Framing Force Dynamics in Conventional Massless Particles: The ECM Perspective

ECM Reinterpretation of Photon Mass: Dynamic Negative Apparent Mass vs. Relativistic Rest Mass.

Core Rebuttal to Relativity’s Photon Rest Mass Treatment:

Re-evaluating the Mass Status of Photons in the Context of Particle Definition: Dynamic Particle with Negative Apparent Mass.

Soumendra Nath Thakur 

April 18, 2025

The commonly cited statement—“The photon has no mass, but it is a particle”—raises a fundamental inconsistency when examined through the lens of foundational physical principles.

In the broader framework of physical sciences, the designation of any entity as a “particle” traditionally presumes the presence of either a "real mass" or an "effective mass". Absent such a characteristic, the term “particle” becomes physically ambiguous. This is particularly relevant in advanced frameworks like Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), which seeks to reconcile and extend classical and relativistic insights.

ECM introduces the concept of negative apparent mass (−Mᵃᵖᵖ), a form of effective mass that corresponds to kinetic energy, particularly in massless or near-massless regimes. Under this interpretation, photons—entities which exhibit kinetic behaviour—are understood to possess dynamic effective mass, even in the absence of rest mass.

Additionally, it is important to distinguish between "rest energy"—associated with "rest mass"—and kinetic energy (KE). which does not equate to rest energy under the relativistic mass-energy relation. This distinction has significant implications for the interpretation of photon behaviour and classification.

Therefore, within the ECM framework, the photon is more accurately described as a dynamic particle with negative apparent mass. This terminology reflects both its energy-based behaviour and its mass-related characteristics in motion.

If a photon were to lose its dynamism (i.e., kinetic expression), it would simultaneously lose the characteristics that define its particle-like behaviour, leading to a loss of existence in that form.

Finally, the term “massless particle,” while common in conventional discourse, may be considered incomplete. A more accurate description would treat the photon's effective mass as less than zero (<0) rather than strictly zero. This nuanced reinterpretation allows for a consistent and complete understanding of the photon's physical nature.

Unified Wave Behaviour: Energy Loss and Misinterpretations of Time Dilation

Soumendra Nath Thakur

April 17, 2025

One may have misunderstood the fundamental nature of waves. A wave—whether sound or electromagnetic—is always a carrier of energy. It transfers energy from one point to another, regardless of the medium involved. This makes the core properties of all waves the same: they possess frequency, wavelength, energy, and velocity.

If a wave encounters a medium, it may lose energy—this applies to both sound and electromagnetic waves. For instance, sound waves lose energy due to dissipation in air, while electromagnetic waves can lose energy when distorted by external influences such as gravitational or mechanical forces. In this view, a gravitational field acts as an energy-modifying medium for light, just as air does for sound.

Therefore, energy loss is a common feature for both sound and electromagnetic waves. In relativistic interpretations, energy loss in light is often attributed to time dilation. However, similar considerations should apply to sound waves: energy dissipation in air could also be interpreted as a kind of temporal distortion. Thus, time dilation should not be seen as a phenomenon exclusive to light—it can conceptually apply to sound as well when viewed from the standpoint of energy dynamics. Its time distortion.

In essence, frequency, wavelength, energy, and velocity are the intrinsic properties of all waves. These can be altered by environmental or external factors—whether that’s a physical medium like air or a field like gravity.

Moreover, the Lorentz transformation applies to objects moving at speeds approaching the speed of light, but not at the speed of light itself. Therefore, applying time dilation (as derived from Lorentz transformations) directly at the speed of light is inconsistent with the original framework. If relativity states that time ‘stops’ at the speed of light, then invoking time dilation at light speed becomes logically contradictory. Redshift in electromagnetic waves should be recognized as an outcome of energy loss, not merely an effect of time dilation. The redshift of light—like the redshift of sound—reflects changes in energy and frequency, not necessarily changes in the flow of time.