Special Relativity Textbooks

[spratleyj]

First let me state that I not completed any math beyond Pre-Cal. So I'm looking for a book that does more than just discuss concepts, but that doesn't use too much calculus. Several people recommended Spacetime Physics by Wheeler and Taylor, and Special Relativity by A.P. French. My question is do you think that Special Relativity requires the knowledge of calculus? I know that it does contain some problems which require the use of calculus, but is that something you can fight through or is it a road block?

P.S.
The main reason I'm considering French over Wheeler & Taylor is that his book costs twenty dollars less - :) Which is in itself sad

[grant hutchison]

I think you'll get a great deal from French without calculus: it's not much used, and you can easily just skip over those parts and accept the results on trust for now.
French is also a bit more information-dense than Taylor and Wheeler: Taylor and Wheeler are good for emphasizing the big, broad concepts; French walks you through the detail.

Grant Hutchison

[spratleyj]

So would you say that French has the best special relativity textbook?

* That is for people like me, who haven't studied calculus yet *

[Sticks]

So what is your problem with calculus?

The world of physics really needs it, as we mentioned in another thread. Maybe others here could suggest books to help get to grips with this subject.

As for books on relativity and also the quantum world, again by reputation I would suggest Mr Tompkins in paperback

[gzhpcu]

A nice little book is *Relativity for the Layman" by James A. Coleman. No math needed, just concepts.

If you want to tackle Calculus, ideal for self study are the Schaum's Outlines series, like "Beginning Calculus".

[grant hutchison]

So would you say that French has the best special relativity textbook?

* That is for people like me, who haven't studied calculus yet *I think it's good, and clearly written, and detailed, and you'll get into the mathematics and ideas of special relativity without needing calculus.

Grant Hutchison

[grant hutchison]

So what is your problem with calculus?The guy's at school, Sticks: he just hasn't got to that bit of the curriculum yet. Some of us can remember the frustration that involves. :)
Mr Tompkins is fine, but is utterly devoid of maths apart from mentioning a couple of the conventional formulae. I get the feeling spratleyj wants more than that, and there's no reason he can't get into the derivation of basic SR right now, pre-calculus.

Grant Hutchison

[Tensor]

So what is your problem with calculus?

Sticks, spratleyj is only 15 and if I remember correctly, doesn't even have enought algebra to have a good foundation for calc. He's quite bright, and picks up things rather quickly, but he is still learning.

edit: I see Grant beat me to it.

[Sticks]

Sorry that came out wrong, for some reason I thought he might have been struggling with it, and wondered if we could help with that as well

:doh:

[trinitree88]

Spratley. Try Dover Book's paperback series. Google: Einstein's Theory of Relativity by Max Born. It gives you a good historical approach to the dilemma that resulted in SR, using only algebra. ~ 10 bucks from Amazon. After you read that & feel comfortable with it, wait till you study some calculus before you tackle GR, which is a whole different animal mathematically, and with the math in place you will appreciate the subtleties better. pete

P.S. Don't be surprised to find that it takes a considerable while for even a good student to feel comfortable with GR.

[spratleyj]

The guy's at school, Sticks: he just hasn't got to that bit of the curriculum yet. Some of us can remember the frustration that involves. :)
Mr Tompkins is fine, but is utterly devoid of maths apart from mentioning a couple of the conventional formulae. I get the feeling spratleyj wants more than that, and there's no reason he can't get into the derivation of basic SR right now, pre-calculus.

Grant Hutchison

Exactly! I have read tons of "concept" books (probably too many), and now I'm looking for something a little deeper. I think French's textbook is well balanced for me, because it discusses more than just concepts, but doesn't have to much calculus.

How much calculus is required to understand special relativity? I'm taking AP Calculus AB next year and then probably BC the following year - is that enough?

Thanks for the help.

[DrRocket]

Exactly! I have read tons of "concept" books (probably too many), and now I'm looking for something a little deeper. I think French's textbook is well balanced for me, because it discusses more than just concepts, but doesn't have to much calculus.

How much calculus is required to understand special relativity? I'm taking AP Calculus AB next year and then probably BC the following year - is that enough?

Thanks for the help.

Surprisingly you can get a fair amount of understanding of special relativity without calculus. It is better with it, but a good deal of relativity only requires algebra.

Since you are taking calculus now, I suggest that you go ahead a get a book that uses a bit of calculus and just skip the sections that you don't understand -- yet. Then later you can go back and read the few sections that use some calculus. What is used is actually not much and you may have enought background from your class already.

My favorite book is Introduction to Special Relativity by Wolfgang Rindler. Rindler is a noted expert in relativity -- special and general.

In truth any book with a title like "Modern Physics" will have a chapter or two on special relativity. The sections in The Feynman Lectures on Physics that cover special relativity are also very good. The 3 volume set is a bit pricey (all science books are these days) but it would be money very well spent if you have an interest in physics.

[alainprice]

I don't get it.

You can derive special relativity in its entirety without calculus. You can do it all without calculus. It's just that calc can be a great shortcut.

I say jump into SR and forget you ever heard of General Relativity until you graduate with a math degree.

[grant hutchison]

You can derive special relativity in its entirety without calculus. You can do it all without calculus.You can certainly get SR without calculus, which is what I think DrRocket and I have been encouraging spratleyj to do.
But there are things you can't do with SR without calculus; like accelerated motion, for instance.

I think French's book is probably pitching at about the right level for spratleyj, in that you can get right through the main text without hitting many integral signs, and you can walk right by those on first reading without getting lost.

Grant Hutchison

[alainprice]

I don't remember any integration in HS calc. That was a first year university course for me. I'm afraid of pushing him out into deeper waters than he needs.

Spratley, what do you already know about relativity?

[grant hutchison]

I don't remember any integration in HS calc.Really? Gad. What do you do at high school these days? ;) I'd had a year and a half of integration before I went to university.

French uses integrals in the last chapter on electrodynamics. Before that, there are sporadic differentiations.
Taylor and Wheeler likewise introduce a little differentiation. I haven't spotted an integral sign while leafing quickly through their book.
Mook and Vargish (Inside Relativity) provide a purely algebraic presentation with quite a lot of meat, which might be another possibility.

Spratleyj, have you considered getting some of these books on loan through your local library, to check which one suits you best?

Grant Hutchison

[spratleyj]

Really? Gad. What do you do at high school these days? ;) I'd had a year and a half of integration before I went to university.

French uses integrals in the last chapter on electrodynamics. Before that, there are sporadic differentiations.
Taylor and Wheeler likewise introduce a little differentiation. I haven't spotted an integral sign while leafing quickly through their book.
Mook and Vargish (Inside Relativity) provide a purely algebraic presentation with quite a lot of meat, which might be another possibility.

Spratleyj, have you considered getting some of these books on loan through your local library, to check which one suits you best?

Grant Hutchison


Well I would love to just check them out at the library, but it doesn't have any "textbooks". It only contains the more widely-known "conceptual" books.

[spratleyj]

I don't remember any integration in HS calc. That was a first year university course for me. I'm afraid of pushing him out into deeper waters than he needs.

Spratley, what do you already know about relativity?

I know that the AP Calculus covers intergration... I'm not sure about "normal" high school calculus, through I think it is usually covered.

Anyways, I basically know the concepts, but haven't gone over any of the math.

[Tim Thompson]

I have Taylor & Wheeler's Spacetime physics (both editions) and I think it is the best book to start with. The math is certainly not beyond your abilities, and the physics is very well laid out. I find that the math is easier for me to understand if I have already grasped the physics behind it, and Spacetime Physics is the perfect book for that. It is also very practical in its approach, concentrating on problem solving, with lots of worked out examples. They deal directly with a number of "paradoxes" that we see around BAUT all the time, like the "twin paradox", as well as several that we don't see, but are just as curious & interesting. I say go with Spacetime physics.

I have Rindler's Introduction to Special Relativity somewhere, but when I retired I had to clean the books out of my office and I'm not sure which pile it's in now. But I do have his older book (1977 2nd edition) Essential Relativity; Special, General and Cosmological, which is mostly Special. I like Rindler's books, and he does give more lead in from classical mechanics than you will get from Taylor & Wheeler.

I don't know French's book; I have seen it but don't have it & never used it.

Spratleyj - I assume your short term goal is obvious enough, to learn special relativity (SR). Is there a long term goal? Are you planning on a degree in physics or a related field? Have you studied Newtonian mechanics at all? Usually special relativity is easier to handle if you already know something about classical mechanics, since SR is really an extension of classical mechanics.

[grant hutchison]

Well I would love to just check them out at the library, but it doesn't have any "textbooks". It only contains the more widely-known "conceptual" books.I don't know how it works in the US.
Public libraries in the UK can obtain books for you that aren't on their shelves, if you place a loan order with them. It's also possible for high school students to access the stacks of the local university library, by prior arrangement.

Grant Hutchison

[spratleyj]

I have Taylor & Wheeler's Spacetime physics (both editions) and I think it is the best book to start with. The math is certainly not beyond your abilities, and the physics is very well laid out. I find that the math is easier for me to understand if I have already grasped the physics behind it, and Spacetime Physics is the perfect book for that. It is also very practical in its approach, concentrating on problem solving, with lots of worked out examples. They deal directly with a number of "paradoxes" that we see around BAUT all the time, like the "twin paradox", as well as several that we don't see, but are just as curious & interesting. I say go with Spacetime physics.

I have Rindler's Introduction to Special Relativity somewhere, but when I retired I had to clean the books out of my office and I'm not sure which pile it's in now. But I do have his older book (1977 2nd edition) Essential Relativity; Special, General and Cosmological, which is mostly Special. I like Rindler's books, and he does give more lead in from classical mechanics than you will get from Taylor & Wheeler.

I don't know French's book; I have seen it but don't have it & never used it.

Spratleyj - I assume your short term goal is obvious enough, to learn special relativity (SR). Is there a long term goal? Are you planning on a degree in physics or a related field? Have you studied Newtonian mechanics at all? Usually special relativity is easier to handle if you already know something about classical mechanics, since SR is really an extension of classical mechanics.

My long term goal is to get a P.H.D in physics. But that's still a long ways off as I still have two and one-half years of high school left. I have dealt with some classical mechanics, but not in too much detail, because I haven't taken a physics class.

[spratleyj]

I don't know how it works in the US.
Public libraries in the UK can obtain books for you that aren't on their shelves, if you place a loan order with them. It's also possible for high school students to access the stacks of the local university library, by prior arrangement.

Grant Hutchison

You can loan books from other libraries, but our library only has around twenty other libraries from which it loans items. Also it often cost around five to ten dollars based upon shipping "fees". It also usually takes two-six weeks, to actually get the book. So it's a real hassle. As for university libraries the two local colleges have a combined three physics classes, and practical no physics library.

That being said it's often different for non-scientific subjects. However, you must take the initiative. A few years ago I was really interested in Douglas MacArthur and decided to write a small book/long paper about him. So I got online and went to the MacArthur library's website. Amazingly, they have thousands of pages of microfilm that they will loan you. So I paid like three dollars for shipping and the microfilm was sent to my library where I could look at it for a month. So it's always good to do some research, but in our area physics is basically non-existent, as far as the libraries are concerned.

[Sticks]

According to one survey, Wikipedia was considered just as reliable as other conventional encyclopaedias, so at a pinch wikipedia is an idea

Also try out astronomycast.com (http://www.astronomycast.com) as they have covered relativity on their shows

[spratleyj]

According to one survey, Wikipedia was considered just as reliable as other conventional encyclopaedias, so at a pinch wikipedia is an idea

Also try out astronomycast.com (http://www.astronomycast.com) as they have covered relativity on their shows

I've already read over everything I can find online, including wikipedia and astronomy cast. Right now I'm looking for something a little deeper.

[alainprice]

You can read Einstein's book 'Relativity' for FREE!!!!
www.bartleby.com
Look for 'relativity' and you'll find it.

It includes the derivation of special relativity, but doesn't go into specific examples too much. The first half of the book is SR, the second half is GR. It's fantastic for the concepts presented, as they are presented in their purest form with the reasoning behind it.

It will not make you a mechanics expert, but it's always nice to read it as written by the inventor himself.

[speedfreek]

I don't know if this book will be any good for you or not, but it is recommended by Gerard 't Hooft on his How to become a good theoretical physicist website (http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html)

Prof. Firk's book on Special Relativity (http://www.vegetarianusa.com/physics/essentialphysics1.pdf)

[DrRocket]

Really? Gad. What do you do at high school these days? ;) I'd had a year and a half of integration before I went to university. Grant Hutchison

I think you said that you went to school in Scotland. How many years of school do you attend before university ? In the U.S. high school ends at grade 12. Students start grade 1 at age 6.

Secondly, how can you spend a year and a half on integration ?

[Sticks]

Did you try any of the astronomy cast shows? Our own Fraser Cain helps produce them with Dr Pamela Gay, who is also a member here

[grant hutchison]

I think you said that you went to school in Scotland. How many years of school do you attend before university ? In the U.S. high school ends at grade 12. Students start grade 1 at age 6.Go to school at age 5. Seven years at primary school, five or six years at secondary school if you're aiming for university.


Secondly, how can you spend a year and a half on integration ?We were introduced to it some time after starting introductory calculus in my fifth year at secondary school; I was using integration for the remainder of that school year and the whole subsequent (final) school year. "A year and a half" was a ball-park estimate that did not overstate the case.

(My original comment was intended lightheartedly, by the way.)

Grant Hutchison

[spratleyj]

Did you try any of the astronomy cast shows? Our own Fraser Cain helps produce them with Dr Pamela Gay, who is also a member here

Yes, but I'm looking for a textbook, which explains it with more math and exercises.

[DrRocket]

Go to school at age 5. Seven years at primary school, five or six years at secondary school if you're aiming for university.

We were introduced to it some time after starting introductory calculus in my fifth year at secondary school; I was using integration for the remainder of that school year and the whole subsequent (final) school year. "A year and a half" was a ball-park estimate that did not overstate the case.

(My original comment was intended lightheartedly, by the way.)

Grant Hutchison

My comment was also lighthearted. I see that what you meant was that you had used integration for 1 1/2 years by the time that you left high school, not that you spent 1 1/2 years just learning integration. In any case that sounds like a VERY good high school education. I personally know of only one high school in the U.S. that provides anything comparable and the mathematics teacher there is rather exceptional -- most U.S. high school teachers simply could not handle that level of mathematics. I am sure that there are others. I am equally certain that they are rare.

[grant hutchison]

I see that what you meant was that you had used integration for 1 1/2 years by the time that you left high school, not that you spent 1 1/2 years just learning integration.In my case, probably a bit of both. :)

Grant Hutchison

[grant hutchison]

Since thirty years have now passed, I just did a bit of Googling on the current status of Scottish secondary school maths.
It seems that introductory differential and integral calculus are still part of the syllabus for Scottish Higher Maths (first attainable in fifth year at secondary school). When I was at school, we could build on that with any (or all) of three "Sixth Year Studies" maths streams: broadly algebra, calculus and statistics, though I can't remember the exact names. We'd also be able to find uses for our "Higher" calculus in SYS science streams, such as physics.
Nowadays, SYS has been replaced with something called "Advanced Highers": I imagine (but cannot confirm) that the structure and philosophy remain the same.

(In that amusing way we have in the UK, the English system is a bit different. I don't know how it works.)

Grant Hutchison