Alternative to Kleppner - Kolenkow chapter on relativity

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around finding alternative resources for understanding spatial relativity, specifically in the context of classical mechanics. Participants are seeking textbooks that provide a clearer or more accessible treatment of the topic compared to the chapter in the Kleppner - Kolenkow textbook.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses satisfaction with the Kleppner - Kolenkow textbook but has heard that the chapter on spatial relativity may not be as strong as others.
  • Another participant suggests Landau and Lifshitz vol. II (Classical Field Theory) as a good introduction, although it is noted to be a graduate-level text.
  • A participant seeks alternatives at the same level as Kleppner and Kolenkow, indicating a preference for not delving into entire books on relativity.
  • One participant mentions that while Taylor and Wheeler is good, they emphasize the need for a chapter or two on relativity within a mechanics context rather than a full book.
  • Morin's "Introduction to Classical Mechanics" is recommended for its treatment of special relativity in an appendix, with a participant noting it as a modern equivalent to Kleppner and Kolenkow.
  • A participant offers their own special relativity book as a potential resource, although it is described as being at a higher level than what the original poster may want.
  • The original poster expresses intent to use both Morin's and Taylor's books to complement their study of Kleppner and Kolenkow, citing Morin's modern approach and Taylor's advanced treatment of four-vectors.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need for additional resources to understand spatial relativity better, but there are differing opinions on which textbooks are most suitable. No consensus is reached on a single alternative resource.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying levels of familiarity with the suggested texts, and there is an acknowledgment of the differences in complexity and depth among the recommended resources.

almarpa
Messages
94
Reaction score
3
Hello all.

I am currently using Kleppner - Kolenkow textbook on classical mechanics, and I am really liking it.

Now I have finally reached the chapter on spatial relativity, but I have read in several foums that, despite the quaity of the book, this chapter is not as fine as the others (I have not even begun with it, so I can't confirm that claim by myself).

So, in order to get a good understanding of spatial realtivity, avoiding to read a whole book like Rindler, Taylor and Wheeler, etc., I would like to know if there is another classical mechanics book that treats this topic in a better way than Kleppner and Kolenkow do.

In the library, I have access to Taylor, Morin, Gregory, and many other classical mechanics textbooks. Can you suggest me one or two of them?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A very good introduction is in Landau and Lifshitz vol. II (Classical Field Theory).
 
But I thought that book was a graduate book...

I just need something at the same level of Kleppner and Kolenkow.

Anyway, I will take a look to it.

Thank U
 
Although Taylor and Wheeler is good, and so is
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0072397144/?tag=pfamazon01-20 ,
I want to clarify
you don't want a whole book on relativity [however short or easy to read],
but just a chapter or two among topics in mechanics... at the level of Kleppner?
 
Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics, has a nice treatment of SR in an appendix. Morin is basically the modern equivalent of K&K.

You might also find my SR book helpful, although it's at a slightly higher level and has more depth and breadth than you might want. It's free.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BvU
Thanks all of you for your suggestions.

I have take a look to Morin's and Taylor's books and I think I will use both them to complement Kleppner and Kolenkow.

Morin is more modern and Taylor has a nice and more advanced treatment of 4vectors, so I feel they form a good combination.

Regards.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
7K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
21K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
20K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K