Slashdot Mirror


Bad Movie Physics Hurt Scientific Understanding

eldavojohn writes "A paper published by UCF researchers claims that bad movie physics hurt students' understanding of real world physics. From the article, "Some people really do believe a bus traveling 70 mph can clear a 50-foot gap in a freeway, as depicted in the movie Speed." The professors published this paper out of fear that society will pay the price. One of the authors commented on advancements in the past years "All the luxuries we have today, the modern conveniences, are a result of the science research that went on in the '60s during the space race. It didn't just happen. It took people doing hard science to do it." I commented on the physics of the most recent Die Hard having problems detracting from my enjoyment of the movie but is it really the root of a growing problem of poor science & math among students?"

21 of 910 comments (clear)

  1. Idiots by iamacat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Learning is learning, entertainment is entertainment. Star trek has way more fundamental problems with physics than Speed or Die Hard. People shouldn't get their science from TV.

    1. Re:Idiots by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Star Trek, like most sci-fi, basically invents technologies which work around what we currently consider physical limitations. IIRC, in Star Trek, they don't use "tachyon particle beams" to communicate at FTL speeds; they use "subspace", which is never really explained in any detail. That's the way it should be too: what's important for the story is that they have the means of communicating FTL, not the exact details in how they accomplish this. So they invent a plot device to allow the story to progress. Sci-fi which gets too involved in the details of speculative technology usually gets dated very quickly; Star Trek has lasted this long I think because the stories were more important than the technologies. They have a ship, it goes faster-than-light somehow, they have energy weapons, and can transport themselves from place to place instantaneously, within a certain range (orbit to planet surface). Given these, they come up with stories that work within that framework.

      There's a lot about the universe our physicists don't understand yet. They can't even figure out how to get Quantum Theory and Relativistic Theory to agree. They don't even really understand how gravity works, and that's the most important force which affects us humans in our daily lives. There's now some evidence that there might be other dimensions besides the 4 we're familiar with, and various particles have been detected (like neutrinos) which previously were only hypothesized. Many people like to claim that lightspeed is a hard-and-fast limit, and that it's impossible to travel faster. 150 years ago people thought it was impossible to fly in a machine that was heavier than air. There's no telling what other facets about our universe exist which we are unable currently to observe and understand, just like we had no idea how to split or fuse atoms and create enormous amounts of energy 100 years ago.

  2. Think of the children... by davinc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is there anything left that someone hasn't claimed is 'hurting the children'?

    1. Re:Think of the children... by deltatype0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well damn, there goes my dream of creating little bug-eyed girls with sugar, spice, everything nice, and Chemical X.

      Curse you TV and your unreal chemistry.

      Curses.

  3. Well by stupidpuppy · · Score: 5, Funny

    It does go a long way towards explaining the epidemic of bus jumping accidents.

  4. Riiiiight... by Sunburnt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It must be the movies. Before movies, everybody had a perfect understanding of physics.

    --
    Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
  5. Watching movies is not physics homework... by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... and it ain't no muthufukin English homework neither!

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Watching movies is not physics homework... by NoTheory · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't believe nobody has called anybody on this.

      Learning and education should be entertaining. Or at least, you should have the option of having an interesting and educational experience. I understand that there's stuff that one has to learn simply to have a job and function on a day to day basis in society, but if you receive no joy from learning new things in some sphere (i don't care if it's baseball statistics, esoteric poetry, how to make model ferraris or whatever), somewhere, then you probably live a sad static life.

      --
      There are lives at stake here!
    2. Re:Watching movies is not physics homework... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do you remember a summer blockbuster that was educational? Do you remember a summer blockbuster that was any good?
    3. Re:Watching movies is not physics homework... by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Perhaps learning should be entertaining, but the reverse does not apply. Not all entertainment needs to be educational.

      It is therefore bizarre to expect entertainment to be factually accurate.

      --
      Engineering is the art of compromise.
    4. Re:Watching movies is not physics homework... by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that the majority of what we need to know for our non-working and working lives is inherently not very interesting to children who would rather be doing something that children consider "fun".

      Most kids don't regard writing code as "fun", for example -- and that is the job of a software developer.

      Most kids don't regard the determination of chemical bonds as "fun" -- but that's fundamental to the field of chemistry.

      Most kids (including me, when I was one, and still to this day) couldn't care less what Shakespeare wrote -- and what he wrote is frankly irrelevant to anybody who does something useful for a living (scientists, engineers, doctors), though still useful for people who "play" for a living (e.g. actors/actresses), and possibly lawyers (when using a Shakespearean story as an digestible analogy that a jury or a judge can understand, anyway).

      Most kids don't care about managing their personal finances, because that's not "fun" -- even though they will go into debt and/or broke if they don't learn how.

      And so on. Rather than do any of these things, most kids would rather watch TV, run around outdoors (which is at least good for their physical health and socially-stimulative), play video games, smoke/drink/huff cans of pesticide, etc.. Real life can't compete with the entertainment value of delinquincy, and at the age of (for example) 14, the ostensibly more-responsible age of 21 seems almost infinitely far-away ("so who cares, right?")...

      The sad reality is that most of life is boring -- and the sooner people recognize this, accept it, move on and learn the necessary material anyway, the better off we'll all be.

      As a professional young adult, I know I spend *very* little of my 168 hours/week doing things I consider purely "fun" (playing video/computer games, poker, traveling, getting laid, writing code for a personal project (which is half work-related anyway, since such projects are a vehicle for learning new stuff))... Most of what I do involves working, doing things related to my work, maintaining my physical and/or financial health, and planning for my future.

      The life of a responsible, disciplined adult isn't easy, nor does it tend to be fun. But we find ways to make such trivial work interesting...

      More power to teachers if they can find ways to make education and learning interesting. It *can* be (and I think for most of us reading /., it is) -- but it first takes a self-driven *desire* to learn the given material; a certain passion... Without it, education is rote tedium; an obstacle in the way of other, more-entertaining things.

  6. We don't need to make movies more realistic... by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We just need to ensure that we teach our children critical thinking skills. Never mind movies, in a world with Fox News and entertainment and lifestyle stories that cloak themselves as "news", this is more important than ever if future generations are going to enjoy a standard of living that even approaches what we have now.

  7. Coyote and Roadrunner; Pixar by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I teach physics at a community college, and I actually like to use Coyote and Roadrunner as an illustration of people's Aristotelian preconceptions. When the coyote steps off a cliff, he has to stop moving forward before he can look down and go, "oh, time to fall." This is exactly what Aristotle said had to happen: an object could be doing forced motion or natural motion, but it couldn't do both at the same time. One reason Aristotelianism was accepted for thousands of years was that it does a good job of codifying the incorrect expectations that people tend to have intuitively. If it wasn't for Coyote and Roadrunner, it would be harder for me to teach this!

    My sister works at Pixar, and a lot of her work is physics simulations. (She's working on hair and cloth these days.) She says that a lot of the time, they try simulating the right physics first, but then that comes out not looking the way they want, e.g., water splashes realistically, but they want a cartoon splash, not a realistic splash. So they intentionally mung the equations to get the artistic effect they want. Well, why not? Picasso painted people with two eyes on the same side of their face.

    The reason people in the US are ignorant about physics isn't because they see movies with incorrect physics in them, it's because K-12 science education in the US is a disaster.

    1. Re:Coyote and Roadrunner; Pixar by fm6 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You sum it up nicely. (Though I'm not sure that Aristotle would consider the coyote's hanging in midair to be a valid interpretation of his physics.) In fact the problem is exactly the reverse: movies have bad physics — and bad science in general — because it's what people expect.

      Two examples: on Star Trek TOS, they tried very hard to be scientifically correct (later versions were less careful) but wimped out when they depicted the Enterprise moving through space. They tried doing it without sound (no sound in a vacuum), but everybody complained that it "felt wrong". So we got the famous "whoosh" during the opening credits and a strange rumble when the ship orbited a planet..

      In Babylon 5, they tried even harder. ("Conceptual Consultant" Harlan Ellison has many unendearing qualities, but he's always a stickler for scientific details.) So when spaceships docked, they had to pitch 180% so they could use their reaction engines to slow down. Perfectly good physics — but many casual viewers wondered why all the ships were flying backwards!

  8. I disagree with TFA by Jazzer_Techie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let me preface this comment with the fact that I am a physicist (astrophysics) and am quite often frustrated by the poor physics shown in movies.

    However, I think they're neglecting a very basic fact. Humans have evolved to find Newtonian mechanics intuitive! (especially in translational cases, somewhat less in rotational ones) If someone throws a ball, you can quickly figure out approximately where it is going to land. You have no need to do calculations, because its evolutionarily hardwired into your brain. Watching a movie which doesn't accurately display a free-falling bus is not going to erase that.

    It's true that people don't know enough physics to determine the validity of what they see in movies, but they already know enough to get through life. I'd love for everyone to know enough physics to be understand the devices that they use in their lives, but that's probably not a reality in the modern age.

    I think what they're encountering is a resistance to learning the formalizations of physics. As soon as you step beyond Newtonian mechanics (really, beyond two-body problems) all that evolutionary intuition is gone. When you get to physics at that stage, you must place it on firm mathematical footing, or you have no hope of understanding: that is hard work.

    They are seeing this decline in science understanding, but I think that's an artifact of an overall educational decline, rather than a specific effect of Hollywood movies. Young people are now expecting to be entertained, and while physics is beautiful, at some point it requires you to sit down in a empty room with a pad of paper and a pencil. If anything, it's the "action-packed entertainment" nature of movies, rather than any bad physics that is likely having the detrimental effect. However, if they can entertain these students and have them learn something too, that's fine with me.

    1. Re:I disagree with TFA by neapolitan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Agreed. Resistance to formalization also arises as it is not that glamorous -- look at the "physics-work" in CSI, or even a somewhat more realistic Mythbusters. Sitting down and calculating something is not as cool as making a big explosion or dancing around with a beautiful female in an all-glass cubicle (or perhaps I am just in the wrong job :). I think that demonstrating quantum mechanical tunneling via *math* is amazing, yet has very little intuitive grasp without the firm mathematical background.

      Mythbusters is particularly bad about this, often things that they "test" you could just do on a piece of paper and see it is or is not going to work. Other times the design of the experiment is hugely flawed, often conceptually, and nobody talks about the elephant in the room (I could give you a bunch of examples -- one that comes to mind is the 'catching an arrow' episode which does not take into account anticipation of reaction or even moving the target backward). However I (as you can tell) still enjoy the show once in a while -- it is, to me, entertainment and kind of funny. I loved "Beyond 2000" as a kid (does anybody remember this?) and Mythbusters I think is by the same producers...

      One of the things that would help all of what we outlined is a change in culture where discovery and true inquiry is advocated, asking well formulated / scientific questions is ok... To this degree, getting kids interested in answering questions empirically is a good thing. The Mythbusters occasionally visits true scientists at nearby NASA, etc., and attempts to learn very well and are respectful of what they learn, which is great IMHO. Kids / young adults will see this and want to be like the expert (hopefully!)

      --
      Slashdotter, ID #101. UIDs are in binary, right?
  9. I'll cut the crap right now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You're going to get tons of people agreeing with your every word and placing you in their friends list, but I'm not going to play their games and be straight with you instead: can you ask your sister to get me a job at Pixar? And will she be my girlfriend? Either will do. Thanks.

  10. Hollywood Porn Biology Hurts Sexual Understanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    I dont know about Hollymood movies and physics but Hollywood porn sure destroyed my understanding of women and sex. Here are some of the things I learnt from Hollywood porn that I found out (the hard way) weren't really true:


    1. Women always wear 6-inch high-heels to bed.
    2. Men are never impotent.
    3. Women never have headaches... or periods.
    4. If a woman gets busted masturbating by a strange man, she will not scream with embarrassment, but rather insist he have sex with her.
    5. When going down on a woman 10 seconds is more than satisfactory.
    6. If you come across a guy and his girlfriend having sex in the bushes, the boyfriend won't bash seven shades of shit out of you if you shove your cock in his girlfriend's mouth.
    7. Women always look pleasantly surprised when they open a man's trousers and find a cock there.
    8. Women moan uncontrollably when giving a blowjob.
    9. All women are noisy cummers.
    10. A common and enjoyable sexual practice for a man is to take his half-erect penis and slap it repeatedly on a woman's butt or face.
    11. A woman can't wait to get it in the ass.
    12. People in the 70's couldn't cum unless there was a wild guitar solo in the background.
    13. Men always groan "OH YEAH!" when they cum.
    14. Double penetration makes women smile.
    15 Assholes are so clean, you could eat out of them.
    16. When taking a woman from behind, a man can really excite her by giving her a hard slap on the butt.
    17. Nurses always suck patients' cocks.
    18. Men always pull out.
    19. When your girlfriend busts you getting head from her best friend, she'll only be momentarily pissed off before fucking the both of you.
    20. Women smile appreciatively when men splat them in the face with sperm.
    21. A man ejaculating on a woman's tits or butt is a satisfying result for all parties concerned.
    22. Asian men don't exist.

    I hope the next generation fed on an abundance of internet porn doesn't have the same misconceptions.

  11. Re:Not yet? Really? by litghost · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well this comment shows the problem right away. This is actually a mass independent problem, as gravity is always accelerating things (on Earth) at ~9.81 m/s^2. The problem is more what the drag on the bus is over the course of the flight. However, since I am not in the mood to calculate Reynolds numbers for flying busses, I will assume inviscid air.

    Problem statement: A point particle moving at 70 MPH at some angle must cross a 50 foot gap, and be at the same height when it reaches the other side.

    Given:
    v0 = 70 mph // Initial speed
    x = 50 feet // Distance to travel horizontially

    Assumption: Force-free motion
    Constant gravity ( g = 9.81 m/s^2 )

    Solution:

    v0 = 70 mph = 31.2928 m/s
    x = 50 feet = 15.24 m

    t = Time of flight
    theta = Angle from horizon

    x = v0*t*cos(theta)
    y = v0*sin(theta)*t - g*t^2
    Solve for t t = x/(v0*cos(theta))
    Substitude into y equation
    y = x*v0/v0*sin(theta)/cos(theta) - g*x^2/v0^2/cos(theta)^2
    Set y = 0 and solve
    x*sin(theta)/cos(theta) = g*x^2/v0^2/cos(theta)^2
    sin(theta)*cos(theta) = g*x/v0^2

    g*x/v0^2 = 9.81*15.24/(31.2928)^2 = 0.15267

    sin(theta)*cos(theta) = 0.15267 can be solve graphically. The first valid solution is 8.89 degrees.

    So yes, a bus (with no friction) can cross a 50 feet gap, if the ramp was at an incline greater than 8.89 degrees.

    Yay.

  12. Re:Follow the money by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, a dentist is a great example. A dentist cannot be outsourced to another country - people will always need dental work done, and it will have to be done locally unless long distance travel becomes faster and cheaper than a trip to the local dentist.

    You have a pretty terrible attitude about not-technical occupations, by the way. You need "speculators", brokers, and managers. Speculators are where the investment capital comes from - without them, where do the Googles of the world come from? Brokers are also a necessity - I don't know about you, but I'm not simultaneously an expert in all things. I could not possibly know the ins-and-outs of everything from the grain and pork markets to the local real estate market - I need a broker to make sure that my grocery store is full and that I filled out all the right paperwork for a house. Managers, for as much as they are made fun of on /., are essential. Can you imagine what would happen to an organization without any herders for the sheep? I'm an engineer, and I know that I'd certainly lose sight of the big picture if left to my own devices.

    There is tremendous value in finding inefficiencies in a system and removing them, even if the speculator/broker/manager gets a slice.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  13. Re:I like how people complain about that bus jump. by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    They had to used CGI to edit the landing area shorter, to make it look like it landed closer to the edge than it actually did, because the bus actually jumped farther than it should have. (And they edited out the camera rig it smashed into.) Um, there was no gap. The gap was edited in. In all sources I've found, they even talk about the ramp.

    According to Wikipedia, you don't know what you're talking about:

    Notes

    One of the most famous scenes in the film shows the bus jumping across a gap in an elevated freeway-to-freeway ramp while still under construction. Both sides of the gap are at identical heights, making it impossible that the jump would work in real life. According to the "Making of..." feature that accompanied the DVD release, the stunt used a ramp and really did traverse fifty feet in the air. To handle the sudden jolt on landing, the stunt bus had no passengers aboard and the driver was wearing a shock-absorbing harness.

    The gap in the highway was added through CGI; note the flock of digital seagulls added by the special effects company to enhance the realism of the scene. While the flyover ramp is shown to be essentially all complete and paved, except for the gap, in actual construction that gap in the road deck would have been fixed before the guardrail and asphalt is added. You may also note if you look closely, when the bus is flying over the bridge that is under construction the gap between the two bridges was edited in. And IMDB.com seems to agree:

    The bus jump scene was done twice, as the bus landed too smoothly the first time. The bridge was actually there, but erased digitally. So you seem to have your facts wrong there. Please cite your source, I would find this interesting as I've always heard the above.

    You should really write the authors of that paper though, I think they'd get a kick out of your comments and they'd love to add you as a data point.
    --
    My work here is dung.