M. Tsamparlis' book on Special Relativity

[vanhees71]

I just stumbled over the following book on SRT

Michael Tsamparlis, Special Relativity, Springer (2010)

It's a gem! On the beginning-graduate level it explains the special theory of relativity from ground up, starting with a chapter on the math of Minkowski space and then providing a complete treatment of everything of the standard curriculum on the subject including a complete treatment of classical electromagnetism.

Then there are also gems of not so often to find topics like introducing non-inertial reference frames or the manifestly covariant description of the full proper orthochronous Lorentz group.

I think it's the most complete introductory advanced undergraduate, beginning-graduate-level book on SRT written since von Laue's famous first textbook of 1911. It provides solid ground for further more advanced studies like relativistic (viscous) hydrodynamics, relativistic kinetic theory, and relativistic (many-body) QFT.

 

[DrClaude]

Thanks for sharing!

 

[dextercioby]

The difference between Lorenz and Lorentz had not been known to the author at the moment of publication (2010), a thing which is hard for me to accept.

 

[vanhees71]

Well, I'd not take this as a real flaw, which is perpetuated for decades before it was corrected by more history-of-science inclined people. There are more serious typos than that, like
$$x_{\mu} p_{\nu}-x_{\nu} p_{\mu} = \epsilon_{\mu \nu \rho \nu} x^{\rho} p^{\nu} \quad \text{WRONG!}.$$
Nevertheless, it's a very good book, much more complete than many others.

I wish I could write typo-free manuscripts myself...

 

[dextercioby]

I am sorry. For me writing something (from a mere post in PF or an answer on our competition's website) is a statement of passion. People writing papers, books, whatever leaving typos, grammatical errors are not passionate enough in my book, to have the patience to reread 10 times the manuscript to make sure it is really flawless. This is just me. My perfectionism.

 

[crossword.bob]

I’m currently reading it, as it seems to cover exactly what I’m looking for. But I’m struggling with some of his ‘counting’ in the early chapters. E.g., in section 1.7, he derives the four connected components of the Lorentz group, based on the free selection of two signs. That’s fine. But for some reason he states that this gives “16 different Lorentz transformations”. 32, even, if rotations are included.

I’d love to know if anyone can unstick me on this, so I can progress to the physical content without this nagging at me.