Photon analogy with primordial vibration at 0th dimension

Soumendra Nath Thakur 

(A repeat post, for a post made sometime on January/February 2026)

A photon is simply an electromagnetic wave, with visible light being only a narrow frequency band. Microwaves, X-rays, and gamma rays are all photons as well, differing only in frequency and therefore in energy.

In the high-frequency (high-energy) regime, electromagnetic waves increasingly behave like concentrated energy packets, whereas visible light photons are comparatively low-energy. A gamma-ray photon, for example, is far closer to a localized energy packet than a low-frequency light photon. In this sense, any sufficiently high-frequency vibration effectively behaves photon-like, since frequency directly translates into energy.

The (another) post describes a condition in which the origin itself exists as a pure, non-eventful vibration — a state prior to spacetime dynamics. 

A freely propagating photon does not manifest as heat; even in extreme cold it travels without thermal influence. Heat emerges only through interactions and collisions with matter, not from massless energy in isolation.

Likewise, the primordial vibration is energetic without reference to temperature, because there are no material objects present for energy exchange or thermalization. Temperature becomes meaningful only once matter forms and interactions begin — it is fundamentally a collective effect of collisions, not of vibration alone.

This is also where the concept of “cooling of the universe” in conventional cosmology differs from what is described in the post. Cooling is a thermodynamic interpretation that presumes matter, interactions, and thermal equilibrium already exist. At the primordial scale discussed here, entropy is not thermodynamic but instead reflects disorder in frequency states within an isolated energetic field. There are no collisions, no heat bath, and no temperature in the usual sense.

The framework therefore treats the earliest evolution as a process of manifestation through frequency change and mass formation, rather than as a hot explosive event followed by thermal cooling. 

The primordial vibration dynamics at 0th dimension, therefore, arise from rapid phase motion and energy redistribution, not from thermodynamic expansion. Thermal concepts emerge only later, after matter and interactions.

On understanding photon better. (A 1st Oct 2025 repeat post)

Soumendra Nath Thakur 

October 01, 2025 

If one truly wishes to understand photons, the very first step is to abandon the relativistic portrayal of the photon. Relativity offers not a scientific reality, but a construct riddled with speculative assumptions, mathematical distortions, and conceptual exaggerations that have been elevated far beyond their merit. Such a framework has misled generations by presenting illusions of profundity where physical clarity is absent.

Instead, the focus should turn to the rigorous and empirically grounded approaches of Max Planck, Louis de Broglie, and the Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) framework. Planck’s experimental work on blackbody radiation established the observational foundations of photon physics in their purest form, free from speculative overlay. De Broglie’s insight into wave–particle duality deepened this foundation, while Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) expands the picture by explaining photon behavior across gravitational, antigravitational, and transitional regimes — realms relativity fails to address without resorting to abstraction.

To cling to relativistic interpretations is to confine one’s understanding of photons to little more than a preliminary, even inferior, school-level conception. In truth, Einstein’s theorization of the photoelectric effect is often overstated; the phenomenon itself necessarily rests on the principles of thermionic emission, which preceded it. A serious scientific inquiry into photon–electron interactions must therefore prioritize thermionic emission, for it offers a far more comprehensive and physically meaningful account than the reductive perspective of the photoelectric effect.

The time has come to reject the dominance of relativistic dogma and return to physically consistent, observation-rooted frameworks. Only then can the photon be understood as it truly is — not as a mathematical artifact of relativity, but as a real entity governed by measurable, testable principles.

#photon

Unified Mass Decomposition in ECM and Cosmology

Author: Soumendra Nath Thakur | Tagore's Electronic Lab, India | January 30, 2026

Abstract: 

This statement formalizes the equivalence between cosmological mass relations from Chernin et al. (2013) and Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) formulations, demonstrating 

M_M = M_G - M_DE 

and 

M_M = M^eff + |M^app|, 

with M_M = M_ORD + M_DM. 

These unify local field effects and large-scale observations, decoupling intrinsic matter mass from gravitational effects.

The relations 

M_M = M_G - M_DE (cosmology) and 

M_M = M^eff + |M^app| (ECM) 

hold consistently, decomposing total matter mass M_M into ordinary M_ORD and dark matter M_DM components.

Cosmological Framework

Chernin et al. (2013) establish gravitational mass as 

M_G = M_M + M_DE, where 

M_DE ∼ −(8π/3)ρΛR^3 < 0

induces antigravity at large radii (e.g., Coma cluster beyond R_ZG. Rearranging isolates matter mass: 

M_M = M_G - M_DE = M_ORD + M_DM,

matching observations where dark energy separates from clustered matter.

ECM Local Derivation

ECM defines effective mass via field-energy interactions (NAM): 

M^eff = M_M - M^app 

with (M^app < 0) (negative apparent mass from -∆PE_ECM/c^2. 

Thus, 

M_M = M^eff + |M^app| = M_ORD + M_DM, 

recovering intrinsic mass (e.g., photons:

M^eff = -2M^app 

applicable locally in motion or gravitation.

Presentation

Component | Cosmology | ECM Formulation

Gravitational Mass | M_G = M_M + M_DE | M_G = M^eff     

Matter Mass | M_M = M_G - M_DE | M_M = M^eff + |M^app| 

Subcomponents | M_M = M_ORD + M_DM | M_M = M_ORD + M_DM

Repulsive Term | M_DE < 0 | M^app < 0 

Conclusion:

The mass decompositions 

M_M = M_G − M_DE 

derived from large-scale cosmological observations and 

M_M = M^eff + ∣M^app∣ 

obtained within Extended Classical Mechanics are formally and physically equivalent. Both arise from Newtonian, force-based gravitational analysis, not from curved-spacetime or relativistic constructs.

Chernin et al's observational formulation reflects a classical interpretation of anti-gravitating field contributions at large radii, while ECM derives the same separation locally through field-energy redistribution via negative apparent mass. In both cases, intrinsic matter mass remains conserved and decomposes naturally into ordinary and dark components without invoking relativistic postulates.

This establishes that gravitational mass and inertial mass are not universally identical, while preserving classical mechanics at all scales. ECM thus reproduces cosmological observations using extended Newtonian principles, employing a generalized force law rather than the unmodified classical form, thereby avoiding unnecessary theoretical inflation and preserving conceptual continuity from laboratory-scale physics to cosmic structure.

Phase Advance, Phase Lag, and Time Measurement in ECM

January 30, 2026

Within the Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) framework, phase lag corresponds to an observed time delay, whereas phase advance corresponds to an observed time advance. In both cases, the directly measurable quantity is the accumulated time shift relative to a reference clock, while clock time itself remains strictly positive, cyclic, and normalized to the local oscillatory standard.

Although phase shifts in ECM may be positive (phase advance) or negative (phase lag), clock-based observations record only the resulting time offset. Consequently, both phase advance and phase lag manifest operationally as time delays, with the directionality of the underlying effect encoded in the inferred phase or frequency relationship rather than in the clock time itself.

This operational nuance highlights why ECM may initially appear to differ from conventional physical interpretations. The apparent contradiction is not a failure of consistency, but a consequence of ECM’s explicit separation of conceptual variables—phase, frequency, and clock time—that are typically conflated in classical and relativistic frameworks. When these distinctions are properly accounted for, ECM reproduces all known experimental results while providing a phase-based, observer-accessible description of gravitational phenomena. In this view, ECM is not an alternative to physics; it is a refined framework that reveals the hidden structure of phase, time, and frequency interactions in gravitational fields. 

Photon Trajectory Modulation in Convergent Gravitational Fields

Soumendra Nath Thakur | 
ORCiD: 0000-0003-1871-7803
January 29, 2026

Gravity itself does not “bend”; rather, gravitational field lines converge toward a massive body. The gravitational field of a massive object is a spherically symmetric potential field whose strength decreases with the inverse square of the distance from the source.

Photons, as carriers of electromagnetic energy and momentum, propagate through this convergent gravitational field. As a photon passes near a massive body, the spatial gradient of the gravitational potential alters the photon’s momentum direction through continuous interaction with the gravitational field. This interaction produces a gradual change in the photon’s trajectory, which is observationally interpreted as the bending of light near massive objects.

In Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) terms, as a photon traverses a gravitational field, the spatial variation of gravitational potential produces a position-dependent phase and time delay. This cumulative phase modulation alters the effective propagation direction of the photon, resulting in an apparent deflection of its trajectory when passing near a massive body.