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.
24 August 2025
Bound and Free Electron States in ECM: Illustrative Examples.
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.
13 August 2025
Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) vs. the Massless Photon Assumption — A Call for Mathematical Consistency
The Self-Sufficiency of Physical Laws — No Designer Required
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.