I implore you to read the four pages below "CONTACT" in the left-hand column. They contain information that is independent of UT, and show that a physical nature to the quantum is implied by the contents of the pages. It is much too easy to look at a new theory, such as UT, that contradicts one of the most important foundations of the Standard Model, Quantum Theory, and dismiss it without any valid reason. When seeing the information on these four pages and then looking at how UT demands such outcomes and behaviors, it is much harder to dismiss ultrawaves.

Anyone who does not try to understand the full implications of ultrawave theory will automatically believe that it must be wrong. One must expend the effort necessary to reap the rewards. No one who looked at the book initially wanted to take the time to wade through the descriptions and explanations that were necessary to describe the theory to those who have not had formal training in physics; especially with my poor writing skills. It was necessary to condense the theory for those who had little time to devote to examining it, but are much more knowledgeable. As much simplicity as possible was retained in the paper for the benefit of those not specializing in particle physics. The result is the file found at the end of this page.

For all of those who still want to just dismiss the theory without really trying to understand it, ask yourself these questions:

Why can't Relativity and Quantum Mechanics be combined in the SM, but UT has no problem with relativity and quantum behaviors being compatible by its natural application of locality and nonlocality to each independently?

How is it that all spin-1/2 particle behavior can be easily quantified with well known macroscopic matter equations using only the assumptions of a superluminal velocity and a two-dimensional, string-brane underpinning?

The SM requires multiple explanations for the dearth of anti-matter, the one-handedness of neutrinos, and the nature of energy, such as eletromagnetic energy; how can UT do it so straightforwardly with only the items in the previous question?

And finally, how can something that already does so much also give a reason why the magnetic constant of particles is exactly 4piE-7 when using an exact superluminal velocity—no other velocity works—that also allows the quantization of qravity at the particle level, but only with this exact velocity?

That is one hell of a lot of coincidences for even a collection of various types of theories to be able to achieve, let alone a single one that has only a few components and ideas. Doesn't it make sense to check out something this powerful, even if you don't see how it could be right? After all, unlike normal string theories that can't easily be tested, this one has many relatively simple tests that can be performed to differentiate between it and the SM.

The one thing that cannot be overlooked about UT is its simplicity and exactitude. Even if it were possible to prove that UT was completely wrong, it makes no difference to the use of the equations. Everything that can be defined about matter, energy, and gravity works absolutely and perfectly. This is a physical theory, and as such it is as accurate as the measurements of the constants allow. It is mind boggling to think that anyone would reject using a simpler method to examine the subatomic world, and stick with the convoluted system currently available. (I must admit that probability equations are necessary for many interactions, since predictions are nearly impossible with constantly moving objects.)

I removed this paper for a while hoping to get more people to read the book, which is much more detailed and hence convincing. Before putting this page back, I read through the paper again and found a glaring mistake with the first equations. Until rather recently, I believed that Cc and c-squared were numerically equivalent in SI units, and unfortunately, I got used to thinking of Cc and c-squared as interchangeable, except for their units. I did not realize that I had not actually used c-squared anywhere in equations 1A thru 2C. I'm sure that this must have confused a lot of readers, even though I explained in the paragraphs previous to the equations that this substitution was the initial condition. I added equations 0A and 0B to recitify this omission. I also did not differentiate between ideal frequency and real frequency in equations 1A thru 2C, which I also recitified. There were some clarifications made in other locations throughout the paper, and the gravity section was totally revamped. If you have the original version, you should replace it with this one.

A viable theory of everything.