Mordred

Yes there is a possibility of the Talbot effect with regards to nanostructure solar panels. However with the details you have provided there isn't sufficient information to even run calculations in regards to your other question. So the best I can do for you is to link you a case study article. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pip.3463 in essence it will depend on materials used, article mentions a couple of different options, layering thickness etc

Reading over this thread I really have come to the conclusion that although you may or may not understand SR via Minkowskii (remains to be seen) its become evident that you really do not understand GR and curved spacetimes regardless if its the Schwarzschild metric or PG coordinates. Markus has had to repeat the same statements over and over again in particularly that there is no global simultaneity. This is the primary reason the infalling clock (proper-time follows the null geodesic worldline of the metric.) that is true in both the Schwarzschild metric and the PG coordinates. You already disagreed with the mathematics I posted earlier showing that the in-fall signals is symmetric with the outgoing signals simply because you feel its wrong but have yet to actually post any mathematics showing GRs treatments to be incorrect. What you termed the conventionalist view. The other reason I feel you do not understand GR is the following statement I'm seriously hoping the nature of this question is due to English not being your primary language but anyone who knows relativity should be able to answer that question. As Markus has repeatedly stated The Schwarzschild metric is not Minkowskii.

Sounds very similar to numerous back reaction examinations without a direct reference its difficult to know for sure but sound familiar. However I can't recall the articles I may have come across it.

Do you honestly mean that you do not see the 4 coordinates in the equation for the reference frame supplied by Markus ? Specifically this term \[x^\mu\]

now that is the right attitude +1

great so you have given up on self improvement in becoming skilled in your own framework because that is what that statement means to me

My questions still remains Why rely on some program instead of taking the effort yourself? What do you gain from it ? How does it improve your skill set on the topic ?

what benefit ? nothing you have here is of any level to be beneficial. To get others to listen to any theory you need to be able to show you, yourself understand a given theory and have sufficient references, and that you understand your theory at a level where others can come directly to you and not some program for answers otherwise what is the point ?

Self adjoint ODEs \[\acute{p_0}(x)=p_1(x)\] \[\mathcal{L}=\frac{d}{dx}[p_o{x}\frac{d}{dx}]+p_2(x)\] \[\mathcal{L}u=\acute{(p_o \acute{u})}+p_2u\] integration by parts \[\int^b_a=v^\ast(x)\mathcal{L}u(x)dx=\int^b_a[v^\ast\acute{(p_o\acute{u})}+v^\ast p_2 u]dx\] \[=v\ast p_o\acute{u}]^b_a+\int^b_a[-(v^\ast)p_o\acute{u}+v^\ast p_2 u]dx\] second integration to be continued. self reminder of goal Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions applicability to Chebyshev differential equation first and second order polynomials. (via Sturm-Luiville)

that amounts to a handwave for I don't want to take the effort to perform my own research and seek the answers myself. How does that help you ? You can search every post I have ever made on this forum. Not once will you find me starting a thread asking a question in regards to physics. At most I ask if anyone has come across a good article on a topic. I know how to perform my own research and know how to find the answers to any question I may have for any particular research interest I have ever had. I never rely on others for any study.

You would have a very hard time convincing me of that. For that matter we also have very rules involving ChatGPT on this forum. However that is irrelevant The person that should become the expert in your theory is you. Yourself not some computer generated response. How do you plan to do that if you rely on others including ChatGPT

quite frankly ChatGP will lead you down so many garden paths its next to useless. If you want to rely on that. That is your choice. I for one rely on hard work and actual studies than some computer generated response. Its the only true way to understand any topic. A good example of the number of tradespersons I have met that have such a reliance on calculators they don't even know how to add fractions or divide fractions. I've lost count on the number of times I've run across that

They are examples you asked where mathematics can be applied. another method being correlation functions involving statistical mean averages on other case studies. It is quite possible to employ professional grade examinations on any study if you understand the techniques even philosophy.

You might want to look into examples such as https://psicoterapia-palermo.it/PDFS/Studio sulla Coscienza di Hameroff e Penrose.PDF they have quite a bit of literature involving quantum mind. There is one example. Its not a line of research I follow but I have read some of their papers and they do employ mathematics where its potentially applicable. Boltzmann brain is another example this example follows more on probability statistics and the standard model of particles. Its not the same approach your looking for but it is examples where mathematics can be employed with regards to consciousness, awareness and physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain these are simply examples of different approaches and should provide clues on how to move past speculative conjectures

It can be I even recommended a useful set of mathematics You can employ above. That onus however is in your court as I can honestly state I'm horrible at philosophical based arguments

That's the first statement you made I agree with

Even with strictly philosophical examinations one can still employ examinations involving mathematics by examining statistical based studies done in regards to any research involving the mind

Thought you were leaving ? Quite frankly I would not be surprised if the majority of this conversation gets split off to the trash can. I actually recommend that to happen.

Considering I already reported this conversation for moderator review I will see if I'm correct. For the record that rank is simply due to reputation rankings. It's meaningless beyond that

That would certainly establish the finite space constraints

Goodbye No bet I already came to that conclusion.

Unlikely had you been willing to listen I would have been able to explain how every single equation in both articles work in accordance to standard cosmology.

Well I chose to add further details in the hopes you might actually learn something however your mind is already closed so it was a waste of time.

Every statement you have so far is 100 percent incorrect. You haven't made a single accurate statement. Your basic logic chose to ignore what it chose to ignore so is absolutely meaningless because you choose to ignore Any detail that runs counter to your way of thinking. Literally every single physicist that has ever looked at cosmology would disagree with you.

No that's where the equations of state come into play were dealing with the mass distributions of a multi particle field distribution. All of this being contained in the sections you chose to ignore. Here is a little for thought. COBE, WMAP and Planck all looked for specific signatures to define and determine the universe curvature term using the CMB. They looked for distortions that would result from the multiparticle distributions over the expansion history due specifically to how those distortions would result from expansion /contraction of that multiparticle field.