Textbooks to be used as references for classical electromagnetism

Dr Transport
Gold Member
Why not suggest Griffiths (for physicists) and Sadiku's (more closer to Engineers) book as a starting point?
Because I am not impressed with Griffiths text, I like Wangsness's much more.

I have not ever read Sadiku's text, so I wouldn't recommend it.

Because I am not impressed with Griffiths text, I like Wangsness's much more.

I have not ever read Sadiku's text, so I wouldn't recommend it.
I learned from these two books for my bachelor exams. That's why i asked.

Searched for Wangsness' book on Amazon. It costs so much!
Why is this book so hard to get if its such a good book?
Don't get me wrong. I have read all the reviews on Amazon praising this book.
Is it more advanced than the Griffiths book or at the same level but different style?

Dr Transport
Gold Member
Same level, different style. It has a better layout of subject matter, sets problems up correctly to get the correct answer, as opposed to Griffiths text. I had to use Griffiths text when I taught a course, I didn't like it at all.

It is out of print, that is why it is so expensive. The next time I teach an electromagnetics text, I'll use it and put out copies of the notes I need to use.

Ishika_96_sparkles
I have a doubt: should also well-known formulas as the Poynting vector or the Maxwell stress tensor be referenced? If so, should they be referenced from a textbook instead of referencing them from Wikipedia?
I would say that even if they are well known stuff, it is a good etiquette to establish from the beginning what notation you are using/following. You can say " we follow the notation used in [x] and write the stress tensor as ..."

Last edited:
Meir Achuz
Homework Helper
Gold Member
"
Might I add "Modern Electrodynamics" by Andrew Zangwill to that list. If you haven't checked it out, it is truly a treasure.
It's a good book, but I don't understand the title. Why is it "Modern Electrodynamics"? Landau&Lifshitz vol. 2 is much older but also much more modern in its approach ("relativity first"). "
How can a book that uses ict call itself 'modern'?

dextercioby
vanhees71
Gold Member
2019 Award
You can ask as well: How can a book be called modern when it brings Hamliton's principle and Noether's theorems as the last chapter of a textbook about E&M?

It's not modern at all, precisely for the reason you give. Landau and Lifshitz is much more modern. I often wonder, why usually they don't use the "relativity first" approach. Relativity makes E&M so much simpler, because it's the natural way to fromulate it. One answer is that the curricula of universities often don't follow a modern order of subjects.

I'd also teach non-relativistic quantum mechanics before E&M, because then you have a natural approach to the most usual systems of orthogonal functions, particularly spherical harmonics and all that, which you then can use for the more complicated system of vector fields in E&M.

TurboDiesel
Dr Transport
Gold Member
I'd also teach non-relativistic quantum mechanics before E&M, because then you have a natural approach to the most usual systems of orthogonal functions, particularly spherical harmonics and all that, which you then can use for the more complicated system of vector fields in E&M.
That's a good point, I never thought about that.

Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Homework Helper
Gold Member
I'd also teach non-relativistic quantum mechanics before E&M, because then you have a natural approach to the most usual systems of orthogonal functions, particularly spherical harmonics and all that, which you then can use for the more complicated system of vector fields in E&M.
Well, there is nothing stopping you from reading about systems of orthogonal functions without studying quantum mechanics. They can be pretty useful in many other situations as well. In my program, the general theory of orthogonal functions is taught in a separate course. Examples include vibrating strings, pressure waves, diffusion, etc.

TurboDiesel and vanhees71
vanhees71