It is possibly sensible to start with a clarification of the word ‘conjecture’ as it might convey the nature of the discussion to follow and the need not only for an open mind, but a critical one, if and where conjecture appears questionable.
Conjecture might be defined as a conclusion deduced by guesswork or possibly more likely as an inference formed without proof or alternatively a proposition before it has been proved or disproved.
Of course, this discussion is also only the first step in another learning process associated with an idea called the ‘Cordus Conjecture’, such that it starts out in ignorance of its ideas and therefore many of its concepts may be initially misunderstood. However, the idea was first referenced within a discussion entitled Summary of Assumptions, which was part of the review of Gabriel LaFreniere’s website describing his concept of ‘Matter is Made of Waves’ – see links for more details. However, the review of this wave model is one of a number of different ideas discussed within website-3, which might be said to challenge the mainstream consensus within science, which we might simply characterised in terms of electromagnetism, relativity and quantum mechanics. While these theories undoubtedly represent some of the most fundamental mechanisms underpinning the workings of the universe, they often provide an incompatible description of the causal mechanisms assumed to be at work. However, while website-3 has reviewed a number of different models, it is unclear whether any of these models fully address the full scope of issues that appear to be unresolved within present-day science. Therefore, there was considerable interest in the scope of the Cordus Conjecture, which claims to provide a potential approach to many of these open issues.
Note: While the link to the Cordus website will take you to its home page, the design of this website does not appear to provide an obvious top-down repository of its key papers. Therefore, the link to the Cordus References provides a possibly more convenient starting point, although the interested reader should check for later versions.
While the 'Cordus Conjecture' is by definition highly speculative, it suggests a possibly more open approach to science, which is more inductive than deductive in scope. In this context, inductive logic might be said to proceed from observation towards theory, while deductive logic might be seen as being more dependent on mathematical models. However, before going any further, the following quote will be restated as another note of caution about speculative ideas.
For every problem, there exists a simple and elegant solution, which is absolutely wrong.
With this caution noted, the authors of the Cordus Conjecture appear to start out being very open about the speculative nature of their approach, which was first reference in terms of the following quote:
“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, while the style and tone of this initial quote appears to be conciliatory in its approach, especially as the word ‘conjecture’ does not imply certainty, the next quote appears to throw down a ‘gauntlet’ to accepted science.
“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 the statement above refutes the description of the quantum
point-particle, its model appears to have a particle-like nature, which
is described in the form of a ‘particule’ model and reviewed
in the following discussions.