1
$\begingroup$

This question already has an answer here:

My General relativity skills suck. I need a good paper that

  • does not start with equivalence principle and pages of elevator experiments
  • derives principles mathematically, not by physical intuition
  • explicitly shows how to compute things, again not via Penrose diagrams, in fact
    just for completion no modern dualities or any such. Just dirty old GR
  • does not make outlandish statements without proper(mathematical) justification
  • Uses understandable English
  • Is short ( 15>pages>35 ) and concise

:::::::::::::::::::

It should probably be an older paper with language closer to that of the intrinsic geometry school, may be closer to Tullio-Levi's absolute differential calculus, but with a slight modern improvement in the language. It should have the spirit of Dirac, by this his sweet way of keeping it short and relevant, as in his General Relativity book, but not using his exact style.

$\endgroup$

Before answering, please see our policy on resource recommendation questions. Please write substantial answers that detail the style, content, and prerequisites of the book, paper or other resource. Explain the nature of the resource so that readers can decide which one is best suited for them rather than relying on the opinions of others. Answers containing only a reference to a book or paper will be removed!

marked as duplicate by Qmechanic Mar 15 '14 at 19:49

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ you seem already very familiar with the literature. dirac's book, from what i know, is considered to be challenging, with few (no?) diagrams. if you like that book, i think you are underestimating your GR skills. $\endgroup$ – innisfree Mar 15 '14 at 18:44
  • $\begingroup$ I mean I've read Dirac's book. Honestly its hard to judge difficulty at this point since I've skipped a bit around regarding GR texts, but I don't know how people deal with diagrams. I mean I can handle basic diagrams, but I know professors who draw diagrams and extrapolate all sorts of physical implications. Thanks for the confidence boost though, I probably still need lots of work though. $\endgroup$ – user37343 Mar 16 '14 at 12:24