In what year do you learn GR?

WannabeNewton

Quote by Nabeshin

Also the tensor issue is something a student shouldn't really have -- they should encounter these objects already in upper division E&M and classical mechanics courses, although perhaps not quite so many of them. It's perhaps frustrating algebraically, similar to keeping track of minus signs, but really shouldn't impede the understanding very much.

Indeed and even if they haven't had that exposure, going back to Hartle's text, there are copious amounts of worked examples as well as problems to get the person acquainted with the necessary algebra and calculus of tensors. From some people I know at cornell and carnegie mellon I know there are one semester courses on GR that use the very same text. I'm sure other places do as well for undergraduate courses.

WannabeNewton

Quote by Nabeshin

Really? Is this just in the sense of adding an extra term from the post-Newtonian expansion into the Lagrangian from the Kepler problem? Or calculus of variation on the Einstein-Hilbert action? I'm curious!

From what I've seen they don't go into the Einstein lagrangian; its more like, after the general curriculum is done you get an intro to GR like you would any other undergraduate GR class but probably more brief (this is for the two semester intermediate mech courses at least those are the ones I've seen this done).

George Jones

Quote by WannabeNewton

From what I've seen they don't go into the Einstein lagrangian; its more like, after the general curriculum is done you get an intro to GR like you would any other undergraduate GR class but probably more brief (this is for the two semester intermediate mech courses at least those are the ones I've seen this done).

I don't see how this is possible. Even one semester is not enough time to do anything more than a brief introduction to GR. From a thread comparing quantum mechanics and GR:

Quote by George Jones

In my opinion, students could find physics courses in general relativity easier than courses in quantum mechanics. I think that students become more familiar with quantum mechanics because they spend more time studying it.

For example, when I was a student, I:

saw bits of special relativity stuck here and there into a few courses;

did not have the opportunity to take any lecture courses in general relativity;

was required to take three semesters of quantum mechanics as an undergrad and two semesters of advanced quantum mechanics as a grad student;

was required to take two semesters of linear algebra, which gives the flavour of much of the mathematics of quantum mechanics;

was not required to take any maths courses that give the flavour of the mathematics used in general relativity.

Because of the importance and widespread applicability of quantum mechanics, my programme offered much more opportunity to learn quantum mechanics than to learn relativity.

If physics students spent as much time studying general relativity and its mathematical background (say 4 or 5 semesters) as they spend studying quantum mechanics and its mathematical background, then general relativity would be understood by possibly millions of people. I understand why students spend much less time studying relativity than they spend studying quantum theory, and I am not necessarily saying that students should spend more time studying relativity (see the post above by Haelfix), but I do think that this time difference is a big part of the reason that general relativity still has a bit of a reputation.

Fortunately, there are many more good technical books on general relativity (pedagogical, advanced, physical, mathematical, etc.) available now than were available 25 years ago.

WannabeNewton

Quote by George Jones

I don't see how this is possible. Even one semester is not enough time to do anything more than a brief introduction to GR. From a thread comparing quantum mechanics and GR:

It isn't any more than a brief intro to GR indeed. It isn't a substitute for an actual GR class, I was just agreeing with Nabeshin's comment that the Hartle level undergrad GR class shouldn't be much harder than the intermediate mechanics class and that it is even introduced in such courses.

twofish-quant

Quote by PeterDonis

* GR is essential in making GPS work;

* GR is essential in understanding cosmology;

However, the amount of GR that you need to understand cosmology is pretty minimal. You need a tiny bit of GR to derive the Friedman equations and maybe a little more to derive perturbation, but most people just use the "cookbook equations."

* GR is essential in understanding neutron stars and black holes.

It's actually not. For most astrophysical work in black holes and neutron stars, you use "cookbook" equations. And even sometimes that isn't necessary. For most neutron stars computations, you don't need or want to use GR, because that unnecessarily complicates the calculations and you miss the things you really are interested in. You can show that the impact of GR on neutron stars is minimal, and once you run your calculations using Newtonian gravity.

The reason that GR isn't taught very much in comparison to QM is that for all but a few specialist problems, it's not that necessary, and you can get by with either ignoring it, or having a specialist give you "cookbook" equations.

twofish-quant

Quote by PeterDonis

For people like those working scientists who deal with neutron stars and black holes, and cosmology, GR is required to explain observed data.

In most situations, it's not. If we had very good measurements of black holes and neutron stars then you need GR. However, with some exceptions (i.e. binary pulsars), the black hole, neutron star, or cosmology data isn't good enough for GR to matter, and there are about a dozen things that matter more than GR.

For my Ph.D. supernova code, I had a GR module which I used to confirm that GR didn't make a difference. Once I confirmed that, then I ran everything else using Newtonian gravity, because it was a waste of CPU cycles which could be used to calculate something else.

romsofia

Wow, I'm surprised that people didn't take GR. You'd think that people would want to learn gravity to the degree that they learn electromagnetism, as both are introduced in introductory course (well, one is a full semester, while one is probably only a chapter :P).

As others have said, if you want to study GR, go with Carroll's text.

Good luck!

f95toli

Quote by romsofia

Wow, I'm surprised that people didn't take GR. You'd think that people would want to learn gravity to the degree that they learn electromagnetism

It not a question about what you want to know . It is what you need to know. A good grasp of EM is absolutely essential to every working physicist, simply because EM is used in almost every field of physics. The same can not be said of GR.

Remember that something like 80% of alll physicists work in solid-state physics or one of its subfields; and that the vast majority are experimentalists. Theoretical cosmology is a tiny field.

lsaldana

I also recommend Hartle as a starting point in learning GR; that is if you're an undergrad or wish to start learning the theory without learning the full-fledged diff geo behind it first. I thought it was a great book, very intuitive and easy to follow. Personally, I took a GR course as a junior in college and then a Cosmology course as a senior. I believe this is just the right time to start. I plan to take further units in grad school. GR is a beautiful theory and differential geometry alone makes it quite interesting. If you have time though, I recommend learning some diff geo first. It is also quite a beautiful field of mathematics.

mfb

Quote by f95toli

It not a question about what you want to know . It is what you need to know. A good grasp of EM is absolutely essential to every working physicist, simply because EM is used in almost every field of physics. The same can not be said of GR.

This might be true for the concepts of electromagnetism, but knowledge is not the main goal of a degree in physics. You learn how to work in a scientific context, you learn how to learn new things, and how to solve problems. Those things are important. The science you need directly for work is so special that you have to learn it separately anyway.

Concrete example: Which knowledge do you need for a master thesis in experimental particle physics at the LHC? You should know which particles you study, and the relevant decay channels - the basic part (which you learn in courses) can be learned in 10 minutes, a feeling for those things needs practice. You need some basic concepts of special relativity, but probably not in calculations. You need an idea how your particles (or their decay products) behave in the detector - this is very specific, and probably not part of usual courses.

Quote by PeterDonis

In principle you are right, this could have been done without knowledge of GR. But in practice, what would have happened without knowledge of GR is that the satellites would have been launched with no way of compensating for the clock rate difference, and once that difference was observed, the whole thing would have had to be scrapped and re-done. So knowledge of GR certainly had a large practical effect in this case.

Fix the receivers, if you cannot fix the satellites?

PeterDonis

Quote by mfb

Fix the receivers, if you cannot fix the satellites?

In principle it would be possible to apply the corrections in the receivers (although that would have its own problems--millions of copies of the algorithm to convert GPS satellite time to UTC time, and many more opportunities for receiver makers to screw something up). But the real problem is that, in this alternate universe where nobody knows about GR, even *after* the frequency shift is observed, nobody has a theory to explain it, so nobody knows how it behaves. It's not as though people would instantly be able to figure out the correct GR equation for the shift just by observing it, if GR as a theory was unknown.

GRstudent

Can we say that Hartle is soft of "Walter Lewin" in GR?

twofish-quant

Quote by f95toli

Remember that something like 80% of alll physicists work in solid-state physics or one of its subfields; and that the vast majority are experimentalists. Theoretical cosmology is a tiny field.

And the use of GR in theoretical cosmology is surprisingly limited. Someone works out the equations, and the rest is cookbook, and the symmetry conditions of the universe vastly reduces the complexity of the equations.

There are people that specialize on applying GR to cosmology, but that's a small subfield of a small subfield. What most people who are GR specialists do is to try to reduce the equations so that "mere mortals" can use it. You have people writing pages and pages of tensor equations and the punchline is that under conditions X, Y, and Z, you probably can get away with just using Newtonian physics.

Similar Threads for: In what year do you learn GR?
Thread	Forum	Replies
15 Year old wishing to self-learn physics and calculus	Science Textbook Discussion	4
Too early to learn Lagrangians as a first year?	Classical Physics	5
I have no grades. I want to learn physics? am I too late at 18 to learn now?	Academic Guidance	17
Advise me how to learn Third year quantum Mechanics	Academic Guidance	12
What to learn in classical mechanics?How to learn it well?	Classical Physics	0

romsofia	Wow, I'm surprised that people didn't take GR. You'd think that people would want to learn gravity to the degree that they learn electromagnetism, as both are introduced in introductory course (well, one is a full semester, while one is probably only a chapter :P). As others have said, if you want to study GR, go with Carroll's text. Good luck!

GRstudent	Can we say that Hartle is soft of "Walter Lewin" in GR?