Pre-reqs for Ultrafast Optics? (Jackson or Zangwill for Electrodynamics?)

[despaxir]

TL;DR: Jackson or Zangwill for Electrodynamics?

Hi, I want to learn ultrafast optics and I am interested in condensed matter physics, ie using ultrafast optics in condensed matter systems. However, before I get onto ultrafast optics I need to improve my electrodynamics knowledge.

Should I study Jackson or Zangwill for Electrodynamics? My level at the moment is Griffiths. Given my interest in ultrafast optics in condensed matter, I am not sure which book is better suited for me.

If Jackson or Zangwill is not appropriate then please suggest another book.

 

[Muu9]

I hear a lot of people recommend Zangwill over Jackson, but not vice versa.

That being said, URochester's OPT 462 (an EM course for optics grad students) uses Jackson and Max Born: https://www.hajim.rochester.edu/optics/assets/pdf/gradhandbook.pdf

 

[CrysPhys]

TL;DR: Jackson or Zangwill for Electrodynamics?

Hi, I want to learn ultrafast optics and I am interested in condensed matter physics, ie using ultrafast optics in condensed matter systems. However, before I get onto ultrafast optics I need to improve my electrodynamics knowledge.

Should I study Jackson or Zangwill for Electrodynamics? My level at the moment is Griffiths. Given my interest in ultrafast optics in condensed matter, I am not sure which book is better suited for me.

If Jackson or Zangwill is not appropriate then please suggest another book.

Could you clarify your situation? Is this for self-study? Are you a university student? If so, what level, and what text are they using?

 

[despaxir]

I hear a lot of people recommend Zangwill over Jackson, but not vice versa.

That being said, URochester's OPT 462 (an EM course for optics grad students) uses Jackson and Max Born: https://www.hajim.rochester.edu/optics/assets/pdf/gradhandbook.pdf

Okay perhaps I should do Jackson then. My plan was to do Born's book anyway to be fair.

 

[despaxir]

Could you clarify your situation? Is this for self-study? Are you a university student? If so, what level, and what text are they using?

I will start my PhD in experimental condensed matter in a year's time in the UK. Most European Physics PhDs do not have set courses, hence I don't have any text to go off on. So this will be entirely self taught for two reasons: out of interest and the potential opportunity I have to actually do ultrafast optics experiments.

My EM knowledge is at Griffiths level which my BSc had a course in it and we completed the entire book in 2nd year. I didn't do any electrodynamics or optics related stuff in my MSc. So it has been a while since I have studied electrodynamics. I just did condensed matter related stuff in my MSc. For this reason, I want to study Electrodynamics at a higher level before I start studying Ultrafast Optics. I am unsure what book I should use for Electrodynamics given my specific goals.

My interests are to understand Electrodynamics, how they work in materials and solids, how they work in optics and ultrafast instruments.

I hope by doing this I will have a better background to understand the condensed matter applications such as light-matter interactions, non-equilibrium processes which light can induce in quantum materials as well as how they are used with scanning tunnelling microscope instruments to get both time resolved and spatial resolved microscopy and spectroscopy information of quantum materials.

 

[QuarkyMeson]

I don't understand how you could get a masters without doing graduate E&M. Seems crazy to me. Anyway.

How much do you know about programing and signal processing? That's going to be far more useful as an experimentalist. Better yet, ignore looking at a text book, go to your advisors/research groups/whomever web page and start working through all their papers. Lit review and familiarizing yourself with their research is going to do much more good initially.

Take graduate E&M (and probably non-linear optics) and whatever courses they suggest, if permitted, when you're in the program. You have an entire year to get up to speed with their research aims and focus and to go through papers until you understand the applicable theory.

 

[CrysPhys]

Better yet, ignore looking at a text book, go to your advisors/research groups/whomever web page and start working through all their papers. Lit review and familiarizing yourself with their research is going to do much more good initially.

This presumes that the reader has sufficient background to understand the papers; otherwise, it's a waste of time. The OP is right in trying to plug essential holes in their background first.

 

[QuarkyMeson]

This presumes that the reader has sufficient background to understand the papers; otherwise, it's a waste of time. The OP is right in trying to plug essential holes in their background first.

It's kind of a given that they don't. Even after reading all of Jackson this would be true. You plug in the holes as you're reading.

 

[CrysPhys]

It's kind of a given that they don't. Even after reading all of Jackson this would be true. You plug in the holes as you're reading.

It's an issue of how many holes there are and how big the holes are. Sure, if you're reading current research papers, then you will have new material to learn. But 'new material to learn' should not include core fundamentals, such as grad-level E&M. That's why, at least at many PhD programs in the US, you need to pass a qual exam before proceeding to thesis research.

 

[QuarkyMeson]

It's an issue of how many holes there are and how big the holes are. Sure, if you're reading current research papers, then you will have new material to learn. But 'new material to learn' should not include core fundamentals, such as grad-level E&M. That's why, at least at many PhD programs in the US, you need to pass a qual exam before proceeding to thesis research.

The delta between Griffiths and Jackson isn't that large. Jackson goes into more detail on certain topics, like BVP, chapters 10, 15, 16 and 17 don't really have a straight Griffiths analogue but that doesn't matter for what OP is looking for. They're much better off just reading relevant papers imo.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

I cant help you directly. As I majored in Math (MS). However, I was 4 classes short from a physics degree in undergrad.

I found the book by Schwartz: Principles Of Electrodynamics to be a step up from Ohanians book. Where I much prefered Ohaniam to Griffiths.

My friend studies physics at the PhD level, and I recall her supplementing Jackson with Zangwill. Not sure if these two books are at the same level. Mever bothered to read them.

 

[carter_aleex]

Given your background at the Griffiths level and interest in ultrafast optics applied to condensed matter, Zangwill is generally the better next step it builds intuition and connects electrodynamics more naturally to solid-state and optical phenomena. Jackson is excellent but very demanding and more formal, making it better suited once you need deep rigor rather than conceptual grounding.

 

[despaxir]

I don't understand how you could get a masters without doing graduate E&M. Seems crazy to me. Anyway.

How much do you know about programing and signal processing? That's going to be far more useful as an experimentalist. Better yet, ignore looking at a text book, go to your advisors/research groups/whomever web page and start working through all their papers. Lit review and familiarizing yourself with their research is going to do much more good initially.

Take graduate E&M (and probably non-linear optics) and whatever courses they suggest, if permitted, when you're in the program. You have an entire year to get up to speed with their research aims and focus and to go through papers until you understand the applicable theory.

It's just how it is in the UK. Some unis provide EM courses using Jackson like Edinburgh in their MSc and others don't. Thanks for the help!

I know lots of programming but 0 signal processing. This is helpful as I hadn't considered signal processing! Jumping into the papers to do a lit review was also my plan but I wanted to develop my fundamentals as well hence the original post.

 

[despaxir]

Thanks for the help everyone! As an update I will no longer be pursuing this PhD. Perhaps I will reapply in the future (but maybe to a different subfield).