Relativity Looking for a good introductory Tensor Analysis Textbook

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on recommendations for textbooks on tensor analysis suitable for someone with a background in differential equations and linear algebra, specifically in the context of studying General Relativity (GR). A notable suggestion is Landau and Lifshitz's volume 2, which provides essential tensor analysis concepts. Other recommended resources include GR textbooks by authors like Carroll and Zee, which cover tensors in detail. There is a debate about the accuracy of a specific introductory source on tensors, with concerns raised about its notation and the distinction between vectors and co-vectors. Emphasis is placed on the importance of understanding these distinctions for clarity in physics. Additionally, participants highlight the need to be aware of varying conventions in notation and signs across different texts, which could complicate learning for beginners. Overall, the thread aims to guide the original poster toward appropriate resources for mastering tensor analysis in the context of GR.
astroboulders
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello all,

I've taken math through differential equations and linear algebra, am in my senior year of physics curricula while conducting McNair research regarding General Relativity. I found a NASA document outlining Einstein's field equations, which suggests only preparative familiarity with tensor analysis (here's the NASA pdf). I'm wondering what textbooks would be recommended to begin undertaking tensor analysis study, given my mathematics skills haven't developed beyond differential equations and linear algebra.

Any help would be graciously received!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For starting with GR I'd recommend the excellent volume 2 of Landau and Lifhitz. There you also get the minimum of tensor analysis needed (Ricci calculus and holonomous bases only).
 
Tensor analysis for what? Many GR books like Carroll or Zee treat tensors in detail.
 
  • Like
Likes jbergman and vanhees71
A first glance at this source shows that it's not very accurate in its notation and in the concept. First of all, if you deal with general tensors on a vector space, i.e., objects that are invariant under the entire GL(n), you have to distinguish clearly between vectors and co-vectors, and this should be reflected in the usual notation with upper and lower indices to distinguish co- and contravariant bases and the corresponding components of tensors.

Second a linear form is not a scalar product. A linear form is a linear mapping from the vector space to the scalar field, while a scalar product is a postive definite bilinear form.
 
vanhees71 said:
A first glance at this source shows that it's not very accurate in its notation and in the concept. First of all, if you deal with general tensors on a vector space, i.e., objects that are invariant under the entire GL(n), you have to distinguish clearly between vectors and co-vectors, and this should be reflected in the usual notation with upper and lower indices to distinguish co- and contravariant bases and the corresponding components of tensors.

Second a linear form is not a scalar product. A linear form is a linear mapping from the vector space to the scalar field, while a scalar product is a postive definite bilinear form.
Maybe so, but it exhibits a reasonable portion of rigour for the level of the OP, don’t you think? We are talking physics, rigour isn’t always on our side.
 
No, for a physicists the clear distinction between co- and contravariant components is essential. As I said, then it's better to read the corresponding chapters in Landau and Lifshitz vol. 2. Also most other introductory textbooks on GR have better introductions to tensor calculus.
 
You surely didn’t just take a cursory look and decided that no distinctions were made of contravariant and covariant stuff? Oh, never mind, hope the OP got some legible answers out of this thread.
 
Presumably, you've seen the referenced works on the last page of the document.
It might be good to start there (as well as any suggested introductory references that they make).

Be aware of conventions in signature and signs (e.g. ones regarding nabla vs semicolon), which vary among books...
and could pose unnecessary obstacles for a beginner.
So, I'd suggest that a beginner start with the references they give, then move on to other sources if desired.

From Misner-Thorne-Wheeler Gravitation (1973)...

1691339042102.png

Of course, one would have to extend this to include later references.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
16
Views
10K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
34
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top