Anyone have an opinion of this GR book?
Eric Gisse
MTW is an order of magnitude above me, as far as math is concerned.
Should not have bought it so early. At least I have motivation to
learn the contents after that. Can't forget the 10 pound black book
screaming GRAVITATION at me.
D'Iverno...meh. Close, but not quite at my level.
Wald...one look at its' first chapters makes it go back on the shelf.
I have yet to find something on the web that suits my needs, which is
to be fed the basics of tensors in relation to GR.
Cue today when I investigate the library once again. I come upon "An
Introduction to General Relativity Spacetime and Geometry" by Sean M.
Carroll. The 'introduction' part catches my eye nicely and I crack it
open.
This damn thing is actually at my level. Linear algebra came into my
mathematical resume just in time, because the first parts make
extensive usage of matricies and vector spaces.
Im wondering if anyone has even seen this book yet and if they have an
opinion of it.
Bill Hobba
"Eric Gisse" <fsegg...@uaf.edu> wrote in message
news:mdp0h0t8aavipdhqp...@4ax.com...
Check out http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/notes/. I rather like the
treatment and think if you have done calculus and linear algebra it should
be ok math wise. What I would do is get a copy of Tensors, Differential
Forms and Variational Principles by Lovelock and Rund (it is dirt cheap if I
remember correctly) and study it in parallel with the Sean Carroll stuff. I
think once you have mastered that you would be able to do Wald. I know some
say it is hard but I have got quite a few GR books (including MTW that I
have misplaced but due to Wald do not miss) - it is the one I always return
to when I want to find out what is really happening.
Thanks
Bill
Australopithecus Afarensis
> treatment and think if you have done calculus and linear algebra it should
> be ok math wise. What I would do is get a copy of Tensors, Differential
> Forms and Variational Principles by Lovelock and Rund (it is dirt cheap if
I
> remember correctly) and study it in parallel with the Sean Carroll stuff.
I
> think once you have mastered that you would be able to do Wald. I know
some
> say it is hard but I have got quite a few GR books (including MTW that I
> have misplaced but due to Wald do not miss) - it is the one I always
return
> to when I want to find out what is really happening.
Bill, you have more GR books than any one I know put together. So, please
learn more about GR.
Christoph Seufert
There is a nice book by Bernhard Schutz: A first course in General
Relativity. It's a good beginning. Much easier understandable than most
of the other books. An alternative is Taylor/Wheeler: Exploring Black holes.
cs2001
Dirk Van de moortel
I find it excellent. Worth every last penny ;-)
But I think you better start with Taylor and Wheeler's EBH (like
Christopher suggested), so you know where Carroll is going to...
Enjoy!
Dirk Vdm
Bill Hobba
"Australopithecus Afarensis" <fossi...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:g8%Pc.6580$sh.2867@fed1read06...
From a previous post regarding the writings of Wheeler:
'So, if this is General Relativity, it represents BS at the highest level.'
Just like you have - NOT
Bill
Marcus Wellpoth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I liked the Landau Lifschitz classical fieldtheory very much. It has
special relativity, electrodynamics, optics and general relativity between
it's covers.
mw
Robert J. Kolker
Eric Gisse wrote:
> Im wondering if anyone has even seen this book yet and if they have an
> opinion of it.
Excellent book!
Bob Kolker
Dlihcsw
contains a rather elementary mathematical error and, uibstead of correcting the
error an obtaining valid results, Dr. Einstein chose to resort to the fakery of
"curved space". This produced a theroy which meets the results of observations
in weak fields but fails miserably in extremely strong fields. This failure has
led to the foolishness of black holes and singularities, the failure of
gravitatioal theory to explain the source of gravitational energy, its
incompatibility with Quantum Theory, et.al.
If you are interested in the nature of gravity, I suggest that you read
http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/gravity.htm. This text rigorously
derives the nature of gravity in terms which are intuitively understandable by
undergraduate level students of physics, and mechanics. THIS ONE WORKS.
Sam Wormley
Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVITYMECHANIC
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVITYMECHANIC2
http://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+hoax+site%3Awww.crank.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretic
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretiche
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher1
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
Eric Gisse
No.
Liar.
Gregory L. Hansen
Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Eric Gisse" <fsegg...@uaf.edu> wrote in message
>news:mdp0h0t8aavipdhqp...@4ax.com...
>> Trying to learn GR is a pain in the ass.
Yes.
>I find it excellent. Worth every last penny ;-)
>But I think you better start with Taylor and Wheeler's EBH (like
>Christopher suggested), so you know where Carroll is going to...
>Enjoy!
It's hard to recommend Exploring Black Holes strongly enough to the
beginner. An amazing amount is done with mostly high school algebra.
More important, you get a feel for what the metric is for, and what to do
with it and how to interpret it. Once I had a handle on that, the
differential geometry in Bergmann and other works still wasn't exactly
easy, but seemed basically logical and straightforward.
--
"The polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the
invariable plane." -- Goldstein, Classical Mechanics 2nd. ed., p207.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message news:cercoq$kb9$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <3Z0Qc.202985$tf4.10...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>,
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Eric Gisse" <fsegg...@uaf.edu> wrote in message
> >news:mdp0h0t8aavipdhqp...@4ax.com...
> >> Trying to learn GR is a pain in the ass.
>
> Yes.
>
> >I find it excellent. Worth every last penny ;-)
> >But I think you better start with Taylor and Wheeler's EBH (like
> >Christopher suggested), so you know where Carroll is going to...
> >Enjoy!
>
> It's hard to recommend Exploring Black Holes strongly enough to the
> beginner.
<important nitpick>
... provided the beginner is already more or less fluent in special relativity.
</important nitpick>
Dirk Vdm
Bill Hobba
"Marcus Wellpoth" <well...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:4110bfaf$0$7304$9b4e...@newsread2.arcor-online.net...
Brilliant book. Highly recommended - a must for any serious collection.
Fully in the same class as Feynmans Lectures on Physics. However it is not,
I repeat not, (and I can not emphasize this strongly enough) the book to cut
your teeth on in GR. I learnt GR from that book and believe it did me
damage. I strongly recommend the following:
Wheller and Tayor - Space Time Physics and Exploring Black Holes. Or if you
have done second year calculus perhaps subtitle Rindler - Introduction to
Special Relativity for the first. At the same time increase your math
knowledge by studying calculus, linear algebra and the book by Lovelock and
Rund. As your math increases delve into an introductory technical work like
Sean Carols book. Once you have mastered that I fully believe you are in a
position to study Wald. After Wald I believe is the time to study Landau -
not before.
Thanks
Bill
Marcus Wellpoth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i used landau lifschitz and nolting and fließbach and sommerfeld(i like
collecting books) for the whole undergraduate stuff.In the first semester
we had special relativity (of course we had Newton Mechanics and a short
introduction to thermodynamics too.). In the second semester we had
electrodynamics and in the second part of the third semester we had optics
( analytical mechanics was in the first part). We had combined
theoretical/experimental courses, so the introduction to tensor calculus
came in the first semester. In my opinion landau/lifschitz was the perfect
complement to the lectures from the first semester on. It covers the same
ground we have covered and the style is not to difficult and if you wait
for the math lectures to learn certain techniques you get buried cause the
physic exams are already written by the time the math course catches up.
mw
George Jones
Wald's GR book, which is a favourite of mine, was one (of a number of)
reason(s) I decided to take pure math courses as options as well as the
math courses required by my physics programme when I was a student.
I am familiar with the on-line lecture notes that evolved into Carroll's
book. I like these notes very much, but I have to warn you that the
mathematics does become more abstract the deeper into Carroll('s notes)
one goes. Maybe this increase in mathematical sophistication is just
what you need.
There are alternatives, however. A few people have mentioned the book
by Taylor and Wheeler. This is a very nice book, and it has more meat
than I initially thought, but its range may be a little too limited for
your needs because it says nothing about tensors. As the others say,
maybe this book would be a good warm up exercise, and, even if you're
already warmed up, if you ever want to study the physical effects on
astronauts in and around black holes, work through this book in detail.
Nobody has mentioned what I consider to be the best choice for someone
with a physics background that wants to learn GR through self study,
which is Gravity: An Introduction to General Relativity by James Hartle.
Steve Carlip has also mentioned this book in the past.
Hartle's book starts out a little like Taylor and Wheeler's book in that
it discusses the solutions to Einstein's equation before introducing
tensors. Surprisingly, I think this a sound pedagogical strategy,
particularly for self study. There are some difference between these
books, including:
1) the mathematical and physical sophistication of Hartle is slightly
higher than that of Taylor and Wheeler;
2) A bit more than two-thirds of the way through, Hartle has chapters on
tensors, curvature, and Einstein's equation;
3) Hartle's book is much less narrowly focused than Taylor and Wheeler.
Both because of and in spite of 3), Hartle's treatment of black holes is
quite interesting. Something else that might pique your interest -
Hartle includes a wealth of fascinating astrophysical applications, both
in the main body of the text and in in the exercises. Hartle is great at
showing the physical effects of GR.
In my opinion, Hartle's book is truly a pedagogical masterpiece. I urge
you to get hold of a copy, maybe through interlibrary loan, and to have
a look. I think the odds are better than even that if you take a serious
look at Hartle, then you'll want to buy a copy for your own bookshelf.
The last appendix talk's about Hartle's pedagogical strategy for the
book. This appendix includes a chart that illustrates the various
interdependencies and independencies of the chapters. Depending on the
route taken, this book is suitable for various courses at various
levels, up to and including an introductory grad course on GR, for which
Hartle has used the book several times at the University of California,
Santa Barbara.
My advice, which I realize is very much a personal opinion, is to get
hold of a copy of Hartle, and then to make a consistent considered effort
at working through it cover to cover. This includes doing at least half
the exercises. If you do this, I don't think you'll be disappointed with
the return on your effort.
Regards,
George
Eric Gisse
Jones) wrote:
Carroll's is exactly what I needed. I finally understand these damn
one-forms and tensors, they are just a further layer of abstraction
beyond n-vectors.
Linear algebra was the tipping point for me to be able to understand
his lecture notes/book. Carroll's book appears to be the tipping point
for me to be able to understand the corrosponding subject matter in
MTW, too. MTW weighs a better fraction of 15 pounds. It spends more
time on dual vectors and the metric tensor, but Carroll explains it
better. Go figure. :p
[snip]
>My advice, which I realize is very much a personal opinion, is to get
>hold of a copy of Hartle, and then to make a consistent considered effort
>at working through it cover to cover. This includes doing at least half
>the exercises. If you do this, I don't think you'll be disappointed with
>the return on your effort.
Thanks! Though it appears that my library and nowhere else in the
state has it :P.
I am going to work through Carroll's book - with much happiness since
I can understand the damn thing.
>
>Regards,
>George
Bill Hobba
"George Jones" <george_l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7b95785d.04080...@posting.google.com...
> Eric Gisse <fsegg...@uaf.edu> wrote in message
news:<mdp0h0t8aavipdhqp...@4ax.com>...
> > Trying to learn GR is a pain in the ass.
> >
> > MTW is an order of magnitude above me, as far as math is concerned.
> > Should not have bought it so early. At least I have motivation to
> > learn the contents after that. Can't forget the 10 pound black book
> > screaming GRAVITATION at me.
> >
> > D'Iverno...meh. Close, but not quite at my level.
> >
> > Wald...one look at its' first chapters makes it go back on the shelf.
> >
> > I have yet to find something on the web that suits my needs, which is
> > to be fed the basics of tensors in relation to GR.
> >
> > Cue today when I investigate the library once again. I come upon "An
> > Introduction to General Relativity Spacetime and Geometry" by Sean M.
> > Carroll. The 'introduction' part catches my eye nicely and I crack it
> > open.
> >
> > This damn thing is actually at my level. Linear algebra came into my
> > mathematical resume just in time, because the first parts make
> > extensive usage of matricies and vector spaces.
> >
> > Im wondering if anyone has even seen this book yet and if they have an
> > opinion of it.
>
> Wald's GR book, which is a favourite of mine,
Mine too.
> was one (of a number of)
> reason(s) I decided to take pure math courses as options as well as the
> math courses required by my physics programme when I was a student.
I did the exact opposite - I studied both pure and applied math (not
physics - computing - numerical analysis operations research etc) and that
is why I think I found Walds treatment to my liking when I started studying
physics.
> I am familiar with the on-line lecture notes that evolved into Carroll's
> book. I like these notes very much, but I have to warn you that the
> mathematics does become more abstract the deeper into Carroll('s notes)
> one goes. Maybe this increase in mathematical sophistication is just
> what you need.
Yes it does - which is why I recommend reading Tensors, Differential Forms
and Variational Principles by Lovelock and Rund at the same time.
I do not know Hartle's book. Bout if Steve Carlip recommends it must be
good. He originally got me onto Wald - for which I am very grateful. It
suits my style perfectly - which is rather mathematical. However you have
so eloquently explained its virtues I almost feel like buying a copy.
Thanks
Bill
Robert J. Kolker
Bill Hobba wrote:
> I do not know Hartle's book. Bout if Steve Carlip recommends it must be
> good. He originally got me onto Wald - for which I am very grateful. It
> suits my style perfectly - which is rather mathematical. However you have
> so eloquently explained its virtues I almost feel like buying a copy.
Hartle takes a physics first approach. You don't see a tensor until
chapter 7. Sciama's little books is the same way.
Bob Kolker
George Jones
Great! What works is very much person-dependent. All too often this is
forgotten, i.e., all too often statements like "... worked for me,
therefore ... should also work for you." are made.
Regards,
George
Kirk Gregory Czuhai
home town Of Kirk Gregory Czuhai (google) never could one even realize that
out of such a place as a FORD motor vehical could a starving artist actually
make
something of himself.
GR, GR, GR. WHAT an attraction!!!
G!!! GEE is all they could say!
sometimes! !HHHH H hubble
a constant KIRK GREGORY CZUHAI was the din of the crowd.
it was almost as if someone whould
send him some money.
http://www.altelco.net/~lovekgc/SupportStarvingArtist.htm
General Relativity in the limit of weak gravitational fields reduces to
Special Relativity which in the limit of also have low speeds reduces to
Classical Newtonian Physics and only Special Relativity is compatible at
this time with most of quantum mechanics.
i am old. you read what you want.
there is a Grand Rapids, Minnesota too.
--
*** New International SPAM email
Blocking FREE web based SERVICE:
http://www.altelco.net/~lovekgc/kgcLOVE.htm
My Very Beautiful Poetry at
http://www.altelco.net/~lovekgc/Awarm.doc
http://www.altelco.net/~lovekgc/kgcpoetry.doc
peace and love,
(kirk) kirk gregory czuhai
http://www.altelco.net/~churches/BlueRoses.htm
do SEE AT LEAST!!! --->
http://www.altelco.net/~lovekgc/algebrahelp.htm
just to aid Alan Green Span, Practice Tree Conservation!
FREE BEER -->
http://www.altelco.net/~lovekgc/beer.htm
"George Jones" <george_l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7b95785d.04080...@posting.google.com...