Looking for book about relativistic classical field theory

anuttarasammyak said:

Landau-Lifshitz's classical theory of fields is a classic, though I do not know if it is good for introduction to quantum field.

vanhees71 said:

Don't use "Goldstein" 3rd edition. It's a distortion of the original 2nd edition making it worse, containing several mistakes (wrong treatment of anholonomous constraints using the Hamilton principle of least action contradicting the correct results from the treatment using d'Alembert's principle without even mentioning that there's a difference) and inconsistencies (switching the sign convention of the metric from one section to another). Concerning relativity the 2nd edition cannot be unanimously recommended, because it uses the old-fashioned ##\mathrm{i} c t## (pseudo-Euclidean) convention.

Indeed, I think the best book as an introduction to relativistic classical field theory (electrodynamics and general relativity) is Landau and Lifshitz vol. 1. Relativistic hydro is sketched quite well in vol. 6.

A somewhat unusual introduction, but precisely because of this alternative approach a gem:

D. E. Soper, Classical field theory, Dover Publications, Minneola, New York (2008).

malawi_glenn said:

Good beginner book https://www.amazon.com/dp/1541674065/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I think this is a good advanced book https://www.amazon.com/dp/1108477011/?tag=pfamazon01-20 but perhaps it is not suitable as a "first" book.

malawi_glenn said:

I think this is a good advanced book https://www.amazon.com/dp/1108477011/?tag=pfamazon01-20 but perhaps it is not suitable as a "first" book.

vanhees71 said:

Don't use "Goldstein" 3rd edition. It's a distortion of the original 2nd edition making it worse, containing several mistakes (wrong treatment of anholonomous constraints ...

Demystifier said:

At a similar level M. Burgess, Classical Covariant Fields.

atyy said:

It's old, but possibly useful.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0471595519/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Demystifier said:

Are the anholonomous constraints treated correctly in older editions?