Hartle too hard Need another suggestion

[DiracPool]

It started out OK, like a lot of books, but all of a sudden I hit a mass of integrals at page 22 out of nowhere. No build up, no explanation, many solution steps skipped (of course). Sorry to sound weak, but I need to be "nannied" through the maths of General relativity. I'm a right brain thinker as described in this thread, please check my post:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=692563

I don't want a "conceptual" book, I want all the maths, but I need to start slow and with much tutorage with the maths along the way, not suddenly hit with masses of equations and no explanations. I don't care if I have to go through a few books before I get to Hartle and Wald. Just got to start slowly. Any suggestions would be great

Oh, and same goes with any intro Quantum Mechanics textbooks, if you can think of any, thanks.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I can't think of a GR book easier than Hartle unfortunately (which isn't saying much since GR is hard at any level). If you get stuck, don't be discouraged and quit. Just ask on the forum and people would be happy to help. It's how you learn love :)

Don't worry about getting to Wald for now ;)

I'm no QM person by any means but I think Griffiths is the most user friendly book on the subject. If you've ever used his EM book, you'll feel at ease because his QM book has the same tone so to speak.

It might help to know what your physics knowledge is already. Do you know mechanics at the level of say Taylor's "Classical Mechanics" and EM at the level of Griffiths? Hartle's book assumes you've had some experience with the aforementioned subjects at the level of said books.

 

[Demystifier]

It started out OK, like a lot of books, but all of a sudden I hit a mass of integrals at page 22 out of nowhere. No build up, no explanation, many solution steps skipped (of course). Sorry to sound weak, but I need to be "nannied" through the maths of General relativity. I'm a right brain thinker as described in this thread, please check my post:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=692563

I don't want a "conceptual" book, I want all the maths, but I need to start slow and with much tutorage with the maths along the way, not suddenly hit with masses of equations and no explanations. I don't care if I have to go through a few books before I get to Hartle and Wald. Just got to start slowly. Any suggestions would be great

Oh, and same goes with any intro Quantum Mechanics textbooks, if you can think of any, thanks.

What you need is McMahon, Relativity Demystified
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0071455450/?tag=pfamazon01-20

If that turns out to be what you needed, then you can use books on other topics by the same author, such as
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0071455469/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0071543821/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0071498702/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[yenchin]

Have a look at Foster & Nightingale and see if it works out for you!

 

[WannabeNewton]

Have a look at Foster & Nightingale and see if it works out for you!

The exclamation at the end made it seem like a TV commercial lmfao but yeah I would like to second this book. It's nice to see I'm not the only one who's ever used the book lol. I think it was the only GR book I ever used that actually worked out in detail parallel transport on a 2-sphere, which at the time was extremely helpful.

 

[yenchin]

The exclamation at the end made it seem like a TV commercial lmfao but yeah I would like to second this book. It's nice to see I'm not the only one who's ever used the book lol. I think it was the only GR book I ever used that actually worked out in detail parallel transport on a 2-sphere, which at the time was extremely helpful.

Yea lol. I actually started with Hartle for my first GR course, and totally hated his physics-first-bury-the-math approach [I was a math major so already learned differential geometry, so it wasn't too bad, still Hartle's is not of my taste]. So I started to look for other books. I like Foster & Nightingale since it is not as massive as most GR books [and actually have partial solutions to exercises] :tongue: and I didn't have much time for a thick book back then since I was working as full time high school teacher after I obtained my undergrad degree, before eventually went back for graduate school. :-)

 

[WannabeNewton]

Yea lol. I actually started with Hartle for my first GR course, and totally hated his physics-first-bury-the-math approach [I was a math major so already learned differential geometry, so it wasn't too bad, still Hartle's is not of my taste]. So I started to look for other books. I like Foster & Nightingale since it is not as massive as most GR books [and actually have partial solutions to exercises] :tongue: and I didn't have much time for a thick book back then since I was working as full time high school teacher after I obtained my undergrad degree, before eventually went back for graduate school. :-)

Wow that is really cool. At my uni, they use Hartle for the undergraduate GR course which sucks because like you I hate the "physics - first" approach taken in Hartle. The partial solutions in Foster was definitely a nice touch since no other GR book I know (excluding the Straumann one you recently showed me) actually has a solutions manual or even partial solutions and that sucks for self-study. Of course some GR books, like Wald, almost always tell you what it is you must solve for / prove so at least you'll know if you got the right answer or not

I'm a physics major though, not math like yourself, and thankfully I have, for the most part, a lot of free time xD.

 

[DiracPool]

Alright, some great info guys. I'm going to dig into those and see if I can find one that's about my speed. I'll come back and do some more whining if I run into any trouble

 

[xristy]

Zee - Einstein Gravity in a Nutshell

Zee's book, Einstein Gravity in a Nutshell was just published a few days ago and so far looks quite nice - well past page 22 it is still quite pedagogical.

 

[WannabeNewton]

If Hartle was difficult at first then Zee will not be any easier. I'm not seeing how Zee will help at all (take a look at the exercises in the text).

 

[yenchin]

I have not really looked into Zee's GR text, but if it is anything like his QFT text, then it is probably better to be read *after* one learned the subject from elsewhere. Of course some people may be able to learn directly from Zee's text as first text [Zee certainly thinks it is possible; in second edition of his QFT, Zee especially wrote a section under preface, to address those "nuts who don't appreciate the nutshell", oh well... ], but most people I know can't.

 

[dextercioby]

Have a look at Ray D'Inverno's book. I liked it.

 

[Daverz]

D'Inverno's book is more advanced than Hartle, not less. Also the McMahon book recommended earlier doesn't "demystify" anything.

I would suggest Exploring Black Holes by Taylor & Wheeler:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/020138423X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[physiker_192]

What you need is McMahon, Relativity Demystified
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0071455450/?tag=pfamazon01-20

If that turns out to be what you needed, then you can use books on other topics by the same author, such as
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0071455469/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0071543821/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0071498702/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I am strongly against the use or the adoption of those books.
They don't serve as proper physics books, even to beginners or hobbyists.

 

[DiracPool]

D'Inverno's book is more advanced than Hartle, not less. Also the McMahon book recommended earlier doesn't "demystify" anything.

I would suggest Exploring Black Holes by Taylor & Wheeler:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/020138423X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Thanks Daverz, this one looks pretty interesting and "Right-brain friendly."

I think I might try that one and the demystifier first and see which one falls out of the race first. My only concern is that Taylor and Wheeler doesn't use tensor analysis in their presentation. Is it going to be a problem learning GR that way? Or will it be natural just to pick up the tensor maths later on?

 

[WannabeNewton]

Tensor calculus and tensor algebra as used in GR are easy to learn simply by doing tons of problems that utilize them. A majority of the end of chapter problems in Wald, for example, are heavy on tensor calculus / tensor algebra and many of the calculations he does in the text are of the same nature so once you learn the conceptual physics and move on to Wald, you'll pick it all up in no time.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Just to add another endorsement for Taylor's book (the aforementioned one), my SR professor took a graduate GR course at MIT when she was doing her PhD there and told me that it was taught by someone from the math department. The professor used Wald for the class and she told me she absolutely hated the class because the professor placed such an importance on the mathematical physics that the actual physics of GR barely even showed up. She told me that she stumbled upon Taylor's book and that she absolutely loved it because of the amount of physical insight it shed on GR, something Wald and her Professor failed to do. She constantly recommended it in the class because of the importance it placed on physics over math.

 

[George Jones]

Resource articles on teaching general relativity

by Wald http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511073

by Hartle http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0506075

by Christensen and Moore (behind a paywall?) http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v65/i6/p41_s1

You might also want to look at (I haven't yet) Moore's book "A General Relativity Workbook".

There should soon (?) be a slightly more advanced second edition of Taylor and Wheeler. I used Taylor and Wheeler for text of the

Favourite course that I have taught: an introductory course on black holes at WVU that had first-year physics and calculus as prerequisites.

The course had students with a wide variety of backgrounds, from physics grad students to undergrads who were biology majors.

Something I wrote seven-and-a-half years ago about Wald's article

This resource letter by R. M. Wald for teachers of general relativity is very interesting. Wald has come around to the point of view that it's OK to teach undergraduate general relativity courses that don't cover tensors or the Einstein fild equation. Undergraduate courses should concentrate on mining (via, e.g., Lagrange's equations) given (not derived as solutions to Einstein's equation) metrics for physical information. This way, much more time can be spent on quantitative aspects of interesting topics like black holes and cosmology.

Wald: "The philosophy on teaching general relativity to undergraduates expounded in this resource letter is adopted directly from the approach taken directly from Hartle in this (Hartle's) text."

For grad courses, Wald says that tensors must be taught, but that there is no satisfactory way of doing this.

Wald: "In 30 years of teaching general relativity at the graduate level, I have not found a satisfactory solution to this problem, and I have always found the discussion of tensors to be the 'low point' of this course,"

Wald say that there are 2 main options: 1) manifolds, and tensors as multilinear maps; 2) tensors strictly form a coordinate-based point of view.

1) is more fundamental, but requires more time, which leads to rushed presentations of physical applications of GR. 2) can be covered in half the time as 1), allowing for more leisurely and detailed presentations of physicall applications, but is not sufficient for treating things like global methods and singularity theorems.

Something I wrote seven years ago about Hartle's book:

I like Hartle very much, and if I were to teach an undergarduate course on relativity, I think I would choose Hartle as the text. Put me in the same situation ten years ago (fantasizing that Hartle existed), and I would have been appalled at the thought of using Hartle!

Hartle contains some excellent physics problems.

 

[DiracPool]

I am strongly against the use or the adoption of those books.
They don't serve as proper physics books, even to beginners or hobbyists.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with this (above post refers to DeMystified series). That is, if McMahon's GR book is anything like his QM book. That's absurd, have you seen that? There's almost no prose in the entire book, it's just one wall of equations. I'd say it would "Re-mysify" those who might have thought they had a basic handle on QM.

The funny thing about this guy McMahon is that he's written almost a dozen of these kinds of texts for the DeMystified series, yet my library bio on him says he's still a grad student! Go figure. Check it out:

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0625/2005054738-b.html


I think I'll jump into the Taylor and Wheeler book first, as it seems like most here think its a good and safe intro. I'll also check into those other references. If you can think of any others, though, keep em coming!

 

[DiracPool]

Too Hartle to handle

Damn, I just realized I should have named this thread "Too Hartle to handle."

Oh well, next time...

 

[yenchin]

Damn, I just realized I should have named this thread "Too Hartle to handle."

Oh well, next time...

:rofl: Anyway, the Relativity Demystified is still rather good as a companion book to usual textbooks, since he shows explicit calculations, and even includes topics on Cartan moving frame formalism.

 

[Demystifier]

:rofl: Anyway, the Relativity Demystified is still rather good as a companion book to usual textbooks, since he shows explicit calculations,

Yes, and the explicit calculations seemed exactly what the thread starter needed, which is why I recommended it to him. It certainly doesn't mean that it would be my first choice to recommend to everybody. In fact, for those without specific requirements, I usually recommend Carroll.

Anyway, I hope he will try and tell us whether it worked for him or not.

 

[Demystifier]

Also the McMahon book recommended earlier doesn't "demystify" anything.

... unless by "demystification" one means explicit step-by-step calculations without asking from a reader to think too much by himself. I'm not saying that such an approach is good for everybody, but by reading carefully what the thread starter actually said, I strongly believe that this book might be good for him.

And no, I am not the author of the book.

 

[Demystifier]

Yeah, I'd have to agree with this (above post refers to DeMystified series). That is, if McMahon's GR book is anything like his QM book. That's absurd, have you seen that? There's almost no prose in the entire book, it's just one wall of equations. I'd say it would "Re-mysify" those who might have thought they had a basic handle on QM.

The funny thing about this guy McMahon is that he's written almost a dozen of these kinds of texts for the DeMystified series, yet my library bio on him says he's still a grad student! Go figure. Check it out:

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0625/2005054738-b.html

Ups, now I've seen this, so I have to conclude that I was wrong that McMahon would be good for you. Well, at least I've tried. Good luck with other books!

But there is another way how you can help us to help you. You can specify some other physics books (on other topics) which you liked, so that we can see what style of presentation you like.

 

[George Jones]

I think I'll jump into the Taylor and Wheeler book first, as it seems like most here think its a good and safe intro. I'll also check into those other references. If you can think of any others, though, keep em coming!

The first edition, or the "forthcoming" second edition. The publication of the second edition has been just around the corner for several years. I pre-ordered a copy from Amazon in January 2009! The current estimated delivery date is about six weeks from now, but they have regularly failed to meet previous estimated delivery dates.

Again, I think that

You might also want to look at (I haven't yet) Moore's book "A General Relativity Workbook".

I have read a book review of this (April 2013 American Journal of Physics) by Thomas Baumgate. Excerpts:

... Thomas Moore’s new textbook A General Relativity Workbook adopts an attractive compromise between the math-first and the physics-first approaches. In fact, the book distinguishes itself from other textbooks on the subject in two ways; in addition to developing the theory in an intertwined approach, it adopts a presentation of the material that encourages an active-learning teaching style. ...

In summary, Thomas Moore’s A General Relativity Workbook is an outstanding book. It is a very useful addition to other recent undergraduate textbooks on general relativity because it adopts a novel development of the theory and an innovative presentation of the material. The book is well written, clear and engaging, and guides readers, even those with no prior knowledge of the mathematical framework, through an active participation in all derivations to a solid understanding of general relativity and many of its fascinating applications. While the book is designed as a textbook supporting undergraduate courses on general relativity, it is well suited for other purposes as well. I believe that it is an ideal book for an independent study project, and I would similarly recommend working through this book to any colleague interested in an in-depth and yet accessible introduction to general relativity.

The author, Thomas Moore, has made available on his webpages a sample of the book that contains the preface, contents, and chapters 5, 10, 26.

http://pages.pomona.edu/~tmoore/grw/resources.html

 

[DiracPool]

Thanks for the continued discussion and more good leads. I now have 2 texts on hold at the library to start on, T&W, and Hobson. In the meantime, I found an E-copy of Crowell's book. Anybody have any info or caveats on that one? Also, would anybody recommend "Spacetime physics" by T&W? Is this the SR counterpart to their GR book? If so, should I read that one first?

 

[WannabeNewton]

Are you sure you don't want to brush up on EM first?

 

[micromass]

DiracPool, if I asked you what angular momentum or virtual work was, could you give me the answer without looking it up??

If not, then you should probably start with mechanics.

 

[George Jones]

Hobson

I like the book by Hobson, Efstathiou, and Lasenby (my copy is falling apart from use), and, years ago, one of the authors (Lasenby) bought me a few beers at a conference in Banff, but the book does have as few problems.

The criticisms by Samuel Gralla in his review at

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00AHTN3NU/?tag=pfamazon01-20

are valid. Also

"vectors represented by partial derivative operators"

like this? $$V=V^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}$$

Yes!

Unfortunately, there is some subtlety here, and this subtlety seems to have confused Hobson, Efstathiou, and Lasenby (HEL). Most of the subtlety has to do with Woodhouse's "second fundamental confusion of calculus."

By HEL's own definition on page 248,

... fix the other coordinates at their values at P and consider an infinitesimal variation $dx^\mu$ in the coordinate of interest. If the corresponding change in the interval $ds^2$ is positive, zero or negative, then $x^\mu$ is timelike, null or spacelike respectively.

$p$ in Eddington-FinkelStein coordinates $\left(p,r,\theta,\phi \right)$ is a timelike coordinate, not a null coordinate. To see this, apply HEL's prescription on page 248 to equation (11.6). Varing $p$ while holding $r$, $\theta$, and $\phi$ constant gives $dr = d\theta = d\phi = 0$ and

$$ds^2 = \left( 1 - \frac{2M}{r} \right) dp^2.$$

Hence, (when $r > 2M$) $ds^2$ is positive, and $p$ is a timelike coordinate.

HEL are thinking of $p$ in Kruskal coordinates $\left(p,q,\theta,\phi \right).$. In this case, applying the page 248 prescription to equation (11.16) gives that $p$ is a null coordinate. Do you see why?

What type of coordinate is $r$ in Eddington-FinkelStein coordinates $\left(p,r,\theta,\phi \right)$?

By now, you should be thoroughly confused! How can the "same" $p$ be timelike in one set of coordinates and null in another set of coordinates? If you want, I am willing to spend some time explaining in detail what is going on here, and what Woodhouse's "second fundamental confusion of calculus" is.

 

[DiracPool]

DiracPool, if I asked you what angular momentum or virtual work was, could you give me the answer without looking it up??

If not, then you should probably start with mechanics.

Yes, I know what those are. However, as I stated in earlier threads which you and wbn commented on, I'm on the self-study route, whose progression tends to be a little (or a lot) disorganized.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=688247&highlight=long+winding+road&page=2

So, I have no problem going back and reinforcing my mechanics and EM education, if need be. My public library is one of the best in the country, so most of the books mentioned on this site they have available for loan. I even recently got Smolin's new book on loan and it just came out. I know the lady that does the purchasing, so all I have to do is request a book and its usually there within a few weeks.

In any case, please refer me to some mechanics/EM-SR pre-requisite textbooks and I'll check them out. I am especially interested in the inter-relation between Maxwells work and SR; how Einstein used Maxwells work to develop SR. Please suggest some that are "right-brain friendly" though

 

[WannabeNewton]

Hi Dirac, I would suggest Griffiths' Electrodynamics text. If you work through that, you should be completely fine and ready to hit a book like Hartle or what have you. Griffiths' text is friendly and conversational so you might like it; I sure loved the tone (although I haven't done every single chapter in the book). The last chapter gives an introduction into the Lorentz covariant formulation of Maxwell's electrodynamics within SR. However you don't need to worry too much about that for now because most GR books will cover the Lorentz covariant as well as general covariant formulations of Maxwell's electrodynamics (Wald has a particularly amazing and concise coverage of it, IMO). Good luck my friend!

 

[DiracPool]

Hi Dirac, I would suggest Griffiths' Electrodynamics text.

Right on. Thanks. I'll check that one out.