Physics Grad Programs that don't require Jackson's Electrodynamics

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Graduate physics programs vary in their requirements for J.D. Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics," with some institutions like Clemson opting not to use it. While many students express a desire to avoid the rigorous challenges posed by Jackson's text, it is widely acknowledged as a critical component for developing problem-solving skills essential for a physics Ph.D. Jackson's text is considered a rite of passage, providing valuable insights into electromagnetism and mathematical intuition necessary for advanced physics. The discussion emphasizes that a solid understanding of Jackson's material is beneficial across various fields, including astrophysics and condensed matter physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of graduate-level electromagnetism concepts
  • Familiarity with advanced problem-solving techniques in physics
  • Knowledge of the differences between undergraduate and graduate physics curricula
  • Awareness of the demands of a physics Ph.D. program
NEXT STEPS
  • Research alternative graduate-level electromagnetism textbooks, such as Landau/Lifschitz
  • Explore the curriculum of various physics graduate programs to identify those that do not require Jackson
  • Investigate the correlation between graduate coursework and career success in physics
  • Learn about problem-solving strategies used in advanced physics research
USEFUL FOR

Prospective physics graduate students, academic advisors, and anyone interested in understanding the role of Jackson's Electrodynamics in graduate education and its implications for career paths in physics.

  • #61
Prologue said:
Nearly every school requires a 2 semester Jackson course, but some don't even require one semester of a theoretical mechanics course. That is just offensive in my opinion. How can EM be that important?

Classical EM is a solved problem. Classical mechanics isn't. You can spend two semesters and learn "everything that's worth knowing' about classical EM, whereas you can spend decades on one aspect of classical mechanics and still not get to the bottom of it.

One analogy is that if you learn painting, a lot of teachers will have you spend inordinate amounts of times painting a sphere or a cube. Once you have that, there are some standard subjects that you'll be asked to paint (i.e. fruit baskets).

Jackson is the physics equivalent of painting a cube.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
twofish-quant said:
Classical EM is a solved problem. Classical mechanics isn't.

I definitely agree but there are still surprises out there. One of my professors showed us this article a couple days ago:

http://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.163901

I am also in agreement of your learning philosophy. I've always been the type that wants to learn something as deep as I can in hopes that it will pay off somewhere else. In most cases, it has paid off even in surprising ways (representation theory, Lie stuff) but in others not so much (Galois theory, number theory..). Maybe it's helped my learning abilities but sometimes it doesn't feel like it.

On another note, I loved Jackson's book mostly for the real world nasty non symmetrical problems. It made me feel like I was getting close to model an actual physical phenomenon rather than a "thought" experiment one.
 

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
761
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K