@[deleted]
Your article merit to be classified in the first place. Split or unsplit object-subject inetraction guide us to another paradigm. I had invent the 4-vector identity or the 4-vector delete dualities. It is like the invention of zero in the mathematics of numbers.My statements are of course in Restreint Relativity and not in GR . The 4-vector identity which I introduce in the first time in Minkowski space-time is as follows:
4-vector momentum= universal constant times 4-vector identity
4-vector identity=(speed of light times inertial time of the corpuscle, speed of the corpuscle times inertial time of the copuscle)
Inertial time of the corpuscle =universal constant times the energy of the corpuscle
It is evident now that:
4-vector wave-vector= universal constant times 4-vector identity
The inertial time is like a five dimension of space. The ordinary time is only change. Inertial time does'nt change if the energy of the corpuscle is constant.
We can deduce the new universals constants (as frequency, power, mechanical impedance...etc.) by taking the same model of Planck black body theory transferred to vacuum. Vacuum will be considered as formed with an infinity of resonators at their fundamental states. Every resonator will have a medium energy and an entropy. The integration of the density of energy of vacuum should give us the same density in General Relativity so we deduce the fundamental universal frequency. Vacuum will have also a density of entropy which is an universal constant.

I have a response for how to unsplit object-subject model of science:
For the author the split object-subject is related to classical physics and he give an example is that in classical physics energy is always continue and it can be divided at any ratio so teh Descartes conception " I think so I am" is always applicable because there is the subject which far from the object and he can do measures on it because energy can be infinetely divided. But for the author when the energy is quantified as a mulptipe of a certain quantity labelled " Planck constant" the distinction between the subject and the object at very low levels of energy is hard and at very high levels of energy is possible because we can meet the calssical physics when we tends Planck constant to zero: I have an objection to this.
For Niels Bohr the Principle of Correspondance in quantum mechanics is a general principle and it is applicable at very high level quantification and very low level quatification of energy. For low level quantification there is always a classical measure to do whithout no need to tends Planck constant to zero. Let's apply this conception to logic:
1-Split the object-subject in two entities: the object-Observer Identity and Observer Identity-subject
2-Treat only the Observer Identity: it is like to unsplit the conception object-subject
Reality is to deleate the conception object-subject: I found it in an article is this Competition. The observer identity is the eraser of the object-subject: it is more transcendent.

In classical mechanics " I think so I am": my existence is always defined because energy can be infinetely divided.
In quantum mechanics "I can't think under a certain limit of my existence" or " I can't think without delimiting my existence"

The problem to split object-subject is very well defined in black body radiation theory. If you take the Planck model for the black body radiation and you suppose that energy of the soscillator is continous so you tends it to zero than you obtain Raleigh-Jeans formulae which we can obtain it without any quatification assumptions. To tends the energy of the oscillator to zero is equivalent to tends the temperature of the black body to a high value i.e. the mean energy of the oscillator is equal approximatively to "kT" like in classical mechanics. But when the temperature is nearly to zero you can't tends the frequency of the oscillator to zero because you obtain a wrong formulae of black body radiation (a classical formulae) so to resolve the problem Planck had divide the energy of the oscillator to finite elements i.e. you should stop to divide infinetely the oscillator energy. The problem for me at least is so clear: disccritness is present at any level of nature.
All turns around discritness of nature. Classical phenomenas are only emergences of discritness. Let's take an example from the greeks: Zenon to prove that there is no motion proceed to do the following thinking experiment:
An object which mouve from the point A to the point B separated by the distance d should cross the distance d/2 and so he shoudl cross the distance d/4 and so he should cross the distnace d/(2n) where n integer but n can be infinite so the object can't mouve at all. The solution to this problem is to stop dividing distances and so the object mouve by jumps.
We can conclude that there is jumps in distances, times and energies: there is an absolute system of unities where the speed of light, the Planck constant and an universal constant having the dimension of an energy are equal to one. It does not mean the distance or the time or the "mass" in this system are minmums or maximums which we can obtain in nature but it means that they are the base of discritness of nature. Don't refer to Planck absolute system becuase who tells you that the gravitationnal constant is an universal constant?. Vacuum density of energy is an universal constant and if consttant lambda of General Relavity depends on time than the gravitationnal constant depends on time: only their ratio is constant. There is something new to discover in order to complete the puzzle.

I mean by discritness discontinuity ( as my scientific culture is in french I made many mistakes in english). Absolute system of unities base does not mean that there is a minimum lentgh, a minimum time, a minimum mass : it means only that nature is based on discontinuity and jumps. The unit of lenght on the unit of time in this base is equal to "c" the celeririty of light but it deos it mean that we can't depass the speed "c".

19 days later

" For example, there’s the symbol grounding
problem: how can representations come to mean anything about the world, when all we have
access to are other representations?"
There is a solution to this in which we should trust : a representation which have been confirmed by experience in a determined context can be transferred in another context with analog forms.
I can take the exemple of vacuum energy in quantum mechanics which can be treated with analog concepts of Planck model of the black body radiation.

5 days later

An interesting problem in the conception object-subject split is the photo-electric phenomena: in classical experience there is no current when the tension is under a certain value (object-subject split: the photon and the electron). In quantum mechanics there is always a probabilty to extract at least one electron from the cathod and it can reach the anod. The duration of extracting is kown about 1E-7 second so there is a cuurent not equal to zero eventhogh the tension is very low: a current about 1E-12 ampere (object-subjcet unsplit). This experience can be a way to determine the quantum of power.

7 days later
a month later
a year later

Amanda Gefter
Hurray!!!!! Yahoo!!!!!
You answered my question!
Your essay led me to the solution!
The answer is, "the spectrum of interactions between harder shapes and softer shapes." ("more rigid" is more accurate than "harder", but harder rolls off the tongue easier)
The questions are, "What bridges the split between subject and object?" and "What connects Quantum mechanics and Classical mechanics?" There are actually a huge number of questions that this answer applies to.
The cliffs of Dover are a hard shape. The waves in the ocean are soft shapes. Multiple actions occur when an ocean wave hits a rock cliff. 1) Water bounces off of stone. 2) The wave "shape" reflects from the cliff "shape". 3) Stone shakes/vibrates from the impact of water. 4) The water wave "shape" converts to a sound wave "shape" and continues moving forward through the rock.
Soft shapes pass through one another easily. Harder shapes are more likely to shatter when they collide.
Multiple softer, or lower amplitude, or smaller, shapes can exist within and upon a harder, higher amplitude, larger shape. Different speeds also alter the relative rigidity of shapes.
Some things are very hard to see (perceive), until you see them, then you can't avoid seeing them. I've been able to see this soft shapes to hard shapes continuum for a while now, but I couldn't put it into easy words. Thank you very much for your essay. It improved my understanding.

Write a Reply...