The fraction on the right-hand-side of the equation fully depicts the 1 hour = 7 years dilation effect. This equation fully describes a black hole of mass M, rotating with angular momentum J, as observed by an observer at radial coordinate r, and angular coordinate theta. Substituting for d\tau = 1 hour, and dt = 7 years, one obtains the following relation: It can be shown that the time dilation equation derived from the Kerr metric takes the form: Now we deal with the claimed time dilation effect of 1 hour = 7 years as described earlier. J denotes the angular momentum and is absolutely key to understanding that the effect depicted in the movie is indeed very plausible. One therefore needs to at minimum use the Kerr metric: In truth, as has been said by both Thorne and Nolan during the special features videos posted on YouTube and I believe by the characters in the film, the black hole in the movie is spinning very, very fast and therefore, its angular momentum cannot be neglected. If one uses this geometry as Plait and Trotta have, one will deduce all sorts of wrong conclusions. This metric tensor describes the local geometry of the spacetime outside the region of a static, non-rotating, and spherically symmetric black hole/astrophysical body. These are their two grand assumptions, but simply put, these assumptions are very, very wrong! They are basing their assumptions on the Schwarzschild solution of General Relativity: The planet would not be in a stable orbit, and would spiral and crash into the black hole’s singularity point. One would have to essentially be a “pinch” from the event horizon of the black hole.Ģ. The two reviewers then go on to say that this is impossible as:ġ. They seem to both have an issue with the time dilation effect as described in the movie of the water planet close to the Black Hole, where it is claimed in the movie that 1 hour in the planet’s reference frame corresponds to 7 years in an observer’s reference frame far from the black hole. They seem to be keen on really nitpicking certain things, which is certainly in their prerogative to do so, but I will just discuss in this article a major flaw in both of their reviews, in which they claim part of the science of Interstellar is wrong. The two reviews criticizing the science that I have seen, so far, stem from: After all, he did manage to get two original scientific papers out of working on this movie. Surely, if there was something wrong from a GR-point-of-view, he would point it out. First, I didn’t think too much of it, as Kip Thorne was not only an executive producer, but also a consultant on the film, and has also seen the film. It was pointed out to me recently that some people have taken to the internet to write extensive articles criticizing the science in the movie, which is very strange. It combines, (yes) accurate science and real depictions of general relativistic effects with a great story as is to be expected from Christopher Nolan. I have seen Interstellar twice now including the special 70 mm IMAX screening, and am seeing it a third time later today. I greatly debated with myself on whether to write this posting.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |