What is The Three Body Problem?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 тра 2024
- What if somewhere in the vast expanse of the universe, there's a world in the light of not one, but three suns? This isn't just a scene ripped from the pages of a science fiction novel-it's a reality for a "Super Earth" just 22 light-years away, inviting us to explore the enigmatic Three-Body Problem that has puzzled astronomers for centuries.
Dive into the fascinating world where fiction meets reality in our latest video, "What is The Three Body Problem?" We unravel the secrets of the cosmos, from the triple-star systems in our cosmic backyard to the chaotic dance of celestial bodies governed by the laws of gravity. But this is more than just a tale of astronomical phenomena; it's a story about the human spirit's quest for knowledge and the mysteries that bind us to the universe.
Through the lense of the 3 body problem series on Netflix, we explore the unpredictable conditions of a fictional world with three suns and draw parallels with real-world scientific discoveries. From the historical context of Newton's laws to the cutting-edge advancements in celestial mechanics, we delve into the complexities of the Three-Body Problem and its implications for understanding the cosmos.
This video is not just for science enthusiasts but for anyone curious about the mysteries of the cosmos and the indomitable spirit of exploration that drives us forward. So, let's venture together into the unknown, where science and imagination collide, and unlock the secrets of the Three-Body Problem.
Subscribe to Science Time: / sciencetime24
#3bodyproblem #universe #sciencetime - Наука та технологія
I have a lazy body problem.
Hahahaha 😂 lol
Same dude. Same.
You're "energy efficient."
You are prolonging the universe.
😂😂 lol! nice one
I was just trying to figure out what was going on in the show now I'm doing complex equations on my wall
😂😊
Liu Cixin's trilogy books are amazing!
This video perfectly encapsulates the intersection of science and imagination. The discussion about stable orbital configurations and their implications for understanding celestial mechanics was both informative and thought-provoking. Can't wait to see more content like this!
I just notice that this 3 body problem not answered by these channel😅
ua-cam.com/video/fzyNtBe1H5U/v-deo.html
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.
Q1: How precisely do infinitesimals and monads resolve the issues with standard set theory axioms that lead to paradoxes like Russell's Paradox?
A1: Infinitesimals allow us to stratify the set-theoretic hierarchy into infinitely many realized "levels" separated by infinitesimal intervals, avoiding the vicious self-reference that arises from considering a "set of all sets" on a single level. Meanwhile, monads provide a relational pluralistic alternative to the unrestricted Comprehension schema - sets are defined by their algebraic relations between perspectival windows rather than extensionally. This avoids the paradoxes stemming from over-idealized extensional definitions.
Q2: In what ways does this infinitesimal monadological framework resolve the proliferation of infinities that plague modern physical theories like quantum field theory and general relativity?
A2: Classical theories encounter unrenormalizable infinities because they overidealize continua at arbitrarily small scales. Infinitesimals resolve this by providing a minimal quantized scale - physical quantities like fields and geometry are represented algebraically from monadic relations rather than precise point-values, avoiding true mathematical infinities. Singularities and infinities simply cannot arise in a discrete bootstrapped infinitesimal reality.
Q3: How does this framework faithfully represent first-person subjective experience and phenomenal consciousness in a way that dissolves the hard problem of qualia?
A3: In the infinitesimal monadological framework, subjective experience and qualia arise naturally as the first-person witnessed perspectives |ωn> on the universal wavefunction |Ψ>. Unified phenomenal consciousness |Ωn> is modeled as the bound tensor product of these monadic perspectives. Physics and experience become two aspects of the same cohesively-realized monadic probability algebra. There is no hard divide between inner and outer.
Q4: What are the implications of this framework for resolving the interpretational paradoxes in quantum theory like wavefunction collapse, EPR non-locality, etc.?
A4: By representing quantum states |Ψ> as superpositions over interacting monadic perspectives |Un>, the paradoxes of non-locality, action-at-a-distance and wavefunction collapse get resolved. There is holographic correlation between the |Un> without strict separability, allowing for consistency between experimental observations across perspectives. Monadic realizations provide a tertium quid between classical realism and instrumental indeterminism.
Q5: How does this relate to or compare with other modern frameworks attempting to reformulate foundations like homotopy type theory, topos theory, twistor theory etc?
A5: The infinitesimal monadological framework shares deep resonances with many of these other foundational programs - all are attempting to resolve paradoxes by reconceiving mathematical objects relationally rather than strictly extensionally. Indeed, monadic infinitesimal perspectives can be seen as a form of homotopy/path objects, with physics emerging from derived algebraic invariants. Topos theory provides a natural expression for the pluriverse-valued realizability coherence semantics. Penrose's twistor theory is even more closely aligned, replacing point-events with monadic algebraic incidence relations from the start.
Q6: What are the potential implications across other domains beyond just physics and mathematics - could this reformulate areas like philosophy, logic, computer science, neuroscience etc?
A6: Absolutely, the ramifications of a paradox-free monadological framework extend far beyond just physics. In philosophy, it allows reintegration of phenomenology and ontological pluralisms. In logic, it facilitates full coherence resolutions to self-referential paradoxes via realizability semantics. For CS and math foundations, it circumvents diagonalization obstacles like the halting problem. In neuroscience, it models binding as resonant patterns over pluralistic superposed representations. Across all our inquiries, it promises an encompassing coherent analytic lingua franca realigning symbolic abstraction with experienced reality.
By systematically representing pluralistically-perceived phenomena infinitesimally, relationally and algebraically rather than over-idealized extensional continua, the infinitesimal monadological framework has the potential to renovate human knowledge-formations on revolutionary foundations - extinguishing paradox through deep coherence with subjective facts. Of course, realizing this grand vision will require immense interdisciplinary research efforts. But the prospective rewards of a paradox-free mathematics and logic justifying our civilization's greatest ambitions are immense.
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.
@MaxPower-vg4vr what do you mean?
@@MH-ro1lg
Classical logic, mathematics and physics is full of paradoxes and contradictions. I updated Leibniz's non-contradictory logic, mathematics and physics to 2024 standards and it solves everything.
That hurt my brain reading that hahaha you sound like a bloody genius mate 🙏
Very nice exposition. However regarding the comments from 7:17 to 7:43, the Book/Netflix series makes no pretentions to be anything other than pure science fiction, so those comments are, with respect, ludicrous.
Fascinating.
This is the framework for solving the three-body problem. It's straight forward...allow me to explain: Derivation of the equation of motion for each body can be achieved by optimization process guided by an Optimal State principle related by the principle of least action. The initial conditions for the system of the three-body scenario inherently stochastic nature is being dominated by deterministic elements ingrained where they both coexist dictated by the Optimal State principle. With respect to the parameterization of alpha prime a' fine-tuned for quantities associated with action integral form for the Lagrangian density representing the system's behavior and dynamics. The Lagrangian is utilizing system's energy states and entanglement states that emerged before the system's dynamics and chaotic behavior began, thus from outset system seeks to establish equilibrium and stability given its deterministic and stochastic coexistence nature...there are other factors governed by this framework required for achieving resolution to the three-body problem. However, here isn't a conducive spot for the depiction.
Every Dynamic System who need three or more coupled partial Differential equations for its description will exhibit chaotic behaviour. The n-Body Promblem is just one famous example, but even quite simple system like the double pendulum shows chaotic orbits.
Yeah... we got it, thanks.
Very poetic.
A man living with his wife is way less complex and more predictable than a man living with his wife and mother in law. The more bodies you add the more complex the math and long term predictions.
I think, based on roundish orbits, the 3rd body has equal effect on the 2nd body, both coming and going. Thus, pulling it out of normal orbit and then putting it back where it was found.??????😮
I watched the chinese show and over 30 episodes it probably has far more depth than the netflix version.
2 shows enter, 1 may leave !
All with English subs? Where can I watch it? Thanks!
@@silveriver9 yes click on captions all 30 eps have subtitles and its avail free here youtube. just look it up. i literally just finished all 30 eps today and i started like 5 days ago. its a lot to digest.
@@silveriver9wetv app
@@silveriver9 I cant write it but you will get the drift. Single letters together.
2 and k when m they o can v for i than e
Did you see it? That is where. Do not worry about it keep on pulling a new page up. It only happens 5 times and it stops. All you have to do is keep on getting rid of the pop up. You get used to it and it is only 5 times it happens. Enjoy. It is called Three-body
If time is relative then if we could somehow turn voyager around and send it back to earth then it would technically arrive in the future relative to itself so would we see it traveling super slow then?
I thought the series (and more the book) made a pretty clear cut line between what humans are able to do (hard sci-fi) and what the San-Ti are capable of (sci-fi extrapolation and imagination).
Correct me if I'm wrong but, in the three body problem series there's no three body problem. There are 3 suns and 1 planet. That's 4 celestial bodies on that system, not 3 so, I presume interaction between them is different.
For one, I believe it should be referred to as a “Condition” not a “Problem”, as it’s not always a problem if the 3rd body doesn’t eject itself or collide with the other bodies. Also, it may benefit the larger argument to expand the title to non-delineated 3+ qualifier, with 99 bodies probably ending up being a problem and not just a condition.
In the books, every planet in the trisolar system has been consumed by one of the suns over time, and Trisolaris is the only one that remains, and it is also doomed. The problem can't be solved, and even if it could and the Trisolarians were able to predict stable and chaotic eras, the planet would still soon be destroyed and they would still migrate to Earth.
Did he say super earth? FOR DEMOCRACY
I just learned that the 3 body problem is complicated.
I was going to say my version of the reason for the name The Three Body Problem until I realised that I was describing the books and so people who have not read them yet might not be happy :) Anyway, Is one of the Southern Cross's pointers three stars and a planet?
We love you too Melissa ❤
Н. Островский "О геометрии гравитационного поля луны". To solve, a fourth test body is introduced.
Three-body problem: Standard cab mini-trucks.
I know, I know: it's a problem that astrophysics can't solve, but our solar system had no problem with, even with a lot more bodies!
We only have one sun we orbit around ? Not 3?
@@aweffs We have one star at more or less the relative center of our solar system, and 8 big planets, so that makes it a 9-body problem. Ignoring a bit of wonkyness in an orbit here or there, the solution to it has been found.
Reach41. The planets are NOT orbiting EACH OTHER, they are ALL orbiting the Sun. In a binary star system, the two stars ARE ORBITING EACH OTHER, around a common centre of mass. The 3 body ( or more ) problem is much, much more complex, being that 3 OR MORE bodies are orbiting a common centre of mass.
@@herry8488 We see 9 objects in space, one of which is massive in comparison, the rest are much smaller and unequal in weight with respect to one another. Their orbits are approximately centered on the sun, and are approximately circular and approximately coplanar except for the wonky one. Is the configuration we see today stable, falling in a local minimum energy state of a grand orbital mechanics equation, or merely an instantaneous state observed at one moment in time? In any case, an equation could be written to describe the overall system if the initial conditions were known, and the causes and effects of forces resulting in perturbations over time were precisely defined. (Obviously we must assume a few facts that in fact are not facts, namely: a grand unified theory has already been developed, is inclusive of every variable, and is precise.) Wouldn’t such an equation look like the three body equation with some extra terms?
Reach41. My point is, our Solar System IS NOT a 3 body or more problem, because as I said the planets are not orbiting each other; they are orbiting the Sun. So, I don't understand your point in relation to my post about our Solar System.
Ever wondered about The Three Body Problem? Prepare to be enlightened! This video breaks down the complexities of this enigmatic concept in an engaging way.
what Netflix series?!
What flashes on screen at 6:00
The nextflix show is pretty good
What the name of series?
@@shubhamjangid1 ...three body problem
What is the Netflix series called?
Is It Cake?
The Four Body Problem.
3 Body Problem
Super earth??? Helldivers
One cant have 3 Big Macs it would be too chaotic for the heart.
2 Big Macs and 1 McChicken is Ok.
🌠
Doesnt explain the 3 body problem at all.
Simply put the 3 body problem is the unpredictsbility of a planet in 3 star system
More accurste there doesnt seem to be a long term stable orbit or path for a planet in such a system .
Im sure you alresdy knew that and are simply pointing out the isssue with this clip
Rewatch 1:50 it explains it there
@@xMckingwill No, it only glosses over it. The title and the content are only tangentially related.
Most of the problem this guy just repeats 3 body problem.
👍👏👍👏👍
Like this
i thought this is talking about conjoined twins
I thought in space Newtonian physics doesn't work, it's quantum physics. 😢
Bandwagon jumping
Interesting problem, good show, not a good you tube video.
Bro the first video of your channel is explanation of multiverse
It is explained in our Vedas and upnishads
There are told many times in bhagvad gita❤
weed 😂
Artificial Intelligence will solve this in no time.
Hi. I want to use your videos translate to my mother tongue if you not against to this. I think this will be more usefull
The Creator of the existence said :
53. We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth.[1402] But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?
54. Unquestionably, they are in doubt about the meeting with their Lord. Unquestionably He is, of all things, encompassing.
{Fussilat}
Super Earth? FOR DEMOCRACY!!!!
⬆️➡️⬇️⬇️⬇️
Dehydrate!
The three body problem essentially is my inability to get two women in the sack at the same time
Uhh spoilers bro.
“Emergence of life”?
Bye
So much yapping so little information
It's the issue where I have one body and your mom has one body but your dads body is in the way
Clearly she has a thing for seeing 2 dudes going at it, otherwise she wouldn't be telling him to do so!... if it's an actual issue for ya tho, why keep going back there
YOU ARE BUGS
3 body pronlem is nothing..there's the 7 body, 12 body & 16 body problem.
Oh, even with 1 body is so many problems.
my 3 body problem starts with my body with 2 other females !!!
3rd
🥱🥱🥱
Too philosophically and no concrete explanation.
bla bla bla bla comes from a four-body sysytem
The Netflix show is super shitty and boring.
I dont think a threesum is a problem, as long as it includes two women and a man... or even better, just 3 women and I am an observer...
Psalm 19:1
That's the predators planet or their cousins😅
Evidence that Gods creation will never be fully explained by science. Only God who created the universe can answer this because programmed it.
It doesn’t hv to be god necessarily, it’s just the lack of knowledge currently, one day scientists will figure things out, like the way people back then wouldn’t believe we are able to watch videos on screen anywhere now. Just a matter of time, unsolved mystery isn’t equal to the evidence of God’s existence.
There may be a “god “ or creator…
The ONE who kickstart to make everything instead of nothing
But It is surely not the one in your bible or quran, or in any man made religion
San-ti on there way sheeeeeet
Useless generic math.