Foster and Nightingale's introduction to relativity

[Goldbeetle]

Dear all,
I've read that this is a good introduction. I also read that the first edition is much different from the the second an third. The reason is that
last two ones are written in more traditional index notation. Which one would you suggest. I'm not "afraid" of the index free notation.

Thanks,
Goldbeetle

 

[George Jones]

Dear all,
I've read that this is a good introduction. I also read that the first edition is much different from the the second an third. The reason is that
last two ones are written in more traditional index notation. Which one would you suggest. I'm not "afraid" of the index free notation.

Thanks,
Goldbeetle

The third edition, since it is more complete and up-to-date, and since it includes the mathematics from the first edition that was left out of the second edition.

From

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0387260781/?tag=pfamazon01-20

This new third edition has been updated to take account of fresh observational evidence and experiments. It includes new sections on the Kerr solution (in Chapter 4) and cosmological speeds of recession (in Chapter 6). A more mathematical treatment of tensors and manifolds, included in the 1st edition, but omitted in the 2nd edition, has been restored in an appendix. Also included are two additional appendixes – "Special Relativity Review" and "The Chinese Connection" - and outline solutions to all exercises and problems, making it especially suitable for private study.

 

[Goldbeetle]

Thanks a lot! I should have read the amazon presentation better. Thank you for your time.

General comment: there are so many books on general relativity that it is very difficult to choose.

 

[George Jones]

General comment: there are so many books on general relativity that it is very difficult to choose.

Yes, there are many, many books on general relativity. If you are trying to learn general relativity on your own, I suggest that you pick one book to follow closely, and a couple more as secondary sources.

I think that in another thread, you said that you have looked at Hartle. Any comments (the good, the bad, and the ugly)?

 

[Goldbeetle]

Yes, I have Hartle's book (and also D'Inverno's.) The initial review of special relativity is a bit too succinct. So I'm reading "A Traveller's Guide to Spacetime" (that I absolutely love!) and "Spacetime Physics". I'm also reading the books by Bachmann and Weintraub as introduction to differential forms (both excellent), the book by Goldberg and Bishop (rigorous) and Lovelock's book on tensors (a lot of indexes but very, very good). Self studying on my spare time is tough but I feel more and more independent.
Even if I'm working very much on differential geometry, I prefer the "physics first" approach in order to boost my motivation with some concrete examples!

Side notes: while browsing some many math and physics books, I have the feeling that most of the books are not meant to be used as "learning-by-reading" tools. Most of them seem to have been in their previous lives very terse lecture notes. Am I too mean? :-D

 

[Daverz]

I think Carroll would be the best complement to the books you have.

I'm also very fond of Rindler's book, which is full of wonderful insights, but both his style and notation are idiosyncratic compared to the other books.