21 July 2025

Frequency and Energy in Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM):


Author: Soumendra Nath Thakur | ORCiD: 0000-0003-1871-7803 
Email: postmasterenator@gmail.com

Date: July 21, 2025

In Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), the concepts of frequency and energy are reinterpreted with frequency (f) taking precedence as the most fundamental descriptor of a physical state. This framework positions frequency as more intrinsic to a system's dynamical evolution, independent of external reference frames, and dimensionally foundational for constructing observable quantities.

Frequency as the Primary Descriptor of Oscillation

In ECM, the argument for frequency's primacy is robust:

Synonymous with Vibration: Frequency isn't just a measure of vibration; it's considered synonymous with it. To talk about something vibrating or oscillating is, by definition, to imply a recurring event, and frequency quantifies that recurrence.

Mathematical Representation: ECM posits that frequency is the "only valid mathematical representation" of repetitive motion. Without a defined frequency, the concept of a regular, repeating vibration or oscillation becomes ill-defined. Consider a simple pendulum: its swing is described by its frequency (or period), not just its displacement.

Definitional Precedence: The idea is that vibration cannot be defined without frequency. This establishes frequency as the primary descriptor for any oscillatory system. It's the intrinsic characteristic that defines the very essence of its repetitive movement.

This perspective elevates frequency from being merely a derived quantity (like energy in the E = hf relation) to being the foundational property from which other related concepts emerge.

Reinterpreting the Planck Relation

The classical Planck relation, E = hf, is fundamentally reinterpreted in ECM. Here's how:

Energy as an Emergent Quantity: Unlike traditional physics where energy is a primary physical quantity, ECM views energy as an emergent concept. It's considered a secondary representation derived from a system's intrinsic frequency of phase transition or oscillation.

Conversion Constant: Instead of Planck's constant (h), ECM introduces its own conversion constant, for example, k = 5.558 × 10^−34 Js, which scales the system's intrinsic frequency to yield energy. This suggests that energy is a consequence of frequency, rather than frequency being a characteristic of energy.

Primacy of Frequency
ECM emphasizes the primacy of frequency over both energy and time (Δt) for several reasons:

Inherent to Dynamical State: Frequency is considered inherent to a system's dynamical state. It directly characterizes the ongoing evolution of a system without requiring an external timekeeper. This contrasts with energy, which depends on factors like system configuration (mass, motion, potential), and time, which is seen as relational and observer-dependent.

Fundamental for Oscillation: Frequency is deemed synonymous with vibration or oscillation and is presented as the only valid mathematical representation of such repetitive motion. It is argued that vibration cannot be defined without frequency, thus establishing frequency as the primary descriptor for oscillatory systems.

Cosmological Implications: In ECM cosmology, phenomena like redshift and energetic shifts are framed in terms of Δf (change in frequency) rather than time-based expansion. This perspective suggests that apparent energetic imbalances (ΔE) or mass variations (ΔM) over a duration (Δt) are governed by the fundamental phase-frequency evolution, not by the passage of time itself.

In essence, ECM proposes a shift from an energy-centric view to one where frequency is the foundational element driving physical processes and defining the nature of reality.

Comparative Analysis Report: Terry McMahon's Reformulations vs. Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) Framework.

Prepared by: Soumendra Nath Thakur

ORCiD: 0000-0003-1871-7803
Date: July 21, 2025

Scholarly Cross-Comparison Now Live: Read on ResearchGate

Introduction

This report offers a focused, point-by-point comparative analysis between the reformulated physics approach proposed by Terry McMahon in his 2025 paper, Quantum gravity, special relativity & unification QGSM, and the Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) framework developed independently. Both approaches challenge the foundations of relativity and quantum field theory, offering energy-centric alternatives to spacetime geometry and abstract force-carrying entities. Despite different terminologies, the two share foundational similarities as well as critical divergences.

Comparative Summary Table

Key ThemeTerry McMahon's ViewECM ViewCommentary
Lorentz Factor & SRLorentz transformation introduces non-physical frame effects. Replaced with an index-based formulation.SR time dilation is rejected; frequency governs Δt. Frame effects arise from energy-frequency shift, not geometry.Both reject the Lorentz factor and spacetime-based time dilation. ECM emphasizes frequency displacement instead of dynamic index.
Photon MassPhotons possess momentum → they must have mass. Mass evolves from bound (<c) to liberated (at c).Photon/gamma ray emission represents displaced apparent mass (−Mapp), hence carries effective mass component.Both assert non-zero mass association for free photons. ECM frames this via mass-displacement (ΔMM).
Planck ConstantΔf varies with energy scale. Not truly constant.k = 5.558 x 10−34 Js derived in ECM as fundamental, linked to f0.McMahon sees h as dynamic; ECM anchors a similar constant as derived from f0 via energetic continuity.
Gravity MechanismG is dimensionally flawed; gravity is energy density dependent, not geometric.Gravity is mass-binding confinement of Meff; anti-gravity is liberated Mapp. No curved space required.Both reject GR's geometry. ECM formalizes the binding/release mechanism through energy-mass structuring.
Gravitons & FieldsGravitons unnecessary; field theory flawed.No graviton; no field quantization. All transitions are real, observable mass shifts (ΔMM).Total agreement on non-necessity of virtual field carriers.
Time & CausalitySR's time is geometrical fiction; proper time must emerge from energy-frequency behaviour.Time is derived as f0; real dynamics follow frequency shift, not relativistic time.McMahon calls for time redefinition; ECM implements it via f → Δt transformation.
Quantum GravityMust emerge from internal energy distributions, not curved spacetime.ECM sees gravity and anti-gravity as reversible via ΔMM-mediated transitions.Agreement in rejecting geometrisation in favour of physical transitions.
Unification of ForcesEnergy-scaled parameters (running parameters) unify EM and gravity.Mass-frequency correspondence allows unification without particle mediation.Parallel strategies: dynamic parameters vs. frequency-mass equivalence.
Resistance from AcademiaJournals resist anti-relativistic reformulations.ECM development has been independent due to similar institutional resistance.Shared experience of marginalization for paradigm-challenging frameworks.

Conclusion

Terry McMahon's reformulations and the ECM framework arrive independently at converging conclusions: spacetime curvature is not fundamental, time is emergent from energy behaviour, and photons are not massless. Where McMahon uses "running parameters," ECM formalizes transitions using mass-displacement (ΔMM), effective and apparent mass (Meff, Mapp), and frequency (f) as foundational. This comparative insight opens the door to potential synthesis or mutual reinforcement of both models under a shared principle of energy-centric realism.

Intellectual debate fosters a deeper and more accurate understanding for everything.

July 21, 2025

This statement underscores the transformative power of engaging with diverse perspectives through reasoned discourse. When individuals with differing viewpoints engage in intellectual debate, it's not merely about winning an argument, but about a collaborative process of inquiry.

Through this process, assumptions are challenged, logical inconsistencies are exposed, and ideas are rigorously tested against alternative interpretations and evidence. Participants are compelled to articulate their positions with greater clarity, to consider counter-arguments, and to integrate new information that might refine or even alter their original understanding. This dynamic exchange moves beyond superficial comprehension, leading to a more nuanced, comprehensive, and ultimately, more accurate grasp of the subject matter, whatever it may be. It's a continuous cycle of questioning, defending, learning, and evolving one's understanding.

- Soumendra Nath Thakur