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

Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) vs. the Massless Photon Assumption — A Call for Mathematical Consistency

Soumendra Nath Thakur | August 13, 2025

The insistence that photons have m = 0 and that ECM’s treatment of photon mass as > 0 or −Mᵃᵖᵖ is “wrong” is based on outdated assumptions rather than a consistent application of physics. In ECM,

F = (Mᴍ − Mᵃᵖᵖ) aᵉᶠᶠ

applies universally. Dismissing it without understanding its derivation is not a rebuttal — it is a refusal to engage with the framework.

The claim that F = ma “does not apply” at the speed of light is also incorrect. ECM uses:

F = Mᵉᶠᶠ aᵉᶠᶠ

with photons having Mᵉᶠᶠ = −2Mᵃᵖᵖ immediately after emission, transitioning to Mᵉᶠᶠ = −Mᵃᵖᵖ beyond the source’s gravitational influence. This is fully consistent and requires no m = 0 assumption.

The problem with this position is straightforward:

• It conflates massive-particle kinematics with dynamic-particle kinematics.

• It retains the massless-photon assumption, which collapses under basic force–acceleration logic.

ECM resolves this by treating −Mᵃᵖᵖ as an emergent, motion-dependent property — not a rest mass. This eliminates the contradictions of “true negative mass” in other theories and provides a self-contained, polarity-based explanation for photon propagation.

Before debating ECM, one must address the fact that under the m = 0 assumption:

F = 0 × a = 0

— meaning the photon cannot even move from emission to detection without an ad hoc “instant velocity” insertion. That alone indicates the model is incomplete.

If ECM is to be dismissed, the challenger must present a mathematically consistent alternative that explains photon propagation without m = 0 — and without contradicting its own force laws.

The Self-Sufficiency of Physical Laws — No Designer Required

Soumendra Nath Thakur 

August 13, 2025

Throughout history, many eminent scientists — from Newton and Einstein to Oppenheimer and Michio Kaku — have, at various points, entertained the notion of an intelligent designer or “hands of God” guiding the formation of the universe. The argument often arises from the apparent fine-tuning of cosmic parameters, the astonishing harmony of physical constants, and the improbable emergence of life-supporting conditions. To some, such precision suggests intentional creation.

However, when examined deeply through the principles of mathematical physics — and in my own work, through the framework of Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) — the need for an external designer dissolves. The very order that inspires appeals to divine intervention can instead be seen as the natural, inevitable outcome of self-consistent physical laws acting upon the initial conditions of the universe.

In this view, there is no guiding hand, no external architect — the “design” is intrinsic to the system. The complexity and structure we observe today are not imposed from without, but emerge from within, as lawful consequences of energy–mass interactions, symmetry principles, and the governing equations of motion.

It is undeniable that certain ancient philosophies were grounded in observations of nature and reasoned interpretations of the universe, relying more on scientific philosophy than on faith or spirituality. When such philosophies convey no compelling need for an external designer in the universe’s formation, they stand in striking alignment with modern scientific understanding. They deserve recognition for having, long ago, reached insights about the cosmos that parallel those uncovered by contemporary science. Every atom, subatomic particle, and energetic vibration inherits its existence from the same primordial framework, evolving without deviation from the logic of the universe’s own rules.

Thus, the grandeur of the cosmos need not be diminished by removing the idea of a designer; rather, it is amplified. It is the triumph of the laws themselves — complete, self-contained, and capable of giving rise to galaxies, life, and consciousness — without any external intervention.

Bridging the Two Concepts

While Schrödinger’s statement — “The total number of minds in the universe is one” — speaks primarily to the unity of consciousness, it indirectly touches on a deeper point about origins. If all mental phenomena share a common source, it invites the broader question: does the universe itself require an external originator, a “guiding hand” that sets its laws and matter into motion? This is where philosophy and physics part ways. The unity of consciousness can be contemplated through metaphysics and ancient philosophy, but the structure of the physical universe can be examined — and often fully explained — within the self-contained framework of natural laws.

Many scientists, from antiquity to the modern era, have entertained the notion that the universe’s intricate order could be the product of a guiding intelligence. Michio Kaku, for example, has often spoken about the “mind of God” as a poetic metaphor for the elegance of the cosmos, reflecting the awe inspired by the universe’s complexity. Such ideas frequently arise from the apparent improbability of cosmic precision emerging without deliberate planning. However, through the lens of Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), I find no compelling necessity for such an external designer.

The universe’s formation, evolution, and structure can be understood as natural consequences of the intrinsic properties of matter and energy, governed by physical laws that operate consistently across scales. The elegance we perceive is not proof of a guiding hand, but a reflection of the self-organizing potential inherent in the laws themselves — laws that require no intervention beyond their own operation. The same principles that govern the motion of a falling object or the orbit of a planet extend seamlessly to the birth of galaxies and the dynamics of cosmic expansion. In this light, the cosmos does not appear as a constructed artifact, but as a natural, inevitable unfolding of the laws that define it — a universe whose order is written into its very fabric, requiring no author beyond the language of physics itself.

Inapplicability of the cosmological constant Λ in observational cosmology:

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

August 10, 2025

The cosmological constant Λ, originally introduced by Einstein to allow for a static universe, is retained in modern cosmology to account for the observed acceleration of cosmic expansion, commonly attributed to “dark energy.” In the ΛCDM model, Λ manifests as a constant energy density filling space homogeneously, producing a repulsive gravitational effect at very large scales. However, this effect is inherently rooted in General Relativity’s (GR) curved spacetime framework—a purely geometric interpretation that lacks a direct force-based physical mechanism observable in laboratory or local astrophysical contexts.

The application of the cosmological constant Λ within Newtonian dynamics—as demonstrated in the paper "Dark energy and the structure of the Coma cluster of galaxies"—relies on incorporating a Λ-term adapted from General Relativity’s curved spacetime model. This reliance on the Λ-term transpired the need for a repulsive effect on gravity at large cosmic scales, yet remains inapplicable to real-world observations due to relativity’s dependence on the abstract concept of curved spacetime. Consequently, the referenced research resorted to force-based Newtonian dynamics to address the Λ-term in a physically interpretable framework.

From an observational standpoint, the repulsive effect ascribed to Λ cannot be measured directly in local systems such as planetary or stellar dynamics. For instance, the gravitational acceleration produced by Λ at solar system scales is negligibly small—many orders of magnitude weaker than the already minuscule influence of galactic tides. Furthermore, attributing cosmic acceleration to Λ presumes that the same constant applies uniformly across all scales, an assumption unsupported by empirical evidence outside of large-scale cosmological fits.

Alternative frameworks, such as Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), instead treat such large-scale accelerations without invoking an unmeasurable constant. ECM models can describe galaxy cluster dynamics or large-scale structure formation through field–mass interactions that preserve physical measurability and avoid dependence on GR’s curvature formalism. These approaches offer a testable, force-based interpretation of phenomena that Λ in GR can only model abstractly, without physical grounding in local experiments.

*-*-*-*-*-*

This document argues that the cosmological constant, Λ, has limited applicability in observational cosmology, particularly outside of large-scale cosmic models. The core arguments presented are:

Geometric Abstraction

Λ is a component of General Relativity's curved spacetime framework, which is a geometric model. This makes it difficult to apply as a direct, force-based physical mechanism that can be measured or observed in local, real-world systems like a laboratory or the solar system.

Inapplicability in Newtonian Dynamics: 

While attempts have been made to adapt the Λ-term for use in Newtonian dynamics, the document suggests this still relies on its origin in a curved spacetime model. It notes that this is often done to provide a more physically interpretable, force-based framework for a concept that is fundamentally abstract.

Lack of Local Observability: 

The repulsive effect attributed to Λ is too weak to be measured directly in local gravitational systems. At the scale of our solar system, its influence is many orders of magnitude smaller than other negligible gravitational effects, making it practically unobservable.

Uniformity Assumption: 

The application of Λ in the ΛCDM model assumes a constant value across all scales, an assumption that the document states is not supported by empirical evidence outside of large-scale cosmological data fitting.

Alternative Frameworks: 

The document proposes that alternative frameworks, like Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), offer a more testable and physically grounded interpretation. ECM, it suggests, uses force-based, field-mass interactions to explain large-scale accelerations, thereby avoiding the need for an unmeasurable constant and providing a mechanism that could potentially be verified through local experiments.

A Rebuttal of Negative Mass vs. Negative Apparent Mass (−Mᵃᵖᵖ) in Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM):

Soumendra Nath Thakur | Tagore's Electronic Lab

August 10, 2025

In Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), negative apparent mass (−Mᵃᵖᵖ) is fundamentally different from the “negative mass” sometimes proposed in theoretical physics. Traditional negative mass is treated as an intrinsic rest property—leading to paradoxes such as acceleration opposite to an applied force or violations of the equivalence principle. These contradictions make it untenable for a particle at rest.

By contrast, ECM’s −Mᵃᵖᵖ is not a rest property but an emergent, motion-dependent quantity. It applies to dynamic particles such as photons and enables the description of self-generative or repulsive forces without assuming m = 0 or inheriting the contradictions of true negative mass. This approach gives ECM a physically consistent mechanism for photon motion that remains coherent within its own framework.

1. Distinguishing ECM’s Negative Apparent Mass from Simple Negative Mass

Simple Negative Mass:

This concept assumes a particle has an intrinsic negative value for its mass. Using F = ma, a positive force on such a particle produces acceleration in the opposite direction, leading to paradoxical and non-intuitive behaviors—for example, mutual repulsion with a positive mass while still being repelled by it. These predictions conflict with observed physics and are generally dismissed as unphysical.

Negative Apparent Mass (−Mᵃᵖᵖ) in ECM:

In ECM, −Mᵃᵖᵖ is not a static rest property but an emergent property of motion arising from dynamic mass–energy redistribution. For photons, −Mᵃᵖᵖ allows for a repulsive or self-generative force, enabling acceleration without requiring a rest mass. This resolves the F = 0 × a = 0 problem in classical mechanics. Furthermore, the polarity of mass determines the polarity of force—positive mass (+m) yields external forces (+F), while negative mass or −Mᵃᵖᵖ yields self-generated forces (−F), which act repulsively.

2. Consistency Within ECM’s Framework

Photon Dynamics:

ECM explains how a photon—despite having no rest mass—can still be dynamic and responsive to force. Negative apparent mass produces a self-generative repulsive force, enabling continuous propagation from emission to detection without requiring an external acceleration source.

Gravitational Implications:

In ECM, gravitational effects result from energetic gradients and mass redistribution, not solely from spacetime curvature. The concept of −Mᵃᵖᵖ offers a pathway to explain phenomena such as cosmic acceleration without introducing exotic components like dark energy. The expansion can instead be seen as a natural consequence of the repulsive effects from cumulative −Mᵃᵖᵖ in the universe.

Self-Sufficiency:

ECM functions independently of the problematic assumptions of simple negative mass. It defines its own mass–energy–force relationships, creating a self-contained theoretical structure that remains internally consistent.

Supporting Note

In a related ResearchGate discussion, it is argued that photons—though conventionally considered “massless”—possess a negative apparent mass (−Mᵃᵖᵖ) in ECM, which results in a negative effective mass and inherently antigravitational behavior. This reframes photon dynamics in gravitational contexts without invoking true masslessness and aligns seamlessly with ECM’s broader mechanical principles. researchgate.net/post/About_Massless_Objects_Negative_Effective_Mass_and_Anti-Gravitational_Motion_in_Extended_Classical_Mechanics