Relativity text for Physics Olympiad

[loom91]

Hi,

I'm a 12th grade student from India, preparing for the Physics Olympiad. I've only a basic idea of Special Relativity, while the syllabus includes topics such as the relativistic Doppler effect, so I want to study up a bit. What text do you recommend? Please not one of those old texts starting from Einstein's postulates. I prefer the modern geometric approach starting from the invariance of the Minkowski metric. Thanks.

Molu

 

[Gokul43201]

Landau & Lifsh!tz - Classical Fields

 

[loom91]

Landau & Lifsh!tz - Classical Fields

But that's pretty advanced, integrating classical electrodynamics and general relativity. Anyway, I haven't been able to find the Landau Lif****z books either in Kolkata or in the internet, no one has even heard of them.

Molu

 

[mjsd]

did u mean "The classical theory of fields" by L. D. Landau And E.M. Lifsh!tz?
this is an older book.

 

[Gokul43201]

Google Books has a preview with most of the first two chapters.

http://books.google.com/books?id=QI...=Google+Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title#PPP1,M1

I think your two criteria (introductory + not historical development) are almost mutually exclusive. I can't recall how Resnick's SR book goes - I'm guessing it probably follows the Einsteinian path, but I think it's still pretty good for a first text. And I'm pretty sure there's a paperback edition that's sold in India.

 

[Gokul43201]

did u mean "The classical theory of fields" by L. D. Landau And E.M. Lifsh!tz?
this is an older book.

Yes, that's what I meant. I know it's an oldish book, but it doesn't follow along the historical path taken by most introductory texts. It seems hard to come up with a reference that meets loom's criteria. Do you have any recommendations, dex?

 

[mjsd]

for an advanced high school student.. may be you should try something lighter first if it is too easy for you then go for something harder.

absolute basic (conceptually oriented)
Spacetime physics : introduction to special relativity Edwin F. Taylor, John Archibald Wheeler.

somewhat more mathematical but still only the basic
Modern Physics Raymond A. Serway, Clement J. Moses, Curt A. Moyer
Fundamentals of physics 7th ed Vol 4. David Halliday, Robert Resnick, Jearl Walker.

 

[robphy]

Try Woodhouse's notes (which also uses the very efficient k-calculus)
http://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/~nwoodh/

Of course, there's Taylor & Wheeler's 1966 Spacetime Physics (maroon, with worked solutions).

Another nice book is Tom Moore's Traveler's Guide to Spacetime
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0070430276/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[neutrino]

I can't recall how Resnick's SR book goes - I'm guessing it probably follows the Einsteinian path, but I think it's still pretty good for a first text.

It's very basic in its approach and it has an historical intro. IIRC, it relegates Minkowski diagrams and/or four-vectors to an appendix.

 

[loom91]

for an advanced high school student.. may be you should try something lighter first if it is too easy for you then go for something harder.

absolute basic (conceptually oriented)
Spacetime physics : introduction to special relativity Edwin F. Taylor, John Archibald Wheeler.

somewhat more mathematical but still only the basic
Modern Physics Raymond A. Serway, Clement J. Moses, Curt A. Moyer
Fundamentals of physics 7th ed Vol 4. David Halliday, Robert Resnick, Jearl Walker.

Conceptual books will not do, because I'll need to solve problems. The syllabus is: Principle of relativity, addition of velocities, relativistic Doppler effect, relativistic equation of motion, momentum, energy, relation between energy and mass, conservation of energy and momentum.

Molu

 

[loom91]

Yes, that's what I meant. I know it's an oldish book, but it doesn't follow along the historical path taken by most introductory texts. It seems hard to come up with a reference that meets loom's criteria. Do you have any recommendations, dex?

I'm very interested in reading the highly acclaimed Landau series, but as I said they are unavailable (unless you know where I can find them) and they are probably far too advanced for my purposes.

Why do all introductory texts take the old approach? The symmetry-based approach seems more intuitive, mathematically elegant and intellectually pleasing as well as easier to understand to me. The traditional approach makes less sense for me. Why stick with it even a century after Minkowski's revolutionary work?

Molu

 

[loom91]

Try Woodhouse's notes (which also uses the very efficient k-calculus)
http://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/~nwoodh/

Of course, there's Taylor & Wheeler's 1966 Spacetime Physics (maroon, with worked solutions).

Another nice book is Tom Moore's Traveler's Guide to Spacetime
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0070430276/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Thanks for the notes, I'm checking them out.

Molu

 

[loom91]

Google Books has a preview with most of the first two chapters.

http://books.google.com/books?id=QI...=Google+Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title#PPP1,M1

I think your two criteria (introductory + not historical development) are almost mutually exclusive. I can't recall how Resnick's SR book goes - I'm guessing it probably follows the Einsteinian path, but I think it's still pretty good for a first text. And I'm pretty sure there's a paperback edition that's sold in India.

Thanks for that link, I'll read that. But many pages are missing from the middle. Do you know where I can get a better version?

Molu

 

[mjsd]

Conceptual books will not do, because I'll need to solve problems. The syllabus is: Principle of relativity, addition of velocities, relativistic Doppler effect, relativistic equation of motion, momentum, energy, relation between energy and mass, conservation of energy and momentum.

Molu

Modern Physics and Fundamentals of Physics are both university level books (2nd and 1st year respectively), they do cover the topics you mentioned...they are regarded as "easy" because they are very much entry level texts on Spec Rel. Wheeler's spacetime physics also cover everything (except doppler effect i think) but it comes with a lot of narration as well as maths (remember you can't do physics without some maths!).

From the way you listed the topics and judging by the terminologies used, it appears that they are implying only the basics of Spec. Rel. (not unexpected as you are only doing the Physics Olympiad not a PhD qualification exam). I mean if they really meant the hardcore stuffs, they would use terms like: Lorentz transformation, Lorentz group, infinitesimal generators, metric, summation convention, 4-vector, traverse Doppler shift, covariance of electrodynamics. Then again, you are in a better position to judge that than I do.

 

[rahuldandekar]

Hey, I'm from India too. In Mumbai Uni, you basically learn Relativity at the TYBSc level, which is a shame. But Resnick's book, which is available widely, is perfect even for lower levels. Also, on the net, this is a nice introduction: http://www.lightandmatter.com/area1book6.html .

 

[robphy]

Thanks for the notes, I'm checking them out.

Molu

I forgot that Chapter 1 of the 1966 Taylor and Wheeler is available at
http://www.eftaylor.com/download.html#special_relativity

Although it does emphasize the conceptual aspects of relativity, this book does teach you how to do calculations... including the use of rapidities and worked solutions in the 1966 version (but not in the 1992 version).

 

[neutrino]

I'm very interested in reading the highly acclaimed Landau series, but as I said they are unavailable (unless you know where I can find them) and they are probably far too advanced for my purposes.

Each book in that series costs almost Rs.1000.

Search for 'Landau' http://www.tatabookhouse.com/searchbook1.asp?search=author . That's the website of a bookshop inside the IISc campus. You may want to check if any of the institutes in Calcutta have a Tata Book House.

Also http://firstandsecond.com/store/books/info/search.asp?styp=ath&stxt=lif****z . (Neglect the first two entries)

 

[rahuldandekar]

Loom, you are still in 12th, don't go after Landau just yet. Those are MSc level books. Read Halliday-Resnick, and some BSc level books. They should be enough. Landau is far more theoretical and difficult.

 

[loom91]

Modern Physics and Fundamentals of Physics are both university level books (2nd and 1st year respectively), they do cover the topics you mentioned...they are regarded as "easy" because they are very much entry level texts on Spec Rel. Wheeler's spacetime physics also cover everything (except doppler effect i think) but it comes with a lot of narration as well as maths (remember you can't do physics without some maths!).

From the way you listed the topics and judging by the terminologies used, it appears that they are implying only the basics of Spec. Rel. (not unexpected as you are only doing the Physics Olympiad not a PhD qualification exam). I mean if they really meant the hardcore stuffs, they would use terms like: Lorentz transformation, Lorentz group, infinitesimal generators, metric, summation convention, 4-vector, traverse Doppler shift, covariance of electrodynamics. Then again, you are in a better position to judge that than I do.

I don't think I need anything from that list except Lorentz transformations. About 4-vectors, I'm not so sure. The syllabus mentions energy and momentum without providing any further details, and both the national and the international Olympiads are known for pushing the boundaries of the published syllabus, so a little 4-vector algebra and Minkowski metrics won't hurt. Relativistic doppler shift is probably not a part of the absolute basic of SR. The geometric approach is simply a matter of personal preference. Also, what is the difference between the Lorentz group and the Poincare group?

I've tried the Walker version of Halliday/Resnick and I hated it. Teachers are unanimous in recommending the older 60s edition written solely by HR, or sometimes the new version written with Krane.

Any suggestions? Thanks.

Molu

 

[loom91]

Loom, you are still in 12th, don't go after Landau just yet. Those are MSc level books. Read Halliday-Resnick, and some BSc level books. They should be enough. Landau is far more theoretical and difficult.

I'm interested in reading Landau, but for pleasure rather than preparing for an exam. My HR (1990 Wiley Eastern edition, reprint of 1967 original) does not have relativity. What BSc level book do you suggest? Do any of them bother to take the geometric approach?

I have a few GTR texts, like Wald, Missler-Thorn-Wheeler and Weinberg. But they mostly presuppose SR and are also mathematically dense. I tried to get into Wald but decided it was not advisable without first getting a mathematical viewpoint on the basic topology and geometry involved (Wald's explanation of the basics was sketchy, hurried and porous). I've found that it's usually a better idea to learn math from the mathematicians. When physicists try to teach math, they often try to pass off hand-waving as proofs (when they give any at all) which is rather confusing.

Molu

 

[loom91]

Each book in that series costs almost Rs.1000.

Search for 'Landau' http://www.tatabookhouse.com/searchbook1.asp?search=author . That's the website of a bookshop inside the IISc campus. You may want to check if any of the institutes in Calcutta have a Tata Book House.

Also http://firstandsecond.com/store/books/info/search.asp?styp=ath&stxt=lif****z . (Neglect the first two entries)

They are listed as discontinued on firstandsecond, and in any case I couldn't have afforded them.

Molu

 

[loom91]

Modern Physics and Fundamentals of Physics are both university level books (2nd and 1st year respectively), they do cover the topics you mentioned...they are regarded as "easy" because they are very much entry level texts on Spec Rel. Wheeler's spacetime physics also cover everything (except doppler effect i think) but it comes with a lot of narration as well as maths (remember you can't do physics without some maths!).

By the way, HR is mostly considered a slightly advanced high-school level text in India. A student doing graduation would usually use more specialised texts like Goldstein, Griffiths etc. I've noticed before that the American curriculum seems to seriously lag behind its Indian or European counterpart.

While many American students learn calculus at the university, in India calculus is a compulsory component of high-school math. We learn ordinary derivatives of real functions, indefinite and Riemann integrals, first-order and linear-second-order-homogeneous-with-constant-coefficients differential equations. When studying electrodynamics in physics, we additionally have to learn some multi-variable calculus and vector analysis. In statistics, we further have to learn about multi-variable optimisation problems, improper integrals and Gamma functions. European programs like IB probably have a similar curriculum.

Molu

 

[neutrino]

I have a few GTR texts, like Wald, Missler-Thorn-Wheeler and Weinberg. But they mostly presuppose SR and are also mathematically dense. I tried to get into Wald but decided it was not advisable without first getting a mathematical viewpoint on the basic topology and geometry involved (Wald's explanation of the basics was sketchy, hurried and porous). I've found that it's usually a better idea to learn math from the mathematicians. When physicists try to teach math, they often try to pass off hand-waving as proofs (when they give any at all) which is rather confusing.

Of course GR texts don't teach you special relativity. But I think the geometric approach to SR you're looking for can only be found in the first couple of chapters of a GR text. Although it will to be very terse for someone trying to learn SR. For example, take a look at Sean Carroll's notes.

And Wald is way too advanced, from what I've read, for this purpose.

 

[Daverz]

The recommendation of Landau and Lifschitz is ridiculous. It's a classic of course, but it's not suitable for this purpose.

The first red paperback edition of Taylor and Wheeler's, Spacetime Physics has extensive exercise sections will full solutions in the back (the hardback edition usually found in libraries omitted the solutions). You should be well prepared by working through the problem sets. And it's very geometric in its approach. I don't know how easy it will be to obtain this particular edition in India, though.

If you need more, try one of Wolfgang Rindler's books.

 

[Rus Almighty]

unbelievable!

That no body mentioned the greatest of all
Try feynman lectures on physics, if you are learning physics it's a must

You also can try the MIT openware, a great staff as a source
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/index.htm

BTW, are you preparing for the International Olympiad (IPHO)?

 

[loom91]

That no body mentioned the greatest of all
Try feynman lectures on physics, if you are learning physics it's a must

You also can try the MIT openware, a great staff as a source
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/index.htm

BTW, are you preparing for the International Olympiad (IPHO)?

Well, I don't particularly like Feynman's style and it's not a great help in solving problems.

Ultimately the IPhO, yes, but first I've got to crack the regional and national ones (small chance).

So, Spacetime Physics will do for my purpose? It will allow me to solve (very) tough problems on topics like the Doppler shift? Any other suggestions?

Molu

 

[mjsd]

"spacetime physics" is a very good book... but the best way to work out the level of toughness of the questions that you are going to face in the Olympiad is to do a survey of the past Olympiad problems. although I didn't do Physics Olympiad trials back in my days, I did participated in some Maths Olympiad trials in my country. Problems usually involve deep thinking more than "difficult" concepts. of course you can't go very far if you can't do calculus for example (and calculus can be thought of as a "difficult" concept at secondary level) or in the maths case, you need to know a bit of number theory, advanced euclidean geometry and method of proofs etc. but you know what I mean...

In regards to learning SR.. here is a formal development (it is not complete but it is a start)
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll1.html

Want to learn the set of formulas (in 3D) and all the related stuffs including the extension to Electromagnetism try Classical Electrodynamics by Jackson (warning: not a good book in my opinion to learn these stuffs as a newbie, but very good ref once you kind of know the stuffs)

Frankly, there are a lot of stuffs out there, online or in books. A quick trip to the local university library shall get you the stuffs. first and foremost though is to find out what you really need by reading past papers.

 

[loom91]

"spacetime physics" is a very good book... but the best way to work out the level of toughness of the questions that you are going to face in the Olympiad is to do a survey of the past Olympiad problems. although I didn't do Physics Olympiad trials back in my days, I did participated in some Maths Olympiad trials in my country. Problems usually involve deep thinking more than "difficult" concepts. of course you can't go very far if you can't do calculus for example (and calculus can be thought of as a "difficult" concept at secondary level) or in the maths case, you need to know a bit of number theory, advanced euclidean geometry and method of proofs etc. but you know what I mean...

In regards to learning SR.. here is a formal development (it is not complete but it is a start)
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll1.html

Want to learn the set of formulas (in 3D) and all the related stuffs including the extension to Electromagnetism try Classical Electrodynamics by Jackson (warning: not a good book in my opinion to learn these stuffs as a newbie, but very good ref once you kind of know the stuffs)

Frankly, there are a lot of stuffs out there, online or in books. A quick trip to the local university library shall get you the stuffs. first and foremost though is to find out what you really need by reading past papers.

I would need to do a huge amount of paperwork to get into a university library, and there's no guarantee I would get the permission. I can lay my hands on Jackson. Is he a good source for SR in general (as opposed to manifestly covariant Electrodynamics in particular)?

I want to get my conceptual basis down cold so I can solve a problem using the most efficient technique available.

Molu

 

[mjsd]

if you want conceptual understanding... you can't miss with Spacetime Physics

 

[mjsd]

can't get to uni library? no worries, search for lecture notes online from various universities around the world.. cheap and fast!
by the way, Jackson does have one chapter devoted to SR.