26 August 2025

Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) Photon-Speed Postulate: “c” as the Intrinsic Propagation Speed of the Planck Quantum hf—Independent of Special Relativity.

Soumendra Nath Thakur | ORCiD: 0000-0003-1871-7803 | Affiliation: Tagore’s Electronic Lab, India  | Email: postmasterenator@gmail.com

In the Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) framework c appears exclusively as the propagation speed of the photon that carries the Planck quantum hf.  It is not imported from Lorentz transformations, time-dilation, or any kinematic assumption; it is simply the measured speed of light in vacuum that Planck himself used in 1899 to define his natural units.  The kinetic-energy law:

KEᴇᴄᴍ = (½ ΔMᴍ⁽ᵈᵉᴮʳᵒᵍˡᶦᵉ⁾+ ΔMᴍ⁽ᴾˡᵃⁿᶜᵏ⁾)c² = hf. 

Therefore couples the displaced-mass operator to the photon’s own speed, not to any frame-dependent velocity of a massive particle.  Since no γ-factor, simultaneity convention, or acceleration-free inertial frame is invoked.

Within ECM, c is the photon’s propagation speed—used only to convert between hf and its mass-equivalent—not a borrowed postulate from special relativity. 

24 August 2025

Bound and Free Electron States in ECM: Illustrative Examples.

Soumendra Nath Thakur | ORCiD: 0000-0003-1871-7803 | Tagore’s Electronic Lab, India | postmasterenator@gmail.com                              

August 24, 2025

A bound or free electron is a negatively charged subatomic particle that carries a single, fundamental negative elementary charge, denoted by −e, equivalent to approximately −1.602 × 10⁻¹⁹ coulombs (C). An atom or molecule becomes ionised when it gains or loses electrons, thereby acquiring a net positive or negative charge.

In Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), the transition of an electron between a bound state and a free state is governed by the gain or loss in the magnitude of ΔMᴍ ≡ Mᵃᵖᵖ. A corresponding displacement −ΔMᴍ ≡ −Mᵃᵖᵖ, linked to the electron’s fundamental charge, determines whether the electron remains confined by the attractive potential of the atomic nucleus or is liberated as a free particle.

Appendix 25 provides the detailed basis for this condition [1] by equationally presenting the attractive nuclear potential and showing how confinement produces an apparent mass deficit. Bound electrons occupy quantized states with significantly reduced net energy compared to free electrons. For example, in hydrogen the discrete energy levels are:

E₁ = −13.6 eV, E₂ = −3.4 eV, E₃ = −1.51 eV, etc.

ECM interprets these reduced bound-state energies as a negative apparent mass contribution, such that:

Mᵃᵖᵖ = Mᴍ − mₑ < 0.

Liberation of an electron corresponds to a positive mass displacement:

ΔMᴍ = mₑ − Mᴍ > 0,

which directly governs both kinetic and radiative outcomes. Thus, confinement and release are two aspects of the same mass–energy displacement law in ECM [1].

From this perspective:

Thermionic emission occurs when thermal energy input satisfies the displacement condition:

hf (or thermal input) ≥ |−Mᵃᵖᵖ|c².

Here, the work function φ aligns with the confinement-induced apparent mass, φ ≈ |−Mᵃᵖᵖ|c² [1].

Photoelectric emission occurs when incident photon energy meets the same criterion:

hf = −Mᵃᵖᵖc² = ΔMᴍc² [1][2].

This shows that whether the input is thermal or photonic, the decisive factor is not a direct electron–photon coupling, but rather the mass–energy interaction at the atomic level, expressed as ΔMᴍ displacement.

Furthermore, when electrons drop between quantized levels (nᵢ → n𝑓), the energy loss manifests as photon emission with:

ΔE = hf = Eₙᵢ − Eₙ𝑓 = −ΔPEᴇᴄᴍ = −ΔKEᴇᴄᴍ.

Here, the photon is not an abstract mediator but the externalized carrier of displaced internal mass (ΔMᴍ = hf/c²) [3]. In contrast, a free electron (Mᴍ = mₑ) lacks confinement and cannot radiate via inertial motion in vacuum, confirming that only bound states support radiative quantum events [1].

Therefore, ECM demonstrates that both thermionic and photoelectric effects emerge from the same atom–energy interaction, rooted in the apparent mass displacement of bound electrons [2][5]. The notion of direct photon–electron interaction, isolated from nuclear confinement, is thus an incomplete and weak assumption, and should be discarded in favour of ECM’s unified confinement-based framework.

Consideration of a Photon Striking a Free Electron versus a Bound Electron

In conventional descriptions of the photoelectric effect, it is often proposed that a photon strikes an electron and directly transfers its energy, enabling the electron to overcome the metal’s binding energy (the work function, φ) and be ejected. In this view, the condition for emission is simply that the photon’s energy exceeds the work function, with any excess manifesting as the kinetic energy of the emitted electron.

However, this proposition assumes that a photon can effectively transfer its entire quantum of energy directly to an electron as though the electron were free in vacuum. In ECM, this assumption is invalid [3]. A truly free electron (Mᴍ = mₑ) does not exist in a confined quantized state, and therefore cannot absorb a discrete photon and undergo emission transitions or continue propagation through such an interaction. Without confinement, there is no quantized orbital structure to mediate energy exchange, and thus photon absorption by a free electron in vacuum is prohibited as a stable interaction.

In contrast, when an electron is bound within an atom, its reduced energy state is characterized by negative apparent mass (Mᵃᵖᵖ < 0), reflecting confinement by the nuclear potential [1]. Only under these conditions can quantized absorption or emission occur, since the atom–electron system provides a conservative framework for energy redistribution. A photon interacting with such a bound system does not simply “hit an electron” but excites the atom–electron system through vibrational and mass–energy displacement, ΔMᴍ [5]. Liberation occurs only if the displacement condition ΔMᴍc² ≥ |−Mᵃᵖᵖ|c² is satisfied [1][2].

This distinction is decisive. In ECM, the effective process of both thermionic and photoelectric emission is not reducible to photon–electron collisions, but to atom–energy interactions mediated by vibrational dynamics and mass displacement [5]. Thermal excitation and photon input are merely two pathways delivering external energy into the same confinement system [2].

Evaluation:

Photon striking a free electron: no confined state, no quantized transitions, interaction unstable and insignificant [3].

Photon interacting with a bound electron via atomic confinement: quantized transitions possible, ΔMᴍ displacement governs release, consistent with observed discrete energy levels and emission thresholds [1][2].

Energy interacting through induced atomic vibration (thermal route): equally valid pathway, with emission again determined by ΔMᴍ displacement rather than a direct electron–photon collision [5].

Conclusion:
This provides concrete evidence that, whereas the application of a potential difference surrounding a free electron can set it in motion—as experimentally demonstrated in Thermionic Emission within CRT systems [4]—the direct striking of a free electron by a sufficiently energetic photon cannot set the electron in motion or sustain its propagation via photon absorption [3]. In ECM, such a process is prohibited as a stable interaction, reaffirming that photon-induced transitions are only possible in bound, quantized states, not in free electron dynamics. Consequently, the conventional photoelectric proposition of direct photon–electron impact is an inadequate description and must be replaced with ECM’s unified confinement-based framework [2][5].

References

[1] Appendix 25: Apparent Mass Displacement and Energy-Mass Transitions of Electrons — An ECM Framework for Bound States, Emission, and Photon Generation. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28129.62565
(Provides the explicit equational presentation of nuclear attractive potential, bound vs. free electron states, and the role of ΔMᴍ in emission.)
[2] Appendix 42: Both the previously developed thermionic emission and the later photoelectric effect are inevitably based on the same mechanism. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29392.01280
(The foundational statement that both effects arise from the same ΔMᴍ-governed confinement mechanism.)
[3] Appendix 19: Photon Mass and Momentum — ECM's Rebuttal of Relativistic Inconsistencies through Apparent Mass Displacement. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.36775.46242
(Supports the treatment of photons as carriers of displaced mass ΔMᴍ, essential in distinguishing bound-state emission from free-electron motion.)
[4] Appendix 40: Empirical Support for ECM Frequency-Governed Kinetic Energy via Thermionic Emission in CRT Systems. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31184.42247
(Provides experimental grounding for ECM by demonstrating that electron liberation and motion in CRT systems follow the ΔMᴍ-based displacement condition. Shows that thermionic emission, a well-established physical phenomenon, validates the frequency-governed kinetic energy formulation of ECM, thereby linking the theoretical framework directly to measurable laboratory effects and reinforcing its unification with the photoelectric effect and quantized bound-state transitions.)
[5] Appendix 42 Part-2: A Unified ECM Framework of Atomic Vibration. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30001.49766
(Extends Appendix 42 by clarifying that external energy inputs — thermal or photonic — act through atomic vibrational mediation, not direct photon–electron collisions.)

15 August 2025

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

13 August 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.