I started this project in a small apartment, surrounded by quiet walls, thinking again about something that fascinated me when I was young: physics.
At the same time, AI was becoming much more capable. I began wondering what would happen if I used it as a research partner to explore one of the biggest questions in science:
Can the physics of the very small and the very large be understood as parts of one deeper system?
I knew any serious idea would have to agree with known observations, survive mathematical checks, and eventually face real data. That made it a perfect challenge: part hobby, part education, part experiment.
I would form an idea, explain it to AI, question the result, adjust it, and try again. Over time, a simple picture began to emerge.
The central idea is this:
Maybe reality is built from relationships and interactions before it is built from the things we normally call particles, space, time, and forces.
Instead of imagining the universe as objects moving inside an already existing stage, I began asking whether the stage itself could emerge from the underlying system.
That became the foundation of END Theory — the Evans Relational Framework.
Earlier versions used ideas such as nodes, resonance, pairing, potential states, and the transition from possibility to observable events. The newer work is more careful and mathematical, but the original question remains the same:
What if many things that look separate in physics are actually different results of one underlying process?
I am not interested in forcing the answer to be yes.
A useful theory must be allowed to fail.
If an equation only works because its numbers were adjusted after seeing the answer, that is not enough. If a calculation disagrees with reality, the theory should change, not the data.
That is one reason I find this work so satisfying.
The project now reaches into public scientific material involving CERN/ATLAS, GWOSC gravitational-wave data, XENONnT, DUNE-related neutrino calculations, quantum mechanics, field theory, gravity, and cosmology.
These comparisons do not prove END Theory. They are steps that help answer smaller questions:
Does the mathematics behave properly?
Does the model recover known physics where it should?
Does it predict anything different?
Can that difference be tested?
I think of research like tennis. If you miss the ball, you do not quit. You look at what happened, adjust, and try again.
I hope to keep working on this when I am older, greyer, and more wrinkled.
AI makes the process faster, but it does not replace the human part. The original questions, physical meaning, and judgment still matter. That is why I am also learning more mathematics myself.
Intuition can point toward a path.
Mathematics lets you see the path step by step.
I do not know where END Theory will ultimately lead. It may become a useful framework, reveal only one important piece, fail and point toward something better, or continue to hold up.
The evidence will decide.
For now, I keep working.
One idea. One equation. One test. One correction at a time.
