GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe}

You stand a great chance of success.
I've a few friends in engineering who have learned general relativity. You definitely have enough of background to start on General Relativity.
The perfect book for your level would be Bernard F. Schutz "A First Course in General Relativity"
Here is what it looks likeIn my opinion, General Relativity is lot easier to learn than Quantum Mechanics, because it's self-contained and doesn't require a broad knowledge base already.All you need is calculus and a knowledge of special relativity, which Schutz will go over any way.If you have any questions at all feel free to ask.

I'd echo everything SG said. Go for it. I knew SG would pip in here with Schutz's book, and I do like it. However, some of my better 17-18 yr old students have had success with D'Inverno... it is much more readable as he puts in the effort to put you at ease. He then hits you hard In his intro I think he mentions how he learned GR at 16, which I'm never sure helps that much!Check it out hereIt's more expensive than Schutz but I really think it is worth it. If you are serious about this, I would definitely recommend getting two books to compare and contrast as you move through the theory.For SG: I remember you saying you liked Schutz becasue of the mathematical emphasis. Have you tried a real mathemtical text like de Felice and Clark (Relativity on Curved Manifolds) or Stewart's (my own GR lecturer) Advanced General Relativity?

I read Einstein when I was in my 20's just out of college with massive amounts of math education and natural ability (tied for 47 state wide in high school, within 99th percentile for the whole state, sim on SAT scores), and thought "what's the problem with understanding this?"So I don't see a problem with getting started in GR and the basics. The problem is more where you go from there. And staying with it.my $/50

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I'm not sure what you're saying...Massive amounts of maths education and natural ability enable you to understand the basics of GR? I'd totally agree.But I'm not sure it's a helpful comment for those that don't feel that they have quite that much mathematics nor quite that level of natural ability, who may still want to understand the basics of GR Of course. There are many good physicists with good solid undergrad/grad training in GR who are not equipped to explain or even understand the deeper GR/black hole/QG/TOE concepts. I've seen them try and utterly fail to teach just a graduate GR class. You have to live and breath this stuff to get anything close to familiarity.

That, I think, is where the intimidation comes in, not in the ability to understand. The willingness to climb the mountain even though you know it takes but a step at a time to get there.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I try to deal with facts and truths... I tend not to pull punches. GR is a common 3rd year undergard level course. Anyone with enough determination and sufficient ability can get that far. But what I am talking about is as far removed from that course as that course is from basic calculus.

This is perhaps the most important piece of advice.
My second choice would be D'Inverno, in fact Schutz and D'Inverno were the books I learned it from.
My praise for Schutz is mainly for Chapter three (one of the best intros to Tensors I have ever seen) and its excellent exercises.Whatever you do have two texts for GR.And if you ever do QM at least three.Anyway, in my opinion Schutz and D'Inverno are the best places to learn GR.For intermediate General Relativty, after you're done with the basics, I think Wald is best for Mathematics and Carroll for intuition and Black Holes. I never read Stewart's Advanced General Relativity, in fact I've only ever skimmed his Elementary General Relativity.As for Felice and Clark I thought it was like the end of Wheeler Misner and Thorne, except more serious and little more fully developed mathematically.
For instance the Spinor and NP sections were a good read in MTW, but you learned more in F&C.(As a side note: Although not that Mathematical, I thought Landau and Lifshitz: "Classical theory of Fields" has one of the best intros to the BKL map.)

never truer words I never looked at his elementary book... I still have nightmares from the P3 exam he set us! Yep, I'd agree with that. This is a science thread so you are not supposed to refer to religious texts The holiest book around...

I really appreciate the guidance and refreshing reassurance you two have given me here. I will try it and use the texts you mention in tandem to try to understand these ideas mathematically. How far off after that is it to having such a commanding perception and interpretation of these things as you two have?

It isn't far off in a "how much stuff you have to learn" sense.
Just in a "think about it on your own" manner.Just think about, come on here and talk about, start reading some blogs by professional physicists, e.t.c.In a sense, once you have the basics down your knowledge will just keep growing and as new stuff is added it refreshes your perspective allowing you to understand stuff you couldn't originally.
Eventually you'll be the one explaining things, which will also further your understanding.It's a fantastic path to take and if there is somebody you need to clarify questions with come here with any questions at all.This message has been edited by Son Goku, 11-29-2005 05:18 AM

How exciting, I really appreciate your help, thanks.

I received both of the books you two mentioned, Schutz and D'Inverno, and have begun with D'Inverno because it goes over special relativity again. I certainly have not had the detailed explanations of the Lorentz Transformations and such before. I am trying to finish understanding the second chapter right now, not too bad so far. A little stuck on the k-factor, but I think I will get it eventually. Thanks again for the tips guys!

Great stuff! Stick with it, and if you want to really understand this stuff, do not let a sentence or equation go by without understanding it. It slows you down considerably, but it pays massive dividends. The more you skip and intend to come back to, the more vague your understanding becomes until it will all be over your head. Use the two books to good effect, and don't forget Wikipedia and John Baez's site. You may just find an odd sentence worded the correct way for understanding to dawn. And believe me, when that understanding starts to dawn, you'll appreciate why relativists don't waste money on LSD If you're really stuck, just drop a note here and I will lend a hand.

Really interesting thread... This is a littel off-topic, but since others where discussing books.....I am very interested in reading something with a bit more meat than the books written for the lay-person (hawking is great, and I've used that as a starter)...My background - BS in computer engineering. So I have a very good understanding of calculus (at least intro to intermediate).. Took lots of classes that involved Laplace and fourier transforms (although that seems hazy now), lots of electric field and semiconductor theory. Any recommendations for books for someone with my background?

Cool, man. Keep at it and remember any question come here. What particular area of physics would you like to learn?