Relativity Thoughts on General Relativity by Hobson?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on recommendations for learning General Relativity, particularly focusing on the book "General Relativity" by Hobson. The original poster, who is about to graduate with a mathematics degree and has a background in various advanced mathematical topics and physics, seeks a book that is engaging and filled with examples rather than being terse or dry. Responses suggest that Hobson is a suitable choice for those who prefer a more approachable style. Comparisons are made with other texts, notably Hartle, which is recommended for its less mathematical approach, making it ideal for personal interest rather than graduate study. Carroll and Hobson are also praised, while Schutz receives less favorable feedback. The conversation encourages exploring book previews to find the best fit for individual learning preferences.
jacobianofthevilla
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Background: I'm about to graduate with a mathematics degree(in the US), hence I have exposure to multivariable calculus, real analysis, abstract algebra, complex variables etc (no differential geometry however). I have also taken a class on QM(using Griffiths) and I saw some SR during a Modern Physics class. I read through Taylor's classical mechanics book last summer as well.

Motivation: I want to learn General Relativity as I have always found it fascinating

So, what do you guys think of General Relativity by Hobson? Ideally, I want a book which provides lots of motivation and examples , I don't usually like terse and dry books. Also, how does this book compare to Hartle, Schutz, and Carroll?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It looks like there are no thoughts on the topic :-)

Anyway, there are a lot of PF threads dealing with your question. Just pay some effort and look for them.
As for me, I have got both Schutz and Hobson. IMHO they are a valuable introduction to the GR.

From what you said
jacobianofthevilla said:
I don't usually like terse and dry books.
I honestly recommend Hobson to you.

Btw, I don't pay much attention to Amazon customer ratings. The customer spectrum is too wide, a lot of opinions have no connection to the quality of the textbook and they often completely ruin the result of the rating.

Some random examples:
5* reviews:
“Bought for my son. He loved it.”
“Great conditions!”

1* reviews:
“This book is a bit too professional ...”
“Bought new and the book looks like it's been dragged onto the floor.”
 
jacobianofthevilla said:
Background: I'm about to graduate with a mathematics degree(in the US), hence I have exposure to multivariable calculus, real analysis, abstract algebra, complex variables etc (no differential geometry however). I have also taken a class on QM(using Griffiths) and I saw some SR during a Modern Physics class. I read through Taylor's classical mechanics book last summer as well.

Motivation: I want to learn General Relativity as I have always found it fascinating

So, what do you guys think of General Relativity by Hobson? Ideally, I want a book which provides lots of motivation and examples , I don't usually like terse and dry books. Also, how does this book compare to Hartle, Schutz, and Carroll?

Hartle may be a good choice as he minimises the mathematics. It may be especially good for you if you want to learn GR out of personal interest. If you were going to do graduate work in GR, then you would be better off with the more heavily mathematical texts.
 
  • Like
Likes smodak
I really like Hartle. Caroll and Hobson are also great! I never liked Schutz. Why don't you take a look at the previews and see what works for you best? Or just get Hartle and another book.
 
Thanks for the replies everyone, I guess I will check out Hobson and see how I feel about it.
 
The book is fascinating. If your education includes a typical math degree curriculum, with Lebesgue integration, functional analysis, etc, it teaches QFT with only a passing acquaintance of ordinary QM you would get at HS. However, I would read Lenny Susskind's book on QM first. Purchased a copy straight away, but it will not arrive until the end of December; however, Scribd has a PDF I am now studying. The first part introduces distribution theory (and other related concepts), which...
I've gone through the Standard turbulence textbooks such as Pope's Turbulent Flows and Wilcox' Turbulent modelling for CFD which mostly Covers RANS and the closure models. I want to jump more into DNS but most of the work i've been able to come across is too "practical" and not much explanation of the theory behind it. I wonder if there is a book that takes a theoretical approach to Turbulence starting from the full Navier Stokes Equations and developing from there, instead of jumping from...

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Back
Top