4 ms·
Oh wow, were the Hollywood versions in Contact and Interstellar vaguely based on that science? Will have to watch them again this weekend and double-check.
by ck2 4y ago
Oh wow, were the Hollywood versions in Contact and Interstellar vaguely based on that science?
Will have to watch them again this weekend and double-check.
- dotnet00 4y agoI wouldn't necessarily say they're based on science since I don't really think there's enough concrete science on wormholes to say what they would look like precisely (although Interstellar did put some effort into visual accuracy: https://cerncourier.com/a/building-gargantua/ https://cerncourier.com/a/building-gargantua/). My reasoning is that just like a circle is formed on a 2d surface when 'bridging' two parts of it (the pencil through folded paper analogy), a bridge on a 3d surface should have a sphere as the hole (or maybe since it's technically a space-time bridge, it should be a hypersphere, which would still appear as a sphere to us 3d observers). Then, to not tear apart anything going through, it'd need to conserve 'symmetry' (so something that goes in comes out unchanged), so the light would go through unchanged, making it just appear like the view of the other side is mapped to the surface.