- #1
ChrisVer
Gold Member
- 3,378
- 465
I am not sure whether this belongs here or not, but I'll try this topic insteed of SR+GR
I was wondering, since everytime I came across elementary particle equations, such as Dirac or Klein-Gordon, they all consider a metric in the process of a Minkowski space.
I am not sure but I feel uneasiness when I extract results out of a Minkowski metric. Of course these results might be true,for let's say regions where gravity is absent. But what about regions where it's not?
For an example, I can think of the solar neutrinos. Why do we want to think that neutrinos are generated and propagating from the sun according to a flat space's metric, whereas we accept that photons can indeed be bend by the sun's gravitation?
Also, what's the problem of using in particle physics a general metric [itex]g^{\mu\nu}(x^{ρ})[/itex] instead of the constant [itex]g^{\mu\nu}=diag(+---)[/itex]?
I was wondering, since everytime I came across elementary particle equations, such as Dirac or Klein-Gordon, they all consider a metric in the process of a Minkowski space.
I am not sure but I feel uneasiness when I extract results out of a Minkowski metric. Of course these results might be true,for let's say regions where gravity is absent. But what about regions where it's not?
For an example, I can think of the solar neutrinos. Why do we want to think that neutrinos are generated and propagating from the sun according to a flat space's metric, whereas we accept that photons can indeed be bend by the sun's gravitation?
Also, what's the problem of using in particle physics a general metric [itex]g^{\mu\nu}(x^{ρ})[/itex] instead of the constant [itex]g^{\mu\nu}=diag(+---)[/itex]?