Soumendra Nath Thakur | ORCiD:0000-0003-1871-7803
April 05, 2026
Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) is a framework that extends classical mechanics through frequency–energy relations (after Max Planck) and wavelength–momentum–mass relations (after Louis de Broglie), without invoking relativistic spacetime constructs or quantum field formalism. Its domain is the dynamical evolution of mass–energy–frequency structures across scales, not the reproduction of existing disciplinary frameworks.
A recurring issue in evaluating ECM arises from the projection of expectations derived from unrelated domains—particularly particle physics and quantum field theory. Questions concerning spin, particle statistics, or entanglement originate within those specialized frameworks and are not foundational requirements for a theory whose scope is fundamentally different. Their imposition reflects a category mismatch rather than a substantive limitation of ECM.
Within ECM, entropy is not treated as a purely statistical or ensemble-dependent construct, but as a dynamical quantity governing manifestation and evolution through mass–energy redistribution. Consequently, the expectation of a uniquely defined entropy in the conventional thermodynamic sense does not directly apply within this framework.
Similarly, non-local probabilistic constructs such as entanglement do not constitute foundational elements in ECM. The framework operates through locally governed, physically grounded mass–energy–frequency dynamics. Therefore, invoking such constructs as necessary criteria for validation is methodologically misplaced.
Energy relations in ECM are fundamentally rooted in Planck’s relation E = hf, from which structured energy decomposition (e.g., f₀ = fₚ + Δf₀) is defined. Relations such as E = mc² arise, if at all, as derived conditions under specific limits, not as primary postulates.
The evaluation of any theoretical framework requires alignment with its foundational principles and intended scope. Imposing external constructs without such alignment does not constitute rigorous critique, but rather reflects a misinterpretation of the framework itself.
