Landau & Lifschitz, Classical Theory of Fields

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the book "Classical Theory of Fields" by Landau & Lifschitz, specifically the Third Revised English edition from 1971. The participant identifies potential errors on page 231 regarding the equation E = J e, where E and e are 4-pseudotensors and J represents the Jacobian determinant. They also note discrepancies in the treatment of the metric tensor g in arbitrary versus Galilean coordinates, questioning whether these observations are valid and if an errata exists for the text.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of tensor calculus and pseudotensors
  • Familiarity with Jacobian determinants in transformations
  • Knowledge of metric tensors in different coordinate systems
  • Experience with classical field theory concepts
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of 4-pseudotensors in classical field theory
  • Examine the role of Jacobian determinants in coordinate transformations
  • Study the differences between arbitrary and Galilean coordinate systems in physics
  • Look for published errata or revised editions of "Classical Theory of Fields"
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physicists, students of theoretical physics, and anyone studying classical field theory who seeks to clarify complex concepts and verify the accuracy of foundational texts.

goedelite
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Landau & Lifschitz, "Classical Theory of Fields"

The above titled book is useful in many regards, but occasionally I find what I think are errors in the text. I have the Third Revised English edition (1971). On p. 231, for example, an unnumbered equation E = J e. I have omitted the superscripts; E and e are 4-pseudotensors and J is the determinant (Jacobian) of the transformation. To my understanding, all of the quantities are determinants, or otherwise they are all tensor-type elements. Down the page, further, the metric tensor g in arbitrary coordinates is related to g in galilean coordinates. The transformation, this time, is a product of two derivatives with the latter g. In this case, it seems that the product determinant is called J-squared, rather than just J as in the prior case.

Are my observations off the mark?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


PS I ask this apparently uninteresting question, because there are other equations in the same discussion that I find doubtful and I am wondering whether an errata exists that may have fallen out of my text or if a better edited book would be a good idea, if it exists.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K