Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains The Three-Body Problem

What is the three body problem? Neil deGrasse Tyson and comedian Chuck Nice break down why the three body problem is unsolvable and what makes it mathematically chaotic.
Is the solar system unstable? Find out about Isaac Newton’s worries about the solar system, Pierre-Simon Laplace’s calculus, and perturbation theory. Would a binary star system be chaotic? What about a star system with three suns? Four suns? Five? Learn about the restricted three body problem and how the Jupiter-Earth-Sun system could be chaotic down the line.
Check out our second channel, @StarTalkPlus
Get the NEW StarTalk book, 'To Infinity and Beyond: A Journey of Cosmic Discovery' on Amazon: amzn.to/3PL0NFn
Support us on Patreon: / startalkradio
FOLLOW or SUBSCRIBE to StarTalk:
Twitter: / startalkradio
Facebook: / startalk
Instagram: / startalk
About StarTalk:
Science meets pop culture on StarTalk! Astrophysicist & Hayden Planetarium director Neil deGrasse Tyson, his comic co-hosts, guest celebrities & scientists discuss astronomy, physics, and everything else about life in the universe. Keep Looking Up!
#StarTalk #neildegrassetyson
00:00 - Introduction: The Three-Body Problem
00:31 - The Chaos in Our Solar System
3:29 - Laplace & A New Branch of Calculus
6:21 - Orbiting Two & Three Suns
8:45 - The Restricted Three-Body Problem
10:09 - Chaotic Systems

[@StarTalk]

Are you watching “3 Body Problem” on Netflix?

[@iberianeko]

The books are mind-blowing!

[@Antinoustheartist]

Yes it’s super interesting I would love to see Neil talk about it if he sees the show. Either way I loved this.

[@Bratfalken]

Yes, and I don't think any planet in that position could stay in any goldie lock zone long enough to harbour life, even harder to develope life! PS, I would love to hear the story on the Wallace Primordial soup behind Neil? :)

[@workinperkins]

Yes, but there are two versions of the show. Also, earth is constantly gaining and losing matter, and so are the other planets and stars. To what extent does it affect the orbit?

[@drakewinwest9888]

yeah its great,.

[@davidfulton179]

I don't watch a lot of TV so I didn't know this was going on. A colleague of mine ask me about the three body problem because she's a TV watcher. She wanted me to break it down. But the explanation ended abruptly because she doesn't believe the Earth is a sphere. It saved A LOT of time!

[@PMA65537]

Ask a mathematician the difference between a sphere and a ball.

[@IanM-id8or]

The Earth ISN'T a sphere. It's an oblate spheroid. Ok, I admit, it's more spherical that a soccer ball, but ... ;-)

[@mpp9765]

Hahaha such a plot twist

[@lassekristoffersen5906]

So what...

[@markmd9]

Was the three disk bodies problem too complex for you? 😂

[@willkerslake8820]

Goes perfectly with the saying, "Two's company, three's a crowd".

[@AluminumHaste]

Two's accompany, three's an adult movie

[@Russia-bullies]

The problem=cosmic v. of the love triangle problem.Both are chaotic.

[@hollywooda111]

As we say. Two's Habitable, Three's mass annihilation of your planet and anything living on it.

[@AnglephileSwedenGerman]

So what is four and five then? Nine . 10 points for Uncle joke accomplished

[@AnglephileSwedenGerman]

Then what's four and five? Nine! 10 points for uncle joke now achieved

[@Saybia1]

I can't watch Neil deGrasse Tyson now without thinking about that Key & Peele skit 🤣🤣

[@Has_1990]

Which one is that

[@help4343]

@@Has_1990 There is only one

[@mzc102908]

I f***** Bill bye the science guy You b*****

[@Jaycran22]

@@help4343 no its 3 of them.

[@help4343]

@@Jaycran22 Comedy Central splits it into 3, but it's just 1 sketch

[@moonchile245]

"where is your gravitational allegiance?" with no context is my new fav question to ask people

[@lordgoro]

you sir are enlightened

[@jesusofbullets]

Me, who doesn’t understand the context: “Earth forever!”

[@benioren6120]

Buckminster fuller called love metaphysical gravity

[@zeepack]

@@jesusofbullets You are biased towards the Earth.

[@jesusofbullets]

@@zeepack I guess you could say I’m just really drawn to it.

[@raphlin7]

Isaac Newton solved it in a cave! With a box of apples!

[@mikalkyton846]

Nice reference. Hahaha.

[@gekylafas]

I understood that reference

[@stachu5049]

I read that in that voice lol

[@iP0intNLaugh]

Bro, that was Johnny Appleseed

[@unnamed49]

Tony stark solve that in a cave with a box of scraps..

[@RelativelyBest]

I had a three body problem once. Luckily, I know people who discreetly take care of that sort of thing.

[@Russia-bullies]

As jellyfishes are the only multi-organism animal,you must be 1.😁

[@canonicalcritic]

Nice! So they each earned a coin?

[@plutoniumcore]

Dinner reservation for 3

[@YG-kk4ey]

He knows a guy

[@blueskies5588]

“I’d like to make a dinner reservation”

[@tristantipton3641]

When I took computational physics in university this was one of the coding problems we did. One of our objectives was to see if we could find initial conditions such that a stable orbit could be initially achieved. I honestly had more fun just watching their trajectories though.

[@StreetSoulLover]

Lagrange would be proud!

[@spook57]

I get the impression Neil dgt is looking at the Jupiter interference as if the 3 bodies are on a 2 dimensional plane. Do your computations include 3 dimensional orbits?

[@ademiranda2]

Just casually dropping “when I took computational physics…” gotta be the flex of all flexes.

[@adamodimattia]

Three body problem chaos: US, China and Russia.

[@mrnise1]

"heaven cannot brook two suns nor earth two masters" (Alexander the Great) 😂

[@juanpablosanchezaveleyra6454]

Neil, Rogan and Kanye West.

[@xclent1975]

3 body problem : Biden , Yellen and Gensler taking the USA to a whole new chaos

[@newbornmaple87]

the small animations in between are really helpful

[@mariomikor6330]

Especially the one at 5:16

[@lottalettuce]

Agreed. Not only do they help visualize what Neil is saying, they provide "breaks" like chapters in a long conversation. Definitely should make this a regular feature.

[@BilobateDrip]

​@@mariomikor6330lol

[@cleanthe3276]

They could have use tennis balls or something ;)

[@IsThisThePrizeIveWaitedFor]

Yeah, I had a hard time grasping it until they showed the animations. There’s only so much you can describe with just words

[@PhaseControlDNB]

I love it how Chuck sometimes says "Gotcha" but his face tells you "I don't get it" 😃

[@doricetimko5403]

I feel him

[@RingoAnselmo]

Thats means he is a liar not to be trusted

[@lowestyet]

I think a lot of us do that, just hoping to get back to familiar territory or to hope the next sentence ties it all together

[@larryderaywhitfieldsr3641]

😂😂😂

[@youmongrel]

Just every moment between the beginning of the video and the end. He’s the “yes guy.” I love the dude as an actor and person but I've yet to grasp what he adds to these science talks besides distraction. Maybe Neil just wants an entourage.

[@DominicChase]

I can notice the change to your shows 'format' and really appreciate the sacrifice and humility. The strategy is working. Good job for all those hard conversations. ;)

[@Crystaldegreef]

Every single person who WATCHED 3 Body NEEDS to read the series. Its incredible. Excellent voice actors on Audible. I travel a lot for my job and I was just floored.

[@ameryshawn2295]

Where can i find this ? please :)

[@JustinNDTrollSniper]

​​@@ameryshawn2295she told us, it's on Audible

[@cmonbruh7139]

Audible

[@nickholman3843]

Dat ending doe

[@spidalack]

"i had no need of that hypothesis" Still one of the best burns in history.

[@alexhidell663]

Feux!!!

[@ratchet2505]

I'm keeping this one.

[@tyrone4u559]

Ouch!! 😅 Epic

[@jloiben12]

I am a smidge surprised that Napoleon didn’t say “and I have no need for you”

[@sarcophage]

Bumper sticker material for sure

[@JimmyJr_7]

In June ‘22 I was lucky enough to meet and talk to Neil before a show in London, if anyone is wondering how he is off camera- he is the exact same as this, proper top bloke.

[@MzeeMoja1]

I wasn’t.

[@bastymanguy]

And he talks a lot, blabs a lot, cuts you off when you’re speaking, goes off on tangents and likes hearing his voice. But ya top proper bloke.

[@lord_haven1114]

Ask him what a woman is. You’ll hear all about why they don’t matter and why they don’t need woman only spaces

[@ninagarrett4084]

He’s human guys. He has A LOT going on in his head and he’s probably use to having to talk, A lot and for a long time without other people involved. He can still be a ‘top bloke’ even if he cuts you off.

[@dcterr1]

I saw him lecture here in Vegas just two days ago, and he was excellent!

[@montetanktankkiller700]

Having more views than subscribers after a week shows the quality of this channel.

[@JaredEasterday]

I’ve never seen this channel but man I love watching these two guys talk about the three body problem

[@JustXavier]

"I'm in love with two stars and I don't know what to do. Which way do I turn?" 😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@ddMcDd-yl4td]

I had to scroll back to hear that again, LOL

[@jeffoh5787]

That's such a progressive comment. I'm not showing it to my wife.

[@OneRuthless]

have a groupie

[@sergiomoreno6861]

That's solvable, 3 stars though, there's no solution, so stick with 2

[@Tyler-rc1wu]

Add a third! Then go find a new planet because that’s unsustainable 🤣 spoiler alert

[@bradleybettis6428]

All I heard in my head was Christofer Walken saying, “I need more calculus.” 😂😂

[@BeautifuLakesStreamsBiologists]

post of the day

[@steveangello6586]

Should be top post

[@iananderson3799]

​@@steveangello6586 Yes. So original.

[@AdmiringObserverR]

I'VE GOT A FEVA!

[@marekstanek112]

And Val Kilmer replying "I don't need calculus, Maverick. Because I'm Batman".

[@eigentlichtoll02]

I love Neil for how he also brings up all these side notes while explaining.

[@jackofall2305]

About 18 hogs will get rid of your 3 body problem.

[@DGKREAKT]

How many hours tho? 🤔

[@nealedgel3319]

Chill, brick top

[@hazevt04]

😂 Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. HILARIOUS movie 😂

[@neilharper1858]

Take the teeth out first though right?

[@plamenzlatev1206]

you dummy bruh

[@gregux3169]

Adopting “where is my gravitational allegiance?!?” into my lexicon *immediately*

[@davidhomeroxford]

I’m drawn to this phrase too

[@natebernasconi]

Down with gravity! 😂

[@gustavoviana5508]

I love how Neil LOVES explaining stuff and the other guy (I don't know his name) loves listening and agreeing. They are perfect for each other

[@dadgamertv84]

Chuck Nice

[@MtDuckford]

Chuck Nice is the embodiment and representation of us in that room..

[@Tarodev]

After reading this comment, I appreciate and love their relationship even more

[@jollyrodgers7272]

Like Willie Tyler and Lester.

[@anujyoutube58]

Is the Calculus Stolen from India ? - Dr. C K Raju - #IndicClips 20K views · 4 years ago...more  Centre for Indic Studi

[@TheJayblaze3]

I like this setting,they look very comfortable talking about knowledge

[@jose152171]

I just finished my project involving the 3 body problem, planing a trajectory for each Lagrange point of the earth moon system

[@EnemyOfEldar]

I'm a theoretical physics graduate (experiments scare me! So I value the work of the experimentalists immensely) and my heroes of the craft were the Frenchmen of the 17- and 1800s. Lagrange, Laplace, Fourier, Poisson, Cauchy, Galois and Poincaré. Even Napoleon was a mathematician! Their work is sublime. Nice show case of "the Newton of France (Laplace)"

[@EcomCarl]

Fascinating breakdown of the three-body problem and its implications for understanding our solar system's stability! The blend of historical insights with complex astrophysics beautifully demonstrates how theoretical advancements can unravel cosmic mysteries. 🌌

[@mariusmacas380]

These are my favourite ones ❤ Thank you

[@SoroushTorkian]

Thank you for the B-rolls, they are incredibly helpful for visualizing this, thought I have no idea about the Math behind it.

[@castleanthrax1833]

Those aren't "B-rolls," those are animations.

[@brianguayartist]

Credit to Chuck for listening to Neil saying tug and tugging over and over and not snickering. 😂🎉

[@aja9469]

Perturbation

[@catorilana]

& perturbation

[@carlosalaniz6888]

LOL!

[@IronThreads9]

Depends on your mental age.

[@jenisemcintyre3839]

@@IronThreads9 Agreed! Quite sophomoric.

[@Funkysauce]

I like the animations and graphics to help explain. I wonder if they have used or thought of using Universe Sandbox to do some of the animations.

[@kjmav10135]

I just stumbled upon this, and I have absolutely no idea why this matters to mere mortals, seeing as things seem to remain on course, but I am SO GLAD to know about the three body problem ANYWAY. I’ll be standing the grocery store, completely forgetting the fifth thing on the shopping list I left at home, and I’ll be able to say to myself, “Ah yes! I forgot why I’m here, next to the melons, but at least I remembered the Three Body Problem!!”

[@larrybremer4930]

The predictive model is very sensitive to initial conditions as explained by Neil but also what catches up to you is that averages of forces over a time slice will also have some amount of imprecision and while each time slice will usually cancel out their imprecisions that is not always the case where you get streaks that cause precision to decline and that problem also grows over time as you calculate more and more slices of time where what are basically rounding errors start to skew the predictive results compared to the actual system being modelled.

[@freedomofmusic2112]

So funny, I'm a physics tutor at my local community College. Yesterday my boss asked me, "hey your a physics guy, have you seen 3 body?" I told her I have not, but I'll watch a science video on it. And who better to talk about it than my man, Dr. Tyson ❤

[@darthphilfy]

That's your boy!

[@CarneAsuhDude]

Well than hopefully he knows that it is actually possible. 3 body problem has been solved along with many other number of body.

[@tombrzozowski173]

The liar! Your man? 😂😂😂

[@tripslip38]

Make sense she’d say “your”

[@rickdaniels1789]

You're a physics tutor, and you typed: "hey, your a physics guy...". There's just no hope.

[@benwood655]

Why are there so few people who just want to learn all the facts about life space science etc and then share it like Neil. Your one of the greatest people I know of in my lifetime. Thanks for sharing with us Neil.

[@AngryAmphibian]

It'd be nice if he took the time to learn science and history before he shared it. So much of Neil's material is wrong.

[@mismis3153]

Small correction : there exists an analytical solution in the form of an infinite series, but it converges so slowly that it is impossible to compute at this moment.

[@djt3903]

I have been Patiently and Diligently checking the Star Talk channel every day since I watched 3 Body Problem waiting to hear NDT’s take on it! I’m excited to hear this

[@cardboardbox9977]

Imagine being so smart that you invent a math

[@ugoeze7360]

Or has the math always been there and you were just smart enough to have discovered it? 🤔😳

[@resistanceisfutile520]

what else is there to do with no wifi?

[@andresmolarespalmero100]

😂😂 thank you for that! made my day!

[@boy_peeps]

Calculus was discovered, actually. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@AngryAmphibian]

Newton and Leibniz built on the efforts of Fermat, Kepler, Descartes, Wallis, Barrow, Cavalieri and others. It is more accurate to say calculus was built by many people over many years.

[@JDPott]

You guys strike sparks of awe in my mind & make me laugh out loud. Thank you You have my love and support

[@garykelley9027]

I remember having to do Laplace transforms at University... I suck at maths so hard though and boy was that class a huge struggle.

[@Tordvergar]

Beautifully described. "You can calculate incrementally what's happening," but the system is chaotically dependent on conditions. Also, it's why even with the Sun, Earth, Moon system, Newton was unable to reliably solve the Longitude problem. This gets particularly interesting when resonance is added. Many of the planets (and moons) in our Solar System are in orbits that put them in resonance with each other. That very significantly delays the onset of chaos.

[@sootynukkels8366]

*watched 3 Body Problem....based upon the title alone we started watching this thinking it was gonna be an in depth take on the calculus and any new scientific discoveries...we were wrong in our assumption but still pleasantly surprised...can't wait for the conclusion.

[@duckofdeath3266]

Well, with spoiler alerts... It was all about the problem. The plan "they" had, at least. They just wanted the chaotic minds from Earth to show them how they do maths, to see if they could solve it. Then at some point they realised the chaotic minds will undoubtedly turn hostile, no matter what they did when they arrive. Unfortunately, they were already decades into their one-way trip to meet their trip to meet us chaos maths "geniuses". So, they declared war. Because that is apparently what a non-chaotic mind will do as it doesn't know any other way to respond. Since it is fiction, we ignore all the obvious plot holes along the way. Like, if they can lie about their appearance, why couldn't they lie about their intentions? Still a pretty good story, methinks.

[@okenough2124]

Read the book, you won't be disappointed with the lack of delving into this problem.

[@jgivens637]

Try the Chinese version on peacock! Much more in depth !

[@duckofdeath3266]

@@jgivens637 I've heard the Chinese version is a terrible low budget production with people reading from a teleprompter. 😋

[@kingkonstad]

@@duckofdeath3266 They cant lie about their intentions because of their transparent communications, humans had to teach them about lying but at that point it was already to late.

[@SebastianWeinberg]

This tangentially reminds me of a discussion I once had with a co-worker, who refused to see any difference between _predicting_ an outcome of a process and _simulating_ the process through all intermediary steps until you reach the outcome. As far as he was concerned, those were _the same thing,_ and if simulation was too slow, you just needed a better computer, and voila: you get your answer almost immediately. That's what "predicting" something means, right? I finally was able to illustrate the difference by pointing to an analogue clock on the wall and saying: "What position will the hands be in, tomorrow at 15​:​30? You can answer that _directly_ from being told the time. You didn't need to imagine a clock going through all the minutes between now and then, sequentially, or take a real clock and spin its hands really fast to arrive at the answer. Your knowledge of the rules governing the motion of clock hands allowed you to _predict_ their position at a given time, without referring to, or even thinking about, any intermediary positions."

[@thebuccaneersden]

I think a simpler explanation is that when you stack too many rules, then you end up in a situation where it is too difficult to model with predictive precision because it requires parameters that continuously change, so you never get one single cohesive equation. I generalized the answer, because it applies to so many things in life beyond astronomy. But that's basically it. right?

[@lusvd]

I feel like this cannot be stressed enough: The problem here is that the "solution" is chaotic, it's not that the behaviour cannot be computed/calculated or by all practical means "solved". It's just that there is no NICE solution and that initial values matter a lot. So for instance, you can perfectly numerically simulate the behaviour of the entire solar system to predict the position of each object in like 10000 (or N) years provided you have enough infomation regarding current masses and positions. The system is still deterministic! it's not something like quantum mechanics where we literally can only predict probabilities. UPDATE: Ok, after reading the comments I realize that this being cahotic implies more than just "oh you just need to throw more computation at it". In order to predict the behavior of a chaotic system you need arbitrary precision for *each step of the simulation* and so the errors start compounding. This means that even using the most advanced computers that we could possibly build it wouldn't be enough to accurately predict the movement of bodies! (at least not with 100.00% certainity and of course specially when there are many bodies that influence each others equally) (butterfly effect).

[@Educated2Extinction]

Q: How many currently solvable problems weren't at some point in the past? A: All of them.

[@hoantran8654]

You can't simulate numerically perfectly either. Your time steps can't be infinitely small, error will accumulate and as it is chaotic your solution can change a lot.

[@starfishsystems]

​@@hoantran8654 No. Orbital systems are NOT always intrinsically unstable. Some are, and those particular orbits decay sooner or later, leaving those which are not prone to decay. At the present age of the universe, we don't tend to observe many of these systems, because they've already decayed. We ourselves happen to inhabit a planetary system which has remained stable for several billion years, which is several hundred million orbits on average. If it were inherently unstable, odds are that it would have decayed by now. But instead it happens to be one of those systems which are inherently stable. Mathematically you can think of it as a gradient which is concave up. An unstable system is concave down.

[@DeusExAstra]

As usual, Tyson does a terrible job of answering the question and leaves people more confused than they were before. No, the issue isn't that 3 bodies move chaotically, it's that there is no arithmetic solution to the problem. In other words, there's no equation you can write were you plug in starting values and a time and get out positions and velocities for the 3 bodies. THAT is the 3 body problem, not anything about chaotic movement.

[@alfansosimon4230]

No you can't

[@angeeiselt1507]

Physics Professors and High School Physics teachers take note and learn from Neil and Chuck. Making Science even half this engaging and understandable would create a whole generation of kids passionate about this incredible discipline! Totally love you guys - you have a brilliant chemistry and it’s such a joy to watch you. Who knew that delving into big questions like how our Universe works, what’s our place in the universe and what are the fundamental building blocks of the Universe could be such fun ❤

[@grimmspectrum1547]

Just because something would be fun and exciting does not mean someone is going to learn it because not everybody gets excited about the same things nor do they like the same things. It is like the saying if you love what you do you will never work a day in your life, people who like a subject will learn that subject at a faster rate than those who disliked a subject.

[@enslavingsociety9203]

​@@grimmspectrum1547 I think you missed their point. She's talking about the entery point of a subject. 3d modeling is a good example. So many kids want to make their own game characters and what not. Many even try. But the complexity and the headache of looking for the right content is a huge blocking point. If you find someone like Niel in the field you have interest in. It can bridge that gap and turn an interest into a life long hobby.

[@blkspade23]

@@grimmspectrum1547What they are really saying, is that if the content is delivered in a hopelessly boring manner, you'll lose a far greater percentage of the audience right out the gate. This is especially true with many youths having short attention spans. They end up not being interested from not being engaged by the teacher, as opposed to the subject matter itself. My HS Chem teacher, was boring, went off on tangents off subject and said some borderline racist things. However much Chem he actually taught probably got tuned out by most of the class, myself included. No interest was developed or nurtured, yet other forms of media have made it more interesting in my adult life. I'm a professional computer nerd, that does enjoy learning. A better teacher may have opened my eyes to another pathway. I remember my chem teacher for all the wrongs reasons. Can't recall a single music teacher, and in spite of having limited interest in music as kid I started learning guitar myself as an adult. I'll probably never be a proper musician, but anything I've decided to try and become proficient at is self taught.

[@stevenverrall4527]

These discussions are well beneath the level of 100-level college physics, which I have taught for 21 years.

[@stevenverrall4527]

​@@blkspade23It is extremely difficult to explain complex topics at the high school level. Go too slow and you will bore the future engineers who need to understand the content at a much higher level than does an average person.

[@eolsson]

Question for Chuck: Do you get a backgrounder first on anything discussed on StarTalk, or do you approach each topic cold like most of the audience does? Really enjoyed this one!

[@forecheckbackcheckpaycheck]

dude, I didn't subscribe to this channel way back bc the production quality was so bad, you guys stepped it up! o.O

[@frankmummolo7727]

Brilliant explanation. Love these videos! Never understood this one as an engineering student years ago!

[@kilarcam]

This was great. Loved the way you two go through it together

[@MsRafaelRGO]

will save this video for when i try to get out of a 3 body problem situation...if u know what i mean. 2 bodies is all my mind can handle, it's stable!

[@GrayWolf8472]

Three Body on Prime Video is really good too. It's the Mandarin version with English captions, 30 episodes. 😎

[@SonnyBubba]

I remember trying to tackle this problem in a senior level math class. It was a course on mathematical models, and we all had to pick some problem to present to the class. Someone did traffic analysis for highways, etc. It is so easy to state the problem in English, yet unsolvable. The system ends up taking 18 degrees of freedom (3 objects x 3 dimensions x 2 to count position and velocity) The final week of the semester, the teacher points me to a book that has the definitive mathematical proof that the system is unsolvable.

[@rough5123]

How was you grade?

[@YG-kk4ey]

The number of objects (3) aren't unknown variables, since it's stable. Granted the dimensions can't be precisely determined (the real world is full of imperfections), as well as the rest of the variables.

[@logankennedy7082]

I love your explanation of the three body problem, What I might add though is that the three body problem does have a general solution found by a Finnish mathematician named Sundman in the form of an infinite series, albeit, it only converges after 10^8000000 terms, so it is possible to solve, but not in a closed form nor in a useful way. Thanks for the video Dr. Tyson!

[@jar2nd383]

Love it. Thanks for the explanation!

[@pkelly6618]

With a chaotic system with exactly known starting conditions we can model it forward for a decent period of time - infinitely or until the system dies with perfect inputs. The problem is that our accuracy of measurement isn't all that good, especially for distant stars. Then you have a big star cluster and "Oh no! Inaccurate measurements!" And then the system diverges wildly from prediction because no measurement can be good enough IRL.

[@silmusashi]

Tyson: "Isaac Newton solved it" Chuck : "Okay!" Tyson: "My boy" Chuck" "That's your man" This kind of chemistry in any talk shows always promises you good conversation. Good talk. Congrats

[@rileyhoffman6629]

Thank you thank you thank you. I adore such conversations. Former academic, here, missing these interactions. Gotta embrace the chaos.

[@manualonso7]

Can somebody help me? I remember Neil said this phrase: "don’t try to find reaffirmations to your dogmas but questions to them" something like that, in that direction, but I don’t remember who said that phrase and I wanted to know and read it. I think Neil said it once but can’t remember the source

[@awcuiper1725]

Sounds like the falsification criterion of Karl Popper

[@davelamont]

Who asked the question "What happens if your neighbor's dogma bites you in your affirmation?"

[@jasonkornoely4692]

Waaaay late to the conversation, but a student of mine wondered if the liquid core of earth acts as a reset of Jupiter's brief pull. Kinda like how pool water eventually settles after you jump in.

[@TheLocoUnion]

That was the best three body problem explanation that I’ve ever heard!

[@notsofrankyt]

an explanation of the three body problem from one of our favourite online teacher our personal astrophysicist, thank you Neil 🥰

[@Jmvars]

Not favourite enough to spell his name right, it seems.

[@notsofrankyt]

@@Jmvars i got fidgety fingers, thank you for pointing out fixed now :)

[@jcs1025]

@@Jmvars no need to be caddy.

[@benjaminmountain6064]

Niel is the type of guy to wake up his entire family just to let them know he's going to bed

[@jcs1025]

@@benjaminmountain6064 he definitely has a flair for the dramatic, but he is brilliant and entertaining. It’s how he’s been able to be so successful as an advocate for science.

[@bconroy2]

Is there any similarity between the unsolvable chaos of an unrestricted three body system and the chaos of the atomic structure in quantum physics? Dr Tyson's description made me think of how its difficult to predict the positions of atomic and subatomic particles. I am not a mathematician or an astrologer, just curious.

[@CaptainCourageous27]

Its always a pleasure listening to Dr. Tyson. I just want to request a proper explanation on Time Dilation. I still dont get it. If time is supposed to be relative and constant, how does gravity slow it down? Time is not something Tangible how does it get affected by gravity?

[@derrickbronson3099]

If i had these guys for my high school science class, I’d actually look forward to going to school every day. There would be something else besides just band and lunch to keep me interested 🤷🏽😃

[@dreamingitself]

Chuck Nice. I don't think I've ever been so impressed by a youtube video watching someone listen with such surrender of themselves and such engagement. in the topic. Wondeful.

[@1965ace]

The magnitude of chaos is not linear. No force is is ignored over a great enough time.

[@MH-pz8wf]

Chuck is such an entertaining sidekick for Dr. Tyson. Enjoy the talk very much.

[@s.jordansankofa4165]

For some reason, I can listen to this over and over again. I still don’t know what they are talking about, but I can listen over and over again!

[@SpacePonder]

Not random but unpredictable.

[@mj7335]

You're too intelligent for this bs. If the third objekt is very small you can neglect it? And you have an easy solvable 2 body problem? Also neglect the other planets and their moons. And everything is: Easy peasy. Come on.

[@pauldandrea7012]

Me too! Tyson with his burly charm hooked us into playing Mr. Nice and saying "Yeah yeah." over and over. But I learned a little something about gravity.

[@lunasmokezim1718]

I love when people take the time to educate those of us who struggle to grasp complex topics. Thank you 🙏🏿 🙂

[@dilldowschwagginz2674]

He doesn't know as much as he leads you to believe. I've seen him claim that women and men are biologically the same

[@matts5247]

This isn’t a complex idea conceptually I’m sure he math would be complex but just the idea of it I thought they did a good job explaining in the show so I don’t understand what they’re doing this follow up

[@oggyoggy1299]

You’re welcome.

[@edwardk3]

Yeah he's intelligent. But many a great mind have been subverted by left wing ideology.

[@kallekalinski2934]

Amen

[@jamesbaker8076]

My attitude is that it's a cycle with multiple points of mass that are in equilibrium with eachother.. And forces that are applied beyond only these 4.. That may be not considered, unknown but that certainly play part in this equilibrium But with that said I've not researched any net change that has occurred over time or that is occurring now..

[@FolkalBlueMuse]

Niel- I love the breakdown of the Star Wars two sun problem. Now that brings me to a wonder from childhood. This would be an awesome thought experiment. I’ve always wondered about the Dark Crystals solar system and how UNSTABLE that system seems to be. The planetarium in Ulga’s house and the great conjunction first sparked my interest in looking up at the cosmos. How would three to four stars tug on Thra??? Thanks for sharing.

[@tylermorrison509]

Great seeing you in Vegas this weekend Dr. Neil!!

[@karllisisaac9498]

i'm so happy the questions i have someone in the patreon always asks it

[@eigentlichtoll02]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="457">7:37</a> Neil is also quite precise with his wording

[@mrskeltal931]

So the problem is that tiny changes to initial conditions lead to very large changes in outcome, correct? So in theory, if we had a perfectly accurate set of initial conditions for a 3 body system we would be able to accurately calculate its state at any point in time?

[@PatDeaths]

Perfect visuals to help my simple mind understand, thank you!

[@ricardoniebla]

Guys,the new intro is lovely!

[@EricMesa]

I've heard Chuck Nice a million times on the podcast. First time seeing him!

[@titusdaniel]

My followup question would be regarding the Star Wars example. Would it really be a stable system to have two suns orbiting each other in the first place? What would prevent them from absorbing one another?

[@naDu4653]

I Binge watched it, it was great. I was excited to see this Star Talk on the 3 body problem.

[@HarelAvital]

star talk is a gift from god

[@dragoda]

Read the books.

[@ShineM-ho2ff]

Books are better​@@dragoda

[@justmeva]

Mr Tyson are one of the few persons on this planet that explains the "Three-Body Problem" so that anyone (like no other) can and will understand it's complexity. Very well spoken.

[@sc0rch3d]

He's been able to bring astrophysics and quantum mechanics to the masses. Just like the folks on numberphile, we need more of them.

[@anotherlover6954]

Shows you what you can achieve in life without a PhD.

[@gamekiller0123]

I think he missed an essential part. Why chaos (high sensitivity to initial conditions) means we cannot predict the evolution of a system over a long enough time frame. There are two reasons, one requires explaining the imprecision of numerical methods, so I understand that he didn't so this one. The other is because of imprecision in measurement and because we're not taking everything into account, which I find very intuitive.

[@gamekiller0123]

​@@anotherlover6954What are you talking about? Neil deGrasse Tyson got his PhD in 1991. Most of the speakers on numberphile also have PhDs. That doesn't mean that you need a PhD to achieve things, but they don't exactly provide evidence to the contrary.

[@edwardk3]

I honestly thought he was acting slightly chauvinistic

[@adamkamulika2074]

I tweeted and threaded about this moment😂. Now I get to watch. Finally Neil! Finally

[@cheesburgr]

Thank you I was sure it was a real thing rather than a TV show but I wasn't thrilled at the idea of googling it and getting TV results

[@sketcher2459]

One of the most common approaches to solving the three-body problem is numerical integration, where the equations of motion for the three bodies are solved numerically using techniques such as the Runge-Kutta method or adaptive step-size methods. While computationally intensive, this approach allows for accurate predictions over short to moderate time scales.

[@ArneChristianRosenfeldt]

So this is how spacecrafts navigate. 2 years to Mars. Moderate time scale.

[@JeffLearman]

In cases like this, "solution" means "an algebraic function that gives the future state given the current state and length of time." When you have such a function, you can do a LOT more kinds of analyses than you can when you have to run an iterative simulation. This was especially true before we had computers. A function that doesn't need to be simulated isn't chaotic. That is, if something is chaotic, you can't produce such a function. The element of chaos is what makes it impossible. (In certain cases, provably impossible. I don't know whether the 3-body problem is provably chaotic. You can prove a system is chaotic if you can prove that the term rises exponentially with time.)

[@lenroddis5933]

I've not come across Rung-Kutta for 50 years when it came up in my Institute of Actuaries mathematics exam. Write an Algol 60 program to solve a 4th order differential equation using a Rung-Kutta method.

[@JeffLearman]

I think I posted this in the wrong place! :doh:

[@lolilollolilol7773]

@@ArneChristianRosenfeldt yes, but it's the restricted 2 or 3 body problem here, so numerical computations aren't so chaotic.

[@The_Bailey_show]

Neil deGrasse Tyson feels like that really fun uncle who is always a pleasure to be around & always keeps you thinking 🔥

[@American-Idiot-Charlie-Brown]

Until you ask him what "gender" means then you're TRAPPED 😅

[@hajamohideen372]

Neil your sidekick is annoying man.He is unintelligent guy. Neil please get rid of him. We are here to listen to you man. Your sidekick is a dumb annoying guy. Sorry.

[@ASGT7]

You can't be serious

[@American-Idiot-Charlie-Brown]

Neil has a nice salary

[@DmitriKoslov1]

I'm not nearly as smart or educated, but I try to be that dad... Minus letting my 4 year old throw eggs on the floor, I don't care what experiment that is, he can figure it out with other items that don't make such a mess...

[@isacEricDerrick-li8bp]

Great production, great illustrations💫

[@Jack_Callcott_AU]

NdGT did a good job here. This was a perfectly clear and simple explanation, which is also accurate. Thanks mate! 🤠

[@bilalshah9480]

How come a million people watched this in a day. i follow this channel from years, it used to be round about 50k or 100k at max. Never thought people will get that curious about it. Amazing. A very good sign.

[@namrepusprime6793]

Netflix.

[@reabsorb6775]

the new show on netflix that's gaining a lot of popularity .

[@veenasudheer8532]

It's because of netflix show which became so popular recently called 3 body problem.

[@philsowers]

After the US UFO announcements the book by Liu Cixin rose in popularity. It's a dark forest story that's been adapted into a Chinese TV series & re-adapted by Netflix in the US this year.

[@andyalam5074]

For every like I’ll study for 1.1 hrs 😂

[@Ordblind-art.dk-bongo]

You won’t do it..

[@UditAsopa]

Looks chaotic to me 😂

[@khoahthong4434]

Liar will be single forever

[@BSworldX]

I'll do it for him 💪

[@darylgaban6873]

Stop at 69

[@ancient_history]

How does one submit a question with chance to be aswered in an episode? Is it Patreon based or here on YT?

[@grantgre]

One starts out with very solid equations of motion for a pair of bodies right? Then you add one body more and the calculation becomes indeterminate which kind of goes against your intuition right because there's nothing nebulous about the equations of motion. Is there some deeper mathematical theory or theorem regarding this particular process going from order to chaos?

[@freedomofmusic2112]

I love the animations on this!

[@blacklanner5886]

So if you study hard enough and devote yourself to completely understanding the subject, you can become a Master Perturbation Theorist.

[@Zilla12]

Yup, and you could talk about the small tugs and their impact.

[@kulgydudemanyo]

Can I get my master's in perturbation? Here I've just been doing it ad hoc. I didn't know i could get educated in it.

[@edwardk3]

This thread has chauvinistic overtones

[@damiangrouse4564]

And then you can display you master perturbation prowess on a zoom business meeting

[@Fyre0]

Master perturbator

[@JoseMoreira-vo8cu]

You are making a heck of an argument for bringing back Space 1999!

[@espion4]

Great explanation guys. Is this just theorical or has it been observed somewhere in our solar system?

[@Cactusjugglertm]

Finally a good explanation that is easy to understand! Been having a major issue explaining this to people, and this helps alot

[@dianagross8784]

Neil has the best shirts...love this one. Looks good on him

[@quill444]

_"Looks Good on You Though"_ kzbin.info/www/bejne/e4GmYX6kZZiCqM0

[@user-tm8jt2py3d]

looks like he's gonna eat some pepperoni then ask Trevor and Corey for some smokes, lets go

[@jtnoodle]

He's a cosmic boogaloo boy

[@mstyle2006]

He looks like a famous star!

[@freedomofmusic2112]

The Dr. Tyson drip

[@asktoseducemiss434]

Immediately incorporating "where is my gravitational allegiance?!?" into my vocabulary

[@artmanrom]

Unfortunately, that series will not have a season 2 or 3 because it would be too expensive.