The theory of relativity by Christian Møller

[nearlynothing]

I stumbled upon this text recently and I was just interested in how you'd rate it, in case you're familiar with it.
To me the exposition seems alright, but the text is old and sometimes it shows.
Would you consider learning relativity from this book as a main source or would you go for a more modern exposition? and why?

 

[robphy]

While there are some topics of interest not covered or emphasized in more modern texts,
I would not recommend it as a main source (with the selection available today) because it doesn't emphasize geometrical thinking in terms of spacetime and spacetime diagrams. In the preface, Moller declares his preference for 3-d vector calculus in the beginning, followed later by 4-d tensor calculus [with ict] --with emphasis on algebra and calculus, which is good for doing some types of calculations.

My $0.03.

 

[Bill_K]

Moller is very well-written and very well-organized. As Robphy says, he covers several topics more thoroughly than most modern texts, and often devotes more attention to a 3+1 split.

What he does not cover at all is black holes, so for this reason alone you'll need another book to consult.

 

[vanhees71]

ict convention is a no-go nowadays, while I don't know, why one should empasize Minkowski diagrams. Usually I find them more confusing than the algebra/calcculus in covariant form.

 

[Bill_K]

ict convention is a no-go nowadays

Except when doing a Wick rotation, then it's acceptable.

 

[robphy]

...why one should empasize Minkowski diagrams. Usually I find them more confusing than the algebra/calcculus in covariant form.

It was Minkowski's reformulation of Einstein's papers that led to the "covariant" way of thinking.
Minkowski formulated "space-time" geometry, "proper-time", "light-cone", "world-line", and 4-vectors [developed further by Sommerfeld].
(Einstein didn't appreciate all of this at the time. Sommerfeld quotes Einstein "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more".)


Did you learn [or would you teach] introductory Euclidean geometry with algebra and calculus, but no diagrams?
Are diagrams of Euclidean geometry confusing?
(Is it helpful to draw the intersection of two figures? Or just write a system of equations?)


In PHY 101, we often draw "position vs time" diagrams (a.k.a. space-time diagrams... although one often does not recognize or explicitly use its underlying non-euclidean metric) to supplement the typical algebraic and calculus-based kinematic equations. This is especially helpful for piecewise motions that are not easy to write down algebraically.
(Later, we also draw Free-Body diagrams and do vector-addition graphically.. to support an algebraic computation.)


Finally, I like this quote from
J.L. Synge in Relativity: The Special Theory (1956), p. 63 ,
"Anyone who studies relativity without understanding
how to use simple space-time diagrams
is as much inhibited as a student of
functions of a complex variable who
does not understand the Argand diagram."

 

[nearlynothing]

Thanks for all the answers, as i kept reading the book and i saw the way it deals with the structure of spacetime i realized i truly don't like it.
I'll stick to Visser's lecture notes and to Wald's text for now.

 

[nearlynothing]

(Einstein didn't appreciate all of this at the time. Sommerfeld quotes Einstein "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more".)

I find this very interesting, given that the geometric interpretation of the properties of spacetime are at the very core of GR's foundations. I didnt know this was Einstein's opinion at first.
Do you know how he came to appreciate this later on?

 

[robphy]

Possibly interesting reading:

Minkowski, Mathematicians, and the Mathematical Theory of Relativity
Scott Walter
http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/DepPhilo/walter/papers/einstd7.pdf

Genesis of general relativity - Discovery of general relativity
Galina Weinstein
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.3386
- it appears it was around 1912 when Einstein appreciated Minkowski's formulation

 

[WannabeNewton]

The book proves that the Einstein synchronization convention is actually a synchronization convention. This immediately makes it better than most SR books out there :)

But apart from that, I wouldn't use it as a main resource for learning relativity. It is far too outdated. There are more comprehensive and more modern texts out there you can use to greater fruition.