Why A New Theory?
UT vs SM

(See bottom of page for recent news items and comments.)

It is generally agreed that there are certain aspects to any theory that makes it a good theory. Whether or not this is an all inclusive list, the aspects of a good theory can be summed up in no particular order as the following:
1. It should be as simple as possible.
2. It should be logical and rational, and avoid unreasonable assumptions.
3. It must be testable.
4. Tests should be repeatable.
5. Theory components should not be taken on faith, they too should be testable.
6. Outcomes of tests should be stable and not change over time.
7. All independent testing should support the verification of the theory.
8. Experimental observations should be explained in a way that fits with humanity's physical sense of what constitutes reality.
(I added number 8 without ever having seen it anywhere, because I believe it is a valid rule that has been broken by current quantum theory. It was this behavior of QT that led me to search for another answer. This was also the same reason that Einstein believed there was another answer.)

The best way to help you understand why ultrawave theory is better than the Standard Model (SM) is to give you some comparisons between the two theories based on the above eight points.  These comparisons will be based on the 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.

The first point is simplicity. The particles that cannot be broken down into smaller entities (except the muon and tauon) that are 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 - the smallest negatively charged particle (has no physical extent).
Electron neutrino - a neutral particle associated with electron interactions.
Muon - a larger relative of the electron (about 206.8 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: photon / W / Z / gluon / Higgs / graviton (last two are unconfirmed).
[Bosons are the particles that 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, and that is if you don't include the color flavors of the quarks. 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-real (usually infinite) answer. The SM rule set is an ad-hoc system that has as many drawbacks as advantages.

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 approximately 8.9359E+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 particles, as well as much larger versions that have similar properties. Many of these larger particles are actually atomic nuclei (see Power Curves page). 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 that they are the same, because the natural motion of the spin-1 type is to travel in a straight line rather than in 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 simple math.

The second point is the avoidance of unreasonable ideas. There are two different ideas in the SM that fall into this category, the explanation of energy, and the explanation of entanglement.

The SM uses Einstein's E=mc² 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, or what is the exact nature of this energy. 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. (Yes, I am fully aware that the equations Einstein used reduce to give the c² value, but that doesn't mean the final equation doesn't have to reflect reality after having been reduced.)

For UT, 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, well within human understanding, unlike Einstein's matter to energy conversion.

Admittedly, the idea of ultrawaves may seem unnatural, but it merely relies on a concept that must be true; the existence of lower dimensional entities. Because we live in a three-dimensional reality, there must exist two-dimensional entities that create, or at least contribute to, our three dimensions. It is not possible to see these two-dimensional strings and branes, simply because they do not interact with electro-magnetic radiation in a way that we can detect directly. The reason for this non-interaction is that they have no thickness. How can it be possible to have no thickness? Maybe they do; it is just that the thickness is so small that it is beyond the ability of normal 3D matter to interact with in any way. I don't know if there is an answer that can ever be determined, but the existence of 2D entities seems indisputable. When you examine how matter is created, it follows the rules that describe the actions of 2D entities that are creating 3D entities. It makes logical sense that there must be 1D and 2D entities if there are 3D ones.

The second poor idea involves Entanglement, which is the condition where two separate matter or energy particles have a relation between them without any apparent physical connection. Entanglement clearly exists, since the connection has measurable attributes, but the SM does not actually provide any sort of explanation as to how it occurs. Einstein called it 'spooky action at a distance', and didn't accept that there was no explanation. UT provides a simple explanation based on a true physical connection. Because the ultrawaves travel at such a high velocity, when a single section of ultrawave becomes part of more than one particle, any manipulation of one of the particles can affect the behavior of the other at what would seem from our limited measurement capabilities to be instantaneous action.

Points three through seven are all related and can be answered as a group. Both the SM and UT can be tested; however, the SM has so far used unexpected results as a reason to come up with new theory components. This is why the SM is composed of several different theories that are unrelated. The main theories even have sub-theories that are just as unrelated to the other main theories. The main theories that are unrelated are relativity theory, quantum theory (specifically QED & QCD), and matter and energy conversion typified by Einstein's E=mc² equation. Quantum theory incorporates matter and energy conversion as one of its sub-components. The SM is flexible enough to allow verification of all its assumptions, but as new experiments are developed, they continually break the rules of the SM, and it has to be modified to allow these oddities.

Ultrawave Theory was only considered to be possible in the mid-nineties, and was not mathematically developed until early 2001, so it was not around during the unexpected results of the 20th century. Since its inception, there have been no experimental results that do not fit within the ultrawave framework. More importantly, the fact that ultrawave theory is a single theory that encompasses everything that the SM does without needing separate sub-theories, makes it even more susceptable to contradictory experimental evidence. So far, it has passed all tests of explaining new results.

Item 8 'Experimental observations should be explained in a way that fits with humanity's physical sense of what constitutes reality' has already been alluded to as far as the SM is concerned. The fact that no explanations exist for what constitutes energy, and for how entanglement can exist outside of the light-speed framework of relativity, are signs of a deficiency in the SM when it comes to how everyday common sense works. I would even go so far as to include the idea that a field is what allows the creation of mass. I realize that there is nothing that says we can't have a phenomenon that is outside our everyday experiences, but so far none of those types of things are known to exist. Most scientists would agree that things like ghosts, psychic phenomenon, magic, and a physical afterlife do not exist. Out of all of the sciences only the Standard Model of physics has attempted to accept faith-based ideas without physical explanation.

The last item that needs discussed is gravity. The SM cannot handle gravity within the context of quantum theory. Outside of postulating a graviton particle, there is currently no way to describe gravity using the same processes as matter creation. Instead, there is an entirely different theory, General Relativity, to explain gravity. Einstein did a wonderful job in figuring out how to make relativity work properly; he just didn't know why it worked the way that it did. His view of 'curved spacetime' was slightly skewed, in that it is more like 'compressed spacetime', but it works well enough to give good answers to most questions about gravitational interactions.

The problem with explaining gravity does not exist with UT. By using ultrawaves—which have a specific fixed velocity—approximately 8.9359E+16 m/s and designated C*—it is easy to show that mass concentration on the particle level produces gravitational attraction in a mass per unit area manner. The equation is 1/2mcr/4AT, where m is the mass of any particle and r is its associated ultrawave spin radius and AT is the torus surface area of any particle. Cancellation of units causes the 1/2mcr/4AT equation to be able to reduce to c/(16piC*), which equals Newton's G constant. The SM states the units for G should be N­m²/kg². UT units for G appear to be non-existent, but are actually s/kg, which gives a set of units for gravity of kg s/m². This is a pressure multiplied by time, which makes the units at least plausible.

The 1/2mcr/4AT number is a constant over the entire spectrum of matter particles because the m*r value is always 1.18kg*m. This mass and distance constant is the reason all matter accelerates the same, not that gravity curves spacetime in a way that appears to be a force, as Einstein believed. Even though both theories give roughly the same answer, only one explanation for why it is the correct answer can be right.

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 have been well known since the time of Swartzchilde. When stars collapse to form neutron stars or black holes, what happens from an ultrawave perspective is a reconfiguration of matter into a more condensed shape than is normally seen in nature. Instead of a singularity as the focal point of a black hole, an ultrawave torus with specific mass to volume ratio can adequately describe a black hole. A black hole's event horizon is likely to be proportional to the mass, making the mass/volume ratio for all black holes the same. There is already much evidence to support this hypothesis. One such piece of evidence is the mass to size ratio of galaxies, which tends to be fairly linear. The exceptions to this rule are colliding galaxies with separate black holes, and galaxies with little to no rotation, which are harder to analyze.



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 major accepted theory, the idea that all 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 contain a torus shape within their overall sperical charge shell.

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 current particle that is believed to be the Higgs will eventually be proven as a normal boson, or possibly even a spin-1/2 torus with no charge.

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 may be disguised within some mathematical construct that already exists. 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 requires that someone apply some serious consideration to it. Once someone takes 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 scientific findings (I paraphrased the article titles) that have other explanations when viewed from an ultrawave perspective. Although I can think of many ways in which the Universe could behave that does not fit with ultrawave theory, I have yet to encounter even one.


Cosmologists believe that the rotational behavior of galaxies and other collections of matter are controlled by dark matter, because that is the only way they can explain the odd behaviors. Now they have made measurements that indicate that if dark matter exists then it does not interact with itself gravitationally. This makes dark matter even more mysterious than before. Rather than admit that something is wrong with the whole idea of dark matter, there seems to be continued acceptance of it even in light of this unexpected outcome.

There is no problem understanding this information in UT. Since ultrawaves travel in circles in their 2D state at a velocity of about 9-1/2 light years per second, they can travel from the center of the Milky Way 50,000 light years to its edge and back in less than 9.2 hours. Because everything interacts under the relativity umbrella, the ultrawaves influence the velocity at which bodies rotate around the galactic center. Instead of gravity alone causing solar systems to move in circular orbits around the galactic core, they are also pulled along by the rotation of the ultrawave field of waves that also prevents them from flying away as they should do if gravity alone was responsible for their behavior. It is the existence of a rotating massive black hole at the galactic center that is responsible for the plethora of ultrawaves and the reason galaxies behave this way. You would not find this exact same behavior if a galaxy consisted of only a collection of solar systems without the black hole at its center. (Posted 3-29-2015)


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) Addendum: It now appears that this measurement was a mistake. That is unfortunate, as it could have been used to verify ultrawaves. (Posted May 16, 2012)


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)


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)


There is more than one explanation for how this seeming contradictory material operates; the contradiction being that a solvent (water) flows through the membrane without helium being able to flow through. The article suggests that water impedes the flow by clogging the openings, or that narrowing of the capiliaries occurs when gas is present, i.e. it gets trapped within the graphene matrix. Both of these could be true, but looking at the problem from an ultrawave perspective reveals a straight-forward explanation. Because ultrawave theory dictates that all atoms have a physical size based on what they are combined with, water has a physical size based on its components (see H2O page). Gases are different in that their maximum size depends on the containment pressure, up to a maximum size in the vacuum of outer space. The size of the helium atom must be larger than that of the oxygen atom in water when it is disolved in the water, so it is displaced. A good test of this hypothesis is to keep applying pressure to a helium-water mixture until the helium atoms shrink enough to also be able to permeate the membrane. There should be a measureable point at which this helium permeability occurs. (Posted 3-5-2012)


The most accurate study made by a Chilean team of the motions of stars in the Milky Way has found no evidence for dark matter in a large volume surrounding the Sun. This implies that there is no dark matter anywhere in the Milky Way galaxy. Since ultrawaves create gravity that is inconstant over very large distances, and considering that photons and neutrinos have an inherent mass content, it can be shown that there is no need for dark matter. At great distances, photons and neutrinos will appear to contribute to the gravitational effects, but not at close distances. This is due to their relatively slow velocity compared to ultrawaves, which controls gravity interaction speed. All of the features of dark matter and dark energy can be derived from ultrawave properties. The creation of matter, and the induced side effect of matter creation that we know as gravity, has links with ultrawave propagation. The behavior of gravity at various distances can be shown as the reason for an apparent need for more matter and energy in our galaxies. (Posted 5-17-2012)


These energies translate to masses of 2.074E-25 kg and 2.107E-25 kg. It just so happens that the isotope 125Te has a mass of 2.074E-25 kg, and the isotope 127Xe has a mass of 2.107E-25 kg. Ultrawave theory shows conclusively through graphs of the magnetic moments of particles and atomic nuclei that these two nuclei show every indication of being single torus entities. Since magnetic moment graphs indicate that almost all atomic nuclei are made from something other than protons and neutrons, it only makes sense that every nucleus shown on the graph of spin-1/2 particles and nuclei on the "Power Curves" page of this website will show up as blips on the energy scale. The only reason that actual nuclei aren't produced is that all of the ingredients to create them are not present. Since only protons are used, their equivalent energies may represent the amount needed to create a mass equal to any particle or nucleus up to at least that of 127Xe, but they do not contain the amount of ultrawave string necessary to do so. If Einstein had been right about mass and energy being exchangable in any quantities then it should be possible to create large positive particles from protons. Experiments prove that this does not happen. To create a particle of X mass, it is necessary to smash together two particles of 1/2X mass. All secondary energy applied as acceleration is used to break particle tori. The broken tori can then reform into various stable or semi-stable forms, but only up to X. All forms are possible and appear as a percentage of a total of 100%. Some forms have a much higher probability than others, and will constitute a much larger percentage than others. What you will never see on that list is a Higgs Boson. (Posted 6-20-2012)                                                                       Addendum: The mass announced on July 4th for the Higgs boson was 125.3 MeV. This particle is likely to be a boson, but it cannot have all of the features expected of it, and once that is discovered, theorists will be having a field day trying to come up with an alternative explanation. Ultrawaves already provide it. (Posted 7-4-2012)