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 Theme | Terry McMahon's View | ECM View | Commentary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lorentz Factor & SR | Lorentz 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 Mass | Photons 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 Constant | Δf 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 Mechanism | G 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 & Fields | Gravitons 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 & Causality | SR'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 Gravity | Must 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 Forces | Energy-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 Academia | Journals 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.
