GR: How Much Mechanics is Involved?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the relationship between mechanics and General Relativity (GR), particularly the extent to which a background in mechanics is necessary for understanding GR. Participants explore the prerequisites for GR courses, including the relevance of Classical Mechanics, Differential Geometry, and other mathematical foundations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses concern about their proficiency in mechanics and questions how much mechanics is involved in GR, preferring more abstract mathematical approaches.
  • Another participant suggests that the reliance on mechanics in GR courses varies by institution.
  • A participant contemplates the necessity of taking Differential Geometry as a prerequisite, indicating a struggle with Classical Mechanics.
  • There is a suggestion that exploring the interplay between Quantum Mechanics (QM) and GR could enhance understanding of mechanics.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of linear algebra, vector calculus, and the calculus of variations as prerequisites for GR, arguing that a solid foundation in classical field theory is more critical than Classical Mechanics.
  • Another participant interprets the previous post to mean that Classical Mechanics is not heavily utilized in GR, which aligns with their preference for abstract courses.
  • A suggestion is made to review the GR textbook or consult the professor for clarity on course expectations regarding mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of Classical Mechanics for GR, with some suggesting it is not extensively applied while others highlight its importance. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific prerequisites and their relevance to GR understanding.

Contextual Notes

There are varying assumptions about the role of Classical Mechanics in GR, the importance of Differential Geometry, and the prerequisites for Quantum Theory courses, which may not be fully addressed in the discussion.

vector
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
I'm currently taking a course in Theoretical Mechanics, which is a prerequisite to General Relativity, which I'm very much looking forward to taking. However, I'm not that good in mechanics, and Real Analysis seems to be more straightforward than even the first course in Mechanics. I'm quite comfortable in Applied Math, and, to a certain degree in Pure Math (especially Abstract Algebra). I've also taken Quantum Mechaics, and got a very good mark in it, one of the highest marks ever (compared to other courses).

My question is: how heavy is General Relativity on the side of Mechanics? I sincerely hope that it has "too much" "hardcore math" than it has any "hardcore mechanics".
 
Physics news on Phys.org
GR is mechanics ... but how much the GR course leans on the Mechanics prereq really depends on the school.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vector
If that's the case, it seems that I'll have to take Differential Geometry instead. I was really looking forward to learning GR, including the Differential Geometry part of it, but I have a bit of a trouble with Classical Mechanics.

Actually, a course in Quantum Theory in my school also has Theoretical Mechanics as a prerequisite. Does this mean that QT courses also depend a lot on Classical Mechanics stuff? The introductory QM course I took contained almost no Classical Mechanics.
 
I think the combination of QM and GR should be explored to complete mechanics.
 
The most important prerequisites for GR are linear algebra and vector calculus as well as the calculus of variations (I believe that without the action principle you have no chance to understand anything in physics beyond "naive" Newtonian mechanics). A course in differential geometry is very helpful to learn GR, because the only difference between GR and differential geometry is that the latter is the theory of Riemannian manifolds, while GR is based on a pseudo-Riemannian manifold. The difference is physically very important but mathematically it's not a big step. More important than analytical mechanics (i.e., the mechanics of point particles based on the action principle) is a good foundation in classical field theory (a modern course on E&M, using the manifest covariant notation in special relativity and the action principle for fields is enough). There's no need for QM to learn GR, which is an entirely classical field theory.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vector
vanhees71, thank you for your detailed post. From your post, it appears that Classical Mechanics is not extensively applied in GR, and that GR is quite abstract. Which would be good for me, because I seem to lack some intuition for Classical Mechanics, and do prefer more abstract courses, like QM.
 
Why not browse through the GR textbook that the course is using, or speak with the prof? It seems introductory GR courses involve a lot of upfront math before even getting to any physics.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vector

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K