Talk:Dirac equation in curved spacetime

Separate article
I didn't write any of this context in this article, it was mainly user:Antimatter33, user:deSitter33, and others, around 2007-2012. The talk history and page history of the Dirac equation article suggests people are not happy with the curved spacetime formulation in the original article and should have a separate dedicated article. I agree. There are definitely papers on this topic and I will add some if no-one else; please tolerate a month and beyond. Thanks.


 * Please do not credit me. Say many thanks to the editors who wrote the content.

M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 22:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dirac equation in curved spacetime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131214155201/http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_cur/store/vol41/pdf/v41p1827.pdf to http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_cur/store/vol41/pdf/v41p1827.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Relevance to other topics & overall style
There are Wikipedia articles about quantum field theory in curved spacetime and the Dirac equation. This one seems redundant. In addition, the structure is not good. It starts with the title and a short introduction without references. After a lengthy section about the mathematical formulation, it continues with another section having the same title as the article itself. In this "main" section, there is no reference to the mathematical formulation introduced previously. If that is the case, then why to present all this mathematical formulation? Handbooks present the mathematical formulations, but then they use them to derive the main results. Also, there is no reference to the history and the people who developed this field. Again, that's a reasonable style for a handbook but it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. TV8phys (talk) 01:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)