used anymore but good is an electromagnetics book by Stratton.

 

[Student100]

Landau and Livs 3rd volume is non-relativistic QM not EM. Panofsky and Phillips and Jackson can be considered graduate level. Another one not used anymore but good is an electromagnetics book by Stratton.

He could just have an older edition set, or some type of translation thing with the volumes. The L&L text I have for E&M is volume 2. To avoid ambiguity, if the titles are roughly the same between editions/translations: Classical Field Theory is what you're looking for OP.

It's much better than Jackson, I wouldn't recommend Jackson to anyone without a solid course using Jackson in the first place!

Though I hesitate to "recommend" it, there is the inevitable https://www.amazon.com/dp/047130932X/?tag=pfamazon01-20. Not sure if anything's replaced it in the the normal graduate curriculum, but it was ubiquitous back in my day.

Still basically the de facto text it seems. (Maybe more like a rite of passage?) It's also still the de facto "let me just Google the answers because this sucks" text. Not to hate on it too much, it is amazingly comprehensive and supplies plenty of would-be-physicists tears to fuel all those experiments at the LHC.

 

[mpresic]

Classical Theory of Fields by LL (volume 2 in my collection) is truly excellent. It treats gravitation too. Most grad schools do not use it and use Jackson. CFT may treat topics in a way physics faculty are not in harmony with. The Electrodynamics books (Electrodynamics of Continuous Media Vol 6 in my collection) in the LL series are also excellent, although I got this assessment second-hand. I have not studied the book.

 

[Suman Saha]

Someone recommended me Sadiku. What's about that?

 

[jasonRF]

Sadiku is at the same level as Griffiths, although it is an engineering book so has a different emphasis and has some different topics. Sadiku includes transmission lines, waveguides and basic antennas, but does not have special relativity and relativistic electrodynamics.

Are you interested in engineering or physics? All of the books recommended so far are designed for physics; other books may make more sense if you are interested in engineering.

 

[Suman Saha]

Yeah, I'm absolutely interested in physics and already read Griffiths. I want something modern , advanced and systematic.

 

[jasonRF]

Then don't bother with Sadiku.

Enjoy the journey.

jason

 

[vanhees71]

Yeah, I'm absolutely interested in physics and already read Griffiths. I want something modern , advanced and systematic.

Then take Landau-Lifshitz volume 2. Although not very new, it's modern in the sense that it uses relativity from the very beginning (I don't understand, why there are still written modern textbooks on classical electromagnetics not doing so). Another even more modern approach is provided by the textbook by Scheck

http://www.springer.com/de/book/9783642279843

 

[mpresic]

I think Landau and Liv is good, but I would not use it as a textbook. I think the problems are (likely) harder than Jackson, and the consensus from reading the forums is even Jackson problems are daunting. In addition, I think LL has fewer and a more limited variety of problems. I do not think it is necessary for a textbook to start with relativity right off the bat, anymore than I think quantum mechanics should introduce intrinsic spin, which has no classical counterpart, right off the bat, a la Sakurai. I do like Ohanian's book, and Melvin Schwartz's book that do place emphasis on relativity, but I equally like Jackson.
As an undergrad, I found Panofsky and Phillips very hard to follow, and actually found Jackson easier. Jackson was more discursive in the early chapters. Still, it is a big jump from the Resnick and Halliday treatment, and the first stages of Panofky where "dels" make their appearance half way down the first page.
Jackson, is used to prepare physics grads for work in advanced physics. An older book, by Stratton, would make a good book at the grad level, but the emphasis is more on engineering, maybe the way physics grad EM was taught before 1960.

I have not looked at Scheck (Van Trees), but I think I have another book by him that is good, but I think it treats mechanics.

 

[vanhees71]

On the undergrad level, I'd highly recommend also the Feynman Lectures vol. II. It's a marvelous E&M book, also including enough relativity.

 

[Suman Saha]

I will seriously say that Jackson is tough to solve many problems, again many typical problems are not included in it. Is not there a book which could be more familiar and advantagable.

 

[deskswirl]

Zangwill looks to me to be very accesible to someone of your background. According to a colleague who spoke with Zangwill he wrote it to replace Jackson's text.

For a text on roughly the same level as Jackson's which may be easier to follow and work problems from is Schwinger, Deraad, Milton and Tsai. There is also the book by Franklin which uses cgs units .

Landau-Lifshitz volume 2 (Classical Theory of Fields) and 8 (Electrodynamics of Continuous Media) are a pleasure to read but I would not jump there from Griffiths.

 

[vanhees71]

What's so great with Zangwill's book? It's very conventional like Jackson. Perhaps it's good; I've flipped through it at a conference-book desk once and thought that I don't need it, having my good old copy of Jackson's book (fortunately the 2nd edition, using the Gaussian units throughout, but that's another topic).

 

[dextercioby]

Zangwill uses the x₄ = ict in his text which is a big minus for me.

 

[vanhees71]

Oh no! Then it's a absolute no-go, although one of my most preferred textbooks on classical physics, Sommerfeld's Lectures on Theoretical Physics, also commit this sin, but that's written in the 1940ies and 1950ies, not in the 21st century!

 

[deskswirl]

I have the impression that the goal of Zangwill's book is to teach Electrodynamics while Jackson's is to teach the Math Methods associated with Electrodynamics. The content is necessarily overlapping but you can tell, by searching through the first few chapters of each, the difference. Note that Zangwill, unlike Jackson, reviews the requisite mathematics during the first chapter which I take to mean that he has shifted part of the burden off of the potential reader and onto the text itself. As such it appeals to an audience who is still developing their mathematical prowess.

Perhaps if a large percentage of undergraduate programs were not using books like Griffiths to prepare their students for Jackson then a book like Zangwill would not be necessary.

 

[atyy]

To counterbalance ict in Zangwill, you can use https://www.amazon.com/dp/1461291135/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[vanhees71]

I have the impression that the goal of Zangwill's book is to teach Electrodynamics while Jackson's is to teach the Math Methods associated with Electrodynamics. The content is necessarily overlapping but you can tell, by searching through the first few chapters of each, the difference. Note that Zangwill, unlike Jackson, reviews the requisite mathematics during the first chapter which I take to mean that he has shifted part of the burden off of the potential reader and onto the text itself. As such it appeals to an audience who is still developing their mathematical prowess.

Perhaps if a large percentage of undergraduate programs were not using books like Griffiths to prepare their students for Jackson then a book like Zangwill would not be necessary.

Well, from my own experience learning theoretical physics I know that the vector calculus is indeed the major complication to study electromagnetics. This is partially also the fault of the standard curriculum, covering classical mechanics and electrodynamics first. I'd switch the order to classical mechanics (Theory 1+2) - non-relativistic quantum mechanics (QM 1 = Theory 3) and then classical electrodynamics, because then you already have the Hilbert-space idea at hand and are familiar with some special functions from QM 1, where these concepts appear in a mathematically less complicated way through the theory of a (3D) scalar field rather than the rather complicated coupled vector fields, making up the electromagnetic field.

Usually, if you treat electromagnetics later, vector calculus should also have been covered by the math lectures (usually it's taught in analysis II and III).

I think, a good book on electromagnetism should also cover vector calculus (div, grad, rot, the integral theorems, Helmholtz's fundamental theorem), and it's good to put it in a separte chapter before treating the electromagnetic field, because then you can concentrate better on the physics rather than mathematical technicalities.

 

[Suman Saha]

I must say about a book by Capri and Panat which describes things rather easily. In this book, more preference is given for solving boundary value problems.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/8173193290/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[dextercioby]

I must say about a book by Capri and Panat which describes things rather easily. In this book, more preference is given for solving boundary value problems.

It looks fine, concise, straight to the point by the TOC. Do you know if he uses $x_4 = ict$ ? If an author uses this convention in the 21st century, he's more than old-fashioned. The death of ict in electrodynamics texts was officially in 1975, 2nd edition of J.D. Jackson's text. That's already 41 years ago.

 

[vanhees71]

The death of $\mathrm{i} c t$ should have been already in 1907, i.e., it should never have been introduced! On the other hand, not everything that's new is better. E.g., the introduction of the SI in theoretical E&M is a nightmare. Even Jackson committed this sin in his 3rd edition. It's telling that he decided to switch the convention to non-rationalized (why non-rationalized is also an enigma to me, but that's perhaps because of tradition) Gaussian units in the part of the book where he treats E&M relativistically. It's another enigma to me, why in the 21st century textbooks copy 19th-century non-relativistic treatments and then make a big fuss about "hidden momentum" and other apparent paradoxes which have been solved by the founding father of relativity. All this was settled the latest in 1912 with von Laues famous review article on SR.

 

[Suman Saha]

Eventually this text doesn't uses ict and instead ct is used for x4.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/8173193290/?tag=pfamazon01-20

It looks fine, concise, straight to the point by the TOC. Do you know if he uses $x_4 = ict$ ? If an author uses this convention in the 21st century, he's more than old-fashioned. The death of ict in electrodynamics texts was officially in 1975, 2nd edition of J.D. Jackson's text. That's already 41 years ago.

 

[Meir Achuz]

Look at
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0805387331/?tag=pfamazon01-20
It's on the Jackson level, but is easier to read and follow, especially on your own.
It is a good a good follow up to Griffith, going well beyond it.