#171 in Science & math books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product

Reddit mentions of General Relativity

Sentiment score: 6
Reddit mentions: 9

We found 9 Reddit mentions of General Relativity. Here are the top ones.

General Relativity
Buying options
View on Amazon.com
or
University of Chicago Press
Specs:
Height1.43 Inches
Length9.17 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateJune 1984
Weight1.75047036028 pounds
Width6.62 Inches

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Found 9 comments on General Relativity:

u/dogdiarrhea · 11 pointsr/Physics

Carroll

Carroll, course notes (free, I think it may be a preprint of the book)

Schutz

Wald

MTW (Some call it the GR bible)

They're all great books, Schutz I think is the most novice friendly but I believe they all cover tensor calculus and differential geometry in some detail.

u/pa7x1 · 9 pointsr/bestof

Here is a quick overview of the biggest flaws. This post by itself won't serve to explain in detail how Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR) work but hopefully should be enough to help you understand in what way what OP posted is bullshit and provide you some references to dig deeper if you are interested.

> I don't know the specific equation, though it is logarithmic so you have to be pretty far along the curve (much faster than we can travel even with long term nuke bomblet propulsion) to even be noticeable in casual observation.

Time dilation is not logarithmic, it is given by the gamma factor which takes the form 1 / sqrt(1-β^2 ), where β is just the speed of the moving target as a fraction of the speed of light.

>As far as time displacement, I think for all practical purposes, space displacement and time displacement are basically the same thing.

Well... no. Time and space "displacements" are not interchangeable for all purposes neither practical nor theoretical. In fact they are very different in SR and GR, time differences e.g. (t_1 - t_2)^2 are negative in relativity and space differences (s_1 - s_2)^2 are positive, if this doesn't tell you anything by itself try to find 2 numbers whose difference squared is negative. This difference is so important that by itself and assuming spacetime is flat you can derive all of SR.

So with that sentence he not only shows absolutely no understanding of relativity he also killed the only thing that makes Special Relativity different from Galilean relativity.

>In fact, a 'wormhole drive', or gate would effectively be the same as a time dilation drive, in that the mass of the wormhole provides the energy for the Einstein-Rosen bridge, which warps space in such a way that no time passes experientally for the passengers.

No idea what a "time dilation drive" but it is absolutely false that observers crossing and a wormhole don't experience time. In relativity you experience time, all the time at the same rate you are experiencing it right now. It's everyone else who you see experience time at different rates depending on their relative motion with respect to you (hence the name relativity). The best way to understand it is by thinking that everything moves through spacetime at the same speed (the speed of light), when you don't move through space you use all your speed moving forward in time , when something moves with respect to you through space they use a bit of their speed moving through space and the rest moving through time (total adding to the speed of light). Time dilation is just a consequence of this, you see them from your perspective use less speed to move through time.

From your perspective you are always stationary to yourself and you always see the passage of time at the same rate, the same rate you are experiencing it right now.

And the rest of his comment goes on with a very poor understanding of SR and GR.

If you want to dig deeper the wiki articles on SR and GR are actually a great source to start with and they come with graphics and animations that can help a lot visualizing the funky geometry.

Start with this one and follow the rabbit hole:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

For a formal understanding of Special Relativity you don't need much math, a first year course on linear algebra is enough. This book will take you from the very basics to more advanced topics: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/special-relativity/BDBCE66BDA2159DEF8226F8EE210AA8C

General Relativity requires a lot more math background, specifically differential geometry. A very nice book on the subject is Wald's General Relativity: https://www.amazon.com/General-Relativity-Robert-M-Wald/dp/0226870332

u/KerSan · 8 pointsr/AskScienceDiscussion

Start here.

Then go here.

When you're ready for the real thing, start reading this.

If you want to become an expert, go here.

Edit: Between steps 2 and 3, get a physics degree. You need to understand basically all of physics before you can understand anything properly in General Relativity. Sorry...

Edit 2: If you really want a full list of topics to understand before tackling general relativity, the bare minimum is special relativity (the easier bit) and tensor calculus on pseudo-Riemannian manifolds (extremely difficult). I'd strongly advise a deep understanding of differential equations in general, and continuum mechanics in particular. Some knowledge of statistical mechanics and the covariant formulation of electromagnetism would be pretty helpful too. It is also essential to realize that general relativity is still poorly understood by professionals, and almost certainly breaks down at large energy densities. I strongly advise just taking a look at the first two links I posted, since that will give you an excellent and non-dumbed-down flavour of general relativity.

u/Cronecker · 2 pointsr/physicsbooks

The links between topology, geometry and classical mechanics are fairly well documented in the other comments. Geometry and topology are fairly important in modern physics, at least what I've seen of it. General Relativity is the main example of where geometric ideas began to enter into physics. A good resource for this is Sean Carroll's GR notes and corresponding book. There are more advanced GR texts as well, like Wald's book.

There are also some books which deal directly with the links between physics and geometry, such as Frankels book, Szekeres, Agricola and Friedrich and Sternberg. Of these I own Szekeres book which is very good, and Frankels looks very good as well. The other two I am not sure about.

Geometric ideas do raise their head in more areas, as an example it is possible to formulate electromagnetism in terms of tensors or the hodge dual (see here). Additionally, and this is a bit beyond my knowledge, a friend of mine is working on topics in quantum field theory involving knot theory. I'm not exactly sure how this works but the links are certainly there.

Sorry if this all has more of a differential geometry flavour to it rather than a topological one, the diff geo side is what I know better. Hope that all helps. :)

u/DeeperThanNight · 2 pointsr/Physics

For special relativity, I would check out Landau's The Classical Theory of Fields, first few chapters.

For general relativity, Wald's book is the gold standard, and might be better for you as a mathematician.

u/Orion952 · 1 pointr/math

Hartle: http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Introduction-Einsteins-General-Relativity/dp/0805386629/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1420630637&sr=8-7&keywords=general+relativity

Pretty introductory, not a ton of math but enough to satisfy most undergrads. Includes a section on introductory Tensor Calculus.

Carroll: http://www.amazon.com/Spacetime-Geometry-Introduction-General-Relativity/dp/0805387323/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1420630637&sr=8-3&keywords=general+relativity

Probably the best intermediate book, does GR at an intermediate level. Includes several chapters on the math needed.

Wald: http://www.amazon.com/General-Relativity-Robert-M-Wald/dp/0226870332/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1420630637&sr=8-2&keywords=general+relativity

Covers GR at a fairly advanced level. More rigorous books exist, but are not appropriate for a first course.

u/BukkRogerrs · 1 pointr/Physics

Most undergraduate coursework doesn't involve any GR because it isn't a standard part of the curriculum. Some schools may offer an introduction to it at an undergrad level, but it's by no means a topic that undergraduate physics students are expected to be familiar with. As someone else said, even in graduate school you may not touch general relativity if it has nothing to do with your area of study. I do particle physics, but I did take a couple classes on general relativity just out of interest. One was offered in the physics department, the other was in the math department. Although they were teaching the same subject, it was interesting seeing the almost entirely different approach each class took.

If you're interested in learning the math as you learn the physics this is a really helpful book.

u/HollowImage · 0 pointsr/AskPhysics

Ok, so I would recommend Carrol's Spacetime and Geometry http://www.amazon.com/Spacetime-Geometry-Introduction-General-Relativity/dp/0805387323

If you are feeling more up to snuff with tensor calculus and mathematical analysis and can wade your way through R_n analysis, (in terms of problem solving and approaches), then go for Wald's Genearl Relativity http://www.amazon.com/General-Relativity-Robert-M-Wald/dp/0226870332

edit: warning: both of those books are graduate level. Any GR is only taught at grad level, but I took GR with Wald (yep the guy himself) my 3rd year with similar background to yours. You will be fine, but its going to be a lot of head beating against the wall. Some of that stuff is really complex and will possibly require more than one source to understand. JUST the book may not be enough. I would even recommend you talk to your local GR prof and see if you can send him questions as you work through this; I cant imagine any good professor refuse to help you in this way, as long as you dont send a question every 5 minute and they are actually substantial.

also, anything else you would be stepping lower than carrol and i would advise against it if you wanted to get a good grasp of mathematical approaches and rigorous proofs (especially Wald in this case)