Much has been said about the physics used to model the images produced for 'interstellar'. In this forum, this thread, http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2383278&highlight=interstellar&page=12
discusses the movie but I know there are some REAL astrophysicists here, who perhaps out of politeness, have not commented.
An interesting blog here,
http://ikjyotsinghkohli24.wordpress.com/2014/11/07/on-the-science-of-interstellar/
discusses the significance of a rotating black hole having significantly different physics than a non rotating one. The point being made is that it is possible to stably orbit a rotating black hole and experience time dilation without crashing into it. In the movie, I believe the actors were depicted as almost matching the orbit of the water planet (taking a slightly larger orbit around gargantua- the black hole). By simply descending to the planet surface, the gravitational field slowed time sufficiently to allow 1 hour on the planet surface to account for 7 years in the spacecraft. I do not understand though how the gravitational field of gargantua did not crush them into a molecular monolayer of proteins, lipids and minerals on the planet surface. and what role the angular velocity of gargantua plays in protecting them from this fate.
Perhap's one of the astrophysics gurus here could clarify Prof. Kohli's blog on the point.
I can imagine a way possible for humans to safely experience high gravitational fields - imagine chasing a black hole that is accelerating through space (perhaps by the attraction of a super black hole). As your spaceship follows the black hole towards the superb black hole, the occupants will be in its intense gravity. However, since both the black hole and the space ship are accelerating through space, their distance will remain relatively constant. And since they are both 'falling' towards the super black hole, the sensation of weightlessness is preserved.
No crushing of bones or popping of eyeballs occurs. Just progressive time dilation.
Also Kohli's blog mentions that ' the astro community are largely mistaken on this whole tidal force ripping up the planet.' Putting aside the hubris of such a comment, the ensuing lines in the blogger's argument tend to sound 'hand-wavy'. The distinction of the Kerr metric is lost on me. I reach out again to the astros here to if its possible to explain the lack of tidal destruction. Please note, I am not questioning the cause of the large waves on the planet, I would expect them to occur. I am just asking why this water planet was not spread out into water crescents.
Another effect not depicted is the presence of gravitational drag. Does this concept have any validity? In other words, if you approach a spinning black hole directly, will its spinning gravitational field impart a perpendicular velocity component to your trajectory? As an analogy consider a giant magnet (like the earth but much stronger), and i were in an iron spaceship (like a hollow asteroid for example), then the rotational velocity of that planet should have no effect as a accelerate towards the planet. Spinning a magnet on its polar axis does not change its attraction to a ferrous material, nor does it induce an electric current in a nearby wire. I just did that experiment with my dremel to which I had glued a super magnet. It didn't attract nearby paper clips any more or less easily. It did not budge my voltmeter needle. However, I suspect paramagnetic aluminum motion does depend on the angular velocity of the drill. I just didn't have any aluminum massive enough to detect that I suppose. Still, is there a mechanism ( 'eddy currents' or 'gravity waves') being the source of the energy that would alter the trajectory of an approaching body?
Finally, I enjoyed the fact that the light from the accretion disk of the 'far side' of the black hole was bent around, effectively creating a halo as seen from any vantage point. However, I do not see why there were no polar jets. Don't quasars have polar jets of energy? I am not talking about Hawking radiation that derives from the event horizon. I am talking about the massive amount of energy released by the plasma fusing outside the event horizon. I guess that's another benefit of spinning a black hole very fast that I do not understand.
In the interpretative drawings where a black hole is depicted consuming matter, the accretion disk is usually shown as asymmetric as well, where the matter streaming towards the black hole goes down a tornado like vortex. Perhaps the source of matter in the movie was on the far side of gargantua. Oh well, I dislike knowing I will die someday without knowing these answers.
discusses the movie but I know there are some REAL astrophysicists here, who perhaps out of politeness, have not commented.
An interesting blog here,
http://ikjyotsinghkohli24.wordpress.com/2014/11/07/on-the-science-of-interstellar/
discusses the significance of a rotating black hole having significantly different physics than a non rotating one. The point being made is that it is possible to stably orbit a rotating black hole and experience time dilation without crashing into it. In the movie, I believe the actors were depicted as almost matching the orbit of the water planet (taking a slightly larger orbit around gargantua- the black hole). By simply descending to the planet surface, the gravitational field slowed time sufficiently to allow 1 hour on the planet surface to account for 7 years in the spacecraft. I do not understand though how the gravitational field of gargantua did not crush them into a molecular monolayer of proteins, lipids and minerals on the planet surface. and what role the angular velocity of gargantua plays in protecting them from this fate.
Perhap's one of the astrophysics gurus here could clarify Prof. Kohli's blog on the point.
I can imagine a way possible for humans to safely experience high gravitational fields - imagine chasing a black hole that is accelerating through space (perhaps by the attraction of a super black hole). As your spaceship follows the black hole towards the superb black hole, the occupants will be in its intense gravity. However, since both the black hole and the space ship are accelerating through space, their distance will remain relatively constant. And since they are both 'falling' towards the super black hole, the sensation of weightlessness is preserved.
No crushing of bones or popping of eyeballs occurs. Just progressive time dilation.
Also Kohli's blog mentions that ' the astro community are largely mistaken on this whole tidal force ripping up the planet.' Putting aside the hubris of such a comment, the ensuing lines in the blogger's argument tend to sound 'hand-wavy'. The distinction of the Kerr metric is lost on me. I reach out again to the astros here to if its possible to explain the lack of tidal destruction. Please note, I am not questioning the cause of the large waves on the planet, I would expect them to occur. I am just asking why this water planet was not spread out into water crescents.
Another effect not depicted is the presence of gravitational drag. Does this concept have any validity? In other words, if you approach a spinning black hole directly, will its spinning gravitational field impart a perpendicular velocity component to your trajectory? As an analogy consider a giant magnet (like the earth but much stronger), and i were in an iron spaceship (like a hollow asteroid for example), then the rotational velocity of that planet should have no effect as a accelerate towards the planet. Spinning a magnet on its polar axis does not change its attraction to a ferrous material, nor does it induce an electric current in a nearby wire. I just did that experiment with my dremel to which I had glued a super magnet. It didn't attract nearby paper clips any more or less easily. It did not budge my voltmeter needle. However, I suspect paramagnetic aluminum motion does depend on the angular velocity of the drill. I just didn't have any aluminum massive enough to detect that I suppose. Still, is there a mechanism ( 'eddy currents' or 'gravity waves') being the source of the energy that would alter the trajectory of an approaching body?
Finally, I enjoyed the fact that the light from the accretion disk of the 'far side' of the black hole was bent around, effectively creating a halo as seen from any vantage point. However, I do not see why there were no polar jets. Don't quasars have polar jets of energy? I am not talking about Hawking radiation that derives from the event horizon. I am talking about the massive amount of energy released by the plasma fusing outside the event horizon. I guess that's another benefit of spinning a black hole very fast that I do not understand.
In the interpretative drawings where a black hole is depicted consuming matter, the accretion disk is usually shown as asymmetric as well, where the matter streaming towards the black hole goes down a tornado like vortex. Perhaps the source of matter in the movie was on the far side of gargantua. Oh well, I dislike knowing I will die someday without knowing these answers.