Recent content by netheril96

R=H+iV H=(R+L)/2

If you are, then it should be no surprise to you that mass contains contribution from energy.

I don't see how your second sentence (complex number problem) logically follows your first one.

I don't understand your question. You are not familiar with mass-energy equivalence?

What difficulties have you encountered in expanding this tensor product?

The proton spin is the cause of hyperfine splitting, so what is the meaning of saying the former (cause) is independent from the latter (result)?

Gravitational mass is actually a classical concept because it is the "charge" appearing in Newton's gravitational law. There is no analogue in general relativity.

First, in GR only spacetime is an unambiguously defined object. Space and time are derived concepts and they depend on how you decompose spacetime. This makes your questions confusing. When you understand, you may reformulate your question.

Your question seems not related to your title, and I'm not sure what you are asking.

Why does light waves have to be like spheres or planes in order to diffract? I don't understand your question.

Coulomb gauge is a specific way to fix the gauge

L = - {m_0}{c^2}\sqrt {1 - \frac{{{{\dot r}^2} + {r^2}{{\dot \theta }^2}}}{{{c^2}}}} - V\left( r \right) so \frac{{\partial L}}{{\partial \dot \theta }} = \gamma {m_0}{r^2}\dot \theta What's the problem?

If the irreversibility is a result of not being quasi-static, then none of T, S, P, V is well defined, and this equation fails. If the irreversibility is due to friction, then obviously {\rm{d}}U = T{\rm{d}}S - p{\rm{d}}U + \boldsymbol{f}\cdot\boldsymbol{x}

Yes. And "g" values already include the contribution from centrifugal forces.

My point was that null surface as it is, the "speed" of event horizon is not a well-defined and physically useful concept. And you were trying to prove that the horizon is moving at the speed of light without defining the speed of a surface. It's not about the properties of event horizon; it's...