Dr. David L. Morgan
So here is my review of
Lazar's text. My conclusion is this: Mr. Lazar presents a scenario
which, if it is correct, violates a whole handful of currently
accepted physical theories. Mr. Lazar on many occasions demonstrates
an obvious lack of understanding of these current 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 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. In my personal opinion,
Lazar's ramblings aren't worth the paper or, in this case the magnetic
media, that they are printed on.
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 travelling in a linear mode near the speed of
This kind of "Star Trek" techno-babble crap is just plain meaningless,
although it sounds pretty impressive at first. But just stop for a
minute and think about what he's saying here. Generate a gravitational
field intense enough to warp spacetime and "bring the destination to
the source". Sure, but you'll 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! A gravitational field is a gravitational
field...you can't pick and choose which objects it has an effect on!
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
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.) The "gravitons" which he speaks of are a feature
of QUANTUM gravitational theories, none of which even EXIST currently.
(At least none 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. And to add to the confusion of Lazar's
statement, in any quantum theory of gravity, as in all quantum
theories, the graviton will be 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
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.
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 constitue "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.
Gravity A is what is currently being labelled as the "strong
nuclear force" in mainstream physics ...
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! I want to see
an equation which describes the interaction of quarks and gluons in
terms of the gravitational coupling constant and the Einstein Field
...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
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. 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, 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 ludicrous.
Heavy elements are "cooked" inside of stars and supernovae, and are
spread through the galaxy by supernova explosions. For this reason.
the abundances of heavy elements in any particular star system depend
upon 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
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 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. The
physical size of the nucleus doesn't matter either, since the size of
any nucleus is incredibly small compared to the size of the entire
Once again, if Mr. Lazar has a NEW MODEL of the nuclear interaction
which explains the properties 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
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 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
Lazar explains on his current webpage (http://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
(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
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
August 26, 1996, revised April 2001
yazı/ resim izinsiz olarak kullanılamaz!! Telif hakları uyarınca
bu bir suçtur..! Tüm hakları Çetin BAL' a aittir. Kaynak gösterilmek şartıyla siteden
© 1998 Cetin BAL - GSM: 05366063183 - Turkiye / Denizli
Galeri / E-Mail /
Time Travel Technology /
UFO Technology /
Kuantum Teleportation /Astronomy