Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I can't believe I am reading a recommendation that someone with little background in E&M self-studies with Jackson. That book is incredibly difficult even with a great graduate-level professor.



The problems from undergrad (I think we used Purcell) were virtually identical. Jackson's book had problems which were more algebraically/computationally difficult, but otherwise; it was basically the same thing. It's a well written classic; no reason to use the book with slightly wimpier problems.

He asked me how to learn physics; not how to learn some wimpy undergrad physics which doesn't give you the big picture. Hindsight my undergrad E&M book was a waste of time, and we should have just used Jackson. I still have Jackson (and Eyges) on my shelf; the undergrad book was recycled years ago.


My graduate E&M course was actually taught out of Schwinger, which I thought was quite nice. I would never recommend it as a first run through E&M.

Jackson's problems are more technically difficult than, say, Purcell's, but how much of that difficulty actually helps with understanding E&M?


+1. The Jackson book is notoriously difficult. I think Griffith's book might be better for a self-learner but, iirc, and I haven't read the book in more than 10 years now, he expects a pretty good understanding of applied calculus before you open the book, so read up on that! Best of luck with the studies OP.

Also, the look into the Feynman book QED once you have a little bit under your belt. Its a fun and pretty short read and there isn't much math at all. I also think its a fun thing to read while learning EM since it opens you mind up to the next subject down the line, QED.


It all depends on your background in PDEs. I think the undergrad physics curriculum is pretty weak relative to some engineering disciplines here and Jackson is what really exposes this.

Coming from Nuclear Engineering I thought it was fine.


I think PDEs are just weak in all undergrad curriculum. Most engineers I know could only do very basic PDEs. Physicists could do a little more because they learned it from Griffiths E&M. PDEs are typically more a grad school thing. The idea is to form a strong understanding first.


academic virtue signaling. like people recommending TAOCP to people that don't know how to program or rudin (either one!) to people that don't know any math.


Interesting.

To me that’s just a subjective list the author likes.

The replies seem a bit on the level of “...but everyone knows really.”

I always took notions like “expert” virtue signaling to mean experts seem convinced we should all learn via the timelines they did.

Uni students versed in textbook physics, linear timelines for learning cause that’s how society taught them, are also experts in working cognitive theories. Incredible.


>To me that’s just a subjective list the author likes.

but the prompt isn't "list some books you like" but "how should I learn" so there's obviously intent in picking those books.


“Likes for learning” is not an unreasonable acquiescence for the reader to consider.

English is a terrible language and taking how we use it so literally is as bad as the language itself.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: