1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal 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 Panofsky VS Nayfeh on "Electricity and Magnetism"

  1. Jul 23, 2016 #1
    I will be taking a second course on electromagnetism and I want a book that bridges the gap between Griffith's book and Jackson's book. I have come across Panofsky's book and Nayfeh's book but I don't know which one is better.
    Any opinion for these would be much appreciated
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 23, 2016 #2
    As an undergrad, I thought Panofsky's book was so difficult I read Jackson instead. Now that I used Jackson, I now understand Panofsky. Although Panofsky is thinner and not as broad as Jackson, I think is ievery bit as advanced as Jackson. I do not know Nayfeh's book.
  4. Jul 24, 2016 #3
    Nayfeh & Brussel is definitely an undergrad book at a level lower than Jackson and Panofsky.
  5. Jul 24, 2016 #4
    Well, I have read a few sections of Panofsky and found it to be really good and intuitive. I don't think that is as mathematically oriented as Jackson.
  6. Jul 24, 2016 #5
    I have already studied most sections from Griffiths and I thought that Nayfeh would provide a stepping stone to graduate level EM. What I mean is, I thought Nayfeh's book was at a higher mathematical level than Griffith's. Am I wrong to think that?
  7. Jul 24, 2016 #6
    Maybe slightly more mathematical. I used it as a supplementary text when I did an undergrad EM course.
  8. Jul 24, 2016 #7
    So will I only if it's more mathematically advanced than Griffith's
  9. Jul 24, 2016 #8
    Panofsky Philllips is more theoretical, Nayfeh Brussel is more applicative.
    Panofsky can be thought as an intermediate step toward Jackson. It's condensed, but very clear and altough at about the same level as, it is less mathematically oriented than Jackson, IMO.
    To me, Nayfeh is the intermediate step between studying EM and applying EM. I love all those solved examples.

    To clarify, my ideal path toward EM would be:

    Kip as an appetizer.
    Purcell as first dish.
    Nayfeh Brussel as a salad
    Panofsky Phillips as second dish.

    And Jackson?
    Jackson is sex after that dinner.
  10. Jul 24, 2016 #9
    Well then, after this comment I will be buying both as both are super cheap! Cheers!
  11. Jul 24, 2016 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    Leave out Purcell and substitute it by Schwartz. That may be more digestable food with the same nourishment ;-).

    All these books (except perhaps Schwartz) are also very conventional. For me it's incomprehensible why textbooks about CED in the 21st century in large parts are copied from those of the 19th century. In my opinion one should present CED as a classical relativistic field theory from the very beginning. My favorite book in this respect is Landau/Lifshitz vol. II. Another very good one is vol. II of the theoretical-physics series by Scheck, which now is also available in English translation.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted