Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #588998 > unrolled thread

Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity (published 2022)

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity (published 2022) Ricardo Jimenez <rickyjim@earthlink.net> - 2022-07-31 19:43 -0400
    Re: Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity (published 2022) Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-07-31 20:19 -0700
      Re: Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity (published 2022) Neal Giordano <bqwc@gcfikwuf.ja> - 2022-08-01 14:30 +0000
        Re: Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity (published 2022) Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-08-01 07:54 -0700
    Re: Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity (published 2022) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-08-01 08:49 +0200
      Re: Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity (published 2022) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-08-02 09:00 +0200
    Re: Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity (published 2022) Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-08-02 00:36 -0700
      Re: Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity (published 2022) Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-08-02 01:05 -0700
      Re: Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity (published 2022) Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-08-03 02:34 -0700
        Re: Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity (published 2022) Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-08-03 04:04 -0700
          Re: Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity (published 2022) Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-08-03 04:11 -0700
          Re: Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity (published 2022) Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-08-03 04:34 -0700
        Re: Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity (published 2022) Ricardo Jimenez <rickyjim@earthlink.net> - 2022-08-03 11:09 -0400
          Re: Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity (published 2022) Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-08-03 08:22 -0700
            Re: Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity (published 2022) Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-08-03 08:58 -0700
            Re: Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity (published 2022) patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-08-03 09:02 -0700
          Re: Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity (published 2022) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-08-03 10:13 -0700
            Re: Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity (published 2022) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-08-03 11:03 -0700
    Re: Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity (published 2022) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-08-02 23:45 -0700
      Re: Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity (published 2022) Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-08-03 00:44 -0700
      Re: Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity (published 2022) Ricardo Jimenez <rickyjim@earthlink.net> - 2022-08-03 11:21 -0400

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#588998 — Sidney Coleman's Lectures on Relativity (published 2022)

From the preface:

"Einstein’s special theory of relativity (1905) is a meta theory in
the sense that it lays down restrictions (Lorentz invariance) that any
physical theory must obey; it is not the story of any particular
phenomenon, but rather a description of the spacetime arena in which
all phenomena take place. If you were to propose some new physical
theory, the first question would be, “Is it consistent with special
relativity?” General relativity, which emerged in pieces from 1909 to
1917, is Einstein’s theory of gravity. It is a generalization of the
special theory only in the sense that whereas the special
theory allows one to do physics in reference frames moving at uniform
velocity, the general theory shows how to do physics in arbitrary
coordinates, with the inclusion of gravity. But it’s a misnomer,
really: it should be called the theory of gravity".

Coleman didn't write the above.  It is due to the editors: David J.
Griffiths, David Derbes, Richard B. Sohn.  I just started to read the
book.  It presents special relativity as derived from symmetry, group
theory and tensor analysis.  There are other books that do that but
this one seems to try to be user friendly.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#589006

On Sunday, July 31, 2022 at 8:43:39 PM UTC-3, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> From the preface: 
> 
> "Einstein’s special theory of relativity (1905) is a meta theory in 
> the sense that it lays down restrictions (Lorentz invariance) that any 
> physical theory must obey; it is not the story of any particular 
> phenomenon, but rather a description of the spacetime arena in which 
> all phenomena take place. If you were to propose some new physical 
> theory, the first question would be, “Is it consistent with special 
> relativity?” General relativity, which emerged in pieces from 1909 to 
> 1917, is Einstein’s theory of gravity. It is a generalization of the 
> special theory only in the sense that whereas the special 
> theory allows one to do physics in reference frames moving at uniform 
> velocity, the general theory shows how to do physics in arbitrary 
> coordinates, with the inclusion of gravity. But it’s a misnomer, 
> really: it should be called the theory of gravity". 
> 
> Coleman didn't write the above. It is due to the editors: David J. 
> Griffiths, David Derbes, Richard B. Sohn. I just started to read the 
> book. It presents special relativity as derived from symmetry, group 
> theory and tensor analysis. There are other books that do that but 
> this one seems to try to be user friendly.

So, Coleman wrote about the Lorentz-Poincaré-Minkowski-Grossman-Hilbert theories.

Einstein did nothing of the above, in particular group theory shit, spacetime shit, tensor analysis shit, and pseudo-Riemann shit.

He required the assistance of Hilbert until March 1916, to understood what shit did he presented to the PAS on Nov. 1915.

He didn't understand the spacetime shit, until 1910, 2 years after Minkowski's death. He was taught by Von Laue and Sommerfeld.
Then, the retarded cretin tried to do something in 1911, failing miserably.

He remained silent between 1907 and 1911 about anything related to gravity and relativity. It means that he FAILED to do something,
even with all the help, until Nov. 1915 (8 years of silence and shame, with his "buddy" Besso).

Because he was a fucking theft, con man, plagiarist, hypocritical charlatan, mathematically inept and only good to make his PR stunts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589025

Richard Hertz wrote:

> Because he was a fucking theft, con man, plagiarist, hypocritical
> charlatan, mathematically inept and only good to make his PR stunts.

reminds me of his public lectures, everybody standing ovation, yet nobody 
understood shit about his relativity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589029

On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 11:30:22 AM UTC-3, Neal Giordano wrote:
> Richard Hertz wrote: 
> 
> > Because he was a fucking theft, con man, plagiarist, hypocritical 
> > charlatan, mathematically inept and only good to make his PR stunts.
> reminds me of his public lectures, everybody standing ovation, yet nobody 
> understood shit about his relativity.


From 1921 to 1933 his itinerary included trips to New York, Japan. China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malacca, Spain, England, Netherlands, 
Uruguay, Palestine, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Cuba, Palm Springs, Oxford, Panama, Honduras, Salvador, France and many others.


Like 10,000 Japanese applauding and cheering in 1922? 
QUOTE WIKI: In 1922, his travels took him to Asia and later to Palestine, as part of a six-month excursion and speaking tour, as he visited Singapore, Ceylon and Japan, where he gave a series of lectures to THOUSANDS of Japanese. 

Like 3,000 Brazilians in 1925 (Rio de Janeiro University)? 
Like 1,800 Argentinians in 1925 (La Plata University)?

He addressed PUBLICLY to no less than 30,000 people, gathered in public places, university facilities, theaters, etc.

A real Zelensky, from 100 years ago. Some PR agents.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589008

Am 01.08.2022 um 01:43 schrieb Ricardo Jimenez:
> "Einstein’s special theory of relativity (1905) is a meta theory in
> the sense that it lays down restrictions (Lorentz invariance) that any
> physical theory must obey;

Besides of tons of 'technical' errors in it, this is not how science works.

I have counted well over four hundred errors of various kinds in 
Einstein's 1905 paper.

If a paper contains more than a few errors, it is, as if it would not 
exist. If it contains that many errors, it is 'toxic'.

This would efficiently exclude this particular paper from any form of 
reference, let alone use as restriction of future theories.

This is, btw, not meant as rejection of relativity itself, but of this 
particular paper.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589076

Am 01.08.2022 um 08:49 schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 01.08.2022 um 01:43 schrieb Ricardo Jimenez:
>> "Einstein’s special theory of relativity (1905) is a meta theory in
>> the sense that it lays down restrictions (Lorentz invariance) that any
>> physical theory must obey;
>
> Besides of tons of 'technical' errors in it, this is not how science works.
>
> I have counted well over four hundred errors of various kinds in
> Einstein's 1905 paper.

In case that someone missed it, here is the link to my 'annotated 
version of SRT'.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dlajModzLK4wgScoOLEMmzpzS2JTUft6/view?usp=sharing 


It is quite ok, but currently I'm working on an improved version. Hence 
I have to appologize, that this version still contains some errors by me.

The next version is hopefully finished at the end of this year.

Now the file contains more than four hundred annotations, which are 
mostly about errors in the text. Many cover more than one errors, while 
some annotations are not about errors.

This would result in  numer of more than four-hundred errors in 'On the 
electrodynamics of moving bodies'.


...


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589078

On Sunday, July 31, 2022 at 6:43:39 PM UTC-5, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> From the preface: 
> 
> "Einstein’s special theory of relativity (1905) is a meta theory in 
> the sense that it lays down restrictions (Lorentz invariance) that any 
> physical theory must obey; it is not the story of any particular 
> phenomenon, but rather a description of the spacetime arena in which 
> all phenomena take place. If you were to propose some new physical 
> theory, the first question would be, “Is it consistent with special 
> relativity?” General relativity, which emerged in pieces from 1909 to 
> 1917, is Einstein’s theory of gravity. It is a generalization of the 
> special theory only in the sense that whereas the special 
> theory allows one to do physics in reference frames moving at uniform 
> velocity, the general theory shows how to do physics in arbitrary 
> coordinates, with the inclusion of gravity. But it’s a misnomer, 
> really: it should be called the theory of gravity". 
> 
> Coleman didn't write the above. It is due to the editors: David J. 
> Griffiths, David Derbes, Richard B. Sohn. I just started to read the 
> book. It presents special relativity as derived from symmetry, group 
> theory and tensor analysis. There are other books that do that but 
> this one seems to try to be user friendly.

As a general rule, I recommend textbooks with solved problems.
I find that unless you can test yourself, it is really difficult to judge 
whether you have truly mastered the material. Unless you are some
sort of genius, of course (which I certainly am not).

My current favorite GR text is "Introducing Einstein's Relativity", by
D'Inverno, supplemented with a *considerable* amount of additional
reading, since I was slow in picking up the required math.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589079

On Tuesday, 2 August 2022 at 09:36:39 UTC+2, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2022 at 6:43:39 PM UTC-5, Ricardo Jimenez wrote: 
> > From the preface: 
> > 
> > "Einstein’s special theory of relativity (1905) is a meta theory in 
> > the sense that it lays down restrictions (Lorentz invariance) that any 
> > physical theory must obey; it is not the story of any particular 
> > phenomenon, but rather a description of the spacetime arena in which 
> > all phenomena take place. If you were to propose some new physical 
> > theory, the first question would be, “Is it consistent with special 
> > relativity?” General relativity, which emerged in pieces from 1909 to 
> > 1917, is Einstein’s theory of gravity. It is a generalization of the 
> > special theory only in the sense that whereas the special 
> > theory allows one to do physics in reference frames moving at uniform 
> > velocity, the general theory shows how to do physics in arbitrary 
> > coordinates, with the inclusion of gravity. But it’s a misnomer, 
> > really: it should be called the theory of gravity". 
> > 
> > Coleman didn't write the above. It is due to the editors: David J. 
> > Griffiths, David Derbes, Richard B. Sohn. I just started to read the 
> > book. It presents special relativity as derived from symmetry, group 
> > theory and tensor analysis. There are other books that do that but 
> > this one seems to try to be user friendly.
> As a general rule, I recommend textbooks with solved problems. 

And I recommend the reality, with forbidden by your bunch
of idiots GPS and TAI keeping measuring t'=t, like all serious 
clocks always did.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589157

On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 5:36:39 PM UTC+10, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:

> 
> My current favorite GR text is "Introducing Einstein's Relativity", by 
> D'Inverno, supplemented with a *considerable* amount of additional 
> reading, since I was slow in picking up the required math.

I know I have a bit of catching up on the math as well, but as it's always good to challenge yourself (I heard a quote recently : "Nothing good has ever come from a comfort zone" ! ) : Thanks for the recommendation, I've just ordered "Introducing Einstein's Relativity".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589161

On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 4:34:12 AM UTC-5, Ufonaut wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 5:36:39 PM UTC+10, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > My current favorite GR text is "Introducing Einstein's Relativity", by 
> > D'Inverno, supplemented with a *considerable* amount of additional 
> > reading, since I was slow in picking up the required math.
> I know I have a bit of catching up on the math as well, but as it's always
> good to challenge yourself (I heard a quote recently : "Nothing good has
> ever come from a comfort zone" ! ) : Thanks for the recommendation,
> I've just ordered "Introducing Einstein's Relativity".

I started on D'Inverno five years ago. On pages 10-11, D'Inverno wrote 
"A final note for the less able student" which spoke directly to me. He
related how he was a very ordinary student, yet actually learned some
*actual* GR as a teenager from an old book by Lillian Lieber. (The 
corrected, updated 2008 edition is vastly better than the original 1945
edition)  He warned, however: "This is a very bizarre book in appearance. 
The book is not set out in the usual way but rather as though it were 
concrete poetry. Moreover, it is interspersed by surrealist drawings by 
Hugh Lieber involving the symbols from the text. I must confess that 
at first sight the book looks rather cranky, but it is not."

Despite the warning, I picked up Lieber and spent several months 
having a really enjoyable time working through Lieber before tackling
D'Inverno.

Lieber used the coordinate transformation approach to tensor analysis. 
The modern approach to tensor analysis stresses the geometrical nature 
of tensors rather than the transformation properties of their components.  
Because of the coordinate-free nature of the abstract view, it is often 
considered more physical. However, books on general relativity written in 
a manner intended to be usable by autodidacts (textbooks as well as 
semi-popularizations) usually adopt the coordinate transformation 
approach as requiring less mathematical sophistication on the part of 
the reader. 

That meant me.

Although the current editors updated and corrected the text, they left
much as Lieber originally wrote it. Lieber, as did Einstein, preferred to 
use subscripted dx_i rather than superscripted dx^i in the tensor formulas. 
Current practice is to use superscripts to emphasize that the dx^i are 
displacement vectors that transform as contravariant vectors. Also, she 
used the outmoded { \mu \nu , \lambda } notation for the Christoffel symbol 
rather than Gamma _{\mu \nu }^{\lambda }. Furthermore, Lieber used 
B_{\sigma \tau \rho }^{\alpha } rather than the currently more commonly 
used R_{\sigma \rho \tau }^{\alpha }for the Riemann-Christoffel curvature
tensor. 

I think that Lieber is a really fun way of getting your feet wet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589162

On Wednesday, 3 August 2022 at 13:05:00 UTC+2, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 4:34:12 AM UTC-5, Ufonaut wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 5:36:39 PM UTC+10, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > My current favorite GR text is "Introducing Einstein's Relativity", by 
> > > D'Inverno, supplemented with a *considerable* amount of additional 
> > > reading, since I was slow in picking up the required math. 
> > I know I have a bit of catching up on the math as well, but as it's always 
> > good to challenge yourself (I heard a quote recently : "Nothing good has 
> > ever come from a comfort zone" ! ) : Thanks for the recommendation, 
> > I've just ordered "Introducing Einstein's Relativity".
> I started on D'Inverno five years ago. On pages 10-11, D'Inverno wrote 
> "A final note for the less able student" which spoke directly to me. He 
> related how he was a very ordinary student, yet actually learned some 
> *actual* GR as a teenager from an old book by Lillian Lieber. (The 
> corrected, updated 2008 edition is vastly better than the original 1945 
> edition) He warned, however: "This is a very bizarre book in appearance. 
> The book is not set out in the usual way but rather as though it were 
> concrete poetry. Moreover, it is interspersed by surrealist drawings by 
> Hugh Lieber involving the symbols from the text. I must confess that 
> at first sight the book looks rather cranky, but it is not." 
> 
> Despite the warning, I picked up Lieber and spent several months 
> having a really enjoyable time working through Lieber before tackling 
> D'Inverno. 
> 
> Lieber used the coordinate transformation approach to tensor analysis. 
> The modern approach to tensor analysis stresses the geometrical nature 
> of tensors rather than the transformation properties of their components.  
> Because of the coordinate-free nature of the abstract view, it is often 
> considered more physical. However, books on general relativity written in 
> a manner intended to be usable by autodidacts (textbooks as well as 
> semi-popularizations) usually adopt the coordinate transformation 
> approach as requiring less mathematical sophistication on the part of 
> the reader. 
> 
> That meant me. 
> 
> Although the current editors updated and corrected the text, they left 
> much as Lieber originally wrote it. Lieber, as did Einstein, preferred to 
> use subscripted dx_i rather than superscripted dx^i in the tensor formulas. 
> Current practice is to use superscripts to emphasize that the dx^i are 
> displacement vectors that transform as contravariant vectors. Also, she 
> used the outmoded { \mu \nu , \lambda } notation for the Christoffel symbol 
> rather than Gamma _{\mu \nu }^{\lambda }. Furthermore, Lieber used 
> B_{\sigma \tau \rho }^{\alpha } rather than the currently more commonly 
> used R_{\sigma \rho \tau }^{\alpha }for the Riemann-Christoffel curvature 
> tensor. 
> 
> I think that Lieber is a really fun way of getting your feet wet.

In the meantime in the real world, of course, forbidden 
by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589163

On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 6:05:00 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> I think that Lieber is a really fun way of getting your feet wet.

Lieber stopped at the vacuum field equations which are valid 
only in regions of space where the energy-momentum tensor is
zero, which is to say, in regions devoid of mass-energy. 
Nevertheless, she obtained a variety of interesting results with
this limited approach, including derivation of the Schwarzschild
metric and an exploration of some of its consequences.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589171

On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 02:34:10 -0700 (PDT), Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 5:36:39 PM UTC+10, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> 
>> My current favorite GR text is "Introducing Einstein's Relativity", by 
>> D'Inverno, supplemented with a *considerable* amount of additional 
>> reading, since I was slow in picking up the required math.
>
>I know I have a bit of catching up on the math as well, but as it's always good to challenge yourself (I heard a quote recently : "Nothing good has ever come from a comfort zone" ! ) : Thanks for the recommendation, I've just ordered "Introducing Einstein's Relativity".

There is a new edition called "Introducing Einstein's Relativity A
deeper understanding" that just came out coauthored with James
Vickers.  It has this preface:
This book provides an excellent introduction to the ideas and basic
mathematical techniques needed for a study
of Einstein’s superb – and now widely observationally confirmed –
general theory of relativity. The underlying
concepts and basic mathematics are presented with utmost clarity and
by numerous greatly illuminating diagrams.
The reader is taken on a gentle but comprehensive route up to
cosmology, as currently understood, and to the
strange features of rotating black holes and to gravitational waves. I
am sure that it will inspire many students
and other readers to enter into the beauties and of the power of this
subject, which deeply underlies much of the
physics of our world, and perhaps it will inspire others to carry this
understanding further into what is currently
unknown.
Roger Penrose
July 2021

The treatment of special relativity, at first glance, seems the same
as in the original edition.  It is based on the Bondi k-factor.  I
don't like that.  It makes more sense to me to establish, from the
start, the gamma factor which is a simpler concept.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589173

On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 10:09:44 AM UTC-5, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:

> The treatment of special relativity, at first glance, seems the same 
> as in the original edition. It is based on the Bondi k-factor. I 
> don't like that. It makes more sense to me to establish, from the 
> start, the gamma factor which is a simpler concept.

I was first taught using the two-postulates approach, which of
course is currently recognized as being fraught with pedagogical
issues, especially 

As to which is the best "modern" approach to SR, well, there are
plenty of differences of opinion. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589175

On Wednesday, 3 August 2022 at 17:23:00 UTC+2, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 10:09:44 AM UTC-5, Ricardo Jimenez wrote: 
> 
> > The treatment of special relativity, at first glance, seems the same 
> > as in the original edition. It is based on the Bondi k-factor. I 
> > don't like that. It makes more sense to me to establish, from the 
> > start, the gamma factor which is a simpler concept.
> I was first taught using the two-postulates approach, which of 
> course is currently recognized as being fraught with pedagogical 
> issues, especially 
> 
> As to which is the best "modern" approach to SR, well, there are 
> plenty of differences of opinion.

In the meantime in the real world, of course, forbidden
by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589176

On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 8:23:00 AM UTC-7, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 10:09:44 AM UTC-5, Ricardo Jimenez wrote: 
> 
> > The treatment of special relativity, at first glance, seems the same 
> > as in the original edition. It is based on the Bondi k-factor. I 
> > don't like that. It makes more sense to me to establish, from the 
> > start, the gamma factor which is a simpler concept.
> I was first taught using the two-postulates approach, which of 
> course is currently recognized as being fraught with pedagogical 
> issues, especially 
> 
> As to which is the best "modern" approach to SR, well, there are 
> plenty of differences of opinion.
Prokary, no amount of lipstick will pretty up the pig that is SR.  Bondi is clearly an attempt at obfuscating the very heart of SR: it's postulates.  What you call rather harmlessly "pedagogical problems" are in fact fatal issues of logico-physical inconsistency.  You might as well commiserate with Ptolemy over the "pedagogical problems" of his earth-centered solar system.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589185

Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 02:34:10 -0700 (PDT), Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 5:36:39 PM UTC+10, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> My current favorite GR text is "Introducing Einstein's Relativity", by
> >> D'Inverno, supplemented with a *considerable* amount of additional
> >> reading, since I was slow in picking up the required math.
> >
> >I know I have a bit of catching up on the math as well, but as it's always good to challenge yourself (I heard a quote recently : "Nothing good has ever come from a comfort zone" ! ) : Thanks for the recommendation, I've just ordered "Introducing Einstein's Relativity".
> 
> There is a new edition called "Introducing Einstein's Relativity A
> deeper understanding" that just came out coauthored with James
> Vickers.  It has this preface:
> This book provides an excellent introduction to the ideas and basic
> mathematical techniques needed for a study
> of Einstein’s superb – and now widely observationally confirmed –
> general theory of relativity. The underlying
> concepts and basic mathematics are presented with utmost clarity and
> by numerous greatly illuminating diagrams.
> The reader is taken on a gentle but comprehensive route up to
> cosmology, as currently understood, and to the
> strange features of rotating black holes and to gravitational waves. I
> am sure that it will inspire many students
> and other readers to enter into the beauties and of the power of this
> subject, which deeply underlies much of the
> physics of our world, and perhaps it will inspire others to carry this
> understanding further into what is currently
> unknown.
> Roger Penrose
> July 2021
> 
> The treatment of special relativity, at first glance, seems the same
> as in the original edition.  It is based on the Bondi k-factor.  I
> don't like that.  It makes more sense to me to establish, from the
> start, the gamma factor which is a simpler concept.


maybe he should come out with a 3rd edition and add the words atomic
bomb to it....





-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589192

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 02:34:10 -0700 (PDT), Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 5:36:39 PM UTC+10, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> My current favorite GR text is "Introducing Einstein's Relativity", by
> > >> D'Inverno, supplemented with a *considerable* amount of additional
> > >> reading, since I was slow in picking up the required math.
> > >
> > >I know I have a bit of catching up on the math as well, but as it's always good to challenge yourself (I heard a quote recently : "Nothing good has ever come from a comfort zone" ! ) : Thanks for the recommendation, I've just ordered "Introducing Einstein's Relativity".
> >
> > There is a new edition called "Introducing Einstein's Relativity A
> > deeper understanding" that just came out coauthored with James
> > Vickers.  It has this preface:
> > This book provides an excellent introduction to the ideas and basic
> > mathematical techniques needed for a study
> > of Einstein’s superb – and now widely observationally confirmed –
> > general theory of relativity. The underlying
> > concepts and basic mathematics are presented with utmost clarity and
> > by numerous greatly illuminating diagrams.
> > The reader is taken on a gentle but comprehensive route up to
> > cosmology, as currently understood, and to the
> > strange features of rotating black holes and to gravitational waves. I
> > am sure that it will inspire many students
> > and other readers to enter into the beauties and of the power of this
> > subject, which deeply underlies much of the
> > physics of our world, and perhaps it will inspire others to carry this
> > understanding further into what is currently
> > unknown.
> > Roger Penrose
> > July 2021
> >
> > The treatment of special relativity, at first glance, seems the same
> > as in the original edition.  It is based on the Bondi k-factor.  I
> > don't like that.  It makes more sense to me to establish, from the
> > start, the gamma factor which is a simpler concept.
> 
> maybe he should come out with a 3rd edition and add the words atomic
> bomb to it....


When I look at the cover of Time Magazine
http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1946/1101460701_400.jpg

it reads Einstein's 1905 paper equates to Atomic Bomb, not  relativity.


Albert Einstein didn't want to do a Relativity experiment, he want to do an Atomic Bomb experiment.
http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1946/1101460701_400.jpg


If you girls cannot understand Einstein's 1905 paper, surely you can understand a picture of it:

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1946/1101460701_400.jpg



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589147

On Sunday, July 31, 2022 at 4:43:39 PM UTC-7, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> From the preface: 
> 
> "Einstein’s special theory of relativity (1905) is a meta theory in 
> the sense that it lays down restrictions (Lorentz invariance) that any 
> physical theory must obey; it is not the story of any particular 
> phenomenon, but rather a description of the spacetime arena in which 
> all phenomena take place. If you were to propose some new physical 
> theory, the first question would be, “Is it consistent with special 
> relativity?” General relativity, which emerged in pieces from 1909 to 
> 1917, is Einstein’s theory of gravity. It is a generalization of the 
> special theory only in the sense that whereas the special 
> theory allows one to do physics in reference frames moving at uniform 
> velocity,

This is not true. Special theory can be done in any coordinates. The distinction
between special and general is that the special one explicitly uses the linear
structure of spacetime. And just like, say, vector calculus which likewise relies
on the global linear structure, it can operate within any coordinate system if
proper care is taken.

OTOH general relativity only assumes spacetime is a (pseudo-)Riemannian manifold.

> the general theory shows how to do physics in arbitrary 
> coordinates, with the inclusion of gravity. But it’s a misnomer, 
> really: it should be called the theory of gravity". 

Yes. And special relativity should be called "Einsteinian mechanics", by analogy
with "Newtonian mechanics".

> Coleman didn't write the above. It is due to the editors: David J. 
> Griffiths, David Derbes, Richard B. Sohn. I just started to read the 
> book. It presents special relativity as derived from symmetry, group 
> theory and tensor analysis. There are other books that do that but 
> this one seems to try to be user friendly.

It's a very good approach in many ways but in my experience it's a
paedagogical disaster. It's much better IMHO to teach special relativity
within an electrodynamics course (like Griffiths does in his famous
undergrad text, except he makes the usual mistake of not following
Einstein's original description of it which is much better from the student's
point of view; instead, he just says "the speed of light is a constant" and
leaves the student wondering why on earth would anyone even half-sane want
this sort of "idiotic on its face" requirement?)

This is clear from Einstein's text (and Lorentz's 1904 text) but it does take
more time to do it in the classroom. Unfortunately (we can see the results of
this pedagogy on this NG daily).

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589150

On Wednesday, 3 August 2022 at 08:45:51 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:

> > Coleman didn't write the above. It is due to the editors: David J. 
> > Griffiths, David Derbes, Richard B. Sohn. I just started to read the 
> > book. It presents special relativity as derived from symmetry, group 
> > theory and tensor analysis. There are other books that do that but 
> > this one seems to try to be user friendly.
> It's a very good approach in many ways but in my experience it's a 
> paedagogical disaster. 

It's a must-be consequence of the madness of your bunch of idiots.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web