Weinberg vs. Misner, Thorne and Wheeler

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter skowalcz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Weinberg Wheeler
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion compares two foundational texts in general relativity: "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (MTW) and "Gravitation and Cosmology" by Steven Weinberg. MTW is characterized as more geometrical and abstract, making it suitable for advanced learners, particularly those interested in Quantum Gravity. In contrast, Weinberg's text is deemed more practical and easier to navigate for beginners. Participants recommend supplementary readings such as D'Inverno's "Introducing Einstein's Relativity," Carroll's "Spacetime and Geometry," and Wald's "General Relativity" for those starting their journey in general relativity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Basic understanding of special relativity
  • Familiarity with curvature, Christoffel symbols, and connections
  • Knowledge of quantum gravity concepts
  • Experience with mathematical physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study D'Inverno's "Introducing Einstein's Relativity" for foundational concepts
  • Explore Carroll's "Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity" for a comprehensive overview
  • Read Wald's "General Relativity" for advanced insights into the subject
  • Visit Carroll's and Baez's websites for additional bibliographic resources on general relativity
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, aspiring theoretical physicists, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of general relativity and its applications in quantum gravity.

skowalcz
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Which book on general relativity is better to start with?


"Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler,

or

"Gravitation and Cosmology" by Weinberg ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In my opinion, it depends on what you know already and what you want to learn in general relativity [or "get out of learning" general relativity].

MTW is more "geometrical" and more abstract.
Weinberg is more "practical", in some sense.
 
robphy said:
In my opinion, it depends on what you know already and what you want to learn in general relativity [or "get out of learning" general relativity].

MTW is more "geometrical" and more abstract.
Weinberg is more "practical", in some sense.
I learned special relativity a couple of years ago. I know still (almost) nothing about GR. I'm starting in my fourth year now. Up to now I've been doing both physics and mathematics, so I know already something about curvature, Christoffel symbols, connections etc.

Why do I want to learn GR? To solve the Quantum Gravity problem!
 
MTW, the "big black book", is great to have around for all the special topics it covers. But I myself wasn't able to use it for self training. All those different threads and sidebars made it a slog.
 
I like Weinberg is better than MTW.

Pete
 
It's probably fair to say that Weinberg is a particle-physicist and Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler are relativists. So, these perspectives appear in their respective texts.

I tried (and failed) to read MTW sequentially. Instead, I jumped around to the various topics... and I still go back at times trying to understand the subtleties. Weinberg is easier to read and work through sequentially.

For Quantum Gravity, it might be better to go with MTW. However, you might find that D'Inverno's "Introducing Einstein's Relativity", Carroll's "Spacetime and Geometry:An Introduction to General Relativity", or Wald's "General Relativity", might be better books to start off with... on the road to MTW.

Here are some useful guides from Carroll's website
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/grbook/bibliography.html
and from Baez's website
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/reading.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lucas SV

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
8K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 243 ·
9
Replies
243
Views
58K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
770