Book for Special Relativity that uses Tensors

keebz
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hey all!

I am a senior in college pretty much done with my mathematics major, but have had minimal physics. I'm currently self-studying special relativity with guidance from my advisor. Most of the books that I have come across use the algebraic/calculus approach such as Spacetime Physics by J. Wheeler and The Special Theory of Relativity by David Bohm. I also have Special Relativity: A Mathematical Exposition by Anadijiban Das but that one is far more mathematics than pedagogical physical explanations.

I do have Wolfgang Rindler's Intro. to Special Relativity which begins using four-tensors midway in. However, I'm just wondering if there are any other books out there like Rindler's which teach you special relativity using four-tensors and that whole complicated set of machinery usually reserved for general relativity. My search on Google and on here has not yet yielded any desirable results.

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Special relativity doesn't really require tensors to understand well, and the tensor calculus/algebra usually takes some time to develop so most authors do not bother to do this for special relativity.

I think your best bet is to use a book in General relativity that starts off with Special relativity. For example, Schutz's book in General Relativity introduces tensors from the Special relativity point of view.
 
Schultz's book is a great place to start. I used it for self teaching too.
 
http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/nwoodh/sr/index.html (SR)
http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/nwoodh/gr/index.html (GR)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Schutz's book is amazing so far, but I have a question regarding the derivation of the Lorentz transformation. All of the books I've listed above and even Schutz's just plainly state the equations of the Lorentz transformation (t', x', y', z'), or they derive it in a purely algebraic manner.

Why doesn't anyone actually derive it using trigonometry... using the infinitesimal rotation, hyperbolic sine and cosine functions, etc.? That way seems to me to be so much more intuitive than just symbolic manipulation and stating that the result is the Lorentz transformation. Same with the "Lorentz boost."
 
If you want a nicer derivation of the Lorentz transformations, refer to Landau and Lifgarbagez's book on Classical Theory of Fields (very early on, they develop SR). They do the best job from all the books I have studied and recall.
 

Thread 'I don't see how a black hole's event horizon can be crossed'

OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
View full post »

Thread 'Synchronizing clocks in an inertial frame if light is anisotropic'

ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
View full post »

Thread 'Is the variation of the metric ##\delta g_{\mu\nu}## a tensor?'

From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Co- and Contravariance
Replies
5
Views
1K
A Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity: New Book by CUP
Replies
5
Views
3K
I Understanding the Stress-Energy Tensor in Special Relativity
Replies
4
Views
1K
I How do angular displacement and rapidity relate in special relativity?
Replies
3
Views
2K
B Special Cases of Stress-Energy Tensor in GR
Replies
10
Views
2K
I Forces and gravitational time dilation
Replies
11
Views
2K
I Special Relativity: Grokking for a Female Neurobiologist in her 60s
Replies
7
Views
1K
I Proving Antisymmetry of Electromagnetic Field Tensor with 4-Force
Replies
4
Views
2K
I Get Relation from Stress-Energy Tensor Def.
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Does Special Relativity Deal with Non-Inertial Frames?
Replies
21
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top