I learned special relativity a couple of years ago. I know still (almost) nothing about GR. I'm starting in my fourth year now. Up to now I've been doing both physics and mathematics, so I know already something about curvature, Christoffel symbols, connections etc.robphy said:In my opinion, it depends on what you know already and what you want to learn in general relativity [or "get out of learning" general relativity].
MTW is more "geometrical" and more abstract.
Weinberg is more "practical", in some sense.
The main difference between Weinberg and Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler is their approach to the study of general relativity. Weinberg focuses on the mathematical formalism and the physical laws of general relativity, while Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler focus on the conceptual understanding and applications of the theory.
Both Weinberg's "Gravitation and Cosmology" and Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's "Gravitation" are popular and comprehensive books on general relativity. It ultimately depends on your personal learning style and interests.
While there may be some disagreements on specific concepts or interpretations, both Weinberg and Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler are highly respected and influential in the field of general relativity. They have both made significant contributions to our understanding of the theory.
Weinberg's book may be more accessible to those with a strong background in mathematics and physics, while Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's book may be more challenging for beginners. However, both books are well-written and can be understood with dedication and effort.
Yes, both books are considered authoritative and can be used as references in research on general relativity. It is always important to cite your sources accurately and appropriately in scientific research.