Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Foster and Nightingale's introduction to relativity

  1. Dec 17, 2009 #1
    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.

  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 17, 2009 #2

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.


    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  4. Dec 18, 2009 #3
    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.
  5. Dec 18, 2009 #4

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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)?
  6. Dec 18, 2009 #5
    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
  7. Dec 18, 2009 #6
    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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook