The Nature of Existence

1. Evidence for the Existence of Superluminal Waves in the Creation of Matter & EnergyA Physical, as well as Mathematical Explanation

2. 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 two-dimensional (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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.)

6. 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.)

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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”.

18. 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.

19. Spin-1/2 Particle (Shaded portions are the actual 3D boundaries, the 2D creating entities cannot be shown.) Charge Sphere Torus (controls spin and magnetic moment) Represents all Fermions w/charge

20. Spin-1 Particle (Shaded portions are the actual 3D boundaries, the 2D creating entities could not be shown.)

21. Neutrino (Shaded portions are the actual 3D boundaries, the 2D creating entities could not be shown.)

22. 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.)

23. 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.

24. 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

25. 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 been shrunken in this manner would look like. Graphic applies to any fermion with charge

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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