Marald Bes

My first ideas and thought experiments came when I was fifteen or sixteen. Not because of a formula or a book — just a gut feeling. A theory that was binary at its core: everything is either on or off. At any scale, from the largest to the smallest, reality seemed to be built from state changes. Going from an energy state to no energy, and back again.

I also sensed that reality itself is not always linear. Time does not run at the same pace for everything — maybe it depends on scale, or on how something is built up from smaller parts. Growing up with computers since the age of five and studying electronics, I knew that switching from one energy state to another is never instantaneous, no matter the scale. That got me thinking: what if the time it takes to go from one state to the other is time itself, at its own scale? From there it felt logical that transitions like a planet's rotation, or a star being born or dying, could take millions of years — an enormous scale — while qubits in a quantum system switch faster than a nanosecond.

And if that transition could be imagined as a curve — a wave — then it doesn't have to be linear. The path from 0 to 1, or 1 to 0, could take any shape. Equal, stretched, compressed, asymmetric. Any wave shape possible. And maybe that wave shape, caused by the switching of states, would produce something measurable.

In 2001, I gathered all my mental and written notes from over the years and the writing began. Not because the answer was in hand — because the questions would not let go. I kept adding things over the years, rewrote parts after working through everything Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Feynman, and many other documentaries, books and late-night YouTube deep dives had to say about the universe. Whenever something I read, heard, or saw seemed to connect to the theory, I made a note.

The second half of 2025 brought AI to the mainstream. I wasn't an early adopter, but I used it regularly and had conversations about my theory — which made some connections visible I hadn't noticed before. But ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 talked far too much towards what the user wanted to hear, were uncritical, and rarely factually accurate, so I left it there. Until I started using Claude Code professionally for my work. In code, I could set boundaries — define exactly where the model should limit itself. I could let it help me translate a non-scientific theory into scientific language and build a system that could allow the framework to be tested against established, recognized science.

And here we are.

More than twenty-five years later, those questions have grown into a framework: Coherence — a unified theory connecting frequency, modulation, and perception across all scales of reality, from the Planck length to the observable universe.

This is not established physics. It is a personal framework — built by an observer who is not a credentialed physicist, but who has studied the literature, followed the evidence, and been willing to have predictions falsified.

Predictions are listed publicly with explicit falsification conditions. So far one is ❌ falsified (#32, RF magnetoreception, refuted by Schwarze et al. 2016 in Frontiers). One is ⚠️ partial (#34, Hubble H₀(z) — qualitative pattern present in published data, quantitative fit near zero). The rest remain open. The framework is refined as evidence comes in.

That is the process. That is the invitation.