Classical Rigorous introductory books on Electromagnetism

[Adesh]

This is a problem of overreaching. The study of physics is a progression where each subject builds upon everything that came before. One won’t move forward (to quantum theory, for example) if there are holes in one’s preparation and mastery of basics, up to and including E&M.

Yes your words are true our case here in this thread is different. My situation is such that I'm an autodidact from 3 years, so when I get some doubt no matter how basic I ponder over it and if I myself don't get a way out of it I just ask it over here. When an autodidact ask some basic doubts, people tend to think "Why is he asking such an obvious thing?" because when teachers teach those topics they cover some of the usual doubts (due to experience they know it) or it can happen that someone else in the class ask a doubt and things will get clear up.

Consider this example: In Griffiths, when he takes the curl of magnetic field, he just writes
$$ \left( \mathbf J \nabla\right) \hat{ r} = - \left (\mathbf J \nabla '\right) \hat{ r}$$

Without much clarification, but in the book suggested by @vanhees71 sir (Greiner's EM) this point is explained properly, that is how we moved from unprimed gradient to primed gradient. Just imagine if this thing were to be taught in a class room, this point would have been a obvious one because the instructor must have known it to be a common doubt.

So, this is the case here. I thought things would going to fine after a great reply of @hutchphd sir, but I don't know why a new user did something like that to me. But I have no hard feelings for anyone, everybody cheers.

 

[Ishika_96_sparkles]

Yes your words are true our case here in this thread is different. My situation is such that I'm an autodidact from 3 years, so when I get some doubt no matter how basic I ponder over it and if I myself don't get a way out of it I just ask it over here. When an autodidact ask some basic doubts, people tend to think "Why is he asking such an obvious thing?" because when teachers teach those topics they cover some of the usual doubts (due to experience they know it) or it can happen that someone else in the class ask a doubt and things will get clear up.

Consider this example: In Griffiths, when he takes the curl of magnetic field, he just writes
$$ \left( \mathbf J \nabla\right) \hat{ r} = - \left (\mathbf J \nabla '\right) \hat{ r}$$

Without much clarification, but in the book suggested by @vanhees71 sir (Greiner's EM) this point is explained properly, that is how we moved from unprimed gradient to primed gradient. Just imagine if this thing were to be taught in a class room, this point would have been a obvious one because the instructor must have known it to be a common doubt.

So, this is the case here. I thought things would going to fine after a great reply of @hutchphd sir, but I don't know why a new user did something like that to me. But I have no hard feelings for anyone, everybody cheers.

Adesh,

I posted the link to help people here to help you in a better way. I knew from our discussions as to where you are stuck. Maybe, you took my posting it in a different way. You have told us that you are an auto-didact. Perhaps, you need the books that give all the steps of mathematical derivations. Then, please go for the Greiner's books, as suggested by @vanhees71. They are great for self-learners as they provide most of the steps needed by a student who does not have a good grasp over mathematics.

Best Wishes

 

[Mark44]

I’m not struggling with basic concepts, it’s just that I don’t understand them.

I told you I’m having no problem in basics.

No, what you told us in the first quote above is that you don't understand basic concepts. I recognize that English is not your first language, but the way pronouns work in English is as placeholders for the nearest preceding noun. What you wrote in the first quote above is equivalent to "I’m not struggling with basic concepts, it’s just that I don’t understand basic concepts."

If that was not what you meant, then you weren't communicating clearly. Everyone who saw what you wrote interpreted it exactly as I have explained here, and this is why there were so many replies saying that you should go back to basics if you were having trouble understanding them.

 

[Adesh]

No, what you told us in the first quote above is that you don't understand basic concepts. I recognize that English is not your first language, but the way pronouns work in English is as placeholders for the nearest preceding noun. What you wrote in the first quote above is equivalent to "I’m not struggling with basic concepts, it’s just that I don’t understand basic concepts."

If that was not what you meant, then you weren't communicating clearly. Everyone who saw what you wrote interpreted it exactly as I have explained here, and this is why there were so many replies saying that you should go back to basics if you were having trouble understanding them.

Yes, that may be the case. @Vanadium50 asked me and suggested me his advice in a good faith and I'm thankful to him, I was rude to @Vanadium 50, I accept that. I communicated badly, I accept that. Everyone gave their precious time and effort, I appreciate that and will be grateful to them always.

 

[Meir Achuz]

"But sometimes I don't get things which are "obvious" and Griffiths very well provided a way out of that but some of his proofs (see his proof of Magnetic field by solenoid and toroid) are quite too personal."
The word "obvious" should never be used in physics. The most 'obvious' thing is that the horse can't pull the cart because of Newton's 3rd law. You might try Griffith's 1st edition which was nuts and bolts and less personally anecdotal.
I recommend "Classical Electromagnetism" by Franklin. It is high level, but starts at the beginning and assumes no prior knowledge.

 

[Adesh]

You might try Griffith's 1st edition which was nuts and bolts and less personally anecdotal.

Is first edition substantially different from fourth edition?

 

[Meir Achuz]

Earlier editions seem unavailable or very expensive online. I think Pearson managed that
to keep its prices up.
I used the second edition, which was better than the fourth, but I must've given it away.
I mentioned the first edition, because I guessed it was even better than the second.