Reddit reviews The Science of Interstellar
We found 60 Reddit comments about The Science of Interstellar. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
the science behind the sci fi film Interstellar
We found 60 Reddit comments about The Science of Interstellar. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
He actually came up with the idea for the movie back in 2005 and spent 9 years working on it, with several different directors and writers before Christopher Nolan. Check out his book The Science of Interstellar, it's full of information about the physics in the movie and the production of it.
See if you can find The Science of Interstellar at your local library. I bought it and found it rather interesting that Kip found some genuinely clever ways that the physics could "work" for what Nolan wanted to achieve. Yes, creative liberties were taken, but not as many as you probably think.
He even authored a book called
The Science of Interstellar
The opposite is actually true. To get the time dilation they needed for the story, Kip Thorne had to go to extremes. Nearly 100% of the theoretical limit on a black hole's spin was used to achieve the needed lorentz transformation. Gravity is actually on the lowest end of the fundamental forces hierarchy.
It's a bit aggravating having the uninitiated casually dismissing the science behind the film. Some of the film was impossible and some was implausible. This is addressed in The Science of Interstellar. It's harsh to say but layman should be careful about dismissing qualified scientists' models in favor of their feelings and common sense.
This may help with some of your questions. I've been interested myself, but haven't bought the book yet. I was told that he explains a lot of the science behind creating the scenes and that he goes on to explain some of the things they had to fudge for a better viewer experience. https://www.amazon.com/Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne-dp-0393351378/dp/0393351378/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=
The theory was that, in the near-distant future after crop failures in Americas, India was the only (one of the few nations) nation to be
sustainable and progress enough to deploy their drones in foreign countries (like how USA does in present day).
The thought process was that, India progressed using their own tech/languages.
Hence, Hindi/Sanskrit script used in Indian tech products.
Source: Watched it 11 times and massive time dump in removing baal ki khaal. I have read Science of interstellar book. Awesome read.
https://www.amazon.com/Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378
SPOILERS, DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET, also go see it now.
Reality can be stranger than fiction, sure it looks far fetched, but in a 5 dimensional reality, they were really testing the viewer, to see if you'd just brush it off as stupid, or would embrace it. People tend to just disregard or call out 'bullsh*t' when they don't understand it.
Here's a potential explainer:
"Picture a timeline as an expression of one set of possibilities spawning from any singular moment — a graspable example: start with your moment of birth, and track your life as a collection of moments (faces on that never-ending “you” as observed from the Fourth Dimension) all strewn together. Now, turn once more. Imagine this line as itself one face on an object made up of lines of the like — all of the possible lines of moments/faces that might spring from that initial point. Every conceivable thing that could happen after Point A (your birth) gets its own line, and each of these lines is a face on the Fifth Dimension’s view of “you.”
That, in effect, is what McConaughey sees from his daughter’s bookcase… though his focus on a singular timeline as opposed to all possibilities, and his manipulation thereof, call into question transition into the Sixth and Seventh Dimensions, which are tough eggs to crack (more so, even, than Eight, Nine, and Ten). But luckily, Nolan doesn’t dive too deep beyond a brief hiccup in theoretical consistency here and there. So we can rest our studies here and not worry about anything beyond No. 5… until the sequel, that is."
http://www.bustle.com/articles/47537-what-is-the-fifth-dimension-in-interstellar-how-to-understand-the-films-complicated-physics
This was a very risky move, but definitely a win for me, transformed this movie from a good adventure movie into a spiritual human experience. It would be amazing if our civilisation managed to survive long enough to understand, and actually control five dimensions, our body would need upgrades of course, but we'll be able to do that in the future. Let's just try to survive the next century without killing ourselves, or overpopulating.
There is also a book, released yesterday by Kip Thorne, who was the scientific advisor for the movie, and set the scientific rules for Nolan.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378
This question gets asked all the time on this sub. I did a search for the term books and compiled this list from the dozens of previous answers:
How to Read the Solar System: A Guide to the Stars and Planets by Christ North and Paul Abel.
A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson.
A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.
Cosmos by Carl Sagan.
Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space by Carl Sagan.
Foundations of Astrophysics by Barbara Ryden and Bradley Peterson.
Final Countdown: NASA and the End of the Space Shuttle Program by Pat Duggins.
An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth: What Going to Space Taught Me About Ingenuity, Determination, and Being Prepared for Anything by Chris Hadfield.
You Are Here: Around the World in 92 Minutes: Photographs from the International Space Station by Chris Hadfield.
Space Shuttle: The History of Developing the Space Transportation System by Dennis Jenkins.
Wings in Orbit: Scientific and Engineering Legacies of the Space Shuttle, 1971-2010 by Chapline, Hale, Lane, and Lula.
No Downlink: A Dramatic Narrative About the Challenger Accident and Our Time by Claus Jensen.
Voices from the Moon: Apollo Astronauts Describe Their Lunar Experiences by Andrew Chaikin.
A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts by Andrew Chaikin.
Breaking the Chains of Gravity: The Story of Spaceflight before NASA by Amy Teitel.
Moon Lander: How We Developed the Apollo Lunar Module by Thomas Kelly.
The Scientific Exploration of Venus by Fredric Taylor.
The Right Stuff by Tom Wolfe.
Into the Black: The Extraordinary Untold Story of the First Flight of the Space Shuttle Columbia and the Astronauts Who Flew Her by Rowland White and Richard Truly.
An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics by Bradley Carroll and Dale Ostlie.
Rockets, Missiles, and Men in Space by Willy Ley.
Ignition!: An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants by John Clark.
A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking.
Russia in Space by Anatoly Zak.
Rain Of Iron And Ice: The Very Real Threat Of Comet And Asteroid Bombardment by John Lewis.
Mining the Sky: Untold Riches From The Asteroids, Comets, And Planets by John Lewis.
Asteroid Mining: Wealth for the New Space Economy by John Lewis.
Coming of Age in the Milky Way by Timothy Ferris.
The Whole Shebang: A State of the Universe Report by Timothy Ferris.
Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandries by Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution by Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Rocket Men: The Epic Story of the First Men on the Moon by Craig Nelson.
The Martian by Andy Weir.
Packing for Mars:The Curious Science of Life in the Void by Mary Roach.
The Overview Effect: Space Exploration and Human Evolution by Frank White.
Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler.
The Science of Interstellar by Kip Thorne.
Entering Space: An Astronaut’s Oddyssey by Joseph Allen.
International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems by Hopkins, Hopkins, and Isakowitz.
The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality by Brian Greene.
How the Universe Got Its Spots: Diary of a Finite Time in a Finite Space by Janna Levin.
This New Ocean: The Story of the First Space Age by William Burrows.
The Last Man on the Moon by Eugene Cernan.
Failure is Not an Option: Mission Control from Mercury to Apollo 13 and Beyond by Eugene Cernan.
Apollo 13 by Jim Lovell and Jeffrey Kluger.
The end
The physicist Chris Nolan hired actually wrote a book about it.
Tl;Dr: The math works out, but the black hole would've had to be spinning super fast.
Stop getting frustrated and start apologizing to those people because you're wrong. The movie's script was built on working equations, not the other way around.
Here, buy Kip's book.
You might be interested in reading
Science of Interstellar
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0393351378/
It discusses in great detail the realistic aspects of the movie.
It's discussed at length in a book called The Science of Interstellar. While it's true that they generated the most detailed and accurate renditions in the process of rendering the black hole in the movie, the version that actually ended up in the movie does take some artistic license, for example by showing a more symmetric event horizon halo than the model predicted, and by coloring the light differently than the model predicted. Great read if you have a moment, lots of beautiful images.
He's written a book about it. And I'm fairly certain he advised them on 100% of everything that had to do anything with science.
Came here to say this. We do actually know shit about the science of interstellar travel, and it's all in The Science of Interstellar.
> According to rotten tomatoes, Gravity is WAY better than Interstellar.
That is if you go by the professional critics, audience score for Interstellar is 5% higher and on Imdb: Interstellar 8.6, Gravity 7.8. I guess it depends on who you trust more in these matters, the critics or the general audience. You'll see the same thing going on, on Metacritic: Interstellar 74 critic to 8.4 user, Gravity 96 critic to 7.8 user.
Both movies contain scientific inaccuracies, Interstellar more so than Gravity, but to make up for that Interstellar has some really interesting things going on that are grounded in science. Kip Thorne theoretical physicist, Interstellars science adviser has written a book called The Science of Interstellar, I haven't read it myself yet so I can't tell you if it's good or not, but I plan to.
> how can 5th dimensional future beings have a hand in their creation if they aren't created yet
You are still not understanding the concept of the block universe with all of spacetime existing simultaneously within the bulk. There is no first time - it all exists simultaneously.
For whatever reason, we humans only experience spacetime in a linear fashion, moving along with entropy (and possibly because of entropy). The "future beings," "Them," are not bound by the same law in this story and can influence and shape other 3D points in the 4D block universe.
There is no "the first time this happened" scenario, since Einstein and all physics since him represents the past and future all existing as one block in our spacetime, we just can't experience, interact with or observe it - we can only observe the now moment along with entropy. There is no reason for Them to have to be from Brand's colony, they are millions if not billions of years more advanced, They could have evolved from any humans anywhere in whatever other galaxy with that much 4D separation from the 4D location (the place and time) of this film.
Go read Kip Thorne's The Science of Interstellar book if you need more on this, or watch Brian Greene's Nova show Fabric of the Cosmos, specifically Episode 2 "The Illusion of Time" - both explain it well.
You heard wrong. Kip Thorne, one of today's leading theoretical physicists, was intimately involved to ensure the science wasn't inaccurate. Here are some great interviews that discuss this:
Kip even wrote a book called The Science of Interstellar that goes into a lot more detail.
Kip Thorne discussed this a little in The Science of Interstellar. All the effects of the wormhole and blackhole were rendered using scientifically accurate relativistic equations and the wormhole that's portrayed in the movie actually has a very short length to minimize the distortion and reflection of the light coming from the far side of the wormhole, Nolan wanted to avoid confusing the audience. The problem was that traveling through this wormhole was too quick and uninteresting, similar to the wormhole animation you mentioned.
They tried varying the parameters of the wormhole to make traveling through it more interesting, but weren't able to produce anything really fresh and interesting. Longer wormholes looked like a long tunnel whizzing past, which looked too much like things we've seen in movies before. In the end they went with a look that was influenced greatly by General Relativity, but made more abstract and with some artistic license.
> I still like Interstellar despite the backlash
Oh fun, I have a book for you! Link to it on Amazon
And yeah, listen to the commentary Lindelof does for the film if you want to feel the urge to gouge your eyes out. The guy is super full of himself and sees his stories as infallible, but I maintain that all the answers were still there. He left very little ambiguous, the most ambiguous thing I saw was "What in god's name was the reasoning for that guy just yanking off his helmet?"
Kip Thorne (executive producer of Interstellar and Astrophysicist) has a book titled "The Science of Interstellar"
Going to read it after watching this movie. Hopefully it's easy to understand for those of us without a strong knowledge of wormholes, blackholes, etc.
Anyone here read it yet? Only one review on amazon.
Here it is on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393351378/
Well, first of all, "Hawkin" (I assume he means Stephen Hawking) didn't create the term "black hole," and it's actually fairly correct, at least in the sense that there's a "rim" (the event horizon) and things can "fall in" to the hole.
But the second paragraph is simply gibberish. There are things called black bodies, and black holes have some relation to them, but certainly not in the simplistic manner described. And black holes are an endpoint of stellar evolution, not the beginning: They* are formed when a massive star undergoes a supernova explosion and the remaining core collapses. About the only true statement in the second paragraph is, "Light bends around all bodies of mass, including stars and planets." In fact, this is a standard prediction of general relativity, first measured during a solar eclipse in 1919.
Kip Thorne, who was the science advisor for Interstellar, wrote a pretty accessible book on black holes if you want more details. He's also written a book on the science behind Interstellar.
* Caveat: This applies to stellar-mass black holes. There are supermassive black holes in the centers of many (most?) galaxies, including our own, and we don't fully understand how they form.
"An elegant universe" by Brian Greene is a good read. It leans more towards string/superstring theory. "The science of interstellar" also touches on some concepts related to quantum mechanics.
I know that you asked for books but "PBS Spacetime" is a YouTube channel that does a great job explaining quantum mechanics. "Veritasium" is another great channel with a few videos explaining phenomena as well. I posted links below. Physics is dope. Happy hunting!
An elegant universe:
https://www.amazon.com/Elegant-Universe-Superstrings-Dimensions-Ultimate/dp/039333810X
The science of interstellar:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0393351378/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1502885214&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=the+physics+of+interstellar&dpPl=1&dpID=41Ii8OmMy0L&ref=plSrch
PBS Spacetime:
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UC7_gcs09iThXybpVgjHZ_7g
Veritasium:
https://m.youtube.com/user/1veritasium
Consider this. We can move anywhere in the three dimensions. We are three dimensional creatures, which are restrained in the 4th dimension. We can move forward and backward, up and down, provided the technology we can physically go anywhere in the 3D universe. But we can't do that with time.
Time isn't not real, it's just not well understood. It's a singular direction.
Another helpful way of thinking is, ironically, in black holes. Most people think that a black hole is a strong gravitational thing that is so strong that light can't escape. But that's just a layman's explanation. In fact, a black hole is spacetime that is warped so much that there is only one direction to go - inward. Well, much like a light beam in a black hole, time only goes one direction for us. Heck, new research seems to think we could be living inside a black hole!
Check out a couple resources: The youtube channel PBS Spacetime. Also, Kip Thorne's The Science of Interstellar if you're interested in knowing more.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378
Kip Thorne was part of the production team for making sure the science presented in the film was as close to reality as possible.
I recommend you read The Science Behind Interstellar book as well, it goes into much greater detail of Kip Thorne's research than the choppy documentary did.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378
> The biggest problem in the movie is crossing the event horizon, and violating causality dumb ass.
I think your problem here is that you are referring to relativity as it exists in the third dimension. But we aren't talking about the third dimension, we are talking about the fifth. When he goes into the black hole he is actually entering the fifth dimension and thus the theory of relativity changes. It was explained pretty well that humans from the far distant future created that fifth dimensional construct for Cooper to view his daughters bedroom, thus inspiring her to solve the equation.
> Bullshit. No scientist will claim a kid's library exists at the center of a black hole. Getting even close to the event horizon would rip your body and ship to pieces due to tidal forces.
Did I ever mention the inside of it? No. On screen and the way it's rendered is what I was talking about. The way gravity works around it, and the way it effects time dilation are incredibly well represented. As for the library thing, see my first answer. That bedroom (not library. did you even watch the movie?) wasn't technically even IN the black hole.
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar-black-hole/
Also, your assumption that the ship would be ripped apart is completely unfounded. The truth is no one KNOWS exactly what would happen if you ever made it into a black hole because no one has ever done it. And the ship actually was ripped apart in the movie. The most popular theory for what would happen in a black hole if you were to try and enter one is that to the outside observer you would appear to have simply frozen in place at the cusp of the event horizon, where as in reality you are actually being stretched infinitely due to the massive changes in gravity the closer you get to the center. This is called spaghettification. HOWEVER, it is also theorized that IF you were going fast enough you could reach the center of said black hole before this happened.
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/onlinestuff/snot/what_is_a_black_hole_and_what_would_happen_if_you_fell_into_one.aspx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1iJXOUMJpg
> Wrong. You obviously know nothing about physics. For commenting on something you know nothing about in such a condescending manner
That's mature. And I'm supposed to be the condescending one. That's a bold claim to make without providing any sources. I'm just supposed to believe you are correct when you're just spewing nonsense? Throughout this whole argument you have done nothing to justify or back up your claims. It's just "I'm right and you're wrong because relativity". That's like arguing with a religious extremist. I'm right, you're wrong. why? because god.
Science is about being open to new ideas and learning new things and questioning the unknown. There is no room in science for the stubborn narcissism you are currently spewing in my face. This argument is asinine and you are clearly not open to another person's perspective on the matter, so it's over.
If you're going to call someone out on their knowledge of a particular subject it might be prudent to prove to that person you actually have some semblance of knowledge on said subject yourself. Something you are clearly unable to do.
Allow me to introduce you to a book written by the lead scientific adviser and executive producer of the movie Kip Thorne, a well known theoretical physicist. http://www.amazon.com/The-Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378
Might be something you wanna read.
Alright, after reading part of The Science of Interstellar apparently it's because the fifth dimension is very much compressed compared to the lower dimensions.
I'm going to type this all up, a summary of the chapter about bulk space. Gimme a few minutes.
Explanation
So, first, gravity. Gravity in our regular universe decreases by the inverse square law, and you can visualize this by drawing lines out (see diagram on the left) outwards from any body with gravity, let's say the sun.
Now, if I am at distance r, the number of tendex lines over a certain area at that distance will give me the strength of gravity. This means in three dimensions, it correlates to the increase in surface area of a sphere. So, let's say at 1 meter from an object the gravity is 4πr (r in this case is 1) m/s^2. At 2 meters, it would be 4π4, or 16π, since 2^2 = r^2.
Now, since gravity can transcend dimensions, this means that gravity would also propagate in higher dimensional space. This means instead of the surface area, the strength of gravity will fade based on the change in volume of the sphere. (Integrating surface area) which would be 4/3πr^3. This means gravity would run by an inverse cube law, which means it would be incredibly weak and the planets would fly off.
So how in interstellar can people traverse meaningful distances in the 4th dimension, but not fuck up the rest of physics? Well that results in the ante-de-sitter warp of the bulk. So let's assume we go back to Romilly's paper universe, where our universe is two dimensions (paper thin) and the "bulk" or hyperspace is three dimensional. We can't have gravity escape away from the paper, so we instead only allow it to escape an infinitesimally small amount by having the amount of traversable space in the bulk decrease with its distance from our universe.
Here is a diagram of how this works. The lines are tendex lines of gravity, and the out-back direction is the direction of hyperspace. Our universe (or "brane") is the orange plane. This basically prevents the volume of the sphere being significant and prevents it from dispersing gravity.
This also presents another possibility - that the space in the bulk between Gargantua and Earth is much smaller than the distance in real space, although this is technically not a wormhole.
The distance would shrink by a factor of a few trillion, changing the distance between Coop and Earth from billions of light years to only tens of millions of miles (1 AU)
The "confining branes" 1.5cm from our universe are at the distance necessary to allow for gravity to not screw up, but allows for space to accomplish meaningful actions outside of our brane. (This is where the tesseract was located)
Therefore once the tesseract collapsed, Coop had already travelled the distance back to earth due to the excessive time dilation he had already experienced around the black hole. As a fun thought experiment, ante-de-sitter warping is actually one of the theories used to unify string theory and it's 11 dimensions and the escape of gravity as a way to account for dark energy repulsing the universe. (Gravity forces could be leaking into our universe from the bulk, and it's only noticeable on very large scales such as galaxy clusters)
tl;dr Space inside the tesseract was smaller than regular space because physics, and this with the time dilation meant Cooper was already home by the time the tesseract collapsed. Hyperbeings just needed to push him in the right direction.
Also the pictures are from a later chapter of the book that my sister got me for Christmas. Thanks Karen!
Not Science Fiction but if you want to know the science behind interstellar read errr.....The Science of Intestellar by Kip Thorne.
There's also Kip Thorne's book: https://www.amazon.com/Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378
I wouldn’t say microscopic, but significantly smaller than a small black hole. Surprisingly, and please Reddit, don’t hang me for citing a Hollywood movie in a discussion about astrophysics, the movie Interstellar is a fantastic example of what happens when you’re close to a SMBH. Kip Thorne was the science/physics advisor for the film and does a great job keeping the physics true to science. If you’re able, read The Science of Interstellar. It’s amazingly written and Thorne is so so so good at explaining complex ideas in simple language. Also pictures.
More things make sense than you'd first believe. I've been reading Kip Thorne's book The Science of Interstellar and it's really great at breaking down the events and science in the movie, explaining what is absolutely true, what is more speculation based on true science etc.
All brightness in that image is the accretion disk - light emitted by the part of the disk on the opposite side of the black hole is bent around it by gravitational lensing, causing the image above and below the black hole. It is a minimally aesthetically tweaked depiction based on an accurate computer model, yes.
e: got the book in front of me, here's some pages showing the lensing.
I can't really answer that. The movie might just be inconsistent with itself or Nolan may have departed from what Thorne intended in showing that scene. The handshake always felt like an extreme stretch to me anyway.
It's pretty clear what Thorne had intended, though, from his book. Cooper is scooped out of the black hole into "the bulk" (hyperspace) by the tesseract. See page 255 or so. The Amazon link looks like it has some of these pages available for viewing:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378
>I mean, if Nolan brothers, who aren't scientists, could come up with a such a mind-beding sci-fi thing
They used a scientist as a consultant who did most of the 'heavy-lifting.' In fact, he even wrote a book specifically to be used as a companion piece.
If you're feeling brave you can try reading his 1994 book on black holes and time warps. I suspect that the book he wrote about the science of Interstellar is more approachable.
Buy this book. It explains everything.
I highly reccomend reading this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0393351378/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/190-0306227-7145909
written by theoretical physicist and the interstellar producer.
Here's the link.
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1427839931&sr=8-1&keywords=the+science+of+interstellar
Tomorrow I will address your other issues.
This is a long shot but it might be from 'The Science of Interstellar',
You loved interstellar? Get to know the physics behind it. I would say, read Science of Interstellar by Kip Thorne himself who decided to bring a great movie based on science fiction in Hollywood and inspire Astronomy in people.
Of course! :)
Here are a few of my favorite youtube channels that cover our universe.
These guys do a good job of giving excellent and creditable facts while keeping the video short and sweet.
https://www.youtube.com/user/scishowspace
This channel covers more than just space, but again they give good facts while still keeping the videos not too lengthy.
https://www.youtube.com/user/Kurzgesagt
And of course, nothing gets more credibility than the big guys themselves, NASA. These videos are a bit long, but are just loaded with a ton of real world space Q&A's.
https://www.youtube.com/user/NASAtelevision/videos
The few magazines I have lying around my house right now are all related to space, and they are a great read for any of my guests! Heres a link for the planetary society (main source of my reading material)
http://planetary.org/
and here are a few books that every curious mind should take a good long glance at when it comes to our universe.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/pale-blue-dot-carl-sagan/1103141155
https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
(this one is a MUST READ!)---> https://www.amazon.com/Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378
The main podcast I listen to is Star Talk with Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He has a plethora of different guests on at all times talking about new and fascinating topics. Here's a link for his show
https://www.startalkradio.net/
And when it comes to articles, most of them come from Reddit! I am subscribed to a ton of different space related subreddits which post countless numbers of interesting articles all the time. Here is a small list just to name a few
r/space r/astronomy r/astrophysics r/astrophotography r/science r/spaceporn
I hope this helps!
There's likely plenty wrong with it. The scientist behind interstellar explains in depth in his book what they did to create the interstellar version (although even that one was altered for artistic/simplifying reasons.)
The Science of Interstellar https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393351378/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_TIqsybQ7WNN1F
The Science of Instellar is an excellent explanation of the science that went into the movie as well as some corners they had to cut to make the movie interesting to a general audience.
False. Wormholes are NOT in anyway related to black holes. They don't have their own gravity or destroy matter, light can freely pass in or around them and there's no "event horizon" of which you cannot escape from. I suggest you read The Science of Interstellar
The film had some scenarios ranging from extraordinarily unlikely to fantastically hopeful, then again it is a science fiction film. Time dilation can be a property of relativistic velocities, gravitational fields, or both. Here are a few links that my or may not assist you with the concept of what you define to be "pretty lame".
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/RelativisticTimeDilationInMuonDecay/
http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/72173/was-the-time-dilation-caused-by-millers-planet-or-the-close-proximity-to-the-ga
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/equation-for-time-dilation-of-body-in-orbit-around-kerr-black-hole.781691/
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417905655&sr=8-1&keywords=kip+thorne+interstellar
For what it is worth, I am pretty much in disagreement with everyone on this planet as to the nature of black holes because I am unwilling to believe that our perceived universe is inherently irrational so much as it is not fully understood.
Some of the most insightful commentary comes from Caltech professor Kip Thorne, who was involved in the process of producing the film from its very genesis. As pointed out by /u/ReyJavikVI, Thorne has recently published a book on the science behind the film. I link below to the chapter discussing the "Tesseract" scene:
TheScienceOfInterstellar-KipThorne-Ch29.pdf
He has a chapter devoted to the basics of the science gone over in the book, I wouldn't worry. Take a look at the table of contents by using the "Look inside" feature Amazon has. Link to book here.
I know you've been bashing Interstellar's scientific accuracy, but there is actually a companion book that goes with it written by Kip Thorne, an astrophysicist that advised on the movie...
http://www.amazon.com/The-Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378
Maybe see interstellar with that book and you'll look at it a bit differently...
Just finished The Martian by Andy Weir bought it solely because i loved his short story The Egg which i read maybe 2 years back. Now reading The Science Of Interstellar by Kip Thorne. In between i peruse through the behemoth Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace.
Apparently there is a book coming out on the science http://www.amazon.com/The-Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415225801&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=kip+torne
Kip Thorne is a producer on the film and is releasing this;
http://www.amazon.com/The-Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378/lecturenotesonge
And here Nolan defends his executive producer;
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/christopher-nolan-defends-science-interstellar/
>I guess we have to agree to disagree, but Nolan himself never claimed 'this film is scientifically accurate',
See empirical evidence above.
Get Kip Thornes book, it's really good.
If you liked this, you might like Kip Thorne's book The Science of Interstellar.
i love reading these "rants".. such an epic film. still recovering from seeing it.
"There needs to be a book that expands on this universe because I can't get enough."
go buy Kip Thornes "the science of interstellar"
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1416517343&sr=8-1&keywords=the+science+of+interstellar
But not the parts you think:
https://www.amazon.com/Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378
Kip Thorne discusses where the physics is wrong. He also discusses why it is wrong for the sake of the movie, but most of it is right.
A lot of people think certain parts are wrong in the movie that are actually accurate.
Highly recommend the book The Science of Interstellar The whole idea behind the movie started with science. Science is the shit, btw.
If anyone wants to read about all that went into the science of this film, I bought this book off Amazon last year and adored it:
The Science of Interstellar https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393351378/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_g8NRCbHT5WHFF
Here is a epub of this book from Kip Thorne, the physicist that Christopher Nolan asked for help to make Interstellar more scientific accurate.
Read the book by Kip Thorne about the movie or look for peer reviewed paper about it.
EDIT: Book: http://www.amazon.com/Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378/
Science Mag news: http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2014/11/physicist-who-inspired-interstellar-spills-backstory-and-scene-makes-him
"Q: You’ve said that you learned something new from their simulations?
A: We learned [that] when you have a fast-spinning black hole, without any accretion disk, and let it just lens the distant sky—a star field—we saw a fantastically beautiful structure that is sort of like a fingerprint, but much more complex. We’ve long known that you’ll get multiple images of each star [around a black hole], due to [the combination of] light rays that come pretty much directly to the camera, [and] rays that go in and circle around the black hole once and come to the camera. But what we found was that on the side of the spinning black hole where space is moving towards us, [you see this beautiful structure]."
Paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/32/6/065001/
"Interstellar is the first Hollywood movie to attempt depicting a black hole as it would actually be seen by somebody nearby. For this, our team at Double Negative Visual Effects, in collaboration with physicist Kip Thorne, developed a code called Double Negative Gravitational Renderer (DNGR) to solve the equations for ray-bundle (light-beam) propagation through the curved spacetime of a spinning (Kerr) black hole, and to render IMAX-quality, rapidly changing images. Our ray-bundle techniques were crucial for achieving IMAX-quality smoothness without flickering; and they differ from physicists' image-generation techniques (which generally rely on individual light rays rather than ray bundles), and also differ from techniques previously used in the film industry's CGI community. This paper has four purposes: (i) to describe DNGR for physicists and CGI practitioners, who may find interesting and useful some of our unconventional techniques. (ii) To present the equations we use, when the camera is in arbitrary motion at an arbitrary location near a Kerr black hole, for mapping light sources to camera images via elliptical ray bundles. (iii) To describe new insights, from DNGR, into gravitational lensing when the camera is near the spinning black hole, rather than far away as in almost all prior studies; we focus on the shapes, sizes and influence of caustics and critical curves, the creation and annihilation of stellar images, the pattern of multiple images, and the influence of almost-trapped light rays, and we find similar results to the more familiar case of a camera far from the hole. (iv) To describe how the images of the black hole Gargantua and its accretion disk, in the movie Interstellar, were generated with DNGR—including, especially, the influences of (a) colour changes due to doppler and gravitational frequency shifts, (b) intensity changes due to the frequency shifts, (c) simulated camera lens flare, and (d) decisions that the film makers made about these influences and about the Gargantua's spin, with the goal of producing images understandable for a mass audience. There are no new astrophysical insights in this accretion-disk section of the paper, but disk novices may find it pedagogically interesting, and movie buffs may find its discussions of Interstellar interesting."
Not at all, that's the fun of the movie. There was a book published on the science of Interstellar. I recommend you check it out! amazon link.