- #1
- 684
- 5
MTW Gravitation is a standard text. For someone learning from this text, what advances since 1973 should he be aware of? Are there any actual corrections: instances of something accepted in 1973 but now known to be wrong?
pellman said:Thanks, bcrowell.
MaxwellsDemon said:As a person who has been self studying from MTW I can tell you that it can be a bit overwhelming at first. There is almost too much information to deal with. It helped me to get a couple different texts to suppliment it...Wald was useful.
MaxwellsDemon said:lol... MTW is a great book stuffed with lots of information, but I get the feeling I could spend years trying to learn about everything in there and follow through meticulously. Supporting texts like Wald have helped a lot. I also found an old short book by Dirac that summarizes a lot of basic ideas and formulas.
MaxwellsDemon said:As a person who has been self studying from MTW I can tell you that it can be a bit overwhelming at first. There is almost too much information to deal with. It helped me to get a couple different texts to suppliment it...Wald was useful.
Ben Niehoff said:I'm not much of a fan of MTW. I think their writing style makes everything seem much harder than it really is. The entire book could be compressed to a third of the size, if they would just stick to simple, straightforward explanations rather than droning on in their particular dramatization of differential geometry.
Their notation leaves a lot to be desired, too. They use too many different fonts in their formulas, to represent different mathematical objects. In my opinion a printed formula should not use typographical distinctions that cannot be reproduced in handwriting.
Frame Dragger said:Overwhelmingly dense... *drools*. :!)
atyy said:I don't agree. The fabulous masterpiece is aggressively meditative.
Ben Niehoff said:I'm not much of a fan of MTW. I think their writing style makes everything seem much harder than it really is.
Frame Dragger said:Overwhelmingly dense... *drools*. :!)
Altabeh said:Hey man, think of quality, not density!
AB
Altabeh said:I strongly agree! They treat GR like it is something written under the influence of QM with all those complicated and twisted notations which look more alike a difficult matheamtical guide for GR than a book that provides reader with the usual litrature of GR! For instance, D'inverno, Weinberg and Hobbson use a quite simple style to express things and are more helpful than MTW just because the latter uses unnecessary explanations and prolongated proofs\derivations which if were neglected, the book would end at page 500!
There are lots of thin books that can be more fruitful than MTW for an interested reader. If you are after a preliminary book in the context, go with D'inverno, Hartle, Ohanian or Schutz. If you are looking for something much harder and up-to-date, try Weinberg, Witten's Gravitation: an introduction to current research or Poisson's a relativistic toolkit.
Leave MTW alone if you're not so patient in learning GR.
AB
Frame Dragger said:That said, as you say Altabeh, it's clearly not an introductory text, and I won't treat it as such. I have a copy of Poisson's: A Relativistic Toolkit, but I feel MTW can help me expand my understanding of the math, where I am weakest.
Altabeh said:Anyways, did you begin to study MTW and how much time does it take for you to finish each page with a full understanding of the points in the end?
AB
The Misner, Thorne, Wheeler (MTW) theory is a famous theory in general relativity that explains the laws of gravitation and the geometry of space-time. It was developed by physicists Charles Misner, Kip Thorne, and John Wheeler in their book "Gravitation" published in 1973.
The MTW theory has several shortcomings, including its complexity and difficulty in understanding. It also does not fully account for quantum mechanics and the behavior of matter at a microscopic level, and it cannot explain the observed acceleration of the universe's expansion.
The MTW theory is different from other theories of gravity, such as Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's theory of general relativity, in that it takes a geometrical approach to explain the behavior of matter and energy in space-time.
There is currently no direct evidence that supports the shortcomings of the MTW theory. However, observations of the universe's expansion and the behavior of matter at a microscopic level suggest that there may be limitations to the theory's accuracy.
It is possible that the limitations of the MTW theory can be overcome by incorporating new scientific discoveries and advancements in technology. Some physicists are working on developing new theories, such as string theory and loop quantum gravity, that may provide a more comprehensive understanding of gravity and the universe.