Skip to content
Cohesion Dynamics (CD)

Motivating Tensions

This section catalogues empirical observations and theoretical tensions that motivate the exploration of structural and constraint-based frameworks in physics. It exists to answer a simple, legitimate question:

Why might one reasonably look for a theory like Cohesion Dynamics at all?

What This Section Is

This section provides:

  • A catalogue of observations that challenge how structure is expected to form, propagate, or saturate under standard assumptions
  • Identification of strained explanatory frameworks — highlighting what kind of explanation encounters difficulty
  • Context for structural thinking — explaining why constraint-based, boundary-formation, and saturation mechanisms are conceptually relevant
  • Motivation for research direction — documenting why alternative approaches to structure formation merit investigation

These tensions are:

  • Widely acknowledged in the literature
  • Actively debated by the research community
  • Often framed as “surprising,” “unexpected,” or “too early”
  • Not individually falsifying of existing models

What This Section Is Not

This section does not:

  • ❌ Claim that Cohesion Dynamics explains any observation listed
  • ❌ Claim that Cohesion Dynamics predicts any observation listed
  • ❌ Argue that ΛCDM, General Relativity, or standard cosmology are false
  • ❌ Present resolved results or completed explanations
  • ❌ Replace the E-series (empirical narrowing) or P-series (predictions)

Purpose: Motivation and context, not evidence or validation.

Why Structural Explanations Are Sometimes Needed

Physical theories often explain phenomena through one of two approaches:

  1. Dynamical explanations: Systems evolve according to differential equations, with outcomes determined by initial conditions, forces, and timescales (e.g., Newtonian mechanics, General Relativity, quantum field theory)

  2. Structural explanations: Certain patterns emerge as necessary consequences of underlying constraints, admissibility conditions, or consistency requirements (e.g., conservation laws, symmetry principles, thermodynamic limits)

When observations reveal:

  • Timescale compression (structure appearing “too early”)
  • Universal patterns (behaviors independent of detailed conditions)
  • Saturation effects (systems reaching limiting states)
  • Coherence without coordination (large-scale structure without communication)

…then structural approaches become relevant, because these phenomena suggest constraint propagation and boundary conditions may play a fundamental role alongside dynamical evolution.

Cohesion Dynamics operates at this level — treating physical structure as emergent from:

  • Constraint satisfaction and relaxation
  • Admissibility boundaries
  • Closure conditions
  • Saturation limits

This makes observations of unexpected structure formation, early coherence, and universal behaviors conceptually relevant to the framework’s domain of applicability.

Relation to Cohesion Dynamics

Cohesion Dynamics (CD) is a theory of:

  • How discrete informational substrates maintain consistency through constraint satisfaction
  • How boundaries form when consistency cannot be maintained
  • How physical structure emerges from closure accounting
  • How saturation limits arise from finite constraint relaxation capacity

The observations catalogued here are relevant because they involve:

  • Structure formation under tight timescale constraints
  • Coherence appearing without apparent coordination mechanisms
  • Universal patterns suggesting underlying structural limits
  • Early-universe conditions where conventional incremental assembly faces challenges

However:

  • CD does not currently explain these observations
  • CD does not predict these observations
  • CD may never explain some of these observations
  • These observations do not validate CD

They simply represent the kind of phenomena that structural theories are positioned to address, making them appropriate motivation for exploring constraint-based approaches.

Catalogue of Observational Tensions

The following entries document specific observations that motivate structural thinking:

Early Structure Formation

  • JADES-GS-z14-0 — Unexpected massive galaxy at redshift z ≈ 14 (~290 Myr after Big Bang)

Dark Matter and Structure (Planned)

  • Dark matter halo core saturation (placeholder)
  • Galaxy rotation curve universality (placeholder)

Black Holes and Compact Objects (Planned)

  • Early supermassive black hole growth (placeholder)

Large-Scale Structure (Planned)

  • Large-scale structure coherence (placeholder)

Programme Alignment

  • Role: Context and Motivation
  • Series: None (meta-contextual)
  • Dependencies: None normative
  • Citable as: Motivation only
  • Peer review: Not required

This section is not part of the formal research programme. It provides conceptual context for why one might explore structural approaches to physical theory, without making claims about Cohesion Dynamics’ explanatory power.

Cross-References