What Extended Classical Mechanics is not:

ECM (Extended Classical Mechanics) is not a return to pre-relativistic classical mechanics. Rather, it extends classical principles by restoring the neglected role of apparent mass (−Mᵃᵖᵖ) as a dynamical and physically consequential component of energy interactions—particularly in dynamical transformations, redshifts, cosmic expansion, and photon behaviour. It is not a placeholder; it is an active participant in the structure of physical reality.

While quantum mechanics provides powerful mathematical formulations for particle-scale interactions, it does not scale naturally to cosmic phenomena without using abstract discrete concepts. On the other hand, ECM works coherently in both the micro and macro domains. It aligns with quantum behaviour at the Planck scale without accepting the metaphysical assumptions of relativistic mechanics, and at the same time provides powerful explanatory power for large-scale structures such as galactic clusters, which is currently being applied collaboratively by international research teams.

The ECM is not an ideological reversion to Newtonianism, nor a speculative leap into idealism - it is a consistent, empirical, and physically grounded framework that aims to reunify momentum, mass, and energy across all levels of nature.

Soumendra Nath Thakur

May 21, 2025

Exploration of Dark Energy and Photon Dynamics through Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM)

May 21, 2025

We are exploring dark energy through ECM, as if we were little kids playing with our dolls! :) …

Just imagine the power of ECM and its negative apparent mass implementation!

That little “doll” of −Mᵃᵖᵖ isn’t just a placeholder anymore—it’s a dynamic actor, shedding light (quite literally!) on redshift, expansion, and energy transformation. The elegance of ECM lies in how simple, classical ideas—mass, energy, force—are re-enchanted when we treat apparent mass as real, transferable, and transformative.

E = mc² naturally and originally from Planck’s own 1900 equation?

May 20, 2025

The discussion revolves around the mass-energy equivalence relation E = mc² which, although famously attributed to Einstein in 1905, emerges more naturally and originally from Planck’s own 1900 equation:

E =h f

Through a detailed reformulation in Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM)—a framework developed to correct overlooked mass-energy dynamics in classical physics—I demonstrate how Planck’s energy-frequency equation can be extended to derive mass-energy equivalence for dynamic particles like photons, entirely without invoking relativity.

In ECM, photon energy is treated as pure kinetic energy derived from an effective (negative apparent) mass:

E = h f = ½ (−2Mᵃᵖᵖ) c² = (−Mᵃᵖᵖ) c²

Here, v=c for photons is used in the classical form ½mv², distinguishing this derivation from relativistic interpretations. The appearance of c² is thus purely kinematics, not relativistic.

This leads directly to the celebrated form E = mc², but grounded classically, and points to Planck—not Einstein—as the rightful conceptual originator. ECM’s presentation further separates itself from relativistic dependence, as its foundational logic was formulated between Newton and Planck’s era. ECM also critically revisits and refines concepts like negative effective mass, showing observational alignment with cosmological phenomena such as redshift and photon momentum.

I have compiled and released several formatted documents for peer engagement:

• Reclaiming Planck’s Legacy: A Classical Derivation of E = mc² via ECM (Academia.edu)
• Re-evaluating the Origin of E = mc²: A Classical Reformulation from ECM (ResearchGate)
• Revisiting the True Origin of E = mc²: Is It Time to Acknowledge Planck Instead of Einstein? (LinkedIn)

A visual timeline and an equational summary are also available to clarify how Planck’s classical formulation leads to ECM’s mass-energy structure without the need for relativistic constructs like time dilation or spacetime curvature.

This post marks the beginning of a deeper public and academic conversation. I welcome your thoughts, critical insights, and historical perspectives on this long-overdue recognition of Max Planck’s role in one of physics’ most celebrated equations.

Warm regards,

Soumendra Nath Thakur
Researcher and Developer,
Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM)

Scientific Authority, Paradigm Bias, and the Need for Balanced Scrutiny in Theoretical Challenges

Soumendra Nath Thakur

May 19, 2025

When a scientifically consistent alternative framework challenges a well-established theory—such as relativity—the focus of scrutiny too often falls disproportionately on the individual proposing the alternative, rather than prompting a balanced and critical re-evaluation of the dominant theory itself. This asymmetry is not only counterproductive but also historically recurrent in the development of science.

Established theories typically enjoy strong institutional backing, extensive historical development, and widespread acceptance due to their practical applications. As a result, questioning them can appear to undermine the collective efforts and intellectual investments of generations of scientists. This psychological and social inertia frequently leads to resistance, not necessarily on scientific grounds, but due to deeply embedded paradigm commitments—as famously described by Thomas Kuhn.

Moreover, scientists, being human, are not immune to confirmation bias. They may more readily accept evidence that supports prevailing theories while dismissing or demanding higher proof from alternative proposals. This leads to a double standard: new frameworks must endure intense scrutiny and carry a heavy burden of proof, while traditional models are often granted undue leniency, even when empirical anomalies or conceptual flaws emerge.

A key concern arises when this imbalance allows potentially flawed assumptions to remain unchallenged, thereby obstructing scientific progress. Instead of testing both the new and old ideas with equal rigor, the scientific community may prioritize defending the established view—sometimes to the detriment of discovery.

To foster genuine advancement, scientific evaluation must adhere to objective standards. This includes:

• Rigorous examination of the alternative theory’s internal consistency and mathematical foundation.

• Careful assessment of empirical evidence supporting the new framework.

• A critical reappraisal of the traditional theory in light of the challenge.

• Open, respectful, and evidence-based debate that prioritizes ideas over authority.

Skepticism is a healthy and necessary part of scientific inquiry, but it must be evenly applied. Disproportionate skepticism directed only at new ideas, while shielding established theories from equivalent critique, creates a pseudo-authoritative environment contrary to the principles of science itself.

Science, unlike legal or political institutions, should not be governed by authoritative consensus. Scientific knowledge is inherently provisional, always subject to refinement or replacement as better explanations arise. Theories are not meant to be preserved as immutable truths but must remain open to falsification—a core tenet emphasized by Karl Popper.

Treating scientific premises as unquestionable dogma suppresses critical inquiry and innovation. Progress depends on the freedom to explore unconventional ideas and to challenge prevailing models without fear of institutional or reputational reprisal. Authority and tradition must never replace evidence and logical coherence as the basis for scientific judgment.

While consensus may reflect accumulated knowledge, it should never be mistaken for finality. A single, well-supported piece of empirical evidence—or a more comprehensive theoretical model—has the power to overturn a widely accepted view. Scientific consensus, therefore, must remain responsive to dissent and open to re-evaluation.

Unfortunately, the current structure of scientific publishing, peer review, and institutional hierarchy can unintentionally reinforce gatekeeping. Textbooks and public science communication often present dominant theories as settled facts, reinforcing the perception of unchallengeable authority—especially for those outside the research community.

In conclusion, the health of science depends on its commitment to intellectual humility, openness, and methodological rigor. When a scientifically coherent challenge arises, the response should not be one of dismissal or deference to tradition, but of balanced and critical engagement with all premises—old and new alike. Only by adhering to these principles can science fulfil its role as a truly progressive, self-correcting endeavour.

Misconceptions about Universal Simultaneity and Time Experience:

Soumendra Nath Thakur 

May 19, 2925

Claim: "All people from every time period exist right now."

ECM Clarification:

While the concept of a universal "now" may Misconceptions about Universal Simultaneity and Time Experience intuitive, it misrepresents the reality of distributed temporal experiences. Each observer exists within a distinct time zone, with its own local time, environmental conditions, and sequence of events. For example, while it is daytime in one region, it is simultaneously nighttime in another. Thus, "now" does not correspond to a unified set of experiences or events for everyone. The present is not a universal constant; it is relative to the specific location and energy interactions within that zone. The idea that all people from every time exist "now" collapses under the fact that different events define different instances of "now."

Claim: "Everything—past, present, and future—is happening at the same time."

ECM Clarification:

This statement inaccurately compresses dynamic, energy-based events across different regions and time zones into a single temporal frame. What is actually happening is that different events are occurring concurrently but in different time zones, each with distinct local time readings. To equate these with a singular "same time" is misleading—it confuses concurrent existence with temporal uniformity, and falsely resembles the relativistic idea of "time dilation." In ECM, such a claim represents a category error, conflating simultaneity of occurrence with identity of time.

Claim: "There is only one moment; what we call different moments are just the same moment from another point of view."

ECM Clarification:

This notion is conceptually flawed. A single moment from one observer’s perspective cannot be considered identical to that of all others, because observers occupy different positions in space and time, with different energy states and interaction histories. Claiming a universal moment ignores these variances and introduces a double standard: on one hand asserting a singular moment, and on the other allowing multiple perceptions of it. In ECM, there is no justification for a universal moment—each observer has their own valid and distinct temporal reference, shaped by localized energy and motion conditions.

Claim: "Parallel realities are real, they are all stacked on top of each other, happening at once."

ECM Clarification:

If parallel realities exist, they must be understood as having separate time frameworks and potentially different dimensional structures. Events in these realities are not happening at the same moment, because parallel events require parallel time. Suggesting they all occur "at once" conflates spatial coexistence with temporal simultaneity, which is inaccurate. Time, in any given reality, emerges from energy dynamics and spatial interactions, and cannot be universally synchronized across distinct dimensions. The claim reflects a misunderstanding of time as it functions within and across such realities.

Conclusion:

These statements stem from unrealistic generalizations and a neglect of time's relational nature. Under ECM, time is not an absolute background but an emergent result of energy transformations, spatial configurations, and dynamic interactions. Presenting "now" or "moment" as shared across all observers or realities is a misrepresentation of causality, locality, and energy dynamics. Time must be treated respectively and contextually, not universally or abstractly.