Re: Understanding Relativity; was Re: to everyone
- From: PD <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:19:53 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 9, 9:45 pm, The TimeLord <mathnphysics-...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Bill Hobba wrote:
<tom_turck...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3ba2c924-72c9-4579-86fc-3a395be3a1b8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi my name is Tom Turcksin,
I was wondering if someone could propose me a nice and comprehensible
book
of spacetime and black holes, something for beginners would be nice.
Exploring Black Holes by Taylor and Wheeler
http://www.amazon.com/Exploring-Black-Holes-Introduction-Relativity/d...
It only assumes the mathematics, with a masters in engineering, you witout
doubt already would know.
[...]
There are many good books on SR and GR. However, many people have
requested books/instruction on SR/GR without math. That's where I've
run into a most frustrating phenomenon. Whenever I try to explain GR
without math I resort to exactly the same detestable mental pictures
that I hate when others do it. The reason is that the real
understanding of SR/GR comes from the math. It's like that guy (I
forget who) said: "Trying to understand Relativity without math is
like trying to play Beethoven's Fifth Symphony with only a saxophone."
It's not that Relativity depends on tensors or 1-forms. However, I am
convinced that trying to understand Relativity without a thorough
understanding of tensors or 1-forms adds a layer of obfuscation that
is better left to those addicted to accepting things by faith.
I'm not trying to belittle anyone or trying to make any profound
point; I'm just explaining why I tend to sound like I have contempt
for oversimplification of Relativity. Relativity really does make more
sense when viewed through the clarity of math.
For beginners I try to emphasize not trusting the internet. I also
realize that books for beginners tend to be too simple and advanced
books too advanced. Unfortunately there are no texts that cater to
those who have honorably exited high school, but for one reason or
another not received a PhD in physics. Perhaps in the future there
will be such a book. In the meantime, beginners should try hanging
around those who really know about Relativity to learn about it. Best
place to start is taking physics classes in college, starting with
Physics 100 and proceeding from there. Maybe bugging the professors
and department chairs could help. At any rate, with Relativity as with
other things in life, rewards go to the persistent and diligent.
So take care and be skeptical but open-minded (ie not an air-head
[smile]).
--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!
The reason for this frustration is traceable, as far as I'm concerned.
Using "ordinary language" presumes that the subject matter is amenable
to the words that we use to describe our ordinary world. And one of
the strongest exposition tools with ordinary language is analogy and
metaphor. There is a lot in the ordinary world that can be understood
by using explanations that include the phrase, "It's like..." or "In
the same way that...."
The problem is that a lot of the universe is simply unlike what we
know in the ordinary world. It's like four blind men trying to explain
what an elephant is like, one holding the trunk and saying an elephant
is like a snake, another touching a leg and saying an elephant is like
a tree, another holding the tail and saying an elephant is like a
rope, another touching an ear and saying an elephant is like a
blanket.
So any description that includes "It's like..." has to be cautious to
also clarify all the ways that it's NOT like....
This is where the math is useful, because it can describe pretty
clearly the essential features of what it *is* or what it *does*,
without encumbering all the other inappropriate details that an
analogy would drag along with it. Mathematics is a *minimal*
description, in that it provides just details that are appropriate
without attaching inappropriate ones.
But for those who are accustomed to words and not to math, math is
*too* spare, because the minimal description doesn't flesh out the
mental picture the way an analogy to something familiar can.
Physicists have grown accustomed to working with the minimal
description, without benefit of a full, familiar mental picture,
because it is more important to have only the features that are right
than to have a complete picture that is wrong.
PD
.
- References:
- to everyone
- From: tom_turcksin
- Re: to everyone
- From: Bill Hobba
- Understanding Relativity; was Re: to everyone
- From: The TimeLord
- to everyone
- Prev by Date: Re: WYSIWYG in Relativity
- Next by Date: Re: Pound Rebka
- Previous by thread: Re: Understanding Relativity; was Re: to everyone
- Next by thread: Re: Understanding Relativity; was Re: to everyone
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
