- #1
Leo Liu
- 353
- 156
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)
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)