Recent content by JamesOrland

Thank you all very much for your replies! If there's any more input, I'd love to hear it. I wrote down all the books you suggested and will be doing my research when I have the time for that ^^

For SR, then, Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler is a good one, I gather? And for GR, I should learn tensor calculus (something I've been putting off for lack of time), and these books will cover the rest, do you think? From what you've said, good books are Schutz, Taylor and Wheeler...

Certainly, which is why I asked for books not book ^^ I'm going to try to read as many of them as I can. When I have the time, that is. Probably sometime around next semester or year. Still, would love to hear more suggestions.

A lot of Calculus and Linear Algebra, very little differential geometry.

Hello. I'd like to hear opinions on good books about either/both Relativities. I have some knowledge of the workings of Special Relativity, and naught but the barest knowledge of General Relativity beyond the basic verbal descriptions, so I'd like to know about good books on that. Thank you...

Hello. I'd like to know of good suggestions of books on QFT. I have a somewhat firm grasp on non-relativistic Quantum Mechanics, and already know of some good books about it, so I'd like to understand some Quantum Field Theory if at all possible. Thank you in advance for your suggestions :)

I was wondering. Has anyone ever been able to build a beth-2 set? What does it look like? What could it possibly look like?

Well, to be honest, it was on a discussion with a few people here in this forum that it was pointed out to me that a singularity signaled the breakdown of a theory. So these people must be very quiet indeed :P But regardless, I'm pretty sure physicists in general take singularities to mean the...

There actually isn't. Standard cosmology has one big gaping hole in it. But of course, it's not a big gaping hole until you actually look at it. It's just like classical physics: if you don't look too closely at tiny things or very big things, you won't ever notice that there's anything wrong...

I'm sorry, my bad. You are right, indeed the current models state that the metric of space is geodesically complete. What I really should have said was that we currently lack enough information to state whether or not it is indeed geodesically complete, but our models currently assume it is. So...

Right. My bad. So replace the relevant parts in what I said with 'superclusters' or whatever could be called the minimum particle subject to expansion :P

Someone should correct me here if I'm wrong, but what you should think of when it's said that space is expanding is that the distance between any two given galaxies is, on average, expanding. Every galaxy is moving away from each other. Within a given galaxy, nothing changes at all. But the...

All other previous theories that contained singularities were eventually replaced by theories that explained the magical singular effects. Check Wikipedia, if you like. But even if there is a true singularity there, we cannot really affirm that yet, because we don't have a quantum theory of...

Didn't say anything about black holes. I was talking about singularities. We all know current physics breaks down beyond the event horizon, and that means exactly what it says on the tin: current physics breaks down. Of course black holes exist. But just because current physics can't explain...

Well, first you have to remember that current accepted models don't posit real singularities. Singularities are meaningless infinities resulting from failures in the models, they're not actual parts of the models. Most people think any good theory of quantum gravity will explain away those...