Interstellar: A Visual Masterpiece with Disappointing Writing and Physics

[Bandersnatch]

his spelling is heinous ... or was that you?

It was me, you cheeky bastard. Looking at it now, and at the distance between the letters on my keyboard, I realize I simply must like g's much more than I like x's.

 

[tzimie]

BTW isn't the planet so close to the event horizon, that it is below the photon sphere?
There are no stable orbits below the photon sphere...

 

[stevebd1]

BTW isn't the planet so close to the event horizon, that it is below the photon sphere?
There are no stable orbits below the photon sphere...

Like the marginally stable orbit, the photon sphere also reduces with increase in spin, staying within the MSO, see equation 22 in http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~kokkotas/Teaching/Relativistic_Astrophysics_files/GTR2009_4.pdf (the equations to calculate the MSO are 26 to 28). Technically there would be two photon spheres (and MSO's), one prograde (rotating with the frame dragging) and another retrograde (rotating against the frame dragging).

 

[Pete Cortez]

He is correct, (as any hobby astrophysicist knows)

Plait is not (as apparently he knows himself on the most salient points, and as Kip Thorne knows on https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393351378/?tag=pfamazon01-20). Basically, Phil started with the same basic mistake most critics do--he assumes we're talking about a stellar mass black hole in a dead binary system. By the time he issues his partial retraction, he apparently hasn't had enough time to contemplate how much richer a stellar system can be around the now acknowledged supermassive black hole--in fact, how rich it has to be in order to explain how you even approach Miller's planet in the first place.

 

[John M. Carr]

No, I don't think the film relies on visuals as much as Gravity did.

Yeah, but the visuals they used for Interstellar took a staggering amount of time to render and data storage. As someone who's dabbled in 3-D modeling and animation from time to time, my mouth literally dropped open when I heard the figures.

 

[Drakkith]

Yeah, but the visuals they used for Interstellar took a staggering amount of time to render and data storage. As someone who's dabbled in 3-D modeling and animation from time to time, my mouth literally dropped open when I heard the figures.

Now that I can believe!

 

[John M. Carr]

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.

100 hours rendering time for some frames on top-of-the line equipment is rather expensive.

 

[nikkkom]

100 hours rendering time for some frames on top-of-the line equipment is rather expensive.

Complexity of accurate depiction of accretion disk and BH in the movie is nowhere near to the complexity of, say, this large cosmological simulation of galaxy formation:

http://www.illustris-project.org/

For one, movie makers needed to only take GR into account: they needed to raytrace the image of accretion disk, in curved spacetime. They did not model the disk itself: they just inserted its image as a starting condition. Real disk would look differently.

Illustris had to account for GR + nuclear reactions + hydrodynamics + electromagnetism.

Producing a decent image of curved spacetime is not that hard. Google "realistic black hole" image:

https://www.google.com/search?q=realistic black hole&tbm=isch

I see at least a dozen of images which look accurate. Following them, I find videos, such as these:

http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/schw.html
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/rn.html[/PLAIN]
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/lensearth_640x480.gif[/URL]

 

[Pete Cortez]

Complexity of accurate depiction of accretion disk and BH in the movie is nowhere near to the complexity of, say, this large cosmological simulation of galaxy formation:

http://www.illustris-project.org/

On the contrary. Illustris produced only 250 TB of output. Double Negative produced 800 TB of Gargantua related data. I'm not mathematician, but I recall that 250 < 800.

For one, movie makers needed to only take GR into account: they needed to raytrace the image of accretion disk, in curved spacetime. They did not model the disk itself: they just inserted its image as a starting condition. Real disk would look differently.

Illustris had to account for GR + nuclear reactions + hydrodynamics + electromagnetism.

Nonsense. An accretion disk is undergoing fusion and is an hydrodynamically rich target of study.

Producing a decent image of curved spacetime is not that hard. Google "realistic black hole" image:

And yet 800 TB. And please explain to us why you think this:

looks as realistic as this:

 

[AngelLestat]

But that disk in not in fussion process, is an remainder of a accretion disk in cooling process.
It has temperatures close to the sun surface, for that reason its in the visible spectrum without radiation danger.

 

[nikkkom]

On the contrary. Illustris produced only 250 TB of output. Double Negative produced 800 TB of Gargantua related data. I'm not mathematician, but I recall that 250 < 800.

You are measuring correctness of simulations in gigabytes? LOL

Nonsense. An accretion disk is undergoing fusion and is an hydrodynamically rich target of study.

The real accretion disk - maybe.
The "accretion disk" _in the movie_ is just several stacked images of an artist drawn gloving ring fed into GR-aware raytracer.

From your previous posts I know that you are a demagogue, but replacing my _animated_ gif with one _static_ frame from it is beyond demagoguery. You are knowingly distorting what I said. Stop doing that.

 

[Pete Cortez]

You are measuring correctness of simulations in gigabytes? LOL

I'm measuring complexity in terms of output.

The real accretion disk - maybe.
The "accretion disk" _in the movie_ is just several stacked images of an artist drawn gloving ring fed into GR-aware raytracer.

Says you.

From your previous posts I know that you are a demagogue...

Aw, that's precious. I'm not the amateur pooh-poohing the fantastic work of others by presenting other fantastic work by others with barely a notion of how either work was created.

...but replacing my _animated_ gif with one _static_ frame from it is beyond demagoguery. You are knowingly distorting what I said. Stop doing that.

Blame the forum software. The image is precisely the one you posted. And I don't think anyone cares whether or not your gif was animated or not.

 

[Pete Cortez]

But that disk in not in fussion process, is an remainder of a accretion disk in cooling process.

A disk with length exceeding the circumference of Earth's orbit and radiating such that it delivers sufficient power to warm an hospitable planet almost 7 AU certainly fuses, whether it's cooling or not. Again, recall the scale of this monster.

 

[nikkkom]

I'm measuring complexity in terms of output.

Then the output of "dd bs=1G count=1G </dev/urandom" is the most complex and wonderful simulation, ever. It's exabyte long, you know. LOOOOL.

> The "accretion disk" _in the movie_ is just several stacked images of an artist drawn gloving ring fed into GR-aware raytracer.

Says you.

Yep. Because a real high-quality simulation of accretion disk would show differential rotation.
It would show Doppler red- and blueshifting of disk's light (one side of the disk moves towards us, another recedes from us).
It would show relativistic beaming of the disk's light.
None of this is shown.

 

[Pete Cortez]

Then the output of "dd bs=1G count=1G </dev/urandom" is the most complex and wonderful simulation, ever. It's exabyte long, you know. LOOOOL.

Good point. The Illustris output represents north of 10^33 times more volume than the Interstellar output in a third of the space, with all the attendant loss of resolution.

Yep. Because a real high-quality simulation of accretion disk would show differential rotation.

It would show Doppler red- and -blueshifting of disk's light (one side of the disk moves towards us, another recedes from us).

It would show relativistic beaming of the disk's light.

You confuse photorealistic, realtime models with simplified, pedagogical ones. That's your problem, not Double Negative's.

I do congratulate you on at least attempting to dig up a project on the scale of what Double Negative achieved, even if what you picked one that was considerably less expensive ($750,000 from NSF, $685,000 http://www.research.gov/research-portal/appmanager/base/desktop;jsessionid=XlvXJGLW9L7WgQBspTk1bCYLJkClFmKLNWC6YNnVhZJB3SLqwDsm!-1928657939!1097029825?_nfpb=true&_windowLabel=T31400570011264188753337&wsrp-urlType=blockingAction&wsrp-url=&wsrp-requiresRewrite=&wsrp-navigationalState=eJyLL07OL0i1Tc-JT0rMUYNQtgBZ6Af8&wsrp-interactionState=wlpT31400570011264188753337_action%3DviewRsrDetail%26wlpT31400570011264188753337_fedAwrdId%3DNNX12AC67G&wsrp-mode=wsrp%3Aview&wsrp-windowState=) and by first glance far less complicated.

 

[AngelLestat]

I dint said that it cant, just mention that is not triggering fussion as I read.

But about that. Somebody really knows how much energy is radiated depending the distance and time dilation?

Or how the process would work? I know that the disk has a lot of area, and radiation depends on the Area. But how energy radiated from the disk reach the planets depending their time dilation with respect the disk?

Someone knows the math equations to see energy lost due to red shift, or how much the frequency change by this effect.

Not sure if the black hole rotation change this effect in other way.

 

[Pete Cortez]

I dint said that it cant, just mention that is not triggering fussion as I read.

But about that. Somebody really knows how much energy is radiated depending the distance and time dilation?

We know Miller's planet was warm enough for liquid water at something approaching standard temperature and pressure. That implies 1 kW/m^2 incidence at Miller's distance from its radiating source(s).

Or how the process would work? I know that the disk has a lot of area, and radiation depends on the Area. But how energy radiated from the disk reach the planets depending their time dilation with respect the disk?

Fairly similar to how stellar thermonuclear processes work, considering the disk is radiating at that scale.

Also, it is not clear what the disk's rotation is wrt to Miller's planet, or the rotational contribution to Doppler shifts for the updraft. I suspect we'll know more when Thorne releases his preprints.

Someone knows the math equations to see energy lost due to red shift, or how much the frequency change by this effect.

Not sure if the black hole rotation change this effect in other way.

As you've guessed, it's not that simple. We're dealing with free falling rather than stationary observers and a rapidly rotating black hole; most redshift calculations you're thinking about concern a "hovering" observer--one stationary with respect to the field.

 

[John M. Carr]

The real accretion disk - maybe.
The "accretion disk" _in the movie_ is just several stacked images of an artist drawn gloving ring fed into GR-aware raytracer.

Okay, then. You do know they had to customize their rendering engine before they could render anything, right? As in go into the API and rework things by hand. Why do you think Kip Thorne sent them the raw equations? Raytracers do not come with "GR-awareness" on their own--you have to specify the physics if there's something to account for that's not in the default settings. You have to do this, even for out-of-the-box consumer-grade software. And for something as unique and computationally intensive as a realistic wormhole or a realistic black hole...? If I tried to render even one frame of that stuff, my computer would lock up so fast, I'd have no choice but to do a hard-reset.

Also, the fact that it took 100+ hours on certain frames suggests strongly to me that it's all CGI. If the computer had premade drawings/illustrations to work on, instead of rendering individual "particles" (the word CGI artists use for, well, the most basic units that make up something like an accretion disc or cloud or smoke or the like,) that rendering process would have taken much less time per frame. It is true that's a shortcut used pretty often in that business, but I don't think it was used in this case. (Note: I could be wrong about this second point, but it does bear considering.)

 

[nikkkom]

Okay, then. You do know they had to customize their rendering engine before they could render anything, right? As in go into the API and rework things by hand. Why do you think Kip Thorne sent them the raw equations? Raytracers do not come with "GR-awareness" on their own--you have to specify the physics if there's something to account for that's not in the default settings. You have to do this, even for out-of-the-box consumer-grade software. And for something as unique and computationally intensive as a realistic wormhole or a realistic black hole...? If I tried to render even one frame of that stuff, my computer would lock up so fast, I'd have no choice but to do a hard-reset.

"unique and computationally intensive as a realistic wormhole or a realistic black hole"? PHLEASE. Yes, the objects in question are unique, but by now, thousands of astrophysicists spent decades studying them.

I already gave links to videos produced by people who clearly managed to render GR-accurate images and videos of black holes without use of any fancy hardware.

Those pages carry a "© 1997, 1998 Andrew Hamilton. These pages last modified 19 Apr 2001" note. This software existed 10 years ago.

 

[nikkkom]

> Because a real high-quality simulation of accretion disk would show differential rotation.
> It would show Doppler red- and -blueshifting of disk's light (one side of the disk moves towards us, another recedes from us).
> It would show relativistic beaming of the disk's light.

You confuse photorealistic, realtime models with simplified, pedagogical ones. That's your problem, not Double Negative's.

So the disk as depicted is "simplified, pedagogical one" according to you.

Just yesterday you said the complete opposite: apparently it was "most physically accurate depiction":

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.

 

[John M. Carr]

"unique and computationally intensive as a realistic wormhole or a realistic black hole"? PHLEASE. Yes, the objects in question are unique, but by now, thousands of astrophysicists spent decades studying them.

You're missing the point, not by a little, but completely: none of their software is meant to make things look as visually real (in the artistic sense) as what the folks who did the VFX for this movie had at their disposal. I'm not speaking to the direct scientific utility of the visualizations themselves--although if the papers Kip Thorne wrote (one for the physics community and one for the CGI community, as referenced by Kip Thorne explicitly in the Discovery documentary The Science of Interstellar) are any indication, there was definitely utility to be had all around as a result of the unique process that was involved in creating said visualizations, because of discoveries that took place during that process.

That's what I'm getting at.

 

[AngelLestat]

Here it is the image of how the disk warp, but also showing a render without the disk.
This is the important discover, now they have a finger print which they can search in the sky.
We can see that one side of the black hole seems different that the other one, this is due to the fact that from one side, space is being dragged toward the camera, in the other side space is draged to the back.

 

[John M. Carr]

Is someone seriously putting forward 'the SFX is expensive' as a valid criticism of this movie?

Certainly not me. I'm taking the visuals on their own for the moment, but not the movie itself, because I've seen clips of them and I have some experience working with CGI on a hobby/amateur basis.

From what I've read so far, though, I'm going to love the movie. Of course I pretty much turn my "scientific accuracy" detector off when consuming fiction (otherwise shows like Doctor Who or Super Sentai would drive me up the wall,) unless the story is horribly inconsistent with its own rules. But I don't think that will be a problem here.

ASIDE: I'd be overjoyed if I could play around with their software/equipment, even for a short time.

 

[fedaykin]

I went into the film with high expectations, and it more than satisfied me.
The story was very well written, and the acting was quite compelling yet natural.
The visual effects were absolutely beautiful too.
I must now find a way to implement gravitational lensing into my ray tracer.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Well, it may be interesting to see how the demographics stack up over who liked it and who didn't.
A great deal of my dislike comes from having seen lots of movies - so I found it labored, and heavy-handed plotwise. Basically very very predictable.
I'm not the only one.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr..._followup_movie_science_mistake_was_mine.html
(Followup on an earlier article - also worth reading.)

I'll agree with the visual effects thing though.

 

[tionis]

? You have a scientist to back up the statement "They evolved and now travel through the bulk. Just like we are going to evolve into bulk beings. I saw it in a movie recently."

Well, OK, I guess you COULD have a scientist who could back up the fact that you have been to a movie recently. I doubt the rest.

Yes. The aliens travel to and from the bulk. But in this case, the aliens are us evolved. Get it?

 

[phinds]

Yes. The aliens travel to and from the bulk. But in this case, the aliens are us evolved. Get it?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Jesus, phinds. Where have you been these past few weeks?

Spoiler

Interstellar

 

[tionis]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The aliens can use the bulk as a means of travel across vast distances like in the movie Interstellar. Better?

 

[tionis]

I just read this on yahoo:

''Using the university's powerful supercomputer, they created a black hole that is even more scientifically accurate than the visually stunning black hole in Christopher Nolan's latest film, "Interstellar."

"Our team of four here at the UA can produce visuals of a black hole that are more scientifically accurate in a few seconds," Feryal Ozel, also of The University of Arizona, in the statement. Some of the visuals in "Interstellar" required a special-effects team of 30 and as many as 100 hours for the computers to process.''
[PLAIN]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/astronomers-getting-ready-image-century-135900169.html[/PLAIN]
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/astronomers-getting-ready-image-century-135900169.html

 

[tionis]

All I'm saying is that advanced aliens should not be constrained by our current understanding of physics. If bulk physics was good enough for Kip Thorne, it's good enough for me.

 

[enorbet]

They evolved and now travel through the bulk. Just like we are going to evolve into bulk beings. I saw it in a movie recently.

Since I have yet to see Interstellar , I had to google this to make any sense of that "bulk" to which you were alluding.

Regarding vastly advanced aliens or humans from 1000 years from now, it is likely they are nearly equally strange to us now, assuming humans survive.

When my Grandfather was born many sizable towns still had hitching posts for horses and he lived more than a decade past men walking on the Moon.

There is a comedy routine in which Capt. Kirk orders Mr. Sulu to "set a course for K138" to which Sulu replies "Yes, Captain, logging into Google Maps just now". Even someone as forward thinking (and speculative) as Gene Rodenberry didn't see the coming of the Internet while everyone and his brother has expected flying cars by now.

It's a pretty safe bet that we are not well equipped to imagine life as it will be due to technological progress 100 years from now. 1000 goes asymptotic. The fact remains that even if safe, instantaneous travel were possible, there exists little reason to single out and visit Earth.

 

[tionis]

Since I have yet to see Interstellar , I had to google this to make any sense of that "bulk" to which you were alluding.

I don't understand the physics of the bulk too much, but it appears that an advanced civilization might be able to use it for traveling and stuff.

 

[tionis]

The fact remains that even if safe, instantaneous travel were possible, there exists little reason to single out and visit Earth.

Yes, but in the movie they say that “Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space.” Maybe the advanced aliens just target those planets where higher forms of consciousness evolved which they can somehow perceive leaking into the bulk.

 

[Danger]

If bulk physics was good enough for Kip Thorne, it's good enough for me.

I admire kip Thorne as much as anyone else, but has it crossed your mind that "bulk paycheques" was more of a factor than "bulk physics"?

 

[tionis]

Danger, I criticized Kip for not standing up against the moon landing hoax scene in the movie on another thread, but I forgave him soon after reading his book and catching a glimpse of the relationship dynamics with Nolan. But I don't think he would deliberately allow bad physics in his movie, so no.

 

[Danger]

I don't think he would deliberately allow bad physics in his movie, so no.

Okay, I'll accept that.

 

[AngelLestat]

"Our team of four here at the UA can produce visuals of a black hole that are more scientifically accurate in a few seconds,"

Then? where we can see those images? Is like I said, if I have the faster computer in the world, I would be able to make better images of black holes.. But I don't show nothing.

About the gif, the only disparity is inside the event horizon, but we don't know how the physsics laws work inside the event horizon.. Then those images are just speculation.
The last studies above the ring of fire (that the event horizon is a wall where all the matter/info is located) suggest that we might hit against this when we fall.

This does not mean that it would happen, what it means is that quamtum laws has more effect that we may thoght at these distances from the singularity (if there is one).
So it means that we still don't have an unifying theory to said with certain what happens inside the event horizon.
This is not surprice.. because our universe ends in these places.

 

[enorbet]

Yes, but in the movie they say that “Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space.” Maybe the advanced aliens just target those planets where higher forms of consciousness evolved which they can somehow perceive leaking into the bulk.

The elevation of Love to something so vast, powerful, and fundamental is just absurd IMHO, and commonly used by Hollywood for the heart-warming "Aww Factor". It most certainly is not Physics, let alone Science, and highly suspect even as Science Fiction.

Love is essentially what we, mostly as individuals, value highest, a top ten of likes (Agape, Philia, Storge), with the added wrinkle in most mammals of sexual attraction if we're talking about Romantic Love (Eros). Since one individual's Love can be in direct contradiction with another's, it can spawn hatred (even homicide), it's direct opposite. So it can be seen that Love is undefinable as singularly benevolent and good. It is common that it is subjective as well or there wouldn't be so much Art about Unrequited Love.

Additionally, in common use it is almost entirely anthropomorphic. While it may be true that canines, elephants, etc. mourn the loss of a group member, and pets crave affection, it is also likely true that Antelope love munching grass, while Lions love munching Antelope, an apparent conundrum, especially for the Antelope.

I just don't see any possibility for Universality and a clear message that can be perceived by anyone, even among a specific species, all of which evolved on one planet's ecosystem.

As for actual bad physics, many renowned scientists are willing to make compromises especially in the field of "docu-tainment" and certainly in pure entertainment, if it can be shown that it might increase it's audience size or acceptance. An example of this would be Neil deGrasse Tyson's acceptance of characterizing the Big Bang as an explosion in the Cosmos reboot.

To me all this "Bulk stuff" is pure speculative Romance without even a shred of evidence. Interesting. Fun. But a plot device, nonetheless... a modern "Deus ex Machina" at best.

 

[tzimie]

C'mon, the rendering of the library inside the Black Hole was much more physically accurate!

 

[phinds]

Jesus, phinds. Where have you been these past few weeks?

Spoiler

Interstellar

Ah Ha. I gave up on that thread after so many people slammed it, not just for being bad science but for being a bad movie.

 

[tionis]

Then? where we can see those images? Is like I said, if I have the faster computer in the world, I would be able to make better images of black holes.. But I don't show nothing.

Visit the Event Horizon Telescope site to see a few images:http://www.eventhorizontelescope.org/science/general_relativity.html

Scientist don't usually share their simulations with the public until they have published them in a paper for peer review. They sometimes also require authorization from whoever is funding the project (usually the government) before posting any images done on supercomputers 'cause it uses the same code they use for modelling nuclear weapons and other classified stuff. I visited a university lab once where they keep one of these supercomputers, and there was a huge sign above the door that you would see on you way out that read '' DO NOT DISCUSS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION''

 

[tionis]

The elevation of Love to something so vast, powerful, and fundamental is just absurd IMHO, and commonly used by Hollywood for the heart-warming "Aww Factor". It most certainly is not Physics, let alone Science, and highly suspect even as Science Fiction.

Love is essentially what we, mostly as individuals, value highest, a top ten of likes (Agape, Philia, Storge), with the added wrinkle in most mammals of sexual attraction if we're talking about Romantic Love (Eros). Since one individual's Love can be in direct contradiction with another's, it can spawn hatred (even homicide), it's direct opposite. So it can be seen that Love is undefinable as singularly benevolent and good. It is common that it is subjective as well or there wouldn't be so much Art about Unrequited Love.

Additionally, in common use it is almost entirely anthropomorphic. While it may be true that canines, elephants, etc. mourn the loss of a group member, and pets crave affection, it is also likely true that Antelope love munching grass, while Lions love munching Antelope, an apparent conundrum, especially for the Antelope.

I just don't see any possibility for Universality and a clear message that can be perceived by anyone, even among a specific species, all of which evolved on one planet's ecosystem.

As for actual bad physics, many renowned scientists are willing to make compromises especially in the field of "docu-tainment" and certainly in pure entertainment, if it can be shown that it might increase it's audience size or acceptance. An example of this would be Neil deGrasse Tyson's acceptance of characterizing the Big Bang as an explosion in the Cosmos reboot.

To me all this "Bulk stuff" is pure speculative Romance without even a shred of evidence. Interesting. Fun. But a plot device, nonetheless... a modern "Deus ex Machina" at best.

I posted one of the examples they used in the movie, but it can be any other form of emotion or intellectual capabilities the bulk aliens can detect. The bulk beings probably have prof Xavier's power to reach out across the universe and seek out intelligent life forms, then use a wormhole to travel there. Is really not that complicated and within our modern understanding of physics.

 

[enorbet]

@tionis - These movies are speculative fiction or in the case of X-Men, comic book fantasy. Nobody knows if wormholes exist let alone can be navigated and most assuredly not to a predetermined destination. It is complicated and not at all within "modern understanding of physics". It is a plot device, pure and simple. I salute your imagination but please find the border between fantasy > speculation > and Science. This is exactly why this thread is called "spectacularly stupid movie". I happen to think that might be a bit harsh, but not far off.

 

[tionis]

Enorbet, no one really knows if black holes do exist, but the maths and the observations clearly point to some dark, massive object sitting out there in space behaving in accordance to the predictions of those theories. That same math predicts wormholes and other exotic phenomena which is why Kip Thorne trusted it enough to make one of the most most scientifically accurate films thus far.

 

[AngelLestat]

Visit the Event Horizon Telescope site to see a few images:http://www.eventhorizontelescope.org/science/general_relativity.html

Scientist don't usually share their simulations with the public until they have published them in a paper for peer review. They sometimes also require authorization from whoever is funding the project (usually the government) before posting any images done on supercomputers 'cause it uses the same code they use for modelling nuclear weapons and other classified stuff. I visited a university lab once where they keep one of these supercomputers, and there was a huge sign above the door that you would see on you way out that read '' DO NOT DISCUSS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION''

Is that link a joke?? that is the image of a black hole with more quality than the movie? And they use a supercomputer to obtain a blur picture of 30px * 30px??

One more thing, if they can not share the info from their research, then they need to close their mounth instead to brag without show nothing.

These movies are speculative fiction or in the case of X-Men, comic book fantasy. Nobody knows if wormholes exist let alone can be navigated and most assuredly not to a predetermined destination. It is complicated and not at all within "modern understanding of physics". It is a plot device, pure and simple. I salute your imagination but please find the border between fantasy > speculation > and Science. This is exactly why this thread is called "spectacularly stupid movie". I happen to think that might be a bit harsh, but not far off.

X-men is base in nothing. Wormholes are base in GR, of course we need an unified theory to be sure first, but by now.. is the best speculation that we have.
So yes, the title of this topic is stupid. Not the movie.

And I still dint read all the users who criticized this movie to apologize by all the misconceptions they had for their own lack on knowledge and imagination.

Also I find the fact to criticize this movie really dumb... We love science.. We love black holes... The first movie which give us what we want, the first movie that it tries, and some "science" geeks hated. Is like to buy a gift to your child from his/her favorite fantasy and then he/she smashed it against the floor.

 

[tionis]

Is that link a joke?? that is the image of a black hole with more quality than the movie? And they use a supercomputer to obtain a blur picture of 30px * 30px??

One more thing, if they can not share the info from their research, then they need to close their mounth instead to brag without show nothing.

Noted.

 

[Gravity]

The thing I was pleased to hear about with Interstellar was an accurate portrayal of a wormhole (a sphere), so why was a hollow half-sphere used instead? Am I missing something?

 

[Drakkith]

I don't remember it being a hollow half-sphere. I remember it being a full sphere.

 

[Diego Fernandez]

The thing I was pleased to hear about with Interstellar was an accurate portrayal of a wormhole (a sphere), so why was a hollow half-sphere used instead? Am I missing something?

There is no accurate portrayal of a wormhole, given that it's a completely hypothetical topological feature of space-time. The black hole in the film is regarded to be the closest thing to reality.