Supplement to Jackson (also, 2nd vs 3rd Ed.)

  • Thread starter Thread starter HJ Farnsworth
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Jackson
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenges of using Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics" textbook, particularly regarding its derivations and the differences between the 2nd and 3rd editions. Participants seek supplementary resources to aid in understanding the material and share opinions on the merits of each edition.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses frustration with Jackson's derivations, noting that they often skip steps and assume the reader understands the missing details.
  • Another participant defends the textbook, stating it is one of the best written, but mentions the 3rd edition's switch from SI to Gaussian units as a disadvantage.
  • A suggestion is made for a resource that provides the missing steps in Jackson's derivations, indicating it is at a similar level to Jackson's text.
  • Some participants discuss the differences between the 2nd and 3rd editions, with one suggesting that the 3rd edition has better content while the 2nd edition has a more favorable format.
  • There is a discussion about the use of different unit systems in lectures, with a participant advocating for the Heaviside-Lorentz units as the most convenient for theoretical purposes.
  • Additional resources are recommended, including "Modern Electrodynamics" by Zangwill, which is noted for its clarity and completeness.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of opinions about the merits of the 2nd versus 3rd editions of Jackson, with no clear consensus on which is definitively better. There is also disagreement regarding the best unit system to use in conjunction with Jackson's text.

Contextual Notes

Some participants mention the need for supplementary resources to fill in gaps in Jackson's derivations, indicating that the textbook may not provide all necessary details for every reader. The discussion reflects varying preferences for unit systems and textbook formats, which may influence individual learning experiences.

HJ Farnsworth
Messages
126
Reaction score
1
I am about to start using Jackson E&M, and I have consistently heard that it is a notoriously difficult textbook to use. Does anyone know of some good resources, textbooks or otherwise, to supplement it (other than Griffiths, which I already have)?

More specifically, I have been told that the derivations frequently skip steps, or tell the reader that a missing step should be obvious, with maddening phrases such as, "we see that...". This is very unfortunate - the way that I prefer to use textbooks is to follow the derivations that they offer in detail (it often even frustrates me when a derivation is only given as a solution to a problem, i.e., the reader has to supply it. When this is done too much, it just interrupts the flow of the text). In fact, I usually don't even feel comfortable using an equation unless I have seen and understand its derivation.

So, when I say "supplement" above, what I am really looking for is something to the effect of a textbook or online pdf entitled, "The missing steps in Jackson's derivations".

However, any additional resources would be very much appreciated.

On a related topic, if people have opinions regarding the merits of the 2nd versus the 3rd edition of Jackson, I would be curious to hear them, since I haven't decided which to buy yet.

Thanks very much for any help that you can give.

-HJ Farnsworth
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's one of the best textbooks ever written. The 3rd edition has the only disadvantage that Jackson uses SI units and then switches to Gaussian units when he treats the relativistic formulation. In my opinion in theoretical physics the best system of units are Gaussian or rationalized Gaussian (Heaviside-Lorentz) units, and electrdynamics is a inherently relativistic theory, the paradigmatic example of a relativistic field theory, but that's a quite unique opinion nowadays since nearly all newer textbooks on electromagnetism use the SI nowadays :-(.

On the other hand the 3rd edition is somewhat better concerning the chapter on radiation reaction on classical point particles.
 
Hi, thank you very much for the replies.

As far as 2nd versus 3rd, then, it sounds like 3rd edition is a little better for content, and 2nd is better for format. I'll probably go for the 3rd edition then. If the units annoy me too much while I'm using it, or I feel like I'm developing some bad habits, I'll just get the 2nd edition as well.

Classical E&M by Franklin looks great, thanks for the advice!
 
Well, concerning the units, you should stick to the ones used in your lecture. Otherwise it's too confusing in the beginning. Nowadays most classical-electromagnetism lectures use the SI and then switch to Gaussian units when they treat the relativistic ("true") formulation, because then the SI is too inconvenient. In high-energy elementary-particle/nuclear physics, where one deals with quantum field theory the theoreticians use a third variant, namely the rationalized Gaussian units, where the factors of 4 \pi appear at the place where they should (e.g., Coulomb's Law for the field of a point charge) and not in the Maxwell equations. These units are also called Heaviside-Lorentz units. So far I've not found a textbook on classical electromagnetism that uses this system of units, which in my opinion is the most convenient set of units for theoretical purposes. I'd not recommend to buy two editions of the same book. For Jackson I'd go with the newest (3rd) edition.
 
Excellent, I will check that one out too.

Thanks for the advice!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
9K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
34K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K