Long before I knew what theoretical physics actually looked like from the inside, I watched you explain it. You were one of the voices in the documentaries that first introduced me to string theory and to the higher-dimensional language it works in — work that helped shape how I started thinking about the universe. I'll be honest: I've always approached string theory with some scepticism and I'm not fully convinced by it — but I do see real overlaps with where my own thinking ended up, and that tension is part of why this letter exists. Most recently I started watching your conversation on The Diary of a CEO — I'm only partway through, but what I've seen so far is interesting enough that I thought I'd write this page now rather than wait.
Hyperspace was the book that made me realise theoretical physics is really a search for the right language for reality — not just a refinement of old equations. The God Equation made me understand why Einstein spent forty years on unification: once you see the universe as fundamentally harmonic, it becomes very hard to accept that the harmony is accidental. I've been building a framework for twenty-five years around the same intuition you articulate in string theory: the universe is a symphony of vibrations.
We share that premise almost word for word. What I want from you is the place where you'd break my framework — because that's where I'll learn the most. The disagreements between our approaches are more interesting than the agreements.
Where we stand on the same ground
The overlap — explicitly stated
"The universe is a symphony of vibrating strings — particles are notes, the laws of physics are harmonies, and the mind of God is cosmic music."
First pillar: Reality = oscillations, not particles. All interaction = modulation. All observation = resolution through the Planck grid.
This isn't a superficial resemblance. String theory's central claim — that the "particle zoo" dissolves into vibrational modes of a single entity — is the same move I make when I say chemistry, gravity, and consciousness are all modulatory phenomena at different frequency scales. We both reject particle primacy. We both bet on resonance as the deep structure.
The framework: three pillars, 3+1 dimensions
The framework is called Coherence. Three pillars: Frequency (mass is a stable configuration of the substrate produced by wave interaction — the electron's zitterbewegung at ω = 2mc²/ℏ ≈ 1.55×10²¹ rad/s is the direct numerical bridge), Modulation (all physical interaction is cross-frequency modulation — Feynman diagrams are modulatory schemas: f_e ± f_γ), and Resolution (a discrete Planck-scale substrate. For a fixed lattice that would mean a hard cutoff near the Planck frequency; my current working choice is a random substrate of fixed density instead — the causal-set approach, not my invention — which has no frame-independent frequency cutoff, so whether it tames renormalization's infinities at all is an open question).
Crucially: I stay in 3+1 dimensions. No compactified Calabi-Yau manifolds. No supersymmetric partners. The Planck scale is not the entry point for extra dimensions — in my reading it sets the density of a discrete substrate that is the fabric: elements scattered at random through spacetime at a fixed density, not a fixed grid.
| Aspect | String Theory (Kaku) | Coherence (Bes) |
|---|---|---|
| Fundamental entity | 1D vibrating string | Oscillations on a discrete Planck-scale substrate |
| Dimensions required | 10 or 11 | 3+1 (the substrate provides discreteness) |
| Renormalization | Still required; strings soften UV divergences | Open: whether discreteness regularises QFT (a fixed frequency cutoff would break Lorentz invariance) |
| Dark matter | SUSY partners (lightest neutralino) | Stable energy states between c and c² velocity threshold |
| Gravity | Closed-string spin-2 graviton mode | Emergent envelope of the substrate; σ+π̂ split (GFT anchor) |
| Particle masses | Free parameters (landscape ×10⁵⁰⁰ vacua) | Compton λ = h/mc as configuration onset |
| Experimental test | LHC SUSY signatures (absent so far) | 43 numbered predictions with explicit ❌ conditions |
The claim I'd hand you first
Dark matter as stable energy states between c and c²
Layer L2 · Formal anchor: Q-balls / non-topological solitons (Coleman 1985)
String theory's primary dark matter candidate is the lightest supersymmetric partner — a WIMP with a specific cross-section signature. LHC Run 3 and direct-detection experiments (XENONnT, LZ) have placed severe constraints. My framework predicts a different mechanism: stable field configurations (formally: non-topological solitons stabilised by a conserved Noether charge — Coleman's Q-balls) that are electromagnetically neutral, gravitationally active, and high-density. They cannot decay into lighter particles because the charge is conserved; they pass through ordinary matter because they carry no EM coupling.
The formal four-property match (EM-invisible, gravity-sensitive, high-density, penetrates matter) already exists in the literature under Q-ball/Fuzzy DM/Strangelets. The Coherence claim is that these are the dominant form, not a minority candidate. This is testable: gravitational microlensing surveys (Roman Space Telescope) can constrain compact-object dark matter down to 10⁻¹² M☉ — right in the mass range this predicts. If that survey returns a null result at the predicted mass range, the prediction fails.
A 2025 update strengthens this over the single-field fuzzy-DM alternative: ultralight axion BEC dark matter (~10⁻²² eV) is now close to observationally excluded as the total dark-matter budget — ultra-faint dwarf kinematics require m > 3×10⁻¹⁹ eV (May et al. 2025), while galactic-core rotation curves require m ≈ 3.2×10⁻²¹ eV (Hecht et al. 2025). Those two constraints don't overlap. The Q-ball/soliton branch has no equivalent conflict and has gained independent support: Mandal & Shankaranarayanan (Eur. Phys. J. C 85:178, 2025) show millicharged Q-balls reproduce both cosmological CDM behaviour and galactic MOND-like phenomenology in one framework; Zhang (JHEP 04:174, 2025) shows Q-balls, boson stars, oscillons, and axion stars share a universal solitonic structure stabilised by a conserved charge — the same mechanism this prediction relies on.
View full prediction list with falsification conditions →An open question: could discreteness make renormalization unnecessary?
This is the idea you'll most want to break, and I hold it more loosely than I once did. In QFT, loop integrals diverge because momentum integrals run to infinity. String theory's string length softens those UV divergences — a profound result, and one of string theory's genuine achievements. An earlier version of my framework treated the Planck frequency (1/t_P ≈ 1.855×10⁴³ s⁻¹) as a hard physical upper bound on oscillatory modes. I no longer think that can be right as stated: a fixed frequency cutoff singles out a frame, and my current working choice — a random substrate of fixed density, the causal-set approach — deliberately does not. Whether such a substrate regularises QFT in a Lorentz-invariant way is open. I don't claim that it does.
What would settle it
If a discrete, Lorentz-invariant substrate provably cannot reproduce the observed scattering amplitudes of QFT without the usual renormalization, this hope fails. I'd value your view on whether that is already known, or whether it remains an open structural question.
Predictions I've already publicly stamped as wrong
Methodology matters more than ego. One prediction is publicly ❌ falsified; another is ⚠️ partial with the ordering confirmed but the residual claim not detected. Both are marked with timestamps and verbatim source quotes.
RF 1.3 MHz bird magnetoreception — falsified by Schwarze et al. 2016 (Mouritsen lab, double-blinded). Stamped with date and verbatim quote.
Compton ordering confirmed (R²=0.80); magic-number residuals not detected (Mann-Whitney p=0.29). Core ordering holds; specific residual claim failed.
I know what you're thinking: "This is string theory with different vocabulary."
The surface resemblance is real. Here's where the structure genuinely differs — four points I'd want you to pressure-test:
No extra dimensions — a testable commitment
String theory requires 6 or 7 compactified extra dimensions. Coherence predicts none are needed: a discrete Planck-scale substrate provides discreteness within 3+1. If Coherence is right, no KK-tower signatures will appear at any energy scale. If string theory is right, they should. That's a divergent empirical prediction, not a vocabulary difference.
The landscape problem becomes a non-problem
String theory's 10⁵⁰⁰ vacuum landscape is a consequence of free compactification choices. A discrete Planck-scale substrate in 3+1 has no compactification to choose — in my current working choice there is no grid geometry at all, only a fixed average density of Planck order (the exact value is a free parameter). Particle masses aren't vacua choices; they're Compton-frequency onset thresholds. This is a structural claim that makes specific predictions absent from the landscape.
LHC SUSY null results are relevant here
Every supersymmetric partner that hasn't appeared at LHC energies is a constraint on string theory's dark matter sector. My dark matter prediction (Q-ball type solitons) has a completely different signature — no SUSY partners, no WIMP cross-sections, compact-object microlensing instead. Roman Space Telescope will test one; the other remains unconstrained.
The L1/L2/L3 classification is explicit about formalism
Every claim in the framework carries a layer tag: L1 = peer-reviewed formal anchor, L2 = structural analogy with cited literature, L3 = speculative. The string theory comparison (GFT σ+π̂ split, Q-balls, Verlinde emergent gravity) is marked L2. I'm not claiming to have derived the Standard Model — I'm claiming structural analogies that are falsifiable.
Three questions I'd want to ask you directly
1. Does the LHC SUSY null result update your confidence in string theory's dark matter sector?
You've said string theory predicts superpartners. Run 3 has essentially closed the natural SUSY window. I'd want to know how you're interpreting that — is the landscape sufficient rescue, or does it change the theory's empirical status?
2. Is the Planck length a minimum length or a minimum resolution?
In string theory, the string length sets the UV cutoff but isn't exactly the Planck length — and compactification introduces new length scales. In my framework I have moved from a hard grid resolution to a random substrate of fixed density, which has no minimum length at all. These may be structurally different commitments. Where do you locate the distinction?
3. If a Theory of Everything cannot predict particle masses from first principles, does it qualify as complete?
You've noted that string theory's landscape means we can't yet predict the electron mass from pure theory. The Coherence framework claims the Compton relation λ = h/mc connects mass directly to a configuration onset frequency — not a derivation, but a structural bridge. Would a derivation of the electron-to-proton mass ratio from a discrete substrate count as the kind of progress you'd recognise?
What I'm actually asking
"We share the opening line of the same symphony.
I'd like to know where you think my score goes wrong."
Not a lecture request. Not a debate about string theory vs. alternatives. One specific structural disagreement — dimensions, renormalization, or dark matter — and your sharpest reason why the Coherence approach fails there. If you can break it, I want it broken in public.
For the record
- Author Marald Bes — spectrumofeverything.com/about/
- ORCID 0009-0009-7697-2811
- Zenodo DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20043846 (preprint v0.1 — the site text supersedes it)
- Peer Review spectrumofeverything.com/peer-review/
Personal framework — not established physics. Disclaimer on /about/.