Interstellar: A Visual Masterpiece with Disappointing Writing and Physics

[Pete Cortez]

I have a pretty strong feeling that "We consulted with real scientists when making this movie" doesn't mean a whole lot more than "We emailed some scientist somewhere once or twice."

Not even close. Kip Thorne worked "full time" for months with Tunzelmann and James from Double Negative on all visualizations invoking GR. The result is not only the most physically accurate depiction of these exotic objects in the history of cinema, but likely most accurate--as well as the most encompassing and certainly the most expensive--modeling performed in the history of computational physics.

 

[Pete Cortez]

What's missing is:
- a year's worth of work with the plot
- a second consultant: preferably an engineer from NASA, who has some close and live knowledge about orbital mechanics...

Setting aside the plot, there was at least one more consultant. Astronaut Marsha Ivins served as a http://www.nst.com.my/node/50498 to the production crew.

To my knowledge, there's nothing wrong whatsoever with the depiction of orbital mechanics in Interstellar--at least nothing that anyone has demonstrated by actually showing their work. There are, however, a lot of assumptions made by several critics, as well as a tendency to view even the tiniest bit of dialogue as sacrosanct.

 

[dragoneyes001]

Not even close. Kip Thorne worked "full time" for months with Tunzelmann and James from Double Negative on all visualizations invoking GR. The result is not only the most physically accurate depiction of these exotic objects in the history of cinema, but likely most accurate--as well as the most encompassing and certainly the most expensive--modeling performed in the history of computational physics.

please expand on this because the scene of cooper using a jet plane ejection system to leave his SPACE shuttle is questionable engineering.
here's an excerpt from Wikipedia on ejection seats for the shuttles:
"Ejection seat
Modified Lockheed SR-71 ejection seats were installed on the first four shuttle flights (all two-man missions aboard Columbia) and removed afterwards. Ejection seats were not further developed for the shuttle for several reasons:

• Very difficult to eject seven crew members when three or four were on the middeck (roughly the center of the forward fuselage), surrounded by substantial vehicle structure.
• Limited ejection envelope. Ejection seats only work up to about 3,400 mph (2,692 knots) and 130,000 feet (39,624 m). That constituted a very limited portion of the shuttle's operating envelope, about the first 100 seconds of the 510 seconds powered ascent.
• No help during Columbia-type reentry accident. Ejecting during an atmospheric reentry accident would have been fatal due to the high temperatures and wind blast at high Mach speeds.
• Astronauts were skeptical of the ejector seats' usefulness. STS-1 pilot Robert Crippen stated:

n truth, if you had to use them while the solids were there, I don’t believe you’d—if you popped out and then went down through the fire trail that’s behind the solids, that you would have ever survived, or if you did, you wouldn't have a parachute, because it would have been burned up in the process. But by the time the solids had burned out, you were up to too high an altitude to use it. ... So I personally didn't feel that the ejection seats were really going to help us out if we really ran into a contingency.[16] "

The sparks show entering the black hole just before he ejects was just a bit better than adding sparklers to the scene.

 

[Pete Cortez]

According to Kip Thorne's book, it would have been possible to do a gravity assist to reach Miller's planet and return if there was an intermediate mass black hole orbiting Gargantua. However, to avoid confusing the audience, Nolan insisted that this be replaced with a neutron star (which I seem to remember being mentioned at that point). The problem with doing a gravity assist around a neutron star is that the tidal forces would be too large to be survivable, where as a 10,000 M_S IMBH would be.

In this case, the audience can simply say "oh well, Cooper flubbed and the robots corrected him off screen" if they want to reward their suspension of disbelief. The key lesson for good boys and girls doing their homework is that there is a pretty nifty way to compensate for woefully inadequate reaction mass reserves, and that with the right toolkit you can work out a physically plausible way to drop down the throat of a supermassive, super-rotating black hole system.

He further mentions that while Miller's planet was not physically impossible, the rotation rate of Gargantua would have had to have been extremely close to the speed of light, and this is implausible because there is a equilibrium point where by black holes would lose angular momentum beyond something like 0.9 c. So the only way the angular momentum could have gotten so high is if some unusual and relatively recent event occurred such as two SMBH's merging.

Implausible under likely astrophysical conditions for thin disk accretion flows. A lower viscosity, thicker disk permitted an order of magnitude greater maximal rotation, and you have to arrive at these configurations piece wise and the a/M values numerically. It's also unclear as to what artificial processes might plausible permit spin-up beyond even that point.

 

[Pete Cortez]

please expand on this because the scene of cooper using a jet plane ejection system to leave his SPACE shuttle is questionable engineering.

Questionable engineering is divining a universal truth about something very specific--ejection seats in spacecraft in this case--from scant Wikipedia details on a very limited sample of trials.

Presumably they've solved those problems and then some by Cooper's time.

 

[Pete Cortez]

Interesting, how much we can tell about the planets observing them from Earth, even without landing there, while the crew of the spaceship, flying right above these planets, was not able to do simple 2+2 and to check what was the average temperature of the planet, failed to notice huge tidal waves (so huge that definitely visible from the outside), Dr. Mann was even telling them the duration of the day and night on his planet!

I understand that it is done for the story, but this just plain stupid!

There's a Lorentz factor of close to 60,000 between Endurance's parking orbit around Gargantua and Miller's planet, so remote observation isn't going to tell you much. These guys presumably want to get there and back before mankind starves to death (they still lose two decades for their trouble). Their planned window to do everything was for around one hour expedition proper time. You might forgive them for failing to do a complete enough oceanographic survey before landing.

 

[dragoneyes001]

Questionable engineering is divining a universal truth about something very specific--ejection seats in spacecraft in this case--from scant Wikipedia details on a very limited sample of trials.

Presumably they've solved those problems and then some by Cooper's time.

yes the future made something which is useless 4/5th's of the launch period and totally useless during re-entry problem free.

 

[Pete Cortez]

yes the future made something which is useless 4/5th's of the launch period and totally useless during re-entry problem free.

A conclusion drawn from two unattributed sentences in a Wikipedia article and non sequitur about reentry. Clearly Crowley didn't do his research.

 

[dragoneyes001]

A conclusion drawn from two unattributed sentences in a Wikipedia article and non sequitur about reentry. Clearly Crowley didn't do his research.

its getting old trying to point to what even NASA has changed because it didn't work and you going on about the source as if that's proof of your argument.
here is what NASA has put into action instead of the ejection system "THEY" rejected.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/escape/inflight.html

 

[Pete Cortez]

its getting old trying to point to what even NASA has changed because it didn't work and you going on about the source as if that's proof of your argument.

It's getting really old dealing with poorly thought out nitpicks. You didn't see ejection seats from half a century ago in the Ranger, so who cares?

here is what NASA has put into action instead of the ejection system "THEY" rejected.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/escape/inflight.html

That's nice.

 

[dragoneyes001]

It's getting really old dealing with poorly thought out nitpicks. You didn't see ejection seats from half a century ago in the Ranger, so who cares?
That's nice.

have you actually seen the movie?

 

[Pete Cortez]

have you actually seen the movie?

Yes. Twice. Picked up the book last week. Didn't see a single SR-71 ejection seat or mention of one anywhere.

 

[tionis]

I guess that part about the US not landing on the moon didn't bother those scientists involved in the movie, huh? I wonder why $:D

 

[tzimie]

There's a Lorentz factor of close to 60,000 between Endurance's parking orbit around Gargantua and Miller's planet, so remote observation isn't going to tell you much. These guys presumably want to get there and back before mankind starves to death (they still lose two decades for their trouble). Their planned window to do everything was for around one hour expedition proper time. You might forgive them for failing to do a complete enough oceanographic survey before landing.

because of the factor 60000, it does not make sense to evaluate this planet anyway:
1. As mentioned before, it is in a very deep gravitation well
2. Incoming radiation is blueshifted by factor 60000, so everything will be burnt.
3. Lifespan of all objects outside (including stars) s shortened by a factor of 60000. So sun (10by) will burn out fuel in 166Ky
4. Roche limit
5. Tidal forces
6. What gives this planet light? Black hole? Light from the accretion disk fluctuates very much, it is not reliable
7. It is very unlikely they had received any signal from surface - again, because of the factor 60000

So all CONs. Nothing I can think as PRO.

 

[tzimie]

that part about the US not landing on the moon

This is the only scientific part of the movie, lol

 

[tionis]

This is the only scientific part of the movie, lol

Having witnessed the endless debates on public fora over this topic, plus countless youtube videos and radio shows dedicated to debunk all those conspiracy theories over the years, only to have prominent scientists tacitly endorse such rubbish, I would have expected a public outcry from the informed community to boycott the film.

 

[Rive]

According to Kip Thorne's book, it would have been possible to do a gravity assist to reach Miller's planet and return if there was an intermediate mass black hole orbiting Gargantua. However, to avoid confusing the audience, Nolan insisted that this be replaced with a neutron star (which I seem to remember being mentioned at that point). The problem with doing a gravity assist around a neutron star is that the tidal forces would be too large to be survivable, where as a 10,000 MS IMBH would be.

Well, then it's the shortest lived Deus Ex Machina I've ever seen.
C'mon, just say that 'it's all the doing of the 5 dimensional superman' and all the reasoning is done.

This gravity assisted trip would not fit with the time spent on the planet (not any better than the direct trip). Also, at this point we are talking about at least three different orbits around Gargantua, and the shuttle should be able to change between at least two by itself - it would not solve but just cloud the initial problem.

To my knowledge, there's nothing wrong whatsoever with the depiction of orbital mechanics in Interstellar--at least nothing that anyone has demonstrated by actually showing their work. There are, however, a lot of assumptions made by several critics, as well as a tendency to view even the tiniest bit of dialogue as sacrosanct.

We are living in a 1+ ~ 8.1e-8 factor time dilation deep gravity well, and can barely climb out of it.
So sorry, I will not spent even a tiny bit of my time to calculate the exact Δv budget of that dive to the 60000 factor time dilation deep gravity well.

There's a Lorentz factor of close to 60,000 between Endurance's parking orbit around Gargantua and Miller's planet, so remote observation isn't going to tell you much. These guys presumably want to get there and back before mankind starves to death (they still lose two decades for their trouble).

The question is, that two decade of remote observation (of the whole surface) is faster (and more thorough) or the dive (to just one singular point of the planet).
'Relative' easy question.

 

[nikkkom]

Not even close. Kip Thorne worked "full time" for months with Tunzelmann and James from Double Negative on all visualizations invoking GR. The result is not only the most physically accurate depiction of these exotic objects in the history of cinema, but likely most accurate--as well as the most encompassing and certainly the most expensive--modeling performed in the history of computational physics.

Oh, phlease!

I only see a decently accurate depiction of accretion disk, its light being warped by BH's gravity into a ring around BH (we can see the part of the disk which is behind BH, visible as arcs above and below BH). This image doesn't take "certainly the most expensive" modelling to produce.

What else is "most accurate as well as the most encompassing" in this movie in regards to scientific accuracy?

The most expensive modelling in astrophysics performed in recent years were Big Bang simulations, supernova explosion simulations, modelling of mergers of neutron stars and BHs. *These* simulations required large CPU clusters and months of run time, and development of complex software which takes into account multiple branches pf physics - GR, nuclear reactions, hydrodynamics, electromagnetism... *That* is expensive.

 

[Pete Cortez]

I guess that part about the US not landing on the moon didn't bother those scientists involved in the movie, huh? I wonder why $:D

Bothered Cooper. Why do you figure it didn't bother the people working for the double secret probationary NASA?

 

[Pete Cortez]

because of the factor 60000, it does not make sense to evaluate this planet anyway:
1. As mentioned before, it is in a very deep gravitation well.

So what? I suggest you check out Chapter 7 of Kip Thorne's book. With a particular configuration of IMBHs in the system, he works out a series of slingshots that permits travel between some distant parking orbit and Miller's planet.

2. Incoming radiation is blueshifted by factor 60000, so everything will be burnt.

That's a pretty huge leap. Any bulk of radiation, regardless of how anemic, if shifted by a factor of 60000 will burn you?

3. Lifespan of all objects outside (including stars) s shortened by a factor of 60000. So sun (10by) will burn out fuel in 166Ky

And? Miller's planet isn't orbiting our sun. She's orbiting Gargantua. So the only question is how long she's been doing so as measured by an observer way the hell up funnel from both.

4. Roche limit

What about it? Gargantua is supermassive.

5. Tidal forces

Again, what about it? Gargantua is supermassive.

6. What gives this planet light? Black hole? Light from the accretion disk fluctuates very much, it is not reliable

The disk is an the obvious candidate, but there's also the question of other, off-screen light givers in the Gargantua system. This is a supermassive black hole after all.

7. It is very unlikely they had received any signal from surface - again, because of the factor 60000.

So it is unlikely, in your view, that the Endurance would be unable to pick up a signal redshifted by a factor of 60,000 regardless of its source wavelength? This is just a mirror image to the objection you raised regarding incoming radiation being blueshifted, and it fails for the same reason. You don't actually pin the scale factor to an ambient background and that forms a reasonable astrophysical limit.

 

[Pete Cortez]

Having witnessed the endless debates on public fora over this topic, plus countless youtube videos and radio shows dedicated to debunk all those conspiracy theories over the years, only to have prominent scientists tacitly endorse such rubbish, I would have expected a public outcry from the informed community to boycott the film.

Why?

 

[Pete Cortez]

Well, then it's the shortest lived Deus Ex Machina I've ever seen.

How do you figure?

C'mon, just say that 'it's all the doing of the 5 dimensional superman' and all the reasoning is done.

That's for later.

This gravity assisted trip would not fit with the time spent on the planet (not any better than the direct trip).

You just made that up.

Also, at this point we are talking about at least three different orbits around Gargantua, and the shuttle should be able to change between at least two by itself - it would not solve but just cloud the initial problem.

This doesn't even make sense.

We are living in a 1+ ~ 8.1e-8 factor time dilation deep gravity well, and can barely climb out of it.

So what? Read Chapter 7 of the book.

So sorry, I will not spent even a tiny bit of my time to calculate the exact Δv budget of that dive to the 60000 factor time dilation deep gravity well.

No, but then if you don't bother to show your work then you really have no reason to object. Again, read Chapter 7 of the Science of Interstellar.

The question is, that two decade of remote observation (of the whole surface) is faster (and more thorough) or the dive (to just one singular point of the planet).

Hello? Blight crisis on Earth? Ya think these guys might want to get on with their mission as quickly as possible?

 

[Pete Cortez]

I only see a decently accurate depiction of accretion disk, its light being warped by BH's gravity into a ring around BH (we can see the part of the disk which is behind BH, visible as arcs above and below BH).

Show me a more accurate one then.

This image doesn't take "certainly the most expensive" modelling to produce.

Show me another one that cost tens of millions of dollars to render.

What else is "most accurate as well as the most encompassing" in this movie in regards to scientific accuracy?

Who cares? Show me what was scientifically inaccurate in this movie. Hell, you can start with how much of Miller's sky is taken up by Gargantua. There are mistakes, but most of the criticism levied at Interstellar is pure, unadulterated, ignorant garbage--most of it issued by people who couldn't calculate their way out of a paper bag.

The most expensive modelling in astrophysics performed in recent years were Big Bang simulations, supernova explosion simulations, modelling of mergers of neutron stars and BHs. *These* simulations required large CPU clusters and months of run time, and development of complex software which takes into account multiple branches pf physics - GR, nuclear reactions, hydrodynamics, electromagnetism... *That* is expensive.

Show me a grant that exceeds $10 million to perform the modeling work, and I won't consider this a load of BS.

 

[Rive]

Hello? Blight crisis on Earth? Ya think these guys might want to get on with their mission as quickly as possible?

FYI: it's a plot event. BY THE PLOT they lost more time with the dive than two decades.

How do you figure?

I figure I see no point in continue this with you. Sorry.

When you have checked some gravity assisted maneuvers and what I wrote finally makes some sense for you, we might continue.

 

[Pete Cortez]

FYI: it's a plot event. BY THE PLOT they lost more time with the dive than two decades.

I'm sure getting screwed by a huge wave figured heavily in their planning.

I figure I see no point in continue this with you. Sorry.

Good. Use the time to actually read the book.

When you have checked some gravity assisted maneuvers and what I wrote finally makes some sense for you, we might continue.

Again, read Chapter 7 of the book. What you wrote might as well have been cut from whole cloth. Period.

 

[nikkkom]

Show me a more accurate one then.

I said that accretion disk was depicted *correctly*.

Your tone is unacceptable.

 

[Pete Cortez]

I said that accretion disk was depicted *correctly*.

Your tone is unacceptable.

Very, very sorry. Now show me a more accurate, more expensive rendition, please.

 

[nikkkom]

Very, very sorry. Now show me a more accurate, more expensive rendition, please.

Which part of "accretion disk was depicted *correctly*" you did not understand?

 

[tionis]

Bothered Cooper. Why do you figure it didn't bother the people working for the double secret probationary NASA?

I wasn't referring to the characters in the movie, but to the real scientific characters involved in the making of the film. They should be ashamed of themselves for not speaking up against that pernicious moon landing hoax conspiracy theory, and for not refusing to participate in the propagation of a lie that many of their fellow colleagues (Phil Plait, Neil Tyson just to name a couple) have fiercely fought on many message boards, blogs and TV. A slap in the face to the heroes of the Apollo program. A truly treasonous act to allow the continuation of that lie on their watch.

Why?

See above.

 

[dragoneyes001]

Very, very sorry. Now show me a more accurate, more expensive rendition, please.

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/exotic/black_hole/

the cost of the Hubble far EXCEEDS the movies entire budget so those pictures are more accurate and more expensive than interstellar's rendering

 

[hankaaron]

I wasn't referring to the characters in the movie, but to the real scientific characters involved in the making of the film. They should be ashamed of themselves for not speaking up against that pernicious moon landing hoax conspiracy theory, and for not refusing to participate in the propagation of a lie that many of their fellow colleagues (Phil Plait, Neil Tyson just to name a couple) have fiercely fought on many message boards, blogs and TV. A slap in the face to the heroes of the Apollo program. A truly treasonous act to allow the continuation of that lie on their watch.

I brought up a similar point in another thread (which the moderator shut down). I've yet to read any concern Neil Tyson has with a couple of the themes of the movie. Namely, that an scientifically illiterate culture is able to achieve unimaginable engineering feats. And two, relatively supernatural elements saving that society instead of (the way it always is) humankind saving their own hide.

Imagine if Interstellar was the same exact movie with these two differences:
1. Jesus appears in the black hole and gives Cooper the quantum data.
2. The movie was directed and produced by Kirk Cameron.

I'd bet we'd get a completely different reaction from the science community.

 

[dragoneyes001]

with those two changes you'd have part of the religious community bashing the movie if not actually calling for its ban because it doesn't portray the second coming as its described in scriptures. while another portion praises it as heaven sent

 

[DaveC426913]

... the religious community ...

That wasn't what he asked.

Thought frankly I'm not sure what the question is trying to ask. Or if it will accomplish anything more that to act as a strawman, and distract form the discussion at-hand.

 

[dragoneyes001]

That wasn't what he asked.

Thought frankly I'm not sure what the question is trying to ask. Or if it will accomplish anything more that to act as a strawman, and distract form the discussion at-hand.

taking those two changes he added what I said is likely the only difference we'd see. in this thread the 5th dimension within the black hole has been for all intents left as artistic license. so I'd expect pretty much no change on what are the sticking points.

 

[Evo]

Closed for moderation. Bickering, bad attitudes, personal attacks and snide remarks are all against the rules.

 

[Ken G]

To reopen this discussion, it seems to me that Interstellar is pretty good science fiction. I'm not saying anything about the movie-as-a-movie, that's quite subjective, I just mean what "big ideas" does it introduce into the collective consciousness about possible science fiction memes. Usually a single "big idea" moves a science fiction movie forward, but here I would say there are no less than three big ideas. I'm curious what people's comments are on these, after reflecting on their potential significance: (spoilers follow)

1) That traversible wormholes could be possible. OK that's not really so new, but what's new is to get the scientist who basically discovered how traversible wormholes might actually be possible, involving actual general relativity solutions, combined with some highly speculative elements (basically, some kind of manipulable exotic matter that has negative energy and can be fashioned into structures of singularly high density). If you can put one of these together, then a potential solution of GR would allow a compact 3D region to serve as a kind of "portal" to another universe. Or, to a similar portal located some huge distance away in our own universe, though that actually would seem a whole lot more difficult to do (how do you get to the other end to create that portal?). It seems to me the "big idea" hangs together better if you just make the portal and pass through it, and end up wherever in some other universe. But this is a science fiction movie, you do all kinds of things to have the plot you want.

2) That for humanity to survive on timescales like the age of a star, instead of the million years or so that species normally get, it will need to solve the problem of time travel, so it can use future knowledge to stave off extinction events. Of course this produces paradoxes, as many movies have attempted to navigate. Interstellar takes the view that if time travel occurs, then events that happened already cannot be changed, but information can come from the future which affects the time stream going forward. The interesting wrinkle here is that it produces a consistent loop where advanced evolution becomes possible because of that backward-propagated information, and it is the advanced evolution that also allows for it. Never mind the paradoxes, as time travel goes, that's not bad.

3) The key to make the first two "big ideas" work is to gain access to a region where quantum mechanics meets gravity in a big way-- the singularity of a black hole. Of course it has to be a supermassive black hole for humans to gain access to it without spaghettifying and so forth. How to get out of it, once into check out the necessary data, is a pretty big problem that in my view is the main scientific problem with the movie-- even Kip Thorne doesn't provide any equations to explain how that got pulled off. But I guess if you hold that new physics will be discovered when gravity is married with quantum mechanics, you can do anything you want. That's the most science "fictiony" element of the movie.

By the way, it seems to me that the gravitational time dilation issues raised by the movie were not actually very relevant, it was all just dramatic plot device. The discovery of a habitable planet could have occurred by a second wormhole that had nothing to do with Gargantua, indeed it would probably be easier to imagine a triangle of wormholes where you use one to get to Gargantua, gain access to the quantum environment that let's you learn the new physics you need to manipulate gravity, evolve into 4D beings or whatever, and send the information backward in time to save humanity in the first place, then create a second wormhole from there to some habitable planet, and go there and make a third wormhole that comes all the way back to Earth. Then when the Earthlings figure out how to transport an entire population, they can use the third wormhole and go somewhere nice, somewhere that doesn't have gravitational time dilation. So the whole one-hour-is-seven-years business was just a plot twist, nothing more, it really played no essential role in the overall science fiction driving the story. What it did do, however, was give the population a lesson in the malleability of time that may reach more people than science courses in an academic setting.

 

[hankaaron]

Not science related, but I found it funny anyway. It's the reaction shots of McCaunghey's Cooper that make him look like an imbecile. A better director would have corrected McCaunghey and opted for another take.

http://i62.tinypic.com/2cr2i40.jpg

 

[Pete Cortez]

Not science related, but I found it funny anyway. It's the reaction shots of McCaunghey's Cooper that make him look like an imbecile. A better director would have corrected McCaunghey and opted for another take.

http://i62.tinypic.com/2cr2i40.jpg

Well, that's one opinion.

 

[tionis]

I think the cast was totally wrong. They didn't transmit anything with the exception of Michael Caine, which for some reason, reminded me of Kip Thorne.

 

[Pete Cortez]

I think the cast was totally wrong. They didn't transmit anything with the exception of Michael Caine, which for some reason, reminded me of Kip Thorne.

Here's http://moviepilot.com/posts/2014/11/06/film-review-interstellar-reminds-me-why-i-keep-wanting-to-make-motion-pictures-2410323?lt_source=external,manual.

 

[tionis]

Pete Cortez, you are obviously very knowledgeable. What do you think of my alternative version:

The movie could have been much better and more plausible if they would've:

-1. Joined with Relativity Media LLC and made a kick-ass logo for the beginning of the film were their swirling spheres turn into a black hole.
0. Started with some actual footage of Einstein walking around and stuff. Then maybe do a reenactment of Karl Schwarzschild in the trenches discovering his GR solution.
1. Move to the present era and create a mini-black hole here on Earth after restarting the LHC at maximum power.
2. Managed to contain it in some form of magnetic field.
3. Place it on a spacecraft and send it on a trajectory away from the planet, but somehow, by some mechanical fault, the rocket changes trajectory and gets pulled into the sun.
4. Have the BH start acting up inside the rocket ship and destroy it swallowing a couple of planets (Venus and Mercury come to mind) in the process, thus increasing in size.
5. Have it arrive at the sun, and start doing it whatever it is BHs do when they are close to another body.
6. Have people on Earth watch in horror as the sun gets torn apart and ultimately swallowed by the BH while the planet slowly grows dark and cold.
7. With no hope of saving humanity, scientists (enter Kip) get together and hatch out a plan to travel to the BH and test the strong field regime and other hypothesis.
8. Humanity is doomed and the Earth's orbit is wacky.
9. Astronauts depart and people on Earth weep.
10. Astronauts arrive at the BH and get fried by an unseen gravitational-wave-firewall-wind blowing away from the event horizon of the BH.
11. Earth soon suffers the same fate and gets burned by the BH. All the other planets, too. As soon as it's done eating all the planets, the BH fires its jets and spews the electrical charge leftovers, thus neutralizing itself in the process. No more charge. Only spin and mass.
12. Cut into a scene where there is another civilization out here watching us with their telescopes and wondering what those jets are. The End.

 

[Pete Cortez]

Pete Cortez, you are obviously very knowledgeable.

I'm not. I'm an EE whose math topped out diff eq and linear algebra, physics at electrodynamics and optics, and has spent just about his entire career writing productivity software. I'm just like a ton of other guys here and elsewhere who occasionally take a stab at trying to pick up something new but never follow through--despite the fact that there's a ton of FREE resources--hell, reams and reams of text and audio and video--out there for people who want to learn more math and physics or dust off what they've forgotten. And on this topic I just happened to read Kip Thorne's book.

What do you think of my alternative version:-1. Joined with Relativity Media LLC and made a kick-ass logo for the beginning of the film were their swirling spheres turn into a black hole.
0. Started with some actual footage of Einstein walking around and stuff. Then maybe do a reenactment of Karl Schwarzschild in the trenches discovering his GR solution.

I'm not a big fan of gratuitous geek porn and trivia for trivia's sake. And in this case why Einstein and Schwarzschild? Neither one discovered the EFE solutions depicted in either Nolan's film (a rotating mass) or the treatment you present below (a charged mass).

1. Move to the present era and create a mini-black hole here on Earth after restarting the LHC at maximum power.
2. Managed to contain it in some form of magnetic field.

The probability of TeV-scale black holes emerging from LHC is considerably more negligible than the probability of TeV-scale black holes resulting from cosmic ray collisions in the upper atmosphere. In other words, your premise now depends on some conveniently improbable accident that just so happens to occur within the lifetime of not only this planet, but the operational life of a single collider.

This is already a less compelling premise than Interstellar, which at least has its wormhole appear by artifice.

3. Place it on a spacecraft and send it on a trajectory away from the planet, but somehow, by some mechanical fault, the rocket changes trajectory

So go re-capture it. It'll be easier this time since it's in freefall.

and gets pulled into the sun.

After decelerating 30 km/s, presumably on a time scale that's actually interesting to the plot (though no time scale is short enough to avoid the fatal plot flaw of 3.).

4. Have the BH start acting up inside the rocket ship and destroy it swallowing a couple of planets (Venus and Mercury come to mind) in the process, thus increasing in size.

So now Venus and Mercury are in conjunction with the Sun and this rogue black hole.

5. Have it arrive at the sun, and start doing it whatever it is BHs do when they are close to another body.
6. Have people on Earth watch in horror as the sun gets torn apart and ultimately swallowed by the BH while the planet slowly grows dark and cold.

This applies to points raised above, but what makes you think your TeV BH will eat faster than it evaporates? Again, cosmic rays hit planets and stars all the time.

Interstellar has a far more compelling (if only because it's actually plausible) existential crisis. You can read more about it in Chapters 11 and 12 of Thorne's book.

7. With no hope of saving humanity, scientists (enter Kip) get together and hatch out a plan to travel to the BH and test the strong field regime and other hypothesis.
8. Humanity is doomed and the Earth's orbit is wacky.
9. Astronauts depart and people on Earth weep.
10. Astronauts arrive at the BH and get fried by an unseen gravitational-wave-firewall-wind blowing away from the event horizon of the BH.
11. Earth soon suffers the same fate and gets burned by the BH. All the other planets, too. As soon as it's done eating all the planets, the BH fires its jets and spews the electrical charge leftovers, thus neutralizing itself in the process. No more charge. Only spin and mass.
12. Cut into a scene where there is another civilization out here watching us with their telescopes and wondering what those jets are. The End.

This is no longer a story. It's a string of non-sequiturs and suicides following a string of unlikely coincidences. That's just my opinion. You should start a new thread with a poll asking others what they think.

 

[Drakkith]

The movie could have been much better and more plausible if they would've:

Your list of items would make the movie completely and utterly terrible. Interstellar was, in my opinion, a very good movie that I enjoyed quite a lot. The cast did an excellent job, the special effects were both realistic and stunning, and the plot was more plausible than about 75% of movies I've seen at least.

 

[Pete Cortez]

Your list of items would make the movie completely and utterly terrible.

That's a shorter way to put it. ;)

 

[tionis]

I'm not. I'm an EE whose math topped out diff eq and linear algebra, physics at electrodynamics and optics, and has spent just about his entire career writing productivity software. I'm just like a ton of other guys here and elsewhere who occasionally take a stab at trying to pick up something new but never follow through--despite the fact that there's a ton of FREE resources--hell, reams and reams of text and audio and video--out there for people who want to learn more math and physics or dust off what they've forgotten. And on this topic I just happened to read Kip Thorne's book.I'm not a big fan of gratuitous geek porn and trivia for trivia's sake. And in this case why Einstein and Schwarzschild? Neither one discovered the EFE solutions depicted in either Nolan's film (a rotating mass) or the treatment you present below (a charged mass).The probability of TeV-scale black holes emerging from LHC is considerably more negligible than the probability of TeV-scale black holes resulting from cosmic ray collisions in the upper atmosphere. In other words, your premise now depends on some conveniently improbable accident that just so happens to occur within the lifetime of not only this planet, but the operational life of a single collider.This is already a less compelling premise than Interstellar, which at least has its wormhole appear by artifice.So go re-capture it. It'll be easier this time since it's in freefall.After decelerating 30 km/s, presumably on a time scale that's actually interesting to the plot (though no time scale is short enough to avoid the fatal plot flaw of 3.).So now Venus and Mercury are in conjunction with the Sun and this rogue black hole.This applies to points raised above, but what makes you think your TeV BH will eat faster than it evaporates? Again, cosmic rays hit planets and stars all the time.Interstellar has a far more compelling (if only because it's actually plausible) existential crisis. You can read more about it in Chapters 11 and 12 of Thorne's book.This is no longer a story. It's a string of non-sequiturs and suicides following a string of unlikely coincidences. That's just my opinion. You should start a new thread with a poll asking others what they think.

Thank you. I actually enjoyed your response. And that bit about ''string of non-sequiturs and suicides'' cracked me up.
BTW, I received Kip's book today. I'm on page 27 and LOVING IT!

 

[Evo]

Please do not start any new threads on this movie. All posts about the movie need to be in one thread.

 

[AngelLestat]

The movie does not give much details about distances, black hole mass, etc.
But this is not an excuse to criticize the movie searching the worst parameters where this would not be possible. That is an easy task, but if we know about physsics; we will try to find a case were this may happen as we see it in the movie.

Or when you have an equation in front of you, you just search the values where the equation is false instead solve it?

I came here to see if I could have some explanations about hard physsics from the movie which I don't understand, but it seems some of you (gold members) are a lot more confused than me.

The movie has a good science base with some artistics and action flow disparities as any movie should have.

Millers planets moves at 0,55c at 1,5 Au from event horizon because is a very fast spinning black hole of 100 million sun mass (event horizon radius 1Au).
It has a time dilation of 1 hour equals to 7 years at earth.

This explain the waves, there is also the fact that the planet is almost tidal locked to gargantua with a small wobbling, to give 1 hour difference between waves but avoiding extreme heat due tidal friction. The shape may not be accurate, but again.. artistics/plot purpose.

 

[Pete Cortez]

The movie does not give much details about distances, black hole mass, etc.

The companion piece does (Chapter 6), and there are some problems with Gargantua's depicted scale in certain scenes. Thorne places' Endurance's initial parking orbit at around 5 radii, at which Thorne says Gargantua should subtend 50 degrees of the local sky (while the movie depicts 2.5). By the time we get to MIller's, Gargantua only consumes about 20-30 degrees.

But this is not an excuse to criticize the movie searching the worst parameters where this would not be possible.

Agreed. And it's always a good sign when you actually have to do some work to confirm what the movie got right (or didn't).[/quote]

 

[tionis]

It's my opinion that if a movie lacks memorable quotables, then it wasn't that much of a good film.

 

[Higgs Boson]

The Slate article was written by Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy, by the way.

Some of the points he mentions are:
-habitable planets around a black hole, with sunlight!
-a planet orbiting the black hole near the event horizon(way past the Roche limit)
-said planet having tidal waves(i.e., not being tidally locked)
-vastly egaggerated gravitational time dilation
-accretion disk being cold
-no spaghettification

But more importantly, he makes a point that the characters don't talk or act like people. This coupled with the general clumsiness of the plot and hamfistedly telegraphed messages makes it impossible to overlook the dodgy science.

He is correct, (as any hobby astrophysicist knows), on all of those points, but his spelling is heinous ... or was that you? "egaggerated gravitational time dilation?" You meant "eggsaggerated" gravitational time dilation, did you not?