Science of Three Body Problem: Do Trisolaran-Like Systems Actually Exist?

[@arconreef]

Alpha Centauri was the only option, because the author needed the aliens to be able to plausibly travel to Earth (there is no FTL travel in the 3 Body Problem books). Even coming from the nearest star system, it still takes them over 400 years to arrive.

[@kingbearslug97]

They make an FTL ship in the third book with a curvature propulsion engine. Other aliens have similar ships that make the “death lines”

[@fullsendcirca9255]

That’s why they used the Sophon which apparently uses quantum entanglement to travel to Earth instantly.

[@100brokensticks]

@@fullsendcirca9255 The sophons still took 4 years to travel to earth, they could just communicate back and forth instantly once they arrived due to entanglement.

[@TomFranklinX]

@@kingbearslug97 The curvature engine is lightspeed, not FTL. Time passes more slowly for ships using the engine the so the subjective travel time feels like FTL.

[@kingbearslug97]

@@TomFranklinX that’s right, good memory lol

[@sardarbekomurbekov1030]

Real Science of three body problem is as much outstanding and intriguing as the science fiction story. Amazing. Thank you Anton.

[@denysvlasenko1865]

It is not intriguing. If the system is "hierarchical" (two bodies are much closer than the third) it is stable. Otherwise, it is chaotic and with overwhelming probability will expel one of the bodies after a close encounter. The fact that there is no analytical solution for predicting 3-body positions in the future is not a real obstacle, with numerical integration it's possible to predict them accurately for millions of years. (The "analytical solution" is not practically better than this unless you know the initial conditions like mass and velocities to very high precision).

[@daveyjones8969]

The real 3 body problem can be demonstrated with a simple double pendulum. It's not super complex.

[@Nick-zp8wk]

People get too hung up on the science of the Trisolaran homeworld. Its just a vehicle to get us to the more interesting stuff about humanity reacting to knowing an invasion is coming that none of them will be around by the time it arrives, the locking down of fundamental physics research, and the Dark Forest theory. That's the real meat of the trilogy.

[@daveyjones8969]

@@Nick-zp8wk There are a million REAL ways that a species might need to leave its system, so out of all that choice, why the unrealistic one?

[@Nick-zp8wk]

@@daveyjones8969 Oh I agree it wasn't the best option. I just don't think it really matters too much in the grand scheme of the trilogy overall.

[@sixeses]

Thanks Anton and also thanks for your Eclipse coverage.

[@kennethbrumwell5981]

Thanks to the guy that gifted memberships, now I can watch more.

[@burnburn645]

the thing it popped

[@nicolasolton]

??

[@wizarddragon]

@@jayblack8132 He had a livestream for the eclipse and I suppose someone gifted memberships during that stream.

[@ticketforlife2103]

Can I get one to fight the Trisolanians?

[@daveyjones8969]

Where is this "Guy", and how do I annoy him into giving me one too? Lol.

[@flakdampler11]

Small correction, in the book a character who is basically a math savant finds hundreds of solutions IIRC. I think the aliens solved it also but basically figured out their planet would eventually get destroyed by one of the suns, so they had to leave

[@M3TR01D58]

Yes I believe so too. Another factor to point out is that the Trisolarians would dehydrate themselves from time to time in order to survive the harsh conditions right? This would allow their civilization to save and continue their knowledge/technology. They weren’t completely wiped out constantly…

[@Deletirium]

I love this channel... he explains complex things in such easily understandable ways.

[@CaseyW491]

I faithfully rely on Anton everyday to be my personal current science tutor. Edit: The animated recent 3BP solutions are an awesome visual

[@benthere8051]

Me too!

[@firstlast6796]

My head-cannon is that, like you say, it's not a proper "three body" system, but a binary being orbited by a third in a very long elliptical orbit. The system was MOSTLY stable and could evolve complex life, but every so often, on account of the gravitational influence of the returning long-orbit third star, there would be climate change, increased earthquakes, extreme tides, ect.

[@loturzelrestaurant]

Dumb Sci-Fi is Worst-Sci-Fi. By nature of the very Thing. Mass-Nudity-Cringe ignored: Wtf is with these massive Contradictions? The Sophons can be only at 2 Places BUTTT it can affect 8 billion people, cause thats what the "Sky is blinking" was, riiighttt? And its a Dark-Forrest exceeeppttt no, it's not, the Aliens wanted to co-exist UNTIL; and this is hilariious beyond hilarious; that one Cult-Leader read them Fairy-Talls without saiyng a Word about what a Fairy Tale is, soooo i guess he literally just once day started reading them, which is not how any Human behaves, but ok. So then he revealed accidentally humans cna lie aaaand thats possibly the single dumbest scene i have seen in Decades and i really watch a lot of Media

[@allankang7374]

You just described our binary solar system...allegedly.

[@matthewe3813]

I kind of think of it as the system is a binary, and one day a third star just wandered in, after advanced life already developed, killing most of it, but the intelligent life and some more hardy stuff could survive. It turned it into a 3 body, only to last a few million years, but the life there cant predict any of it

[@Chazinthius]

Uh. Then they would have solved their 3 body problem. Aka “there would be no book or show”

[@firstlast6796]

​@@Chazinthius Yes. You are correct. My fun little fan idea that keeps the main concept of the show intact while making it more scientifically plausible is dumb and ruins the show, somehow. It's obvious to me now. Thanks.

[@normansearle4997]

Anton and Becky provide some of the best current science I have seen on the internet to this point. I don't expect it to change soon.

[@garysimon7765]

Ellie following Space X is great also.

[@daveyjones8969]

I find Becky treats people with kid gloves/treats them like they're dumb. I can't put my finger on it exactly, but I'm not a fan. Veritasium is usually pretty good...except his recent sword video. Ouch.

[@GinabasX]

check out Sabine Hossenfelder

[@AgentLeon]

Don't forget our healthy realist Sabine!

[@primordial6966]

@@AgentLeon aka the most ignorant physicist on this platform when it comes to any topic outside of her field of study. But that is of course a story for another time.

[@BachataKnight]

Tatooine Planets, cool to learn that today 😀 Hope you got some rest after the 3AM livestream! We watched almost all of it on our drive to our spot in the path of totality

[@BrianFedirko]

horah for Anton and that stream. I enjoyed it and the crowd felt like family too. Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love

[@KashFul-w5z]

This is one of the most informative and analytical description of the three body problem so far. An excellent episode on this topic.

[@SS-hz4jo]

I love this channel! You helped me avoid spoilers and gave me the info I wanted. Thank you.

[@ivanelrino]

One of your best videos yet, Anton!

[@Telmer]

Your Smile at the end made my day, thanks for the video!

[@KraussEMUS1]

Thanks, Anton, for such a brilliant video! On my channel are a series of lightweight ion thrusters. They are the first to fly with their power supplies against Earth's gravity. This video made me think a lot about how complex and interesting particle and planet interactions can get.

[@jimcurtis9052]

Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. 😎👍

[@ReginaJune]

9:45 what a delightful screen saver slideshow! It’s like single line drawing kaleidoscope 😊🍭🌈

[@nunyabisnass1141]

Im halfway through rhe second book (dark forest) and i already know how it goes (generally) thanks to quinns ideas. So far im loving it and im not a big reader.

[@matheussanthiago9685]

Quinn is the only person from whom getting a spoiler only makes me want to read the story more

[@philiphumphrey1548]

I'd stay with it. The third (Death's End) is the most disturbing of all.

[@daveyjones8969]

I was called racist on his channel for pointing out every single important or significant character was Chinese...in a story about all of earth...over hundreds of years. Also basically making up a fictional China that's *actually* highly advanced, and not a facade. I could've gotten over that, at least. Any thoughts here?

[@snek4prez497]

​@@daveyjones8969I mean, it's a Chinese book written by a Chinese writer, doesnt seem too weird to have the important characters be Chinese as well? I feel like thats usually just what writers do.

[@daveyjones8969]

@@snek4prez497 It's not what a good writer does when the whole world is involved. Anyone with half a brain knows all the smartest people DON'T come from one place. Are YOU racist?

[@DavidVeal]

I did start watching the show. This is better than the show, as I stopped watching early, but this I made it all the way through and can't wait to learn more.

[@thomasjones4570]

The Netflix version trashed the story and left out the brilliance of the novels. The Chinese show from 2 years ago managed to stick fairly close to the books and was outstanding though the subtitles could have used a better translator who just went with a straight translation and some ideas/thoughts were lost. Still a great watch.

[@KT-xd9yt]

I have 3 more episodes to watch of this series. So excited you are covering it

[@nicolasolton]

Book is better.

[@slyn4ice]

Don't bother reading the book. Complete trash written by someone who knows nothing about writing. The most boring, monologue ridden, dry, unsympathetic character book I've ever read in my life.

[@dinoblaster736]

@@slyn4ice the books aren't character driven its about humanity and alien sociology as a whole but Cleary you couldn't understand that

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

As I've seen many times, whenever a book is translated between languages which I know, too much gets lost. The translation is always a disapointment. So, for this: if anybody doesn't like the Trisol books, it is clearly his own stupidity, for being too arrogant to learn Chinese prior to picking up the books. 🚀🏴‍☠️🎸

[@franzfrikadelli6074]

@@slyn4ice butt hurt because you didnt understand it?

[@radar536]

Anton, you are very good! Nice job- All the best for you and your family!

[@gollumei]

Far more insightful, engaging, entertaining than the tv-series.

[@thomasjones4570]

Check out the Chinese show from 2 years ago. It was brilliant, kept to the actual novels.

[@lucasgotham7584]

Thank you! I have been scouring KZbin trying to explore this very question but instead finding only a couple shorts available.

[@woodlanditguy2951]

For the 3 body problem (the show) what if the planet the aliens came from was originally stable, but the star system got intertwined into an N body situation after life had formed on the planet. Stars are always moving, N body problems can happen over a long enough time period with billions of starts traveling around in the galaxy.

[@jemborg]

Good point.

[@TheBadoctopus]

Yes, it could start by stably orbiting Alpha Centauri A&B, with the Trisolarians/San-Ti evolving so far but with significant environmental variation due to the differences in those stars. Then proxima comes along after a few thousand orbits and destabilises their planet, so now it orbits chaotically. They say (in the series, haven't read the books) that ultimately their planet will be destroyed, so I assume they know its fate is to get too close a star for their survival.

[@woodlanditguy2951]

@@TheBadoctopus Proxima orbits the 2 other stars in the Centauri system about once every 550,000 year. your theory is plausible that a planet could have orbited The inner 2 stars in a sort of stable pattern but Proxima came along and destabilized everything. The VR game they played in the show told us a lot of the theories they had about their own system. It seemed the San-Ti didn't really know what happened to their planet at first but had to figure it out as their culture developed. Once they understood that their planet was doomed due to the orbital dynamics they found themselves in, It appears they focused all their collective might to developing their tech in order to escape their planet. I assume this is why they don't have FTL tech. Not that it isn't possible, they just didn't have enough time to properly develop it, or lacked the correct elements to make it in the first place. They do appear to have a firm grasp of Quantum entanglement and one would think that is a step towards FTL. Perhaps this is why they are trying to hinder Human tech. maybe we have the ability to build FTL and they don't due to a lack of resources. We have gas giants, a single, stable star, numerous celestial rocky planets, asteroid fields, hundreds of moons within our solar system... But one has to ask, if they have the ability to build thousands of ships and send them our way, why not harvest their planet (since it is going to be destroyed anyways) and build O'neal cylinders or massive space stations. Something tells me there is more to the San-Ti than we are being lead to believe.

[@milanstevic8424]

@@woodlanditguy2951 Harvesting planets and making O'Neal cylinders is not really within reach for Type 1 civilizations. It is an algorithmic problem, there is nothing extraordinary about it, but simply takes too much time. In my opinion, a civilization must be somewhere in between Type 2 and 3 to be able to efficiently harvest planets and build megastructures, it's not just about the technology, it's about the numbers and scalability, in short the economy and the logistics of it. I mean, here's an analogy of the scales involved, imagine couple of trillions of independent simple organisms (living in the ocean for example) striving to evolve into a planetary civilization of complex organisms capable of space flight, it's doable but takes couple of billions of years.

[@KenFullman]

N body systems only last about 50 million years. Meanwhile, the galaxy asks "Am I some kind of joke?"

[@tehphoebus]

Thank you for making this video. It will be great to have on hand so I can forward it to others rather than failing to explain it as well and with as much tact as you have.

[@joemono4727]

From Quinns channel to hear ... Didn't expect three body problems to stretch out on my KZbin subscriptions. Neat

[@kevin11humor]

Watching how stars move at accelerated rates in these predictive models like this is so cool! I've always loved it just imagine some of those HUGE suns wizzing by eachother at thousands of miles per second. But at scale it seems like such a slow thing, and all that power they hold is just incredible. Stars are great i love it!

[@heartthrobheart6288]

I didn’t know about this possible solution of 3 body problem theory till I watched the show. Thanks

[@arkdark5554]

The book is, actually no shorter than a masterpiece, really. Constant and relentless imagination there, throughout.

[@raimundasm]

I really enjoyed the book series. Both in terms of story and hard science fiction assumptions. 1st book is a mystery surrounding three body problem. 2nd book "The dark forest" suggest the possible solution for Fermi paradox. And 3rd "Death's end" tries to answer fundamental questions about cosmology, like the speed of light, why we live in 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time, what is the nature of dark matter, and what is the ultimate fate of the universe and what role life plays in all of it.

[@MrOvipare]

Sounds like I should skip the books 😅 As a physicist I like my science fiction when it accepts that it’s FICTION (and it’s not packing in as many scientific buzzwords as possible).

[@raimundasm]

@@MrOvipare Don't get me wrong it's still a FICTION . And it nicely blends science facts with fiction. But it's more grounded compared to some science fantasy like Star wars or Dune.

[@nnk_ll2]

​@@MrOvipare you'll miss out on a great read because of preconceptions, but it's your call

[@MrOvipare]

@@nnk_ll2 i don’t think i’m the target audience to be honest.

[@nnk_ll2]

@MrOvipare that's fair, though if you like Sci fi you probably can't find a better one written recently

[@epiccurious3536]

When Sci Fact is ahead of Sci Fi it's time to buckle in and get ready for a wild ride. At our current rate of progress we're probably going to learn more about the universe in the next 10-20 yrs than mankind has collectively learned in all of human history. Let's do this!

[@Stringsmith]

The books talk about "Stable eras" versus "Chaotic Eras". Some readers get the sense that development occurs during Stable Eras, and evolution has adapted life to survive the Chaotic eras by dehydration. The Chaotic Eras temporarily shut down civilization which would allow a species like Humanity to catch up and pass Trisolaran technology, and they don't want humanity to have a technological advantage. (spoiler) That's why we were toast.

[@BlueRidgeBubble]

Really they could have just contained us forever with the Sophon until they had the tech to terraform or something

[@johnfairhall6480]

@@BlueRidgeBubble If they could survive in their 3 body planet, Surviving on Mars would probably be a doddle.

[@stylesrj]

@@johnfairhall6480 Yeah but Mars doesn't have infrastructure they can steal :P

[@antred11]

@@johnfairhall6480 They could just build Bernal Spheres, O'Neill cylinders, etc. and park them in some other nearby system. There is absolutely no need to go and conquer some other planet.

[@Ben-Ken]

​@@antred11you might think there's no need to conquer Earth when they could live anywhere else in the solar system with their technology but apply that to human behavior over the millennia. There's ALWAYS someone getting conquered. Competition and greed may just be universal.

[@desertmaker]

Love your videos mate

[@Astras-Stargate]

Fantastic video, Anton!

[@StuftBanana]

Thanks so much Anton!!! While watching the series, I thought: “these guys need Anton to figure it out for them, I bet he knows the solution.” 😬 *Wonderful to know the 3-body problem isn’t much of a problem. 😁🥂🖖🏼

[@costrio]

Science fiction stories have been known to "fudge the science" in order to tell a good tale, I think. When we watch a fictional movie, we seem to suspend belief, to a degree, I think, as we overlook the subtleties and let the story flow. It's like watching professional wrestling, and knowing it's no longer "kayfabe" and so we enjoy the show and storylines as we suspend belief, I think. That's why we like to dive into storylines and forget about our own storylines, perhaps? ;)

[@keithprice1950]

Kayfabe?

[@txorimorea3869]

It could work in this way: A civilization arises in a stable system and knows an approaching star will turn their system into 3-body for a few million years. They can't move out because their planet is a water world, but they can modify themselves genetically to survive until the planet is dry enough to develop space travel technology.

[@sparking023]

Most people don't have the knowledge to look at the science fudge and tell it's not how it works in reality. I like to call it techno babble, something that sounds scientific, but isn't very conforming to IRL

[@thomasjones4570]

The novels are heralded for taking actual science and creating a fictional tale based on them. The Chinese show from 2 years ago came close to the books while Netflix's version totally trashed it and left out the brilliance.

[@peterg76yt]

An interesting way that the science of The Three Body Problem is that rather than changing one law of nature or adding one new technological breakthrough, part of the premise of the story is that all scientific discovery on Earth has been manipulated by outside forces. Hard to see how that could affect mathematics, but it could be that all of our astronomical observations are being misunderstood.

[@Audunforgard]

Agreed. They still insist on calliung comets "dirty snowballs" yet no snow or ice hasd ever been found on them, they are just charred black rocks, with no water coming off it (because there is no water on these comets, yet that is still the story we arte being fed

[@OkieJammer2736]

Really interesting. Thank you!

[@DasJengo]

I remember reading Perry Rhodan, when I was a kid. It's a huge science fiction series, written quite some time ago, probably not up to modern standards anymore. Anyways, in that series, humanity encounters other species and one of them is so advanced that they managed to alter the orbit of some planets in their home system. So they have 3 habitable planets orbit their star on exactly the same orbit with 120° distance to each other. I found that idea really cool. I wonder if that would be a possible special solution for a 3-body problem.

[@artor9175]

I don't know about 120 degrees, but if you had 6 bodies 60 degrees apart, they would all be parked in each other's LaGrange points.

[@PaulDormody]

The 3 body problem is when 3 or more equally massive bodies orbit one another, if they circle another object like a star, then its a stable system.

[@j.f.christ8421]

In Larry Niven's Ringworld, the Puppeteers arranged 5 planets into a ring (72° apart). I think they cheated by having engines to keep the orbits stable. Anyway, they needed the engines to escape the core explosion (it's a long story).

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

Cixin Liu made another book, which has been filmed in China, where our Sun dies. We equip the Earth with several thousand fusion engines and the planet starts wandering the cosmos. Of course everything must move underground. The IceAge was nothing, compared .... 🚀🏴‍☠️🎸

[@Dilbert-o5k]

​@@j.f.christ8421 another fantastic book

[@sporospor]

Science loves you Anton!!!

[@biggdaddymiller]

You definitely are getting your numbers up!

[@oubliette862]

this is unrelated, but I made a point to pay attention to the animals during the eclipse. nothing changed regarding their behavior that I noticed. the birds kept singing the rabbits were out, all was normal may with one exception. there seemed to be a lot of dog barking for a bit. the shadow didn't pass over my area directly though, so, it didn't get dark, only dim, and there were a lot of clouds annoyingly.

[@andrewbrady3139]

That’s why relationships are two people. You add a third to the mix and all hell breaks loose.

[@amciuam157]

I thought about the same. Nature

[@orbismworldbuilding8428]

By that logic, human friend groups should always be pairs too. Polyamorous relationships don't work using the same dynamics and requirements as monogamous ones unless you organize into a harem/reverse-harem

[@icipher6730]

@@orbismworldbuilding8428 > By that logic, human friend groups should always be pairs too. That's some pretty flawed logic. Friendship and romance are two very different types of relationships for the vast majority. Also, people absolutely can have non-monogamous relationships while not forming polycules and stuff. IMO polyamory as it is understood and viewed in modern Western capitalist societies is mostly a band-aid solution to a set of global societal problems, and, frankly speaking, it will always remain a fantasy for the absolute vast majority of people simply because you have to consider not just the romance (the nice part), but the logistics of a whole thing with a bunch of material conditions in such a relationship to consider (the not-so-nice part), which becomes a whole lot more complicated and convoluted.

[@icipher6730]

@@amciuam157 Nature? More like essentialism. Trying to explain away sociological phenomena via math/hard sciences and poorly thought out analogies like "um, you see, it's just like with the nature, because the system becomes chaotic and unstable if it has more than two bodies in it" is simply low quality science/pseudoscience.

[@jcrtx68]

In unstable 3 body systems, how do they end? Is it always by ejection of one of the bodies, or can they also end in collision?

[@John-wd5cb]

Sirius is a 3 body system and occasionally the third sun's orbit reaches sol. Nah just kidding 😝

[@Maximo10101]

It depends on the initial conditions (velocity, mass etc) but it's possible although hard to actually collide objects of similar mass as the gravitational force generally sling shots and ejects a third object while two either ejects one or stabilises around the centre of mass of the system, with a larger star and smaller ones it's more common for collision/ mergers to occur

[@Djynni]

Very interesting topic, thank you.

[@FinGeek4now]

I'm glad you mentioned the part about star mergers since at the Trisolarian technology level and likely Kardashev level, they would have the technology and capability to modify the layout of their solar system (it's pretty easy and not exactly a technological marvel as long as you have the materials to build the solar engines). Not only that, but let's say that they don't have the materials in their system, they should have had the technological capability to terraform any planet in a stable solar system for at least tens of thousands of years - especially considering that they are extremephobes.

[@MCsCreations]

Fascinating stuff indeed. I'm happy Tatooine had only 2 stars...

[@mr2seis388]

Glad you guys are ok in Tatooine. Friend from earth

[@Starrypaws64]

U would not survive a day in trisolaris 😂😂

[@MCsCreations]

@@Starrypaws64 I can't argue with that.

[@nikkij9901]

The Chinese (subtitles) series was much better than the recent English version, followed the books, and took the time to develop both characters and plot. Highly recommended!

[@randallpetersen9164]

YES! Just more plausible, better acted and written all around. I tell friends to just skip the Netflix version, especially if they're SF fans.

[@thomasjones4570]

Agreed 100%. That show stuck closer to the books and actually managed to capture more of its brilliance. I knew the Netflix version was going to end up being crap when I heard who was making it...the same two twats that train-wrecked Game of Thrones.

[@Juice-chan]

@@thomasjones4570 hollywood has a nasty habit of taking beloved things and adding their shitty twist on it. Robbing the IPs of their brilliance.

[@mikal]

You should make a video addressing Asimov's "6 star" system from his story "Nightfall". He claims that there are always at least 2 stars (If I recall correctly) in the sky everywhere on the planet, and night only occurs once every 2049 years.

[@TevoRobots-drSky]

A great topic, nicely done, thank you. TS

[@wacomundo9599]

I really want a Anton Peteov video… Oh look, a video by AP on a topic of my favorite fiction series.

[@Faustobellissimo]

Who else is still thinking about the frozen severed head floating in space forever?

[@llahneb10]

If you play the drinking game where you take a shot every time Anton utters the words “and so hello wonderful…”, you will get only one shot per episode

[@LearndingLife]

Almost feels like a half life of an element the way you are describing it, it's really cool! Thanks for sharing!

[@fazilmuhayat8035]

thank you for making this video!

[@fungushoney9958]

There is actually an expalnation for this in the book! their species evolves at a very rapid pace, and in fact they haven't just emerged with sentient inquiring minds and specially adapted bodies one time since the formation of the system, but dozens of times after dozens of extinction events. Such superjacked evolutionary skills would certainly aid their siege of Earth, it seems they'd fit right in in no time.

[@MediaFaust]

Is the common "quark configuration" a three body problem?

[@axle.student]

Legit question :) As a hint all that I can suggest is "No Gravity, no problem".

[@ethansedai870]

From my understanding, not really. My best guess is that they're not really in "orbit" around each other, they're in contact with each other. It's probably similar to how if you put three stars close enough that all three are touching, they'd just fall into each other after a little bit. Another reason why it might not behave as a 3 body problem is that, the quarks are small enough that they behave like waves, which probably has a pretty big effect on how they behave.

[@PADARM]

Basically these systems are so unstable that they do not exist in the universe.

[@3D_Creations_UK]

Interesting and educational. Taking kiper belts into consideration and planetary masses thatform in the birth of every star. The math becomes impossibly awkward 😮. Great video ⭐🌟⭐

[@longjones]

The San Ti would get ejected from the system and become a rogue planet. "And that's all'" - she wrote.

[@BarderBetterFasterStronger]

I think the plot holes start well before that. San Ti don't exist because the planet never had conditions for life. But before that the planet never came to orbit a three star system because it never formed in the first place 😅

[@longjones]

@@BarderBetterFasterStronger it's unlikely for a planet to form in such a system. But you could claim that either single star with a planet joined a binary star. Or a rogue planet got caught in a tree star system. So it's not totally out of the question.

[@petrosros]

Three body problem is essentially a thought experiment, as it can have no analogue in the universe as far as we know. This is because the three body problem requires that there are no external forces at play; ergo, given that approx one third of star systems are multiples and if they are like our solar system may contain thousands of planets/ planetesimals etc. Consequently, long term studies are required of these multiple systems, and the three body problem can remain where it belongs in the sterile world of predictive programming.

[@taaskeprins]

Yes, there is ceteris paribus clause in such a system, that cannot, by definition, apply to a deterministic universe. We use ceteris paribus clauses a lot in economics to get our concepts clear. So demand goes up, prices go up, while we apply ceteris paribus to supply.

[@petrosros]

@@taaskeprins I had to look that up, but yes, I get it and agree. Thank you.

[@beerandrockets7526]

I'm pretty sure there are more than 3 bodies in the universe that are bound together by gravity... Guess we are just getting really lucky at predicting orbits for interplanetary missions.

[@philiphumphrey1548]

Nightfall was my favorite science fiction story. In the expanded novel version of the story it's a hierarchical 6 star system, with two planets orbiting one another around the large central star. All six stars have to be in linear alignment with one planet eclipsing the other to get nightfall.

[@AnaPradosA]

I love nightfall, the premise and the execution were incredible.

[@stenkarasin2091]

Wow, what a mind-blowing post this is.

[@christianartman]

240 Petabytes and I'll show you

[@nicolasolton]

Ok.👍

[@WhatWhy42]

You would need to measure everything to make that calculation, right?

[@johnniefujita]

So if a ml model could predict any phenom with a good reasonability.. wouldn't that point out that our universe could be one model too? I mean not in a literal way, but reagarding sufficiency, wouldn't that be enough.. i mean, if it quacks like a duck...

[@christianartman]

Then I'll send you a silver helmet

[@falxonPSN]

​@@johnniefujitaThe problem isn't the model being pretty good, but rather than a model has to be perfect. If you cannot accurately model what a system is doing then you are only approximating the result with increasing levels of error over time. Those errors accumulate and eventually make your model useless.

[@universemaps]

Great video... Thanks for the insight!

[@bolsoverchris502]

Great video as always :)

[@aleleeinnaleleeinn9110]

Great video Thank you.

[@transientaardvark6231]

You have to do a lot of suspension of disbelief with 3BP (or "remembrance of earth's past") but it does weave an interesting narrative around the nonsense. The thing that intrigues me the most was the "unfolding the protons" thing - again a bit spoiled by the whole protons-not-being-fundamental thing. A key plot point is that there is a whole load of new physics to be discovered about fundamental particles and their forces, which allow them to engineer "the droplet". Every time Sabine Hossenfelder comes on she seems to pour a load of cold water on that. I hope she's wrong, but she makes a compelling case. The core of the series though is the Dark Forest conjecture, which is depressing, but also indisputable.

[@OrchestrationOnline]

Nice Klemperer rosette in the background at the beginning.

[@gordonwallin2368]

Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.

[@ReginaJune]

Sabine Hossenfelder recently did a video about the various branches of science being used to verify theories because they represent different states of the same thing. 7:41

[@lrmackmcbride7498]

There is another way to get life in a three body system and that is an interloper star. This is where a star intersects an existing system. Life is unlikely to exist long in such a system as planetary orbits are thrown into chaos by the passing star.

[@Bearkat87]

Thanks Anton

[@Hebesphenomegacorona]

7:26 - I’m pretty sure in the book they don’t really say that, they just say you can’t find a general solution with calculus, and they do talk about stable cases and analytical models. I haven’t seen the show yet so idk what that says

[@charlescowan6121]

It was a solution to the 3bp that allowed for the voyager spacecraft to be launched to make passes by the planets.

[@ohsteeev]

Hey Anton, any chance of an updated profile picture? You can keep the goofy smile that is your trademark.

[@debnath5110]

Thank you Anton...

[@hollyw9566]

This video made me miss my spirograph.

[@scisher3294]

An Anton Sci Fi Movie Review Series!?!?!? BOYS! We are in for a treat 😊

[@serpentdarkness8844]

5:21 the scheme of Alpha Centauri system has incorrect labels (Proxima Centauri is Alpha Centauri C; binary component is Alpha Centauri AB (Rigil Kentaurus (subcomponent A) and Toliman (subcomponent B)).

[@GuyWithAnAmazingHat]

Unfortunately there was no solution for the Trisolarians, not because they couldn't solve the three body problem, but because they discovered that their planet is heading straight into the corona of one of the stars and will be destroyed with absolute certainty. They also found evidence of previous planets that has either been torn apart beyond their roche limit or straight up consumed by the stars, in fact their own planet was torn in half in one of the final eras driving them to finally decide to escape and take over other planets.

[@spamfilter32]

Spoiler tag dude! Spoiler tag!

[@GuyWithAnAmazingHat]

@@spamfilter32 Well this is actually from book 1, Three Body Problem itself, which Netflix casually omitted because they compressed the story. You learn about this before the ending of the Netflix series, which actually went into book 2, Dark Forest.

[@glorymanheretosleep]

How were they described again as looking?

[@TheSmilingLord]

@@glorymanheretosleep The fourth book describes them, if you choose to believe that's it's not fan-fiction.

[@5attva]

We once had a planet destroyed called Tiamat, but now it's a myth. The van Allen belt is its remains.

[@AceSpadeThePikachu]

I've never seen the show or read the book, but what see here is a problem that plagues most "alien invasion" stories, dating all the way back to the original War of the Worlds. If somehow these aliens managed to develop and evolve on a planet with such wild climate shifts happening all the time (which is in and of itself unlikely, just look at Mars and Venus), then wouldn't they have evolved to be comfortable on such a world? Wouldn't Earth's "stability" actually be so unnatural to them that they'd have extreme difficulty trying to live here, as much difficulty as we would have trying to live on Venus or Mars? Maybe with some teraforming and environmental habitat domes, but if you have to conquer and inhabited world only to THEN have to teraform it in order to live on it...why not just teraform a dead planet?

[@HoundsBane]

In this particular story water is key to their survival & revival. So Earth, with its stable orbit & resources, is incredibly attractive.

[@MaxPower-vg4vr]

The "three body problem" you refer to regarding the challenge of analytically solving the motions of three gravitationally interacting bodies is indeed a notorious unsolvable conundrum in classical physics and mathematics. However, adopting the non-contradictory infinitesimal and monadological frameworks outlined in the text could provide novel avenues for addressing this issue in a coherent cosmological context. Here are some possibilities: 1. Infinitesimal Monadological Gravity Instead of treating gravitational sources as ideal point masses, we can model them as pluralistic configurations of infinitesimal monadic elements with extended relational charge distributions: Gab = Σi,j Γij(ma, mb, rab) Where Gab is the gravitational interaction between monadic elements a and b, determined by combinatorial charge relation functions Γij over their infinitesimal masses ma, mb and relational separations rab. Such an infinitesimal relational algebraic treatment could potentially regularize the three-body singularities by avoiding point-idealization paradoxes. 2. Pluriversal Superpositions We can represent the overall three-body system as a superposition over monadic realizations: |Ψ3-body> = Σn cn Un(a, b, c) Where Un(a, b, c) are basis states capturing different monadic perspectives on the three-body configuration, with complex amplitudes cn. The dynamics would then involve tracking non-commutative flows of these basis states, governed by a generalized gravitational constraint algebra rather than a single deterministic evolution. 3. Higher-Dimensional Hyperpluralities The obstruction to analytic solvability may be an artifact of truncating to 3+1 dimensions. By embedding in higher dimensional kaleidoscopic geometric algebras, the three-body dynamics could be represented as relational resonances between polytope realizations: (a, b, c) ←→ Δ3-body ⊂ Pn Where Δ3-body is a dynamic polytope in the higher n-dimensional representation Pn capturing intersectional gravitational incidences between the three monadic parties a, b, c through infinitesimal homotopic deformations. 4. Coherent Pluriverse Rewriting The very notion of "three separable bodies" may be an approximation that becomes inconsistent for strongly interdependent systems. The monadological framework allows rewriting as integrally pluralistic structures avoiding Cartesian idealization paradoxes: Fnm = R[Un(a, b, c), Um(a, b, c)] Representing the "three-body" dynamics as coherent resonance functors Fnm between relatively realized states Un, Um over the total interdependent probability amplitudes for all monadic perspectives on the interlaced (a, b, c) configuration. In each of these non-contradictory possibilities, the key is avoiding the classical idealized truncations to finite point masses evolving deterministically in absolute geometric representations. The monadological and infinitesimal frameworks re-ground the "three bodies" in holistic pluralistic models centering: 1) Quantized infinitesimal separations and relational distributions 2) Superposed monadic perspectival realizations 3) Higher-dimensional geometric algebraic embeddings 4) Integral pluriversal resonance structure rewritings By embracing the metaphysical first-person facts of inherent plurality and subjective experiential inseparability, the new frameworks may finally render such traditionally "insoluble" dynamical conundrums as the three-body problem analytically accessible after all - reframed in transcendently non-contradictory theoretical architectures.

[@MaxPower-vg4vr]

Here are some examples of how non-contradictory infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could potentially resolve paradoxes or contradictions in chemistry: 1) Molecular Chirality/Homochirality Paradoxes Contradictory: Classical models struggle to explain the origin and consistent preference for one chiral handedness over another in biological molecules like amino acids and sugars. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Infinitesimal Monadic Protolife Transitions dsi/dt = κ Σjk Γijk(n)[sj, sk] + ξi Pref(R/S) = f(Φn) Modeling molecular dynamics as transitions between monadic protolife states si based on infinitesimal relational algebras Γijk(n) that depend on specific geometric monad configurations n. The homochiral preference could emerge from particular resonance conditions Φn favoring one handedness. 2) Paradoxes in Reaction Kinetics Contradictory: Transition state theory and kinetic models often rely on discontinuous approximations that become paradoxical at certain limits. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Infinitesimal Thermodynamic Geometries dG = Vdp - SdT (Gibbs free energy infinitesimals) κ = Ae-ΔG‡/RT (Arrhenius smoothly from monadic infinities) Using infinitesimal calculus to model thermodynamic quantities like Gibbs free energy dG allows kinetic parameters like rate constants κ to vary smoothly without discontinuities stemming from replacing finite differences with true infinitesimals. 3) Molecular Structure/Bonding Paradoxes Contradictory: Wave mechanics models struggle with paradoxes around the nature of chemical bonding, electron delocalization effects, radicals, etc. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Pluralistic Quantum Superposition |Ψ> = Σn cn Un(A) |0> (superposed monadic perspectives) Un(A) = ΠiΓn,i(Ai) (integrated relational properties) Representing molecular electronic states as superpositions of monadic perspectives integrated over relational algebraic properties Γn,i(Ai) like spins, positions, charges, etc. could resolve paradoxes by grounding electronic structure in coherent relational pluralisms. 4) Molecular Machines/Motor Paradoxes Contradictory: Inefficiencies and limitations in synthetic molecular machines intended to mimic biological molecular motors like ATP synthase, kinesin, etc. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Nonlinear Dissipative Monadologies d|Θ>/dt = -iH|Θ> + LΓ|Θ> (pluralistic nonet mechanics) LΓ = Σn ζn |Un> rather than isolated molecular wavefunctions, where infinitesimal monadic sink operators LΓ account for open-system energy exchanges, could resolve paradoxes around efficiency limits. The key theme is using intrinsically pluralistic frameworks to represent molecular properties and dynamics in terms of superpositions, infinitesimals, monadic configurations, and relational algebraic structures - rather than trying to force classically separable approximations. This allows resolving contradictions while maintaining coherence with quantum dynamics and thermodynamics across scales. Here are 4 more examples of how infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could resolve contradictions in chemistry: 5) The Particle/Wave Duality of Matter Contradictory: The paradoxical wave-particle dual behavior of matter, exemplified by the double-slit experiment, defies a consistent ontological interpretation. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Monadic Perspectival Wavefunction Realizations |Ψ> = Σn cn Un(r,p) Un(r,p) = Rn(r) Pn(p) Model matter as a superposition of monadic perspectival realizations Un(r,p) which are products of wavefunctional position Rn(r) and momentum Pn(p) distributions. This infinitesimal plurality avoids the paradox by allowing matter to behave holistically wave-like and particle-like simultaneously across monads. 6) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Contradictory: The uncertainty principle ΔxΔp ≥ h/4π implies an apparent paradoxical limitation on precise simultaneous measurement of position and momentum. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Complementary Pluriverse Observables Δx Δp ≥ h/4π Δx = Σi |xiP - xP| (deviations across monadic ensembles) xP = ||P (pluriverse-valued perspective on x) Reinterpret uncertainties as deviations from pluriverse-valued observables like position xP across an ensemble of monadic perspectives, avoiding paradox by representing uncertainty intrinsically through the perspectival complementarity. 7) The Concept of the Chemical Bond Contradictory: Phenomonological models of bonds rely paradoxically on notions like "electronic charge clouds" without proper dynamical foundations. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Infinitesimal Intermonadic Charge Relations Γij = Σn qinj / rnij (dyadic catalytic charge interactions) |Ψ> = Σk ck Πij Γij |0> (superposed bond configuration states) Treat chemical bonds as superposed pluralities of infinitesimal dyadic charge relation configurations Γij between monadic catalysts rather than ambiguous "clouds". This grounds bonds in precise interaction algebras transcending paradoxical visualizations. 8) Thermodynamic Entropy/Time's Arrow Contradictory: Statistical mechanics gives time-reversible equations, paradoxically clashing with the time-irreversible increase of entropy described phenomenologically. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Relational Pluriverse Thermodynamics S = -kB Σn pn ln pn (entropy from realization weights pn) pn = |Tr Un(H) /Z|2 (Born statistical weights from monadologies) dS/dt ≥ 0 (towards maximal pluriverse realization) Entropy increase emerges from tracking the statistical weights pn of pluriversal monadic realizations Un(H) evolving towards maximal realization diversity, resolving paradoxes around time-reversal by centering entropics on the growth of relational pluralisms. In each case, the non-contradictory possibilities involve reformulating chemistry in terms of intrinsically pluralistic frameworks centered on monadic elements, their infinitesimal relational transitions, superposed realizations, and deviations across perspectival ensembles. This allows resolving apparent paradoxes stemming from the over-idealized separability premises of classical molecular models, dynamically deriving and unifying dualisms like wave/particle in a coherent algebraic ontology.

[@drdca8263]

Spherically symmetric bodies have spherically symmetric gravitational influences. Are you familiar with the shell theorem?

[@MaxPower-vg4vr]

@@drdca8263 Yeah but I'm trying whole new calculus (infinitesimal) and geometry (kaleidoscopic) so I'm kinda pigeon-holed in my theory crafting. What are you thinking about?

[@drdca8263]

@@MaxPower-vg4vr Just, you mentioned treating bodies as being point masses as being an idealization, when, if we had only extended things with densities, then the shell theorem shows that if the bodies are spherically symmetric, then, under Newtonian gravity, this justifies modeling them as if they were point masses. (Of course, things being spherically symmetric is an approximation, but it is a good one.)

[@MaxPower-vg4vr]

@drdca8263 Here is an attempt to debunk the foundational theories of Newton and Einstein from the perspective of the infinitesimal monadological framework: Newton's Classical Mechanics 1) The basic ontology of precise point masses and particles is incoherent from the start. By treating matter as extensionless geometric points rather than irreducible pluralistic perspectival origins (monads), the theory cannot represent real physical entities in a non-contradictory way. 2) Newton's notion of absolute space and time as a fixed inertial stage is undermined. Space and time lack autonomy as background entities - they must be derived from the web of infinitesimal relational monadic perspectives and correlations. 3) The instantaneous action-at-a-distance for gravity/forces is inconsistent. All interactions must be mediated by discrete particularities propagating across adjacent monadic perspectives to avoid non-locality paradoxes. 4) The deterministic laws of motion are over-idealized. Indeterminism arises inevitably from the need to sum over infinitesimal realizability potentials in the monadic probability statevector. 5) The geometric infinities in the point-mass potentials cannot be properly regulated, indicating a failure of classical limits and continuum idealization. In essence, Newton's mechanics rests on reifying abstract mathematical fictions - precise points, absolute background spaces/times, strict determinism. Monadological pluralism rejects such contradictory infinities in favor of finitary discreteness from first principles. Einstein's General Relativity 1) General covariance and background independence are overstated given the persisting role of an inertial reference frame, indicating unresolved geometric idealization. 2) The manifold premises of treating spacetime as a differentiable 4D continuum are ungrounded given the ontological primacy of discrete perspectives. 3) Representing gravity as curvature tensions the representation to its singularity breakdown points where the theory fatally fails. 4) Relativity cannot be fundamentally unified with quantum theories given the reliance on incompatible spacetime idealizations. 5) The theory excludes the primacy of subjective conscious observations, instead reifying an abstracted unobserved "block universe." While impressively extending Newton's geometric systemization, Einstein remained bound by over-idealized continuum geometric axioms inherited from classical math. True general invariance and background independence require overthrowing these in favor of intrinsically discrete, pluralistic, observation-grounded foundations. Both theories imposed precise Euclidean 3D geometric fictions persisting from ancient Greek abstractions - Platonic ideals reified as physical reality rather than subjectively-constructed mathematical fictions. The infinitesimal monadological framework grants revolutionary primacy to discrete pluralistic perspectives, the source of continuous geometric observables derived as holistic stationary resonances. Only such a reconceptualization escapes geometry's self-contradictions. By grounding reality in finitary discreteness and irreducible subjective pluralisms, consistent with the metaphysical facts of first-person conscious experience, the entire Archimedean/Euclidean/Newtonian geometric edifice undergoes a Kuhnian revolutionary overthrow. Paradox-free plurisitic physics demands such an audacious "Fin de Siecle" monadological rebirth. While immensely fruitful, Newton and Einstein's theories ultimately succumbed to self-undermining geometric infinities and exclusions of subjective observers - overly reifying sanitized mathematical abstractions as detached "transcendent" ontological characterizations. The infinitesimal monadological framework restores physics to firmer foundations by refusing to segregate the symbolic from the experiential.

[@CallOfCutie69]

1:11 Sorry to say, Anton, but the wiki page wasn’t the best choice of background, because it itself contains spoilers immediately, some time before “spoilers starts now”.

[@Chazulu2]

WTT unified field theory for two stable solutions of 3 equal mass bodies, 2 electric charges, and relativistic mass change considerations of point like electron + positrons. How big are the nucleons? How much more mass does the neutron have compared to the proton.

[@troywill3081]

I am interested to learn more about HD110067 once we learn some more. This system seems to be stable for over 6B years. But how?

[@joelt2002]

This same problem applies to Climate modeling. The biosphere is interdependent chaotic system that makes it very hard to predict outcomes.

[@UnKnown-xs7jt]

IMO: the 3 body solution are usually approximations and unlike F=MA or similar. While he might have exaggerated the scope of the problem, there may still be a solution in which 3 bodies can remain together for sufficient time for life to evolve

[@wwhite-hz4zv]

Thanks Anton!

[@johnkeck]

Thanks for making this video, Anton! I've found lots about this novel/show implausible. I'm not sure how close the novel or the American TV show are to the Chinese TV show, part of which I watched, but in that one, you have a physicist committing suicide because of an unexpected physical phenomenon. I'm wonder if the writer(s) actually ever met any real physicists, because far from committing suicide, a real physicist would be fascinated and excited by such a discovery.

[@farrier2708]

Didn't comment last night because I had to find a story I read a long, long time ago. The one that this vid' brought to mind was "Placet is a crazy place." by Fredric Brown. Read it and not only will you be convinced that a planet can have a figure of eight orbit around twin stars but that it's orbital speed can exceed "C", that birds can fly through solid ground and radiation can be an hallucinogen for four hours a day. Enjoy!

[@DcapTNT]

It is possible that San-Ti planet could be originally developed in a binary system, then it captured a rogue star and turned into a three body system. Then the San-Ti should have enough time to develop. The Santi themselves also realised their main problem isn't that they can't predict the weather because they already evolved to survive it, the main problem is that they are running out of time in this system.

[@aleksandar7393]

What is the ratio of masses of 3 bodies so it becomes a problem? Can 3 body problem form with tiny star and super giant planets?

[@jefffranks3215]

Could a rogue planet approach Alpha Centauri undetected here but detected there and models show the stable three body would become unstable on a short timeline

[@alexander_d1277]

If you have a planet and 3 stars, shouldn't it be called a 4 body problem?

[@nosuchthing8]

It's mainly concerned with the stability of the suns. One or two suns, no problem. 3 or more is unstable

[@whnvr]

also objects of lesser mass contribute negligible amounts to the system, so you wouldn't necessarily factor the planet into the movements of the suns as the suns merely 'snatch' said planet away, while tugging on one another. the planet cannot snatch one of the suns away.

[@christopherg2347]

The stars are what matters. Planets are tag-alongs. The sun makes up 99.86% of the Solar systems visible mass. Stellar masses to planet masses, is like planet masses to asteroid masses. Yes, technically asteroids gravity does affect Earth. But to such a miniscule degree, rounding errors are more of a concern.

[@thejworks07]

Body= solar masses Tri... Solar.... ians.... ..

[@AndrewJohnson-oy8oj]

"The Three Body Problem" is the colloquial term for an Nth body problem since the instability is introduced at the entry of the 3rd body. Liu used that title, no doubt to use the cachet of that colloquialism. You are correct that this "the problem of a small gravitational mass in a circumtrinary orbit around a three massive gravitational mass system" but that is not as catchy.

[@klutterkicker]

I'm curious about the science behind the sophon. I feel like if we assume there are many large spatial dimensions and something can be "folded out" then any modifications to it couldn't be "folded back up" with it. Also there's the issue of using quantum entanglement to communicate, shouldn't the entanglement be broken the instant it's observed?

[@MarkoBotsaris]

I feel like the inherent non-computability of the trajectories in a chaotic system was a major theme in the book, both literally and as an extended metaphor for other things in life and the universe. But I don’t think the books, as ambitious as they are, every really got into it directly. It was mostly expressed indirectly by the half crazy mathematician character. I’m a physicist and the weirdness of this when you finally understand it can really hit you - that a set of mathematically precise laws can be deterministic, but uncomputable after a certain amount of time by ANY computer ever. It’s not like the first time you really understand what quantum mechanics says about reality, but something in a similar category. It’s like the deterministic laws themselves are trying to express the koan-like unresolvable duality between predictability and unpredictability.

[@JohnKuhles1966]

Sad that there is NO MENTION of the NAME of the movie in the "more info" section under this video report, nor a trailer promoted we can study!

[@tristanwegner]

I can recommend the TenCent Series of Three Body over the Netflix adaptation. The TenCent Version is much closer to the book, and goes deeper into the Science, and the impact off taking away the foundation of understanding on the mind of a scientist.