Closing Comments

In the Summary of Assumptions, associated with the review of the LaFreniere Wave Model, reference was first made to the Cordus Conjecture. One of the reasons for referencing the Cordus model was because problems were perceived with the explanation being provided by the wave model regarding the causal mechanism of time dilation. In this context, time dilation was quantified in terms of the mathematical assumptions of the Lorentz transforms, but which then left open questions as discussed in respect to the issues raised in Ivanov Waves. Therefore, the idea that the Cordus Conjecture might provide an alternative perspective to some of the problematic issues was an attractive idea, which was characterised in the following statement.

“Cordus is an audacious idea, and it produces a radical re-conceptualisation of fundamental physics. It is an unorthodox idea, one that cuts across conventional physics and challenges the premises on which those theories have been built. It is likely to be controversial. However, it is not deliberately confrontational: it is simply a process of taking a creative idea and running it through to its logical conclusions.”

However, as pointed out from the start of this review, the Cordus model quickly appears to adopt a more assertive position regarding the scope and authority of its many assumptions, e.g.

“It is in those conclusions that, if Cordus is correct, there are causalities for existing principles of conventional physics. For example, Cordus invalidates the ‘particle’ premise of quantum mechanics, refutes superposition, redefines the principle of locality, denies the existence of ‘virtual particles’, refutes the concept of interference of light, asserts that Bell’s theorem is wrong, re-introduces a modified concept of the aether, and reconceptualises the fundamental forces. Cordus explains why Quantum mechanics, which seems to apply at the level of individual particles, does not scale up to macroscopic bodies: something that QM itself has been unable to explain. Furthermore, Cordus proposes a set of new principles for the next deeper level of physics.”

While it is accepted that this review of the Cordus Conjecture is only an outline of its actual details, it has made some attempt to consider the following aspects, i.e. Basic Concepts, Photon Particule, Matter Particule, Locality and Superluminal, Relativistic Factors, Doppler Effects and Emergent Time. However, even the initial review of the various particule models began to question how its speculative structure could be said to described a ‘physical realism’ when many of its assumptions did not appear to be supported by any obvious causal mechanisms.

Note: One issue raised earlier in the review was the lack of any physical description of the reactive ends, i.e. do they have a physical structure that explains their frequency? Where does the energy come from and how does it propagate through the fabric density? Other issues were raised against the physical nature of the fibril that connects the reactive end and the assumption that it supports some form of superluminal signalling. Likewise, there was ambiguity in the physical description of the fabric density being a construct of frequency-force emissions from the reactive ends of a particule, which then are assumed to explain all the fundamental force or field interactions, i.e. electromagnetic, gravitational and strong nuclear. One specific concern related to the idea that the duality of the reactive ends in the particule model could help explain the observations surrounding the double-slit experiment, which has more recently been extended to three slits that might present a challenge to the Cordus model.

While this commentary possibly does not have much more to say about the Cordus Conjecture, it might add a few words about the methodology of science in terms of the three main developments of the 20th century, i.e. relativity, quantum mechanics and cosmology. These theories form the foundations of modern science, although even after 100 years of research and development, many still question the scope of the empirical evidence that supports the many assumptions that underpin this collective ‘worldview’.

So, what are the perceived problems?

From a general perspective, modern science has forwarded a description of the fundamental workings of universe, both large and small, which most people usually accept based on the perception that the supporting weight of evidence is overwhelming. However, anybody who takes the trouble to investigate some of the details and assumptions associated with any of these major theories begins to realise that there are still many open issues – see Scope of Outstanding Problems for a general outline. For, in many ways, the 20th century introduced a schism into the methodology of science, which might be described in terms of an ontological or epistemological preference. In this context, we shall define ‘ontology’ as the study of what exists and the nature of what exists, while ‘epistemology’ is possibly more orientated to the study of knowledge that is more abstract in scope. As such, we often need to consider two perceptions of reality, first, a physical reality that requires cause and effect and, second, what might be described as a quantum reality that is verified on the basis of a probabilistic outcome. However, while website-3 clearly has a preference for an ontological approach, the apparent evidence in support of mainstream science does indeed appear overwhelming, such that any questioning of its conclusions may appear to be a waste of time. 

Note: The Mysearch website has attempted to pursue its own ‘Duty of Inquiry’ into many aspects of the standard model, which can be reviewed via the following links - see Relativity: Closing Remarks, Quantum Theory: Part-1 and Part-2, and Cosmology: Part-1, Part-2 and Part-3. While this review may indeed be a ‘waste of time’ and does not pretend to have the weight of authority to seriously challenge mainstream science, the fact still remains that the current major theories often contradict each other and, in so doing, fail to provide a single coherent model.

So, in the pursuit of causal mechanisms, the Cordus Conjecture shares a common goal with many who question the details of the standard model. However, there are subtle distinctions in the semantics implied by a conjecture, hypothesis and theory that are possibly worth highlighting. While not necessarily definitive in scope, a conjecture might be described as a proposition that lacks the credibility of verification by any known means, which if possible, might elevate it to a hypothesis, while also lacking the creditability of mathematical formalism that might be associated with a theory. This said, the problem that this review has highlighted is not that a conjecture is any less speculative than a hypothesis or theory, but rather in that it does not appear to provide any deeper insights into the causal mechanisms that might then help better explain the nature of physical realism. This said, the Cordus Conjecture does open up the debate as to whether the fundamental universe still requires causal mechanism, which if absent, suggests that science still has much to learn.