Errata for Electromagnetism
Here are a list of typos that I know about:
Preface
- Page 1, first paragraph (yeah, not a good start): "is force" -> "is the force"
Chapter 2
- Page 33: The field lines should be reversed on the left of Figure 2.7
- Page 37: The text below (2.70) should refer to Figure 2.8, not Figure 2.7
- Page 44: In (2.92), the second term on the RHS has 1/4a but should be 1/4a^2
- Page 45: In (2.94), the LHS should be \phi(0,0,z). Below (2.94), the text should have 1/2a^2 and 1/4a^2 (instead of 1/2a and 1/4a)
- Page 56: Last line: "chose" -> "choose"
- Page 59: Below (2.133), "present" -> "presence"
Chapter 3
- Page 78: Top line: "rise a" -> "rise to a". Third paragraph "allow for presence" -> "allow for the presence"
- Page 93: In the RHS of the top line of (3.85), the final term should be J_k x'_i (not J_k x'_k)
- Page 97: Above (3.104), "force per unit area" should be "force per unit volume"
- Page 98: In both (3.108) and (3.109), the x.\nabla terms should be (x-X).\nabla. The additional -X.\nabla term in (3.109) then vanishes for the same reason as the first term.
- Page 98: Below (3.110), it says "\nabla\times B=0 far from the first current" but it should be "far from the second current". In other words, the current that we care about is sitting in an irrotational magnetic field
- Page 103: "van der Graaf" -> "Van de Graaff" (I made a mistake in each of his three names, even the one that is just two letters.)
Chapter 4
- Page 117: Above (4.36), it should really say "initial speed v" or "initial velocity -v"
- Page 128, A clarification. In Figure 4.2, the label for the electric field is placed next to the second peak. It would be better next to the first peak, because the positive y-axis should be taken to the right in the figure, rather than to the left. This ensures the wave propagates as it should using the right-hand rule.
- Page 133: Below (4.93), the "out of the page" should be "into the page"
Chapter 5
- Page 148: The paragraph introducing \tilde{X} to abandon index notation is a bit of a throw-away comment. But it's more precise to to say \tilde{X} -> \tilde{X} \Lambda^{-1}, with the matrix \Lambda^{-1} acting on the right.
- Page 150: Below (5.29), in the text the first component of J^\mu should be c\rho_0. (At the moment, the c is missing.)
- Page 154: The +/- signs should be swapped in (5.47). (They cancel anyway of course.)
- Page 164: The equation on the right of the top line should have \partial_\nu -> \partial_\mu
- Page 169: Below (5.102), the drift velocity in the x-direction is +E_y/B_z (with + not -)
Chapter 7
- Page 249, below (7.57): "that oscillating" -> "the oscillating"
- Page 250: The hairy ball theorem only requires that the vector field vanishes at a single point. The symmetry of the problem means that it must vanish at two or more points.
- Page 250, below (7.61): "which denoted" -> "which is denoted"
- Page 253: Remove subscript A on the integrals.
- Page 270, above (7.157): "This means, that" -> "This means that"
Chapter 8
- Page 278, below (8.8): "natural interpretation" -> "natural interpretations"
- Page 288, equation (8.48): It should really be kx-\omega t, rather than kx+\omega t in the exponents, but this doesn't change what follows.
- Page 290: In the first pararaph it should say \mu_1 = \mu_2 \approx \mu_0 (rather than \approx 1...we only set \mu_0=1 in later courses!)<\li>
- Page 295: Below (8.97), the n_2>n_1 should be n_1>n_2
- Page 301: In (8.104), the first term on the second line should read -[\omega(k_0) - k_0 v_g(k_0)]t. (The text is missing -k_0 in the second of those terms)
- Page 303, section on Transparent Propagation: "ocurs" -> "occurs"
- Page 308, below (8.126): "an segment" -> "a segment"
- Page 333, below (8.229): "at near" -> "near"
Appendix A
- Page 341: Opposite helix figure "shown to the figure" -> "shown in the figure"
- Page 346: "different ways" -> "different way"
- Page 351: Below (A.44) it should say \dot{x} = (1,1,2t). This factor of 2 also feeds into (A.45), where the final answer should be e-3/10.
- Page 357: It has been pointed out to me that using square brackets to denote the result of an integral, evaluated at upper and lower limits, is not the universally recognised notation. But that's what's going on in (A.54). It's the same as a vertical bar notation.
- Page 359: The coordinate r in (A.62) has unfortunately morphed to a \rho in (A.63) and below. Please set \rho=r.
Appendix B
- Page 392: Above (B.65), "decomposed a" -> "decomposed as"
- Page 393: Below (B.67), "coordinate" -> "coordinates"
- Page 400: In (B.113), P_{l,m}(\theta,\phi) should be P_{l,m}(\cos\theta). Note also that these spherical harmonics are not normalised.
Appendix C
- Page 406: The figure should have + signs instead of - signs
- Page 408: In the paragraph below (C.9), "larger than the length of the horizontal line" should read "larger than the length of the diagonal line"
- Page 416: In equation (C.31), the partial differential of Q should be with respect to x on the right-hand side of the first line, and the integral should be with respect to y in the second line, with integrand Q(a,y) and Q(0,y).
My thanks to Cory Fletcher, Mark Weitzman, and Zhiyu Wang for pointing these out.