Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Iron Man 2 Rage

  1. May 17, 2010 #1
    Has anyone seen the part of Iron Man two where they combine the major scientific advances of the past centruy into a single scene where he makes a new element? For those who haven't, I will summarise;

    - He builds a particle accelerator in his front room showing no evidence of large, superconducting electromagnets required to accelerate particles

    - This resultant beam of paricles is then sent through a prism where it is internally reflected

    - The beam of 'particles' hits a triangular target to form a new element

    I know this is a totally ficticous 'experiment', but it made me grind my teeth in the film and it makes me sigh when I think about it now. As far as I know, only light (as in, photons) are reflected by a prism. If this was a beam of photons, it would surely be split into the spectra of visible light for us all to see? If I am mistaken and other particles are internally reflected by a prism, in what way would only protons, electrons (maybe even neutrons if they can be accelerated like this) form a 'new element'? Serious nerd rage right here. Rant over, please continue.
  2. jcsd
  3. May 17, 2010 #2
    Ah yes... but you see... movies aren't real life.
  4. May 17, 2010 #3
    I know, I know......it just feels like a personal insult
  5. May 17, 2010 #4
    To be fair, I don't think Iron Man or the Marvel universe in any way attempts to model reality. Why does that offend you, but not ignoring the routine abuse of opposing force and leverage in comics?
  6. May 17, 2010 #5
    Actually I really liked that scene. They could have screwed up way worse by having him make a new element by mixing some stuff together. Instead they correctly showed that in order to make a new element, you need very high energy particle fluxes to cause nuclear reactions. You may be asking for a bit too much detail. Maybe this would be a good complaint to lodge in a Star Trek setting. But this is Iron Man. If you can believe in flying suits that have no obvious fuel storage, is refraction of massive particles so much harder to believe?
  7. May 17, 2010 #6
    Not to mention that the same "universe" contains the Hulk, and Thor. Not an attempt at scientific rigor. ;)
  8. May 17, 2010 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If you really want to complain, what about the Russian scientist who spent his life in a Siberian gulag but knows how to hack through military grade software security in seconds? And seriously, he forges his own palladium reactor using 1600's technology

    Dude probably uses his spit as solder
  9. May 17, 2010 #8
    Vodka and black bread make you strong!... until your liver gives out. Thats how I assume Whiplash loses :)
  10. May 17, 2010 #9
    In the first movie he creates what amounts to free energy. He had to top himself in part two.
  11. May 17, 2010 #10
    No Rourke didn't make the reactor, it was the bird, um using telepathy. That was the reason he was so instant on having his bird.
  12. May 18, 2010 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If scientific inaccuracies are that upsetting for you then Iron Man seems an odd choice of film. I suggest you try romantic comedies.
  13. May 18, 2010 #12


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    That movie really doesn't take itself too seriously, so I don't blame it for messing up the science a bit. And by "messing up a bit" I mean totally ignoring reality :wink: C'mon, one guy building a particle accelerator in his basement in a few days?

    I was much more irritated by Angels and Demons, which I finally watched yesterday... they went to all that trouble to set the opening in a realistic looking scientific facility (was that actually CERN?) and then they throw in this ridiculous antimatter generation project. Highly unsatisfying.
  14. May 18, 2010 #13
    The whole film was a huge dissapointment story wise, and visual wise to be honest, I don't know if it's just because in modern films im getting used to CGI, but this looked like it was made on an atari at times. I just think the whole thing was handled badly, and they made the classic mistake of trying to fit too many characters in so they all ended up being chronically underused.

    On saying that, it did keep me entertained for 2 hours, if not satisfied.
  15. May 18, 2010 #14
    They are apparently working on introducing as many characters as possible through multiple movies (Thor, Nick Fury, and Captain America will be getting their own films) so that they can set up for an Avengers movie in a few years.
  16. May 18, 2010 #15
    I know, it just makes it all feel really shallow though. In fact it's all crudely handled, bordering on vulgar to be honest. I can just see the writing board:

    "I know what will be funny. Lets make a joke and use Captain Americas shield to level the particle accelerator. That will make them go nuts, they will love it"


    I also really didn't like the way they handled War Machine. Granted you don't have the time to flesh the full idea out in a 2 hour movie. But Stark being an alcoholic is a fairly large part of the character, but that's obviously deemed too distasteful for a move like this. I can see why they did it, I just dont like it.

    EDIT: I'm not a comic book nerd, by a long shot. I'd just like to clarify that, don't want to moan and look really sad. But the story has been brutalised.
    Last edited: May 18, 2010
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook