Looking for book about relativistic classical field theory

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion focuses on recommendations for books on relativistic classical field theory, particularly in the context of preparing for quantum field theory. Participants share their experiences with various texts and express opinions on their suitability for beginners and advanced learners.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that Herbert Goldstein's "Classical Mechanics" (3rd edition) is not suitable due to perceived distortions and errors compared to the 2nd edition.
  • Landau-Lifshitz's "Classical Theory of Fields" is frequently recommended as a classic text, though some express uncertainty about its effectiveness as an introduction to quantum field theory.
  • Participants mention D. E. Soper's "Classical Field Theory" as a unique and valuable alternative introduction.
  • Several links to beginner and advanced books are shared, with some participants cautioning that certain advanced texts may not be appropriate for first-time readers.
  • There is a discussion about the treatment of anholonomous constraints in older editions of Goldstein's work, with one participant affirming that they are treated correctly.
  • M. Burgess's "Classical Covariant Fields" is noted as being at a similar level to other recommended texts and is available for free from Cambridge Core.
  • Some participants mention T. Padmanabhan's "Gravitation: Foundations and Frontiers" and other works as potentially better alternatives for studying gravitation and field theory.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the suitability of various texts, particularly Goldstein's editions. While some recommendations are widely supported, there is no consensus on a single best book for all learners.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the clarity and derivation of formulas in certain texts, as well as inconsistencies in conventions used across different editions. The discussion reflects a range of opinions on the appropriateness of various books for different levels of understanding.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and educators seeking resources in relativistic classical field theory, particularly those preparing for quantum field theory or exploring foundational texts in the field.

StenEdeback
Messages
65
Reaction score
38
Hi,

I am trying to learn relativistic classical field theory as a preparation for studying quantum field theory.
I am currently reading chapter 13 i Herbert Goldstein's Classical Mechanics edition 3, but I think that this book is a bit too brief and does not fully derive and explain the formulas.
I would be grateful for advice.Sten E
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Landau-Lifshitz's classical theory of fields is a classic, though I do not know if it is good for introduction to quantum field.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: mpresic3, StenEdeback, malawi_glenn and 1 other person
Don't use "Goldstein" 3rd edition. It's a distortion of the original 2nd edition making it worse, containing several mistakes (wrong treatment of anholonomous constraints using the Hamilton principle of least action contradicting the correct results from the treatment using d'Alembert's principle without even mentioning that there's a difference) and inconsistencies (switching the sign convention of the metric from one section to another). Concerning relativity the 2nd edition cannot be unanimously recommended, because it uses the old-fashioned ##\mathrm{i} c t## (pseudo-Euclidean) convention.

Indeed, I think the best book as an introduction to relativistic classical field theory (electrodynamics and general relativity) is Landau and Lifshitz vol. 1. Relativistic hydro is sketched quite well in vol. 6.

A somewhat unusual introduction, but precisely because of this alternative approach a gem:

D. E. Soper, Classical field theory, Dover Publications, Minneola, New York (2008).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier, StenEdeback and malawi_glenn
anuttarasammyak said:
Landau-Lifshitz's classical theory of fields is a classic, though I do not know if it is good for introduction to quantum field.
Thank you anuttarasammyak!
 
vanhees71 said:
Don't use "Goldstein" 3rd edition. It's a distortion of the original 2nd edition making it worse, containing several mistakes (wrong treatment of anholonomous constraints using the Hamilton principle of least action contradicting the correct results from the treatment using d'Alembert's principle without even mentioning that there's a difference) and inconsistencies (switching the sign convention of the metric from one section to another). Concerning relativity the 2nd edition cannot be unanimously recommended, because it uses the old-fashioned ##\mathrm{i} c t## (pseudo-Euclidean) convention.

Indeed, I think the best book as an introduction to relativistic classical field theory (electrodynamics and general relativity) is Landau and Lifshitz vol. 1. Relativistic hydro is sketched quite well in vol. 6.

A somewhat unusual introduction, but precisely because of this alternative approach a gem:

D. E. Soper, Classical field theory, Dover Publications, Minneola, New York (2008).
Thank you vanhees71!
 
  • #10
vanhees71 said:
Don't use "Goldstein" 3rd edition. It's a distortion of the original 2nd edition making it worse, containing several mistakes (wrong treatment of anholonomous constraints ...
Are the anholonomous constraints treated correctly in older editions?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: StenEdeback
  • #11
Demystifier said:
At a similar level M. Burgess, Classical Covariant Fields.
Thank you Demystifier!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier
  • #13
Demystifier said:
Are the anholonomous constraints treated correctly in older editions?
Yes!
 
  • Love
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: malawi_glenn and Demystifier
  • #16
I believe the book "Gravitation: Foundations and Frontiers" by T. Padmanabhan (and his online lectures) is best. And Landau-Lifshitz's classical theory of fields, Feynman's lectures on Gravitation, Gravitation and Cosmology by S. Weinberg are better.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
19K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K