Evidence for the Existence of
Superluminal Waves in the
Creation of Matter & Energy
A Physical, as well as
Mathematical Explanation
The Nature of Existence
It seems rather obvious, but has rarely if ever been stated,
that we live in a universe that is created by one and twodimensional (1D & 2D) entities that work together to form
three-dimensional (3D) matter particles that can then be
measured and manipulated.
What is the nature of 1D & 2D entities, and do they have a
physical presence? This question has never been truly
addressed, since it is unclear that 1D & 2D entities can
even be observed. Nowhere in any physics literature will
you find evidence for physical 1D or 2D entities.
Does any evidence exist that can be used to prove that
these entities can have a physical presence? The simple
answer is yes, but only with the inclusion of a fixed
superluminal velocity for the 2D string.
Simplified String Theory
If we were to imagine the simplest form of string theory, it
would consist of a single string and a single membrane,
or brane as it is normally called. What would classically
behaving particles (fermions) look like if created by a
single string and brane? It depends on what physical
form they might take.
Does any evidence for the form of particles exist? Yes, if
we examine the entire value set of the known particles,
relationships exist in the measured values. These
relationships can then be used to provide a simple and
consistent way of describing all spin-1/2 fermions.
What form do these relationships suggest? A torus.
Equations for a Torus
The shape of a torus is determined by two radii, the small
radius of the tube itself, which we shall designate as r,
and the larger overall radius of the hoop, which we shall
designate as R.
The surface area of a torus is related to these two radii by
the equation: AT = 2*pi*r times 2*pi*R = 4*pi2*r*R.
If we don’t have any good measurements for r and R for
particles, how do we know what values to use? This is
where the relationships mentioned previously come into
play. Also, we must make a bold assertion about the
velocity of the string and brane in creating a torus. We
also must believe that the Standard Model is not correct
in its description of the nature of matter and energy.
Where Einstein Went Wrong
What if Einstein was wrong when he made the assertion
that E=mc2? It appears that he was correct, but only if it
is assumed that a truly physical explanation is not
possible. If a physical explanation is possible, then what
equation could be substituted for E=mc2? The most
straightforward one would be for momentum. What
velocity would it take to produce an answer that was
equivalent to, or at least close to, E=mc2? It is a
staggering 8.9359E+16m/s, and it shall be assigned the
symbol Cc. (The value 8.9359E+16 comes from solving
a particular simultaneous equation set, in addition to
using the particle value relations mentioned earlier.)
Where Einstein Went Wrong (continued)
What about the speed limit of c that Einstein placed on the
Universe? We must go back to the earlier question about
2D entities “Is there any evidence for the physical
existence of 2D entities?”. Assuming that Einstein’s
speed limit only applies to 3D entities, a velocity of Cc
can be used on a 2D string that rotates about a point on
a brane to form a circle. The velocity of the brane will be
set to c, since that is the observed speed limit of all
matter and energy. So, if the string is rotating at Cc and
the brane is progressing at c, we can generate a torus
with specific r and R values. (The reasons for primary
and secondary rotations about points have not yet been
determined, but probably relate to 1D & 2D interactions.)
Another Bold Assertion
The very existence of a 2D string raises the question, can a
string have an inherent mass? Even if it were only a
perceived mass based on string/brane interactions would
it make any difference? Making the simple statement
that strings have a mass per unit length allows the
discovery that the shape of a torus can provide insight
into how increasingly heavier particles can have
progressively smaller sizes. Cross-sections of the tori
that control magnetic moments and spin shrink, while the
diameters controlling electric charge grow. Some atomic
nuclei are spin-1/2, and their magnetic moment values fit
within the framework of being simple spin-1/2 particles.
The Logic Behind the Equations for Particles
What happens when a particle such as the electron has the
physical shape of a torus applied to its measured
values? First, it is necessary to have some idea as to
what controls the size of the torus. Knowing that the two
velocities c and Cc control the size, a time/distance
relationship can be used to produce at least one of these
values. Because R is the overall size, the time/distance
relationship used to construct an equation uses the mass
number as a time. This can be done because mass is an
inherent property of the string, so the length of the string
determines the mass, as well as the size, of the torus.
The equation determining size, Tm*Cc/2pi = R, assumes
that one rotation of the torus constitutes one mass
equivalence of the string creating the torus.
Equations (continued)
What about the spin of matter particles, don’t they all have
the same angular momentum? Yes, the value for angular
momentum is 5.2728E-35 kg*m/s. What equation for r is
needed to produce this value and to make all fermions
the same? Since it is a physical system, r is related to
spin by the equation L=½*m*v*r, where Cc is the velocity
and m is the mass of any spin-1/2 particle. So, this gives
the reversed equation L / (½*m*Cc) = r.
Why is the value ½ mvr and not just mvr, like the
engineering equation? The only obvious and reasonable
answer is that only half the mass is involved in the
angular momentum during one revolution of the particle
torus. The remainder of the mass must not be rotating
within the torus cross-section.
Equations (continued)
How do we know that the full mass of a fermion is not used
in the previous equation L = ½ mvr, making the size half
as big as we think it is? Because the torus relies on both
the r and R values that were already determined from
the full mass number. Torus surface area numerically
equals the constant h, known as Planck’s constant. The
equation is: AT = 4*pi2*r*R, having units of m2.
Planck’s constant is still valid because h = 2pi*m*Cc*r,
having units of kg*m2/s. We can see that dividing by
2pi—called the reduced Planck constant—which
represents the minimum quanta of energy of atomic
processes, produces the L = mvr momentum of the
previous slide. The remainder of the mass is therefore
included in the quanta of atomic action.
Equations (continued)
Are there any other equations that verify either of the radii?
For the determination of r, the equation for any spin-1/2
particle’s magnetic moment is m = pi*r2*I. I is the current
in Amperes, which is defined by the equation I = w*e/2pi,
where w = v/r = Cc/r, and e is the electron charge in
Coulombs or Amp seconds. Substituting for w and then
for I, the equation becomes m = pi*r2*Cc/r*e/2pi =
r*Cc*e/2. Units are A*m2.
R can be used in the equation determining the fine
structure constant alpha a. Normally the equation is
written as a = m0*c*e2/2h, but it can also be written in the
form a = c*e2/(Cc*m*R2). Units for alpha are A2*s/m (or
kg*m-1*s-2) instead of null units as the Standard Model
suggests. It is actually m0 that has null units.
Equations (continued)
Is there any proof that the units from the previous slide are
correct? First, m0 is often used in a no-unit manner. It is
only because units were assigned arbitrarily to define the
Ampere that it was necessary to assign it units of N/A2.
Second, alpha is supposed to be unitless, but it can be
written in many ways, such as:
a = m0*c*e2/2h a = c*e2/(Cc*mx*Rx) a = c*mx2/(Cc2*rx2*L)
a = m0*c*mx2/(pi*rx3*Cc3*mx) and a = e2/(2h*c*e0), where the
subscript x represents a particular particle mass and its
associated calculated values of m, r, or R. L represents
the spin-1/2 particle spin. In ultrawave theory, all of the
above equations give units of A2*s/m (kg*m-1*s-2). In the
SM you get various units, or you can’t even perform the
calculation because the components make no sense.
Equations (continued)
Constants that have been taken for granted in the Standard
Model have different units than currently believed, so
therefore the equation for the magnetic constant is
actually m0 = 4*pi()*r/R and has no units that carry over.
The electric constant e0 = 1/(m0*Cc2), and has units s/m.
Another constant that uses the fine structure constant is the
Rydberg constant. Instead of the accepted per meter
units, the units are actually those of alpha squared per
meter, or units of kg2/(m2*s4)/m.
When the results of these changes are tallied, ultrawave
theory provides a consistent and logical set of units that
are better than those of the Standard Model. A set of
units consistent with a physical explanation for matter
and energy.
A Special Note About Equations & Constants
The accepted values for some of the constants derived
from the equations previously presented apply only to
the electron. The equations can be used for any particle,
but the values are specific only to that particle. For
example, the magnetic constant m0 is only applicable to
the electron, since 4pi is multiplied by the ratio of ri/Ri. It
is a ratio of the radii that create the particle torus and
therefore also represents the ratio of electro-static to
magneto-static energies. The electric constant, the fine
structure constant, and the Rydberg constant give
different results depending on which particle is
examined. At the end of this presentation, full sets of
particle values and their associated equations will be
provided showing the various values of these constants.
What About Einstein’s Speed Limit of c?
If it is assumed that 2D objects travel either at c, or at Cc,
as indicated for the construction of particles, then once
3D objects have been created they will be limited to
travel at speeds less than c. No speed limit has been
violated, as no measurements can be made on the 2D
entities. In this scenario, it should be apparent that any
secondary acceleration of matter will naturally be limited
to c, or else its components will become disassociated.
Furthermore, as the velocity increases, the number of
branes being pushed against increases, requiring more
energy. Time is altered by compressing the branes of
space, making the processes that are creating particles
run more slowly as the number of branes that are
compressed and crossed increases.
Does Ultrawave Theory Contradict Relativity?
Not in the slightest. Ultrawaves can actually help in
explaining how relativity works. Gravity is created by the
natural motion of branes toward fixed points in space
where they assist in the creation of matter. When the
secondary motion (acceleration) of a material object
occurs it is against these branes that are creating
spacetime. Acceleration of matter and gravity appear to
be equivalent because each represents motion of, or
motion against, the branes that are creating the
surrounding space. Motion, or even the lack of it, as in
the case of gravity, will make temporal shifts occur. All of
these things combine to provide a physical explanation
for the odd effects of applying an acceleration to any
particles that are naturally rotating within fixed space.
Relativity and its Connection to the Quantum
Based on what has been learned so far, several postulates
can be made concerning the creation of matter and
energy and its relation to gravity. First, all electric and
magnetic fields are manifestations of the existence of
ultrawaves. Second, space is a manifestation of the
existence of branes. Third, gravity is merely a byproduct
of the creation of matter; therefore, gravity only exists
where matter exists.
Another implication is that matter and energy, in whatever
forms they might take, have some relationship to the
branes that are creating space. All matter and energy
can therefore be shown as having the ability to be
spatially connected. This connection through ultrawave
“sharing” within the spacetime framework is referred to
as “entanglement”.
Visualizing Particles
Even though the mathematics seems very clear about how
particles are created, their true physical nature is hard to
visualize. How do the branes and waves interact with
each other? What would they look like if they were
visible? The following computer generated models are
examples of what the string and brane interactions might
look like, as well as showing the different options for how
the two different 2D objects might come together to form
the 3D objects that comprise our Universe. The models
are only conceptualizations, and may not represent the
true reality of how these two types of objects, strings and
branes, come together, or how they can create 3D
particles of various spins.
Spin-1/2 Particle (Shaded portions are the actual 3D
boundaries, the 2D creating entities cannot be shown.)
Charge
Sphere
Represents all
Fermions w/charge
Torus (controls
spin and magnetic
moment)
Spin-1 Particle (Shaded portions are the actual 3D
boundaries, the 2D creating entities could not be shown.)
Neutrino (Shaded portions are the actual 3D
boundaries, the 2D creating entities could not be shown.)
Measured Constants & Their SM Assigned Units
Elementary Charge e: 1.60217656453E-19 A*s
Planck Constant h: 6.6260695713062 kg*m2/s
Speed of Light c: 299792458 m/s
Magnetic Constant m0: [4pi*1E-7]J/T (predefined w/Ampere)
Electric Constant e0: [1/(m0*c2)] 8.85418781762 A2s4/(kg*m3)
Fine Structure a: [m0*c*e2/2h] 7.29735E-3 (unitless)
Rydberg Constant R∞: [a2*c*me/2h] 1.097373156854E+7 1/m
Spin-½ Momentum L: [h-bar/2] 5.292858627721E-35 kg*m2/s
Electron Mass me: 9.109382905E-31kg
Proton Mass mp: 1.672621776E-27kg
Neutron Mass mn: 1.674927153E-27kg
(Some values have higher precision than the NIST listings.)
Electron (Idealized) if v = c2 equivalent in m/s
[Assumes electron is a sphere surrounded by a thin torus.]
Velocity c2 = 2997924582 = 8.98755179736818m/s
Time unit Tm0 = 9.109382905E-31s
Overall radius R0 = Tm0*c2/2pi = 1.30302E-14m
X-section radius r0 = h/(2pi*me*Cc) = 1.28809E-21m
Torus surface area AT0 = 4pi2*r0*R0 = 6.62607E-34m2
Spin Angular Mom. L = ½*me*c2*r0 = 5.27286E-35kg*m2/s
Mag. Mom. (Bohr magneton) mB = pi*r02*I = 9.27401E-24J/T
The magnetic constant, electric constant, alpha, and the
Rydberg constant apply only to the electron, and does not
use the ratio of r0 / R0. The value was set by defining the
Ampere and naturally includes a 1E-7 component.
UT Electron (Idealized) if v = Cc m/s
Mass (measured) me = 9.109382905E-31kg
Time unit Tmi = 9.109382905E-31s
Overall radius Ri = TmiCc/2pi = 1.295532E-14m
X-section radius ri = h/(2pi*me*Cc) = 1.295532E-21m
Torus surface area ATi = 4pi2*ri*Ri = 6.62607E-34m2
Spin Angular Mom. L = ½*me*Cc*ri = 5.27286E-35kg*m2/s
Planck constant h = 2pi*me*Cc*ri = 6.62607E-34kg*m2/s
Magnetic moment mBi = pi*ri2*I = 9.2740E-24J/T
Magnetic constant m0i = 4pi*ri/Ri = 1.256637E-6 (unitless)
Electric constant e0i = 1/(m0i*c2) = 8.8541878E-12s2/m2
Fine Structure ai = e2*ri*c/(Cc2me*Ri2) = 7.297E-3kg/(m*s2)
Rydberg Const. Ri∞: [ai2*c*me/2h] 1.09737E+7kg2/(m2*s4)/m
What About The Real Electron?
Secondary twisting of torus x-section
Because the measured
values of the electron do
not match those of the ideal
electron, what can be done
to rectify this situation? By
realizing that if a torus gets
twisted in its progression
around its center point, it
will create an effectively
larger cross-section, while
producing a smaller overall
diameter. This figure shows
an exaggerated graphic of
what an electron that has
Graphic applies to any
been shrunken in this
fermion with charge
manner would look like.
UT Electron if v = Cc (E-M Adjusted)
Mass (measured) me = 9.109382905E-31kg
Time unit Tm = 9.09883E-31s
Overall radius Re = TmaCc/2pi = 1.29403E-14m
X-section radius re = ATe/(2pi*Tm*Cc) = 1.29703E-21m
Torus surface area ATe = 4pi2*re*Re = 6.62607E-34m2
Spin Angular Mom. L = ½*me*Cc*re = 5.27286E-35kg*m2/s
Planck constant h = 2pi*me*Cc*re = 6.62607E-34kg*m2/s
Magnetic mom. me = pi*re2*I = 9.2848E-24J/T (measured)
Fine Structure a = e2*c/(Cc2me*Re) = 7.29735E+4kg/(m*s2)
Fine Structure ae=e2*c*ri/(Cc2me*Ri2)=7.29735E-3kg/(m*s2)
Rydberg Con. R∞: [ai2*c*me/2h] 1.09737E+21kg2/(m2*s4)/m
Rydberg Con. Re∞: [ai2*c*me/2h] 1.09737E+7kg2/(m2*s4)/m
UT Electron (Idealized) if v = Cc m/s
Mass (measured) me = 1.672E-27kg
Time unit Tmi = 9.109382905E-31s
Overall radius Ri = TmiCc/2pi = 1.295532E-14m
X-section radius ri = h/(2pi*me*Cc) = 1.295532E-21m
Torus surface area ATi = 4pi2*ri*Ri = 6.62607E-34m2
Spin Angular Mom. L = ½*me*Cc*ri = 5.27286E-35kg*m2/s
Planck constant h = 2pi*me*Cc*ri = 6.62607E-34kg*m2/s
Magnetic constant m0i = 4pi*ri/Ri = 1.256637E-6 (unitless)
Electric constant e0i = 1/(m0i*c2) = 8.8541878E-12s2/m2
Magnetic moment mBi = pi*ri2*I = 9.2740E-24J/T
Fine Structure ai = e2*c/(Cc2me*Ri) = 7.29735E-3kg/(m*s2)
Rydberg Const. Ri∞: [ai2*c*me/2h] 1.09737E+7kg2/(m2*s4)/m
UT Proton (E-M Adjusted)
Mass (measured) me = 1.672621776E-27kg
Time unit Tma = 9.0988314253E-31s
Magnetic moment mea = pi*rea2*I = 9.2848E-24J/T (actual)
Magnetic constant m0a = 4pi*rea/Rea = 1.29553E-6 (unitless)
Electric constant e0 = 1/(m0*c2) = 8.s2/m2)
Overall radius Re = TmaCc/2pi = 1.29403E-14m
X-section radius ri = h/(2pi*me*Cc) = 1.29703E-21m
Torus surface area AT0 = 4pi2*r0*R0 = 6.62607E-34m2
Spin Angular Mom. L = ½*me*c2*rea = 5.27286E-35kg*m2/s
Planck constant h = 2pi*me*Cc*rea = 6.62607E-34kg*m2/s
Magnetic moment mi = pi*ri2*I = 9.2740E-24J/T
Fine Structure a = e2*c/(Cc2me*Re) = 7.29735E-3kg/(m*s2)
Rydberg Const. R∞: [ai2*c*me/2h] 1.09737E+7kg2/(m2*s4)/m