Classical Purcell to Jackson: Is Griffith's Electrodynamics a Good Next Step?

[Sho Kano]

I heard that Griffith's Electrodynamics is at a similar level of Purcell's book on electricity; is it fine if someone goes into a graduate level electrodynamics book right after Purcell?

 

[micromass]

How's your math?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I took Jackson after Purcell. Got an A. However, I had a class in advanced calculus out of Hildebrand and another one in math methods out of Butkov, and I bought a copy of Wangsness if I needed some easier problems to warm up with.

 

[Sho Kano]

The math is a big jump from Purcell, but what about the concepts? Would that book be an adequate transition?

 

[vanhees71]

Well, I think Jackson can help to understand the concepts behind Purcell's book better, but I'm prejudiced, because I don't like Purcell's book, because I think he overcomplicates the relativistic foundation of E&M rather than simplifying it. I think rather than reading Purcell you should take Schwartz and Landau&Lifshitz vol. II for the modern relativsitic approach. Jackson is a comprehensive more conventional book in the tradition of 20th century textbooks, emphasizing the non-relativistic view and only in the later chapters introducing relativity. Nevertheless, Jackson is way better than Purcell concerning the foundations.