Johnny5

My question is this.

Is the BCS theory of superconductivity permanently wrenched in the minds of today's physicists, or do they expect the theory of high temperature superconductivity to also explain low temperature superconductivity.

Thank you

I know this is going to sound like a stupid question, but is inertial mass a scalar or a vector?

Another question I have is, what is the definition of inertial mass? Is there an operational definition for it?

Thank you

Does Lorentz contraction apply only to the length of bodies, only to distances traveled in space, or both? The formula I am asking about is:

[math] L = L_0 \sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} [/math]

Thank you

If you start out with Schrodinger's equation, and then derive the total energy of a free particle, you get [math] \frac{mv^2}{2} [/math]. But suppose that instead of using the ordinary Laplacian, you use this instead:

[math] \nabla^2 = \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2} +\frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2} - \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} [/math]

Then in this case you get:

[math] E^2 = (pc)^2 + (m_0 c^2)^2 = (hf+ m_0c^2)^2 [/math]

As the total energy of a free particle, unless I made a mathematical error somewhere. So if this is right then the total energy of a free particle is given by:

[math] E = hf + m_0 c^2 [/math]

rather than E=hf

Does this lead to the conclusion that quantum mechanics and special relativity are logically incompatible theories?

Thank you