Science sways superheroes

Warner Bros.

Batman fires an electromagnetic pulse using an "EMP Blaster," one of the weapons introduced in "The Dark Knight Rises."


Maybe Batman couldn't swoop to safety using his cape as a glider, and maybe psychologists would question his sanity — but even Hollywood's superheroes have to pay some attention to scientific realities.

Striking the right balance between scientific plausibility and dramatic flair is one of the keys to a successful superhero movie, says James Kakalios, who teaches physics at the University of Minnesota and also serves as a consultant for movies such as "The Amazing Spider-Man."

"Hollywood creators appreciate our contributions, for they realize that when the audience is questioning the physics of what they are watching or the authenticity of the laboratory set, that's a moment when they are not paying attention to the story," he wrote in a commentary we published on msnbc.com earlier today.


Here's another angle related to science and technology: Superheroes get extra points on the fan scale if they handle high-tech gadgetry like the EMP Blaster and flying Bat vehicle featured in "The Dark Knight Rises." (We can gloss over the fact that electromagnetic pulses wouldn't be as well-behaved as they appear to be in the movie, or that the kind of propeller-driven Bat shown in the movie is pretty much aerodynamically impossible. And don't get me started on Wayne Enterprises' "clean-energy" fusion reactor.)

Over the past four years, the National Academy of Sciences' Science and Entertainment Exchange has been bringing scientists together with screenwriters, producers and other folks in the entertainment industry to make movies and TV shows more plausible on scientific grounds, if not 100 percent accurate.

Some gaffes slip through — ranging from the constellations in "Titanic" to the distance calculations in "Prometheus" — but the prime directive is to make a connection between real-life science and movie magic. The scientists probably derive more benefit than the filmmakers, because they can use those movies and TV shows as teachable moments. Even the gaffes provide grist for the mental mill.

In an email exchange, Kakalios delved into some of the issues he deals with as an adviser on superhero physics. Here's an edited transcript of the Q&A:

Cosmic Log: Do you find that the spate of superhero movies is sparking scientific studies like the recent one about Batman's cape? Are people more questioning of superpower science because they're seeing more such movies, or have they become inured to the fantasy? Can scientific believability make the difference between a good superhero movie and a bad one? 

James Kakalios: "There certainly have been a lot of superhero movies in the past few years — a Golden Age for Geeks!

"The studios have a vested interest in making sure that the general public is very familiar with these heroes — which opens the door for scientists to leverage this interest and promote real science. David Marshall's article is a good example of using the interest in the new 'Dark Knight Rises' film as a platform to discuss classical mechanics, which typically will not make it into the mainstream press. I also liked the argument from a few years ago which suggested that Superman's powers can be accounted for by a single miracle exception from the laws of nature, involving an ability to manipulate inertia.

"Interestingly enough, Hollywood has been coming to scientists more and more, and early in the scriptwriting process.  They will sometimes use the 'real' science behind the characters as the basis for story lines. The goal is not to make the films 100 percent scientifically accurate, which is beside the point of a fantasy film, but to make it accurate enough that the audience is willing to maintain their suspension of disbelief and become engaged in the story."

University of Minnesota physicist Jim Kakalios talks about the "Decay Rate Algorithm."

Q: You describe the process of translating real science into a "Decay Rate Algorithm" for the latest Spider-Man movie. Are there other aspects of "The Amazing Spider-Man" that you had a hand in enhancing, or at least steering clear of some of the things that strain plausibility?

A: "I discussed with the filmmakers the physics of wall-crawling, at least the way a gecko lizard does it.  I also talked about the fascinating materials science of spider's silk. It's a combination of rigid nanocrystallites for strength, connected by flexible polymers which can stretch, held in a long, fluid-filled channel which uniformly distributes the forces along the length of the webbing.

"Materials scientists would love to be able to mass-produce such webbing, for then we would be able to make lightweight clothing that is stronger than Kevlar. In the past, scientists have crossed a spider's web-making genes with goats, and have raised goats that synthesize spider's silk in their milk. A real-life example of cross-species genetics!"

Q: Are there typical challenges to scientific believability that are associated with specific characters? What would be Spider-Man's scientific Kryptonite?

A: "Spider-Man would have to worry about Teflon surfaces — they would be non-stick for him as well!  Geckos cling to walls through a weak electrostatic force called the Van der Waals attraction. using millions of microscopic fibers in their toes (called setae). Fluctuating charges in these fibers induce oppositely charged fluctuations in the wall. As opposites attract, the fiber is pulled towards the wall. The closer to the wall, the better — which is why the fiber is so small, in order to enhance its surface area-to-volume ratio. The force is very weak, which is why there are millions of fibers to provide sufficient force to hold the gecko up.

"But if the molecules in the walls are such that they resist inducing such fluctuating charges, then the force is inhibited. While artificial gecko tape does stick to Teflon, the van der Waals force is weaker than for other surfaces, and may not be strong enough to hold Spidey up. Whether this is the case or not, it is a great opportunity to discuss real, cutting-edge research in the context of a superhero movie!"

Q: Could you touch on any superpower-like technologies that you've come across in the most recent round of superhero movies?

A: "The first thing I can think of is Captain America's shield, which is a unique alloy of steel and ... Vibranium!  The steel gives it rigidity and strength, and the Vibranium is a made-up mineral in Marvel comics. Found in the African nation of Wakanda, it is extraterrestial in origin, and absorbs all vibrations!

"That makes it the ultimate shock absorber, capable of deflecting even a blow from Thor's hammer, as seen in this summer's 'Avengers' film. The clang we hear when Cap bounces his shield off an opponent thus answers an age-old question in science: What would it sound like if you struck an object which absorbs all vibrations?"

For more insights into superhero science, check out Kakalios' book, "The Physics of Superheroes" — and use your powerful vision to take in the videos and Web links below:

Asap Science delves into the science of "The Amazing Spider-Man."

Physicist Michio Kaku designs a superpower suit on "Sci-Fi Science."

More about superhero science:


Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.

Discuss this post

I've always been a huge Star Trek fan and was skeptical about the JJ Abrams reboot a couple of years ago. I must say that I think he did a wonderful job with the look of the movie and the casting as well as an ingenious plot line, BUT...

the science (which Star Trek has always been fairly true to and actually predicting future technologies) in the story was just awful!

Flying into black holes...

Supernovae that pop out of nowhere...

I really enjoyed the movie, enough to overlook these elements, but hope the sequel can be more true to science-fact.

  • 1 vote
Reply#1 - Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:14 PM EDT

Well Scotty, it's what sells that counts. Once you get them hooked then they can discuss the flaws and alternate possibilities, which draws a new generation into interest in science. The main best point about Star Trek is the optimistic outlook it has concerning the future. Unlike some other series, Trek envisions a better mankind in the future.

  • 2 votes
#1.1 - Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:25 AM EDT

True, but Star Trek has also always been very concerned about getting much of its science correct by consulting with scientists and futureists. This is why the optomistic view of the future that Trek portrays resonates...because the audience (mostly science geeks) can see some potential reality to it.

The show/movies have been so closely aligned with the science-possible that many of today's science-facts were predicted by Star Trek's science-fiction.

And, while I'm not poo-pooing the fiction part, there were some pretty big deviations that JJ Abrams took (supernova threatening to destroy a galaxy and travel through black holes) that are really off the mark for Star Trek.

I hope JJ doesn't continue this path and abandon the strong science foothold that Trek has established.

    #1.2 - Sat Jul 14, 2012 8:37 AM EDT

    They didn't fly into "black holes". They were worm holes that traversed time instead of distance. The supernova did not pop out of nowhere, it came from a star. Granted the star was not in a class that normally supernovas but stranger things have happened.

      #1.3 - Sat Jul 14, 2012 8:50 AM EDT

      Got to agree on the super nova destroying a galaxy. That was LAME beyond all reason.

        #1.4 - Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:50 PM EDT

        @Jonathan Reid-1158169

        They didn't fly into "black holes".

        Not to get too geeky for you Jonathan, but yes, the plot line was that Spock flew into the black hole that was created when the red matter was injected into the supernova and then Nero follows him in.

        This black hole premise appears two more times in the film. Once, when red matter is injected into the drilled hole in Vulcan, which destroys the planet and again at the end of the movie when the red matter collides with Nero's ship. And, to strain the science once again, the Enterprise is able to escape from the pull of the black hole at the end of the film, which could only happen if it was outside of the black hole's event horizon, but the Enterprise was much closer than that.

        As for the supernova, the explanation was simply that it was Romulas' local star the was going to go supernova and that it was "threatening to destroy the entire galaxy". An advanced civilization would have billions of years notice of roughly when their star would go supernova (we know that our star will die as a red giant in about 5 billion years). So, again the science is a bit strained here.

          #1.5 - Sat Jul 14, 2012 7:23 PM EDT
          Reply

          What did Iron Man say to Spider man .... ??

          Don't Bug me ....

          • 1 vote
          Reply#2 - Sat Jul 14, 2012 1:06 AM EDT

          Funny enough you are talking about Star Trek here, because The first series to truly be recognized for its basis in reality was Babylon 5. It was the first future-based Sci-Fi series that was given an award by NASA for following strict guidelines based in known Quantum Mechanics. In other words, things in B5 could really happen. Moreover, all the characters in that show were believable, and even the aliens were human, in their own way. They all had flaws, and in the end, were all somehow greater than the sum of themselves. Now, those, were super heroes...

          • 2 votes
          Reply#3 - Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:02 AM EDT

          I liked B5. Didn't Roddenbury do that one also?

            #3.1 - Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:50 AM EDT

            B5 was done by J. Michael Straczynski and is arguably the best sci-fi series ever. Straczynski tried to sell it to Paramount but they declined. Strangely enough Deep Space 9 came out within the next year. I would have sued...

            • 2 votes
            #3.2 - Sat Jul 14, 2012 9:11 AM EDT

            Not to take anything away from B5, but Trek was made in the 1960's and things like tricorders, communicators, computational power, and transporters were all pure fiction then, but have all been shown to be possible now. In fact, the cell phone is pretty much the Trek communicator and an MRI is like a medical scanning bed.

            • 1 vote
            #3.3 - Sat Jul 14, 2012 7:29 PM EDT

            Mike, the basic idea of a story based around a space station is hardly copyrightable...see Arthur Clarke's 'Islands in Space,' for example.

            • 1 vote
            #3.4 - Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:18 PM EDT
            Reply

            Thank you for such a wonderful article.

            • 1 vote
            Reply#4 - Sat Jul 14, 2012 7:30 AM EDT

            Guys - IT'S A MOVIE! IT'S FANTASY! IT'S NOT A DOCUMENTARY! It's written that way. HS. I can't believe you. I go to the movies to escape, to enjoy the fantasy. I (and a whole lot more people) go to the movies for that same reason. If you can pick out that the wrong constellations are shown in Titantic - good for you, I am happy for you! And like a lot of people who go to the movies, we say "So what?" If I want to learn - I watch the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, National Geographic, etc. The only thing I hope to get from guys like you when you are at the movies is quiet. Keep your mouth shut, enjoy the movie and don't go telling everyone around you about all the "mistakes" you spot. I paid to watch a movie, not to hear you yapping.

            • 1 vote
            Reply#5 - Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:35 AM EDT

            Alan Boyle is a very intelligent man and I enjoy his articles. So, it surprises me that he doesn't get comics. The world that Batman exists in is a parallel world. It is earth, but, it is an earth where the world paid much more attention to science and therefore, have advanced technologically further than we in our world on our earth. Therefore, fusion power exists and the portable, well-behaved EMP gun exists. Also, Mr. Boyle needs to keep in mind that all Batman's technology is bleeding edge in his world.

            • 2 votes
            Reply#6 - Sat Jul 14, 2012 11:56 AM EDT

            Chuck Norris can do all of this stuff. And can anyone possibly make a Star Trek movie that doesn't use time travel as a plot device?

              Reply#7 - Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:08 PM EDT

              Where have you been? 'Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home' is the only other Trek movie using time travel...

              • 1 vote
              #7.1 - Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:21 PM EDT

              Star Trek: Generations - Captain Kirk is brought back from being suspended in time to save the day yet again.

              Star Trek: First Contact - The crew goes back in time to save the launch Zefrem Cochrane's first warp test from the Borg.

              • 1 vote
              #7.2 - Sat Jul 14, 2012 11:00 PM EDT
              Reply

              …the kind of propeller-driven Bat shown in the movie is pretty much aerodynamically impossible…

              Don’t be too sure about that one…

                Reply#8 - Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:41 PM EDT

                love how this was featured in the news LazyCash43.com

                  Reply#9 - Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:27 AM EDT
                  You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                  As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.