Special Relativity by T.M. Helliwell

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the book "Special Relativity" by T.M. Helliwell, particularly its suitability for self-study of special relativity (SR) for students transitioning from introductory physics courses. Participants share their experiences and seek comparisons with other texts, such as "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that Helliwell's book is a good resource for learning SR after completing Physics I, emphasizing its focus on concepts over mathematics.
  • One participant notes that the book is easy to read and contains practice problems that are beneficial for understanding SR.
  • Another participant shares their experience of finding the book manageable and well-structured, stating that it provided a solid introduction to SR after a long gap from studying physics.
  • Concerns are raised about the time required to fully grasp SR, with one participant indicating that it took them three months to learn the material properly.
  • There is a question about how Helliwell's book compares to "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler, with participants expressing curiosity about the relative strengths of the two texts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express positive views about Helliwell's book, but there is no consensus on its superiority compared to other texts like Taylor and Wheeler's. The discussion remains open regarding the best resources for learning SR.

Contextual Notes

Some participants mention that Helliwell's book does not cover more advanced topics such as the vector-based approach to relativistic kinematics, which may be addressed in other texts.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students beginning their studies in physics, particularly those interested in self-studying special relativity and seeking recommendations for introductory texts.

For those who have used this book

  • Lightly Recommend

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Lightly don't Recommend

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Strongly don't Recommend

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    3
Physics news on Phys.org
Does anyone have any experience with this book? I'm starting university physics this spring, and I was considering using this book to self study SR over the summer, in between physics I and II. I want to use the Purcell E&M book as a supplement for physics II, but I've gathered that the Purcell book assumes prior knowledge of SR. Since I'll have a whole summer between Physics I and II, I figured self studying some SR would be a good way to utilize that time.

Any other suggestions would be great too!
 
This is a good book for learning SR for the first time after completing Physics I. The author explicitly states this in the beginning chapters.

As for the content itself, the author stresses concept more than math within the book. I found the book very easy to read and have been reading it over the summer. Although it took me sometime to finish it, it could be finished within a month if a person is studious. Like every book though, there are practice problems at the end of every chapter and if you really want to understand SR the practice problems are worth doing.

I've posted the standard chapters in another thread I believe, and there are appendices that relate to specific chapters to give the student more information in relation to a certain chapter.

All in all I recommend it strongly for the student learning SR for the first time.
 
How is this book compared to Spacetime Physics (Maroon version) by Taylor and Wheeler?
 
QuantumCurt said:
Does anyone have any experience with this book? I'm starting university physics this spring, and I was considering using this book to self study SR over the summer, in between physics I and II. I want to use the Purcell E&M book as a supplement for physics II, but I've gathered that the Purcell book assumes prior knowledge of SR. Since I'll have a whole summer between Physics I and II, I figured self studying some SR would be a good way to utilize that time.

Any other suggestions would be great too!

I don't have any texts to compare it with, but I thought Helliwell's book was excellent. It was the first serious study I'd done in 30 years and I was completely new to SR (I'm a pure maths graduate). It was the perfect introduction to SR. One of the author's strengths, in my opinion, was to know how much the student can digest at anyone point. Everything seemed to come in manageable chapters, but when I reached the end of the book and looked back it was suprising how much had been covered.

I wouldn't expect to nail SR from any book in a month (unless you're very clever!). It took me three months really to learn SR properly, I would say.

I've started GR this year and I didn't need an additional text to bridge the gap. Helliwell doesn't cover the more general vector-based approach to relativistic kinematics, but that was covered in my GR text. In any case, I believe that if you nail the basics of SR, then generalising to a more mathematical approach is not very difficult. For me, Helliwell's focus on the core ideas was spot on.
 
PeroK said:
I don't have any texts to compare it with, but I thought Helliwell's book was excellent. It was the first serious study I'd done in 30 years and I was completely new to SR (I'm a pure maths graduate). It was the perfect introduction to SR. One of the author's strengths, in my opinion, was to know how much the student can digest at anyone point. Everything seemed to come in manageable chapters, but when I reached the end of the book and looked back it was suprising how much had been covered.

I wouldn't expect to nail SR from any book in a month (unless you're very clever!). It took me three months really to learn SR properly, I would say.

I've started GR this year and I didn't need an additional text to bridge the gap. Helliwell doesn't cover the more general vector-based approach to relativistic kinematics, but that was covered in my GR text. In any case, I believe that if you nail the basics of SR, then generalising to a more mathematical approach is not very difficult. For me, Helliwell's focus on the core ideas was spot on.
Based on the contents and skimming through the book, I think it is a very good book. But I'm just curious if Helliwell is better than or at the same league as Taylor and Wheeler. Thanks for your comment on the book.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
21K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K