In 1996, I was asked to review the content of a Bob Lazar website by an online acquaintance. Since then, my critique has been posted to Usenet discussion boards, featured on web pages, and taken on something of a life of its own. I still get email about it monthly, which is quite amusing, considering it’s been almost 5 years since I wrote it. Since the original posting was intended to be an informal email, the tone was somewhat harsh and flippant, and some sections were a bit too dismissive. I decided recently that I would try to put together a revision of the now-infamous paper. That revision is presented below.
After reading an account by Bob Lazar of the “physics” of
his Area 51 UFO propulsion system, my conclusion is this: Mr. Lazar presents a
scenario which, if it is correct, violates a whole handful of currently
accepted physical theories. That in and of itself does not necessarily mean
that his scenario is impossible. But the presentation of the scenario by Lazar
is troubling from a scientific standpoint.
Mr. Lazar on many occasions demonstrates an obvious lack of
understanding of current physical theories. On no occasion does he acknowledge
that his scenario violates physical laws as we understand them, and on no
occasion does he offer up any hints of new theories which would make his
mechanism possible. Mr. Lazar has a propensity for re-defining scientific
terms, and using scientific language in a confusing and careless way. For these
reasons, I don’t feel that Lazar's pseudo-scientific ramblings are really
worthy of any kind of serious consideration.
I will focus on the parts of Lazar's text which I took the most exception with-
most of these excerpts relate to particle physics, which is my field. Lazar's
text is in boldface. He begins by describing the principle behind interstellar
travel...
This is accomplished by generating an intense gravitational field and using that
field to distort space/time, bringing the destination to the source, and
allowing you to cross many light years of space in little time and without
traveling in a linear mode near the speed of light.
I’m less bothered by the wording of this passage now than I used to be, although I still think it’s misleading. If you are distorting spacetime with a gravitational field, it produces a very specific kind of distortion, and a very specific kind of attraction. That’s what gravity IS – a distortion in spacetime, at least according to general relativity. And gravity attracts EVERYTHING. A gravitational field is a gravitational field...you can't pick and choose which objects it has an effect on. So, going by what Lazar says here, I still say that if you were to generate a gravitational field intense enough to warp spacetime and "bring the destination to the source" you'll also bring everything else in the nearby universe to the source too! If Mr. Lazar had really distorted spacetime like this back in his "Area 51" lab, every object on the face of the Earth would have rushed into New Mexico. Before they crashed back in the 50's, the alien saucers would have sucked the Earth right out of orbit!
Now I’m no expert in general relativity, but I believe that there ARE solutions in GR which do involve distortions of spacetime that are not “gravitational” in nature. (In other words they would not “attract” things outside of the distortion.) There are serious scientists that do serious work on wormholes and warp bubbles and other mechanisms which could allow faster-than-light travel by taking advantage of distortions in spacetime. As this research stands right now, it seems clear that the energy requirements which would be required by this kind of travel are unimaginable by any standards – even the most fanciful extrapolations of alien technology. I’m talking about an entire star’s-worth or even a galaxy’s-worth of energy! More mass/energy than could be contained in a tiny saucer, or even all of New Mexico for that matter.
There are currently two main theories about gravity. The "wave"
theory which states that gravity is a wave, and the other is a theory which
includes "gravitons", which are alleged sub-atomic particles which
perform as gravity, which by the way, is total nonsense.
These statements by Lazar are "total nonsense". There is only ONE
currently accepted theory of gravity: General Relativity. In GR, gravity is
described as a distortion of spacetime, not as a particle or a wave. There are
phenomena known as "gravitational waves" which exist in GR, but this
does not seem to be what Lazar is talking about. Lazar says that gravity IS a
wave. It isn’t a wave. The "gravitons" which he speaks of are a
feature of QUANTUM gravitational theories, and I think they require a little
explanation.
All physicists realize that the theories of QM and GR are incomplete, because they are mutually incompatible. In order to have a complete theory, theoretical physicists are looking to combine the two into a unified theory which will involve a quantum theory of gravity. There are currently no quantum theories of gravity that work. But even though a satisfactory theory does not yet exist, there is nothing at all nonsensical about gravitons. When an adequate quantum theory of gravity IS formulated, the energy of the gravitational field will be quantized. This quantum of the gravitational field is what physicists call the graviton. It is no more nonsensical than the photon - which is the quantum of the electromagnetic field.
(To add to the confusion of Lazar's statement, in any
quantum theory of gravity, as in all quantum theories, the graviton will be, in
a sense, BOTH a particle AND a wave!)
The fact that gravity is a wave has caused mainstream scientists to surmise
numerous sub-atomic particles which don't actually exist and this has caused
great complexity and confusion in the study of particle physics.
As a particle physicist, I must say that I have NO IDEA what he is talking
about here. Surmising particles that don't exist? I can't think of a single
particle whose existence has been postulated as a result of gravitational
theories. Perhaps the graviton is one, but that’s about it.
You must have at least an atom of substance for it to be considered
"matter". At least a proton and an electron and in most cases a
neutron. Anything short of an atom such as upquarks and downquarks which make
up protons and neutrons; or protons, neutrons, or electrons, individually are
considered to be mass and do not constitute "matter" until they form
an atom.
These are peculiar and nonstandard definitions. The standard use of the term
"matter" includes anything which has mass. Even a single quark is
considered to be a particle of matter. If a quark isn’t “matter” than what is
it? All elementary particles are either matter particles or force-carrying
particles. An electron is a mater particle, and so is a quark.
It may seem like a small point, but I think that errors like
these are what make Lazar’s “theory” so
dubious. How can we give much consideration to someone who claims to be
overthrowing the foundations of particle physics, when it’s fairly obvious
that he isn’t even familiar with the
terminology?
Gravity A is what is currently being labeled as the "strong nuclear
force" in mainstream physics ...
This is the place where Lazar begins to get him self in real trouble. As it is
understood now, the strong nuclear force has NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAVITY. Such a
statement shows either a complete lack of understanding of the physics of the
Standard Model of particle interactions, or a BLATANT attempt at deception. The
equations and coupling strengths which describe the two forces are totally
different and unrelated. The strong force couples only to quarks and gluons.
The gravitational force couples to all particles with mass. The strong force is
extremely short range. The range of gravity is infinite. The gravitational
coupling constant is orders of magnitude smaller than that of the strong
interaction. There is NO BASIS for using the word "gravity" to describe
the strong interaction IN ANY WAY.
If Mr. Lazar has formulated a NEW model in which the two forces are really the
same, then he has unified gravity with the other three forces of nature, and he
should publish it now and collect his Nobel Prize. If he DOES NOT have such a
new theory then his statement here is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
It's not good enough to just call the strong interaction "gravity A
wave". You've got to demonstrate that it actually has SOMETHING to do with
gravity if you're going to attach that name to it! The words by themselves are
meaningless. I want to see some equations. Otherwise, this statement is not
only wrong, but utterly incomprehensible.
...it should be obvious that a large, single star system, binary star
system, or multiple star system would have had more of the prerequisite mass
and electromagnetic energy present during their creations.
Now we get into some fuzzy astronomy.
Mr. Lazar doesn’t seem to understand where heavy elements come from, or
how they are formed.
First we have to assume that when Lazar says “large” he
means “massive.” The "largeness" of a star says nothing about its
mass. In five or ten billion years, the sun will be as large as the orbit of
Mars. A star's size changes drastically during its lifetime. It’s pretty clear
that what Lazar should be talking about here is the MASS of the star.
The next section is a little vague, but he SEEMS to be suggesting that his
element 115, the alien fuel source, which doesn't exist on the Earth, should be
present in those solar systems that were more massive at their inception. The
implication here is that a star system which condensed out of a more massive
primordial cloud should have a greater abundance of heavier elements. This is
quite incorrect.
Heavy elements – all elements heavier than iron – are not formed during the
normal life cycles of stars. The only time when these nuclei are
"cooked" is during the collapse and subsequent explosion of
supernovae. The supernova explosion then spreads heavy elements throughout the
galaxy. For this reason, the abundances of heavy elements in any particular
star system depend NOT upon the properties of the current star, but on the
properties of the nearby stars of the PREVIOUS GENERATION! Therefore, all of
the star systems in a particular region of the galaxy will have essentially the
same abundances of heavy elements, regardless of the mass of star. If element
115 is STABLE, as Lazar claims it to be, then it should be created in supernova
explosions and it should exist EVERYWHERE!
The most important attribute of these heavier, stable elements is that the
gravity A wave is so abundant that it actually extends past the perimeter of
the atom. These heavier, stable elements literally have their own gravity A
field around them...
No naturally occurring atoms on earth have enough protons and neutrons for the
cumulative gravity A wave to extend past the perimeter of the atom...
Since Mr. Lazar has already identified this gravity A wave with the nuclear
force, he is essentially claiming that the nuclear force of element 115 extends
beyond the limits of the "115-ium" atom. (I'm tempted to call it
Lazarium...and somewhat surprised that he doesn't!!) This is simply not
possible, given the known properties of the nuclear force. The past 50 years of
probing the nucleus have taught us that the range of the nuclear force is VERY
short, and protons and neutrons only feel the pull of their nearest neighbors
in a nucleus. Because of this fact, the nuclear force extends out to about the
same distance away from a nucleus NO MATTER HOW MASSIVE THE NUCLEUS IS. This
fact is fundamental to the science of nuclear physics.
Once again, if Mr. Lazar has a NEW MODEL of the nuclear interaction which
explains the properties and decay rates of known nuclei...which can predict the
abundances of elements synthesized in the Big Bang...which can describe all of
the properties of nuclear reactions which take place inside of stars...all as
well as our current theories do all of these things (which is VERY well!) then
he should publish it and collect his Nobel Prize. If not, then once again his
statements make NO SENSE in the light of everything that we know about nuclear
interactions.
Now even though the distance that the gravity A wave
extends past the perimeter of the atom is infinitesimal, it is accessible and
it has amplitude, wavelength and frequency, just like any OTHER wave in
the electromagnetic spectrum. Once you can access the gravity A wave, you can
amplify it just like we amplify OTHER electromagnetic waves.
(MY EMPHASIS)
I have emphasized the use of the word "other" in this paragraph to
show that Mr. Lazar apparently thinks that his "gravity A wave",
which if you recall, is also the strong nuclear force, is ALSO an
electromagnetic wave. Perhaps he HAS formulated a "Grand Unified
Theory" after all! Or perhaps this is just another example of his careless
use of scientific terms.
I want to take some time here to talk about scientific progress, because there is
one common objection to my critique of Lazar’s scenario. People will often say
“Modern science could be wrong. Newton was wrong! Lazar could be right!” Yes.
That is correct. In fact, modern science almost certainly IS “wrong.” But the
only real test of a theory in science is that it works. Newton’s Laws worked.
They still do in most situations. Einstein’s theories are better – they are
more accurate and they work in more situations. New theories will continue to
come along that are more precise and more generally applicable than the older
theories, and these new theories will be tested by experiments until they
supplant the old ones. That is how science has progressed for the past 400
years.
So it is not enough to SAY that modern science is wrong. You have to demonstrate that you have something that is better. And that “better” theory needs to do everything that the old theory does, and then do more. And chances are that it won’t completely turn the old theory on it’s head – because we already know that the old theories work too well. It is not possible to create a new theory until you understand the old one well enough to present a coherent alternative. Calling current science “total nonsense” is nice rhetoric, and no doubt convincing to many non-scientists who feel alienated from science and look on scientists as a kind of modern priesthood of arcane knowledge. But science is a process – not a body of knowledge.
I can't possibly demonstrate conclusively that Lazar's mechanism is impossible.
All that I can hope to demonstrate here is that his scenario would require a
COMPLETE overhaul of our theories of gravity and particle physics in order to
work. Not just some minor changes...I'm talking from the ground up. Mr. Lazar
makes no mention of this fact, and he proposes no alternative theories. But, if
Lazar's scenario is true, then we will NEED some new theories, because we are
wrong about a great many things. We don't understand gravity. We don't
understand nuclear interactions. We don't understand spacetime. We don't
understand stellar evolution. However, considering Mr. Lazar's careless use of
language, his casual redefinition of scientific terms, and the complete lack of
details in his presentation, I'm willing to bet the farm that it is actually
Lazar who doesn't understand any of these things.
But wait.....There’s an addendum!!
Lazar explains on his current webpage (www.boblazar.com) how his
element 115 not only serves as the generator of the Gravity A wave, but ALSO as
the fuel for a matter/antimatter reactor that powers the rest of the saucer.
Let's take a close look at Lazar's explanation of this reactor...
"The power source is a reactor. Inside the reactor,
element 115 is bombarded with a proton, which plugs into the nucleus of the 115
atom and becomes element 116, which immediately decays and releases or radiates
small amounts of anti-matter. The anti-matter is released in a vacuum into a
tuned tube, which keeps it from reacting with the matter that surrounds it. It
is then directed toward the gaseous matter target at the end of the tube. The
matter, which in this case is the gas, and the anti-matter, collide and
annihilate totally converting to energy. The heat from this reaction is
converted into electrical energy in a near one hundred percent efficient
thermoelectric generator. "
Lots of impressive sounding stuff about reactors and
bombarding with protons and all that. But read it again. Antimatter and matter
are converted into energy. Fine. But where does the antimatter come from? From element
115 when it is "bombarded with a proton" by the ship's reactor. Hmmm. And just exactly HOW MUCH energy would
your reactor have to put into each proton to have it create an antiproton??
Well, exactly the mass energy of an antiproton! And how much energy do you get
back out when the antiproton annihilates? EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY
THAT YOU PUT INTO CREATING IT!!
(Actually, you can't just make an antiproton by itself, you
have to make a proton/anti-proton pair. So your reactor needs to put in 2
"protons-worth" of mass-energy into each proton in the beam.)
If you have to MAKE your own antimatter on board, your
system produces NO NET ENERGY AT ALL!! You put 2 protons worth of energy in,
and you get 2 protons worth of energy out! In fact, the BEST this system could
do would be to make ZERO energy, but in fact, it would more likely USE far more
energy than it would make.
Conservation of energy rears it's ugly head, and once again
- it looks like Bob's saucer is going nowhere fast!
Dr. David L. Morgan
Comments?
August 26, 1996, revised October 2005
Back to The Bob Lazar Corner
