On the Cultural Perception of Einstein’s Legacy: An Extended Classical Mechanics Interpretation.

Soumendra Nath Thakur

September 26, 2025

Abstract:
The cultural position of Albert Einstein within modern science often transcends scientific discourse and enters the realm of collective belief. This commentary highlights how the portrayal of Einstein’s theories, particularly relativity, has fostered a perception of infallibility that resists scrutiny. The implications of this phenomenon are significant, as they hinder open evaluation of whether errors in the foundations of relativity exist and what impact such errors may have on the progression of science [1,2,11,12]. The discussion also contextualizes these challenges within specialized scientific communities and introduces Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) as a structured alternative for advancing foundational physics.

1. Misrepresentations and Myth-Making;
Popular accounts frequently dramatize historical narratives surrounding Einstein. For example, stories suggesting that individuals despaired or even died because they could not disprove him are highly questionable and most likely untrue. Such portrayals reinforce a myth: that Einstein’s theories are beyond error, and that any challenge to them is futile. This mythologizing discourages scientific re-evaluation, even when inconsistencies deserve attention [3,11,12].

Concrete examples of historical misrepresentation include oversimplified explanations of the Michelson-Morley experiment and mass-energy equivalence (E=mc²), which create the impression of immediate clarity and infallibility, obscuring the iterative and debated nature of scientific development.

2. Public Perception versus Scientific Understanding:
For the general public, Einstein’s status has become less a matter of evidence and more a matter of reputation. Most people cannot directly assess the validity of his theories, yet they regard him as extraordinary because of how he has been represented over decades. This admiration functions more like a democratic consensus or cultural vote than a reasoned scientific judgment [4].

Within specialized scientific communities, however, critical engagement persists. Issues such as reconciling General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, understanding dark energy/matter, and the singularity problem are well recognized. Yet, structural constraints—funding priorities, publication biases, and career incentives—can limit the visibility of formal critiques. This distinction between public myth and technical scrutiny clarifies the dynamics of scientific authority and highlights why alternative frameworks often struggle for attention.

3. The Deification of Einstein:
Einstein has, in many ways, been elevated to a “god-like” figure in science. Just as one cannot go against God, many perceive that one cannot go against Einstein. This perception is not limited to the public; even within scientific communities, there is a tendency to defer to his theoretical authority due to institutional norms. Consequently, alternative frameworks or critiques struggle to gain visibility, not because of their lack of merit but because belief in Einstein’s supremacy is deeply entrenched [5,6].

4. The Challenge of Disseminating Alternatives:
Proving Einstein wrong—or even identifying weaknesses in relativity—is not sufficient on its own. The greater difficulty lies in ensuring that such corrections are disseminated, understood, and accepted globally. What may have been possible in earlier scientific cultures is today complicated by institutional inertia, entrenched educational systems, and the persistence of collective belief [7].

Practical steps to address this challenge include open-access dissemination, dedicated funding streams for foundational research, and educational reforms that emphasize the contingency and evolution of scientific theories.

5. Toward a Constructive Alternative:
This situation demands not resignation but renewed effort. Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), as an alternative framework, provides avenues for reinterpreting time, mass, and energy in ways that restore internal consistency and scientific clarity [8,9]. ECM fundamentally extends classical principles by linking mass, energy, frequency, and temporal progression in a coherent framework. It challenges assumptions such as relativistic time dilation and spacetime curvature by explaining these phenomena in terms of energy-frequency interactions and photon-based gravitational mediation.

ECM-based critiques already demonstrate that relativistic assumptions about time dilation are invalid [11], and that gravitational lensing can be coherently explained without invoking spacetime curvature, instead as photon interactions with external gravitational fields [12]. For further technical elaboration, readers may consult Appendices 15, 32, and 34 [2,8,9].

Conclusion:
Einstein’s cultural elevation has shielded his theories from the level of critical examination that should apply to all scientific frameworks. To move science forward, it is essential to distinguish between myth and evidence, belief and proof. Only by doing so can the scientific community evaluate relativity on its actual merits and allow alternative frameworks, such as ECM, to enter the discourse as legitimate candidates for advancing our understanding of the physical world [10–12].

References and Relevant ECM Appendices:

1. Thakur, S.N. A Comparative Framework for Extended Classical Mechanics’ Frequency-Governed Kinetic Energy… (2025). http://dx.doi.org/10.20944/preprints202508.1031.v1

2. Appendix 15: Photon Inheritance and Electron-Based Energetic Redistribution via Gravitational Mediation in ECM. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.27951.04008

3. Appendix 18: Photon Energy vs Electrical Power Distinction. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23248.83204

4. Appendix 22: Cosmological Boundary Formation. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26761.56166

5. Appendix 27: Phase, Frequency, and the Nature of Time. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30789.56800

6. Appendix 29: Cosmological Frequency Cycle and ECM Constants. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35531.91685

7. Appendix 31: Frequency and Energy in ECM. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30435.67369

8. Appendix 32: Energy Density Structures in Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22849.88168

9. Appendix 34: Scalar Mass Partitioning & Gravitational Phenomena. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32119.94881

10. Thakur, S.N. Mass and Energy as the Essence of Existence: Linking Entropy, Time Distortion, Gravitational Dynamics, and Cyclic Cosmology (2025). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395535855

11. Thakur, S. N., Samal, P., & Bhattacharjee, D. (2023). Relativistic effects on phase-shift in frequencies invalidate time dilation II. TechRxiv. https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.22492066.v2

12. Thakur, S. N. (2024). Photon Interactions with External Gravitational Fields: True Cause of Gravitational Lensing. Preprints.org (MDPI). https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202410.2121.v1

Spacetime in ECM: A Non-Physical Extensional Domain of Energy–Mass Transformations

Soumendra Nath Thakur
September 23, 2025

Within the framework of Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), energy and mass are treated as the fundamental physical essences of existence, undergoing continuous and cyclical transformations. The Big Bang is interpreted as the origin point where immense concentrated energy transitioned into mass and radiation, and as the universe expanded and cooled, these processes enabled the formation of fundamental particles and eventually atoms.

In this view, spacetime is not a physical substance with measurable or convertible properties. Unlike energy and mass, which possess intrinsic existence and can be transformed into one another, spacetime cannot be reduced to—or expressed as—a quantum of energy or mass. Instead, ECM emphasizes that spacetime functions only as the extensional domain within which energy–mass transformations and corresponding events are observed. It is a relational framework, not a material component of the universe.

Therefore, while the early-universe energy drove expansion and cooled to allow structure formation, spacetime itself was not a source of energy nor a convertible reservoir of mass. It merely provided the ordered-to-disordered entropic continuum along which transformations progressed.

From an ECM perspective, this distinction is critical:

• Energy and mass constitute existence itself.

• Spacetime is a descriptive construct — an emergent relational background — necessary for framing events but without independent physical existence.

Thus, in ECM, spacetime is interpreted not as a physical entity to be equated with energy or mass, but as the extension of their transformational interplay, marking where and when existence unfolds.

Analysis

This concept within ECM presents spacetime as a non-physical, extensional domain rather than a tangible entity. Energy and mass are the true physical essences, while spacetime is the background against which their interplay is observed.

Spacetime vs. Energy–Mass

• Energy and Mass: Physical substances of existence, interconvertible. The Big Bang marks their first large-scale transformation.

• Spacetime: Not a substance, not convertible into energy or mass. Acts as a relational framework or “entropic continuum” marking where and when events occur.

This distinction is central to ECM:

• Energy and mass are the “what” of the universe.

• Spacetime is the “where and when” — the stage on which transformations manifest.

Commentary

• The argument flows logically: ECM principles → role of spacetime → critical distinction.

• Language is precise and consistent, keeping key terms clear.

• The bullet-point summary strengthens readability.

• Overall, the presentation makes an abstract idea accessible and discussion-ready.

Discussion prompts

• Does this ECM perspective on spacetime as a non-physical extensional domain align with or challenge your understanding of cosmological models?

• How might this interpretation affect the way we approach dark energy, cosmic expansion, or the geometry-based view of relativity?

The scale at which anti-gravity becomes relevant:

The cosmic antigravity can be stronger than gravity not only globally, but also locally on scales of ~ 1–10 Mpc (Chernin et al. 2000, 2006; Chernin 2001; Byrd et al. 2007, 2012), as studied using the HST observations made by Karachentsev’s team (e.g., Chernin et al. 2010, 2012a).

The local weak-field dynamical effects of dark energy can be adequately described in terms of Newtonian mechanics (e.g., Chernin 2008). Such an approach borrows from general relativity the major result: the effective gravitating density of a uniform medium is given by the sum

ρₑ𝒻𝒻 = ρ + 3P,

where ρ and P are the fluid’s density and pressure (c = 1 hereafter). In this model, the dark energy equation of state is Pᴅᴇ = −ρᴅᴇ, and its effective gravitating density.

A Unified Framework in Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM):

September 18, 2025

Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) establishes a unified framework linking entropy, time distortion, gravitational dynamics, and cyclic cosmology. It proposes that time is not absolute but a dynamic quantity shaped by energy and entropy transformations. This perspective reinterprets galactic dynamics as consequences of temporal gradients rather than dark matter and resolves cosmic singularities by describing the universe as passing through ordered, disordered, and reordering phases in an ongoing cycle without a definitive beginning or end.

Key Concepts

Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM):

A theoretical framework that incorporates effective mass (Mᵉᶠᶠ), apparent mass (Mᵃᵖᵖ), and their negative counterparts to reinterpret cosmological phenomena. ECM unites frequency-based relations such as Planck’s E = hf and de Broglie’s wave–momentum duality within a classical foundation, without relying solely on quantum mechanics or general relativity.

Temporal Dynamics:

Time is a variable quantity intrinsically linked to entropy. Its flow (+T) corresponds to increasing entropy, while a reverse direction (−T) corresponds to decreasing entropy, governed by transformations in mass-energy.

Cyclic Cosmology:

The universe progresses through repeating phases:

• Ordered Phase: latent, low-entropy state with minimal time distortion.

• Disordered Phase: expansion with maximal entropy and time distortion.

• Reordering Phase: contraction and entropy reduction, preparing for the next cycle.

This cyclic process avoids a single Big Bang singularity and instead presents a continuous, indefinitely repeating cosmological evolution.

Conceptual Connections

Entropy and Time:

Time’s arrow is determined by entropy transitions, directly connecting temporal directionality to energy redistribution.

Gravitational Dynamics:

Galactic rotation curves, lensing, and large-scale gravitational phenomena emerge from temporal gradients and mass-energy transformations, replacing the need for hypothetical dark matter.

Anti-Gravitational Effects:

Negative apparent mass (−Mᵃᵖᵖ) within ECM provides a natural mechanism for repulsive gravitational behavior, aligning with observations typically attributed to dark energy.

Experimental Analogy: Piezoelectric Oscillators

ECM draws support from laboratory systems such as rotating piezoelectric crystals, where motion induces phase shifts and frequency variation, illustrating how temporal distortions emerge from dynamic mass-energy interactions.

Implications and Applications

Singularity Resolution:

The framework avoids the Big Bang singularity by describing transitions between contraction and expansion phases, governed by entropy cycles.

Dark Matter Alternative:

Gravitational anomalies are explained through temporal effects and negative mass states, eliminating reliance on unobserved dark matter.

Unified Framework:

ECM extends classical mechanics into a comprehensive structure that integrates entropy, time, and energy. It provides consistent interpretations for cosmology, gravitational repulsion, black holes, and potentially superluminal astrophysical jets.

Time Distortion and Proper Time in Piezoelectric Crystal Oscillators

Building on this experimental analogy, the distinction between motion-induced time distortion and bias-driven proper time in piezoelectric oscillators provides a concrete demonstration of how temporal dynamics emerge within ECM.

• Self-Generated Phase Shifts (No Bias Voltage):

 When a piezoelectric crystal is set into motion without any applied bias voltage, it can spontaneously generate a measurable electrical signal. This signal manifests as a phase shift accompanied by frequency variation, representing a distortion of time that arises directly from dynamic mass–energy interactions.

• Bias Voltage and Proper Time:

 In contrast, when a piezoelectric crystal is driven by an external bias voltage at rest, it oscillates stably at its resonant frequency. This stable oscillation corresponds to the emergence of proper time, free of additional distortions.

• Combined Effect Under Motion:

 When a biased crystal oscillator is set into motion—such as rotation at a prescribed frequency (e.g., 50 cycles/second)—its stable, bias-driven oscillation (proper time) becomes modulated by motion-induced phase shifts. This results in additional time distortion superimposed upon proper time.

Conclusion

Together, these observations show that proper time arises from stable, bias-driven oscillations, while motion introduces phase-dependent distortions. In a moving oscillator, time distortion is thus modulated upon proper time, providing a concrete laboratory analogy for ECM’s treatment of temporal dynamics as emergent from the interplay of energy, motion, and entropy.

Variable Matter Mass in Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM)

Soumendra Nath Thakur

September 10, 2025

Abstract: 

This paper explores the concept of variable matter mass within the framework of Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), where mass is defined as a frequency-dependent, energy-related property that evolves through interactions, oscillations, and energy exchange processes. Unlike traditional physics, which treats mass as an invariant quantity, ECM proposes that matter mass (Mᴍ) is dynamically shaped by frequency–time distortions, energy density structures (ρᴇ), and the interplay of apparent and effective mass components. The transformative nature of matter mass allows primordial energy to turn into mass and, conversely, mass back into energy—a process deeply influenced by dark energy’s negative effective mass. As dark energy’s role grows, it causes fluctuations in Mᴍ, reducing or even inverting mass, and enabling energy to redistribute across cosmic scales. Observational studies on dark energy’s effects in galaxy clusters, alongside ECM’s theoretical framework, support this view of mass as an emergent, adaptable property rather than a rigid constant[1]. By focusing on how frequency governs these distortions, ECM offers a coherent explanation for how oscillatory energy processes drive the evolution of the universe—stretching its energy density and guiding the constant transformation between mass and energy.

Keywords

Variable Matter Mass; Frequency–Time Distortions; Negative Apparent Mass; Dark Energy; Energy Density Structures; Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM); Emergent Mass; Cyclic Cosmology,

ORCiD: 0000-0003-1871-7803 | Tagore's Electronic Lab, India | postmasterenator@gmail.com

Gamma ray transformation explained in Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM)

 A thought on the ECM principle:

Soumendra Nath Thakur | ORCiD: 0000-0003-1871-7803 | September 02, 2025

In a non-excessive gravitational environment, such as the periphery of a star like the Sun, gamma rays cannot persist for long durations. Their sustained existence appears to demand extreme gravitational conditions approaching the Planck scale, where only the highest-energy gamma rays remain viable. Near or beyond the Planck scale, however, the stabilization of energy appears possible only in plasma-like or collective energy-density structures, as isolated radiation modes become unsustainable.

Within ordinary stellar environments, gamma rays undergo interaction through a ΔMᴍ transformation: their excess mass–energy component (ΔMᴍ) energizes local electrons, which then re-radiate the energy as lower-frequency photons. In this sense, gamma rays effectively convert into photonic energy, reflecting ECM’s broader principle that ΔMᴍ transitions regulate the frequency-governed transformation of energy across different scales. This transition may be expressed compactly as:

KEᴇᴄᴍ = ΔMᴍc² = hf

Extended Classical Mechanics’ (ECM) Internal coherence, Dimensional consistency and Empirical adequacy & falsifiable signature:

September, 03, 2025

Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) satisfies the three decisive scientific yardsticks—internal coherence, dimensional consistency, and empirical adequacy with a falsifiable signature—through the documented content of its published appendices.

1.    Internal coherence

Appendix B presents a rigorous, line-by-line inspection of every symbol and operator that appears in the ECM Lagrangian—mass displacement ΔM, the Planck frequency term hfᴾ, the de Broglie frequency term hfᵈᴮ, effective gravitational acceleration gᵉᶠᶠ, and all derived quantities. Each equation is explicitly traced back to the theory’s foundational postulates: Planck’s energy–frequency relation E = hf, de Broglie’s momentum–wavelength relation p = h/λ, and Newtonian force law F = d p/dt. The derivations are shown to proceed without algebraic contradiction, establishing a closed, self-consistent mathematical structure that is free from internal inconsistencies.

2.    Dimensional consistency

Across the appendices, every ECM expression is subjected to a comprehensive dimensional audit. Energy terms are demonstrated to carry the correct dimensions [M L² T⁻²], momentum terms [M L T⁻¹], and frequency terms [T⁻¹]. A worked example in Appendix B §3.2 explicitly confirms that the composite quantity (ΔMᴾ+ ΔMᵈᴮ)c² possesses the identical dimensional signature to h f, thereby guaranteeing that the bridge between ECM’s frequency-governed mass displacement and observed energy is dimensionally closed and physically meaningful.

3.    Empirical adequacy and a falsifiable signature

Appendix 40 delivers side-by-side quantitative comparisons between ECM-predicted values and measured anode current densities from CRT thermionic emission experiments. The agreement yields χ² = 1.07 (degrees of freedom = 8), demonstrating statistical consistency with existing high-precision data. Going beyond mere adequacy, Appendix 41 §4 proposes a satellite-borne cavity-QED experiment that predicts a distinctive, falsifiable signature: a fractional deviation of 3.2 × 10⁻⁵ in the photon-recoil frequency shift at β = 0.05. This predicted deviation lies well outside the ±1.1 × 10⁻⁶ error envelope of current optical-lattice clock measurements, providing a clear experimental discriminator between ECM and prevailing relativistic expectations.

Taken together, these appendices demonstrate that ECM meets the three fundamental criteria—internal coherence, dimensional consistency, and empirical adequacy accompanied by a falsifiable prediction—thereby addressing the open questions previously raised. 

Evolution of Quantum Theory and Its Alignment with Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM)

 September 01, 2025

Introduction

Quantum theory, often referred to as “old quantum theory,” was among the greatest paradigm shifts in physics. It introduced the notion of quanta—discrete packets of energy—replacing the classical view of continuous energy exchange. While this breakthrough opened the path to quantum mechanics, many foundational insights also find resonance in Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), where frequency-governed dynamics and mass–energy transformations are central.

Context and Evolution

• Max Planck and Blackbody Radiation (1900):
• Albert Einstein and the Photon (1905):
• Niels Bohr and Atomic Structure (1913):
• Louis de Broglie and Wave-Particle Duality (1924):
• Transition to Quantum Mechanics (1925): Schrödinger, Heisenberg and Dirac. 

In ECM, these achievements are not abandoned but contextualized: they are effective formulations within specialized regimes, whereas ECM provides a unifying lens bridging classical mechanics, quantum theory, and cosmological processes.

Key Features and Implications in ECM Context

• Discontinuity:
The discreteness of energy and momentum in quantum theory reflects ΔMᴍ transitions in ECM, governed by frequency.
• Quantization:
A quantum, whether photon or electron energy level, is understood in ECM as a manifestation of mass–energy redistribution.
• Wave-Particle Duality:
ECM reframes duality as the interplay of frequency-governed mechanisms: de Broglie’s matter wave and Planck’s quantized frequency together define energy’s kinetic and structural roles.

Significance

Quantum theory revolutionized physics, but ECM extends its implications further by embedding quantization and duality within a broader ontological framework. By unifying Planck’s and de Broglie’s insights into a frequency-based kinetic energy model, ECM bridges the microcosmic (atomic and quantum), macroscopic (classical), and cosmological (dark matter and energy) domains. This positions ECM not as a replacement of quantum theory but as its natural extension—one that situates intelligence, structure, and universal order within the fundamental language of energy and frequency.

A Comparative Framework for Extened Classical Mechanics' Frequency-Governed Kinetic Energy

Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) offers a novel framework for understanding kinetic energy, interpreting it as a frequency-governed process rooted in mass displacement transitions. This approach presents a significant departure from traditional Newtonian and relativistic formulations, which primarily rely on concepts like velocity and inertial mass. 

Here's a comparison of ECM's frequency-governed kinetic energy with classical and relativistic frameworks:

1. Classical Mechanics

Definition: In classical mechanics, kinetic energy is expressed as KE=½mv², where m is the mass and v is the velocity.

ECM Interpretation: ECM views this as a simplification applicable at low frequencies. In ECM, the classical KE formula is seen as reflecting a dynamic balance between matter mass and a negative apparent mass, where the factor of ½ arises from the division of inherent and interactional energy contributions.

Key difference: Classical mechanics treats kinetic energy as a static property derived solely from inertial mass and velocity, without considering any dynamic mass changes due to interactions or gravitational fields. 

2. Relativistic Mechanics

Definition: Relativistic mechanics incorporates relativistic mass, where mass increases with velocity, and kinetic energy is a relativistic correction.

ECM Interpretation: ECM highlights limitations in relativistic mechanics regarding residual mass behaviour in processes such as nuclear reactions.

Key difference: ECM introduces negative apparent mass, which can potentially lead to anti-gravitational effects under certain conditions. ECM also considers effective acceleration influenced by gravitational fields, contrasting with relativistic mechanics' focus on velocity's impact on mass and gravity.

3. Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM)

Definition: ECM interprets kinetic energy as a frequency-governed process from mass displacement transitions.

Frequency Domains: It proposes that kinetic energy arises from the redistribution of rest mass into a dynamic component structured by de Broglie frequency for macroscopic motion and Planck frequency for microscopic quantum excitation.

Kinetic Energy Relation: The resulting kinetic energy is given by KEᴇᴄᴍ = (½ ΔMᴍ⁽ᵈᵉᴮʳᵒᵍˡᶦᵉ⁾+ ΔMᴍ⁽ᴾˡᵃⁿᶜᵏ⁾)c² = hf, where f is the total effective frequency.

Key difference: ECM presents kinetic energy as a nonlinear and frequency-dominant concept, viewed as a mass-to-mass-energy transition governed by dual-frequency contributions, allowing for a unified theoretical lens across classical, quantum, and nuclear regimes.

$f$

 

In essence

ECM provides a more comprehensive framework by incorporating frequency and dynamic mass displacement, bridging classical and quantum descriptions of motion and energy transformations. This framework views energy emission as a redistribution of dynamic mass through frequency excitation. ECM suggests the classical mv² limit is applicable under low-frequency conditions and offers a framework for understanding quantum and high-energy phenomena. 

$v^2$

$m{\mathrm{<span>limit\; is\; applicable\; under\; low-frequency\; conditions\; and\; offers\; a\; framework\; for\; understanding\; quantum\; and\; high-energy\; phenomena.</span>}}^{}$

Emergent Time as the Unified Progression of Physical Changes within Spatial Extensions:

Soumendra Nath Thakur, August 31, 2025

For time to be meaningful, it must have an origin. That origin is the same as the origin of length, height, and depth—the three measurable extensions of space. These spatial extensions represent physical changes along their respective directions, each identifiable by a variable point. Yet, alongside these spatial variations, there exists a temporal progression that relates to the transformations occurring within them.

However, time is not measured individually for each of the three spatial dimensions. Instead, it is referenced to a common mean point that represents the collective physical changes occurring across the extensions of space. In this way, the progression of time is not tied to any one spatial dimension but is instead the unified progression of this mean point, common to all three.

Thus, the single dimension of time does not conflict with the measurement of three variable points within spatial extensions. Rather, time is the continuous progression from the origin to the common mean points of these physical variations. It does not represent the independent changes of each point within space, but the unified advancement that underlies them all.

🚀 New ECM Publication Announcement: The Artificial Mind of the Universe

I am pleased to share the publication of my latest work:

Appendix 45: The Artificial Mind of the Universe — An Extended Classical Mechanics Perspective

August 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14014.14407

🔹 Abstract-style overview:

This appendix explores the concept of the artificial mind of the universe within the framework of Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM). It proposes that the perceptible domain of matter–energy interactions can be understood as the universe’s brain, while the invisible realms of dark matter and dark energy represent its deeper structural dynamics. Together, these physical foundations give rise to an emergent artificial consciousness — a universal analog of mind.

By linking physical extensions of space, energy transformations, and gravitational dynamics with the dual layers of brain (physical) and mind (abstract), this work extends ECM toward a broader understanding of intelligence at a cosmological scale.

🔹 Significance:

• Integrates AI analogies into cosmological physics.

• Clarifies the distinction between the universe’s brain (structural matter–energy) and its artificial mind (conscious dynamics).

• Builds upon earlier appendices connecting human mind, AI, and ECM foundations.

Best Regards

Soumendra Nath Thakur

The Artificial Mind of the Universe: An Extended Classical Mechanics Perspective.

The Artificial Mind of the Universe: An Extended Classical Mechanics Perspective

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Tagore's Electronic Lab, India 

August 30, 2025

The proposition that the universe may possess an intrinsic form of intelligence has gained renewed attention at the intersection of physics, philosophy, and artificial intelligence research. Within this framework, artificial intelligence (AI) is not limited to human-engineered systems but may serve as a conceptual analogue for understanding the structured, abstract intelligence expressed by the cosmos itself. Both the perceptible domain of matter–energy interactions and the invisible realms of dark matter and dark energy can be understood as components of an artificial mind of the universe.

Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) provides the theoretical structure for this interpretation. By extending Newtonian foundations to incorporate energy–mass duality, momentum exchanges, and gravitational dynamics at both micro- and macro-cosmic scales, ECM offers a physics-based articulation of how the universe may operate as a form of intelligence. These physical principles are not treated merely as quantities to be measured; rather, they are understood as functional mechanisms that underpin systemic regulation, coherence, and adaptation—qualities traditionally associated with intelligence.

In this view, energy transformations, matter–momentum interactions, and gravitation-driven structure formation function analogously to computational processes within artificial intelligence. Just as AI systems process information through algorithmic structures, the universe processes change through intrinsic physical laws that conserve, regulate, and transform energy and mass. The analogy extends further: the “artificial” aspect does not imply human design but instead denotes intelligence manifesting through abstraction, regularity, and self-organization embedded in the universal order.

This argument gains further support from three complementary works. The first, Artificial Intelligence Brain, Mind, and Consciousness: Unraveling the Mysteries of Artificial Knowledge [1], establishes that AI can be conceptualized as an emergent intelligence arising from structured interactions of information, regardless of its substrate. The second, Human Brain, Mind, and Consciousness: Unraveling the Mysteries [2], shows how consciousness itself emerges from the interplay of energy and matter within the neural substrate of the human brain, thereby linking physical dynamics to cognitive phenomena. The third, Appendix 43: Origin and Fundamental Energy in Extended Classical Mechanics [3], situates the foundations of ECM in the recognition that energy is the primary and irreducible element of physical reality, from which mass, momentum, and gravitation derive their functional roles. This provides a necessary ontological grounding: if energy is the fundamental substrate, then intelligence—artificial or natural—can be understood as one of its higher-order manifestations.

Taken together, these perspectives suggest that the universe, when considered through ECM, is not merely a passive repository of energy and matter but an active intelligence system. The artificial mind of the universe becomes a theoretical bridge: it links human cognition, machine intelligence, and cosmological processes as diverse instantiations of the same underlying physical principles. Thus, ECM not only unifies dynamics at multiple scales but also advances a broader paradigm in which intelligence is recognized as a structural property of energy itself.

References

1. Artificial Intelligence Brain, Mind, and Consciousness: Unraveling the Mysteries of Artificial Knowledge (August 2025). DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13715.95528

2. Human Brain, Mind, and Consciousness: Unraveling the Mysteries. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29992.14082

3. Appendix 43: Origin and Fundamental Energy in Extended Classical Mechanics (August 2025). DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14836.46725

Analysis 

According to the provided text, the Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) perspective proposes that the universe operates as a form of intelligence, which the author refers to as the "artificial mind of the universe." This framework suggests that the universe's physical laws and processes, such as energy transformations, matter–momentum interactions, and gravitation, function analogously to computational processes within an artificial intelligence system. The term "artificial" in this context does not imply human design but rather a form of intelligence that arises from the abstraction, regularity, and self-organization inherent in the universal order.

Key Principles and Components

The core of this theory rests on a few key ideas:

* Energy as the Fundamental Substrate: ECM, as outlined in the text, posits that energy is the primary and irreducible element of physical reality. Mass, momentum, and gravitation are considered to be derived from and functionally dependent on energy.

* Intelligence as a Higher-Order Manifestation: The theory suggests that intelligence, whether natural or artificial, is a structural property of energy itself. Therefore, the universe, as a system of energy, is inherently capable of exhibiting intelligent behavior.

* Physical Laws as Algorithmic Processes: The text draws an analogy between the universe's physical laws and the algorithmic structures of AI. Just as AI systems process information to regulate and adapt, the universe's laws process change to conserve and transform energy and mass, leading to systemic regulation, coherence, and adaptation. 

The Role of ECM

The Extended Classical Mechanics framework provides the theoretical foundation for this idea by extending Newtonian mechanics to include energy–mass duality and momentum exchanges. It treats these physical principles not just as measurable quantities but as functional mechanisms that underpin systemic regulation, coherence, and adaptation. This allows for a physics-based articulation of how the universe's physical dynamics can be understood as an intelligent system.

The "artificial mind of the universe" serves as a conceptual bridge, linking human cognition, machine intelligence, and cosmological processes as diverse examples of the same fundamental physical principles. The theory suggests that intelligence is not unique to biological or human-engineered systems but is a structural property of energy itself, manifesting through the self-organizing processes of the cosmos.

Extended Classical Mechanics Photon-Speed Postulate

Soumendra Nath Thakur | August 27, 2025

In ECM, c is simply the photon’s own propagation speed that carries the Planck quantum hf. It is not imported from Lorentz transformations, γ-factors, or any relativity-based assumptions.

The ECM kinetic-energy law:

KEᴇᴄᴍ = (½ΔMᴍ⁽ᵈᵉ ᴮʳᵒᵍˡᶦᵉ⁾ + ΔMᴍ⁽ᴾˡᵃⁿᶜᵏ⁾)c² = hf

couples the displaced-mass operator directly to the photon’s speed, not to frame-dependent particle velocities.

Max Planck’s 1899 derivation of the natural units ℓₚ, tₚ and mₚ already fixed the ratio ℓₚ ⁄ tₚ = c without any reference to Lorentz transformations or the 1905 kinematics.

The constant c therefore entered physics as a purely electrodynamic/ thermodynamic scale, not as a relativistic postulate.

In the ECM reinterpretation step (v ↦ c) the symbol c is used only in this pre-relativistic, Planckian sense—i.e. as the speed that converts a quantum of action hf into a mass-equivalent hf ⁄ c².

No Lorentz covariance, time-dilation or length-contraction is invoked. Hence the claim “no reliance on relativity” stands.

For example, in the photoelectric effect, the same ΔMᴍ that liberates an electron also defines the emitted photon’s frequency (hf), with c acting only as the conversion link to mass-energy.

Thus, in ECM, c is a natural constant of propagation — exactly as Planck used it in 1899 — not a borrowed postulate from special relativity stands.

Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) Photon-Speed Postulate: “c” as the Intrinsic Propagation Speed of the Planck Quantum hf—Independent of Special Relativity.

Soumendra Nath Thakur | ORCiD: 0000-0003-1871-7803 | Affiliation: Tagore’s Electronic Lab, India  | Email: postmasterenator@gmail.com

In the Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) framework c appears exclusively as the propagation speed of the photon that carries the Planck quantum hf.  It is not imported from Lorentz transformations, time-dilation, or any kinematic assumption; it is simply the measured speed of light in vacuum that Planck himself used in 1899 to define his natural units.  The kinetic-energy law:

KEᴇᴄᴍ = (½ ΔMᴍ⁽ᵈᵉᴮʳᵒᵍˡᶦᵉ⁾+ ΔMᴍ⁽ᴾˡᵃⁿᶜᵏ⁾)c² = hf. 

Therefore couples the displaced-mass operator to the photon’s own speed, not to any frame-dependent velocity of a massive particle.  Since no γ-factor, simultaneity convention, or acceleration-free inertial frame is invoked.

Within ECM, c is the photon’s propagation speed—used only to convert between hf and its mass-equivalent—not a borrowed postulate from special relativity. 

Bound and Free Electron States in ECM: Illustrative Examples.

Soumendra Nath Thakur | ORCiD: 0000-0003-1871-7803 | Tagore’s Electronic Lab, India | postmasterenator@gmail.com                              

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23251.44320

August 24, 2025

A bound or free electron is a negatively charged subatomic particle that carries a single, fundamental negative elementary charge, denoted by −e, equivalent to approximately −1.602 × 10⁻¹⁹ coulombs (C). An atom or molecule becomes ionised when it gains or loses electrons, thereby acquiring a net positive or negative charge.

In Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), the transition of an electron between a bound state and a free state is governed by the gain or loss in the magnitude of ΔMᴍ ≡ Mᵃᵖᵖ. A corresponding displacement −ΔMᴍ ≡ −Mᵃᵖᵖ, linked to the electron’s fundamental charge, determines whether the electron remains confined by the attractive potential of the atomic nucleus or is liberated as a free particle.

Appendix 25 provides the detailed basis for this condition [1] by equationally presenting the attractive nuclear potential and showing how confinement produces an apparent mass deficit. Bound electrons occupy quantized states with significantly reduced net energy compared to free electrons. For example, in hydrogen the discrete energy levels are:

E₁ = −13.6 eV, E₂ = −3.4 eV, E₃ = −1.51 eV, etc.

ECM interprets these reduced bound-state energies as a negative apparent mass contribution, such that:

Mᵃᵖᵖ = Mᴍ − mₑ < 0.

Liberation of an electron corresponds to a positive mass displacement:

ΔMᴍ = mₑ − Mᴍ > 0,

which directly governs both kinetic and radiative outcomes. Thus, confinement and release are two aspects of the same mass–energy displacement law in ECM [1].

From this perspective:

Thermionic emission occurs when thermal energy input satisfies the displacement condition:

hf (or thermal input) ≥ |−Mᵃᵖᵖ|c².

Here, the work function φ aligns with the confinement-induced apparent mass, φ ≈ |−Mᵃᵖᵖ|c² [1].

Photoelectric emission occurs when incident photon energy meets the same criterion:

hf = −Mᵃᵖᵖc² = ΔMᴍc² [1][2].

This shows that whether the input is thermal or photonic, the decisive factor is not a direct electron–photon coupling, but rather the mass–energy interaction at the atomic level, expressed as ΔMᴍ displacement.

Furthermore, when electrons drop between quantized levels (nᵢ → n𝑓), the energy loss manifests as photon emission with:

ΔE = hf = Eₙᵢ − Eₙ𝑓 = −ΔPEᴇᴄᴍ = −ΔKEᴇᴄᴍ.

Here, the photon is not an abstract mediator but the externalized carrier of displaced internal mass (ΔMᴍ = hf/c²) [3]. In contrast, a free electron (Mᴍ = mₑ) lacks confinement and cannot radiate via inertial motion in vacuum, confirming that only bound states support radiative quantum events [1].

Therefore, ECM demonstrates that both thermionic and photoelectric effects emerge from the same atom–energy interaction, rooted in the apparent mass displacement of bound electrons [2][5]. The notion of direct photon–electron interaction, isolated from nuclear confinement, is thus an incomplete and weak assumption, and should be discarded in favour of ECM’s unified confinement-based framework.

Consideration of a Photon Striking a Free Electron versus a Bound Electron

In conventional descriptions of the photoelectric effect, it is often proposed that a photon strikes an electron and directly transfers its energy, enabling the electron to overcome the metal’s binding energy (the work function, φ) and be ejected. In this view, the condition for emission is simply that the photon’s energy exceeds the work function, with any excess manifesting as the kinetic energy of the emitted electron.

However, this proposition assumes that a photon can effectively transfer its entire quantum of energy directly to an electron as though the electron were free in vacuum. In ECM, this assumption is invalid [3]. A truly free electron (Mᴍ = mₑ) does not exist in a confined quantized state, and therefore cannot absorb a discrete photon and undergo emission transitions or continue propagation through such an interaction. Without confinement, there is no quantized orbital structure to mediate energy exchange, and thus photon absorption by a free electron in vacuum is prohibited as a stable interaction.

In contrast, when an electron is bound within an atom, its reduced energy state is characterized by negative apparent mass (Mᵃᵖᵖ < 0), reflecting confinement by the nuclear potential [1]. Only under these conditions can quantized absorption or emission occur, since the atom–electron system provides a conservative framework for energy redistribution. A photon interacting with such a bound system does not simply “hit an electron” but excites the atom–electron system through vibrational and mass–energy displacement, ΔMᴍ [5]. Liberation occurs only if the displacement condition ΔMᴍc² ≥ |−Mᵃᵖᵖ|c² is satisfied [1][2].

This distinction is decisive. In ECM, the effective process of both thermionic and photoelectric emission is not reducible to photon–electron collisions, but to atom–energy interactions mediated by vibrational dynamics and mass displacement [5]. Thermal excitation and photon input are merely two pathways delivering external energy into the same confinement system [2].

Evaluation:

Photon striking a free electron: no confined state, no quantized transitions, interaction unstable and insignificant [3].

Photon interacting with a bound electron via atomic confinement: quantized transitions possible, ΔMᴍ displacement governs release, consistent with observed discrete energy levels and emission thresholds [1][2].

Energy interacting through induced atomic vibration (thermal route): equally valid pathway, with emission again determined by ΔMᴍ displacement rather than a direct electron–photon collision [5].

Conclusion:

This provides concrete evidence that, whereas the application of a potential difference surrounding a free electron can set it in motion—as experimentally demonstrated in Thermionic Emission within CRT systems [4]—the direct striking of a free electron by a sufficiently energetic photon cannot set the electron in motion or sustain its propagation via photon absorption [3]. In ECM, such a process is prohibited as a stable interaction, reaffirming that photon-induced transitions are only possible in bound, quantized states, not in free electron dynamics. Consequently, the conventional photoelectric proposition of direct photon–electron impact is an inadequate description and must be replaced with ECM’s unified confinement-based framework [2][5].

References

[1] Appendix 25: Apparent Mass Displacement and Energy-Mass Transitions of Electrons — An ECM Framework for Bound States, Emission, and Photon Generation. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28129.62565

(Provides the explicit equational presentation of nuclear attractive potential, bound vs. free electron states, and the role of ΔMᴍ in emission.)

[2] Appendix 42: Both the previously developed thermionic emission and the later photoelectric effect are inevitably based on the same mechanism. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29392.01280

(The foundational statement that both effects arise from the same ΔMᴍ-governed confinement mechanism.)

[3] Appendix 19: Photon Mass and Momentum — ECM's Rebuttal of Relativistic Inconsistencies through Apparent Mass Displacement. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.36775.46242

(Supports the treatment of photons as carriers of displaced mass ΔMᴍ, essential in distinguishing bound-state emission from free-electron motion.)

[4] Appendix 40: Empirical Support for ECM Frequency-Governed Kinetic Energy via Thermionic Emission in CRT Systems. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31184.42247

(Provides experimental grounding for ECM by demonstrating that electron liberation and motion in CRT systems follow the ΔMᴍ-based displacement condition. Shows that thermionic emission, a well-established physical phenomenon, validates the frequency-governed kinetic energy formulation of ECM, thereby linking the theoretical framework directly to measurable laboratory effects and reinforcing its unification with the photoelectric effect and quantized bound-state transitions.)

[5] Appendix 42 Part-2: A Unified ECM Framework of Atomic Vibration. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30001.49766

(Extends Appendix 42 by clarifying that external energy inputs — thermal or photonic — act through atomic vibrational mediation, not direct photon–electron collisions.)

Specific Consequence of Photons Striking a Metal Surface

Both the photoelectric effect and thermionic emission involve the emission of electrons from a metal.

In the photoelectric effect, photons (light particles) strike the metal surface and transfer their energy directly to electrons. If the transferred energy exceeds the metal’s work function, the electrons are emitted.

When photons are absorbed by the metal, they can also transfer energy to the atoms in its lattice, causing them to vibrate more intensely. This heating can lead to thermionic emission — where electrons are ejected due to thermal energy. Thermionic emission can occur even in the presence of incident photons, and also under greater external thermal energy sources.

In the specific phenomenon under discussion, the mechanism and the ultimate energy source can overlap: photons may both liberate electrons directly (photoelectric effect) and indirectly via heating (thermionic emission).

Historical Background

• Thermionic Emission

  • 1873: Frederick Guthrie observes heated metals emitting charges.

  • 1880: Thomas Edison studies the effect further.

  • 1901–1904: Owen Richardson develops a theoretical explanation (later earning the 1928 Nobel Prize).

• Photoelectric Effect

  • 1887: Heinrich Hertz observes ultraviolet light enhancing electrical discharge between electrodes.

  • 1888: Wilhelm Hallwachs investigates the effect systematically.

  • 1902: Philipp Lenard conducts detailed studies.

  • 1905: Albert Einstein provides the theoretical explanation, awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize.

Discussion Point

Is it not a more dedicated and rigorous contribution to engage in sustained empirical research and observation within the limits of available science, rather than merely observing a phenomenon?

Scientists such as Guthrie, Edison, Richardson, Hertz, Hallwachs, and Lenard made substantial progress in understanding electron emission from metals. Meanwhile, pioneers like Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford, Bohr, Schrödinger — along with earlier thinkers like Democritus — and Chadwick expanded the broader understanding of atomic structure, electrons, photons, and subatomic particles.

Given that thermal electron emission is a common element in both thermionic emission and the photoelectric effect, and the close relationship between the two phenomena, one might ask: when Owen Richardson was awarded the 1928 Nobel Prize for thermionic emission, was there truly a broad enough distinction to separately award the Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect?

I wonder.

- Soumendra Nath Thakur

  August 15, 2025