Physics Science

(…but I wish I could!!!)

The title of my review just about sums my opinion on this “classic” grad electrodynamics text. The book kind of [stinks] as a textbook, but there is nothing even remotely close to it in scope out there.

So like a previous reviewer said: “Jackson’s here to stay; GET USED TO IT!!”

…P>For those who still want my opinion on the specifics of this book (I promise, they won’t help you– you still have to get through Jackson!) I offer the following brief comments, some of which you may have heard before, some which may be new:

(1) The problems are hard. Damn hard. Someone else already said that, and I agree. What I WILL add, however, is that some of the problems are also simply STUPID and a waste of time, offering or enhancing physical understanding very little if at all. (Don’t get me wrong– there are some problems which, while hard, are also pretty darn cool. Unfortunately, there are too many of the other kind, too.) The type of problems I am talking about are of the following ilk: “Prove the following six-term vector identity;” “Re-derive equation #72 for a transverse magnetic field’” “Prove equation #27.” Quite simply: WHO CARES!?!

(2) While the volume is pretty encyclopedic, it is often hard to follow. Jackson often simply states things in the text without explaining where they come from, how they are derived, or why they are important,— for example, as I read the text, I began to hate the two words “we see,” which are used is cases like (paraphrasing now) “Therefore, we see the following relationship holds”—when it was not at all clear to me where the heck this relationship was coming from! I often felt stupid because, in fact, I often did NOT “see” at all!!! In those cases, I began to just say to myself “well, if Jackson says so,” and then moved on. Whether I am stupid or not is open for debate, surely, but nevertheless I would have liked a little more pedagogical assistance— which, in my mind, does not seem too unreasonable a thing to expect in a *gasp!* TEXTBOOK, of all things!! (We aren’t taking about a paper in a peer-reviewed journal now, are we?? We are talking about a textbook for people who don’t know, but are trying to learn, E&M.)

(3) This is a comment on the Third Edition (ie. “the Blue One”) versus the Second Edition (ie. “the Red One”). In the Red One, Jackson uses Gaussian units throughout, which seemed to work well for me when I first started using the book on my own several years ago. Then, when I recently took a grad course on E&M the professor used the Blue One– wherein Jackson switches between Gaussian and SI units, depending on which chapter you are in. He explains his rationale– which makes sense on the surface (you really need to know both units as a working physicist)– but in practice all this did was make learning 20 times more difficult! First you get used to the way the Gaussian system works, then suddenly all the constants and definitions change and you are in SI units in the third chapter, then you are back in Gaussian units, having to remember that certain things and definitions change and certain stay the same, all the while trying to incorporate new concepts into this body of knowledge, then you’re back in SI and so on. It is simply the biggest blunder that he could have made in expanding to the new edition. While there are new problems and so on in the Blue One, when I actually wanted to learn something I gave up on the Blue One and pulled out my handy Red One.

And finally…

(4) A (very minor) point: The actual SIZE and FEEL of the Red book itself is much better than the newer Blue One. The Red One feels sleek and self-contained and fits well in your hand and your backpack. The Blue One, on the other hand, is thicker, wider, bulkier and more unwieldy, and borders on the “Is there some way I can leave the book in school rather than dragging it home?” category. In short, the Blue One feels like a burden, while the Red One feels sleek and cool. Using the Red One makes you feel like you’re doing something cool, slick and important, while using the Blue One makes you feel like you are burdened with the weight of physics (I’m sure all of us have felt both at some time or another– but if you’re gonna publish a textbook, go with the first!)

Well, I guess that’s about it for now. I hope it was helpful.

…
Rating: 4 / 5

For the last few decades, J.D. Jackson’s book has been the standard textbook for graduate-level physics courses in electricity & magnetism. I don’t think this is going to change: it presents and develops useful tools and it covers the topics needed (plus more).

It’s not perfect. In particular:
- It CANNOT be used for an introduction. It assumes a very good understanding of the physics of E&M, as presented in an undergraduate course.
- It is NOT intended for self-study. It was developed in the context of a lecture course, and this is what it supports.
- The theoretical treatment does leave irritating holes in some presentations.
- For some topics, the approach is not the most elegant.
- The problems are hard. The problems are damn hard.

Nonetheless, it covers an enormous amount of material in a way that can be referred to later (post-course), including mathematical tools and explicit formulas. This is quite useful, once you have suffered through it.

If you want to LEARN ABOUT E&M, you can study other books, many of which have been mentioned by other reviews. But if you really need to be GROUNDED in E&M, you will probably have to study this book: you probably won’t be given a choice by your professor. This doesn’t mean you can’t find other sources to supplement the presentation. It’s probably a good idea, anyway, not to think you’re going to be able to find everything in one book.
Rating: 5 / 5

First, a pop quiz: do you know how to expand a plane wave in spherical harmonics? Do you know how to decompose a periodic function into its harmonic components? Do you know how find Green’s function for the Helmholtz operator? If you don’t, then do not pick up this book, since it does a poor job of teaching the mathematical foundations of classical electrodynamics.
And now for my review:
Jackson is not a very good classroom text – it omits many steps, provides few examples and generally assumes the reader is mathematically competent enough
to fill in all of the missing steps by him/herself. It is – surprise! – not
such a good reference work either. He only mentions some topics briefly. For
example, what about Hertzian treatment of radiation? Jackson has one merit,
though – it is simply an interesting book, with material which is hard to find
in many other books. One should view it as an informative collection of essays
on EM. For example: I read in many undergraduate books how E&M can be “derived”
from Coloumbs law and special relativity. Wrong! Jackson discusses this subject
and points out where this fails. So, all-in-all, Jackson is a pretty knowledgeable
fellow who has written pretty interesting “articles” about EM and put them all
together in one book – which I refer to now and then to get his opinion on things.
That is all! Jackson’s book contains many interesting tidbits and I really do
believe they make the book worth buying.
For graduates/undergradutes – please, there are so many other more instructive books out there you could be using! First of all try finding a copy of the wonderful “Problems and Solutions on Electromagnetism” edited by Lim Yung-kuo – an excellent collection of problems (although sadly out of print, I suspect). Albert Shadowitz’s book “The Electromagnetic Field” has excellent, detailed and pedagogical coverage of most topics found in Jackson’s book, and is also very cheap! For a book full of physical insight, check out “Principles of Electrodynamics” by Melvin Schwartz (although it isn’t so comprehensive). Julian Schwinger’s “Classical Electrodynamics” is an even match for Jackson and pays a LOT more attention to detail (i.e. it pulls almost no “the student can show … ” tricks).
Furthermore, a note about the mathematics – yes, it is dense, but today much of it
is simply obsolete. No one wants or needs to remember all of those properties of
Ylms and such. Computers and numerical approximations do most of the hard work.
Not only that, but Jackson uses vector calculus to discuss classical field
theories, when today we have the much more efficient tools of exterior calculus and connections available to us (which also go a long way explaining gauge theories).
In other words: Jackson is mathematically outdated! Anyone with an eye towards
theoretical physics should be aware of this. For a modern approach to field theories, check out the more mathematically mature “Classical Mathematical Physics” by Walter Thirring.
Rating: 4 / 5