have a question , this movie is praised by the scientific accuracy however

how the hell does relativity justify that the character can be thrown in black hole and survive ?

also if the robot can not send INFORMATION about what is inside the black hole why did you send this to analyze the black hole ?

and also why they say that a rotating black hole can be traversed ?

  • $\begingroup$ Question one can likely be answered by 'movie magic' or some variation thereof. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos May 10 '15 at 21:47
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Short answer: everything that happens at the end of the film is nonsense. Good movie though. $\endgroup$ – Mark Mitchison May 10 '15 at 21:53
  • $\begingroup$ More on the movie Interstellar. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic May 10 '15 at 21:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Strictly speaking almost everything about that movie is nonsensical, both in terms of physics and plot-writing, but it has been hyped up so badly that people believe it to be a good movie. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne May 10 '15 at 23:11
  • $\begingroup$ I think the movie isn't scientific accurate so much as using some theoretical science. It's probobly not possible to fall into a black hole and live. It's not even possible to get close to the event horizon and live unless the black hole is super-massive (and there's only one of those in the entire milky-way so you won't find one near Saturn). I think all your criticisms are spot on. Article here if interested: smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/… $\endgroup$ – userLTK May 10 '15 at 23:29

how the hell does relativity justify that the character can be thrown in black hole and survive ?

This is a big question and scientists (physicists) are asking the question that "what will be the fate of an astronaut falling into a black hole?" ,since the concept of general relativistic black holes have arisen. The answer is the astronaut may not survive.

Why? Because of the tidal forces of the black hole which will lead to spaghettification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification) of the astronaut.

Can we theoretically get rid of this spaghettification? Yes, theoretically, up to some region. For a rotating super massive black hole the separation between singularity and the event horizon is larger and the tidal force is also less compared to other types of black hole. It is not that it would not stretch the astronaut, but the astronaut may have crossed the event horizon before he/she will actually start to experience the extreme stretch of the black hole, as the event horizon is far enough from the singularity. So for a hypothetical rotating super massive black hole the astronaut can cross the event horizon without having much difficulties. Even though the risk is not reduced, inside the black hole the astronaut may be stretched. But there is another frightening thing inside the black hole other than the sphagettification, which is the singularity.

There can be many types of singularities inside a black hole. In the movie's black hole Gargantua there were three singularities inside it; the BKL singularity at the centre of the black hole, if the astronaut hits this singularity he/she will be alternatively stretched and crunched infinitely and may have no hope that he/she can survive. He/she may be teared apart to give atomic or sub-atomic particles but physicist don't know what will be the fate of those atomic or sub-atomic particles. But surely the astronaut is not going to survive, anyway! The other two singularities are the infalling singularity caused by enormous matters that has fallen into the black hole after the astronaut and moves in the same direction that of the astronaut and the other one is outflying singularity caused by the matters that has fallen into the black hole before the astronaut. The image from the book "The science of Interstellar" by Kip Thorne may help to understand(the BKL singularity is not shown in the image and is situated below the outflying singularity),enter image description here Now what will happen if the astronaut hits one those singularities. This singularities would stretch the astronaut but by an finite amount (say, it would make the astronaut 1 meter longer and then leave him/her to live a happy life!). Now, will the astronaut survive this finite amount of stretch? May be or may be not. I personally believe the astronaut may not survive, because his/her bones may be broken, there may be internal bleeding, nerves may tear etc. Kip Thorne himself says,

I’m dubious of survival, but we can’t be sure. So I now think it respectable, in science fiction, to posit survival.

But how to survive from the BKL singularity, here comes the concept of putting a tesseract just after outflying singularity and before BKL singularity. See the following image (again from Kip Thorne's book),enter image description here

I am not going into details about the tesseract here but the tesseract let the Matthew McConaughey's character to get out of the horrible black hole.

So, it is very clear from the above discussion and from the statement of Kip Thorne is that science or General Relativity does not justify that an astronaut can survive after falling into Black hole, but the event is justifiable if you consider the fact that it is a science fiction story.

also if the robot can not send INFORMATION about what is inside the black hole why did you send this to analyze the black hole ?

There is nothing inside a black hole between the singularities and the event horizon. The robot TARS in the movie had struck by the outflying singularity and from that singularity it might have collected some "the quantum data" and that was what the robot sent via Matthew McConaughey's character. That data may be very important to that context. Now, it hadn't collected any data from the BKL singularity, a very different in kind from the outflying one. So the data is very partial and less efficient to manipulate gravity, in my opinion. And more, how did TARS collect the data? Is collecting such sufficient data only by striking the singularity possible? may be some other issues of debate!

and also why they say that a rotating black hole can be transversed ?

I think the word should be 'traversed'. Anyway, I have noted above the reason why the astronaut will be able to cross the event horizon without much difficulties. But this does not save the astronaut scientifically in anyway.

Hope that answers your question.


There's no "inside" a black hole. The closest thing a black hole has is a horizon. And you can actually get out a part of what falls below the horizon - just not more than 50% (in theory).

I'm not sure about the "transverse" part, that's not a term I've encountered in relation to black holes. Are you sure you got the spelling right? There are multiple similar words which might make sense.

  • $\begingroup$ sorry i am not englishman :D perhaps i wanted to say 'going trough or falling through' the black hole or going inside the balck hole $\endgroup$ – Jose Javier Garcia May 10 '15 at 21:53
  • $\begingroup$ (BTW, this is the plot of the 1977 novel Gateway by F.Pohl) $\endgroup$ – MSalters May 10 '15 at 22:01
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Which theory is supposed to say that one can't get more than half of what goes into a black hole back? From the outside observers' point of view nothing ever traverses the horizon and the horizon is a black body emitter with a very low temperature until the very, very last stage of it's decay and it only turns into a non-equilibrium object when it is, essentially, far smaller than a nucleus. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne May 10 '15 at 23:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.