Physics in Movies: Realism vs. Entertainment

[EnumaElish]

I watched Fred Claus on cable; while watching it I figured that http://www.main.com/~anns/other/humor/physicsofsanta.html is purely Newtonian -- it does not account for time dilation, or relativity.

I also rented "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun" from Netflix. It shows an alternate future, which is entertaining: everyone in European Space Agency smokes like a chimney, astronauts and ground control.

I have seen Star Trek the (current) Movie twice, and I think it is going to look to future people just as Far Side of the Sun looks to me now. A huge spaceship traveling interstellar distances -- yet, no robots on board (torpedoes have to be loaded manually). When being attacked, with everyone on board facing an imminent danger of being drifted into space alive, shouldn't they all be wearing pressurized spacesuits? (Today's navy personnel wear life jackets, right?)

 

[mgb_phys]

Or how the holodeck can have realistic fully AI characters but the ship's computer has the intelligence of a speak-n-spell (not a trekkie honest, I'm just forced to watch it by my wife!)

See also http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/

 

[EnumaElish]

Both Far Side and Star Trek have good to excellent special effects for their time, respectively. I have seen Star Trek once in analog (me alone) and once digitally (with my wife); some visual effects come through only in the digital version. (Haven't had a chance to view in Imax.)

Neither of us is a trekkie, although, having grown up with the original series, we are part of the Kirk and Spock generation and feel connected with the characters.

The best scene in the movie (IMO) does not involve a spaceship: it's Kirk as a (way-hyperactive) child driving toward what looked like the Grand Canyon in Iowa.

Thanks for the link; I had not seen it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I also rented "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun" from Netflix. It shows an alternate future, which is entertaining: everyone in European Space Agency smokes like a chimney, astronauts and ground control.

Wow, I remember watching that movie when it first came out but had forgotten all about it. It wasn't an alternate future, it was a mirror earth. Another earth, a mirror image of our own, so to speak, is discovered in the same orbit as ours but on the opposite side of the sun.

I had to immediately add it to my queue at Netflix.

 

[EnumaElish]

The mirror Earth is the story line, as it was intended. What I found most entertaining was the unintentional part: that people back in 1969 thought that smoking was here (there?) to stay.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The mirror Earth is the story line, as it was intended. What I found most entertaining was the unintentional part: that people back in 1969 thought that smoking was here (there?) to stay.

Yeah, it is funny to see some of the old stuff in this regard. My wife and I were browsing the old game shows on TV one night and noticed that they often gave away a carton of cigarettes as a consolation prize! This because some shows were sponsored by tobacco companies. But it was a different world back then. Smoking was seen as being fashionable and relatively harmless.

I remember the first time I was admitted to a hospital for surgery. They asked if I wanted a smoking or non-smoking room.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

OMG, I just realized that when I had that surgery, I was 16 years old!

 

[Huckleberry]

When being attacked, with everyone on board facing an imminent danger of being drifted into space alive, shouldn't they all be wearing pressurized spacesuits? (Today's navy personnel wear life jackets, right?)

The guys on the flight deck wear uninflated life vests. Falling from a flight deck with an inflated life vest can cause serious injury. The vests are inflated by discharging a small gas canister that is attached to the vest. Everyone else is required to maintain a lifejacket. It comes in a small grey hip pack and is usually kept at that person's general quarters station. So all the personnel aboard a ship have lifejackets, but most do not wear them regularly as a part of their uniform. That was over a decade ago, but I doubt that much has changed.

 

[mgb_phys]

So all the personnel aboard a ship have lifejackets, but most do not wear them regularly as a part of their uniform.

But does the captain's chair have a seatbelt?

 

[Huckleberry]

But does the captain's chair have a seatbelt?

The captain's chair has whatever he wants on it. He's the captain.

 

[JaredJames]

So out of all the bad physics in the Star Trek movie, you pick on the manual torpedo loading and lack of space suits?
Surely space suits would be bulky and reduce the crews movement (espcecially with those dam torpedos needing loading)?

 

[junglebeast]

Physics in movies? Where?

 

[EnumaElish]

So out of all the bad physics in the Star Trek movie, you pick on the manual torpedo loading and lack of space suits?

Okay, I digressed and got "practical." With limited knowledge of advanced physics, I say the red matter looks bogus.

So I'll throw it back to you: what do you think is the most egregious violation of physical laws in the movie, and/or in the series?

Surely space suits would be bulky and reduce the crews movement (espcecially with those dam torpedos needing loading)?

I am sure there is a workable solution. According to the star trek calendar we are probably in bronze age but the astronauts are wearing them, right?

Maybe they should invent a canister (similar to the one Huckleberry was referring to) that might work for pressurizing a space suit?

Correction: I have been informed that the correct term of reference is "trekker" not "trekkie." (Which kind of proves my claim that I am not an ardent follower.)

 

[qntty]

Well the ship (along with signals which are send between ships) travels faster than light and the crew members somehow survive the acceleration of going from a full stop to warp whatever. They also ignore the fact that time would go at different rates on planets/star bases and the enterprise.

 

[junglebeast]

I can't believe you guys are arguing about the physics of Star Trek and the worst examples you can come up with are the fact that they don't have advanced robots or whatever.

For crying out loud:

1) Traveling backwards in time creates logical contradictions, and therefore is not possible according to proof by contradiction.

2) A ship travels through a wormhole (ie, black hole) without being destroyed by gravity

3) At the end of the movie, a ship is stuck half-way into a black hole casually holding a conversation while gently drifting inwards. Moments later, the enterprise is pulled towards the black hole at a slow pace with no counter force, but engaging maximum warp speed is not enough to reach escape velocity. However, the wake of an insignificant torpedo explosion IS enough to reach escape velocity, even though pressure waves can't travel through space.

4) Wormholes and warp drives might be possible, but teleportation of matter is a direct violation of known physics.

 

[EnumaElish]

Well the ship (along with signals which are send between ships) travels faster than light and the crew members somehow survive the acceleration of going from a full stop to warp whatever. They also ignore the fact that time would go at different rates on planets/star bases and the enterprise.

1) Traveling backwards in time creates logical contradictions, and therefore is not possible according to proof by contradiction.

2) A ship travels through a wormhole (ie, black hole) without being destroyed by gravity

3) At the end of the movie, a ship is stuck half-way into a black hole casually holding a conversation while gently drifting inwards. Moments later, the enterprise is pulled towards the black hole at a slow pace with no counter force, but engaging maximum warp speed is not enough to reach escape velocity. However, the wake of an insignificant torpedo explosion IS enough to reach escape velocity, even though pressure waves can't travel through space.

4) Wormholes and warp drives might be possible, but teleportation of matter is a direct violation of known physics.

Nice points.

Any thoughts on the physics of Santa?

 

[JaredJames]

I'm going to go with Junglebeast on this one, although there are plenty more-
for example: that drill that falls from the ship, hanging from the ship (surviving entry through the atmosphere) drilling a hole to the core of the planet. now it would take a lot of energy to drill down to the core of a planet. but the drill does not cut through the materials it is made of. and to disable it, after losing the charges, they use two tiny guns (insignificant energy discharge compared to that drill).
It's like coming up to an aircraft carrier and realising you've run out of torpedos, and then sinking it with a 9mm.

Also, given the dark matter could create a black hole/cause so much destruction on its own, why the need to dig to the core. Surely just detonating it near the surface would suffice.

I'm no trekkie/trekker what ever you want to call it, but I went with a friend and spent the entire movie debating the science in it.

 

[EnumaElish]

Before I saw the fire, I didn't realize it was a drill; I thought it was a space elevator. My reaction was "that's neat!"

Did anyone else have that thought?

 

[JaredJames]

Before I saw the fire, I didn't realize it was a drill; I thought it was a space elevator. My reaction was "that's neat!"

Did anyone else have that thought?

Not really, it actually took me a while to realize it was attached to the ship. I assumed it was what destroyed the planet.

 

[junglebeast]

I actually think that "the drill" is a plausible invention. It could be constructed by reacting large quantities of matter with antimatter, which would by E=MC^2 generate unfathomable quantities of gamma radiation which could be focused into a laser beam by exploiting properties of general relativity. Well, it wouldn't be easy, but I think it's plausible...and a laser of that magnitude would probably have no problem boring through a planet.

However it's "red matter" that they drop inside the planet, which supposedly turns into a black hole when it reaches the core. That clearly doesn't make sense because it is a violation of conservation of energy for a particle with the mass of a pea to transform into a super-massive object such as a black hole.

 

[JaredJames]

I actually think that "the drill" is a plausible invention. It could be constructed by reacting large quantities of matter with antimatter, which would by E=MC^2 generate unfathomable quantities of gamma radiation which could be focused into a laser beam by exploiting properties of general relativity. Well, it wouldn't be easy, but I think it's plausible...and a laser of that magnitude would probably have no problem boring through a planet.

However it's "red matter" that they drop inside the planet, which supposedly turns into a black hole when it reaches the core. That clearly doesn't make sense because it is a violation of conservation of energy for a particle with the mass of a pea to transform into a super-massive object such as a black hole.

Yeah, but you do see I don't have such a problem with the drill, more a problem with the destruction of it with two rather small guns (energy no where near that of the drill)

 

[junglebeast]

Yeah, but you do see I don't have such a problem with the drill, more a problem with the destruction of it with two rather small guns (energy no where near that of the drill)

I thought the gun was controlled by some kind of a computer system and all they did was shoot the electronics up

 

[JaredJames]

gun? I don't know, all I know is in the film, they land, have a bit of barney with some aliens, grab two guns and shoot at the side of it causing it to fall into the sea at San Fransisco.

 

[Huckleberry]

Yeah, but you do see I don't have such a problem with the drill, more a problem with the destruction of it with two rather small guns (energy no where near that of the drill)

Why? The energy output of the drill has nothing to do with how sturdy it is. I could probably disable a jumbo jet with a sledgehammer too.

 

[junglebeast]

Yeah, but you do see I don't have such a problem with the drill, more a problem with the destruction of it with two rather small guns (energy no where near that of the drill)

Aight herez the deal, Drill is a 12/2 and Kirk is like a 3/2, so Kirk can kill drill or drill can kill kirk, it dpends on who attacks first.

 

[slider142]

1) Traveling backwards in time creates logical contradictions, and therefore is not possible according to proof by contradiction.

Are you referring to the grandfather paradox? The existence of the contradiction assumes two things that are as of yet unknown: that there is only one timeline, or that contradictions occur, which is circular (ie., the grandfather paradox is impossible because that period has already occured). The "Star Trek" canon on this movie is what "Star Trek" has always had in its pocket, the creation of parallel universes. As for time travel, the only scientific arguments I've encountered against it are relativistic in nature (ie., the solutions are quite convoluted and require extremely high energy usage and they all have in common the impasse that you can't travel back further than the "machine" was "started"), not purely logical.

2) A ship travels through a wormhole (ie, black hole) without being destroyed by gravity

3) At the end of the movie, a ship is stuck half-way into a black hole casually holding a conversation while gently drifting inwards. Moments later, the enterprise is pulled towards the black hole at a slow pace with no counter force, but engaging maximum warp speed is not enough to reach escape velocity. However, the wake of an insignificant torpedo explosion IS enough to reach escape velocity, even though pressure waves can't travel through space.

Yep, those are pretty laughable. :D However, they did not launch "an insignificant torpedo". they jettisoned and imploded all of their warp cores. As far as my experience in Star Trek lore goes, the warp core crystalline matrix guides the careful mix of matter and antimatter reactions; imploding is just letting them mix at maximum throughput, creating a region of unbounded matter-antimatter annihilation, which should give off ridiculous amounts of energy. The ship, of course, should have been annihilated. They then were probably picked up by another Federation vessel, as they obviously weren't going to get anywhere on impulse drive alone. As for that odd red matter singularity, it did not act like a black hole at all (no relativistic effects?? and no event horizon??), so either they don't read physics or they didn't intend it to be a black hole. However, I cannot find any plausible explanation for the red matter or the wormhole-like objects they create in current physics.

4) Wormholes and warp drives might be possible, but teleportation of matter is a direct violation of known physics.

Indeed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I can't believe you guys are arguing about the physics of Star Trek and the worst examples you can come up with are the fact that they don't have advanced robots or whatever.

For crying out loud:

1) Traveling backwards in time creates logical contradictions, and therefore is not possible according to proof by contradiction.

Who needs physics? Just ask a philosopher!

The Greeks were right all along.

 

[junglebeast]

Are you referring to the grandfather paradox? The existence of the contradiction assumes two things that are as of yet unknown: that there is only one timeline, or that contradictions occur, which is circular (ie., the grandfather paradox is impossible because that period has already occured). The "Star Trek" canon on this movie is what "Star Trek" has always had in its pocket, the creation of parallel universes. As for time travel, the only scientific arguments I've encountered against it are relativistic in nature (ie., the solutions are quite convoluted and require extremely high energy usage and they all have in common the impasse that you can't travel back further than the "machine" was "started"), not purely logical.

Actually I think there are several fundamental problems with it.

1) The grandfather paradox disallows one to travel back in time in this universe.

2) To avoid the grandfather paradox, you would have to believe that you were creating a parallel universe when you traveled back in time. But because of conservation of mass, you couldn't just disappear from the original universe, so only a "clone" would be sent "back". Since your brain stays in the original universe, so do your thoughts, and you never actually experience going back in time at all. And then what's the point of even entertaining the notion anymore if it's completely disconnected in all ways from this universe?

3) This is the most important one. Time is just the name we give to how fast particles change -- it's not a "dimension" at all. Particles can make a movement, or undo a movement, but undoing a movement is still a change. Thus going "backwards" in time in a Newtonian model is no different from saying that all particles in the universe reverse their momentum, which goes against all laws of physics. But under a quantum model, it's not even representable, because particles move in non-deterministic ways. So in other words, going back in time is just about as pointless as trying to figure out how to make an "unsigned int" negative -- by definition, it's not something that can hold negative values. At least that's my view. I'm sure not everyone agrees.

 

[slider142]

Actually I think there are several fundamental problems with it.

1) The grandfather paradox disallows one to travel back in time in this universe.]

How so?

2) To avoid the grandfather paradox, you would have to believe that you were creating a parallel universe when you traveled back in time. But because of conservation of mass, you couldn't just disappear from the original universe, so only a "clone" would be sent "back". Since your brain stays in the original universe, so do your thoughts, and you never actually experience going back in time at all. And then what's the point of even entertaining the notion anymore if it's completely disconnected in all ways from this universe?

Not necessarily. One alternative is that all pasts have already occured. Ie., you already did not kill your grandfather (heavily deterministic, of course).

3) This is the most important one. Time is just the name we give to how fast particles change -- it's not a "dimension" at all. Particles can make a movement, or undo a movement, but undoing a movement is still a change. Thus going "backwards" in time in a Newtonian model is no different from saying that all particles in the universe reverse their momentum, which goes against all laws of physics. But under a quantum model, it's not even representable, because particles move in non-deterministic ways. So in other words, going back in time is just about as pointless as trying to figure out how to make an "unsigned int" negative -- by definition, it's not something that can hold negative values. At least that's my view. I'm sure not everyone agrees.

Yep, that's not really here nor there. You could just as easily say "space" is just the name we give to lengths. How do you assuage this view with general relativistic transformations, which freely rotate space and time coordinates into each other?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I can't believe you guys are arguing about the physics of Star Trek and the worst examples you can come up with are the fact that they don't have advanced robots or whatever.

For crying out loud:

You can often find any number of small problems which can be rather amusing. When you hit after the big problems its so easy to just say that they are taking artistic license or perhaps in this fictional world they found some way around the problems that are believed to prevent such things.

I read a book by Dan Brown called Deception Point. One of the major subplots revolved around a man running for president against the sitting president. I didn't even realize until after I finished the book that he never mentions a vice president or a running mate for the other candidate. It had little to do with the story and there were certainly bigger mistakes in the major plot line but this smaller thing when you notice it seems to become a rather glaring and rediculous omission. Like lasers in space making noise.

 

[JaredJames]

You can often find any number of small problems which can be rather amusing. When you hit after the big problems its so easy to just say that they are taking artistic license or perhaps in this fictional world they found some way around the problems that are believed to prevent such things.

I read a book by Dan Brown called Deception Point. One of the major subplots revolved around a man running for president against the sitting president. I didn't even realize until after I finished the book that he never mentions a vice president or a running mate for the other candidate. It had little to do with the story and there were certainly bigger mistakes in the major plot line but this smaller thing when you notice it seems to become a rather glaring and rediculous omission. Like lasers in space making noise.

Well, I don't know how anyone else feels on this, but scientifically correct or not, a space battle with no sounds would be boring. What I really like is in Battlestar Galactica (new series) where they mute the guns slightly so it's more like you can here them through the hull inside the ship. Even though our view was outside, it still made things more 'real'.

 

[Moridin]

Physics in movies? Where?

This is very similar to my position. There are many, many hilarious misuses of physics (and other sciences) in movies. Getting knocked back by getting shot by a pistol, cars blowing up when you hit the gas tank etc.

One question I think is worth exploring is exactly how many sins against science should be allowed for the purpose of entertainment.

 

[JaredJames]

This is very similar to my position. There are many, many hilarious misuses of physics (and other sciences) in movies. Getting knocked back by getting shot by a pistol, cars blowing up when you hit the gas tank etc.

One question I think is worth exploring is exactly how many sins against science should be allowed for the purpose of entertainment.

I think the biggest problem with 'movie physics' is that people believe them. Or if they see something enough in many films (getting knocked back by a pistol shot) they begin to believe that is what happens.

 

[mgb_phys]

more a problem with the destruction of it with two rather small guns (energy no where near that of the drill)

<geek> there was probably an unshielded thermal exhaust port just below the main port that led directly to the reator </geek>

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Well, I don't know how anyone else feels on this, but scientifically correct or not, a space battle with no sounds would be boring. What I really like is in Battlestar Galactica (new series) where they mute the guns slightly so it's more like you can here them through the hull inside the ship. Even though our view was outside, it still made things more 'real'.

I've mentioned it in another similar thread but there is an awesome scene in a book I read where the author describes a fairly realistic laser rifle battle in a vacuum. All hell is breaking loose but with no visible beams and no sounds except the crackle and voices of radio traffic over the characters earpiece. It was a very sureal scene to imagine though I agree that such a thing would be difficult to translate to film.