11 min readJust now

–

Berlin, November 1915. A city dimmed by war. Coal smoke. Hunger. Letters that never arrive. And somewhere inside that gray pressure, Albert Einstein submits a set of equations that quietly reframe reality: matter tells spacetime how to curve.

May 1911. Ernest Rutherford stares at what should have been a polite experiment — alpha particles passing through gold foil — and instead sees the first clear hint of something brutally compact inside the atom. A hard core. A nucleus.

1913.** **Niels Bohr draws a ladder inside hydrogen, rungs that shouldn’t exist if the old physics were honest.

March 1926. Erwin Schrödinger replaces “orbits” with waves — cold mathematics that somehow sings.

1964. John Bell writes a paper that — without raising its voice — turns “common sense” into a technical term with an expiration date.

And then, 2022. A Nobel Prize is awarded for experiments that keep repeating the same scandal: entanglement is real, and the universe doesn’t negotiate with our intuition.

That’s the official timeline.

This is not.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

Conceptual flow from 1D complex-space to spatial 3D-space through entropy and geometric locks.

About twenty-four years ago, I fell into physics the way some people fall into grief: suddenly, without permission, and then you look up and realize you’ve been living somewhere else for months.

It started innocently — popular physics books, the kind you can read on a bus, the kind that still has room for wonder. Then it escalated, like an addiction pretending to be ambition. I moved to university textbooks. Then to the textbooks that didn’t feel like textbooks — just long chains of definitions that demanded you prove you deserved the next page.

Quantum mechanics. General relativity. The dangerous romance of thinking you can hold both in your head.

I was young enough to mistake velocity for depth. I had that private, embarrassing sensation that I was “ahead” of people around me. Not smarter — just… earlier. Like I’d discovered a hallway nobody else knew existed. It produced something almost narcotic:

An intellectual hallucination!

And in that state, I asked a question that, in hindsight, sounds like the kind of question only a beginner can ask with full confidence.

Einstein taught us this: mass–energy curves spacetime. So my naïve brain asked:

If spacetime bends… what pulls it back?

Not “what describes a solution,” not “what are the boundary conditions,” not “what does the stress–energy tensor imply.” No. My question was simpler. Childish, even:

If something can curve spacetime away from flatness, what is the “elasticity” that wants to restore it? What is the tendon? What is the memory? What is the tension that wants to return the fabric to calm?

It felt like I had discovered a missing instinct inside the equations.

It wasn’t. But I didn’t know that yet.

And that ignorance — honestly — was the fuel.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

The Naive Idea That Ate Two Decades

I treated spacetime like something that could be stretched, and therefore something that could recoil.

I imagined an elastic restoring influence, not as a metaphor, but as something you could write into the mathematics: a tensorial “return-to-flatness” tendency. The kind of term that, if you believed in it hard enough, might become a formalism.

So I began learning the language where belief can be punished: differential geometry. Holonomy. Curvature not as a vibe, but as a bookkeeping system where every symbol is a promise you’ll have to keep.

And the more I learned, the more the world expanded.

Physics is like that: every time you enter a room, you find three doors. And behind each door, a new discipline stands there politely asking for years of your life.

Still, I kept walking.

Eventually, this path led me to a kind of internal “construction.” A formalism where, inside a general relativity-like framework, I could represent that restoring tendency by introducing additional constraint-like structure — think Lagrange-style terms — into the stress–energy tensor (my chosen insertion point). Not because it’s the only place one could place such structure, but because it was the place that felt… narratively consistent with how I was thinking.

I knew, even then, that you could try to insert comparable modifications elsewhere too — into curvature-side objects, even into something Ricci-like. But my version lived where I had put my hands first.

And once you build one extra term, the imagination immediately overreaches.

What if this “elasticity” mimics dark matter? What if it behaves like dark energy? What if the same mechanism, in the right limit, helps justify mass — or even charge — as emergent bookkeeping rather than divine labeling?

I worked on this for roughly twenty years!!

Not “thought about it sometimes.”

Worked on it.

Notebooks. Calculations. Scribbled derivations that looked like storms. Pages I still remember by smell: ink, dust, and the dull heat of a room where you’ve been awake too long; or something like it.

I became fluent enough in the machinery to feel the machine.

And I was proud.

That pride didn’t survive what happened next. Yes, unfortunately!

The Accident: Bell Walks Into My Calculation

Here’s the part nobody likes, because it ruins the myth of the heroic plan:

The next step wasn’t planned.

It happened by accident — while I was doing computations related to Bell tests and entanglement, circling that old wound:* how can correlations exist that feel instantaneous without turning physics into superstition? What the hell is that collapse part of the wavefunction!? there is no force, but share Hamiltonian in Hilbert space! is this “share” something like that elastic term in space-time?!*

Somewhere in that work, an idea landed in my head with the kind of suddenness that feels like intrusion.

The idea was this:

The evolution of a particle’s wavefunction occurs at the speed of light — in our familiar 3D space + a one-dimensional complex space.

Call it C-space if you want a name. A complex internal generator space. And then there’s our usual space — call it R³ — the space of tables and planets and tired bodies.

In this picture, what we call “forces” and “fields” are not primary. They are shadows: macroscopic measures that emerge from how microscopic energy-like “dots” (states, data, whatever language you choose) organize and relate in that internal complex space.

That accidental thought became the seed of what I later began calling Relator Theory.

And my first emotional response wasn’t joy.

It was disgust!

I Hated It. For Months.

I don’t mean I was skeptical.

I mean I felt anger.

A kind of private, irrational rage — the kind you feel when you suspect you’ve been betrayed by your own life.

Because if this new idea was even remotely correct, then what was I doing for twenty years?

Twenty years of elasticity-of-spacetime thinking. Twenty years of holonomy detours. Twenty years chasing “memory” in geometry.

And now — somehow — this new viewpoint came in sideways and threatened to make the old obsession feel like a beautifully decorated dead-end.

I remember the sensation with embarrassing clarity: as if I had spent decades carving a key, and then discovered the door was never locked.

So I rejected it.

Not publicly. Internally. I argued against it in my own head. I tried to kill it with counterexamples. I tried to out-logic it. I tried to prove to myself that it was nonsense.

And yet, it kept producing consequences.

That’s what made it worse.

The Week It Started Giving Numbers

When I stopped trying to destroy it for long enough to actually develop it, something happened that still feels unreal to me:

It started yielding results too quickly.

Not the vague, comforting kind. The kind that lands like a punch.

It gave me the fine-structure constant — as something emergent, not fundamental. It gave me an unexpectedly tight, closed-form expression that matched what I was targeting for the electron mass.

And once the dam broke, more ideas came rushing out:

• a path toward modeling the proton mass not as an arbitrary input, but as something like a complex hybrid structure — intuitively pictured as a three-loop geometry (a bouquet of loops, junction-locked), where the topology matters in how overlap behaves;
• an emergent picture of electric charge, not as a sticker on a point particle, but as a macroscopic “face” of deeper phase-organization;
• geometric signatures that seemed to classify leptons in a way that felt… uncomfortably coherent.

I’m not asking anyone to accept that. I don’t even ask myself to accept it without pain.

I’m describing the experience:

I went from decades of slow grinding to a week where the new framework started dropping “fruit” into my hands like it had been waiting.

And that is exactly what made me suspicious. This Rw=c, destroyed 100% of my previous works! Turns those things to nothing.

Because physics doesn’t usually reward you that quickly unless you’re cheating — consciously or unconsciously.

Why I Don’t Expect Physicists to Welcome This

If you’re a working physicist, you already know the emotional texture of a claim like this.

It threatens too much.

It suggests that what we currently treat as foundational — QED, quantum field theory structures, even the way we revere Hilbert space as the ultimate container of “state” — might be an effective description, not the final one.

It implies that:

• entanglement isn’t a magical “given,” but a mechanism with a deeper geometry;
• the Hilbert-space description is powerful, yes — but potentially incomplete as a picture, even if it remains correct as an algorithm;
• the order of explanation might flip: what if something gravity-adjacent (a relational spacetime-like kernel) is more fundamental, and what we call “quantum electrodynamics” emerges from it rather than the other way around?

This isn’t just a tweak. It’s a re-architecture.

And people don’t re-architect their worldview because someone on the internet says “trust me, I have a formula.”

I wouldn’t.

The Real Claim Is Not Physics. It’s Inevitability.

Here’s the part that scares me — the part that feels larger than equations.

If what I’m seeing is real, it whispers a philosophical consequence that is almost impossible to unsee:

*The universe is inevitable. Not just “consistent.” Not just “stable.” *Inevitable.

As in: given the simplest rules in the deepest layer, reality could not have been meaningfully otherwise.

That changes more than physics.

It touches theology — because it rearranges what “contingency” means. It touches metaphysics — because “could-have-been” becomes a technical question, not a poetic one. It touches worldview — because human meaning has always leaned on the possibility that the world might have been different, and that difference mattered.

If the universe is inevitable, then the shock is not that physics becomes unified.

The shock is that existence becomes non-negotiable.

And I can’t pretend that thought doesn’t land like tragedy.

Because inevitability is a kind of cold grace: beautiful, coherent, and utterly indifferent to us.

This Might All Be Wrong.

I need to say this plainly, because anything less would be dishonest:

I could be wrong.

All of it.

The constants might match by coincidence. The “precision” might be the illusion of hidden tuning. The PPT deck I’ve shown to myself a thousand times could be a well-designed mistake.

Even the things that look robust — like recovering known gravitational behavior in the regimes I explored, or getting the right g-factor-like fingerprints — could be accidental consequences of assumptions I haven’t interrogated hard enough.

That’s not false modesty. That’s the correct emotional posture when you think you’ve found something that would overturn too much.

Why I Haven’t Published Everything

Some of the results and formulae I’ve derived live in narrow regimes: particle decay-like behaviors, collision-like scenarios, and even extensions that brush against weak/strong interaction territory — areas where the literature is enormous and the standards of evidence are unforgiving.

I have not published many of those updates yet.

Partly because there’s too much material. Partly because dumping numbers without a convincing mathematical and conceptual spine doesn’t help anyone. And partly because I don’t want to contribute to the worst dynamic in physics:

The dynamic where attention is pulled by flashy claims, and then everyone wastes time arguing about smoke.

If I publish, I want it to be robust — not just “interesting.”

I want the kind of work that creates a better conversation, not just a louder one.

What I’m Actually Working on Now: The Model, Not the Trophy

Here’s where my focus has moved.

I’m not satisfied with closed-form formulas alone — even if they hit experimental targets. Because closed forms can hide guesswork inside elegant clothing. They can match at the parts-per-billion or parts-per-trillion level while still being built on scaffolding that’s too fragile. (And yes: some of my matching required assumptions that I want to replace with something cleaner.)

So I’m moving toward something more brutal and more honest:

A mathematical model that can be simulated.

The suspicion I’m chasing is this:

Gravity, electromagnetism, and even the boring “gas-law” style regularities — the quiet thermodynamic constraints that make pressure and temperature behave like they do — may all emerge from a one-dimensional complex substrate if the rules at that level are simple enough.

Not fifty axioms.

A few.

For example, rules of this flavor:

• in each “epoch” (each discrete update), a state must change — it cannot remain frozen;
• no two “energy-data” units can occupy the same position/state in that internal C-space;
• quantization of the internal space is not a feature — it’s the consequence of those constraints.

[Emergent Time from the Rω=c Phase Lock , Emergent Entropy from a One-Dimensional Complex Space, Relator Lock Rω=c and the Geometric Origin of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Bound]

If you can formalize that cleanly, you can stop arguing about metaphors and start running experiments on your own assumptions.

And that’s the goal:

Not just to hand people fruit (a mass here, a constant there), but to identify the tree and its growth rules — so the fruit becomes inevitable too.

Or to put it differently:

I’m not trying to impress anyone with a number. I’m trying to find the simplest underlying game such that the numbers cannot help but appear.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

The world emerged from randomness with simple rules, and maybe we can reveal its source code in the next few years [Image Source].

If It’s True, the Moment Won’t Be About Me

If this framework collapses under scrutiny, then fine: I will have learned something expensive, and I will still be grateful to physics for being the one place where reality can correct you.

But if — even partially — this is right…

Then the point will not be whether other physicists read my papers or ignore them.

The point will be that we touched something rare:

A junction where mathematics and existence fit together so tightly that “why this universe?” becomes a solvable question.

And that would be a moment that doesn’t belong to any one person.

It belongs to the species.

It belongs to every mind that ever looked at the night sky and suspected it was not arbitrary.