[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 501 KB, 300x300, E4022AAD-9E5E-43E0-A4F1-E76C61A3AA7E.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12319535 No.12319535 [Reply] [Original]

>have THREE (3) bodies (i.e. planets)
>apply ONE (1) very simple force between them (i.e. gravity)
>this creates a system so chaotic that even with our modern measuring devices we can’t predict that much into the future the development of the system
If we can’t even reasonably deal with something so basic how can we even hope to make sense of how the climate, the economy, the human mind and body develops over time?

>> No.12319545

>>12319535
>>>/sqt/

>> No.12319572

You're misunderstanding predictablity. We can predict it with percentages of uncertainty, which increase gradually as a system's complexity increases. 80% accuracy is good enough 99% of the time.

>> No.12319661

>>12319535
You are talking about heresy. Watch your back.

>> No.12319691

>>12319535
We cant. There's an upper bound on how far science and technology can advance. We're far closer to it than many are willing to accept

>> No.12319693

>>12319535
64bit floats

>> No.12319724

>>12319535
wow anon, you juat destroyed science with FACTS AND LOGIC. Guess what? We can't analytically solve the 3-body problem, but there's tons of textbooks and papers on limiting cases and approximation methods. We can't even analytically solve a simple problem of a body falling on the surface of earth if we add air drag to it. Why? Because differential equations are a bitch. Doesn't fucking mean we don't understand what's going on and can't apply approximation techniques.

>> No.12319770

>>12319535
Can't you just use big matrices to get an analytical solution?

>> No.12319997

Really makes you consider the possibility that "dark matter" is just a product of astrophysicists thinking they know how to predict the motion of n-bodies when they don't

>> No.12320040

>>12319724
schizo
try wiping the shit off your arse sometime

>> No.12320058
File: 678 KB, 640x480, Solar_system_orrery_inner_planets.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12320058

Why are the orbits of the solar system so perfect?

>> No.12320067

>>12320058
because you have big bol and many smol bols

>> No.12320498

>>12319535
not correct, we can easily calculate the trajectories computationally. there's just no closed form solution, most likely because it requires some kind of math we simply haven't invented yet as there has been no need

>> No.12320504

>>12320498
talk more shit, retard.

>> No.12320505

>>12320498
>there has been no need
Dummy post

>> No.12320546

>>12320504
>>12320505
what is any of this supposed to mean? how am I wrong?

>> No.12320556

>>12319535
we aren't ever going to be able to. it isn't a matter of not having systems that can deal with it, it's physically impossible to predict chaotic things, in the same way it's physically impossible to walk through a wall

>> No.12321292

>>12319535
almost there....I must win this war!
FOR MY PEOPLE

>> No.12321362

>>12320498
Or you know
There's no solution
Apart from special cases

>> No.12321371

>>12319535
>chaotic system
>something so basic
It's not a simple problem. And we know there is no analytical solution for the general case of the 3 body problem. It's not that "we can't even" solve it. We won't solve it ever.

>> No.12321391
File: 254 KB, 785x1000, 1583560538229.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12321391

>>12319535
>YOU CAN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM EXACTLY
Yes, that's why we make aproximations
>B-BUT IF THE SOLUTION ISN'T EXACT IT'S USELESS!!!!1!11!!1!1!!!
Wrong, You can still learn something from an approximation.

>> No.12321662

>>12321391
I mean it's also not possible to analytically solve for a ballistic trajectory with air drag yet somehow that's not a real problem for ballistic computers.

>> No.12321668

>>12321391
>>YOU CAN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM EXACTLY
>Yes, that's why we make aproximations
>>B-BUT IF THE SOLUTION ISN'T EXACT IT'S USELESS!!!!1!11!!1!1!!!
>Wrong, You can still learn something from an approximation.
Imagine not getting the point of the post.
Well, can’t be surprised since you’re a wojak poster

>> No.12321671

>>12319572
A three body system is 100% predictable given an infinite number of bits of precision for starting coordinates. There's no probability in it.

>> No.12321677

>>12321668
He doesn't because the post doesn't have a point. OP is clearly misinformed.

>> No.12321720

>>12319535
All the 3 body problems boils down to is that you can't write a arithmetic solution for the general case. That doesn't mean you can't work out how the system evolves using other methods.

>> No.12323817

>>12321720
>you can't write a arithmetic solution for the general case.

Why is this?

>> No.12323823

>>12320058
That looks far from perfect.

>> No.12323844

>>12319535
OP just read the Three Body Problem and now he's an expert scientist.
Cixin Liu manages to create written scifi that's as inaccurate as scifi movies. Did a pretty good job as a thriller though

>> No.12323861

>>12323817
because most differential equations don't have solutions in nice closed forms

>> No.12323896

>>12319535
How does the universe solve the three body problem? Where does it get the energy and time to solve the problem of what body should be where according to its own rules?

>> No.12323968

THOMAS WADE DID NOTHING WRONG

>> No.12323990

You guys do realize this has been solved?

>> No.12324036

>>12323896
iterative numerical technique

>> No.12324052

>>12320058
because given huge amounts of time they eventually settle into stable patterns in phase space

>> No.12324054

>>12323817
There is some mathematical proof that no exact analytic solution is possible for the general 3 body case, only for specific scenarios. Buggered if I can remember its name though.

>> No.12324426

>>12324052
Not really