The discussion centers around resources and strategies for learning relativity, specifically Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR). Participants share their experiences with foundational physics and mathematics, express their uncertainties about prerequisites, and suggest various textbooks and approaches to studying these topics.
Participants express a range of opinions on the prerequisites for studying relativity, with no clear consensus on the best approach or necessary foundational knowledge. Some emphasize the importance of specific textbooks, while others highlight the need for a solid grasp of earlier physics concepts.
Participants note various limitations in their foundational knowledge, particularly in mathematics and earlier physics topics, which may affect their ability to progress in relativity studies. There is also mention of the potential for confusion when transitioning from basic to advanced topics.
Get a book on Special Relativity first. That's an important prerequisite.mark2142 said:Hi everyone, I want to learn relativity but right now I don't know where to start. I have been doing Newtonian mechanics for quite some time from resnik and Irodov and want to go further. Which book should I now read?
So I don't need to learn Lagrangian mechanics and Hamiltonian mechanics and all that undergraduate mechanics from Kleppner, Marion Thornton, Taylor, Goldstein books etc? Pardon me if I don't make sense to you. I don't know the map and path in all physics.PeroK said:Get a book on Special Relativity first. That's an important prerequisite.
Other prerequisites are more advanced mathematical experience and classical electromagnetism.
Without those you are likely to make little progress with GR.
That was included in the more advanced mathematical experience.mark2142 said:So I don't need to learn Lagrangian mechanics and Hamiltonian mechanics and all that undergraduate mechanics from Kleppner, Marion Thornton, Taylor, Goldstein books etc? Pardon me if I don't make sense to you. I don't know the map and path in all physics.
Can you tell which books should I get first?PeroK said:That was included in the more advanced mathematical experience.
There are lots of options. Griffiths for EM?mark2142 said:Can you tell which books should I get first?
I have griffths Introduction to Electrodynamics but I don't have introductory knowledge that is taught after high school like Coulomb’s Law , Electric Fields , Gauss’ Law , Electric Potential , Capacitance , Current and Resistance Circuits , Magnetic Fields , Magnetic Fields Due to Currents. Should I do that first?PeroK said:There are lots of options. Griffiths for EM?
Oh great. What about its maths? Should I get another book to learn its maths?vanhees71 said:But that's all contained in Griffiths's book!
That's a different question. There are several threads on here about EM books prior to Griffiths.mark2142 said:I have griffths Introduction to Electrodynamics but I don't have introductory knowledge that is taught after high school like Coulomb’s Law , Electric Fields , Gauss’ Law , Electric Potential , Capacitance , Current and Resistance Circuits , Magnetic Fields , Magnetic Fields Due to Currents. Should I do that first?
Its just that I got bored with resnik and thought maybe try some electromagnetism. Although electromagnetism is given in resnik but I don't want to read about capacitors and transistors. I want to study something else and come back later to resnik. Resnik is very simple and I get nothing than just solving some simple problems which I actually have trouble with solving. I am not leaving anything but just want to refresh. And it will be good for my understanding GR.Vanadium 50 said:I looked at a few of your threads, and think you will progress faster if you get a more solid foundation in Newtonian mechanics before moving on.
I have Vector analysis by schuam's. Maybe that and griffths will work. I read online you need to understand vector calculus for this book.PeroK said:There are several threads on here about EM books prior to Griffiths.
The first 60+ pages of Griffiths are vector calculus!mark2142 said:I have Vector analysis by schuam's. Maybe that and griffths will work. I read online you need to understand vector calculus for this book.
You need to reflect on what you are trying to do. You have issues with freshman physics, but want a multiple component path to senior level physics?mark2142 said:Its just that I got bored with resnik and thought maybe try some electromagnetism. Although electromagnetism is given in resnik but I don't want to read about capacitors and transistors. I want to study something else and come back later to resnik. Resnik is very simple and I get nothing than just solving some simple problems which I actually have trouble with solving. I am not leaving anything but just want to refresh. And it will be good for my understanding GR.
Looks a bit hard! Can you describe this book in short so that I can know what I am going into?Frabjous said:For special relativity, try Taylor and Wheeler
https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/
Susskind’s Theoretical Minimum books (and the videos they are based on) are designed for non-physicists who want a serious introduction. They are not sufficient for learning the material at the level of a physicist. That being said, I like them and have gained insight from them.mark2142 said:Thank You for helping. I will get one of those.
What about the book Theoretical minimum by Susskind (classical machanics) ?
It doesn‘t assume math above calculus, so you should be able to handle it. If you do not like the book, there are multiple PF threads discussing textbook options for special relativity.mark2142 said:Looks a bit hard! Can you describe this book in short so that I can know what I am going into?
Its good to have some insight rather than be in awe where you are going. I will read it.Frabjous said:Susskind’s Theoretical Minimum books (and the videos they are based on) are designed for non-physicists who want a serious introduction. They are not sufficient for learning the material at the level of a physicist. That being said, I like them and have gained insight from them.
Thanks.Frabjous said:It doesn‘t assume math above calculus, so you should be able to handle it. If you do not like the book, there are multiple PF threads discussing textbook options for special relativity.
That is not an approach I would recommend.mark2142 said:I do my problems by randomly jumping into problems from random chapters.