Christopher Nolans "Interstellar" movie shines new light on black holes.

[Sky_walker]

Heat and light? From a neutron star?

Neutron stars do emit visible light... and for that matter - they emit wide EM spectrum, so that includes some heat too. Whatever it's anything like this movie illustrates.... well.... that's a separate problem.

Here's a photograph of a neutron star in a visible light:

In any case though - you rightfully smell BS here. To my best knowledge - system with black hole and a neutron star would be deadly for humans. But hey... plot required throwing some fancy scientific terms, so there we go!

Edited November 8, 2014 by Sky_walker

[vger]

In any case though - you rightfully smell BS here. To my best knowledge - system with black hole and a neutron star would be deadly for humans. But hey... plot required throwing some fancy scientific terms, so there we go!

Yeah, that was a big thing that was eating at the back of my mind. Wouldn't all three of those planets be swimming in radiation?

And for that matter, why did it seem like post-wormhole, transit-times suddenly became a non-issue? A transfer orbit from one planet to another around a black hole should take FAR LONGER (relative to the crew, I mean) than traveling from Earth to Saturn. The nearest stable orbit would be what, a few hundred lightyears or so?

Edited November 8, 2014 by vger

[GregA]

I disagree.

I have seen it.

Hardly. It's a flawed movie in many ways (especially ... ending nonsense) but it was a good movie regardless. It's worth watching if someone is into sci-fi movies, but I wouldn't recommend it for a plot alone.

I very much disagree. His review is very good - he pretty much nailed vast majority of problems in a movie. Pretty much the only big problem I find with his review is that bit where he talks about a black hole in solar system - they call it wormhole in a movie, not a black hole.

Buahahaha, ok, here I'll end this discussion here, cause we have obvious pathological case of a blind fanboism here.

BTW: [spoiler warning] This star isn't visible anywhere in the movie outside of a mention in one scene. And it apparently doesn't produce any light - everywhere they show system illuminated by the matter spinning around a black hole (which creates it's own set of problems considering how close that matter would be to the event horizon - by far closer than the first planet - which has it's own set of BS if you try to calculate how far away it is from the horizon and what effects it'll have - but Phil's review already covers that) - the same matter that later shows up as an ice-alike dust - dust that miraculously avoids windows and humans o_O

Phil Plaits description of time dilation near a black hole was wildly incomplete. He utterly failed to consider the effects of frame dragging within a spinning black holes ergosphere, which are quite large. Large enough that an object merely as dense as our Sun requires us to account for frame dragging to predict the procession of Mercury. In the movie they describe it as an older black hole, which means it would have picked of the angular momentum of all the matter it ever consumed. Meaning that it could easily have a ergosphere large enough to effect the flow of time, without increasing its mass.

Also, Larry Niven wrote a novel about people living in the accretion disk of a Neutron Star. In the forward the author goes to great lengths to explain the mathematics of this, that it is at least plausible. (Integral Trees iirc)

I stand by my earlier assessment that Phil Plait is a partisan hack, and he attempting to blind everyone with science, in an effort to torpedo this movies politics.

[PakledHostage]

I stand by my earlier assessment that Phil Plait is a partisan hack, and he attempting to blind everyone with science, in an effort to torpedo this movies politics.

Right, your earlier assessment that reads like something penned by an Idaho militia?

[vger]

I stand by my earlier assessment that Phil Plait is a partisan hack, and he attempting to blind everyone with science, in an effort to torpedo this movies politics.

As if you're not, considering you brought up Obamacare in another Interstellar thread. Obamacare. Really. In the middle of a global apocalypse. The biggest partisan hack in these discussions is you. Maybe you should try starting an "I hate Phil Phait" thread since that's all you really want to talk about.

Edited November 9, 2014 by vger

[K^2]

Large enough that an object merely as dense as our Sun requires us to account for frame dragging to predict the procession of Mercury.

Precession of Mercury has nothing to do with frame dragging. It was predicted for Mercury based on Schwarzschild metric, which does not include rotation.

You really ought to stop talking about things you do not understand, and in fact, reject as reality. (GR is a gauge theory, which you condemn as a flop.)

[Devo]

As long as it isn't like the ending in Contact and the aliens turn out to be an incarnation of Matthew Mcconaughey's dad, I'll be happy.

[vger]

As long as it isn't like the ending in Contact and the aliens turn out to be an incarnation of Matthew Mcconaughey's dad, I'll be happy.

The film keeps it somewhat abstract, in a way that allows you to make your own conclusion about exactly 'what happened.' Which is a nice change of pace from most movies which spell out every single detail to you.

[Motokid600]

LOVED the film. Yea the orbital mechanics were off, but... The movie was long enough.

[meve12]

It's where the curvature of space time is so extreme that it connects to another part of the universe. Curvature of space time = gravity, so the gravitational field would be huge. I'm having a hard time imagining how the throat of a wormhole is not a black hole. Anyone know? Can a wormhole be modified so that you don't pass into an event horizon when you pass into a wormhole? I'll look it up when I get the chance if no one here knows.

I don't. Mind looking that up?

Though if it doesn't form an event horizon, I suspect you don't need to worry about escape velocity too much; you'd have the same velocity coming out of the wormhole as you did coming in( I think!), so if you dropped into the wormhole from the "lip" of it's gravity well, you should end up coasting up to the "lip" of the other mouth's gravity well. The main problems would be spaggetification and time dilation.

Incidentally, said gravity well would mean you could put something in orbit around the wormhole. Suppose we could stuck a carbon nano-tube line though(down?) the wormhole, with asteroid "anchors" on either side, much like a space elevator?

[K^2]

Can a wormhole be modified so that you don't pass into an event horizon when you pass into a wormhole?

Yes. It is called a traversable wormhole. Unfortunately, all known configurations require negative energy. Same stuff you need for warp drive, basically. It has been suggested that Casimir Effect can be used for this, but it's all very hypothetical. Even on paper, there are some uncertainties. Naturally, experimental evidence is non-existent.

Curvature of space time = gravity, so the gravitational field would be huge.

That isn't actually true. A supermassive black hole has fairly gentle gravitational field at the event horizon. Unless you try to stop yourself from falling in, in which case it gets stronger. Gravity gets a bit weird when you have things like black holes and wormholes involved.

Suppose we could stuck a carbon nano-tube line though(down?) the wormhole, with asteroid "anchors" on either side, much like a space elevator?

Heh, that's a neat idea. Though, I'm not sure if it's necessary. If you just want to go through, gravity on one side will accelerate you, and on the other side slow you down. So as long as the wormhole is traversable, you'll just shoot through.

[78stonewobble]

The film keeps it somewhat abstract, in a way that allows you to make your own conclusion about exactly 'what happened.' Which is a nice change of pace from most movies which spell out every single detail to you.

Ewrgh -..- ... I don't watch other people's "stories", so I can tell my own story. I can imagine those just fine on my own. I distinctly want someone elses storytelling, when I watch a movie.

[SpaceXray]

Ewrgh -..- ... I don't watch other people's "stories", so I can tell my own story. I can imagine those just fine on my own. I distinctly want someone elses storytelling, when I watch a movie.

Not a spoiler but there is no narration, you grab on to bits of pieces of info to understand what is happening. You become part of the movie, not an observer.

[SpaceXray]

Right, your earlier assessment that reads like something penned by an Idaho militia?

Packled just go and see the movie already and make up your mind after will you?

If you rely solely on critics and hipsters like Phil to judge a movie fro you than you have no opinion of your own whatsoever and fail as a critical and assertive person.

[PakledHostage]

Packled just go and see the movie already and make up your mind after will you?

I was responding, in that post, to GregA's attempt to portray the movie's story line through a very right-wing filter. My comments had nothing to do with whether or not I think the movie is any good.

And I may go and see it in the theaters after all. A professional critic whom I respect gave it 4 it of 5 stars. For her, that's a pretty good review. Of course I went to see Prometheus based on her review and I hated that movie... But I guess we'll see.

I hardly think Phil Plait is a hipster. His review was a bit cynical at times, but a bit of that is healthy.

[SpaceXray]

I was responding, in that post, to GregA's attempt to portray the movie's story line through a very right-wing filter. My comments had nothing to do with whether or not I think the movie is any good.

And I may go and see it in the theaters after all. A professional critic whom I respect gave it 4 it of 5 stars. For her, that's a pretty good review. Of course I went to see Prometheus based on her review and I hated that movie... But I guess we'll see.

I hardly think Phil Plait is a hipster. His review was a bit cynical at times, but a bit of that is healthy.

Prometheus was as hyped as Interstellar. Probably even more. Only Prometheus really failed to deliver(example: idiotic "scientists") while Interstellar surprised me even more. Even though no 3D, it even surpassed Gravity!

[PakledHostage]

Interstellar surprised me even more. Even though no 3D, it even surpassed Gravity!

At the risk of being accused of flogging a dead horse, that's not exactly high praise to say it was better than Gravity. One of the most damning criticisms of both Gravity and Interstellar is that they try too hard to be deep or somehow profound. And that has been my point all along. I have no doubt that Interstellar's visual effects are impressive. It is the story that I am worried about.

[SpaceXray]

At the risk of being accused of flogging a dead horse, that's not exactly high praise to say it was better than Gravity. One of the most damning criticisms of both Gravity and Interstellar is that they try too hard to be deep or somehow profound. And that has been my point all along. I have no doubt that Interstellar's visual effects are impressive. It is the story that I am worried about.

Gravity did have a good story, but it was nothing compared to Interstellar's plot. Don't walk in expecting a half-assed flick for the average movie Joe.

[How2FoldSoup]

Guys, this is a movie. Politics has nothing to do with it unless you're intentionally trying to get the thread locked. Some people like some movies, other people don't. Let them have their opinions instead of arguing over semantics.

packled, Like others have said - just go see it. I find it amazing you can form an opinion based off other people's opinions and what you've "heard." Just go see it and form your own.

Everyone else, just chill. No movie will ever be perfect on the science. Science isn't perfect on the science, so how can we expect hollywood to be? As far as I'm concerned, it did good enough on the science while still entertaining its intended audience which, spoiler alert, isn't astrophysicists. It's for the average audience, and for them the film did a fantastic job of creating a great story and explaining concepts of relativity without boring the crap out of everyone. Try and cram that movie theater into a physics classroom and teach them relativity and see if you can have the same success and interest from the audience.

That is my opinion and if anyone wants to argue, by all means go for it. I won't be arguing with internet strangers over my own opinion. You can never make everyone happy.

[SpaceXray]

Guys, this is a movie. Politics has nothing to do with it unless you're intentionally trying to get the thread locked. Some people like some movies, other people don't. Let them have their opinions instead of arguing over semantics.

packled, Like others have said - just go see it. I find it amazing you can form an opinion based off other people's opinions and what you've "heard." Just go see it and form your own.

Everyone else, just chill. No movie will ever be perfect on the science. Science isn't perfect on the science, so how can we expect hollywood to be? As far as I'm concerned, it did good enough on the science while still entertaining its intended audience which, spoiler alert, isn't astrophysicists. It's for the average audience, and for them the film did a fantastic job of creating a great story and explaining concepts of relativity without boring the crap out of everyone. Try and cram that movie theater into a physics classroom and teach them relativity and see if you can have the same success and interest from the audience.

That is my opinion and if anyone wants to argue, by all means go for it. I won't be arguing with internet strangers over my own opinion. You can never make everyone happy.

Exactly. I don't know how stubborn you have to be to refuse to watch a movie because some guy said all of the physics weren't perfect. It's like people think they are physics gods after playing KSP and any movie which has a slight orbital mechanics mistake is too low for them.

Movies are for your entertainment and enjoyment, and perhaps inspiration. Some masterpieces like Interstellar push that boundary and also make you think.

So please, stop acting like kids and go see the movie. Then tell us your opinion. I suggest you go see it as soon as you can before you get spoiled.

[vger]

Prometheus was as hyped as Interstellar. Probably even more. Only Prometheus really failed to deliver(example: idiotic "scientists") while Interstellar surprised me even more. Even though no 3D, it even surpassed Gravity!

Had Interstellar been done in 3D, I think my brain might've exploded during certain scenes.

[Devo]

The film keeps it somewhat abstract, in a way that allows you to make your own conclusion about exactly 'what happened.' Which is a nice change of pace from most movies which spell out every single detail to you.

That's good then, it sounds pretty cool. I have steered away from the reviews, I don't think in my life there has ever been many reviews I actually agree with

I wish everyone would stop being so concerned with the realism, are you not desensitized by now? I think after movies like Armageddon, we are sort of used to the all-american guy (who's never been into space let alone had any training at all..) and goes up in a shuttle and saves the world.

[WestAir]

That's good then, it sounds pretty cool. I have steered away from the reviews, I don't think in my life there has ever been many reviews I actually agree with

I wish everyone would stop being so concerned with the realism, are you not desensitized by now? I think after movies like Armageddon, we are sort of used to the all-american guy (who's never been into space let alone had any training at all..) and goes up in a shuttle and saves the world.

Common trope. You see it a lot with airplane moves (Average John Smith whose only real experience with aviation involves paper airplanes, finds himself in the cockpit of a badly damaged 747 and manages to land it onto the runway without incident) or car moves (Average Lucy Jane who recently only worked at Sears, is tasked with saving hero John Smith and manages to drive a Ferrarri, backwards, through 6 O'Clock traffic while being chased by 12 assassins, and does so without scratching the paint). It's especially used in sci fi (Luke. X-wing. 0 days training. C'mon, that T-16 Skyhopper isn't exactly the same as an X-Wing starfighter!)

But I always enjoy the trope because I like rooting for the little guy.

[PakledHostage]

packled, Like others have said - just go see it. I find it amazing you can form an opinion based off other people's opinions and what you've "heard." Just go see it and form your own.

I have already said earlier in this thread that I have changed my mind and will probably go see it in the theaters rather than wait for it to show up on Netflix. But for what it is worth, your argument works both ways. Why should I accept anyone's opinion that it is a great movie that I should rush out and see when so many reputable critics say don't bother? You can't come down on me for being skeptical in light of the criticism and then expect me to "form an opinion [that it is a great movie] based off other people's opinion's".

[vger]

I have already said earlier in this thread that I have changed my mind and will probably go see it in the theaters rather than wait for it to show up on Netflix. But for what it is worth, your argument works both ways. Why should I accept anyone's opinion that it is a great movie that I should rush out and see when so many reputable critics say don't bother? You can't come down on me for being skeptical in light of the criticism and then expect me to "form an opinion [that it is a great movie] based off other people's opinion's".

I have learned from much experience, that often the probability of me liking a film, is inversely proportional to how much the "reputable critics" like it.

And I also think there's a lot of relativism going on there. Ebert has been giving thumbs up to films he would've rather hanged himself than see a decade prior. Critics are at least in part, subject to the ebbs and flows of whatever society is into at the time.

Ask yourself this: What kind of critical reception would 2001 get if it were released today?

Edited November 10, 2014 by vger