(See bottom of page for explanation as to how neutrinos can appear to travel faster than light, as well as other comments about recent news items.)

The best way to help you understand why ultrawave theory is better than the Standard Model is to give you some comparisons between the two theories. These comparisons will be based on the basic constituents of the SM simply for the reason that there are so many more of them required to explain the nature of the Universe. Once you see how simple ultrawave theory is when compared to the SM, you will wonder how so many different explanations were cobbled together in the first place. Since UT was originally discovered to be an alternative explanation for the creation of matter, that will be the focus of the first comparison.

SM: The items needed to explain the nature of matter in the SM, as well as their interactions through different types of forces are in no particular order:

Electron - a point particle that cannot be broken down into smaller entities    Electron neutrino - a neutral particle associated with electron interactions     Muon - a larger relative of the electron (about 206 times heavier)                 Muon neutrino - larger neutrino associated only with muon interactions        Tauon - an even heavier electron relative (approx. 16 times the muon mass)  Tauon neutrino - even larger neutrino associated only with tauon interactions   Quarks: up / down/ top / bottom / strange / charmed - (also indivisible)      

Bosons: photons / W / Z / gluon / Higgs / graviton (last two are unconfirmed) These particles are the spin-1 force mediators that allow spin-1/2 particles to interact electromagnetically, gravitationally, and via the weak and strong nuclear forces. They are supposed to be massless, except for the Higgs.

Including anti-particles, the total number of particles is twenty four. These are the basic particles that cannot be broken down into lesser components.

There are other theories that have not been incorporated into the SM, such as Supersymmetry that has particles with super partners, but these types of theories are beyond the SM and do not need to be described here.

A lot of complicated interaction rules have been applied to the SM components that explain their behaviors and how they combine. The math required to achieve some of these behaviors is daunting, and in some cases cannot be renormalized. Renormalization just means that an equation can be made to give a real answer rather than a non-sensical answer. The SM rule set is an ad-hoc system that has as many drawbacks as advantages.

UT: There are no basic particles in UT, there are instead two types of two-dimensional waves. There is the flat membrane wave, or brane wave, that travels at light speed, and the circular traveling ultrawave that rotates at 8.936E+16 m/s. Ultrawaves combine with brane waves to create not just the spin-1/2 matter particles, but also the other spin types. The spin-1/2 particles include the SM fundamental components, as well as much larger versions that have similar properties. Many of these larger particles are actually atomic nuclei. Because the same waves that create matter particles are used to create bosons, these spin-1 particles are also mass carriers. The same goes for neutrinos; they are also mass carriers. All types of matter and energy are transmutable simply because they are already similar in construction; it isn't apparent when their natural motion is in a straight line rather than a circle.

As unbelievable as it may seem, any feature of the SM concerning mass, energy, or matter creation in any form can be explained quite easily by the UT string/brane model using very simple math.

ENERGY:  The SM uses Einstein's E=mc^2 to explain how matter and energy can be converted into one another. They are treated as completely different entities and no real explanation is given as to how the transformation of one into the other takes place. Its worst drawback is the illogical idea that a velocity, which is supposed to be a maximum limit, can be squared to allow this strange transformation. I see little or no difference between this belief and belief in the supernatural. (Yes, I am fully aware that the equations Einstein used reduce to give the c^2 value, but that doesn't mean the final equation doesn't have to reflect reality after having been reduced.)

For UT, the idea of matter and energy conversion results from a simple change in wave propagation. When creating matter, the branes and ultrawaves rotate such that no noticeable translation within spacetime occurs. When transformed into energy, the branes and waves are forced from rotational motion to linear motion within the spacetime framework. The c velocity of the brane controls the velocity of propagation, but the mass still exists. Electromagnetic radiation and neutrinos are two examples of this conversion from stationary rotation to linear propagation. Nothing strange happens that is not understood from a purely mechanistic viewpoint, and is well within human understanding, unlike Einstein's matter to energy conversion.

GRAVITY: The second item I would like to compare is gravity, but the SM cannot handle gravity. Outside of postulating a graviton particle, there is currently no way to describe gravity using the same processes as matter creation. Instead we must use an entirely different theory, Relativity, to explain gravity.

The problem with explaining gravity does not exist with UT. By using ultrawaves—which have a specific fixed velocity of Cc— it is easy to show that mass concentration on the particle level produces gravitational attraction in a mass per unit volume manner. The equation is 1/2mcr/4h, where m is the mass of any particle and r is its associated ultrawave spin radius. This number is a constant over the entire spectrum of matter particles and has the value 1.18kg*m. The number h is not the usual Planck constant. It has the same value, but the units are different; they relate to the particle torus size. The change in units causes the 1/2mcr/4h equation to reduce to c/(16piCc), which equals Newton's G constant, and appears to have no units of its own. This puts the units of Newton's equation for gravity as a simple and straightforward kg^2/m^2. There are other possibilities for what the units can be due to the fact that m and h can have different units from those stated above. This is one area that I need some assistance with, and would welcome any help from any source.

As mass increases, so does gravity. There is almost no limit to the compression of two-dimensional waves, but since ultrawaves must create matter as three-dimensional, there is a limit that is easily calculated. These limits are well known, so what happens is a reconfiguration of matter into a more condensed shape than is normally seen in nature when stars collapse to form neutron stars and black holes. Instead of a singularity as the focal point of a black hole, an ultrawave torus with specific mass to volume ratio can be shown as the creator of a black hole. The event horizon is likely to be proportional to the mass, as the mass/volume ratio for all black holes should be the same.

Commentary:

Recent theories like Garrett Lisi's E8 matter theory keep getting closer mathematically to explaining the measured characteristics of matter and energy particles, but at what cost? If there is a pattern to mass and energy, which seems to be the case, then it only makes sense that eventually there will be some mathematics that can describe everything about them. Unfortunately, a lot of the math in these higher level constructs has to be ignored as being irrelevant to the desired data set to make this statement true. Determining what is and what is not relevant is nearly impossible, which is why there are so many proposed particles that have not been discovered. Only emperical data can provide the necessary input to show whether or not these particles exist. With ultrawaves none of that is necessary.

There are three items that separate ultrawave theory from every other major theory, the idea that matter particles are composed of tori, that bosons and neutrinos contain mass, and that a velocity much greater than c exists. It is only a matter of time before the SM adopts these ideas. I see more and more that new theories, as well as modifications to existing ones, mention aspects of the theory that depend on the geometry of the torus. Since 2000, when ultrawave theory was first formally proposed, the current paradigm has slowly shifted toward UT with regard to the need for rotating elements and tori. This need for rotation will eventually lead SM supporters to a conclusion that particles are torus shaped.

The second item, the need for mass in normally massless particles, has already been proposed, but not in the manner that is recognized as such. The existence of mass in boson form is called the Higgs boson. It cannot exist according to UT, because mass already exists in all particle types and this type of particle would contain additional mass that cannot be accounted for in the construction of a boson. Once it is recognized that the Higgs does not exist in the energy range specified for it, SM supporters will have to look to other theories for the answer to mass creation.

The final item will not be realized until the need for a superluminal velocity is recognized as essential to explaining quantum behaviors, and the prejudice against superluminal entities has been overcome. The evidence may not come directly, but instead it may be disguised within some mathematical construct that may already exist. Someone other than myself will propose it in a way that seems different than previously considered, consequently the proposal will be examined as a real possibility, simply because it appears to fit within the current paradigm. Once it is realized that it doesn't, the point will be moot, and UT can be examined as the real explanation.

Eventually, when all of these elements come together, it will be next to impossible to ignore the fact that ultrawave theory has already provided all of the necessary details to make matter, energy, and gravity come together under one set of simple rules. Understanding UT merely needs someone to apply some serious consideration to it. Once anyone has taken the time to fully examine UT, the beauty of how simple and thorough it is with regard to logically creating the Universe from simple wave constituents will sway even the most skeptical of minds, be they physicists, or non-physicists.

Here are some recent findings (I paraphrased the article titles) that have other explanations when viewed from an ultrawave perspective.

APPARENT NEUTRINO SUPERLUMINAL VELOCITY

The reason the folks at CERN have measured a slight discrepancy in the speed of neutrinos can easily be explained if you step outside the SM box. Ultrawave theory already has constituents that travel much, much faster than the speed of light. When atom smashers generate neutrinos, they do so by destroying the usual pattern of motion that the ultrawaves use in creating matter. As a result, the reconstitution of the ultrawaves back into detectable particles, such as neutrinos and photons, in addition to various types of hadrons, is not a localized event. Because the waves are in motion, they will travel a certain distance before recombination takes effect. This distance traveled will be at a velocity much greater than light speed, presumably at the ultrawave velocity of 8.936E+16 m/s. Once the particles have reformed, they will travel at light speed to their destination of detection. It is the average speed that is important here, not the supposed constant superluminal speed. An easy way to verify this proposal is to have measurements taken at different distances from the source. There should be a slight decrease in average apparent velocity as the distance increases. (Posted early October 2011)

DEFLECTION OF LIGHT [BY FREQ.] THROUGH SILVER-GOLD NANO-ANTENNA

This one is not surprising, but is beyond my ability to explain thoroughly. What is clear is that the explanation provided by the SM is not correct. The idea that plasmons are something other than electrons, albeit oversized ones, is mistaken. Electromagnetic radiation (EM) is made up of two components with completely different amplitudes, but are just converted electrons. Electrons may, however, also change size, but still remain electrons. A key to understanding what happens with electron-photon interaction, considering that one can turn into the other, is determining the relative sizes of both. This gives us a physical answer as to how the light is deflected, or even converted and then re-radiated. The assertion by the SM theoreticians that each material affects just its own range of frequencies is also not correct. It is necessary for both materials to be at a spacing that is relevant to both frequencies. Also, the thickness of the nano-antenna should be critical to the output. This fact was not mentioned in the articles I read, but it can be verified with the experimentors as to its accuracy. (Posted late Oct. 2011)

QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT OF DIAMONDS USING PHONONS

It is believed that phonons are vibrational states of identical atoms that produce an energy or quasi-particle that can then be manipulated in various ways. In this particular case, laser light was used to create phonons then used to destroy them to produce light of different energies from the main laser beam. Detection of the altered laser photon(s) is considered proof that the phonon released the energy, and which diamond produced the photon(s). To their amazement, the researchers performing this experiment discovered that only one of the diamonds released the photon(s), even though they knew that both diamonds were receiving photons. Unfortunately, the beam splitter used in the experiment acts as a polarizing filter of sorts. The experiment must be done with individual lasers acting on each diamond. This should not affect whether the two diamonds are entangled, but it should rule out other effects that could be skewing the results and making it appear as if the two are entangled when in fact they may not be. Since the results are the proof of the entanglement, it is prudent to rule out all possibilities, even if those possibilities seem contrary to the current theory. Why should one beam be split into two parts when shining a single laser onto either diamond alone should produce the same end result. Does the experiment rely on having both diamonds highlighted by one beam? If that is the case, then why not perform double splitting to see if the other diamond becomes the one that releases the photon(s). A positive result would indicate that something other than entanglement was at work. Another simple but effective test would be to put the two diamonds on a rotating plate that allowed the two to be swapped 180° in position relative to all the other components. Now which diamond produces the photons? To rule out other problems, make the plate horizontally adjustable to see if shifting the location of the two diamonds creates a change in which diamond produces the photon(s) before the systems loses all coherence and stops working. (Posted 12-7-2011)