Talk:General relativity resources

Waner's on-line course

I have recently found an online resource for General Theory , http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/Stefan_Waner/RealWorld/pdfs/DiffGeom.pdf It is a nice condensed text on General Theory. Arkapravo Bhaumik 05:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at it. It seems OK to me. Feel free to add it as a tutorial.

--EMS | Talk 03:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this course has been listed since the radiation dominated epoch over at RWWW. ---CH

Rindler books

I am not happy about putting those in the list, at least not with the other advanced undergraduate textbooks. So I am moving them to a new section, beginning undergraduate.---CH 04:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned that we not get into attempting to list every textbook on the market. I feel a shorter list which mentions the very best textbooks and so forth is more useful than some attempt to provide an exhaustive list, which in any case would duplicate existing bibliographic resources. I have been mulling over adding the textbook by Hartle for some time, and feel a stronger case can be made for this book than the books by Rindler. Question for the editor who added the books by Rindler: what exceptional qualities do you feel this books offer? Do you think they are preferable for the average undergraduate (especially for self-study) to the book by Hartle?

I inserted the new section to maintain consistency with the style of the list, which is organized by level, and the books by Rindler (and some others) are clearly at a level in between popular and textbooks such as Schutz. But I am also concerned that we avoid giving newbies the impression that this is such a terribly difficult subject that one needs to proceed in baby steps. My first relativity book was Gravitation and I am very glad that I skipped over easier books! So I'd prefer to remove the Rindler books unless someone can make a strong argument for keeping them. Perhaps we can just point to another list, e.g. the RWWW list from which this list is excerpted? ---CH 05:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that you have the right priorities here. I feel that this page should be comprehensive but not exhaustive, providing an broad overview of the most significant and useful works about general relativity. So it can stand to get somewhat bigger, but no too much so. --EMS | Talk 22:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I have found Rindler's books as a very readable and accessible resource for self-study. It is certainly true that they handwave a lot of mathematical formalism and lack depth in a number of important topics (especially "Essential Relativity"), but I think that they still offer an excellent basic introduction to the field (this is pretty much what I've already written in my additions to the article). There are at least some people who would like to understand the basics of GR, but their background in special relativity and the necessary math is inadequate and/or rusty. I believe that for such people, Rindler's books are a very good start. Unfortunately I haven't checked out Hartle's book, so I can't compare it to Rindler's.

Generally, if you know of books superior to Rindler's that offer an introduction at a similar level (Hartle's?), feel free to replace them. But I do think that some books at that level should be on the list — of course, along with clear statements of what one can expect to learn from them. For someone interested in relativity as a hobby, who lacks the time and background necessary for in-depth study, I would certainly recommend a lightweight, beginner-level textbook that still teaches real physics rather than popular literature (which in my experience leaves people with a lot of confusion and little actual understanding).

In my last edit, I've removed a somewhat disparaging comment, but kept CH's proposed new section. I also added two more nice and readable sets of lecture notes available for free online. —Ivan Matosevic 21:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Link added by anon to blackholes.org

User:El C, good catch! The site blackholes.org does not appear to be affiliated with either Caltech or Cornell (not even registered in same state as either of those institutions), and the linked file appears to be nonexistent. We need to be very careful to examine anon edits for this kind of mischief. ---CH 01:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Carroll, grad or undergrad?

Hi, Fropuff, I agree this book is somewhere between advanced UG and graduate. I do tend to try to encourage students to aim high, which tends to shift my judgement of level upwards from those with more experience teaching "live" students :-/ I still prefer calling it "UG" because of its exceptional clarity and because I'd really like all UG physics students to read it. The (excellent!) appendices are also indicative of a textbook intended for "dual-use". Anyone else?---CH 01:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Students beware

I extensively rewrote the August 2006 version of this article, which is largely based upon a more extensive list at the website Relativity on the World Wide Web, which was originally created by me, but is now hosted by someone else.

I had been monitoring this list for bad edits, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning it to its fate.

Just wanted to provide notice that I am only responsible (in part) for the last version I edited; see User:Hillman/Archive. I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions, although I hope for the best.

Good luck in your search for information, regardless!---CH 23:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington

I first learned GTR from "Space-time and Relativity" by Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington. But I do not see it on this list. Is it still in print? (Perhaps it was 1920. Space, Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-33709-7 which I see in his biography.) JRSpriggs 10:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Leonard Susskind Course

I think it would be worth including a link to Leonard Susskind's video lectures on General Relativity, but I am not sure which section it belongs in. Here is the link. msleifer 21:30, 7 June 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msleifer (talk • contribs)