- #1

Frabjous

Gold Member

- 991

- 1,068

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Relativity
- Thread starter Frabjous
- Start date

- #1

Frabjous

Gold Member

- 991

- 1,068

- #2

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

- 29,601

- 15,055

What kind of problems would you expect this book to teach you to solve?

- #3

Frabjous

Gold Member

- 991

- 1,068

Mostly the same ones, but at a higher level of understanding.

- #4

- 23,784

- 15,399

My guess is that most second treatments of SR lead on to GR, with a focus on the geometric nature of the theory and a formal treatment of vectors and tensors. I like Sean Carroll's book (Spacetime Geometry) and this series of lectures from Professor Hughes at MIT:Mostly the same ones, but at a higher level of understanding.

Sean Carroll's notes are here:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9712019.pdf

- #5

Frabjous

Gold Member

- 991

- 1,068

Making the jump to GR is an option. There are several threads on where to start with GR, so I would like to keep this thread focused on advanced SR refs unless the answer is GR.My guess is that most second treatments of SR lead on to GR, with a focus on the geometric nature of the theory and a formal treatment of vectors and tensors.

- #6

- 23,784

- 15,399

There's always:Making the jump to GR is an option. There are several threads on where to start with GR, so I would like to keep this thread focused on advanced SR unless the only answer is GR.

https://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/pf-faq/srt.pdf

- #7

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

- 29,601

- 15,055

That's pretty vague. It will be difficult to find a book to teach you something if you don't know exact;y what.Mostly the same ones, but at a higher level of understanding.

The flip answer is "find a college that teaches Special Relativity II and use their textbook". Howeverm you will find that there are few, if any, colleges that teach two terms of SR. Which gets us back to the question I asked.

- #8

Frabjous

Gold Member

- 991

- 1,068

I already have a physics degree and I’m doing this for fun. I used French in school and have recently refreshed with Taylor and Wheeler. Looking at the most popular references, it seems like an underclassman could handle them. It made me wonder if there was something more advanced that wasn’t GR.That's pretty vague. It will be difficult to find a book to teach you something if you don't know exact;y what.

The flip answer is "find a college that teaches Special Relativity II and use their textbook". Howeverm you will find that there are few, if any, colleges that teach two terms of SR. Which gets us back to the question I asked.

This isn‘t an effort to avoid GR. I’ve read Schutz and Carroll is on my to do list.

- #9

Frimus

- 54

- 46

- #10

George Jones

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,607

- 1,493

This is a fantastic book, but I rarely recommend it to physics students or physicists. I only recommend this to people whom I know I are interested in the use of abstract math in theoretical physics.

Other options include "Special Relativity" by Wolfgang Rindler and "Special Relativity An Introduction with 200 Problems and Solutions" by Michael Tsamparlis.

- #11

- 6,645

- 2,011

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/learning-about-sr-for-beginners.1001613/post-6476789

- #12

Frabjous

Gold Member

- 991

- 1,068

I’ve seen a couple of interesting comments on Dixon’s book. Any thoughts on it?

- #13

- 6,645

- 2,011

Is it the Dixon book that discusses the foundations (along a certain approach) of Newtonian and Minkowskian physics in a similar way?

- #14

Frabjous

Gold Member

- 991

- 1,068

I do not know how to quote old threads.

You wrote “Dixon's book is probably too specialized for his list... but, I agree, it is interesting. I've been browsing through it [mainly on the Newtonian limit] on and off for the past year“ in 2007 in response to “Dixon's "Special Relativity" is far more advanced and interesting than its title makes it sound (if that's what you want)” by Stingray who lists it elsewhere as his favorite SR book.

It is also one of Schutz’s additional reading SR references.

You wrote “Dixon's book is probably too specialized for his list... but, I agree, it is interesting. I've been browsing through it [mainly on the Newtonian limit] on and off for the past year“ in 2007 in response to “Dixon's "Special Relativity" is far more advanced and interesting than its title makes it sound (if that's what you want)” by Stingray who lists it elsewhere as his favorite SR book.

It is also one of Schutz’s additional reading SR references.

Last edited:

- #15

- 6,645

- 2,011

I do not know how to quote old threads.

You wrote “Dixon's book is probably too specialized for his list... but, I agree, it is interesting. I've been browsing through it [mainly on the Newtonian limit] on and off for the past year“ in 2007 in response to “Dixon's "Special Relativity" is far more advanced and interesting than its title makes it sound (if that's what you want)” by Stingray who lists it elsewhere as his favorite SR book.

It is also one of Schutz’s additional reading SR references.

After a little digging, I think the reference is

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...f-physics-and-math-texts.186748/#post-1442746

I haven’t looked in a while, but

I’ve been interested in works like this

because I am trying to find a more unified way to formulate physics so that it leads to usual Galilean physics in one case (infinite maximum signal speed) and Lorentz-invariant physics in the finite maximum signal speed case. (This is different from “small velocity limits”.)

Dixon would be good if you are interested in foundational structure…

but it’s not immediately applicable as other “next levels above introduction”

(which may deal with (say)

relativistic electromagnetism, more complicated situations (like Thomas precession or non-inertial kinematics), measurements by non-inertial frames, classical field theories, tensorial methods and their relationship to other methods (like 3-vectors), geometric interpretations, …

- #16

- 22,099

- 13,001

R. U. Sexl and H. K. Urbantke, Relativity, Groups, Particles, Springer, Wien (2001).

- #17

atyy

Science Advisor

- 14,789

- 3,333

Share:

- Last Post

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 672

Relativity
Synge’s Special Relativity

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 649

Relativity
M. Tsamparlis' book on Special Relativity

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 15

- Views
- 873

Linear Algebra
Second Book on Linear Algebra

- Last Post

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 514

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 474

- Last Post

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 523

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 584

Relativity
Good Beginner's General Relativity Books?

- Last Post

- Replies
- 12

- Views
- 974