Understanding photons better:

Soumendra Nath Thakur

October 01, 2025

If one truly wishes to understand photons, the very first step is to abandon the relativistic portrayal of the photon. Relativity offers not a scientific reality, but a construct riddled with speculative assumptions, mathematical distortions, and conceptual exaggerations that have been elevated far beyond their merit. Such a framework has misled generations by presenting illusions of profundity where physical clarity is absent.

Instead, the focus should turn to the rigorous and empirically grounded approaches of Max Planck, Louis de Broglie, and the Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) framework. Planck’s experimental work on blackbody radiation established the observational foundations of photon physics in their purest form, free from speculative overlay. De Broglie’s insight into wave–particle duality deepened this foundation, while Extensed Classical Mechanics (ECM) expands the picture by explaining photon behavior across gravitational, antigravitational, and transitional regimes — realms relativity fails to address without resorting to abstraction.

To cling to relativistic interpretations is to confine one’s understanding of photons to little more than a preliminary, even inferior, school-level conception. In truth, Einstein’s theorization of the photoelectric effect is often overstated; the phenomenon itself necessarily rests on the principles of thermionic emission, which preceded it. A serious scientific inquiry into photon–electron interactions must therefore prioritize thermionic emission, for it offers a far more comprehensive and physically meaningful account than the reductive perspective of the photoelectric effect.

The time has come to reject the dominance of relativistic dogma and return to physically consistent, observation-rooted frameworks. Only then can the photon be understood as it truly is — not as a mathematical artifact of relativity, but as a real entity governed by measurable, testable principles.

The Journey of Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM): From Challenge to Proposal.

Soumendra Nath Thakur 

September 28, 2025

For over a decade, I have been engaged in the exploration of fundamental physics through a framework I call Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM). This journey has been as much about questioning established paradigms as it has been about constructing a coherent, mechanics-based alternative.

Challenging the Prevailing

The path began with a critical examination of prevailing inconsistencies in physics—questions surrounding cosmic acceleration, antigravity phenomena, and the links between classical and quantum mechanics. Over the course of roughly seven years, I engaged in rigorous debate, analysis, and formulation of falsifiable counters to conventional models.

This period was characterized by intense conceptual scrutiny: testing ideas against observational data, reviewing literature across multiple disciplines, and identifying gaps where classical and quantum theories struggled to provide clarity. It was a phase of latent potential—what I now see as the conceptual equivalent of primordial energy (PEᴇᴄᴍ) in ECM terms.

From Concept to Proposal

Following this foundational phase, approximately three preliminary years were dedicated to consolidating these ideas into a coherent proposal. The work involved:

Defining negative apparent mass (−Mᵃᵖᵖ) to account for phenomena like antigravity and cosmic acceleration.

Establishing effective mass (Mᵉᶠᶠ) to reconcile gravitational interactions at both cosmic and quantum scales.

Introducing frequency-governed kinetic energy (KEᴇᴄᴍ) to explain energy transitions beyond motion alone.

These efforts culminated in publications and structured drafts, including my 2025 article “A Nuanced Perspective on Dark Energy: Extended Classical Mechanics”, which formalized ECM as a mechanics-rooted, cross-disciplinary framework.

Implementation and Beyond

Even with a robust proposal in hand, the work of bringing ECM into the broader discourse has just begun. Implementation involves:

Incremental integration into public platforms and reference resources, including Wikipedia.

Careful documentation of references, insertions, and methodological constitution to ensure reproducibility and transparency.

Continued refinement and application to unresolved phenomena like dark matter, black holes, and cosmic energy distributions.

This stage mirrors the transformation of conceptual potential into kinetic action—a deliberate conversion of theoretical energy into structured, observable impact.

Looking Forward

ECM is not a static theory; it is a long-term research trajectory. Its growth depends on continuous testing, refinement, and interaction with the scientific community. The journey illustrates that meaningful scientific progress requires patience, discipline, and rigorous adherence to principles of verifiability and neutrality.

Ultimately, the pleasure in this work is not personal recognition—it is the pure pursuit of understanding, performance, and development. For me, over 99% of this effort is dedicated to research itself, with only a fraction tied to personal satisfaction.

Conclusion

The path from counter-establishment to proposal, and from proposal to implementation, demonstrates that foundational physics is both a discipline of thought and a practice of persistence. ECM embodies this journey—transforming latent potential into structured knowledge, and setting the stage for future discoveries across classical and quantum domains.

#ExtendedClassicalMechanics #ECM #PhysicsResearch #DarkEnergy #ScientificJourney #ClassicalAndQuantum #LongTermResearch

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.