Is it worth to read the chapters on relativity in K&K mechanics book?

[Leo Liu]

Hello.

I have almost finished Kleppner's Newtonian mechanics book except the part discussing special relativity. I plan to read Purcell's EM book after finishing it.

I've heard some people saying that Purcell presents some of the EM concepts in a relativistic way, so I am a bit worried that I will get stuck if I skip the chapters in K&K. Also, David Tong's notes on relativity seems to be a decent alternative to the book. So I figure that I can read his notes instead of K&K if relativity is a prerequisite to Purcell.

Would you say that the knowledge of special relativity is important for a good understanding of Purcell's EM textbook? How does K&K compared with Tong's notes on relativity?

Thank you.

(Tong's notes: https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/relativity/seven.pdf)

 

[PeroK]

There are two questions there. The K & K relativity section looks weak to me. You are better with a specialist textbook.

You don't need relativity to start EM, but you do eventually. The relativity chapter in Griffith's EM book looks quite good, but again it may be quite terse for a first exposure to the subject.

 

[vanhees71]

Purcell (Berkeley physics course) is a bit confusion (at least it has been for me when I tried to learn electrodynamics for the first time). I think Griffiths is better also and particularly with his relativistic chapter.

A very good modern book (i.e., the "relativity first approach to electrodynamics") is Landau, Lifshitz vol. 2, but that's pretty advanced graduate level.

A much better book than Purcell at the advanced undergraduate level using the relativity-first approach is Schwartz, Principles of Electrodynamics.

 

[jasonRF]

Would you say that the knowledge of special relativity is important for a good understanding of Purcell's EM textbook?

Yes. My first exposure to electromagnetic theory was in a course based on Purcell, and the professor had to spend a fair amount of time teaching special relativity in order for the class to work. Besides lectures, the professor handed out photocopies of a couple book chapters for us to read. One was the chapter from Griffiths, which was a little (but not a lot) more advanced than the class.

While I really like Purcell's book, I agree with vanhees71 in that I don't think it was the best choice for a first course in the subject, and that Griffiths would be better. Of course, Griffiths is designed for an upper division course and Purcell for an intro course, but the level isn't that different.

jason

 

[Leo Liu]

Yes. My first exposure to electromagnetic theory was in a course based on Purcell, and the professor had to spend a fair amount of time teaching special relativity in order for the class to work. Besides lectures, the professor handed out photocopies of a couple book chapters for us to read. One was the chapter from Griffiths, which was a little (but not a lot) more advanced than the class.

This information is helpful. Thanks!

While I really like Purcell's book, I agree with vanhees71 in that I don't think it was the best choice for a first course in the subject, and that Griffiths would be better. Of course, Griffiths is designed for an upper division course and Purcell for an intro course, but the level isn't that different.

I have already purchased Purcell's book so I don't think I am going to spend more money buying another textbook. I will probably buy a copy of G's electrodynamics book when I go to uni.

 

[jasonRF]

The new 3rd edition of Purcell is an improvement over the the 2nd edition that I learned from, so hopefully that is the one you purchased. If you find chapter 5 too confusing, I would recommend the simplified version that Daniel Schroeder has on his web site
http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/MRR.html
It might even make sense to read Schroeder's version first.

jason

 

[PeroK]

I have already purchased Purcell's book so I don't think I am going to spend more money buying another textbook. I will probably buy a copy of G's electrodynamics book when I go to uni.

I tried Purcell's book (3rd edition) but it was too wordy for me - I didn't get very far into it before I switched to Griffiths. I feel like I'm on the same wavelength as Griffiths: the way he explains things almost always makes sense. I've also got his QM and Particle Physics books.