Why A New Theory?
UT vs SM


I just finished reading an article about Samir Mathur, a physicist from Ohio State University who has a theory about black holes. He calls them fuzzballs due to the nature of the theory. Yet again here is a theory that is coming ever closer to ultrawave theory. His use of strings is just one example. Eventually I expect to see someone duplicate my entire theory; it's just a matter of time.

[What follows below is the ususal website text.]

First. let me say that I will not be asking for donations, nor will I try to sell you anything. I firmly believe that Ultrawave Theory represents the true nature of reality, and that everyone should have the opportunity to learn about it for free. I believe that I will be rewarded in other ways for all of the hard work that went into developing this theory. Its undeniable simplicity and power are just too important to keep restricted in any way.

The problem with knowledge is that it colors one's thinking, whether or not that knowledge is right or wrong. What professional and amateur physicists don't realize is that the Standard Model is wrong about several key items, which skew the perspectives of those who believe in it. The problem is not that the answers it obtains are wrong, but rather it is the explanations for those answers that are wrong. Because the explanations are wrong, the units that are used are sometimes wrong. After I have proven that things aren't what we have been told they are, you might be able to look at this alternative objectively.

To circumvent the escape route of disbelief before examination, this website is dedicated to showing material that is contrary to the Standard Model's explanations of how our universe operates without giving an alternative reason up front. No mention of what ultrawave theory is based upon will need to be given until after you have examined the last four pages on this website. Of course, if you are truly open to new ideas then by all means go ahead and look at the theory.

To prove the point of how your knowledge base has affected you, when reading the above paragraphs, many of you have already made up your mind that this must be a bunch of hooey (to put it mildly). You don't have a reason to think that, as no information has yet been imparted to you, it is just a natural reaction to someone telling you that there is a problem with your belief system. Most people don't actively seek out and evaluate anything that disagrees with their current beliefs. I assure you that I would never have believed this either if I had not discovered it for myself. All I did was ask a couple of questions that shouldn't have been asked, and when I solved the equations that were required by these "silly" questions the answers all came out right. From the answers to these questions about the nature of matter and energy, an entirely new view of the Universe emerged, one that made much more sense than what I had previously believed (what I had learned through the normal physics channels). If you can put your prejudices behind you and examine ultrawave theory, I believe that you will begin to understand what it is that I discovered. Even though I developed this theory after learning that the questions did have realistic answers, I still don't understand all of the implications of the equations. Some aspects of the theory I can only speculate about, so I hope that my proposals are close to reality.

Several pages of proof that support the findings that are contrary to the Standard Model (SM) are available on the left. They are things that I knew must be true if what I discovered about the basic structure of the Universe was correct. The first page is titled H2O (water and ice)—the other three pages of evidence appear below it. It was a real eye-opener to find such a simple example of how quantum theory (QT) is wrong about the construction of matter using something as simple as water and ice. This is the most compelling argument that I have found for not believing the SM explanations for the quantum. Yes, the SM is not just incomplete, it is actually wrong about some things. Not with its numerical answers, but with its explanations. Unfortunately for the SM, these explanations can have far reaching consequences if they are not acknowledged.

At present, there are four examples that I have provided information about, but I expect there are many more. The first two proof pages contain findings worthy of front-page science news, as they are so contrary to what we have been taught that even those who are not interested in science might take note. The other two pages will show that there are equally believable explanations besides those of the SM for some aspects of the physical measurements of atomic matter.

Currently, I am doing a lot of writing, especially sci-fi novels. My work on atoms and compounds has taken a backseat, and I do not know when I might get back to it. I am certain that atoms are ball-bearing-like entities that change size based on molecular combinations. The most striking evidence for this is the measurement discrepancy for the proton charge radius. Experimenters consistently find different values for all of the proton radii (charge, magnetic, etc.) when using different versions of protons. They expect that regular hydrogen will be the same as muonic hydrogen, or even the same as deuterium. This is never going to be the case. Until it is accepted that particles and atoms change size based on what other constituents they are combined with, no progress will be made. Eventually, the consistency in the differences will have to be accepted, and theories that explain it examined with less skepticism if they contradict the SM.

I am always looking for collaborators, so if you want to go where no one is currently looking and be the first to show indisputable evidence for how to physically create atoms and compounds then drop me a line. It is always good to have more than one source of information, since solid state behavior is sometimes harder to measure than we would like. Anyone with a good source of consistent measurement data will be my new best friend.

Caution, once you have read the evidence contained on this website, you will find it hard to deny that there may be a better explanation of the Universe than that of quantum theory, as well as other aspects of the SM that are hard to accept. These include the spooky action at a distance of quantum entanglement that Einstein disliked. Einstein knew that there was a problem with the accepted view of the nature of the quantum, he just didn't have all of the information necessary to prove where things had gone wrong. Ultrawave theory provides that proof by presenting a completely physical picture of the quantum. It still amazes me how quickly someone will dismiss FTL even if it has a perfectly logical explanation, yet will readily accept quantum entanglement in its current form with no logical explanation. I would truly be grateful if someone could explain this to me.

On the "UT vs SM" page, you will find information about recent news articles that are presented somewhat differently using an ultrawave perspective. Most times I only give an alternative explanation, but occasionally I make predictions. One such prediction is that the Higgs boson does not exist. (See page for further information about the proposed Higgs particle.)

[A special note about this website: The currently used file editor does not support subscript and superscript (I tried and failed with Alt + codes); therefore, an up carot (^) is used for superscript. The exception being "The Constants" page, which required using alphabetic rather than numeric characters in the subscripts and superscripts. This necessitated uploading several pages of text as picture files making them look correct, but they cannot be edited on this site, which is why it was not done that way everywhere. Also, please note that C* replaces Cc as the designator of the ultrawave velocity.]