What chapters can I skip when self-studying Griffiths electrodynamics?

[Ahmed1029]

I'm currently studying Griffiths electrodynamics on my own and I want to be done with it once and for all. I however don't know if all the chapters are important for the rest of physics and which ones can be skipped without loss of continuity. Can someone give me some insight?

 

[malawi_glenn]

important for the rest of physics

Depends on what physics you want to learn and practice.

 

[Orodruin]

What do you mean by ”rest of physics”? Nobody knows (or needs to know) everything that falls within the physics subject. The answer depends on your goals.

Furthermore there is no general agreement between textbook authors to keep the contents of books within strictly defined frames. There will be overlap between books and you can always go back to a previous book for reference. As such, there is no such thing as being done with a physics book once and for all.

 

[berkeman]

I however don't know if all the chapters are important for the rest of physics and which ones can be skipped without loss of continuity.

Which ones were you thinking of skipping? Which ones have you completed?

Table of Contents:

Vector Analysis
Electrostatics
Potentials
Electrostatic Fields in Matter
Magnetostatics
Magnetic Fields in Matter
Electrodynamics
Conservation Laws
Electromagnetic Waves
Potentials and Fields
Radiation
Electrodynamics and Relativity
Vector Calculus in Curvilinear Coordinates
Helmholtz Theorem.

https://library.villanova.edu/Find/Record/1695950/TOC

 

[Vanadium 50]

Which ones were you thinking of skipping?

Exactly. Which topics do you want to remain ignorant about?

 

[berkeman]

Exactly. Which topics do you want to remain ignorant about?

Maybe Radiation? It's not dangerous, is it?

 

[Mondayman]

If you skip it in Griffiths and meet it in Jackson, you'll probably end up going back to Griffiths anyway.

Best to just complete the entire book. I only took the first course out of two using Griffiths, but it was well written and enjoyable.

 

[jtbell]

I'm currently studying Griffiths electrodynamics on my own and I want to be done with it once and for all.

I studied physics as an undergraduate and as a graduate student (PhD) before Griffiths's book existed. Then I taught physics for nearly 30 years, including electrodynamics from Griffiths a couple of times. I never felt like I was "done with" electrodynamics or any other subject. Every time I "went through" a subject, whether for a course I was taking, or for teaching it, I learned something new, or got new insights on it.

Why are you studying it on your own? Is it a hobby-type pursuit, or are you hoping to "get ahead" in university studies? That might influence what you should focus on. Otherwise, I would say, at least look at everything, so that if later you decide, "gee, I should have studied that more closely", you know where to go for it.

 

[Ahmed1029]

I studied physics as an undergraduate and as a graduate student (PhD) before Griffiths's book existed. Then I taught physics for nearly 30 years, including electrodynamics from Griffiths a couple of times. I never felt like I was "done with" electrodynamics or any other subject. Every time I "went through" a subject, whether for a course I was taking, or for teaching it, I learned something new, or got new insights on it.

Why are you studying it on your own? Is it a hobby-type pursuit, or are you hoping to "get ahead" in university studies? That might influence what you should focus on. Otherwise, I would say, at least look at everything, so that if later you decide, "gee, I should have studied that more closely", you know where to go for it.

You'll be surprised if I told you I'm actually a medical student. I got into medicine against my will, but I was so angry that I decided to study physics on my own (my passion since high school). I finished the calculus sequence, linear algebra, ODE, classical mechanics by kleppner, purcell's electromagnetism, and I'm currently studying Griffiths electrodynamics and quantum mechanics simultaneously.

I'm going to apply for a biophysics phd program when I'm done with both undergrad physics and medicine (I intend to take the GRE physics test as well), so that's why I'm learning physics. The question was just me making sure to be economical and not be spending time on things generally skipped in college, because I only have 2 years left. So do I have to read an entire book for each remaining subject?

 

[CrysPhys]

OP: One approach is to look up the intermediate Physics E&M syllabus at major universities and see what they cover and what they skip. Here's an example from an MIT course that used Griffiths:

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-07-electromagnetism-ii-fall-2012/pages/syllabus/
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-07-electromagnetism-ii-fall-2012/pages/calendar/

 

[Vanadium 50]

8.07 uses Griffiths? How the mighty have fallen - when I was a student they used Jackson.

 

[CrysPhys]

8.07 uses Griffiths? How the mighty have fallen - when I was a student they used Jackson.

We used Marion when I took 8.07.

 

[Delta2]

Maybe Radiation? It's not dangerous, is it?

I know you are joking but that chapter contains the Electric Dipole Radiation theory. This is the very basis of all human technology about wireless communications.

 

[jtbell]

'm going to apply for a biophysics phd program when I'm done with both undergrad physics and medicine (I intend to take the GRE physics test as well), so that's why I'm learning physics.

Have you investigated the admissions requirements for biophysics PhD programs at universities that you think you might apply to? Would they accept an undergraduate medical degree and self-study in physics?

I wrote "undergraduate" because I suspect you're not in the US. I understand that in some/many countries, medical degrees are undergraduate, whereas in the US, they're always graduate degrees (you have to earn a bachelor's degree in something, and then apply to medical school).

 

[Dr Transport]

I'd skip all of Griffiths and find another textbook. This is a continuing debate/discussion on these forums.

 

[malawi_glenn]

I'd skip all of Griffiths and find another textbook

Why?

 

[vanhees71]

I guess @Dr Transport refers to the quantum mechanics textbook by Griffiths, which seems to be pretty confusing for students because of its sloppiness, but I think the electrodynamics textbook is pretty good as an introductory textbook.

 

[Dr Transport]

I've never been a fan of Griffiths E&M text, never will be. Others are better in my estimation. He is sloppy in every text he has written.

 

[vanhees71]

I'd also prefer Sommerfeld, but this is a bit outdated. What's your recommendation for an introductory E&M text?

 

[Dr Transport]

Wangsness, the only part of his text I don't like is his relativity treatment, uses [ tex ]x _4 = ict [ /tex ]. (my brain isn't working for TeX this morning...)

 

[vanhees71]

Well, yes, that's the main obstacle of Sommerfeld's vol. 3 too :-(.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Wangsness

Is it still for sale? Save for used ones.

What about Zangwill? Or Lechner?

 

[vanhees71]

Zangwill is a good book, but why it's named "Modern electrodynamics" is an enigma. For me Landau&Lifshitz vol. 2 is way more modern than this book (in fact I think the "relativity first" approach is the best, but it's not for introductory courses). Lechner is, in my opinion, one of the most impressive really new treatments of the subject but far from being an introductory text.

 

[Dr Transport]

Wangsness has been out of print for many years, 30+, I would say. He passed away and no one ever picked up further editions. Maybe a used copy could be obtained online or maybe an electronic copy.

I just like how it is laid out, consise chapters, uniform notion and flow.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Wangsness has been out of print for many years, 30+,

I had it as official course book when I took introductory electrodynamics about 15 years ago, bought it new hardcover quite cheap but I sold it after the class. I had Griffiths as a side read and kept that one instead.

Lechner is, in my opinion, one of the most impressive really new treatments of the subject but far from being an introductory text.

I have not read it, but once I go back and review classical electrodynamics I think it is the one I will go to.

 

[vanhees71]

Its great achievement is to really treat the radiation-reaction problem of point particles (which in my opinion are only a fiction of the human mind) as far as it can be treated, using the techniques of generalized functions. For me the other part, dealing with classical massless charged point particles, is quite academic, but it's amazing how far you can get even with this even more exotic entities.

 

[malawi_glenn]

It's great achievement

Lechner book?

Sounds interesting. I might also consider Zangwill because I do not like Springer books (low binding quality, I only buy books from Springer when there is a substantial discount). CUP have greater physical quality.

 

[Ahmed1029]

I think Griffiths electrodynamics is fantastic and not all that sloppy. His QM book is on the other hand REALLY BAD, but I find no alternative at my level so I'm kinda stuck with it.

 

[berkeman]

Thread is still vibrant and interesting, so moved to the Textbooks forum for now.

 

[malawi_glenn]

but I find no alternative at my level so I'm kinda stuck with it

Have you tried leonard susskinds Quantum mechanics - the theoretical minimum?

 

[Orodruin]

Have you tried leonard susskinds Quantum mechanics - the theoretical minimum?

For studying classical electrodynamics?

 

[malawi_glenn]

For studying electrodynamics?

I thought he was also using Griffiths for QM and wanted an alternative to the QM book?

His QM book is on the other hand REALLY BAD, but I find no alternative at my level so I'm kinda stuck with it.

 

[Orodruin]

I guess the title confused me …

 

[malawi_glenn]

I guess the title confused me …

It is often said that Griffiths QM book confuses students, perhaps it is related to that?

 

[Frabjous]

Junior level classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and e&m are the foundations of the physics degrees. Skipping things here is risky.

That being said, if you are getting relativity someone else …

You might try Zwiebach for quantum. It has the advantage of the MIT opencourseware lectures.
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/mastering-quantum-mechanics

 

[martinbn]

You might try Zwiebach for quantum. It has the advantage of the MIT opencourseware lectures.
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/mastering-quantum-mechanics

I think he wants to shorten the number of pages to read. Zwiebach seems to go the other way.

 

[jasonRF]

If you already covered all of the chapters in Purcell, then you will find a fair amount of overlap with Griffiths. If it were me and I wanted to skip a couple of chapters, I would skip the ones about fields in media since Purcell has reasonable coverage of those. On the other hand I would definitely not skip the chapters on waves, conservation theorems, radiation and special relativity. Purcell skips a lot of that material or treats it in a way I found more confusing.

And by “cover” i mean read the chapters and solved some number of problems in the book.

 

[vanhees71]

Concerning relativity Purcell confused me more than it helped. I think Griffiths is a much better book anyway.

 

[CrysPhys]

The question was just me making sure to be economical and not be spending time on things generally skipped in college, because I only have 2 years left. So do I have to read an entire book for each remaining subject?

<<Emphasis added.>> This thread has forked into different paths. But I believe this is your underlying question.

It's been many moons since I was in school. But as far as I can remember, the professor typically did not go over the textbook from cover to cover. This even applied to several courses in which the professor wrote or co-wrote the textbook.

Often a textbook includes more material than can be covered in a one-semester course, or even a two-semester sequence. Often a textbook includes material that is not relevant to a department's particular curriculum (which may change over time), or contains material that is covered in a different course using a different textbook (which may change over time). On the flip side, often the professor supplements the primary textbook with portions from other textbooks, or from his own notes.

So my advice to you is what I wrote previously: There are many university websites describing details of their courses. Check those out as guides for your self-study. They likely won't all agree in their entirety. But there will be topics with high overlap.

 

[malawi_glenn]

There are many university websites describing details of their courses. Check those out as guides for your self-study.

MIT Electromagnetism II, fall 2012 for instance:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-07-electromagnetism-ii-fall-2012/pages/calendar/

 

[CrysPhys]

MIT Electromagnetism II, fall 2012 for instance:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-07-electromagnetism-ii-fall-2012/pages/calendar/

I already referenced that above in my Reply #10. But I would encourage the OP to take a sampling of other universities. In the context of online resources, there are frequent references to MIT because of their extensive OpenCourseWare and because, well, it's MIT. But important caveat: Their course presentation in many instances is atypical, which isn't surprising since it's not a typical university.

 

[Orodruin]

But as far as I can remember, the professor typically did not go over the textbook from cover to cover. This even applied to several courses in which the professor wrote or co-wrote the textbook.

Example: I use different parts of my book as the main reference in three different courses.

 

[Harikesh_33]

I think Griffiths electrodynamics is fantastic and not all that sloppy. His QM book is on the other hand REALLY BAD, but I find no alternative at my level so I'm kinda stuck with it.

You can try Quantum Theory by David Bohm