1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Classical Electrodynamics: Ohanian vs. Wangsness

  1. Jun 8, 2016 #1
    Hi guys, I'm just curious about how does Classical Electrodynamics by Hans Ohanian and Electromagnetic Fields by Ronald Wangsness compare? I know Griffiths is like the way to go when it comes to EM, but personally, I find his book too hand wavy and the explanations are sometimes lacking, so I decided if ever I'm going to review or choose a reference in EM what would it be aside from Griffiths? I saw few reviews about Ohanian having the "relativistic" feel in his book (which I think will be good) but I want to get more comments.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2016
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 8, 2016 #2

    Dr Transport

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    My favorite EM text of all time is Wangsness, he is concise, methodical and uses consistent notation throughout the entire text. You can read his text, work thru the theory and then apply it at the end for the homework problems. His is the only text I have seen where they teach you to set up ALL electrostatic and magnetostatic problems regardless of symmetry in Cartesian coordinates then convert to cylindrical or spherical for the final integration and that is the only way to do it, if you don't you get lucky if you get the correct answer.

    A friend of mine didn't know about Wangsness and decided to go and use it after teaching out of Griffiths for a couple of years, I can't really say anything good about Griffiths.

    As for the "relativistic" feel of Ohanian I can't tell you anything.

    My copy has disappeared in the past month or so, gotta look for it.
     
  4. Jun 8, 2016 #3
    Thanks for your comment, I don't know much about wangsness but I've heard few mixed response about his book. What exactly are the aspects that makes his book better than griffiths?
     
  5. Jun 9, 2016 #4

    Dr Transport

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member


    Re-read my original post......
     
  6. Jun 9, 2016 #5
    Sorry, I think I should say it differently, is the difference between griffiths and wangsness really big? Big enough so that I should replace griffiths? Also, I'm confused about the positive reviews about griffiths, I find most of them not true. I'm wondering where are those coming from.
     
  7. Jun 9, 2016 #6

    Dr Transport

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If you already have it, keep it, you'll most likely be using it in a course, it seems to be the de-facto standard. Wangsness is out of print, i think, that is why it isn't used more. Wangsness puts everything into it's own chapter/section, Griffiths tends to ramble on and put out too much info in a couple of chapters.

    As for the positive reviews, I can't tell you, I am just not enamored with Griffiths even after having been forced to teach out of it.
     
  8. Jun 9, 2016 #7
    How about the special relativity part of wangsness? Is it also good? I hope somebody could also comment on Ohanian.
     
  9. Jun 9, 2016 #8

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Ohanian is absolutely worth a read because of his treatment of relativity. It's a bit like the advanced version of Purcell's argument that magnetic effects follow from relativity.
     
  10. Jun 9, 2016 #9
    Yes, that also intrigued me. I feel that his treatment of relativity is very compelling but I can only choose one, so which is a better investment? Wangsness or Ohanian? Is Wangsness' treatment of relativity good?
     
  11. Jun 9, 2016 #10

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I've never read Wangsness. You can just stick with Griffiths and borrow the others from the library.
     
  12. Jun 9, 2016 #11
    Dr Transport, is wangsness using ict convention for the special relativity part?
     
  13. Jun 9, 2016 #12
    I have a friend who is in undergrad, he already took EM at the level of Halliday, is Ohanian's book good for upper undergrad/ alternative to griffiths?
     
  14. Jun 9, 2016 #13

    Dr Transport

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't recall, like I said, my copy has been packed away for my move and I can't remember what box it is in....
     
  15. Jun 9, 2016 #14
    Oh, thanks for your response about wangsness!
     
  16. Jun 9, 2016 #15
    I bought Wangness and I liked it although I never used it for a course. I did not study it in detail. I also bought Ohanian, and read it in greater depth. I also had the advantage in sitting in on a general relativity course that Ohanian taught. When I read Ohanian, I could hear his voice in my ear. Ohanian does indeed treat radiation relativistically. However, I think he uses physical insight to explain terms he drops in deriving the Lienhard Weichert potentials, OK, but I think Melvin Schwartz's (inexpensive) Dover book derives the Lienhard Weichert more rigorously, in greater detail.

    All told, I let a friend borrow Wangness for a indefinite time, and never missed it. I kept my Ohanian,and I like it better. I also have Griffith and I do feel it is very hand-wavy. As an undergrad I liked Lorrain and Corson for the first semester, and Marion Classical Electromagnetic Radiation for the second. This was OK
     
  17. Jun 10, 2016 #16

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    I have not looked at Ohanian, but I did buy a copy of Wangsness in grad school to study alongside Jackson. It's section on SR is sort of an afterthought, and is neither great nor terrible. On the plus side, it mentions the Trouton-Noble experiment. On the minus, it uses ict everywhere.
     
  18. Jun 11, 2016 #17

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    Yes he is. That's the show stopper :-(. Of course, it's also not very encouraging that he brings relativity as the last chapter in a text about a (if not the paradigmatic) relativistic field theory.
     
  19. Jun 11, 2016 #18

    Dr Transport

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't see any problem in that, I didn't teach that material to any of my undergraduates when I was teaching, leave it for graduate school. I lied the text because I found it to be the best undergraduate text available and our department syllabus didn't require us to teach any relativistic formalism in the curricula at the time.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Electrodynamics: Ohanian vs. Wangsness
  1. Ohanian Physics (Replies: 4)

  2. Electrodynamics book (Replies: 26)

Loading...