I Are many exercises in Schutz just too hard?

epovo
Messages
114
Reaction score
21
Dear all,
I am self-studying GR using A First Course in General Relativity by Bernard F Schutz. I am halfway through the course, trying to solve all the exercises. But I worry that I can solve maybe 80% of them, the remaining 20% I find them just too hard.
I know I am no genius, and I don't have anyone to compare against. I would like to hear from people who have walked this path before.
Sometimes, the exercises seem to expand on topics that aren't covered in the text rather than being real exercises that the student is supposed to solve on their own.
As an example, without having mentioned Killing fields before in the text, an exercise defines the Killing equation as $$\nabla_\alpha \xi_\beta + \nabla_\beta \xi_\alpha = 0$$ and asks to prove that along a geodesic, ##p^\alpha \xi_\alpha## is constant.
I couldn't do this one. I am not asking for a proof, because I already found it elsewhere and I thought it very instructive. My question is rather whether most students can be expected to solve this exercise. If so, maybe I should work harder on my tensor algebra proficiency before going any further.
Thank you
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What does "just too hard" mean?
Everybody will struggle with some of the exercises - different students struggle with different ones according to their prior experience, skills, effort and talents.
I don't have anyone to compare against
Are you studying this by yourself?
The text is really intended to accompany a lecture course with other study material, assignments, tutors, and other students.
 
For self study, I suspect successfully doing 80% of the exercises is just fine. I do not have a copy of this book, but it is certainly common for authors to include a portion of exercises that most students cannot do unassisted. I know of texts that include problems that, if solved based on presented material, would indicate a possible Feynman. I even know of one text that includes some unsolved problems as exercises, and another that includes 2 problems that the author knows could not be solved (with a joke based on them: the second is introduced by "for those who solved problem xyz" that cannot be solved);.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
Wald says, in the introduction of his book, that none of the exercises is inordinately difficult, then in parentheses "i.e., I think I can solve them".
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes MathematicalPhysicist and vanhees71
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
According to the General Theory of Relativity, time does not pass on a black hole, which means that processes they don't work either. As the object becomes heavier, the speed of matter falling on it for an observer on Earth will first increase, and then slow down, due to the effect of time dilation. And then it will stop altogether. As a result, we will not get a black hole, since the critical mass will not be reached. Although the object will continue to attract matter, it will not be a...
Back
Top