00:00
00:00
sharpnova

Joined on 2/19/05

Level:
18
Exp Points:
3,580 / 3,600
Exp Rank:
15,605
Vote Power:
6.04 votes
Rank:
Civilian
Global Rank:
> 100,000
Blams:
4
Saves:
24
B/P Bonus:
0%
Whistle:
Normal
Medals:
4,269

Black hole spacetime geometry stuff

Posted by sharpnova - June 1st, 2024


I get a message at least once a week asking me to explain something about black holes.


Maybe half the time I can answer the question in a way that's satisfactory to the asker. But the other times, it ends up boiling down to the fact that more than any other physics theory, it goes hand-in-hand with the math. GR is difficult.


Please learn Differential Geometry. I get a lot of horseshit responses like "if you can't explain it to a five-year-old, you don't understand it" This is unrealistic horseshit. It would sure be nice if everything were simple enough that this facile bullshit were true. But there are many things for which it is not. Also it depends on the level of understanding you want to have and the "explain it to a five-year-old" level of understanding is generally not what the geriatric 40-year-olds that make up most of NG's population are looking for when they reach out to me.


You need to be comfortable with four-vectors, there are lovely clifford algebra texts you can get great mileage out of without needing to know anything beyond the elementary levels of ordinary differential equations and undergrad linear algebra. Tensor analysis is important to apply the Differential Geometry to curved spacetime.


Read John Lee's intro to smooth manifolds


And then the follow-up texts on topological and riemann manifolds


And also (in parallel or before) bishop's tensor analysis book is great.


And if these texts (which are introductory and fully intended for undergrad consumption) are too difficult, then the prereqs are too much and you should settle for a more smooth-brained grasp of GR, which you can get from laymen texts by guys like michio or brian green, etc.


Going forward, I'll be referring most questions to this post.


4

Comments

WOW, you sound passionate about what you do.
Maybe I'll read those books, they sound interesting.

Highly recommend Dirac's GR book as a compact check of understanding from those other, more verbose treatments.

Gravitation is denser than GToR

edit: whoops. i confused this post with another post i made on stack exchange. (railed on half an eight ball atm)

i would also recomend GToR. but why are you contrasting the recommendation of a GR text to a discussion of prerequisite math texts? GR requires a lot of math which is what this post was about

Obviously, but anyone getting through Dirac is well on their way through Gravitation. Relatedly, what are your thoughts on MTW?

an incredibly dense text, particularly when I first encountered it. I bought it as a little kid w/o even knowing what a tensor was. I didn’t (couldn't possibly) make a serious effort with it until over a decade later. By then, I was solid in diff geo, tensor analysis, and actually GR in general.

I actually wish I'd started earlier with MWT since it offers a better treatment of these topics than the scattered resources I'd seen by that time

Weinberg was a reviewer/advisor for me (at UT Austin) and recommended that I make a concerted effort to dive into MTW. His timing was good, as att I was studying PDEs & CoV, which helped me with lots of stuff like einstein-hilbert action/least action principles/variational methods/etc.

I always advise synthesizing knowledge from multiple angles, particularly with GR and relativistic QM in curved spacetime (QFT etc.) MTW is, imo, one of the better angles.

@sharpnova

Very cool, I mostly agree with that. I also studied under Weinberg but ultimately ended up with a different advisor. Nice to see a fellow UT alum around.

small world!

Who are these legions of fans beating down your metaphorical door for your wisdom? Are you some celebrity scientist like Bill Nye? I don't even know who you are, other then perhaps a prolific NG forum poster. If you get this irate over people uneducated in physics asking the wrong physics questions then you really must have no real problems to worry about.

Huh? Are you literally nothing but a stream of consciousness? There's no real direction to your thoughts. Absolutely nothing you said had any basis in reality. It just seemed like you squirming your way around in the dark trying to find some rationale for insulting me.